Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-05

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:Yorukflag4.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The reason for deletion had been stated as being "non-formal" however, the other yoruk turk flags are also conceptional and non-formal as well. This file has been deleted but the other flags are present. AliKemancı (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The fact that there may be other similar works that should also be deleted does not in any way affect the out of scope status of this fictional flag. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, en:WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason for undeletion. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Konstantin Vampila.jpg

== Portrait of Konstantin Vampila ==

believe that the file was mistakenly categorized, and I would like to clarify the circumstances surrounding its upload: Ownership of the image: The image is either my personal work or I have explicit permission from the author to use and distribute the image under an appropriate license. Tuman Misty (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Tuman Misty: Is it your personal work or do you have explicit permission from its author? Thuresson (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose No response to a relevant question. Thuresson (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Kevin_Fegan.jpg

This image was falsely removed under the assumption I don't have ownership. That is incorrect. I own this image.

Quality may not be perfect, and I will add metadata as needed.

28/04/25 --Whirlpuddle (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears in a number of places on the web. "I own this image" suggests that the uploader is not the photographer but may have a license. In any event its status must be clarified using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment Wrote a reply at [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Small image without EXIF data. Please note that the previous image is different, but has the same issue. --Yann (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Pexels-cottonbro-4646246.jpg

I will remove the hijab picture however i need my edits for video design as it is a class project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Climbingfrog (talk • contribs) 15:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Your message above does not give a reason for restoration. The image is available at https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-in-blue-hijab-standing-beside-blue-and-white-wall-4646246/ where it has a license that explicitly forbids its being on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Tufayel Ahmed Suhag In 2025.jpg

The photo is the Tufayel Ahmed Suhag’s and toke from Public Web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.146.3.208 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Personal image by non contributor. Please read COM:WEBHOST. Yann (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Logo Rasmi Hospital Teluk Intan.png

I am on behalf the owner the logo design/picture who is Malaysian government Hospital Teluk Intan located in Hilir Perak, Perak, Malaysia. I was editing hospital Wikipedia page because I am IT Officer for that hospital. Please undelete the image file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhdaimanrs (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Muhdaimanrs: We need the copyright holder or a duly authorized representative to contact COM:VRT since the logo is copyrightable. Abzeronow (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Already done that sir. You may check this ticket Ticket#2025043010001031 Muhdaimanrs (talk) 06:36, 30 April 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) 13:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Buildings-city-houston-skyline-1870617.jpg

Derived from File:Houston, Texas Skyline 2017.jpg, which has just received a permission ticket. 0x0a (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

 Support Although this was sourced directly from the Pexel file and not from File:Houston, Texas Skyline 2017.jpg, the Admin restoring the file should add {{Extracted from}} referring to that file in order to pick up the VRT tag. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Jim. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Jomeh mousqe ardabil.jpg

The image was a photo taken by the uploader according to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tandisss--Trade (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Modern Sciences and Yann: What was the evidence that you used to conclude that the image was not own work? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Hi, This is an old image of en:Jome Mosque, i.e. [2], image. Seeing the short duration of Iranian copyright, this may be in the public domain, but unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: The upload does not match any of the photos given at the links. Given that the conclusion of "not own work" appears to be merely a guess based on the age of the photograph, we will COM:AGF on the uploader's claim at the DR absent evidence to the contrary, or at least allow the DR to proceed rather than speedy deleting an image without proof of copyvio. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Conflict (2024).jpg

This file was deleted because missing permission information. But it is now licensed by its owner.VNW060222 (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I note that you falsely claimed that you created this work when you uploaded it, so it is difficult to believe anything you say. You say "it is now licensed by its owner" -- how? where? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes I falsely claimed that created this work when you uploaded and i sorry about that but now I have permission from the creator to use it and i have file PDF for that permission. VNW060222 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose We need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
I already do that. VNW060222 (talk) 06:08, 1 May 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) 13:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Daisuke-ohyama.jpg

I would like to request the undeletion of this image.

I represent the Daisuke Ohyama Official Office, which holds the copyright of this photo. We have sent an official permission email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to release this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Please consider restoring the file so we can proceed with the proper licensing process.

Best regards, [Platinum] --Platinam (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This should be processed by a VRT volunteer first. The current VRT backlog is 10 days. Thuresson (talk) 15:48, 30 April 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) 12:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Professor Bronwyn Fox.jpg

Please undelete this image. Copyright permission has now been provided by the image creator, Melissa Martin. Permission was emailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Thursday 24 April 2025.

 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) 12:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File: Sit-in at Babarloi.jpg

This file deletion is unjustified and was deleted without providing the right to contest deletion. Although it might be depicting some banners but there were protesters also covered in this image and that image was taken by myself during the coverage of the event for Wikipedia. I request to undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JogiAsad (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@JogiAsad: The file deletion was according to Commons procedure. You didn't contest it in the seven days it was open. I can see a case for undeletion however, the banners would need to be blurred or cropped out since they are not covered by Pakistani FOP. Abzeronow (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Three quarters of the image is a copyrighted banner. If you blur the banner enough to eliminate the copyright problem, the image will be useless. If you crop it out, you have two or three people turned away from the camera, poorly exposed, which is meaningless.

Also, as noted by Abzeronow, you were notified of the DR, did not comment, and the file was deleted seven days after you received the notice. Making false statements about Commons process is not helpful to your request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Maltepe Askerî Lisesi Arma.jpg

This is the original emblem of the school. Please undelete. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProximaPic (talk • contribs) 22:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@ProximaPic: Who is the author of this emblem and when did they die? Abzeronow (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

何で消すんですか？理由は？ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatsuya tetsudo (talk • contribs) 06:37, May 1, 2025 (UTC)

@Tatsuya tetsudo: Tatsuya tetsudoさんがここ数日アップロードした2025年万博パビリオンの写真は全てネットから取ったもので、著作権の侵害となります。Adeletron 3030 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Adeletron. --Yann (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)


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

The Birth of Glunz Ocean Beach Hotel & Resort.jpg

This is a post card that a person is selling from their own personal affects. This is a photo that was taken at our property that we own the rights to use. We used to sell these. This is from our private collection that was used to create the post card that is on EBAY.

Elizabeth Myrup 5/1/2025--Beachbunny87 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose First, the copyright is owned by the photographer, not the owner of the postcard. Second, this is being used for advertising purposes and is out of our project scope. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per TSC. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Gurgura_Flag.jpg

have permission to share and post it. please undelete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurso77 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hurso77: Please ask the copyright owner to follow the instructions at COM:VRT to have the permission verified. Thuresson (talk) 06:53, 2 May 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) 13:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Flag of Lunda Tchokwe.svg

This file was just deleted because it doesn't fit in TOO Angola, but the symbol in the middle is the traditional lusona symbol for antelope footprint. [3] Other than that the graphic consists of just simple rectangles and circle. Therefore the deletion was incorrect. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, although COM:Angola also notes that "Traditional learning and use are treated the same as literary, artistic and scientific works." I will admit that my knowledge of African symbols like this is lacking so I won't oppose restoration here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about it before, but the pattern probably already existed in colonial times and Portuguese law, where folk patterns are not protected, may apply. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Possibly. I might need to try to find someone who is an expert on Angola and then temporarily undelete to get their opinion. (if someone else thinks I should reverse my deletion, I'll also do so.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
@Rui Gabriel Correia: to see if they can assist. Abzeronow (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
@Abzeronow and Swiãtopôłk: My apologies. Somehow I missed the notification. I will look at this tomorrow and get back to you. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I've temporarily undeleted the file to help this discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Abzeronow. The justification for the deletion was that it is "copyvio – found elsewhere", with a link to where it was found. The flag is going to be found/ seen elsewhere because it is widely used by the movement for independence of the Lunda-Cokwe (one of a number of spellings in Portuguese) Lunda-Chokwe (in English) people as one of their symbols. For background, they are considered a separatist movement by some, a term that the Lunda-Chokwe reject, as they do not see themselves as part of Angola, as they maintain that because at one point Portugal had conferred on their region/ Lunda Kingdom the status of protectorate (Protectorate of Lunda Chokwe), they should not have later been lumped together with the rest of Angola as a unitary country (the same argument is used by the Cabinda independence (separatist movements). Their leaders and activists are imprisoned or routinely arrested, cited here, under "Arbitrary arrests, torture and other ill-treatment" and more recent news here (in English). A number of court cases are ongoing (in Portuguese). Use of the flag can be seen here (in Portuguese) in an article by Voice of America (VoA) Portuguese Africa service, which is a fairly reliable source when it comes to matters Angolan. Here is another (in Portuguese), this time from the Portuguese Catholic Church broadcaster, Rádio Renascença. Hope this helps. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: Yes, but I need to know if Lunda-Chokwe has a copyright on this flag or if the lusona depicted is actually a public domain symbol or a copyrightable expression of traditional learning. I'd also appreciate it if we had a better idea of what the threshold of originality is in Angola. I agree with you that this is within scope, I need to know if the flag is public domain or not. Abzeronow (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
The other version given was at https://web.archive.org/web/20110208141129/https://www.africafederation.net/Lunda_Tchockwe.htm . That is close, but not the exact same drawing. The central symbol does looked traced, but not entirely sure it was from that source. And if that is an older symbol, this may be fine. There is likely a copyright on the particular vector points this SVG chose, but those aren't derivative of anything else. The general design of a flag is an idea, so separate drawings have their own copyrights. I think I'm leaning  Keep on this, under the assumption the central symbols is pretty common in a form like that. Doing a Google Images search on lusona though, there seems to be a wide variation, and this is very close to the given source. In general I think artist should have the right to draw flags -- each drawing should be an independent copyright. The symbol in the middle is the main issue, and I'm not sure what the history is -- if that particular form is what is seen on these flags, or if there is more variation. If the latter, an independent drawing here should not follow someone else's too closely. But if they are all that style of the symbol, then I think this is OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion, historical public domain symbol. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Anastasia Schipanova.jpg

Uploaded with Permission — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuck28 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Support Slightly cropped version of File:Anastasia Schipanova 2.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Dori Sakurada in a photo session.jpg

Ok, they deleted a file that I uploaded that said it was free on all the websites and first they commented that the photo was from a series of the actor, and the photo was not from any series and anoter or the same User then they speculated that it was literally all photos of the internet are not free and should simply be removed.. ??? I mean, just speculating?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skybluepevi (talk • contribs) 05:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Skybluepevi: Where does the Creative Commons license come from? Thuresson (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose The upload gives the source as Cyfraclub.com with an unknown author. Google cannot find a site named Cyfraclub.com and obviously an unknown author cannot freely license the image. The only site where the image appears is https://www.letras.com/dori-sakurada/ which has an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Not done, per Jim + no response. Commons is not Pinterest. Thuresson (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:LIMF 2022 Poster.jpg

GODL-India License. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuck28 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Although several government entities are involved, the group that runs the event is not a government entity, so GODL cannot apply. Also, I doubt very much that all of the images on the poster are freely licensed and even if GODL did apply, it would not change the copyright status of non-government images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)


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

Flags uploaded by User:Joseerik0110

These files were originally uploaded by a user who did not provide a source, then deleted as fiction/vandalism in a mass deletion of unverified files. I will add the sources myself after they are restored. I want to restore some of them that are real and useful. I hope I do not have to write about each file individually.

850 Files
* File:Flag of Alabaster, Alabama (2014-2022).svg

Jykncgt (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 OpposeThese are mostly, perhaps all, false and were added by a long term abuser as vandalism. The request is from a brand new user who is a two minutes younger sock of another brand new user, Eiskdjnttt, who has just uploaded a series of flags. Their only actions are the two DRs and an Unblock Request on the talk page of User:NV7801 who was blocked for repeatedly uploading fake flags. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Request by Nv7801's sock. --Yann (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Flags uploaded by User:StoryAsk715

These files were originally uploaded by a user who did not provide a source, then deleted as fiction/vandalism in a mass deletion of unverified files. I will add the sources myself after they are restored. I want to restore some of them that are real and useful. I hope I do not have to write about each file individually.

134 Files
* File:Flag of St. Joseph County, Indiana.png

Jykncgt (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

These are mostly, perhaps all, false and were added by a long term abuser as vandalism. The request is from a brand new user who is a two minutes younger sock of another brand new user, Eiskdjnttt, who has just uploaded a series of flags. Their only actions are the two DRs and an Unblock Request on the talk page of User:NV7801 who was blocked for repeatedly uploading fake flags. ..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Request by Nv7801's sock. --Yann (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)


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

Seals uploaded by User:Joseerik0110

These files were originally uploaded by a user who did not provide a source, then deleted as fiction/vandalism in a mass deletion of unverified files. I will add the sources myself after they are restored. I want to restore some of them that are real and useful. I hope I do not have to write about each file individually.

Jykncgt (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The first does not resemble anything on the county web site. The second doesn't exist -- Kaneohe is a neighborhood of Honolulu and does not have a seal. The request is from a brand new user who is a two minutes younger sock of another brand new user, Eiskdjnttt, who has just uploaded a series of flags. Their only actions are the two DRs and an Unblock Request on the talk page of User:NV7801 who was blocked for repeatedly uploading fake flags. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  • I cannot find either in a web search. Fulton County's logo is at en:Fulton County, Georgia and it does not match what I can find historically either. Kaneohe, Hawaii is a CDP (Census Designated Place), I cannot find a website for it. Please provide supporting evidence because they look fake as hell to me. Abzeronow (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Request by Nv7801's sock. --Yann (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Chendungling.jpg

--Ualathehatroi (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Info Probably about File:Chenduling.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Procedural close, reposted with correct file name. Thuresson (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)


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

Request to undelete 5 photos

The below 5 pictures below have been deleted, although we have send the release and coypright information as stated in the below information. we are alread struggling for a week now to prove that we at the Cameramuseum (Bob Noomen) is the copyright holder of the photos. please let us know what we can do more to prove this.

=== Files related to Cameramuseum Zierikzee ===

* File:Agfa camera.jpg

* File:Cameramuseum topbeeld-afbeelding-01.jpg

* File:Studio-cameramuseum-WEB.jpg

* File:Verhuur-cameramuseum-web.jpg

* File:Voorzijde-cameramuseum-WEB.jpg


These images were deleted citing copyright violation, but this was incorrect.


Bob Noomen, chairman/photographer at Stichting Cameramuseum Zierikzee is the copyright holder of these photos, and an email (in Dutch language) to release the photos and containing the necessary permission statement has already been sent to [mailto:permissions-nl@wikimedia.org) at May 1st 2025.

Below is the content of that e-mail:

Hierbij verklaar ik, Bob Noomen, namens Stichting Cameramuseum Zierikzee, dat onze stichting de auteursrechthebbende is van de volgende vijf foto’s:

  • Voorzijde-cameramuseum-WEB.jpg
  • Verhuur-cameramuseum-web.jpg
  • Studio-cameramuseum-WEB.jpg
  • Cameramuseum_topbeeld-afbeelding-01.jpg
  • Agfa_camera.jpg

Wij geven hierbij toestemming om deze foto’s te publiceren onder de voorwaarden van de Creative Commons Naamsvermelding-GelijkDelen 4.0 Internationaal-licentie (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Wij begrijpen dat deze toestemming onherroepelijk is en dat iedereen deze afbeeldingen opnieuw mag gebruiken onder deze licentie, mits correcte naamsvermelding plaatsvindt.

Volledige naam: Bob Noomen

Functie: Voorzitter en fotograaf

Organisatie: Stichting Cameramuseum Zierikzee

E-mailadres: private information removed

Datum: 01-05-2025

Please restore the files. If any additional information is needed, feel free to let me know. Muzeeland (talk) 08:33, 3 May 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) 13:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Photos of Joffre statue in Paris

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Statue of Joseph Joffre in Paris.

The statue was completed by the French sculptor Maxime Real del Sarte, who died in 1954. The copyright term in France is 70 years, so the images are in Public Domain since January 1st, 2025.

Hr. Satz 11:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the DR, the work was completed in 1939. Since it was under copyright in France on the URAA date, 1/1/1996, it will have a US copyright until 1/1/2035. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim, will be restored in 2035. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Escudo_de_Jipijapa.png

16 years ago I made the coat of arms based on photographs of the image of the original coat of arms. At that time there was no good quality vectorized version. I was born in Jipijapa (a small town in Ecuador) and since by then I felt it would be a great contribution to create a better digital version of this coat of arms (not just scanned as the one that existed from an old work). Now, I don't understand why some user claims that there are copyright issues that I don't even think he should understand the reality of a country different from his own and has allowed himself to claim copyright infringement. Maybe it is because it appears in multiple web pages of the municipality and other official governmental entity pages who were the ones who took the image as it was a good representation of the original so far. But well I can tell you that this representation of the coat of arm derived from the original I still see it in multiple articles, billboards, screens and other sites in my town and I feel proud that many people have taken this version for multiple representations. As a final point I am sorry that while wikipedia has been one of the great sources of information, it is being overrun by bots and tools that do not analyze thoroughly. I hope you can restore this archive. And in any case if you do not approve it will remain in my mind and heart that the work has had a good impact on my community and that I always did it without profit.

Thank you and best regards! Juan R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanwrs (talk • contribs) 22:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

None of this addresses the copyright of the coat of arms. We cannot restore a copyrighted coat of arms without permission of the municipality. Abzeronow (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Mvl logo.png

Hello! My uploaded file recently got deleted because of "Copyright violation". I want an undeletion, because, I have the rights to upload it. The maker of the image, gave me permission to upload it there. So nothing violated.

--Fertweis2055 (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Support Papuac Games, the developer of My Village Life, is a Hungarian Company. This all text logo is probably below the ToO there and is certainly below it in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Jim, PD-textlogo. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Dr._Luis_Alfaro.jpg

I request the restoration of this image as I believe it was mistakenly deleted under the claim that it was "promotional content." The image in question has an encyclopedic purpose, as it illustrates the biography of Luis Alfaro.

The photograph does not contain any elements of self-promotion, logos, or commercial branding. The intention of including this image is to visually document the person for informational purposes.

I am willing to collaborate to make any necessary adjustments. --LuisMartinez238763 (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears on the web with an explicit copyright notice. There is also the issue of self promotion. Since there are no Google hits for this person on the first two pages, one wonders whether he is above our required level of notability. The best way of dealing with this is to first, write an article on him for WP and have it accepted and then have the actual copyright holder of the image send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:CAPCS.jpg, File:LASRP.png, File:ESAI-SATS.jpg, File:NANO-ESAI_I.jpg, File:NANO-ESAI_II.jpg, File:RFID_ESAI.png, MAUCA.jpg, SEMA_ESAI.jpg

Request for restoration of project logos I kindly request the restoration of the logos related to the projects described on the Wikipedia page of Dr. Luis Alfaro. These logos are intended solely to illustrate and identify the respective projects with which Dr. Alfaro is associated, providing context and clarity to readers. They are not being used for promotional purposes, and contain no commercial messaging, advertising slogans, or calls to action. The logos were either created by the project team, if any adjustments are necessary to meet Wikimedia's standards, I am fully willing to collaborate in good faith. LuisMartinez238763 (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I suggest that the best way to deal with the self-promotion claim is to write an article for WP and have it accepted there, then return here with this request. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Simón Bolívar. Toro Moreno, José. 1922, Legislative Palace, La Paz.png

This file was deleted under COM:PCP due to ambiguity surrounding the death date of the original painter. Information about the artists, cited as José Toro Moreno in the image source, was scarce. I have since come to believe that the painting is partially misattributed, and that the true author is Luis Enrique Toro Moreno (biography by ) who died in 1933. The painting being published more than 50 years after the original artist's death, it is in the public domain and should be undeleted. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The timing does fit per information in the source. (My primary school level Spanish can understand enough of that). Abzeronow (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
 Support Bolivian artist, so a 1922 work is long past 50 years pma. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion, I've reversed my deletion and will restore usage. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Chenduling.jpg

This is a public image of the artist, with no copyright holder, and it should be restored. --Ualathehatroi (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This has been published in a lot of places. You should present evidence for your claim. Thuresson (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Lunchbox 1980.jpg

Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Greg Mote, although this particular file got a vote to be kept in the mass listing. Mundane but useful illustration of culture/fashion of time and place. In response to @IronGargoyle: 's comment "not taken by the photographer", meaning the Flickr user was not the original photographer, in this case technically correct but IMO not a copyright concern: The Flickr photographer specifically notes that they are the boy seen in the 1980 photo Flickr photo page in both description and tag. Presumably taken by a parent and inherited as part of "Album" (as Flickr user has categorized it) of pre-digital photos. Clearly non-professional snapshot of the type common at the time; and if the case that the Flickr user having rights is not strong enough, the original would be {{PD-US-1978-89}}. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think that both parents have died? The parents of a child this old in 1980 could easily still be alive. I think it is also very unlikely that this photograph was published, which means PD-US-1978-89 would not apply. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
OK, withdrawing nomination; license clear enough for Flickr but not for Commons. I'd ask the Flickr user for clarification, but they haven't been active since 2013. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: withdrawn by nominator -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Guru Nanak Dev University Logo.png

I actually wanted to delete File: Guru Nanak Dev University HD Logo.png. By mistake I put this one for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moninder K (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Complex logo without permission. We can't have either of these files without a formal written permission from the copyright holder. If you have such a permission, please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Do not upload such files as own work. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Renee Coffey.jpg

Image was deleted for unknown reason by other user --Simoms20218 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Image copied from the Internet, no permission. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Yann --- © 2025 - Queensland Labor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

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

This image is related to Mrs. Nojoud since we are creating this wikipedia page for her as well

Kindly don't delete any photo for Nojoud Alrumaihi since this page is created to her as well and we are authorized to use her photos as well

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by NUJ001 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose All images by this user were deleted as spam/self-promotion and/or copyright violations. Yann (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Broder Drees.jpg

Die Datei wurde im Auftrag von Frau Barbara Koch hochgeladen. Sie ist die Urheberin des Fotos. --Gerdgarding (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gerdgarding: We need a formal written permission from Barbara Koch. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Siehe Commons:Deletion requests/File:Broder Drees.png. Um die Datei wiederherzustellen und zu behalten, benötigen wir eine Genehmigung, die direkt von der Urheberin per E-Mail an Wikimedia Commons geschickt wird. Details, Adresse und zu verwendender Text siehe COM:VRT/de. --Rosenzweig τ 14:36, 4 May 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) 12:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for Clarification on User Profile Page Deletion

Dear Wikimedia Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to seek clarification regarding the recent deletion of my user profile page on Wikimedia/Wikipedia.

Yesterday, I began contributing to Wikimedia projects and decided to create a basic user profile page, as my account lacked any biographical information. This was prompted by the fact that several Wikipedia articles link to my username (where my media files are utilized), yet there was no means for users to learn about me or contact me directly. To address this, I drafted a concise professional biography and included links to external platforms where more detailed information about my work is available.

However, I discovered that my user page was deleted, and I am uncertain about the rationale behind this action. To my understanding, user pages are intended to provide a brief professional introduction, context about the contributor, and relevant contact links—all of which I included. My content contained no inappropriate, promotional, or non-compliant material; it was strictly factual and aligned with the purpose I believed user pages serve.

Could you kindly provide specific guidance on why my user page was removed? If my approach did not align with Wikimedia’s policies for user pages, I would appreciate detailed instructions or documentation outlining the proper structure and content requirements. Additionally, if possible, please confirm whether such pages permit links to external professional profiles (e.g., institutional pages, portfolios) for users seeking further information.

As my contributions to Wikimedia projects may grow, having a clear and compliant user profile is essential—both for transparency and to facilitate communication with other editors or users. I aim to ensure my profile adheres fully to community guidelines moving forward.

Thank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your guidance and am happy to revise my page accordingly.

Thank you Chris F.N. ReK2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rek2 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rek2: We have many people who only create a promotional user page, and then vanish. So we require that people contribute somehow before creating a user page. We except at least around 300 useful contributions across all Wikimedia projects. Seeing that you are blocked on Spanish Wikipedia, that you have no useful contributions on English Wikipedia, and only about a dozen files on Commons, you are not allowed to create a user page here. Yann (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
OK, understood, but I do have contributions, some of my images were and one is till in use on main Wikipedia, I do not remember getting deleted from Spanish Wikipedia, tho will need to check into that. I will upload more of my art/designs more often, I just usually upload as people request them so they can use in articles. https://rek2.hispagatos.org (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Andrzej Jarczewski. Zdjęcie sygnalityczne z Aresztu Śledczego w Katowicach, wrzesień 1985.jpg

Zdjęcie sygnalityczne wykonano w komunistycznym więzieniu w Polsce. Po roku 1989 zostało przejęte przez Instytut Pamięci Narodowej i udostępnione osobom zainteresowanym w celach naukowych lub prywatnych. Zawodowi fotografowie, wykonujący zdjęcia na zlecenie komunistycznych władz, nie mają praw autorskich. Zdjęcie jest więc "niczyje". Morawa98 (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC) Morawa98

 Oppose For scientific or private use is not free enough for Commons, and there are plenty of examples of work from Communist countries that are copyrighted. There is no evidence that this 1985 photograph is public domain in Poland. Abzeronow (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Tamako Market logo (US).svg

Although its already deleted, I cannot able to transfer to the main English Wikipedia, so can anyone please have an option to replace the Japanese logo with that file for the article wikipedia:Tamako Market under fair use? The source is from this link here. -Imperial meter (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Nothing to be done here -- with the source known, any registered user can upload the image to WP and add it to the article. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Javier_Bermejo.jpg

Hola, he visto que se ha eliminado el archivo File:Javier_Bermejo.jpg que subí a Wikimedia Commons. Quería indicar que la imagen fue publicada con licencia CC-BY-SA 4.0 y que contaba con la autorización explícita del fotógrafo, quien confirmó esta licencia.

Si fue eliminada por falta de información o por dudas sobre los derechos, estoy dispuesta a aportar las pruebas necesarias que acreditan tanto la autoría como la validez de la licencia.

Por favor, ¿sería posible revisar esta eliminación o considerar la restauración del archivo?

Muchas gracias por tu tiempo y ayuda. Saludos cordiales,

--Chiti Abraira (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

 Support Odd. User:Mussklprozz added a VRT OK to the file on April 3. Usually Mussklprozz comes here to request undeletion, but they haven't in this case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Oops ... Most probable explanation for me is that there was no licence tag, and I forgot to add it when I added the permission tag. In this case please restore the file.
Recently many uploads were issued without a licence tag, especially from Spain and France.
Vaya... La explicación más probable para mí es que no había etiqueta de licencia y se me olvidó añadirla cuando añadí la etiqueta de permiso. En este caso, por favor, restaurad la imagen.
Recientemente se han publicado muchas imágenes sin etiqueta de licencia, especialmente desde España y Francia.
Un saludo, Mussklprozz (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Om Bhutkar.jpg

I would like to make an undeletion request for the following image that I had uploaded : File:Om Bhutkar.jpg

The image is taken by me, and I hold all the rights for the image. I was assigned photographer for the show from which this image is.

Kindly consider restoring the image.

Kshitijrv (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Timtrent added the no-permission tag, but it had {{Own}} and a CC license. I see no reason not to Assume Good Faith. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward While I do not wish to doubt the appellant, they did have a decent time period to furnish the proof via COM:VRT. If they furnish the proof now then undeletion is automatic. Might I suggest to @Kshitijrv that they avail themselves of that route? Then it is decided for all time. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@Timtrent: What additional information are you trying to get out of VRT? If this photo was previously published on some website, then you can demand an email sent from an address affiliated with or listed on that website. Otherwise, you will just get an email sent from some random unverified address claiming to be the photographer, and you will have to COM:AGF just as in the case of a random Commons account. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@King of Hearts Whatever they have. For example: further information supporting "I was assigned photographer for the show from which this image is." That would put this beyond any doubt. If I have a stricter interpretation than Commons then I yield the floor to better informed editors. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@Timtrent: I don't see why this statement in particular needs proof; there is nothing special about these photos that only the assigned photographer could have obtained. If they had claimed to be a random audience member taking the photos, that would be entirely consistent with the concrete evidence we have, and no further documentation would be possible. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@King of Hearts Consensus is not in my favour. I yield gracefully. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Timtrent, arbitrarily adding a no-permission tag to an image creates extra work, as you see here. I would like to know why you added it, when the image had all the documentation we routinely require from an {{Own}} image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward Since I have not sight of the picture I am unable to tell you. it was not arbitrary. I only tag files when I have a genuine belief that they require it. Since it appears that I made an error I will do my best to alter my thinking. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Timtrent 🇺🇦 talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Colored World War Memorial of Kimball, McDowell County, West Virginia.jpg

Four years ago, this image was removed from an enwp article with the rationale unfortunately, this doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's requirement for a free-use image. In two yours, it should be available for use when the copyright horizon is advanced. Could you check, and then restore it if indeed it's now PD-US? Nyttend (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Comment This may be PD-US, but I think the information provided is insufficient. Who is the photographer? When and where was it first published? Otherwise, just wait for next January. Yann (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: no answer to Yann's questions. Can be undeleted next year. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Logo-7games.png

A empresa está autorizada pelo Governo Brasileiro a atuar em território nacional. A imagem será inserida na página da empresa.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardo Ijumper (talk • contribs) 18:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The company is headquartered in Curaçao, so I don't know what Brazil has to do with it. The fact that a company is authorized to do business has nothing to do with the copyright status of its logo. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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

I would like to request the restoration of the following photos:

I would like to request the restoration of these photos:

These photos were taken by the artist himself and are distributed to the public. There are no copyright issues. I would like to request the restoration of these photos. マサ 斎藤 (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose You claimed in the upload that you were the actual photographer of the first file. Now you claim someone else took it. In order to restore the file, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. The second and third file names have never existed on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Haitai logo (1945-1947).svg

This logo may be too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. However, judging from the release of the logo in 1945, the copyright on the logo is considered to have expired. In addition, it is not known who created the first Haitai logo in form of lion (anonymous creator), so {{PD-South Korea-anon}} or {{PD-South Korea-organization}} might be applied for this case. According to Article 40 of the Copyright Act of South Korea regarding PD-South Korea-anon: a work that is anonymous or bears the pseudonym which is not widely known enter the public domain 70 years after publication when made public (30 years before July 1987, 50 years before July 2013). In other words, anonymous and pseudonymous works made public in before 1 January 1963 are in the public domain in South Korea.

So, giving that the first Haitai logo with lion was made prior to 1963 and the creator is unknown (unless someone provide the evidence who is the creator of the first Haitai logo), this file can be undeleted and place {{PD-South Korea-anon}} in permission tag. I also didn't find any evidence regarding the copyright registration of the logo in the United States (for example searching Haitai at USCO registration bearing no results), so the file might be also PD in the US.

NOTE: {{PD-South Korea-anon}} category is empty. So, assuming that the file was undeleted, we can place this file as the first one to placed under Category:PD-South Korea-anon. We could place this file at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/South Korea as the example of logos that might complex, but its copyright had expired. Yayan550 (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Support A 1945 logo became PD in South Korea on 1/1/1976, well before the URAA date. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Laurence Nobécourt portrait 2024 Maryna Nikitchuk.jpg

I don't understand why this portrait had been deleted. I would to see it back on Laurence Nobécourt Wikipedia page. I have the right from the photograph to publish it. Thank you for your return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Eleusis (talk • contribs) 08:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose It was deleted because policy requires that the actual photographer, Maryna Nikitchuk, send a free license using VRT. We have seen many forgeries, so the license must come from her. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:고려화재 1948.png

In similar situation as File:Haitai logo (1945-1947).svg that currently being nominated for undeletion, this logo was deleted by Krd due to too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. However, judging from the release of the logo in 1948, the copyright on the logo is considered to have expired. In addition, it is not known who created 고려화재 (meaning Koryo Fire and Marine Insurance and predecessor of Heungkuk Fire and Marine Insurance) logo (anonymous creator), so {{PD-South Korea-anon}} might be applied for this case. According to Article 40 of the Copyright Act of South Korea regarding PD-South Korea-anon: a work that is anonymous or bears the pseudonym which is not widely known enter the public domain 70 years after publication when made public (30 years before July 1987, 50 years before July 2013). In other words, anonymous and pseudonymous works made public in before 1 January 1963 are in the public domain in South Korea.

Giving that 고려화재 logo was made prior to 1963 and the creator is unknown (unless someone provide the evidence who is the creator of 고려화재 logo), this file can be undeleted and place {{PD-South Korea-anon}} in permission tag. I also didn't find any evidence regarding the copyright registration of the logo in the United States, so the file might be also PD in the US.

NOTE: {{PD-South Korea-anon}} category is empty. So, assuming that the file was undeleted, we can place it as the first two files (along with File:Haitai logo (1945-1947).svg) to placed under Category:PD-South Korea-anon. We could place this file at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/South Korea as the example of logos that might complex, but its copyright had expired. Yayan550 (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

 Support If there are more of these, please do them all at once, not one at a time. This was PD in South Korea long before the URAA date. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Adrián_Gorelik_2024.jpg

Please restore. We have permission per Ticket:2024121210008027. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: , please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Geschäftsführer Mag. Thilo Börner.webp

Original image with all rights

 Not done: not currently deleted, needs COM:VRT confirmation. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Letztes Pflichtspiel DDR - BRD.jpg

Die Datei Letztes Pflichtspiel DDR - BRD.jpg wurde von Benutzer:CommonsDelinker am 15.04.2025 gelöscht. Mittlerweile ist die Freigabe (06.05.2025) erteilt worden. Eine E-Mail wurde nach permissions-de@wikimedia.de gesendet. Bitte Löschung wieder rückgängig machen.--Oevi (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: @Oevi: Falls das Support-Team diese Freigabe akzeptiert, wird die Datei auf Veranlassung des beteiligten Support-Team-Mitarbeiters wiederhergestellt werden. Das kann evtl. ein paar Tage dauern. Weitere Anträge sind nicht nötig. --Rosenzweig τ 21:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Bunnypranav_logo.svg

Hello admins, I was the original uploader of the file and I requested deletion for it myself. I would like it to be restored now. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

CC deletion admin @The Squirrel Conspiracy. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per req. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Amanda Blanc.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We have permission from the original photographer/rights holder - have email the relevant documentation to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. BallerLondon (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@BallerLondon: This will be restored only at the request of a VRT agent, once the permissions received by VRT are verified. signed, Aafi (talk) 09:05, 8 May 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) 14:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Giovanni Santoro FIFA Football Agent.jpg

I am requesting the undeletion of the file Giovanni_Santoro_FIFA_Football_Agent.jpg, which I originally uploaded.

I confirm that I am the copyright holder of this image. I affirm that I have full rights to this photo and have granted permission for its publication under a free license compatible with Wikimedia Commons.

If necessary, I am fully prepared to send a formal declaration of permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, in accordance with VRT (formerly OTRS) procedures, to verify authorship and licensing.

Please advise if any additional steps are needed to restore the file. I respectfully ask that it not be deleted permanently, as I am the rightful owner and am cooperating with Wikimedia’s licensing process.

Thank you, Mert9702 (talk) 09:36, 8 May 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) 14:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)


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

Biography of Doctor Naseeb Deen

Subject: Request for undeletion of "File:Biography of Doctor Naseeb Deen (Page 001).jpg"

Dear Admins,

I kindly request the undeletion of the file titled "File:Biography of Doctor Naseeb Deen (Page 001).jpg" which was recently deleted. This file holds historical/biographical importance and is intended for educational and informative purposes.

If the deletion was due to copyright concerns, I would like to provide more context or permission details to verify that the file is either in the public domain or shared with proper authorization. I am ready to submit any supporting documentation required to validate the legitimacy of this file's use.

Please consider restoring the file temporarily to allow a proper review or advise on the steps needed to complete a successful undeletion request.

Thank you for your time and support.

Sincerely, [Unknown171110] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown 171110 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Previous declined out of scope file: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2025-04#File:Biography_of_Doctor_Naseeb_Deen_(Page_001).jpg. --Yann (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Devi Choudhurani- Bandit Queen (বাংলার দস্যু রানী).jpg

Hi can you please undelete this, it is indeed an image that I edited but it was mentioned in the original file and the historical figure it is based on does not have any available pictures in her name. She died in 1783 and most of her memories are gone. This image was generated based on book covers and other media written about her that I did not want to use on here for copyright reasons. This is only used for educational purposes, and again the orignal file's caption even stated that it was Conceptual art.

Srevist56 (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC) May 6 2025

 Oppose It was deleted because it is out of scope -- we do not keep personal art from artists who are not themselves notable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept "your own work" images? I see many articles with editors own work. Please elaborate, thank you Srevist56 (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
We do accept "own work" photographs. Personal artwork by non-notable people is out of our scope. Abzeronow (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim and Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:The_Chhapai.jpg

--Kapdewala (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

We need a reason for undeletion. Looks like a non-notable logo to me. Abzeronow (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

reason=I am the original creator of the image and the brand owner of The Chhapai. The file was deleted under criteria F10 and G10, but it is not a personal photo or promotional spam. This is the official logo of a registered fashion brand. I would like to have it undeleted so it can be used in related documentation. The image is self-created and I am ready to relicense it under CC-BY-SA-4.0. Please consider restoring it or guiding me on re-uploading with proper categorization and license.

Thank you. Kapdewala (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

It may be a registered fashion brand, but it is not a notable brand. I don't see any independent coverage of the brand when I do a web search, and since it is your brand, your upload is self-promotional. Abzeronow (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi Dear,
Thank you for your response and for taking the time to review my request.
I understand the concerns around notability and self-promotion, but I’d like to offer a bit of context. I am the original creator and rightful owner of The Chhapai logo, which represents my small, self-funded fashion startup. I am not trying to advertise or promote it in a commercial sense — my only intention is to make the logo publicly accessible for potential future use in documentation, references, or community-driven platforms.
At this stage, my brand is still in its early days, and while the website isn't live yet, I’ve invested months in securing the identity, filing registrations, and working on a proper launch. I believe Wikimedia Commons should also serve creators and small entrepreneurs who are building something meaningful and not just established corporations.
I’m happy to license the file under CC-BY-SA 4.0, and I’ve already prepared a VRT release email to support this. I kindly request you to reconsider the undeletion or advise me on the most appropriate way to share the logo here within Wikimedia guidelines.
Thanks again for your guidance, and I truly appreciate the work you and the community do.
Warm regards,
Akash Sharma
Wikimedia Username: Kapdewala
Founder – The Chhapai Kapdewala (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
@Kapdewala: So send the email message, already. What are you waiting for? I see that you posted again at COM:HD#File:The Chhapai.jpg.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK now. In addition, this is {{PD-textlogo}}. --Yann (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Akash_Sharma.png

I respectfully request undeletion of this file.

Reason for undeletion: I am the original uploader and the person in the image – Akash Sharma. I uploaded this image for documentation and informational purposes related to my creative and professional work as a verified entrepreneur and founder of the fashion brand *The Chhapai*. This image was deleted under CSD F10 (personal photo of or by non-contributor), but this classification may not apply here, as I am a contributor and the rightful copyright holder.

The purpose of uploading this image is not for personal promotion but to be publicly accessible and correctly attributed for future use in Wikimedia projects, such as linking to articles about my professional work or associated documentation.

I am ready to relicense the image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license and will also provide an OTRS/VRTS email if needed.

Please consider restoring the file or guiding me on how best to re-upload it with the appropriate format, categories, and permissions.

Thank you for your time and support.

Kapdewala (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kapdewala: So send the email message, already. What are you waiting for?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: see below, has permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Dr Cheyenne Bryant Mental Detox Book.jpg

I am writing to formally request the undeletion of the file titled "File:Dr Cheyenne Bryant Mental Detox Book.jpg", which was previously hosted on Wikimedia Commons and has since been deleted.

Reason for Request: Dr Cheyenne Bryant is the main owner of this book.

The file was released under a valid free license.

The deletion may have been a misunderstanding or error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monna Hervas at Buchanan PR (talk • contribs) 09:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Spam, no permission. Yann (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:2000TodaySunident.jpg

I considered to be a copyright violation by Wikipedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordisk Plus (talk • contribs)

 Not done: per The Squirrel Conspiracy. --Yann (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Kira Kirillovna 1938 (cropped).jpg

Was deleted as "exact or scaled-down duplicate" of Kira Kirillovna 1938.jpg. It was not. It was a crop of said image. Are we going to start deleting all cropped images as "duplicates" now? - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 06:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done. My mistake, didn't check thoroughly. --Túrelio (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Copyright of this file (and also File:Kira Kirillovna 1938.jpg and File:Луи Фердинанд Оскар Кристиан Прусский.jpg) is wrong. {{PD-old}} cannot be used if the author is unknown. According to Grand Duchess Kira Kirillovna of Russia, she was living in Germany in 1938, so German law should apply. Yann (talk) 08:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. However, as I've found only now, this image was probably shot on a ocean liner in New York, when they were on their honey moon. --Túrelio (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Interesting, so it may be {{PD-US}}. Yann (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The place where the image was made is generally irrelevant. The fact that it might have been shot in NY does not make it subject to US law -- that would happen only if it were first published there. Under the laws of most countries this would not have been PD on the URAA date, so it would still have a copyright. We can keep it only if it can be shown that the first publication was in the USA without notice or without renewal. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure, place of publication is what matters. But there is a good chance that it was published in New York after the ship arrived there. IMO this is the most probable scenario. Yann (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
 Delete If it was published in NY, then the declared copyright template is invalid (1938+95+1 = 2034). We then need an evidence that it was published without copyright notice or that copyright of the publication was not renewed. We cannot just assume any of them. Ankry (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done already for the stated reason. If there are questions about the copyright status, a DR should be opened, including the original file it was cropped from. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:至学館大レスリング部元顧問 杉山三郎.jpg

削除された「至学館大レスリング部元顧問 杉山三郎.jpg」の復帰を希望します。この写真は、杉山三郎が自身のプロフィールに添付する画像として広く一般に配布しているものであり、著作権が問題になることはありません。必要なら本人からメールをしてもらいます。マサ 斎藤 (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Masa Saito, May, 08, 2025

<Google Translate>I would like the deleted "Shigakukan University Wrestling Club Former Advisor Sugiyama Saburo.jpg" to be restored. This photo is widely distributed by Sugiyama Saburo as an image to attach to his profile, so there is no copyright issue. If necessary, I would like him to email me.</>
 Oppose Small image created in 2012, uploaded in 2025. We need a formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:عاکف مامو زاگرس.jpg

این عکس با اجازە کپی رایت انتشار دادە شدە است — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagros.a (talk • contribs) 13:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Copied from [4]. No evidence of a free license or public domain. Yann (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Kurdistan National Congress Logo.jpg

این لوگو با اجازە کامل از ک ن ک در اینجا قرار دادە شدە است — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagros.a (talk • contribs) 13:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Complex logo copied from [5]. No evidence of a free license or public domain. Yann (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Fatima_Alsafi.jpg

This is her official photo and I'm working with her. she is my boss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farah244 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Farah244: We need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder, who is by default the photographer. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Dear Yann, thank you so much, we already few minutes sent an email with her name. Farah244 (talk) 15:59, 8 May 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) 19:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Leon 14.jpg

Asunto: Solicitud de reconsideración para restauración de imagen: Fotografía del Papa León XIV

A quien corresponda en Wikipedia,

Les escribo para solicitar una reconsideración sobre la eliminación de la imagen que subí del Papa León XIV saliendo al balcón ([enlace al artículo o nombre del archivo, si lo tienes]). Comprendo que fue retirada por cuestiones de derechos de autor, pero quisiera aclarar que soy el autor original de la fotografía. Lamentablemente, no cuento con los metadatos EXIF ni archivos RAW para demostrarlo, ya que la imagen fue capturada en un dispositivo móvil y no conservé esos datos.

A pesar de esto, les aseguro que la fotografía es de mi autoría y que estoy dispuesto a licenciarla bajo los términos que Wikipedia requiera (por ejemplo, Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0). La imagen es relevante para documentar un evento histórico reciente, y su ausencia afecta la calidad informativa del artículo.

Si existe algún mecanismo alternativo para validar mi autoría (como una declaración jurada o una explicación detallada del contexto en que se tomó la foto), estoy abierto a colaborar. Agradecería que me orientaran sobre cómo proceder en este caso excepcional.--SirArgujillo (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Opened a DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leon 14.jpg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Akash Sharma.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: ticket:2025050710011188 Nemoralis (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Nemoralis: please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Stephenson-Cancer-Center.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: per ticket:2025050610011242 Nemoralis (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Nemoralis: please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Papa Leão XIV no dia de sua eleição.png

The original url states at source code

{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@type":"ImageObject","contentUrl":"https:\/\/heute-at-prod-images.imgix.net\/2025\/05\/08\/a6f622d3-8f8a-4447-8a95-635e657e07a9.jpeg?rect=0%2C157%2C3020%2C1699&auto=format","creator":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Heute.at","url":"https:\/\/www.heute.at"},"creditText":"REUTERS","copyrightNotice":"REUTERS","license":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/","caption":"Leo XIV. \u2013 das ist der neue Papst","keywords":"","acquireLicensePage":"https:\/\/www.heute.at\/impressum"}

"license":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"

Is CC 4.0 Augustresende (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose See my talk page User_talk:Bedivere#Restore_image_File:Papa_Leão_XIV_no_dia_de_sua_eleição.png Bedivere (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Bedivere. Publications purchase a limited license from Reuters; they don't have the right to sublicense it. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy and Bedivere: re-uploaded as File:PapaRomeLeo14.jpg. --Quick1984 (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Thromdarr mvlogo.jpg

Hi. This photo has been uploaded and deleted twice. First deletion was made apparently March 2024 (didn't find it in deletion log) and second deletion was made 2025-04-13 by User:The Squirrel Conspiracy [6]. However, there is ticket ticket:2024031610002962, last date 2024-03-16: "Your permission has been added to the file page. Please check that the file description contains the correct author attribution you desire. If you have any concerns, please respond to this email."

What has happened, if permission ticket has been added but no photo exists?. User Mika Kyöstilä is asking in fi-wiki (fi:Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Mika Kyöstilä#Thromdarr). Please help and undelete, if there is no reason (not known to me) to keep it deleted. Regards, -Htm (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: for any comments. fi:Thromdarr has a Wikipedia article that is not newly created. Thuresson (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. But the ticket is created in 2024, and photo was deleted User talk:Mika Kyöstilä#User talk:Mika Kyöstilä in 2024. My guess is something happened in 2024. This 2025 deletion was per different reason. My guess is that the two photos are similar.-- Htm (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per above. It is not eligible for speedy deletion anyway. Please create a regular DR if needed. Added to the article. --Yann (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:David Davo Faulkner.jpg

I request undeletion of this image, which was previously deleted under reason F1 (copyright violation).

I am the subject, creator, and copyright holder of the image. It is used on my personal website (https://davo.co), where it is clearly marked as being released under the CC0 1.0 public domain license both in the image caption and footer.

The original upload included {{cc-zero}} and Own work, but may have been deleted due to lack of external verification at the time. That has now been addressed publicly on the source site.

Please restore the image so I may properly attribute and host it for relevant Wikimedia/Wikidata uses.

Thank you, User:DavoFaulkner

 Oppose Personal image by non contributor. Please read COM:WEBHOST. Yann (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)


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

Files in Category:Antonio Cruz Collado

Hi. Based on the authorization sent (the ticket for which is shown in the category Category:Files_provided_by_the_heirs_of_Antonio_Cruz_Collado), and to {{PD-Spain-photo}} and {{PD-1996}}, I request to restore the images deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Antonio Cruz Collado and include them in Category:Files_provided_by_the_heirs_of_Antonio_Cruz_Collado. --Rodelar (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose We need to wait until the ticket is verified and accepted before taking any action. Ankry (talk) 15:16, 9 May 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) 22:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Fatima Alsafi.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: per ticket:2025050810007566 Nemoralis (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Nemoralis: please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Elşad İman uşağı ilə.jpg

Reason: per ticket:2022041210013307 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk • contribs) 23:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that some of my copyrighted and even discussed photos have been unfairly deleted. I believe that the person who submitted the nomination did this out of prejudice against my photos. Please help me restore photo.

  • VRTS Ticket:2022041210013307 Please undelete the original version of this image, No evidence - nor even any attempt to make a case - that this is an advert. VRT permission received means that there is no copyright issue.
  1. File:Elşad İman uşağı ilə.jpg Kept once per ticket permission -Krd -- Elshad Imanverified Verified 23:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: Good quality portrait. --Yann (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:福島清香紹介写真.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: permission confirmed in ticket:2025042410010854. My best guess is we want to restore File 1 (the older one). But if File 2 is basically the same work and of a superior quality, please restore it instead. whym (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Whym: Please add the license. --Yann (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Children playing four square with a utility ball.jpg

This was just deleted by User:Captain-tucker for "OOS", which I think means that it's out of scope, but the file clearly is in scope in terms of being freely licensed and having clear educational value. Why was this deleted? How is this out of scope? Why did the admin delete it with no actual discussion at the deletion request? This all seems confusing and backwards to me. @Captain-tucker: —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the photograph seems to be in scope, but I also agree with the nominator that this was not taken in a public space and that there are identifible children in the photograph. There is no way to verify that consent for the photograph was given. Abzeronow (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I 1000% think you should be able to comment on that in the deletion discussion: in fact, having it was my idea. The file should be undeleted and the actual discussion had on the merits, not unilaterally deleted with a bogus reason. @Captain-tucker: please undelete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The DR was open for eight days. The uploader, User:Koavf was notified but chose not to participate in the discussion. Now they want to reopen the DR discussion. I see no reason to do that as the consent issue will not disappear. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Not done, this was deleted after a proper deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Children playing four square with a utility ball.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Willwongprd

@Bedivere: Hi, on 19 December 2024 someone mentioned some of my uploads contains emojis which has no attribution, so I've replaced them with NotoColorEmoji and then requested history version deletion instead. However I didn't nominate for keep, perhaps for this reason the file was finally deleted per nomination, so I'm here to request file undeletion but only keep the latest version. Many thanks.

Willwongprd (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I don't see any educational use for these files. Yann (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi Yann, these photos were used on two meetup record pages on Chinese Wikipedia. Willwongprd (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
 Move to local They were only used at serveral meetup pages on Chinese Wikipedia. So I think it would be more appropriate to host them on local Wikipedia. 0x0a (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
These photos were taken by myself and I authorized them with CC BY-SA 4.0 License, so could it be better to host them on Commons? Willwongprd (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Yann, these seem out of scope to me. Abzeronow (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose per above. Bedivere (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
These files were requested for deletion due to faces masked with emojis which has no attribution, but the photos were my own work. If I replace them with a copyright-free material, are these files still be considered out of scope? Before the deletion, I've uploaded the modified version using NotoColorEmoji. Is it possible to delete history version that violates copyright but not to delete the whole file page? Many thanks. @Bedivere Willwongprd (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Request temporary undeletion

@Bedivere@Krd Sorry to bother you, to assist discussion, I request for temporary undeletion of these images. The history versions and the latest version before deletion has differences on masks, empty pages might not help to tell the differences. When recovered, please check the latest version of them to make sure they are not out of scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willwongprd (talk • contribs) 16:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I can see the latest version by clicking on it. The issue is that even with freely licensed emojis, these look like social media photos and I don't see an educational use for these. However, if it makes locally hosting these Instagram-esque friends photos easier, I could temporarily undelete them. Abzeronow (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
 Move to local Understand. Many thanks for help, I'll upload them to local namespace asap when temporarily recovered. Willwongprd (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
@Willwongprd: @0x0a: temporarily undeleted. Abzeronow (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
If they were used at meetup pages on a Wikimedia site, they are technically automatically in-scope. I don't see much use for them outside of that, and even then they seem marginal to me (but speaking from a different culture). I would bury them in a category specific to that event and nowhere else, but I don't see why we can't just host them. It's not like it would save space to delete them, rather just use more by having copies elsewhere.  Weak keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)


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

I am the authorized representative of MyRepublic Indonesia, and I, along with my internal creative team, am the original creator of the uploaded logo. We hold full rights and license to this asset. This logo is the official updated identity of MyRepublic Indonesia, and it is different from the previous version which was aligned with MyRepublic Singapore.

We have updated the branding in 2023, and this logo is publicly visible on our official website.

The purpose of the upload is to reflect our updated visual identity across relevant public knowledge platforms, including Wikimedia projects.

I confirm that I have the rights to publish this logo under the appropriate free license required by Wikimedia Commons. --Tyrenia (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Tyrenia: We need a confirmation of the license from the copyright holder by email. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. In addition, what is the educational use of this logo? Yann (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi Yann, thank you for your follow-up.
I will proceed with submitting the license confirmation via email, as outlined on COM:VRT.
This file represents the updated branding of MyRepublic Indonesia, which is now distinct from MyRepublic Singapore. We are no longer under the same operational entity, and therefore have adopted a different logo and visual identity. Including this logo on Wikimedia Commons supports accuracy and clarity on pages related to our company, especially in contexts involving corporate evolution, regional operations, and the digital service industry in Indonesia.
Please let me know if there’s anything else I should provide.
Thank you! Tyrenia (talk) 17:09, 9 May 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. . --Yann (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Entrevista com o professor doutor Caetano Rodrigues Miranda.webm

I am requesting the undeletion of this file, due to the license information, as is present in the link below. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vI5uvqR0hqer5UEbihHHH09Kt1CJ41hq/view?usp=sharing --CarolScaliante (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Because they can easily be forged, we do not accept permissions in this form. The actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Sìmbulu de A Foras - Contra a s'ocupatzione militare de sa Sardigna.jpg

The file source is unknown but it wasnt created following copyrights rules or other. The file is immage property of the political group "A Foras" but is in fact not subjected to copyrights rules or other laws. The immage is in fact under public domain and and can be downloaded and shared without limits: here's the link were i take it "https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=281804964189352&set=a.281804947522687". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSard (talk • contribs) 09:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Almost all created works, including this, have a copyright until it expires. In order for this to be restored, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:JavscrptZyrcun.jpg File:Princesa(PERRO).webp Britishcharacterzyrcn.jpg

Buenas tardes, querida comunidad de Wikipedia, la razón por la que pido la restauración del distinguido contenido eliminado de su pagina, es porque tengo entendido, que he completado de forma exitosa los pasos necesarios, abriendo lo que de por si, es mi contenido, al dominio del publico mediante la licencia Creative Commons CC0. Honestamente, no me podría permitir que por segunda vez consecutiva, sea testigo de la eliminación del contenido.

Quisiera algunas aclaraciones, recomendaciones, y especificaciones que quizás, yo este dando por sentadas, pero cordialmente les testifico, que de primera instancia, mi contenido es absolutamente parte de mi propiedad. https://www.pinterest.com/XdragonL7/ esa es mi pagina de pinterest, para que comprueben que soy exactamente el mismo creador. Sin más, mis más cordiales agradecimientos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyrcun (talk • contribs) 21:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Procedural close, please state your opinion at the open deletion request, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zyrcun. Thuresson (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Abysmal Oceans Members.jpg

I requested the band to send a mail to allow usage. The mail has been sent now.

--SurreaI (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Procedural close, checked by VRT member. Thuresson (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Landsitz Kammerburg Blick auf das Haupthaus.jpg

This photo was originally posted on Facebook and was deleted in compliance with COM:SD#F1 criterion. However, the uploader hopes to prove that they own this Facebook page by deleting that post instead of adding a permission statement. Now, I was wondering if it it possible to undelete this file. --0x0a (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose After an evidence of free licence for this photo is provided (eg. on FB), the photo mat be undeleted. But not before. Ankry (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
They delete this photo from facebook, what now? 0x0a (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
 withdraw I've advised the uploader to go through the VRT process. --0x0a (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK now. --Yann (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)


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

Images from European Elegies

I am requesting temporary undeletion of the following images to enable their migration to English Wikisource:

The files were deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Scans from Google Books/unverified. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Besides, the rationale of their deletion in Commons might be re-considered too. It was deleted as copyrighted per COM:CANADA because en:Watson Kirkconnell died in 1977. However, Watson Kirkconnell was the autor of the text of the book, not of those images used for the decoration of the book's inside cover (note that the images include the same symbol as the one present at the bottom of this page). The author of the images is some anonymous employee of the publishing/printing house, and thus they entered Public Domain in Canada 75 years after they had been published in 1928 and should be tagged as {{PD-Canada-anon}}. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Support PD in Canada with {{PD-Canada-anon}}. 1928 work, so not subject to URAA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request and Jim. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:20230623 Mike Tsang in Concert in Guangzhou.png

The owner and creator of the YouTube video from which the photograph was taken, has sent in an email dated 8 May 2025 to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to allow publishing under Creative Commons. The email was confirmed received by Wikimedia Commons on the same day under Ticket No. #2025050810001375

The file was therefore authorised for publishing and I would be grateful if it could be undeleted. Izumi2009 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

It appeared that the original email in 2023 was not received by Wikimedia, and at my request, the owner has sent in a new email 4 days ago.Izumi2009 (talk) 17:33, 11 May 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) 19:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

cellmirco ist am 15.12.1999 in münsingen geboren als kind liebte er es zu zocken auf der nintendo gamecube hat er immer super mario sunshine need for speed carbon und need for speed underground 2 gezockt als kind zockte er nicht nur auf der nintendo gamecube er zockte auch auf dem psp das meist gespielte spiel das er auf dem psp gezockt hat war gran turismo

Am 5.januar 2025 hat er einen kanal der sich cellmirco nent auf youtube erstelt er hat am 5.januar 2025 auch sein erstes let's play veröfenlicht das erste let's play das er veröfenlicht hat war tekken4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellmirco (talk • contribs) 18:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Wie alt ist cellmirco

cellmirco ist 25 jahre alt Cellmirco (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no Undeletion request here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Wizard of oz movie poster.jpg

Hmm. There is something printed below the MGM logo in the lower right corner. That's where a copyright notice would be if there were one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

IMHO, looking at the image at the source, the illegible microscopic line doesn't look like a copyright notice. The DR participants who looked at the file also concluded that there is no copyright notice. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Notifying Yann, as deleting admin. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Asclepias. It was speedy nominated by IP. Sorry for deletion. --Yann (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

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

original-4E4DE381-0232-4BE1-AF84-B840A63A9005.jpeg

This image is a photo taken 30 years ago and it does not exist the digital file of it. It was taken by Sebastià Renom, my father, and we have the rights to use it. It is the same picture the writer uses in one of her books.

How can we justify we have the rights of this picture? We request to undelete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clararenom (talk • contribs) 11:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you claim your father was. That makes it hard to Assume Good Faith. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I think, VRT is the right procedure to prove authorship and copyright ownership. Ankry (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. --Yann (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)


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

K-Weapon Source videos

Regarding the following 2 files:

Both videos come from this YouTube link. In the video description, it is stated that (key points underlined to emphasize):

'K-Weapon Source' can be used freely after marking the source of the material in accordance with the Korea Open Government License principles on using public works, and is updated every Wednesday.

In addition, there is at least one video that is explicitly marked with KOGL Type 1 ("KOGL1").

In User talk:廣九直通車#Why did you nominate a KOGL licensed work as a candidate for deletion?, Gasiseda believes that because of the statement that because these videos is marked freely available and does not specify the non-profit conditions used in KOGL Type 2 or 3, and based on the video explicitly marked with KOGL1, they are free and therefore licensed under KOGL1, or at least acceptable for Commons (presumably under {{Attribution only license}}). The uploader also accuses me that I am twisting the meaning of "freely" to ensure these video to be deleted.

I would be grateful to see if I misunderstood anything, thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gasiseda and Túrelio: Notifying uploader and the deleting administrator.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose Since the version of the KOGL is not specified, the PCP requires that we should assume the worst, Type 4, was is unacceptable on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose It is just like simply declaring, "This content is released under a Creative Commons Attribution license." They must specify the type of KOGL. All types of KOGL require attribution of the source.--Namoroka (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. --Yann (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Clinical Trial Transparency 2017.pdf

I think this is a document which I myself wrote, and never noticed that it had been deleted. I am not sure what this is but I uploaded it. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose "This study was written by Till Bruckner". It is probably out of scope and also a copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose per "© 2017 Transparency International UK. All rights reserved." We need a free license permission from the copyright holder sent to VRT. Ankry (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward and Ankry: Ahh, sorry, this is not my publication, but I have a copy of it. It says on the credits page that it has a Creative Commons By 3.0 license, and that it is copyright to en:Transparency International. That is typical sufficient, but if not, could this be restored to examine for a deletion discussion? Bluerasberry (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
I previously had this pdf in the article en:Clinical trial registration, where it did fit the scope. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: LicenseReviewed. Arguments about scope can be handled at DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Tiffany Taylor Comic Con 2006.jpg

The fact that there are incidental copyrighted works in a photo does not invalidate an otherwise free license, under the de minimis principle in US copyright law (see Commons:de_minimis) under Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp., 147 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 1998) and Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997). -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 22:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose De minimis requires that the average viewer would not notice if the item in question were removed. Virtually everything in this photo except one human is copyrighted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Felix Locke FREIE WÄHLER.jpg

Freigabe zur zeitlich unbegrenzten Nutzung inkl. uneingeschränkter Nutzungsrechte seitens des Erstellers liegt vor und ist hier beigefügt.

Von: Ulrike Fisch>
Datum: Dienstag, 29. April 2025 um 15:18
An: Felix Locke>
Betreff: Nutzungsrecht Bilddatei FELIX LOCKE aus Kandidatenshooting
Kandidatenfotos, die für eine bestellte Maßnahme verwendet und aus einem offiziellen Kandidatenshooting (z. B. aus der Kampagne zur Bundestags-, Landtags-, Kommunalwahl) wurden oder werden und vom Kandidaten bzw. dem Orts-/Kreisverband oder der Landesvereinigung der FREIE WÄHLER bezahlt wurden oder werden, sind durch die Werbeagentur FULLHAUS bearbeitet, hochaufgelöst und freigestellt dem Kandidaten zur eigenen weiteren Verwendung zeitlich unbegrenzt inkl. uneingeschränkter Nutzungsrechte zur Verfügung gestellt.
Sollte bei Medien/Plattformen eine Quellenangabe zwingend notwendig sein, genügt der Hinweis „Bildnachweis: FULLHAUS GmbH“ oder nur „FULLHAUS GmbH“
Ulrike​​​​ Fisch
Account‑Managerin, Teamleiterin.
FULLHAUS GmbH, Maxhüttenstraße 12, 93055 Regensburg

~~~~ TobiK191 (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose First, a license for unlimited use is not a license that allows you to freely license the image to others -- it is limited to your own use of the image. Second, policy requires that the actual photographer -- Manuel Schlueter -- send a free license using VRT. Third, do not falsely claim {{Own}} when you are not the actual photographer. Continuing to do so will cause you to be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

{{speedydelete|copyright}} TobiK191 (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: I take TobiK's message as withdrawing. --Yann (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Monumento alla Resistenza, Cuneo.jpg

Hi everyone, I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of File:Monumento alla Resistenza, Cuneo.jpg. The image was deleted in 2022 after this DR and it depicts a monument made by en:Umberto Mastroianni. The monument was commissioned by the local municipality (see here and here) and it was published in 1969. Therefore, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1990, before 1996, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Friniate: FYI. --Yann (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Archive.today screenshot of Wikipedia article Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation.png

@Minorax:

This was deleted in November 2024 following a Wikimedia Foundation office action to suppress information related to en:Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation.

A few days ago the Wikimedia Foundation restored that article as covered in news sources, a Wikimedia Foundation announcement, discussion on that article's talk page and elsewhere, and the fact that the article is up again.

This image was of a third-party archiving service which Wikimedians and others used to read the text of the article after it was removed. I would like this deleted content restored now. I am the original uploader. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The user who deleted this, Minorax, just today posted that they were going on vacation till June. Perhaps anyone else can comment here. There is no need to rush anything but also perhaps Minorax is not around.
meta:special:diff/28222313/28717283
Bluerasberry (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
 Support It should be undeleted now. Yann (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Vghanem.jpg

This is a verified picture of the subject. No need to delate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vghanem (talk • contribs) 17:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose It was deleted since there is no educational use of a photo of you in Wikimedia projects. Thuresson (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
 Info The image was used in this sandbox. If and when the sandbox become an accepted Wikipedia article the image may be undeleted. But this seems very unlikely to me. Ankry (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:عکس عزیزاله شهبازی سیاست مدار ایرانیست.jpg

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamedsb (talk • contribs) 21:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

We need a reason for undeletion, and this Iranian photo doesn't look like an own work to me. Abzeronow (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
@Jcornelius this was in use on fa:عزیزالله_شهبازی how can it be deleted as CSD F10??  REAL 💬 ⬆   23:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
@999real True, the reason for deletion was the wrong one (added by Alachuckthebuck. However, it's highly doubtful that the photo was taken by Hamedsb, as he was claiming in the file description. --Jcornelius (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose Low resolution, no freely licensed source provided. Such photos cannot be on-wiki licensed as Own work. Ankry (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Category:Buses in Piauí

No longer empty: Category:Buses in Campo Maior, Piauí is categorized. --Francisco (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done @Francisco Leandro: Note, that unlike files, categories can be recreated. No need to make requests here. Ankry (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Professor Bronwyn Fox.jpg

Please undelete and reinstate this file, permission has been provided to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by the image creator (Melissa Martin) on 24 April 2025 and 7 May 2025. --DOE(Research) (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose No need for any action here at this stage, The image may be undeleted after the VRT permission is verified and accepted by a VRT volunteer. Ankry (talk) 05:58, 13 May 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) 12:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:La Marmite - N2 (djvu).pdf

(I translated this message from French using an AI) Hello, I'm requesting the restoration of this issue of "La Marmite," since I had previously asked for its title to be changed because I made a mistake when creating it. Afterwards, someone interested in the topic flagged the zine as potentially infringing on copyright — apparently because it's of good quality (which we find quite flattering, by the way).

Regarding copyright: it's a collective and anarchist project, and it's a fanzine. So basically, the question of intellectual property — well, we believe property is theft, if you will; this was never meant to publish works under proprietary rights. The goal of our zine has always been to share it as widely as possible, including posting it publicly wherever we could. In other words, we consider it part of the public domain. Well, I don't know, we never signed an official contract among the anarchist companions who worked on it, but for all of us it was obvious that it belonged in the public domain — that's even why we donated it to the Fanzinarium, which is like a zine museum in Paris.

We are people who grew together; we crossed paths at certain moments in our lives, and some of us have lost touch over time. Still, I can assure you that the atmosphere has always been one where the issue of rights simply didn’t come up — it was just too obvious for any of us to even discuss, like fanzine is kinda free of rights already but you add anarchism, I mean...

Moreover, we decided to upload it to Wikimedia Commons together with other ccompanions of the project — it wasn't my decision alone. In fact, I consulted the main editors of the project, the people who provided me with the digital versions, since these files hadn’t been available anywhere before, as they were created using InDesign etc., and you can clearly see they don’t exist anywhere else online.

Now, if you need proof that it’s actually me/us behind this project, we could do an Instagram story on the account linked to each publication, showing for example one of the uploaded files from Commons. This would demonstrate clearly that we are indeed the ones responsible.

I find this solution interesting in case you require such evidence, since we don’t have a centralised email address.Aristoxène (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Also note my answer on my talk page, which was more extensive and detailed. Aristoxène (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose First, it is not at all clear that this is in scope -- it is a creation by amateurs who are not noted for this kind of work. We do not keep personal artwork on Commons. Second, the copyright is held by each of the contributors, so in order to keep it we will need a free license from each of them. It is probably impossible to prove the various authorship to the level required by Commons, so I don't see any practical way for it to be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Question pour User:Aristoxène : Indépendamment de la question de l'admissibilité, pourquoi la version File:La Marmite - N2 (djvu).pdf serait-elle conservée en plus de la version File:La Marmite - N2.djvu ? -- Asclepias (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward What do you know about amateurs or not ? It's under pseudonyms - you know nothing about the people who made it and their standing in the artistical life of the country and era - and you can safely assume that if the quality is good, as someone just told me was the reason why it was deleted, it's not by amateurs but also by people who know what they do in art. But they chose to publish under pseudonym for personal reasons, as we all did. Also, I should say it's noted since it's categorized and avalaible in the collections of Fanzinarium, which is some sort of museum for fanzines. They gave it a identifier and categorized it and use it in their collections to this day, they have maybe a small dozen issues. See my talk page for the details on that. I feel it's clearly disingenuous at this point ; I want to share stuff we do, I know the structure of the group since I'm part of it since day 1, I know how we publish and why we do it, you want me to text like an anarchist who is in jail in his country to ask him if the article he wrote 5 years ago is free of rights in our anarchist fanzine like this is impossible. But again, what I can do is using the Instagram, which is the official canal of the publication so you can see that it's us, like what do you want more than the official canal of the media to certify that it's them indeed. Separating the rights under each property rights
@Asclepias En fait, on m'a donné les documents en PDF et en format original donc presse avec les deux pages côte à côte si tu veux. En gros, j'ai parlé avec Alien33 (qui est un.e Wikisourcien.ne) et on parlait de journaux anarchistes des années 1890 dont je voulais ajouter des articles sur Wikisource sauf que les articles étaient écrits sans signature ou sans pseudonyme, pour éviter la répression. Cette personne m'a dit que c'était parfait si c'était anonyme+70 ans et je me suis agréablement étonné de ça, et ensuite ça a dévié sur des publications plus récentes, et au fil de la discussion la personne m'a dit que si vous leviez vous mêmes les droits de vos oeuvres, vous pouviez les uploader. Donc après ça, j'ai contacté les personnes qui sont les principales éditrices du projet ; et franchement c'est un petit groupe et comme dans beaucoup c'est souvent un faible nombre de personnes qui organisent tout, tu vois. En mode moi je connais en plus comment ça s'est organisé, on était ensemble, et c'est genre nous qui poussions pour avoir des articles, des dessins, etc ; nous qui avons demandé aux gens de mettre un pseudo pour qu'on puisse signer chaque production tu vois. C'est pour ça que tous ces trucs sur les droits ça me semble risible, parce que je suis littéralement celui qui ait eu l'idée de marquer quand même les oeuvres avec les pseudonymes - et donc quand je dis que nous ne voulons pas de droits d'auteurs, fin bon, je suis concerné un peu je sais ce qu'il se passe dans le groupe qu'on organise quoi :') Enfin bon, donc j'ai envoyé une demande dans le groupe pour demander si ça leur allait qu'on l'uploade hier soir ; sachant que j'en avais déjà parlé depuis quelques années, mais j'avais zappé ou eu la flemme de le faire avant, et pour le coup c'est surtout avec ce nouveau compte que je publie des trucs sur Commons, pas trop avec l'ancien (AgisdeSparte), et les principales personnes qui font l'édition, la mise en page, et qui poussent vraiment le projet m'ont répondu que parfait et m'ont envoyé les documents en format numérique à uploader. Et donc, tout ça pour dire qu'à la fin, bah vu que j'ai commencé à travailler sur Wikisource sur ce compte aussi et que là bas j'ai appris ce que c'était que le format djvu, et en plus je ne savais pas qu'on pouvait passer les pages juste avec pdf, je pensais que c'était juste en mode djvu qu'on pouvait faire ça, bah je me suis dit que je le mettrais dans les deux formats. Mais s'il ne faut pas faire ça et en garder qu'un, mieux vaudrait peut être garder le djvu, parce que le format pdf sous le document y a une sorte d'alerte en mode tu peux te faire espionner ta race en l'ouvrant visiblement, et ça m'inspire pas des masses confiances. J'ai aussi coupé les pages après en ayant leur approbation pour le faire, et elles se sont demandé d'ailleurs s'il valait mieux le couper ou pas en deux ou garder l'original presse, mais finalement vu que je pouvais uploader un nouveau document après le premier, bah c'était pas mal car on a du coup les deux versions, la première postée qui est l'originale presse et la deuxième où les pages sont coupées de manière à ce que ça soit lisible sur ordi. Aristoxène (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Quelques screens de mes interactions d'hier soir qui montrent que bon ou bien je suis le plus gros faussaire de l'histoire pour uploader un truc un peu osef et je crée des faux screens, ou bien bon... (1)
Dans ce dernier vous voyez ma volonté qui sous-tendait l'ajout en djvu aussi, j'ai expliqué ça comme pouvant être lu en kindle pcq je crois que c'est le cas mais j'avais la flemme de tout lui expliquer à ce moment (je l'ai fait plus tard dans les screens suivants). (3)(4)(5)
Fin vous voyez bien soit je me casse la tête à falsifier des échanges ou quoi pour de la merde soit bon c'est peut être bien nous qui faisons ce fanzine :') Aristoxène (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Voilà quelle était ma conclusion avec Alien33 hier, dans notre discussion précédente, je la linke.(6) Aristoxène (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
D'ailleurs vous voyez que ma première phrase c'était de base 'I mean it's kinda assumed it's public domain', genre j'étais déjà en mode 'Bon c'est du domaine public mais au moins au bout de 70 ans ça sera ok public domaine, donc tant mieux ça sera au plus tôt officiellement' et ensuite il me dit que tu peux lever le truc officiellement. 'Fin genre c'est un fanzine anarchiste, la propriété c'est le vol c'est littéralement le slogan de base des anarchistes, on va pas mettre de la propriété privée dans nos bails genre... :') Aristoxène (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Long rants don't help your cause -- those who work here won't read them -- we are vastly understaffed with Admins -- there are more than 8,000 deletion requests open -- so we are careful with our time. This will not be restored without a free license from each of the contributors -- if that can't be obtained, so be it. There are many thousands of images that Commons would like to have that we cannot keep. In this case it is not even clear to me that we would like to have it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward All right, do as you want. Just to be clear about the time issue - I am a volunteer and not paid either: I’ve spent far more time trying to explain, justify, and offer concrete solutions than it probably took you to read this specific request — assuming you actually did since I don't understand your answer regarding that but whatever. So let’s not pretend I haven’t already invested a great deal of time here - a day in fact since I started yesterday at 20h and it's 17h today :) It’s frustrating to see my arguments brushed aside without real engagement, especially when the proposed responses don’t seem to address the core issues or solutions. But fine, it’s clear a decision was made regardless of what I wrote, from the first answer in fact. So let’s move on. Short enough I hope, and see you another time. Do as you wish. Aristoxène (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
As if I didn't work here lol. 'Those who work here'. This striked me as very haughty. As if I didn't add dozens of images and media and works on Commons myself. Ok maybe you did tens of thousands or hundred of thousands but I did help here at a small extent too, so I hope it was like a random comment. Aristoxène (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
But yes do as you feel best, sorry if I feel a bit rugous when I speak but it's just my way of being. Don't keep them if you feel it's not deserved, keep them if you feel it is ; I mean I have 0 power, the admins are the only ones that can do that or not ; so like always it goes back to you, do as you feel Aristoxène (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
 Comment If we keep the DjVu version, I don't see any reason not to keep the PDF version. Yann (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
The same issues apply to the DjVu version -- is it in scope? and, whether the creators like it or not, it has a copyright and therefore we must have licenses from all the contributors or satisfactory evidence that each contributor licensed the work to the fanzine or was a worker for hire. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
May be, but it is not deleted, nor nominated for deletion. Yann (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Could you please nominate the DjVu file for deletion if you believe it should not be on Commons? So we can take a joint decision for both files. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: Bundled to DR so we can close out this thread and reach a common decision for the two files. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)


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

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

I'm trying to request permission for the usage of these two logos on Wikimedia Commons, I'm following this Wikipedia guideline.

I'm at the point where I have successfully contacted the copyright holder via email, using one of these example letters and they have replied that they are willing to release the logos under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license by reaching out to the Volunteer Response Team using COM:CONSENT.

To facilitate this process, I would like to request the temporary undeletion of the two files for a period of one month. This would allow the copyright holder to clearly identify the specific files they wish to release and include them in their message. It would also allow me to add the {{Permission pending}} template to each file’s description, in accordance to the WP guideline I mentioned at the beginning. It's moon (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

" Oppose No need to undelete in order to dend the permission. They may include file copies with the email, if in doubt. Ankry (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It's about being clear and transparent with them about what they are releasing. Sure they could just blindly trust me but it wouldn't be ideal imo. Additionally, I don't have a copy of the optimized SVGs I uploaded for they to attach it to their email. It's moon (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
If a month is too long I would like to request undeletion for 24h so I can download the SVGs and forward them to the copyright holder, who will include them in their VRT email for identification.
However I’d like to stress that this would be extremely much simpler if the copyright holder could just include the Commons file URLs. This is standard procedure per the relevant guideline.
According to the guideline, the copyright holder needs to add the following info in their VRT email:
  • The original request and confirmation answer.
  • The source Internet URL and the Wikimedia link for the image or article.
Since this helps the VRT team verify the materials, as well as facilitating a smooth process to both the copyright holder and myself, I would like to kindly ask you to please reconsider my original request. It's moon (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion -- 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) 12:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Astronomica splash pad.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The url for the source is literally the uploader's post on Twitter. Opening the post and then opening the image in a new tab leads to the cited source url. Elisfkc (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

But there is no Creative commons license on that page or any claim that the account belongs to a Wikimedia user? Thuresson (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
They have claimed it themselves on the file page. I am happy to submit via COM:VRTS proof that they are Bioreconstruct on Twitter and Bluesky, pending their permission for screenshot of chat on Bluesky. The pictures also appeared on Bluesky at the same time as Twitter. Elisfkc (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Email sent with screenshots of conversation Elisfkc (talk) 21:57, 10 May 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) 12:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Tibério Barbosa Nunes.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have every reason to infer the photo is in the public domain, as it was taken in a relatively small town with no regards for copyright protection, potentially over 60 to 70 years ago. ScramblesEggs (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Almost all works, including these, have a copyright from the moment of creation until it expires. 60 to 70 years is a short time in copyright. Brazil protects anonymous works for 70 years after first publication. You have offered no proof that these have ever been published, but even if they had been published 70 years ago, they would be out of Brazilian copyright next January and USA copyright on 1/1/2051. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
They were never properly published in a way that would require or warrant copyright protection, they were only available as physical copies until a while ago when some people decided to scan them and post them on the internet. The first one I got off of Instagram and the second one I found in an old blog post about the aforementioned small town.
Here are the links if it helps:
https://www.instagram.com/hospitaltiberionunes/p/CxWNmDLRhp7/
https://portaldefloriano.blogspot.com/2007/07/reuniao-politica_05.html OvoMesclado (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Again, as I said above, almost all created works, including these, have a copyright from the moment of creation until it expires. If they have not been published until recently then the copyright term begins with that first publication. In other words, copyright protection is automatic and requires or warrants nothing, it just happens. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
@ScramblesEggs and Jameslwoodward: {{PD-Brazil-Photo}} could be applicable here, but we will need more information on the details of publication. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
There are no details of publication because they were never published in the first place, they have no formal copyright protection. No one ever went and properly "published" these pictures anywhere. One could assume there is a degree of copyright to be infered here, but given the cultural environment and the time in which the pictures were taken it would be reasonable to say the authors/photographers never had any intentions of protecting the "ownership" of these images. OvoMesclado (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Actually, it is better if they were published (in the US sense). Given that the subject died in 1974 (meaning that any photo of them must have been created before then), the photos are probably PD in Brazil either way as long as they are not considered an artistic creation. If they were published without complying with US copyright formalities, then they are PD in the US as well, but if they were never published, then they are probably still copyrighted in the US. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Does it matter whether they are public domain in the US? They were taken in Brazil so wouldn't the brazilian copyright status be the one to worry about? OvoMesclado (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
It would be good if you read the rules before you do anything more here, see COM:L. All images on Commons must be freely licensed or PD in both their country of origin and the United States.
Note to all -- User:ScramblesEggs does not exist. The signature at the top of this is false. The name was created by OvoMesclado for unknown reasons, probably to conceal the fact that the requester here is also the uploader..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
It's not a false signature, I just changed my username. OvoMesclado (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Aha -- so I see. Nonetheless, changing your name in the middle of a discussion is misleading at best. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Claudia Carpentier portrait.jpg

Hello, I would like to request undeletion of this file.

The file File:Claudia Carpentier portrait.jpg was deleted, but I believe it meets the Commons licensing criteria. I am the subject of the photograph and have the right to release it under the correct license. I am also the copyright holder or have permission from the copyright holder to upload the image under a free license (e.g., CC BY-SA 4.0).

Please let me know if additional permissions or verification are required. I'm happy to provide them.

Thank you for your time and help.

Thewisebaghera (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose At upload you claimed that you are the author (photographer). This is not a selfie. We cannot rely on statements by people who provide false or incorrect information.
If you have a copyright transfer contract or another contract that allows you to relicense the photo, provide its copy via email together with a written free license permission as described in VRT. Ankry (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
 Comment @Ankry: Have you considered the possibility that the uploader used a self-timer? It's moon (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Feel free to provide an evidence that she did. I am also the copyright holder or have permission from the copyright holder rather raise doubts in this matter than resolve them. Ankry (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The image has been uploaded twice. The first upload had "Author=Major Models Agency". The second claims {{Own}}. The conflict can be resolved only by the actual photographer sending a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim and Ankry. --Yann (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

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

(File:Poster phim Duyên.jpg)

Yêu cầu khôi phục tập tin

Kính gửi ban quản trị Wikimedia Commons,

Tôi xin được gửi yêu cầu khôi phục lại tập hình ảnh đã bị xóa. Tôi là người sở hữu hợp pháp của tập tin này và có đầy đủ bằng chứng để chứng minh quyền sở hữu cũng như quyền cấp phép sử dụng theo đúng điều khoản Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Tôi sẽ cung cấp:

+ Bản gốc của tập tin

+ Tài liệu/bằng chứng chứng minh tôi là tác giả hoặc có quyền sử dụng. Giấy phép kinh doanh của công ty TNHH DV MIA

+ Xác nhận rõ ràng rằng tôi đồng ý phát hành tập tin theo giấy phép CC BY-SA 4.0

Rất mong tập tin được xem xét khôi phục để tiếp tục phục vụ cho mục đích chia sẻ tri thức cộng đồng. Trân trọng cảm ơn!

Ngày 13/5/2025 Ký tên: MIA FILM CRUSH (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, usually the producer, provide a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Ким Сон Хо съемки фото для профиля.jpg

I was confused how to add right link to right youtube video so first I uploaded video then added right link Илона И (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The YouTube video is marked "Copyrightⓒfantagio. All right reserved." and doe not have a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:On a happy place.jpg

File:On a happy place.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardo Antonio Gonçalves (talk • contribs) 19:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Procedural close; this image has never been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Djurovic Djordjije AsFerrari.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: per ticket:2025051310002159 Nemoralis (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Nemoralis: , please update permission. --Abzeronow (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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

8 of 9 files deleted, 3 modular hospitals inaugurated with participation of President Ilham Aliyev and first lady Mehriban Aliyeva 29.jpg

8 of 9 files were deleted without valid reason, and without closing the case. Requesting undeletion of 27 29 30 31 due to obvious lack of valid reason for deletion. A container house is NOT an architectural work eligible for (C). Taylor 49 (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Support if not a creative structure, then it may be eligible for {{PD-structure|AZE}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
 Support peer Ankry. AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion, not copyrightable. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Comment @User:Abzeronow: 29 is undeleted. What about 27, 30, 31? I do not request undeletion of the remaining 4 ones that probably do violate FOP policies. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
29 was the only one linked. I could wait to see if 27, 30, 31 have the same consensus. Abzeronow (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
 Comment 27, 30, 31 are proposed for undeletion for very same reason "A container house is NOT an architectural work eligible for (C)". Taylor 49 (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
@Taylor 49: The discussion was about one file that was linked and it is closed. If you wish more files to be undeleted, link them in an appropriate DR. Ankry (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
More files undeleted. There can't be a copyright on simple structures like File:3 modular hospitals inaugurated with participation of President Ilham Aliyev and first lady Mehriban Aliyeva 30.jpg. Yann (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

PLEASE LEAVE THE IMAGES ITS TO EDUCATE THEM WHAT WE LOOK LIKE IN CONGO — Preceding unsigned comment added by MONARCHY OF CONGO NANCY MPANZU (talk • contribs) 18:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose You have three deleted images:

The first comes from

https://uk.pinterest.com/pin/780107966681955664/

where there is no free license. The other two both contain the first. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Hydrogen bomb drawing

Should be File:Hydrogen Bomb Drawing.jpg

This is Dustin and I was just thinking wouldn't it be better to have this resolved so we can use the damn thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnomadnormand (talk • contribs) 06:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a crumpled, torn piece of notebook paper with a more or less illegible sketch. Useless -- way out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done out of COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:tpg-logo.jpg

I have granted permission from the creator of this work to publish and share it.--Tpg-telecom1 (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)KN 14/05/2025

@Tpg-telecom1: The appropriate procedure to grant free license permissions is described here. Ankry (talk) 14:25, 14 May 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) 18:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Logo_of_JTI_Madarganj.png

This is the correct logo of Jamalpur Textile Institute. The logos of all textile institutes in Bangladesh are almost the same (only the inner text changes). And this logo is very useful for opening the Jamalpur Textile Institute page. So I have uploaded the logo earlier. * Finally, I humbly request Mr. to restore the logo. Rahmat Rumon (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rahmat Rumon: If you are the designer and copyright holder of this logo as you claimed at upload, please provide an evidence using VRT. Providing false or incorrect information, especially about authorship or copyright is seriuos violation of Commone policy. Ankry (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
 Comment User blocked twice for copyright violations. Yann (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Regrettably, he doesn't get the point. 0x0a (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done User blocked, no respond can be expected. Ankry (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)


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

Multiple Files

Hello, I'm making contact in order to undelet the following files, all from articles I've written (Identification):

  • File:ZoharDvir.jpg - Written as reason for deletion: "No permission since 27 April 2025".
  • - Written as reason for deletion: "Copyright violation: cover-.artwork".
  • - Written as reason for deletion: "Copyright violation:".


Reasons for Request:

All 3 files were sent to me directly by the copyright owners - "The Hive Studio". It is possible that they havent' send a declaration of consent for all inquiries according to Wikipedia's demands. I've recently reminded them to do so, so you might get such an Email from them soon enough.

It is important to emphasis that I am not paid by The Hive or has any business relations with them. I do make contact with them regularlily for media approvals for some articles, and they're usually happy to send me the said media. However, writing of animation in general, and Israeli specifically, is a passion project of my own, and I do it in my spare time with no payment whatsoever.

בעל חי (talk) 16:17, 14 May 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) 18:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)


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

file:Konstantin_Rakhanov.webp

Автор подтверждает права по электронной почте. Смотрите тикет VRTS: 2025051410009043. {{Permission pending}} Я, [Раханов Константин Яковлевич], подтверждаю, что являюсь автором файла [7]. Я разрешаю его использование под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0). [14.05.2025]


https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD_%D0%AF%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/file:Konstantin_Rakhanov.webp

I, [Rakhanov Konstantin Yakovlevich], I confirm that I am the author of the file [8]. I allow its use under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 license (CC by-SA 4.0). [14.05.2025] 555demon555 (talk) 18:11, 14 May 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) 18:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Fatin Hasanat Naim.jpg

Please don't delete my picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatin Hasanat Naim (talk • contribs) 18:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Please answer in the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fatin Hasanat Naim.jpg. Appears out of scope. Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Image is the subject of a DR -- nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)


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

Files uploaded by Ahmed magdy 3295

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: per ticket:2025051010003163. They are probably duplicate files (reuploaded by author multiple times). See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:الإعلامية نهى درويش - العلمين الجديدة.jpg. Nemoralis (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done per VRT volunteer request. @Nemoralis: Please, add the permission template or request {{Speedy}}. Ankry (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:YM TUNKU INES NAJIHAH RADEN photo.jpg

I don't understand the reason for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by W1kiwritetoday (talk • contribs) 23:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

It is presumed that you do not own the copyright to this photo and that you wish to distribute it without permission from the copyright owner. Thuresson (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Procedural close: not an undeletion request. Ankry (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Leeds Knights Logo FINAL 300dpi RGB copy.png

I have permission from the team to use it on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8930Hockey (talk • contribs) 09:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Permission to use on Wikipedia only is not acceptable. Please ask a legal representative of the team to follow the instructions at Commons:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 09:57, 15 May 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) 13:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Tongjunyap99.jpg

This is a photo taken with my own mobile phone. It is the personal copyright of the photographer, so there is no need to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HadTis (talk • contribs) 12:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This has a Speedy tag as a personal photo from non-contributor. The requester here is a sock of the file's uploader. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Rainforest-Wild-Asia.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image. This image could be placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Rainforest Wild, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. KaiGoesMandai (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@KaiGoesMandai: This is unrelated to deletion reason. The reason is serious doubt whether you are the logo author as you claimed and whether you are its copyright holder who is authorized to grant a license. Providing false or incorrect information is serious violation of Commons policy. We cannot rely on any declaration by users who do so. Ankry (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
In that case, should the logos for the other parks in Mandai be deleted as well, namely Singapore Zoo logo 2021.svg, Night Safari logo 2021.svg, River Wonders logo 2021.svg, and Bird Paradise logo.svg? I am new, and apologize for being unfamiliar with how things work. KaiGoesMandai (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
First, note that pointing out that other problems may exist is never a reason to deal incorrectly with the problem at hand. Commons has more than 100 million images and my best guess is that at least a million of them should probably be deleted. As it happens, the four logos you mention are all kept on the English Wikipedia where they have Fair Use rationales. It would be good if both the subject logo and the four on WP:EN were all here on Commons. For that to happen an authorized representative of the copyright holder must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Yann (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Σπύρος και Μιμή Κυπριανού 1981.jpg

https://athena.cut.ac.cy/files/original/965ec3cf77e2e2c70c1acd57bee4ef3d57762af5.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPalates2001 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

We need a reason for undeletion. Abzeronow (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)


 Oppose User:SPalates2001 claimed that they were the actual photographer in the upload. Now they admit that the image was lifted from a web site. Making false claims on Commons can get you blocked from editing here.

The site from which the image was taken, and which SPalates2001 has cited above, has a CC-BY-NC-SA license. NC licenses are not permitted on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Перец.png

Hello there! I have to write media file deletion appeal. It shows logo of one of the Russian's TV channels: «Pepper». I changed to better one, but it has been deleted on the next day by Yann. I don't know, why did he deleted that logo, because «Pepper» stopped broadcasting in 2015 and it has been replaced by «Che». Also, people used that logo many times and they didn't have any problems with copyright. Write back. Best wishes, KirillkaKrokodilkaGoida.

Здравствуйте! Я вынужден писать апелляцию, т.к. картинку с логотипом телеканала «Перец» удалил некий Yann. Я решил поменять логотип с статье про этот канал на вариант получше, но менее, чем через сутки картинка была удалена. Я без понятия, почему так произошло, ведь «Перец» прекратил вещание ещё в 2015 году, уступив частоту телеканалу «Че». Также я видел многих людей, использующих этот логотип в своих видео про телеканал. Я не помню, чтобы у них возникали проблемы с АП. Жду ответ. Всего наилучшего, КириллкаКрокодилкаГойда. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirillkaKrokodilkaGoida (talk • contribs) 07:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Uploaded without a license template. Please ask the copyright owner to follow the instructions at Commons:VRT to show that he or she allows anybody to use this logo for any purpose. Thuresson (talk) 09:56, 15 May 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) 13:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Invisible Force-Between Heaven and Earth 2022 Kirishima Open Air Museum 01.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: permission confirmed in ticket:2025050110000281 (for the photograph and the depicted work). whym (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Whym: please correct the licensing. --Bedivere (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Apple iMac 4G (32871160027).jpg

This file was deleted because the contents of the screen are likely copyrighted, and a blurred version has replaced it. However, I believe that the contents of the screen in the original file fall under COM:DEMINIMIS, specifically criterion 4 in the guidelines section of that page. I think the blur makes the image look significantly worse, so I think it would be good to have the original file undeleted with a de minimis tag applied. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The screen in https://www.flickr.com/photos/winkelnkemper/32871160027/is not de minimis. It is the main focus point. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
The focal point of the photo is the Apple iMac G4, not the contents of the screen. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose There are 37 images in Category:IMac G4, many of them better than this one. All three of these are blurry overall, so that the keys are blank white -- a good image would have the keyboard sharply visible. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: Now OK. Undeleted by King of Hearts, screen blurred, license OK, in use. --Yann (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Arkarn2.jpg

This picture was wrongly nominated for deletion. It's a high-res one with full EXIF attached and was in no way copied from FB or Insta. 0x0a (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Weak oppose Due to unresolved issues in COM:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ผม เอง I do not think that we can rely on Own work declaration by this user. COM:AGF applies only to users who do not provide false or incorrect information. Ankry (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Not done, per above. All uploads from the user who contributed this photo has been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:蚌埠市司法局 关于规范出具律师事务所函的通知.jpg

As suggested in the title "Notice by Bengbu Municipal Bureau of Justice on Regulating the Issuance of Law Firm Letters", it is a {{PD-PRC-exempt}} work. I think I just forget to correct the template. 虹易 (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Discografia Halley Flamarion (CDs).jpg

Dear editors,

The file in question contains a picture of the albums released in CD format by the musician Halley Flamarion. He is my father and I have his permissions to represent his likeness on the internet. How to reinstate the file and prevent future deletions?

Yours truly, Shakaxd (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The copyright to album covers is generally owned by the production company, not the artist, but, in any event, the actual copyright holder(s) must send free license(s) using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Rolly 737-200.png

Здравствуйте, хотел обратить внимание что данный файл всего лишь рисунок из sketchbook необязательно его удалять. Если надо могу предъявить доказательство — скриншот Arbuz22222223 (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose We do not keep personal art from artists who are not notable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I require evidence in the form of a link. Arbuz22222223 (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
You are expected to know the rules here before you upload anything and it is not the job of other editors to educate you. However, since obviously you do not know the rules, I suggest you read Commons:Project scope where it says, among other things,
"Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose:
Artwork without obvious educational value, including non-educational artwork uploaded to showcase the artist's skills"
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll remember Arbuz22222223 (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Headshot of Justin Langan for the 2024-2025 Parliamentary Internship Program.jpg

File:Headshot of Justin Langan for the 2024-2025 Parliamentary Internship Program.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinrlangan (talk • contribs) 20:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Headshot of Justin Langan for the 2024-2025 Parliamentary Internship Program.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose Needs a free license from the actual photographer, Bernard Thibodeau. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson and Jim. --Abzeronow (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Trenostruzzo Turbo 3000.png

Hi there, Hi there. It would be nice to restore the images I uploaded that were deleted. Those files were related to the Italian Brainrot category I uploaded the files for (which were not created by me). Thanks! P.S., The same reason above also goes for File:Tric Trac Barabum.webp File:Brr Brr Tarflem.jpg and File:Slim frog.webp. Gilimaster28 (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  •  Comment The relevant category is Category:Italian brainrot memes. I think it could be worth establishing how many examples are appropriate for a meme which is: 1) clearly encyclopedic (w:Italian brainrot), meaning that at least a few of them are in COM:SCOPE; and 2) not based on a single copyrighted image (e.g. Polandball or AI-generated content like this), meaning that anyone could create such a meme and legally upload it to Commons, ergo there should be some limit on how many we accept. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
    • These files were already existing Italian brainrot files, not created solely for this site.Some like Trippi Troppi, Frigo Camelo, La Vaca Saturno Saturnita, Bobrito Bandito and more are very notable examples that warrant inclusion. Gilimaster28 (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
    • @King of Hearts: I have de facto been deleting some of these characters images I have deemed irrelevant (as a result of the social networks' algorithms I have sadly been immersed into knowing these). Another uploads of this user, such as Bri Bri Bicus Dicus.webp, have not been deleted because they seem to be popular and most likely in scope (using a simple Google search). These particular characters this user wants restored do not seem to be some of the main characters which would make them in scope. Not every "Italian Brainrot Wiki" character needs to have its image uploaded here by the same user. I  Oppose restoring these and will continue to keep the mentioned category with only relevant characters that could be in scope. Of course they can still come here and ask for their restoration. --Bedivere (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: no consensus to undelete. --Bedivere (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:A Minecraft Movie waarschuwing (2025).jpg

This file was deleted by Masur on May 16, 2025 at 3:53 (CEST). However, I thought this file was covered by {{FoP-Netherlands}} and {{De minimis}}. I know the image was in use at w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-05-01/Traffic report and in the Polish Wikipedia article w:pl:Steve (Minecraft), the latter of which I disagreed with, by the way, because the intention of the image was not to depict any of the Minecraft characters, because, after all, it was about text and the whole context of the Chicken jockey trend. That's why I deeply wonder why the image was removed. Can't this image be restored, but only under the correct license(s)? Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

FoP in the Netherlands doesn't cover temporary displays like this, and I disagree about it being de minimis. Abzeronow (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. Definitely not de minimis.  Oppose restoring. Bedivere (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. --Bedivere (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jFile:Gavin D’Costa.jpgpg

Hi so on May 5th I think it was I uploaded File:Gavin D’Costa.jpg to wikicommons and put the image with its relevant article.

When I uploaded it I selected the "Please choose why this work is free to share. Providing incorrect information may result in the deletion of your media."

Then I selected "I have permission to upload this work from my employer or the creator of this work"

To which it responded "I understand that if the email is not sent in the 30 days of the upload, this file will be deleted."


I had gotten permission from the owner to use the image, but he was traveling at the time and could not do the release generator right away. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator

Around May 15 he emailed me back saying he released it.

But I checked and then someone deleted the image only 2 days later.

So ideally I would like a few things:

1. To have this image restored. 2. To know is this a common occurrence among wikicommons image reviewers? I thought I did the right thing, by making sure that the email was sent only 10 days later. 3. Do I need to have the author resubmit the email now that the image is deleted?

Thanks please help.

--Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The VRT system does not work instantly -- there is always a backlog. You did everything correctly. 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) 13:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

@Historyguy1138: Actually, the VRT system did not work completely this time, since you did not add a license or add {{subst:PP}} to the file description page (and unfortunately, the upload instructions are not super obvious about this). Without the {{subst:PP}} tag, there is a grace period of only 7 days (and the grace period effectively drops to 0 days if someone finds evidence of prior publication on an external website without a free license). If you provide the VRT ticket ID, we can restore it to enjoy its full 30-day grace period. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
For future reference do I uncheck the box that says "same as caption" and then add {{Permission pending|year=2025|month=May|day=16}} to the subscription box?
"if someone finds evidence of prior publication on an external website without a free license"
I know that the owner allows a version of the photo on another website. But it is not the same one, and they do not own it, so maybe that was it.
" If you provide the VRT ticket ID, we can restore it to enjoy its full 30-day grace period." So just email the owner and ask them to send me the VRT Ticket? Is it a number or a link? Not sure if he saved it or not, I never saw what he saw on his screen? Will it still appear if the image was already deleted? If he did not save it, should I get him to start a new one? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
You can put {{subst:PP}} in "Any other information you want to include (optional)" on the last page of Upload Wizard. After sending the VRT email, he should get an automated reply containing the ticket ID, so there's no way he would lose it unless he deleted his emails. Regarding "evidence of prior publication on an external website without a free license" - I'm not saying it happened this time, but just advising you that it could happen in the future and such images are subject to immediate deletion unless there is some indication that VRT is forthcoming. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
" "Any other information you want to include (optional)" on the last page of Upload Wizard. After sending the VRT email, he should get an automated reply containing the ticket ID, so there's no way he would lose it unless he deleted his emails."
Gotcha I will ask him for that. So if I get this VRT ticket then (assuming everything checks out you can fully restore the image)?
"I'm not saying it happened this time, but just advising you that it could happen in the future and such images are subject to immediate deletion unless there is some indication that VRT is forthcoming" I see. So sometimes some new image reviewers don't see the VRT right away? Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, just get me the ticket number and I can restore it, either with a confirmed permission if it looks good right off the bat or {{Permission received}} if more information is required. Most new image reviewers do not have access to the VRT ticketing system, so unless a VRT tag is placed directly on the file description page, they would not be able to discover that an image has VRT pending. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Great thank you King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ I will email him and get back to you. He's in another time zone right now. But as soon as he sends me the code I will get back to you. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Here's the ticket number [Ticket#: 2025051710002553].

 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) 14:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Dolores Huerta Mural to undelete.jpg

File:Dolores Huerta Mural.jpg

I am requesting the restoration of File:Dolores Huerta Mural.jpg because the file was mistakenly deleted, as it complies with Wikimedia Commons’ licensing policies. It is freely licensed under Openverse. I kindly ask for a review of this request and restoration of the file if it meets the necessary guidelines.

Thank you for your time and consideration!--Nbleeker23 (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Clear copyvio https://openverse.org/image/2aca7341-500c-4774-899d-839f2fe37cbf?q=dolores+huerta&p=44 Licensed as CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 which is not acceptable for Commons. Additionally, we require the permission of the mural artist to host it. Abzeronow (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: copyvio. --Bedivere (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Mohammad Aqhib Musharraf (born 23 November 1999) is an Indian entrepreneur and the founder & CEO of Agri Loom Pvt. Ltd., a company focused on affordable agricultural implements. This photo was taken in 2025.webp

Photograph of Mohammad Aqhib Musharraf, Founder and CEO of Agri Loom Pvt. Ltd.

Provided by Agri Loom Pvt. Ltd. / Uploaded by the subject.

This image is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. You are free to share and adapt the image, provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are shared under the same license.

 Oppose Personal image by non contributor, self-promotion, etc. Yann (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. --Bedivere (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Scanty.jpg

This is because this file was directed retrieved from the Public instagram page of the subject in question.

Louis Allotey(Born A Geek), May 16,2025 - 21:18:00

Publicly available doesn't mean public domain or freely licensed. We need COM:VRT permission from the photographer. Abzeronow (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Abzeronow. --Bedivere (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Billard Balls Chart (Polandball).png

File:Billard Balls Chart (Polandball).png Just now realized that the file is within scope. COM:CENSOR applies here, an image being offensive does not warrant a deletion. The image realistically falls under Commons' project scope, since it follows COM:EDUSE by showing what people commonly use to represent ethnic groups in Polandball.

Examples of usages: [9] [10] [11] --Thegoofhere (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing how doing racial stereotype colors as billiard balls is educational. Abzeronow (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Most likely educational to people who use them. Thegoofhere (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose undeletion, and seriously, this user should stop uploading these useless Polandball images they've been creating. We already have several of them which are dubiously in scope, too. Bedivere (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion, also the various places they appear are copyrighted, so these are probably copyvios. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Miroje Jovanović 2025.jpg

This is my PERSONAL CERTIFICATE.

I am attorney Miroje Jovanović. In the photo I am providing, you can see FIFA representatives personally handing me the certificate during a ceremony on December 1st in Zurich, Switzerland. The certificate was issued to us in original form, whereas initially a screenshot of the certificate PDF file was uploaded to Commons. If this is not sufficient proof that I personally received the certificate, then I truly do not know what else I could possibly provide to prove that I completed the FIFA training for which the certificate was awarded. I demand that the certificate be urgently reinstated to where it was originally uploaded. This photo was taken by FIFA’s official photographer and was distributed publicly to all participants, including myself, with no usage restrictions. The same photo (and others from the same ceremony) were posted multiple times on LinkedIn and official FIFA channels without any copyright warnings. I am the person depicted in the photo, receiving a certificate issued in my name. I request this file be undeleted under the good-faith assumption of implied permission through broad, unrestricted distribution by the rights holder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalProp (talk • contribs) 01:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Not yet deleted. However, see COM:EVID and COM:VRT for our policy related to published photos. Ankry (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Now deleted:

First, the image is not as described. It shows only a single man behind several microphones. The source page has a clear copyright notice. The fact that the image has been distributed widely says nothing about its copyright status. In order for it to be kept on Commons, images must be either clearly PD or clearly freely licensed. Neither of those is the case here.
Second, the image is a personal image of a non-contributor, which we do not keep on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:大阪大谷大学（Osaka Otani University）01.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: permission confirmed in ticket:2025050810003293. whym (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Whym: please fix the licensing. --Bedivere (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:LulaLevy.jpg

I am the original author of File:LulaLevy.jpg. I uploaded it on April 12, 2025, but it was deleted on April 20 due to missing license. That was an omission on my part. I confirm that I took the photo myself and release it under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0). I kindly request undeletion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonterski (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Banfield: , who tagged this as not having a source. Thuresson (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
@Simonterski: The actual problem was not the license, by lack of camera metadata in EXIF. Can you upload the original photo version from your camera as an evidence of your authorship? We generall do not accept photos without EXIF metadata as Own work. Ankry (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
I  Strong oppose the last statement because in some countries or for some people it is necessary to remove the EXIF data for privacy and security  REAL 💬 ⬆   00:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
The deletion reason was for lack of license. I don't think we require EXIF, though it can help show that the uploader owns the copyright in case a file is previously published elsewhere on the internet (without EXIF). The real solution for that latter issue though is the COM:VRT process. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
 Support They have also uploaded File:LulaLevy2025.jpg, which is full-res with EXIF. Reverse image search turns up only https://x.com/radiolared/status/1918274219919495579, which postdates the Commons upload. For the deleted file, reverse image search turns up https://www.instagram.com/p/DIhc86NSxUT/?img_index=1 which again postdates Commons. Looking at the uploader's history, I see some Flickr transfers from 2019 being deleted for having an incompatible license, but it appears to be an honest mistake; never has the uploader been proven to have made a false claim of own work. Considering the balance of evidence, I think we can COM:AGF on the uploader's claims at face value. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per KoH. --Yann (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Kano Natsuo Sun Magazine.jpg

Photo was published in Taiyo magazine volume 3 issue 17 in 1897, per the Tokyo University Historiographical Institute Old Photograph database. It is thus PD-Japan-oldphoto. https://wwwap.hi.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ships/ -> 古写真データベース -> 加納夏雄
Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

deleted same day as upload per uploader request. Abzeronow (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, uploaded and deleted on 2019-01-10. [12] It was not the uploader's work, I think there is not much reason to offer (and maintain) a courtesy deletion, especially if someone else wants to keep it on Commons. But it might be easier for someone else to just re-upload it than undeleting it. whym (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
If this is useful somewhere, I see not reason not to deleted it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't mind re-uploading a new version. This is useful for the subject's wiki article, as it would be one of only two portrait photos of them, and this deleted one being of Kano's later years in his career (the other one of his younger years). Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Assyrian Horse Archer.jpg

I have no way of accessing the file so I don't really know what it depicts, but an old Hebrew Wikipedia page says it depicts a neo-Assyrian artwork. All artworks from antiquity are obviously in public domain (including 3D objects), so it seems the deletion request was baseless. פעמי-עליון (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two potential copyrights here -- own for the work of art, which, as you say, predates the concept of copyright, and one for the photograph. As noted at the DR, there is no evidence that the photo is PD. The source page is marked " © 2010-2025 XenForo Ltd. | © 2000-2025 CivFanatics " .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Pope Leo XIV's official portrait.jpg

I haven't received any notifications about the deletion or its reason. --Vladlen Sokolenko (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose File copied from the Internet without permission. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)  Oppose What do you think "(c) All Rights Reserved" on the source site and included in your upload means? I suggest you read COM:L before you make any more uploads. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Not done, notifying somebody is not a requirement for a speedy deletion. Thuresson (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Adriana von Franqué by Marco Krüger.jpg

A permission email from the photographer, Marco Krüger, has already been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, confirming that the file is released under CC BY-SA 4.0 and that user Azulcerulean had the right to upload it.

We kindly request undeleting the file the mail was checked.

Thank you! --Azulcerulean (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done by Krd with VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Carlos Donoso y sus muñecos.png

I spoke with both the photographer and his son at the time (the image is part of a family photo). The puppets were crafted by the same person who appears in the image, and he personally granted the usage rights. The logistics were somewhat complex, as it required explaining to the son (who uploaded the image to Commons on behalf of the author) how to do it properly and guiding him through the site's policies. This is a well-known individual who has a Wikipedia article. I strongly recommend the restoration of this image. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Wilfredor, in the case of o photo of an artwork, we need permission from both the artist and the photographer. Can you ask them both to send a permission to the support team, via permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? They can use Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator to create their permission mail. – Having received the proper permissions, the support team can successfully demand restauration. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in that time the person passed away Wilfredor (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
@Wilfredor, that is really sad. Are there heirs who can take over the baton? The son? Mussklprozz (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Es war derselbe Sohn, der das Foto gemacht und hochgeladen hat. Ich habe seit drei Jahren keinen Kontakt mehr zu ihm, da ich ihn nur speziell für dieses Foto kontaktiert habe. Es handelt sich um sehr bekannte Personen, die schwer erreichbar sind. Da er das Bild selbst unter der richtigen Lizenz hochgeladen hat, halte ich es für überflüssig und bürokratisch, ihn zusätzlich um eine schriftliche Bestätigung per E-Mail zu bitten Wilfredor (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
 Question en que año publicaron la fotografía?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Translation for English speaking admins: It was the same son who took the photo and uploaded it. I haven't had any contact with him for three years, as I only contacted him specifically for this photo. The people in question are very well known and difficult to reach. Since he uploaded the picture himself under the correct licence, I think it would be superfluous and bureaucratic to ask him for additional written confirmation by email. Mussklprozz (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Can some admin please temporarily undelete the image? I would like to check the file description and history. If I find it okay, i think we can accept Wilfredor's argument above. I would write an artwork template in connection with a heirs-license into the file description. --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: {{Temporarily undeleted}} Yann (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Mussklprozz/Yann, for taking on this case and I really appreciate it! 🙏 Just a quick heads-up, I noticed that the image had been deleted when I checked my restored version and saw that the source link was showing up in red. Wilfredor (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: I think @Krd: didn't see this discussion and accidentally deleted it. --Wilfredor (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Carlos Donoso, who is listed as the author of the photo, apparently died 16 April 2020. This photo was uploaded 27 April 2020. Permission is needed from the heirs of the artist (for their puppets) and from the photographer. --Bedivere (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Without a written permission this cannot be undeleted. See COM:VRT. --Bedivere (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Peter_Hilton_Signature.png

Good morning,

I was just wondering if it might be possible to request an undeletion of this file. Admittedly, I am still quite new to Wikipedia in the grand-scheme of things and am almost figuring things out as I go. I reviewed a comment on my talk page by User:Yann which indicated to me at the time that the copyright status wasn't clear and that further clarification was needed.

In response to this I believe I did make a slight amendment to the file(s) (see also File:Richard_Hilton_ Signature.png). However, I apologize if this wasn't sufficient, with this in mind I was wondering if the file could be undeleted so that I can rectify any errors that still persist to hopefully resolve and clear up any concerns regarding the lack of license/ copyright information?

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance with this.

--MilsMoose (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Comment For copyright on signatures, please see Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. Yann (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay thank you for sharing this. I apologize again for not checking that before uploading. MilsMoose (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Angulata do Sado - Registro de cache do hoax na Wikipédia.pdf

It's being used for hoax article register purposes in ptwiki here. Augustresende (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Bedivere: as the deleting admin.
@Augustresende: in order to consider it "used" you need to use a wikilink, not an external link. Otherwise, neither Commons users nor User:CommonsDelinker consider the file as used.  Support. Ankry (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I second Ankry (re. the "use"). Bedivere (talk) 07:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Listing as a bad article is not a use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Nicolò in un serale di Amici 2024.jpg

Gentili amministratori,

con la presente intendo richiedere il ripristino dell'immagine in oggetto, precedentemente cancellata. Di seguito elenco i motivi per cui ritengo che la cancellazione non fosse necessaria e che il file possa essere reintegrato nel rispetto delle linee guida di Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons:

Provenienza dell'immagine: La fotografia ritrae Nicolò Filippucci durante una puntata del serale del programma Amici di Maria De Filippi (2024). L'immagine è uno screenshot utilizzato a scopo informativo ed enciclopedico, esclusivamente per identificare il personaggio nel contesto della sua partecipazione televisiva.

Motivazione dell'uso: L'immagine era inserita nella voce enciclopedica relativa a Nicolò Filippucci per contestualizzare visivamente la sua partecipazione al programma, elemento centrale della sua notorietà.

Eccezione di utilizzo (fair use o equivalente): In progetti che ammettono l'uso legittimo o l'eccezione di panorama/cronaca, tale immagine rientrerebbe tra i contenuti ammessi, in quanto: - Non esiste un'alternativa libera equivalente; - L'immagine è utilizzata in bassa risoluzione; - L’uso è strettamente didascalico e non commerciale.

Eventuale permesso: Se necessario, sono disponibile a fornire un’autorizzazione da parte del titolare dei diritti (es. Mediaset o Fascino PGT), oppure si può aprire un ticket OTRS (ora VRTS) per regolarizzare la licenza.

Alla luce di quanto sopra, chiedo cortesemente che venga rivalutata la possibilità di ripristinare l'immagine, almeno nei limiti e con le restrizioni previste dalle policy del progetto (es. uso non libero su en.wiki).

Resto a disposizione per ulteriori chiarimenti o documentazione.

Cordiali saluti Micheleorlando78 (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Fair Use is not legally possible on Commons. In order to restore the image, the actual copyright holder, usually the producer, must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Titex (square).png

Image in question has featured a logo of Titex, factory established in 1978 in Titograd. I personally made that image after realizing there is no such image on internet, so, I went even further and made an article about it. Aforementioned Titex has ceased to exists as a factory and legal subject 30 years ago. The deleted image has been made in 1978. In case of it being protected by copyright law, I must inform you that Yugoslav copyright law for images is valid for 25 years after it was made so there is no backing behind taking it down. It is perfectly legal, free of copyright restrictions and my personal work. As a reference, I offer you to read (untranslated) article 84 which expains what I have just said. I request undeletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand Chronicler (talk • contribs) 21:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

 Info Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Yugoslavia has life + 50 years. Thuresson (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
This is neither a photograph nor a work of applied art. It's a logo, and as Thuresson said, this would have been life + 50 when created in 1978 so this would be under copyright. COM:Montenegro tells us that this would now be life + 70. There is no guidance on the Threshold of Originality (ToO) so it's presumed to be very low, and the soonest this would enter public domain in Montenegro is the late 2040s, perhaps longer. Abzeronow (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Founder Xepelin.jpg

La imagen fue tomada por el equipo de Xepelin con fines institucionales y de uso editorial. Se autorizó expresamente su uso bajo licencia Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) o Creative Commons Zero (CC0), conforme a las políticas de Wikimedia Commons. La foto será utilizada únicamente para identificar a Sebastián Kreis y se ocupará para la ficha de empresa de Xepelin en Wikipedia/Wikidata.

La imagen será utilizada únicamente para ilustrar la ficha de empresa de Xepelin en Wikipedia y Wikidata, y para identificar al CEO actual, Sebastián Kreis, en contexto enciclopédico.

No tiene fines promocionales ni publicitarios. Es una imagen relevante para el conocimiento público del director ejecutivo de una fintech con operaciones en Chile y México.

Agradezco la restauración de la imagen para propósitos educativos y enciclopédicos.

Mariferquijano (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The main deletion reason was unrelated to copyright. You need to prove that the image is in Wikimedia Commons scope, first. Eg. I see no accepted Wikipedia article that can use the photo. Promotion is not accepted here. Ankry (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:DrRaKhosravi.jpg

Hello Sir,

This photo is taken by myself and i used it in Dr Khosravi's website www.rakhosravi.ir, it is not copied from any other websites but some websites are used that photo by my permission and their drew their logo's on it!!! please be informed these photos are usually took by old camera and private camera which belongs to me and afterward scan physical photo and share it in many websites. Please undelete this file as soon as possible.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminhadi (talk • contribs) 04:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose When you uploaded the image, you said

|source=website
|author=i dont know

Now you say that you were the actual photographer. That makes it very hard to believe anything you say. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:DrRaKhosravi2.jpg

Hello Sir,

This photo is taken by myself and i used it in Dr Khosravi's website www.rakhosravi.ir, it is not copied from any other websites but some websites are used that photo by my permission and their drew their logo's on it!!! please be informed these photos are usually took by old camera and private camera which belongs to me and afterward scan physical photo and share it in many websites. Please undelete this file as soon as possible.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminhadi (talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This looks like a copy of a halftone, not a scan of a photographic print. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Also probably out of scope. --Yann (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

DrRaKhosravi3.jpg

Hello Sir,

This photo is taken by myself and i took it in our house from Dr Khosravi, it is not copied from any othger websites but some websites are used that photo by my permission and their drew their logo's on it!!! Please undelete this file as soon as possible

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminhadi (talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

You mentioned
|source=website
|author=i dont know
so we can't allow it. Yann (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

DrRaKhosravi4.jpg

Hello Sir,

This photo is a banned which we created for his Dr Khosravi's Deat time!! it is not copied from any other websites but some websites are used that photo by my permission and their drew their logo's on it!!! Please undelete this file.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminhadi (talk • contribs) 09:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

You mentioned
|source=website
|author=i dont know
so we can't allow it. Yann (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:SalimSalimi.jpg

Hello Sir,

This photo is taken by richt.ir and i used it in for his death ceremony, It may share by some websites and their drew their logo's on it!!! Please undelete this file as soon as possible.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminhadi (talk • contribs) 04:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose In the upload, you said:

"|source=website
|author=i dont know"

Now you say something different. Which should we believe? In any event, it cannot be restored here without a free license from the actual photographer using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Bobo_&_Bibi_in_Miami_poster.jpg

I respectfully request undeletion of the file File:Bobo_&_Bibi_in_Miami_poster.jpg.

This poster is original work created by me. I am the director, producer, and designer of the short film Bobo & Bibi in Miami (2025), and I retain full copyright of the poster design. It was incorrectly assumed to be taken from IMDb; however, the reverse is true — IMDb has the poster because I submitted it as part of the film’s listing, not the other way around.

I am happy to reupload it with clearer licensing and author information if needed. This work is being published under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

Thank you for reviewing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liontreefilms (talk • contribs) 19:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Liontreefilms: Please, follow instructions at COM:VRT. Ankry (talk) 23:54, 18 May 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) 12:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Cotton.png

this mugshot is available online — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrotherWoow (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Available online doesn't mean public domain or freely licensed. File had a bogus PD-algorithm license and doesn't state a source other than Fox News or an author. Abzeronow (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Biloxi Skyline.jpg

The Biloxi Skyline is a free photo and it has no copyright restrictions whatsoever. iStock allows you to download photos for free. Therefore, this claim for deletion is declared unfounded. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo218 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose @Jimbo218, nothing can be acted upon since the file is obviously not suitable for hosting here. COM:Licensing requires content that can be freely used by anyone, not just free download. And against your unfounded claim that the image is licensed under commercial-type CC licensing that you claim, the image is under the standard iStock licensing which, as per their licensing page, is not permitted in unlimited advertising and product packaging uses (both requiring purchase of extended licensing). iStock's licensing arrangement is not compatible with COM:Licensing rules. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: iStock photos are not available under a compatible license. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)


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

Ticket message may not be sufficient to confirm permission file.

Hello moderators.

So I recently got my image restored provisionally King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ (thank you King (:), but I noticed it said "However, the message was not sufficient to confirm permission for this file. This may, among other reasons, be because there was no explicit release under a free license"

I am newer to that, but to get a free license. Do I just have the owner copy and fill in the release text in the link?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries

If he does that does he just send this text to "permissions-commonswikimedia.org (if you are releasing images, audio, or video)."

The original ticket number is [Ticket#: 2025051710002553]? But does the owner need to resubmit a https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator to link that email or not?

Thanks. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The file is not deleted, and I have replied on my talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:ПАЦКАН ВАЛЕРІЙ ВАСИЛЬОВИЧ VADIM CHUPRINA ©.jpg

Deleted as missing permission. Given the filename, uploaded by it's author Vadim Chuprina, a professional photographer. His works are usually have proper metadata, cf. File:Сергиенко, Леонид Григорьевич 2016 Vadim Chuprina.jpg. Please check if EXIF is present here. --Quick1984 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per req. --Bedivere (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz

I'm asking for a deletion review of files that I had deleted in October 2023. I had essentially felt that the interplay of colors had pushed it to a level that would have been copyrightable. Recently a few similar files to ones I had deleted were kept by User:Infrogmation, and I was essentially asked to reexamine my decision. I want to see if I had missed some reason why these would be too simple for copyright as User:IronGargoyle says since I'd like stay on the same page as my colleagues. Abzeronow (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

 Question Why would this place not being covered by Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Freedom of panorama? Yann (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
From what that page says, many commentators consider that subway stations are interior spaces and do not meet the requirement for FoP of being public streets, ways, or open spaces. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
OK, but that's weird. There is nothing more public than a subway station, in the common sense of the word. Yann (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but German law appears to treat them as indoor spaces @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Abzeronow (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
There is no exact definition in the actual law, and apparently there are no court decisions if places like train station halls and subway stations are “public” as required by the law. About half of legal commentators are in favor of it, half are against it (de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80). --Rosenzweig τ 08:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I think that when there are several possible interpretations of the law, we should use the most favorable for Commons. Yann (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
COM:PCP says something else IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
No, that's not what PCP says. We should not use PCP to be more royal than the king. If several legal commentators say that a work is OK, we should use that. Yann (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you know about this, but there has been a big discussion in the past about artwork and creative designs in subway stations in Germany. As a result, as far as I understood at the time, the precautionary principle was invoked, among other things. The decision should be to delete if the design is creative enough to be worth protecting. And this is exactly the question that arises at this subway station. Different administrators have decided differently. I think there should be a unified decision. Kind regards Lukas Beck (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
I won't go against the consensus, and I will let another admin decides, as if we can't use the FoP provision, I don't know if these are OK or not. But my opinion about interpretation of COM:PCP remains. Yann (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
To me, half of the commentators saying it's not allowed definitely meets the threshold for significant doubt but I'm not a lawyer. FoP would make this easier I'd agree. I also agree with Lukas that decisions like this should be unified if possible. (which is why I asked for a review). Abzeronow (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
@Abzeronow@Asclepias@L. Beck@Rosenzweig@Yann reading about "legal commentators" reminds me of the situation of COM:FOP Japan. In fact, there are mixed insights from lawyers and other legal commentators there. Several Japanese lawyers contend that commercial use is allowed under the Japanese Article 46 rule, while few others argue that buildings must be subject to the non-commercial restriction, based on the analogy that buildings with sufficient architectural properties must be treated as artworks. The prevailing majority of the legal commentators there agree that use of Japanese buildings in commercial photos are legal, under the Japanese FoP.
Roughly how many of the German legal commentators agree that German FoP covers subway architecture, and how many do not? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Of the ones named at de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80, 11 are against fop being applicable in such cases, and 7 are in favor if I counted correctly. So my initial quick estimate of half/half was apparently a bit off. --Rosenzweig τ 06:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Back to the original question about originality: As I see it, there's nothing very original about both the architecture and the coloring in this subway station. I'd say they are below COM:TOO Germany, which is higher than in other countries like the UK. I also think the coloring is below COM:TOO US, so I  Support undeletion. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the subtleties of German FoP, but I think it likely that the architectural detailing around the pillars is sufficiently creative to have a copyright in both Germany and the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: But per COM:FOP US, photos cannot be derivatives of architectural works in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 12:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
@Abzeronow@Asclepias@Jameslwoodward@L. Beck@Rosenzweig@Yann apparently, there is a legal advice Wikimedia Deutschland received from lawyer Philipp Hellwig, way back 2023. It might be of relevance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
It's about the applicability of FOP in subway stations in Germany. The conclusion (C. I.) is on page 5: Keine Geltung der Schrankenbestimmung, FOP is not applicable in such cases. C. II. also says photographers might violate house rules, though per Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum and interior photography, that is not the primary concern of Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 09:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
I remeber that some similar cases were kept, but I really don't know what the correct answer is here. I try to avoid these cases :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: A month and a half since the last comment. The lawyers count is 10 to 7 against FoP being applicable, so I think we have a PCP "significant doubt'. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Kloster Garnstock Gebetsecke.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Also

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kloster Garnstock Gebetsecke.jpg. The nominator mistakenly gave the link to the German FoP template here, but Category:Kloster Garnstock is located in Belgium, which has slightly-lenient FoP rule than Germany.

It appears it shows some work inside the church. Likely it is eligible; as per Romaine at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/12#Mini-Europe, FoP-Belgium was "based on how it is in the Netherlands". Per Romaine again here (with respect to the Dutch FoP rules in churches as per a government opinion), "if a church has opening hours and anyone can freely access and walk inside, it is a public place, if a church is only open with services then it is not." Kloster Garnstock is a Catholic monastery, and Catholic churches typically have set opening and closing hours, unlike a few Protestant churches which are only open to their congregations during worship hours. Therefore, this image file likely falls under {{FoP-Belgium}} and needs to be undeleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Per COM:FOP Belgium, “the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public.” If a Catholic church has opening and closing hours just like a museum, it would appear to not be permanently open to the public, just like a public museum. --Rosenzweig τ 10:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. These days there are very few buildings that are open to the public 24/7/365. Surely "permanently open to the public' should be read as "open to the public daily except major holidays" or something similar. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Even subway stations are closed at night these days (i.e. German case discussed above). Yann (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
"open to the public daily except major holidays" was obviously NOT what the Belgian FOP lawmakers intended if “the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums”. --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
@Geertivp: who could grant us some insight into Belgian FoP. Abzeronow (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Five weeks since the last comment.Monasteries are unlikely to as open to the public as museums. We know that museums are not allowed, so it follows the monasteries are even less so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)


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

Supposed duplicates

Túrelio deleted them by suggestion of OptimusPrimeBot. I asked him to show me the files, because I check what I upload and so many duplicates seem like not my mistake. He says that bot can not be mistaken, but I also know that I regularly get mistakes during uploading; I didn't pay too much attention, but maybe it is related. So I suggest that something happens during uploading -> problems with metadata -> problems with OptimusPrimeBot (I am sorry for 'something', I will pay more attention and will use phabricator after the next uploading). Please, take a look. Анастасия Львоваru/en 08:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I had the 1st file already undeleted, as an example. It is clearly a duplicate of the paired file. --Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I agree about the 1st. Did you recheck others? Анастасия Львоваru/en 12:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: All four now have redirects, so the duplicates are gone. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Speculative restoration of Siamosaurus suteethorni based on the tooth from Sao Khua Formation.png and File:Garudapfossil.jpg

Good to see User_talk:DinoThaiThai_Chatchy. The removal was unjustified. These images were deleted due to copyvio templates by User:shizhao. However, the website link provided as evidence of copyvio is invalid as it was added after the images were uploaded. First image was already used in 2022,[13] but the link shizhao proposed was from 2023.[14] Second image os uploaded in March 31st,[15] website they proposed is from April 3rd.[16] Therefore, I believe the removal of these images was unjustified and they can be reinstated. There is a testimony on the talk page from uploader DinoThaiThai Chatchy, but if more solid evidence is needed, should contact the uploader. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  •  Support evidence has been presented that the claims of prior upload were incorrect, and therefore the images should be reinstated unless proper evidence can be found that they are copyvios. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose restoration of the first image. There are two copyrights here -- one for the image and one for the sculpture/reconstruction. While we have a request which covers the first of these, there is no mention of the copyright for the sculpture. The file does not tell us where the sculpture is, so it is possible that Freedom of Panorama might apply, but that must be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Given that this was posted for a Thai competition and the site that was supposedly a copyvio was also Thai, FOP in Thailand would seem logical here. Abzeronow (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree that Thailand is probable, although not certain. Thai FoP requires that it was in public place when photographed, but permanent installation is not required. We need to know where this photograph was taken. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward permanence is required. According to @Paul 012 at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prince Dipangkorn Rasmijoti poster for mother's milk.jpg, the original Thai version included a Thai term which translates as "regularly", but "regularly" is missing from most unofficial translations like those held by WIPO. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
I'd rather support undeletion but opening up a regular deletion request on the basis of being suspected recent works of taxidermy/anthropological reconstructions, and DR history of Wikimedia Commons shows many of the more notable recent taxidermies are found in countries that either have no indoor FoP (e.g. Germany and Netherlands) or no FoP at all (whether complete or partial, like the United States or France); see this and this for the case of hominid reconstructions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Although most seems against first file, but what about second one? Siamosaurus have multiple images on Commons so hopefully fine without it, but fossil image of Garudapterus would be needed, so want to hear opinion. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
@Ta-tea-two-te-to we need to review the existing images on a case-to-case basis, to be sure that the images show either very old reconstructions or newer reconstructions that aren't creative enough to meet the COM:Threshold of originality. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 Hmm, you're not mistaken? The first file was an illustration. It was probably a work licensed by the uploader themselves or someone related to them. It was same time uploaded with File:Life restoration of Thaisaurus chonglakmanii in Chaiburi Formation.png, which shows "Own work". But anyway, I meant there are freely usable Siamosaurus images on Commons, as they were created by the uploaders themselves. Examples by User:PaleoGeekSquared:[17][18] However, File:Siamosaurus_suteethorni_sculpture_Phu_Wiang_Dinosaur_Museum.jpg and File:Siamosaurus_suteethorni_model.jpg may questionable as those are models in museum or somewhere. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
By the way, in what country is the reconstruction of the second file located? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
It was not reconstruction, it was the image of hand holding fossil holotype. According to talk page, this photograph is taken by Dr. Sita Manitkoom who described it, and uploader claims got permission. It is from a video that user related to uploader uploaded.[19] (5:04) This user appears to have a Facebook account in addition to YouTube,[20] but I managed to get in touch with them by commenting on YouTube. The website cited as evidence of copyright violation cites Commons link,[21] yet evidence that the images were copied from this site is contradictory. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
After comment in this video,[22] it is probably better to contact Facebook account to clarify about copyright of that photograph. Unfortunately I don't have Facebook account, so hope someone else better at Commons and have account can do. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can there is not actually any indication the Garudapterus image was a copyright violation, so I don't see why it shouldn't be restored unless anybody can bring anything else to the table. It'd be very appreciated to have back on the page. LittleLazyLass (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: for the first one -- no evidence of a free license for the sculpture. Second one restored -- this is the actual fossil so only the image copyright is an issue and that seems to be OK. User: LittleLazyLass could we have a category or two please. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Large_areolas_and_breasts_of_a_woman.jpg undeletion

copyright claim is false by wutjse as he has provided no proof. upload date on the web is later than date of image and original image is not uploaded.

TheEPYCKid (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

It does not matter what you feel of the situation, you may not re-upload deleted material, as you did with File:Naked large areolas and tits of an indian woman.jpg. At best you're trying to circumvent deletion, at worst you look like a sockpuppet of User:Zarcpod. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
@TheEPYCKid: Why do you think that the photo is in COM:SCOPE ? Ankry (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2.jpg

Hi, I request the undeletion of Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2.jpg. I am the sole copyright owner of the image. I clicked it on my mobile phone in front of a cinema hall. The image has clearly written in black ink, '8th week' in Hindi. It is not available anywhere on the internet. It was deleted without giving me any chance of clarification or reason. Please reinstate the image.

Bonadart (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two copyrights here -- one for the image and one for the poster. While you have granted a free license for the image, in order to keep it, we must have a free license from the poster's copyright owner. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Various flags

These files were originally uploaded by a user who did not provide a source, then deleted as fiction/vandalism in a mass deletion of unverified files. I will add the sources myself after they are restored. I want to restore some of them that are real and useful. I hope I do not have to write about each file individually.

"889 files"
* File:Flag of Alabaster, Alabama (2014-2022).svg

MikeTheFlagsFan (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose First, these were not uploaded by User:The Squirrel Conspiracy -- in fact, they were uploaded by many different users. Second, I have looked at some of these and find no resemblance between the flags shown and the seal of the body named. It seems extremely likely that they are all the product of the imagination of a number of editors and certainly should not be restored on the request of a brand new editor whose only contributions are this and a similar request below. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Request by Nv7801's sock. Account blocked. --Yann (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)


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

Todd-Robinson-1-240x300.jpg Request Undeletion

This file was made public by the Department of State between 2021-25. This work is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. --Digby1116 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose File:Todd-Robinson-1-240x300.jpg contains a redirect to File:Todd D. Robinson, Assistant Secretary of State.jpg, which exists and is in use. The subject file is 240x300px. The file in use is 4466x5582px. I see no reason to restore a much smaller duplicate. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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

US flags

These files were originally uploaded by a user who did not provide a source, then deleted as fiction/vandalism in a mass deletion of unverified files. I will add the sources myself after they are restored. I want to restore some of them that are real and useful. I hope I do not have to write about each file individually.

74 Files
* File:Flag of St. Joseph County, Indiana.png

MikeTheFlagsFan (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose First, these were not uploaded by User:Bedivere -- in fact, they were uploaded by many different users. Second, I have looked at eight of these and find no resemblance between the flags shown and the seal of the body named. It seems extremely likely that they are all the product of the imagination of a number of editors and certainly should not be restored on the request of a brand new editor whose only contributions are this and a larger request above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Request by Nv7801's sock. Account blocked. --Yann (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)


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

US seals

These files were originally uploaded by a user who did not provide a source, then deleted as fiction/vandalism in a mass deletion of unverified files. I will add the sources myself after they are restored. I want to restore some of them that are real and useful. I hope I do not have to write about each file individually.

240E:465:4752:6D94:886C:96FF:FE0D:D63E 06:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The first of these bears no resemblance to the seal that appears on the county's web page. The second of these is a census designated area, part of Honolulu. Since it it not a city or other political division, it is very unlikely to have a seal. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Request by Nv7801's sock. IP blocked. --Yann (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Tienquanca.jpg - Sheet music file of Tien Quan Ca (Vietnamese national anthem)

Per two failed deletion nominations of the Vietnam anthem audio at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:National_Anthem_of_Vietnam.ogg, Law No. 07/2022/QH15, Amends to some articles of the law on intellectual property, Clause 2 of Article 7 was amended as follows: Organizations and individuals exercising intellectual property rights related to the National Flag, National Emblem, National Anthem of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam must not obstruct their use and dissemination, starting from 2023. Thus the Vietnamese anthem is now freely licensed. VTSGsRock (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

How this is related to declaration that {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} by Văn Cao related to this file is on this page? Ankry (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Hmm. Two issues here. First, this was under Vietnamese copyright on December 23, 1998, the URAA date. It is not clear that the 2023 law eliminates the US copyright. Second, this copy is messy and illegible in places. Surely, if we can keep a copy of the Vietnamese anthem, we can find a clean, sharp version and not this messy one -- it can be seen here .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose "Not obstruct their use and dissemination" can be achieved with a license that do not allow derivative work, eg. not a free license. Thuresson (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Best Bridal Makeup Services in Kokapet.jpg, File:Bridal Makeup Services in Kokapet.jpg

There are a whole 19 files in cat:Kokapet. Please undelete this files only if they show the culture of this village in India (I did not see them)  REAL 💬 ⬆   18:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Not with that huge watermark, these are out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination  REAL 💬 ⬆   18:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Tommy and Chuckie in "A Rugrats Chanukah".png

@Yann You deleted this file, but it was extracted from the freely licensed file File:A Rugrats Chanukah (Condensed Episode).webm. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per above. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Автопортрет Судаков Павел Фёдорович 1985г.jpg

ticket:2025051810003489 was accepted, but the user didn't mention the file's name in time. Анастасия Львоваru/en 18:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Lvova: Please update the ticket and file description once you are satisfied with the permission statement. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:JA2204 Pilatus B4-PC11AF Itakura Gliderport by SuzukiS 赤B.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: permission confirmed in ticket:2025041010003781. whym (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done, @Whym please add the ticket to the files. Thank you. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 17:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Claude Poperen.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2025051210003623. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done @Mussklprozz Gbawden (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Record 2023.svg

Apparently, the result of discussion regarding the deletion of (File:Record 2023.svg) in November 2023 was flawed (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Record 2023 with wordmark.png which also nominated an SVG). Brazil has very high threshold of originality per COM:TOO Brazil, and i'm sure the logo falls below TOO in the country. The DR sadly didn't mentioned how higher TOO does in Brazil. So, I suggested that the SVG file to be undeleted and place COM:TOO Brazil notice in file description (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Record News 2023.svg for similar outcome). Please note that the SVG file mentioned is 2D version, not more complex 3D one (which is PNG). --Yayan550 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know enough about ToO Brazil to comment about it. Someone familiar with it should add a variety of examples of acceptable works at COM:TOO Brazil, as the text description is not nearly as easy to use as examples. See COM:TOO US for good examples.

I note that it says there,

"Not OK .... Works from other countries which are above the threshold of originality of the United States but below the threshold of originality of the source country (Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc.)"

That seems to apply here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Stalled. Quite a complex logo, no evidence that it is in the public domain. --Yann (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Telejurnal (2022).svg

Hello, please restore the Telejurnal logo. This logo is a wordmark and is ineligible due to copyright (below the too in Romania, the TOO in Romania is unknown but is below the too in the USA, meaning it is fine in the USA according to the COM:Copyright rules).According in YouTube minute 10:13 I see a logo wordmark (title:TVR Telejurnal Intro History since 1966) (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OJhiaHSaJO4&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD) (Google translator). AbchyZa22 10:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Liberal Democrat Autumn Conference 2024 Rally, Ed Davey Speaking on Stage.jpg

The subject of the image is not four copyrighted screens, it is instead a stage with the Leader of the Liberal Democrats Ed Davey standing on it. The screen on the centre-left of the image is not a focus of the image, and as shown previously via images of people speaking with a screen behind them on the commons, is not a copyrighted screen. As I am the photographer of the file and I am the one who uploaded it, removal on the grounds of copyright under COM:DW is therefore not met, as the image is not a photograph of an original work, but is instead a photograph of a speech from the audience directly, not a replication or interpretation of the screens to the side of the stage. ~ CIN I&II (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The subject, center stage, is virtually unidentifiable. The screen to the left shows him much better. The test of de minimis is whether an ordinary observer would notice if the offending item were removed. This obviously does not pass that test. The image could be cropped to eliminate the four screens, but what remained would be a useless image of an unidentifiable person. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The subject of the image is the event and the stage. This image is not just existing to show the screen, otherwise it would be centred on the screen and focused on it. It is instead showing the stage very closely. Also there are 3 screens at the best I can count and the point isn't to show Ed Davey, it's to show the event, the rally. This was only ever used on one article, an article about the conference that it was taken at. ~ CIN I&II (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Sorry -- I counted the center screen as two, but on closer look I see that it is one. Again, as I said above, it is completely clear that you could not eliminate the screens without radically changing the image, so they clearly fail the de minimis test. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Kid Soul.jpg

Dieses Bild kann gerne bestehen bleiben. Ich möchte darum bitten, den Löschantrag zu beenden. Ursprünglich hatte ich den Antrag gestellt, weil ich das Bild neu hochladen wollte – aber ich habe mich nun dagegen entschieden und lasse es so, wie es ist. Vielen Dank! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidsoulmusik 91 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

"This image is welcome to remain. I would like to request that the deletion be terminated. I originally submitted the request because I wanted to reupload the image, but I've now decided against it and will leave it as it is. Thank you!" (Google translation)

 Oppose I'm not sure what is meant by this, but the image was deleted as a personal photo of a non-contributor and I see no reason to reverse that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:TewodrosIIaiportrait.png

Please undelete the file as it is not a personal photo and it is of educational value. The file is a photorealistic portrait of the Ethiopian ruler Tewodros II, based on historical descriptions of him, that gives the public an idea of what he might have looked like in real life. There is no other media image of Tewodros II that is photorealistic, so this image has unique educational value. It is valuable for users of Wikimedia to have accurate images of historical figures, including Tewodros II.

Wikimedia commons already contains AI-generated portraits, such as this portrait of a mythological figure: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salailen_(alias_Salailel_or_Soraren_or_Sorarel_or_Atiya_or_Atinga_or_Atingkok)_%E2%80%94_Supreme_Being_%E2%80%94_Heavenly_Emperor_%E2%80%94_Father_Sky_%E2%80%94_Ruler_of_all_the_Gods_(Lainingthou)_%E2%80%94_Classical_Meitei_mythology_%26_religion_(Sanamahism).jpg

This file is of great educational value. Please undelete it. Thank you so much for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theclouds500skycapybara (talk • contribs) 20:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose AI portrait is misleading and not educational since it's not an accurate image of what Tewodros II looked. It would be better to have no portait than a completely invented one. Abzeronow (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose I note that Category:Tewodros II of Ethiopia contains a variety of images of the subject. We have no need of AI imagination in this case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Paulina Stulin Mindestens eine Sekunde-Cover.jpg

Also:

I am Paulina Stulin, the creator and copyright holder of this image. I personally uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons and released it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

I have sent a permission email confirming this, including a list of all affected files, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

Papierspiegel (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Not deleted -- nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Paulina Stulin Ausstellungsposter.jpg

Also:

I am Paulina Stulin, the creator and copyright holder of this image. I personally uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons and released it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

I have sent a permission email confirming this, including a list of all affected files, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

Papierspiegel (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I note that both image names above are incorrect:

are the only two deleted images for this editor. . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 23 May 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) 14:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Timeline of Solar System Exploration.jpg

Hi everyone,

I collected the permission from the original creator before uploading. In the course of uploading I asked them if they could enter a direct permission. They said they would do that, but it seems they didnt. As far as I understand the person has a 30 day period to do so, so I dont know why it was taken down so quickly and ask to reinstate and give the person the possibility to do so, also because otherwise the creator thinks its not uploaded anyway anymore.

Additionally I would argue that I can proove that they gave me the permission and through that proof reinstate the image. I just dont know how to enter that proof here or reframe the delted inage so that my form of proof is reflected in the image permission.

I would be very greatful for any assistance, last but not least because the creator was very happy to see it shared on the commons and it being used.

As a starter I will provide a copy of the passage of my conversation with the creator in which they give me permission. Here the reddit conversation ( https://www.reddit.com/message/messages/2o0e6wt ):


"[–]to Ray_smit sent 17 days ago

Hi there I am an Wikipedia editor and wanted to ask if I could upload your infographic onto Wikimedia Commons under one of their licenses of Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en .

Of course you could also upload.

I think it would be a great contribution to articles like: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Solar_System_exploration

Infographic in question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Infographics/comments/15sga2w/oc_this_is_a_space_exploration_history_poster_i/?rdt=34708

Me on Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nsae_Comp

Yours sincerely, Nsae Comp

Permalink

[–]from Ray_smit sent 16 days ago

Hi there. Thank you for the request, I had a look through the Creative Commons license and your Wikimedia. You are welcome to upload it, I’d be honoured.

Permalink

[–]to Ray_smit sent 15 days ago

Hi,

greate to hear from you and awesome that it can be uploaded.

I uploaded it now here:

Permalink

[–]to Ray_smit sent 15 days ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Timeline_of_Solar_System_Exploration.jpg

But it seems that you would need to confirm within 30 days that you have given the permission, otherwise it will be taken off the Xommons again. Here is the form to do so: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator

I added it now also at the article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Solar_System_exploration

Thank you for allowing the upload and for making and sharing your work.

Yours, excitedly, Alex

Permalink

[...]"

I am looking forward hearing from you! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsae Comp (talk • contribs)

The simple way would have been to comment in a public place instead of private message..  REAL 💬 ⬆   19:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I did write the person now again privately, but you are right I will write publically as well and ask again. And/or there are other suggestions? Nsae Comp (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
Aha, well the reddit thread is closed, so I cant ask directly publically. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Fundamentally, the actual creator must send a free license using VRT. We do not accept licenses offered by the uploader because we have seen too many forgeries in the past. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Nsae Comp: In the future, please make sure to add {{subst:PP}} to the file description page to ensure that it receives a 30-day grace period. Without this tag, the grace period is only 7 days. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Зиновий Биртман.jpg

Фотограф разрешил использование фото File:Зиновий Биртман.jpg под свободной лицензией CC BY-SA 4.0 . Прошу восстановить фото, так как авторские права не были нарушены и все об оговорено с Евгением Матвеевым (под псевдонимом Крафт). Его письмо с разрешением на публикацию он отправлял на почту permissions-commons 12.03.2025 в 21:56 --Kristina Repina (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC) 23.05.2025

 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) 16:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Antrag zur Wiederherstellung von File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Administratoren,

im Frühjahr 2014 habe ich von einem Plakat des Kameradenkreises der Gebirgstruppe die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht kopiert und in die jeweiligen Artikel der Divisionen eingefügt. Dabei habe ich bei jedem Divisionsabzeichen fälschlicherweise (damals war ich Anfänger bei Wikipedia) als Urheber den Kameradenkreis angegeben.

In der Beschreibung aller Divisionsabzeichen muss es richtigerweise heißen: - Quelle: Archiv Kameradenkreis der Gebirgstruppe - Autor: unbekannt, da heute für alle Divisionen nicht mehr nachvollziehbar - Lizenz: Dieses Bild stellt das Wappen einer deutschen Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts dar. Nach § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG (Deutschland) sind amtliche Werke wie Wappen gemeinfrei. Zu beachten: Wappen sind allgemein unabhängig von ihrem urheberrechtlichen Status in ihrer Nutzung gesetzlich beschränkt. Ihre Verwendung unterliegt dem Namensrecht (§ 12 BGB), und den öffentlichen Körperschaften dienen sie darüber hinaus als Hoheitszeichen.

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung des File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg und auch die der übrigen 12 Gebirgsdivisionen, falls die auch schon gelöscht worden sind.

Mit Dank im Voraus für Ihr Verständnis und Ihre Bereitschaft helfen zu wollen -- Jost (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: I am the deleting admin. Jost, can you cite which statute or decree these patches are part of? (and I've discussed similar cases with Rosenzweig on my talk page.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: These patches were worne as an official part of the uniform. Each mountain division of the Wehrmacht have had their own patch. The patches were created by the staff of the division and were approved by the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH). I have read your dicussion with Rosenzweig. Jost (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
@JostGudelius: Ob die Bundeswehr oder ihre Untergliederungen wirklich Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, finde ich zumindest zweifelhaft. Müsste man evtl. mal bei de:WP:URF klären. Aber unabhängig davon sind auch Gemeindewappen usw. deshalb gemeinfreie amtliche Werke, weil sie mal in einer amtlichen Verlautbarung bekanntgemacht wurden. Die ZDv 37/10 hat bspw. diverse Verbandsabzeichen. Ist das hier auch so? Wenn ja, wann und wo? Oder hat das irgendjemand inoffiziell erstellt? --Rosenzweig τ 21:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig: Es handelt sich hier um die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht. Diese Abzeichen wurden wahrscheinlich von den Divisionen geschaffen und vom Kriegsministerium bzw. Oberkommando des Heeres genehmigt. Urheber und Genehmigungsprozess sind heute nicht mehr nachzuvollziehen. Ob Streitkräfte Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, kann ich nicht belegen - ich bin kein Jurist. Sie sind aber eine vom Staat beauftragte Organisation/Körperschaft mit einem Auftrag und klaren Rechtsrahmen, der mit der Verfassung / dem Grungesetz beginnt.Gruß --Jost (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig: Deine Frage bezüglich der ZDV 37/10, die diverse Verbandsabzeichen enthält, trifft den Nagel auf den Kopf. Diese Verbandsabzeichen werden bei allen Verbänden, die eines Artikels bei Wikipedia würdig sind, in der Info-Box ohne Probleme eingefügt. Das gleiche muss auch für die Verbandsabzeichen der Verbände der Wehrmacht gelten; sie haben von ihrer Entstehung und Genehmigung her das gleiche Procedere und den gleichen Status. Sie sind offizielle Abzeichen/Wappen einer deutschen Behörde/eines Verbandes der Wehrmacht und m.E. gemeinfrei. Ich bitte Dich, dies @Abzeronowzu erklären und darauf hinzuwirken, dass die Löschungen der Divisionsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht rückgängig gemacht bzw. unterlassen werden, damit wir uns in Zukunft diese Diskussionen ersparen. Dein Englisch ist weitaus besser als das meinige, bitte mach es. Ich werde inzwischen Quelle und Urheber in den Beschreibungen der Verbandsabzeichen bearbeiten/korrigieren. Gruß --Jost (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Ich übersetze das mal: Du weißt demnach nicht, ob besagte Grafik mal in irgendeiner Vorschrift bekanntgemacht o. ä. wurde. Du vermutest es nur. --Rosenzweig τ 18:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig:zunächst mal herzlichen Dank, dass Ihr weiter mit mir kommuniziert und versucht, mir zu helfen. Inzwischen habe ich heute nach heftiger Recherche folgende Aussagen und Quellen gefunden, die belegen, dass meine Vermutung (Erfahrung aus langjähriger Tätigkeit in den Streitkräften bei der Truppe, in Stäben und im Ministerium) durchaus richtig ist und auch bei Wikipedia und Commons bearbeitet wurde. Siehe:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Verbandsabzeichen_1._Gebirgs-Division.png in: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Insignia_of_the_Wehrmacht?uselang=deDivision.png?uselang=de.
Mützenedelweiß, Ärmelabzeichen und Verbandsabzeichen (für Fahrzeuge und Gerät) der 1. GebDiv wurden vom Oberkommando des Heeres mit Verfügung vom 2.Mai 1939 eingeführt; siehe in: Thomas Müller, Verheizt - Vergöttert - Verführt, Die deutsche Gebirgstruppe 1915- 1939, Veröffentlichung des Bayerischen Armeemuseums Band 16, 1. Auflage 2017, S. 68. Die Divisionsabzeichen/Truppenkennzeichen der Wehrmacht wurden vom OKH endgültig legitimiert mit Befehl Nr. 21 vom 16.Februar 1944 (OKH GenSt d H Org Abt II/31 180/44); siehe in: W. Fleischer, Truppenkennzeichen des deutschen Heeres und der Luftwaffe, Dörfler-Verlag 2002, ISBN 3895554448.
Ich meine, das reicht Ich bitte Dich und @Abzeronow, die Verbandsabzeichen der 1.GebDiv (Edelweiß) und der 3.GebDiv (Narvikschild) wiederherzustellen. Gruß --Jost (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Jost, Ich habe Ihre Aussagen über Google Translate gelesen. Da ich kein Deutsch spreche, habe ich mich auf Englisch verständigt. Aber ich werde bei Bedarf maschinelle Übersetzung verwenden. (via google translate) Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: I hope you can although translate my answer to @Rosenzweig. I think all doubts are now cleared up. Greetings --Jost (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Because there are potentially many more cases like these, I think we should get to the bottom of the matter. I've started a thread at de.wp's equivalent of the copyright village pump (at. de.wp because I feel more people who know German law will particpate there): de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Militärische Verbandsabzeichen Deutschlands. Hopefully a consensus can be reached there. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, Rosenzweig. I can use Firefox's beta translation feature on that page so I'll follow along as best I can (I won't post there since I know so very little German) Abzeronow (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
I'll reiterate something Rosenzweig said there here, there is no rush on this, if it is found by dewiki legal experts that these are lawfully in the public domain, I can restore them myself. These cannot be in the public domain as "anonymous works" because 1.) German copyright law for pre-1995 works and 2.) URAA if these were not seized by the Office of Alien Property Custodian. Abzeronow (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig: @JostGudelius: It's been 3 weeks since any comment at dewiki and this request has been stale. Since I am the deleting admin I don't want to close this request. But I'm not seeing any consensus there or here for me to reverse my deletion. Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: I'd be fine with closing this request here for now and open a new undeletion request if there is a positive result at de.wp. But Jost will have to decide. We've had undeletion requests that were open for months. --Rosenzweig τ 19:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Rosenzweig and Abzeronow, till now I don't get any answer by the Military Archive and I think they will not answer in future.
I don't understand why the divisional insignia of the mountain divisions are deleted, while hundreds, maybe thousands of insignia of troops around the world exist on Wikipedia.--Jost (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Jost, different countries have different laws. In my country (the United States), works by the federal government are public domain. For Russia and Ukraine, army emblems would fall under state symbols that are exempt from copyright. Germany appears to be more complicated, and I have a mandate to respect Germany's copyright laws. I don't wish for this to be remain deleted either, but unless I have a legal leg to stand on for it, I just cannot restore it now. Abzeronow (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Jost has opened a new request below so we may as well close this one. Abzeronow (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Not done, stale request, no consensus. Thuresson (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:VerbAbz3GebDivW.jpg

Das Bundesarchiv Abteilung Deutsches Reich hat mir mit E-mail vom 27. März 2025 auf meine Frage, welche Urheberrechte im Zusammenhang mit Verbandsabzeichen der Wehrmacht - hier Verbandsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht - folgenden Text geschrieben: "Die ehemalige deutsche Wehrmacht hat unserer Kenntnis nach keinen Rechtsnachfolger. Die durch sie erlassenen Vorschriften, Erlasse und Befehle sind mittlerweile Schriftgut des Bundesarchivs und unterliegen dem Bundesarchivgesetz. Personenbezogene oder zeitliche Schutzfristen bestehen für die Art Schriftgut nicht."

Da die Verbandsabzeichen nicht willkürlich verwendet werden konnten, sondern auf Grundlage übergeordneter Stäbe genehmigt und angeordnet wurden, bitte ich um Wiederherstellung der gelöschten Verbandsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht - 1.GD, 3.GD und 4. GD - unter der Lizenz "gemeinfrei". --Jost (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

This information could have been shared in the still opened but stalled UDR of this file. The Federal Republic of Germany is the legal successor of the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Regardless if Bundesarchiv feels Wehrmacht insignia are public domain, they should contact COM:VRT so this information is on file. Abzeronow (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
That actually says nothing about the copyright situation of the insignia. They're writing about "Schutzfristen", a kind of waiting period before archives can allow access to files to protect interests of people who might still be alive or died recently. So nothing to do with copyright. They probably didn't even understand the problem we have here. Which is understandable, because they are archivists, not jurists, and normally wouldn't bother with copyright at all. --Rosenzweig τ 18:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Agree with @Rosenzweig. From my perspective, the question is more about TOO. Gnom (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Not done, stale request, no consensus. Thuresson (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:ParisKiri.jpg

This image is mine {{OWN}} I certify that there are no copyright issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiri0907 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:ParisKiri.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose Also, given that this editor has uploaded four now-deleted images with "Kiri" in the file name, I suspect that this is a personal image of a non-contributor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Yousef samir personal headshot.jpg

Requesting undeletion of this file. I, the uploader (User:Yahsamirr), uploaded this headshot using the Upload Wizard on 18 May 2025, and clearly marked it as my own work.

The image was deleted under F10 ("Personal photos by non-contributors") by User:Aafi, but this deletion reason is factually incorrect — I am both the contributor and the subject of the image.

Deletion log: - Upload: 22:01, 18 May 2025 by Yahsamirr - Deletion: 18:01, 21 May 2025 by Aafi

I kindly request restoration of the file, or at least a fair explanation based on accurate interpretation of Wikimedia Commons policy.

Thank you. — Yahsamirr (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Yahsamirr: Why do you think that the image is in scope of Wikimedia Commons? Ankry (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
@Ankry: Hello ankry, thank you for your response.

This image is in scope of Wikimedia Commons because it depicts a notable individual (myself), whose name has been covered by multiple independent media outlets, including Youm7, El-Watan, Egyptian Streets, and Shorouk News. The photo was intended for use in a Wikidata entity representing the same person, and potentially in future Wikipedia articles if applicable. The image is: - My own work - Clearly marked with a compatible license at the time of upload - Educational in nature and appropriate for identification/documentation of a verifiable subject I believe this meets Commons’ scope under the guidelines for personal portraits of notable individuals for use in Wikimedia projects. Let me know if I can provide further clarification. — Yahsamirr (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Ankry: I see nothing in the image descrition that proves subject notability nor I can find an accepted Wikipediia article about Yousef Samir. Any hints? Which Wikipedia notability criteria are met? Ankry (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
If the appropriate Wikidata item is created and it is linked from other Wikidata items (or the item notability is proven in another way), the image may be undeleted. At the deletion time, the image was unused in Wikidata. Ankry (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
@Ankry:
I would be happy to provide media articles from multiple nationally recognized sources that confirm the notability of both the subject (myself) and the company (TapTag) on a national level.
I created structured Wikidata entries using two images — a personal headshot and a company logo — which were both deleted by User:Yahya under what I believe to be unjust and misapplied reasons.
I am currently in the process of appealing these deletions, but have been met with unwarranted hostility and vague accusations. For example, one file was deleted under the rationale of “personal photo by non-contributor” — despite the fact that I was both the uploader and the subject of the image.
Multiple speedy deletion tags have also been placed on nearly every file I upload, including the company logo, which was marked as “promotion” without a clear explanation or review.
I genuinely feel unable to respond effectively to these recurring actions, and I want to personally thank you for taking the time to evaluate this situation fairly.

-- Yahsamirr (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Then provide the links of media articles. You have been asserting there are but so far failed to provide any. This looks like just another self promotion crusade Bedivere (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Since Commons Admins have far more to do than the time to do it, we often write in shorthand. "personal photo by non-contributor" should be read as "a personal photo of a person who is not an active contributor". See Commons:Project_scope#User_pages. With 20 total edits on Commons, of which 6 have been deleted, you can hardly claim to be an active contributor.

I suggest that you return here when you have an accepted article on one of the Wikipedias about yourself or your company. Please remember that such articles must be written by independent third parties -- you cannot do it yourself or have it done by friends or paid writers.

Also note that the subject image appears on Crunchbase, which is not freely licensed, so the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer, must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Not your personal platform. --Bedivere (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:G20 2023 New Delhi summit, India took over presidency of g20.webp

I request undeletion of the file "G20 2023 New Delhi summit, India took over presidency of g20.webp".

The image was taken from an official Indian government or G20 2023 source (such as g20.org), and it is either in the public domain or released under a license that allows reuse.

The original deletion reason was "COM:SPEEDY", but I believe the file is eligible for hosting on Commons under {{PD-India-Gov}} or a similar rationale. Kindly review the file and restore it if appropriate.

Thank you. 8bhakt (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose "All rights reserved. Copyright © 2024." at g20.org. Thuresson (talk) 10:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose Please understand that when you upload an image here, you must state the correct source. Your comment above, "The image was taken from an official Indian government or G20 2023 source" does not meet that test. The G20 web site, which is apparently the source of the image, is, as Thuresson says, "All rights reserved. Copyright © 2024." I also note that when you uploaded the image you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Making false statements about authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules. It may lead to you being blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: copyrighted. --Bedivere (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Apu Bishwas (4).jpg

This image was deleted as a possible copyvio. However, the uploader is a professional photographer, so the image was likely taken by him. Kaim (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

 Support EXIF data consistent with other pictures by this user. Yann (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:NIE 1905 - title page.jpg

@Krd: It looks like you overlooked by withdrawl: Commons:Deletion requests/File:NIE 1905 - title page.jpg. Nosferattus (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per request. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Bluto and many other Thimble Theatre characters are already in the public domain due to the strips from late 1930-1936 and maybe upward not renewing their copyright: Commons:Character copyrights

Bluto's debut strip was not renewed in 1959 and 1960 same for Wimpy's in 1958 and 1959. Swee'Pea, Poopdeck Pappy and Eugene The Jeep same for Alice the Goon's debut strips also never renewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:e00:83f0:3cf9:5606:3cbd:15a2 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment This request probably concerns all files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bluto. Yann (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
@Infrogmation and Nosferattus: for deleting admin and nominator. Yann (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Signature (this is texted from a school computer): Zig-Zag. 63.81.59.162 13:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Whimpy and Bluto don't seem to be renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Prosfilaes. --Yann (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:F-35B Lightning II Completes First Land-based Ski Jump Launch 150619-D-AW822-318.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File was deleted because there were questions about whether Lockheed Martin had released the picture. Per previous deletion request on Commons:Deletion requests/File:An F-35 Lightning II completes a flyover of USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000). (29774535153).jpg, which is also an Andy Wolfe picture from Lockheed Martin, "All F-35 Lightning II photography and videography taken by contract photographers (Lockheed Martin, KBRwyle, etc.) in support of F-35 Lightning II flight test are official DoD imagery and in the public domain." VRT/OTRS ticket 2016101910017989 Elisfkc (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: Can you ask that your request is confirmed by a VRT volunteer with access to the ticket in the permission queue? Anyway, we need a valid free license template that cannot be {{PD-USGov}} for DoD contractors. Ankry (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
@Ankry Not sure how I get a VRT volunteer to confirm it, but ok. As for the template, whatever is decided also needs to be applied to all the images in Category:Photographs by Andy Wolfe & likely some of Category:Photographs by Lockheed Martin, as well as I'm sure others. Elisfkc (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Please ping me with a reminder, but I will try to look into this tomorrow regardless. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
@The Squirrel Conspiracy ping reminder Elisfkc (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: Corrected to PD-author and applied ORTS ticket. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Files found with foodmacha.tistory.com

And possibly these too if they are from the same source:

The files were deleted because of failed verification after this deletion request, but as you can see on the webpage archived version, there is a small CC-BY-4.0 icon at the bottom right next to the "like", "share" and "report" icons. --Chiyako92 (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, Tistory CC licenses are notoriously easy to miss. All 8 images list http://foodmacha.tistory.com/534 as the source. Weak  Support even though we can't find those images on the archive link, since the uploader seems trustworthy and they did everything right and it's not really their fault that nobody came around and reviewed it in 7 years. I think we can COM:AGF on the provenance of the images. The presence of a CC license, which is the more important thing, can be verified at the archive link. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per KoH. --Yann (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Dave-Kellett-holding-Payaso.tif

Permission was given after 7 days due to the copyright holder being in the Alaska wilderness and without internet access.

Sorry for the inconvenience; please let me know what information you may still need.

Thanks for your help!

--OneRayMichels (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Additional info from the email providing permission...
/////
sentto:
photosubmission@wikimedia.org
date:
May 22, 2025, 2:49 PM
subject:
release of content attached to this email
filename of attachment:
AuthorPicPage96.tif
/////
I thought that perhaps my filename was more informational; but I'm open to admin course-correction. Thanks! OneRayMichels (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I also realized that my timestamp is kind of useless without any timezone info, so here's from the original email header:
Thu, 22 May 2025 12:49:22 -0700 (PDT) OneRayMichels (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
VRT member here, please restore this photo per ticket:2025052210012238. Thanks! Nemoralis (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done @Nemoralis: please note that author attribution may need to be fixed. Ankry (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Alexander Slotty Sitzung 2024.jpg

Das Foto wurde durch den Rechteinhaber (Alexander Slotty) zur Verfügung gestellt. Daher beantrage ich die Wiederherstellung. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon2001 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Die Freigabe ist via COM:VRT#If you are NOT the copyright holder zu dokumentieren. DCB (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose A recent image with an unknown author cannot be kept on Commons. The unknown author holds the copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Paperboy Prince on Myrtle Avenue in Bushwick 2023.jpg

@P199: thanks for reviewing, you were the deleting admin

Permission in ticket:2025052510000227

Requesting here, because subject is a candidate in the current en:2025 New York City mayoral election

Disclosure, I collaborate with this person as they are a member of the wiki organizations Wikimedia LGBT+ and Wiki New York City. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This needs to be processed and verified by a VRT member, not here. Thuresson (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
@Thuresson, I am a VRT member, can you please restore it? Nemoralis (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
@Nemoralis: Done. Thuresson (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Kevin April 2025 portrait.jpg

Hello, I am Kevin April, the subject of the deleted photo File:Kevin April 2025 portrait.jpg. I am requesting undeletion of this file on the following grounds:

1. I am the subject of the photo. 2. I own the copyright to the image. It was taken by me (or with my full rights and consent). 3. I am willing to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

Please let me know if any further steps are required to restore the file and clarify its licensing. Thank you.

—Kevin April — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevapril (talk • contribs) 12:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Fitindia: en:Kevin April exists. Thuresson (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose When you uploaded the image, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Now you say "It was taken by me (or with my full rights and consent)." You apparently don't know who actually took the photograph, which makes it difficult to believe that you actually have the right to freely license the image.

Note that licenses from professional photographers usually cover on the subject's use of the image for publicity and very rarely allow the subject to freely license the image to others. In order for the image to be restored, either the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or you must send a free license together with the written license from the actual photographer that allows you to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jim. I took the photo myself - apologies that my statement was ambiguous. I will send the requested email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org confirming that I took the photo myself and am the copyright holder. Thank you for your guidance. Kevapril (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
 Info This image has no camera metadata in EXIF and looks like an AI-generated image that may make it out-of-scope for the Wikipedia article. Ankry (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Krd who accepted the ticket permission. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Alexander Slotty Panel.jpg

Foto wurde vom Rechteinhaber (Alexander Slotty) zur Verfügung gestellt. Daher bitte wiederherstellen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon2001 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose A recent image with an unknown author cannot be kept on Commons. The unknown author holds the copyright. Also, this image has two very prominent photographs which are also copyrighted. They must be blurred or removed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba.png

Hello!
This file was errantly deleted.
This file is public domain in Iraq, and public domain in America, as Iraq is a non-signatory to the Berne convention. The organization that this flag belongs to, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba is a militia that's apart of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), which is a branch of the Iraqi Armed Forces.
Article 6 of the Law No. 3 of 1971 on Copyright[23] states that "official documents such as texts of laws and regulations, international agreements, judicial rulings and other official documents" are not protected by copyright law. The phrase "other official documents" is intentionally open-ended and follows a legal construction called ejusdem generis, meaning "of the same kind." Courts interpreting similar laws read the list not as exhaustive but as illustrative. If laws and regulations are included, so too are government-issued orders, decrees, and public symbols created by or for state institutions, such as logos and flags representing military units. Law No. 40 of 2016 formally incorporates the PMF into the Iraqi Armed Forces. Therefore, insignia and flags of PMF brigades are official symbols of a branch of the Iraqi state. These emblems are used in state functions, military ceremonies, recruitment efforts, and internal publications, which unambiguously makes them, by definition and function, "official documents." This is not speculative, the insignia is state-issued, used in a government capacity, and falls within the legal exemptions of Iraq’s copyright law. The emblems and flags of PMF brigades are official state imagery, created under the authority of Iraq’s armed forces, and publicly disseminated as part of their official identity. As such, they meet the definition of "official documents"
--Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Article 6 refers to protecting collections; this logo is not a collection. 

Article 6
The following shall enjoy protection as long as they are distinguished by the character of originality, arrangement, choice or any other personal effort that deserves protection:
1. Collections that organized as several anthologies of poetry, prose, music and other collections, provided that there is no prejudice to the rights of the author of each work.
2. Collections of works that have been devolved to the public domain.
3. Collections of official documents such as texts of laws and regulations, international agreements, judicial rulings and other official documents.

Ankry (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 26 May 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 (3)

I would like to request undeletion of these two files, along with their associated file descriptions, per the discussion at VRTN. A license has already been received, read, and approved at VRT (Ticket:2025051510001978). It's moon (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This needs to be processed and verified by a VRT member, not here. Thuresson (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
This has already been processed and verified by @Mussklprozz: as you can read on the VRTN discussion I linked to, but VRT members cannot undelete files. It's moon (talk) 08:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Then, they need to make a request here. Ankry (talk) 11:15, 25 May 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) 15:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I've asked the VRT member who verified the license to provide their input here, so I would appreciate it if you could wait a couple of days before closing this. Also, what exactly do you mean by automatically? The license has already been approved, and yet this seems to be the antithesis of what automatically means. It's moon (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

By "automatically", I mean that it will happen without any further action on the uploader's part. Please remember that those of us who do the work here are all volunteers and have far more to do that we have time to do it. Things do not always happen immediately and snarky comments don't help. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Right, my bad. I was getting frustrated that I followed every step and it hasn't been suficient but it's not your fault. It's moon (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Peron1973 acepta.png

This photograph was nominated for deletion and deleted per the nominator's original claim "Photo published in the Argentine newspaper El Litoral in 1973. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (25 years after publication), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time".

However, as discussed here, the 25 years ppd protection minimum protection duration for photographic works required by Berne Convention, Article 7 (4) doesn't apply because the Law 25.140 promulgated in 1999 that implements the Paris Act of 1971 explicitly dismisses it in the Article 9. So, the correct expiration term for Argentine photographs is of 20 years since its first publication (only if first published in Argentina, obviously).

As published in El Litoral in 1973, then the copyright has expired in Argentina in 1994, so it was PD in its home country in 1996, so the US copyright was not restored as stated in the deletion claim. 83.61.242.133 13:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: {{PD-AR-Photo}} + PD-1996. Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Isabel Perón en Santiago Del Estero, 12 de Octubre en 1974.jpg

This photograph was nominated for deletion and deleted per the nominator's original claim "The image was scanned form an Argentine newspaper published in 1974. The image is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (25 years after publication), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time. Thus it is still copyrighted in the US. Following COM:PCP we cannot keep this image".

However, as discussed here, the 25 years ppd protection minimum protection duration for photographic works required by Berne Convention, Article 7 (4) doesn't apply because the Law 25.140 promulgated in 1999 that implements the Paris Act of 1971 explicitly dismisses it in the Article 9. So, the correct expiration term for Argentine photographs is of 20 years since its first publication (only if first published in Argentina, obviously).

As published in 1974, then the copyright has expired in Argentina in 1995, so it was PD in its home country in 1996, so the US copyright was not restored as stated in the deletion claim. 83.61.242.133 13:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The copyright was extended in the US because in 1996 the protection term in Argentina was 25 not 20 years. It could not have expired in 1995, as you state, as a result of a then non existent law Bedivere (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
The IP is saying that Argentinian law, as it was applicable in 1996, said that the protection term was 20 years. I think that the rationale of the IP might be incorrect or incomplete in their interpretation of the effect that article 9 of the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty, combined with the adhesion of Argentina in 2000 to the copyright articles of the Berne Convention, had after 1999 on the protection term. But the fact that the protection term was 20 years in 1996 seems correct. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
@Asclepias, that's not my rationale, but that obtained from this discussion opened by the same user who originally nominated File:Isabel Perón en Santiago Del Estero, 12 de Octubre en 1974.jpg for deletion, which claims that "the 25 years ppd protection required by Berne Convention doesn't apply because the Law 25.140 from 1999 that implements the Paris Act, that introduced the minimum protection for photographs, explicitly states it doesn't follow such clause."
That discussion cited Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Argentina#Berne Convention duration for photographs and states that the term of 20 year since publication is the status quo (and in January the template was officially changed to reflect those changes). In any case, if the rationale is incorrect or may be incomplete in its interpretation of the effect that article 9 of the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty had after 1999 on the protection term, that reasoning is not mine, but originated in that discussion. 83.61.242.133 21:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
@Bedivere: Further explanation was exposed here. All in all that it was said there, "Argentina entered the Berne Convention in 1967 under the Brussels Act that doesn't impose a minimum protection for photographs; It never adhered fully to the Stockholm of 1967; And it implemented the Paris Act of 1971 very late in 1999 with an explicit clause not to implement article 7(4) that imposes a minimum protection for photographs. This implies that protection for photographs was always 20 years [since publication]", and in particular this is the term should to apply to URAA restorations. 83.61.242.133 21:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
 Support undeletion per {{PD-AR-Photo}}. Ankry (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: {{PD-AR-Photo}} + PD-1996. --Yann (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Javier "Javo" Rodríguez.jpg

Tengo pleno uso de la imagen en cuestión. Facundoreyes (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The right "to use" does not allow you to claim your authorsip nor to grant a license. Ankry (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Camila Cabello – Camila cover art.png

Please see related discussions at COM:DR/File:Dua Lipa samples from 5 songs.webm, COM:DR/File:The Evolution of Cardi B.webm, File:The Evolution of Charlie Puth.webm and others. Sony Music Korea is an official subsidiary of Sony Music, and thus they have the proper authority to use a CC license. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Yann: as the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted and regular DR created instead. Source is dead for me. --Yann (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:GCBlox 2025 Logo.jpg

File:GCBlox 2025 Logo.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamingchannelpedia (talk • contribs) 19:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gamingchannelpedia: No such deleted file; maybe, you mean L:File:Gaming Channel Blox 2025 Logo.jpg?
No undeletion reaso provided.
The logo may be undeleted after you prove using VRT that you are the designer and the exclusive copyright holder of the logo as you claimed at upload. Ankry (talk) 06:34, 26 May 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) 12:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:DrRakhosravi2.jpg

{{GFDL}} — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 5.160.50.46 (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This is probably about File:DrRaKhosravi2.jpg (note the upper case K). That's a recent file with unknown author, so it can;t be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Megami nyannyan

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: permission confirmed to all profile pictures available at https://ozawa-masahito.jp/collection/#photo . (ticket:2025051910001998) Some of the uploads might be duplicates that we don't want anyway, though. whym (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done @Whym, but wait, i looks like we have some duplicates. I will merge them. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 12:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Two less. Created as a redirect זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 12:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:MV5BOGZjMmU1MWYtMTBjMC00NWU1LTk2N2ItYTAyMGNlZTlkZDQ3XkEyXkFqcGc@. V1.jpg

The copyright holder have sent a free license release via VRT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repsjared (talk • contribs) 21:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose @Repsjared: No need to act here: after permission from both: the photographer and the sculptor are verified and accepted, the image will be automatically undeleted. Ankry (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I just wanted to clarify; am I also required to obtain permission directly from the sculptor, or would that be handled by the VRT team? I’ve come across several images of individuals posing by the Oscar statue at the Academy Awards, and in those cases, I only see photographer permissions noted, not any explicit permissions from the sculptor. Repsjared (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose While the Oscar statuette was first molded in 1928 and is therefore out of copyright, the enlarged version has its own copyright. If the images you refer to included this version, they should be tagged for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification, but I will refrain tagging the images. However, it must be said that this situation and a few others I have witnessed clearly shows the enforcement rules here on are quite inconsistent or overly rigid. Repsjared (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Repsjared, "overly rigid", I think not. We simply do our best to honor existing copyrights. "Quite inconsistent" -- yes, absolutely, my best estimate is the 1% of our images -- that is, one million images -- should be deleted. Please note that we get around 10,000 new images every day, of which more than 1,000 should be deleted. Ten Admins do almost half of that work, but cannot possibly look at every new image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
(Jameslwoodward) Thank you for taking the time to correct me. Totally understandable that ten people can't take on the workload. That said, in these times, it might be worth considering whether automated systems or bots could better support the process to allow as many as possible who want to contribute meaningfully.
Repsjared Yes -- we have many bots that ease the workload, including some that tag obvious copyvios, but ultimately most of the actions are judgement calls. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. I take the requester's comment as withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Pope John Paul II after being shot.jpg and File:Pope Paul after assassination attempt.jpg

Request temporary undeletion for:

This two files were tagged in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded from Tullio Saba and removed as license laundering. Moreover I remember to have used this image (File:Pope John Paul II after being shot.jpg) for a personal work, unrelated to this project, and that, in that moment (a half-year ago) the file information claimed it was published in the United States the day following the assassination attempt (May 14) at least in two American newspapers (one of them, I think to remember, the New York Times), and the licensing section saying it was simoultaneously published in the USA and the source country.

I’m not sure if that claim is entirely valid or incompleted (please, if anyone still has access to the page, check first that there is a listing citing where it was posted, and if not, please ignore this request), but I think it should at least be discussed and reviewed according to its copyright status and not just because it was uploaded with a wrong license to Flickr by someone other than the copyright holder (or in any case, to allow the use of this historical photo as Fair use on English Wikipedia, if it is determined that it is not entirely free to use here), since it seemed that information about its publication history in May 1981 was also provided.

Warning: This request is only for both the two images tagged above, it doesn't apply to the rest of files tagged in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded from Tullio Saba.

As complementary information, if could be helpful, I also remember another case from here where a photo (from the 1940s/50s and I seem to remember it was from the USA) was nominated for deletion because it came from Flickr and was uploaded there by someone who did not seem to be the real author, and ended up being kept when the true provenance and copyright status were provided (it was determined to be in the public domain in the USA, I seem to remember that it was determinated it was from Associated Press). I'm going to check if the image is still here and if I find, I'll provide here the link to the deletion discussion. 80.29.196.96 10:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure how photos from 1981 would be in the public domain in the U.S., or many other countries really. Even if it was simultaneously published in the U.S., you have to show how it was published without a copyright notice. The New York Times surely had a copyright notice (a notice on the newspaper as a whole will serve to protect the copyright of any work contained, other than advertisements). Usually, if public domain, a U.S. work was either obviously published before 1989 without a copyright notice, or was published before 1964 with no renewal being filed. Outside of those situations it's quite unlikely for a work to be public domain in the U.S., and the only hope with these would seem to be published without notice, and with no registration being filed within five years. Maybe it's fine in Italy today (or since 2002), but that does not help the U.S. situation. Being simultaneously published in the U.S. can avoid the URAA restorations (still copyrighted in source country in 1996), but you still have to show how it became public domain in the U.S. on its own, which seems rather doubtful here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Carl. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Bobby Gafur Umar_October 2024.jpg

Dear Wikimedia Commons administrators,

I am writing to request the undeletion of the file File:Bobby_Gafur_Umar_October 2024.jpg. I am the assistant to Mr. Bobby Gafur Umar and am submitting this request on his behalf.

The photo in question was taken by a professional photographer hired by Mr. Bobby Gafur Umar specifically for formal use. The photographer has fully released all rights to the image, and Mr. Bobby is now the sole copyright holder — both as the person depicted in the photo and the individual who commissioned and paid for the work.

To support this, I have already sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to formally declare that I represent Mr. Bobby Gafur Umar and that he is the exclusive copyright owner of the photograph, but under the file File:BGU_2024.jpg. We are fully prepared to provide any additional documentation required, including a formal release from the photographer, if needed.

We respectfully request the restoration of the file and are happy to follow any further steps necessary to confirm the copyright status and compliance with Commons licensing policy.

Thank you very much for your attention and assistance.

 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) 12:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:filetransferrequest.jpg

I was trying to migrate my logo to my page.


> needs move from https://w.wiki/EJYu to my AliciaCLacy https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth?target=AliciaCLacy user.

Please do not delete my user page Alicia C lacy this file request is to merge or migrate one to the other.
If my page was too wordy, I can reduce it I'm not spamming. 
I am trying to build my page. (Lord) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliciaCLacy (talk • contribs) 16:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
See COM:SCOPE. Users with no contribution should not create userpages. Ankry (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@AliciaCLacy:  Oppose because you are spamming and File:filetransferrequest.jpg has never existed.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:HoR Official Portrait Jose Christopher Belmonte.jpg

Please undelete this photo because this is a public domain from the website of House of Representatives of the Philippines.

Which copyright tag you find suitable here? "House of Representatives" is not "Government of the Philippines or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalities, including government-owned and/or controlled corporations". Ankry (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Ankry, while the House of Representatives is certainly a subdivision of the Philippine government, in order for this to be be kept on Commons it must be proven that the photographer was an employee of the HoR. Merely appearing on an HoR web site does not make it PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Anuncio de victoria de la fórmula Perón - Perón, 1973.png

This photograph was nominated for deletion and deleted per the nominator's original claims "Photo published in the Argentine magazine ASI in 1973. It is currently in the public domain in its country of origin (25 years after publication), but it was not in 1996 at URAA time" and "In order to be in the Argentine public domain, [...], it needs both to be published for at least 20 years, and to be created at least 25 years ago. Thus, it entered in the public domain in January 1, 1999 and not in 1994."

However, as discussed here (section opened by the original deletion's nominator), the 25 years ppd protection minimum protection duration for photographic works required by Berne Convention, Article 7 (4) was explicitly dimissed by the Law 25.140 from 1999 (specificaly in the Article 9) that implements the Paris Act of 1971, which introduced the minimum protection for photographs. So, the correct expiration term for Argentine photographs is of 20 years since its first publication (only if first published in Argentina, obviously).

As first published in the Argentine magazine ASI in 1973, then the copyright has expired in Argentina in 1994, so it was PD in its home country in 1996, so the US copyright was not restored as stated in the deletion claim. 83.61.242.133 21:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: {{PD-AR-Photo}} + {{PD-1996}}. --Yann (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Grabiel Concepción Valdés Plácido.jpg

The image was deleted by @Krd: as "No permission since 16 May 2025". It was in use on English and Spanish Wikisource, as well as Wikidata. I can't see what license was/wasn't on the file, but it comes from a 1910 pamphlet, "Placido: A Cuban Martyr" republishing a 1909 article from The New Century. No illustrator is credited for the drawing. It also was published in the June 1930 issue of The Crisis with the only attribution being "(From a drawing in possession of Mr. Arturo Schomburg.)" who authored the 1910 pamphlet. A version of the same sketch is found as the frontispiece in this 1886 edition of Plácido's complete poems, published in Havana. There is a faint credit line, "Lil(?) de R. Gaballers(?) Mercaderus(?) 14 Havana", but I'm not finding information as to if this was a lithographer, a portrait studio, or something else. Per COM:Cuba a work by an unknown artist goes into public domain 50 years after publication (1886), and photographs and similar reproductions after 25 years. It was also published in the United States as early as 1910, which places it in public domain here with {{PD-Cuba}} and {{PD-US-expired}} —Tcr25 (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

 Support "Lit." is short for litography and the rest looks like "R. Caballero". "Calle Mercaderes" is a street in Havanna, Cuba. Thuresson (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. That matches up with the caption in this story at Martí Noticias. I'm finding some publications by a "R. Caballero e Hijos editores proprietarios" at Mercaderes, 14 in Havana in the late 1880s and then other publications with "Imp. y lit. R. Caballero" through the 1890s. No indications that individual artists were credited, nor details about lifetime for R. Caballero (the person or the company). That said, even with that ID, nothing seems to put into question the public domain status of the illustration. —Tcr25 (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Gal Gadot - Wonder Woman 2020.jpg

Restaure mi subida de Gal Gadot - Wonder Woman 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidLionel2025 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Source is "Google" and the author is "unknown". This is in fact a promotional photo from the movie "Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)". Thuresson (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The Squirrel Conspiracy, did you mean "Not Done"? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Ugh. Fixed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)


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

2012 Gaza Marathon - inclusive event.png

This image is in the public domain available in the UNRWA photo gallery of the event: https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/photos/gaza-marathon-2012?cat_id=82 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupre (talk • contribs) 12:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose No, It is not: "Copyright (c) United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East" There is no indication of a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: "free to access" and "under a free license" are not the same. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Scanty.jpg

Please I know the person in the image and he send it to me personally after I reach out to him that I need the original file to write my wikipedia blog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Born A Geek (talk • contribs) 14:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is clearly a copyright violation -- the subject does not have the right to freely license the image -- that right belongs to the unknown photographer. Also, is not clear that the image is in scope -- who is shown? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File movers

Source request for file edit and appeal to non substantial removal of artist page Private corp logo Delaware asc / Pa based Artist tile album and authored materials . request for source steps to substantiate. AliciaCLacy (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose, nonsense.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Not done per Jeff G. Thuresson (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Зиновий Биртман.jpg

    • Restoration request for deleted file**

The photographer Evgeny Matveev has repeatedly confirmed his permission to use this image under a free license CC BY-SA 4.0. He have responded to emails from Wikipedia contributors and explicitly stated their consent.

The photographer Evgeny Matveev confirmed permission in private correspondence; I can provide proof to admins upon request.

The photographer publicly stated his consent https://birtman.su/ 

I request the restoration of this file since all licensing requirements have now been met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristina Repina (talk • contribs) 12:58, 28 May 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) 14:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:St. Joseph Church Belman 2018.jpg

Hello,

I had taken this photo personally and I am unsure why it is getting deleted off of Wikipedia. I have allowed multiple users and websites to use it freely.


--Neocryptex91 (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Minorax: What was the reason you tagged this for missing permission? Thuresson (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
{{Information}} states that "Belman Church" is the author and there is no indication that the uploader is "Belman Church". --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 10:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Copied from Facebook, no permission. --Yann (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Portrait_Julien_Soulier.jpg undeletion request

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rsepierre#c-Habertix-20250502215600-File:Portrait_Julien_Soulier.jpg

Although I had permission by the subject (Julien Soulier) to upload on wikimedia a picture of him made available on the press page of his website ( https://juliensoulier.tv/contact/site-presse/ ) and that the image was always used by media and press alike as a free press image (including the URLs flagged as possible copyright violations to delete the file)

I reached out to Julien Soulier when the file was deleted for copyright violation and told him that the image was missing documentation from the original author (Victor MÉRIEL-BUSSY). While everyone could already use this image freely for years, proper documentation has now been made available on the press page of his website

Direct link to the document : https://juliensoulier.tv/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Photograph_Ownership_Attestation_Victor-MERIEL-BUSSY.pdf

--Rsepierre (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Túrelio. --Yann (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:KazuakiYamadBS.png

I made and uploaded this file. Sorry for lack of license information.

Kazycom (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

 Support This was uploaded as own work and clearly licensed with a GFDL + CC-BY-SA license. It was deleted anyway for not having a license. Thuresson (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: per Thuresson. @Kazycom: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:TVK-Vijay.jpg

Also File:TVK Vijay.jpg Dear Commons Administrators,

I am writing to formally request the undeletion of the file File:TVK-Vijay.jpg, which was recently removed on the grounds of a suspected copyright violation. I would like to respectfully clarify the context of this upload and provide additional information to support its reinstatement.

1. Background and Intent The image in question is of Thalapathy Vijay, the founder and leader of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), a newly registered political party in Tamil Nadu, India. As an official member of TVK, I uploaded the image to Wikimedia Commons with the clear intent of making freely available a media file that is widely distributed, publicly endorsed, and circulated by the party itself for supporter engagement and organizational promotion.

The image is not owned by a news outlet such as News18 or any other secondary website. Media platforms like those referenced in the deletion notice simply republish this image after it is released to the public by the party for promotional purposes. Using them as a source does not make them the copyright holder.

2. Why This Image Qualifies as Free Content The file was not extracted or copied from a copyrighted database or behind a paywall.

The image has been distributed on official social media channels and public party materials, including posters, banners, and public outreach content.

There was no explicit copyright or licensing restriction attached to the original image. TVK, like most political organizations, encourages widespread sharing of such images for visibility.

I have direct affiliation with the party, and I am willing to submit a license declaration or permission statement confirming that the party has no objection to this image being freely used under a free license.

3. Call for Consideration I kindly urge the reviewing admin(s) to consider the following:

Political symbols, party leaders, and campaign images are often intended to be public domain or released under liberal terms, particularly when they are grassroots in nature and used to promote public awareness.

The deletion appears to have been triggered by a superficial URL match rather than a true copyright conflict. This method can unfairly penalize contributors with legitimate affiliations and access.

I am ready to submit permission documentation through the VRT process if required, or have an official representative issue a formal release under a Creative Commons license.

4. Request In light of the above:

I respectfully request that File:TVK-Vijay.jpg be temporarily restored pending submission of a proper license release, or that I be given an opportunity to complete a VRT submission for verification.

Please advise if a specific template or license release format is preferred, and I will ensure it is followed accordingly.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I believe restoring this image will help enrich Wikimedia Commons with culturally and politically relevant media content, while remaining within the scope of Commons licensing policy.

Sincerely, TVKMember — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVKMember (talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I have blocked TVKMember, which is a sock of Narensraj21. The files have been uploaded multiple times by the two of them and a third user, apparently unreleated, Successive helper. Such deception makes it difficult to believe anything you say.


First, there is no reason to have two files of the same image. If we restore any, it will be only one.

Second, the fact that an image is widely used says nothing about its copyright. In order to have this file restored the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. Alternately, an authorized representative of TVK may send a free license together with a copy of a formal written license giving TVK the right to freely license the file to others. Such licenses are very unusual. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:TVK-Flag.jpg

Also: File:TVK Flag.jpg Dear Commons Administrators,

I am submitting this request to respectfully appeal the deletion of File:TVK-Flag.jpg, which was removed citing copyright concerns. I would like to provide clarification and context regarding the origin, purpose, and licensing status of this image, and request that it be considered for undeletion.

1. Nature of the File The deleted image is the official flag of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), a registered political party in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, founded and led by actor-turned-politician Thalapathy Vijay. The design of the flag is a political emblem created by and for the party, and is prominently displayed across TVK’s official materials, social media, banners, and supporter events.

This flag is not copyrighted by any news outlet or third party. While websites like Filmibeat may have published articles about the flag and included an image for illustrative purposes, they do not own the flag, nor do they hold exclusive rights over its display or usage. The party itself is the originator of the design, and it was meant to be publicly distributed as a symbol of party identity.

2. Why This File Should Qualify as Free Content Political party flags, like national flags, are intended for unrestricted public use, especially in contexts like Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons which serve as educational and informational platforms.

I am a member of TVK and have access to the official flag resources from internal communications and campaigns. The file I uploaded was not copied from any copyrighted media but prepared using freely available and openly distributed assets.

TVK has not imposed any restrictions on the use, editing, or reproduction of its flag, and encourages its use in public and digital forums for awareness.

3. Willingness to Provide Permission If required, I am willing to:

Submit formal permission from the party authorizing the use of the flag on Wikimedia Commons under a suitable free license (e.g., CC0, CC-BY).

Follow the COM:VRT process and ensure the necessary documentation is provided for verification by Commons administrators.

4. Request In light of the above, I respectfully request the following:

Please undelete File:TVK-Flag.jpg, or temporarily restore it so that I may submit a proper license declaration or VRT ticket.

If additional steps are required to validate the status of the file or the permissions, kindly guide me, and I will ensure full compliance with Commons policies.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I believe that restoring this file serves the Wikimedia mission by documenting and archiving key cultural and political elements of current events in Tamil Nadu.

Sincerely, TVKMember — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) 15:05, 27 May 2025 TVKMember (UTC)

 Oppose I have blocked TVKMember, which is a sock of Narensraj21. The files have been uploaded multiple times by the two of them and a third user, apparently unrelated, Successive helper. Such deception makes it difficult to believe anything you say.


First, there is no reason to have two files of the same image. If we restore any, it will be only one.

Second, the fact that an image is widely used says nothing about its copyright. In order to have this file restored the actual creator must send a free license using VRT. Alternately, an authorized representative of TVK may send a free license together with a copy of a formal written license giving TVK the right to freely license the file to others. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:1990.Werbung.Medienjugend.1.pdf

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Uhrherberrecht liegt bei Thomas Schleussner im zuge der Mitarbeit der Medienjugend Thomas.B.1967 (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose @Thomas.B.1967: See VRT for the appropriate procedure for granting a free license. It is linked on your user talk page since 19 May. Ankry (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose Aside from the copyright question, we do not keep PDFs of images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I disagree here. This is not just a scan of a single image, but a 2-page document that may fall under "historic documents" clause. Ankry (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Dead Body Of Rajendra Lahiri 407.jpg

Now that US public domain has rolled forward to 2030, this 1927 photo from India is no longer under URAA. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: All pre-WWII pictures from India are in the public domain. @Nard the Bard: Please add the source. --Yann (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Essen-kschool.webm, File:Essen Poetry Class.png, File:Essen Calligraphy Class.jpg

I am the original uploader of these files and I previously requested their deletion, thinking they were uploaded in error. However, I would now like to restore them, as I plan to use them in a valid Wikimedia context. There are no copyright issues. I will provide full descriptions and license information once restored.

Thank you for your consideration.

TheSodam (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose These do not appear to be in scope. I suggest you create the WP article and have it accepted and then return here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback.
The files are intended for use in the draft Wikipedia article Draft:NAMDASHI, which I am currently finalizing. The article is almost complete and will be submitted for review shortly.
As these files directly illustrate the subject of the draft, I kindly request their restoration for proper integration into the article.
Best regards. TheSodam (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Correction: The draft article is available at the following URL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:NAMDASHI
These files are intended for use in that article and directly support its content.
Thank you for your consideration. TheSodam (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Please request undeletion again if your article is accepted. --Yann (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:ALBERTO NÚÑEZ FEIJÓO.jpg

Please restore the following page:

Reason: the Flickr account from which the image was taken changed the file's license to CC0 on 19 May [24]. --Basque mapping (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

 OpposeThe Flickr site is a political party's site. I doubt that they have the right to freely license this formal portrait. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Why? Feijóo is the president of that political party and this is the official Flickr account of the party. The de facto policy is to assume that political parties have authorization from the photographers to release the images with the stated license. Basque mapping (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. We need a proof that the photographer hasa allowed the license. This is best done via COM:VRT. --Yann (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Sean Farrington

Please undelete Sean Farrington because the article can be improved so it can remain on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw93d59 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Jw93d59 (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

This is Wikimedia Commons. You have no deleted files here, so I assume you are requesting the restoration of an article on Wikipedia. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Procedural close, this concerns en:Sean Farrington. Thuresson (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)


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

Connor Phillips (broadcaster)

Page can be improved if a thorough search finds a couple of good sources to make it good enough to stay on Wikipedia. Jw93d59 (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

This is Wikimedia Commons. You have no deleted files here, so I assume you are requesting the restoration of an article on Wikipedia. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Procedural close, this concerns en:Connor Phillips (broadcaster). Thuresson (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Ritchie1023.jpg

Hi, this photo is owned by me. please undelete it. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoeooedo (talk • contribs) 13:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. This image was uploaded by User:Gabrielle963 who claimed that the photographer was User:RLclub. All of Gabrielle963's contributions have been deleted. I note that the username Zoeooedo is also known here as Gabrielle963. I have blocked User:Gabrielle963 -- using more than one account to edit in cases like this is not allowed.

Also note that the image was deleted as a personal image from a non-contributor .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:32 Svc Bn Crest.jpg File to be Undeleted

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:32_Svc_Bn_Crest.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

I have a license for this logo.

Request undeletion.

Was out of country when this was flagged as a copyright violation. This is not a copyright violation as I am the copyright holder.

--Ngc224m31 (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

If you're indeed the copyright holder, then you might want to check out COM:VRT. SergioFLS (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose In the upload, you tagged the image as coming from a Canadian government site, which would mean that it has a fifty year copyright. It is highly unlikely that you have a license for the image that allows you to freely license the image to others, but if you do, please send it to VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Becky-Black Chanel.jpg

this is a free copyright photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlm1222 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Infrogmation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:595 E. COLORADO BLVD., PASADENA.jpg

There was no watermark on the image.. the photo was taken in the same area.. you can clearly see that the weather is not even the same in any of Swig's photos for this property.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecatinthecat (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Thecatinthecat: Which is the correct source for this photo? Thuresson (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose Found it at yelp.com dated February 26, 2020, "uploaded by business owner". Thuresson (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:McFarland Publishing Communication - Harris M. Lentz III Bad Source.jpg

== [[File:McFarland Publishing Communication - Harris M. Lentz III Bad Source.jpg|thumb|Confirmation that his own publisher acknowledges the mistake of allowing him to publish using unverified sources, but too much time has elapsed and he's since passed]] ==

Please read the actual e-mail. The representative from McFarland gave permission to use it.

This is really, really starting to get ridiculous

Frobias (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The image was deleted because "Copyright violation: Private correspondence published apparently without authority from the other party"
However, in the image the other party in question states "You are more than welcome to share my email as proof, and feel free to direct any publisher-related questions to me as well; I am happy to correspond directly with Wikipedia"
Is that not authority to publish? If not then what constitutes authority to publish? Rorb lalorb (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
To be on Commons, a work must be freely reusable and modifiable by anybody for any purpose. A permission given to a person to "share my email as proof" is not it. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Anyway, I doubt if content of these emails would allow to fix any information in Wikipedia. Ankry (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion -- the license in the email is very limited. Also note that an image of an email won't be accepted on WP or Commons for any purpose because forging one would be trivial and we see too many forgeries. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:1986 Beach Chair - Pixar Animation Studios.webm

This work was first published before March 1, 1989, and I can't find any mention of the Beach Chair short made by Pixar in the copyright office public records. The original nomination at Commons:Deletion requests/File:1986 Beach Chair - Pixar Animation Studios.webm requested deletion merely because it was republished in a 1991 Liquid Television episode (Season 1 Episode 3). However, Pixar did not create the Liquid Television TV series. VTSGsRock (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

 Info deleted on uploader's request. Ankry (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
 Info There is no copyright notice, so without a registration the short movie is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
"“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 101. I believe this is the relevant definition for all post 1978 works.
So when was it published? Showing it at SIGGRAPH wouldn't count. The 1991 Liquid Television episode may have been the first publication, as it was distributed for purposes of further distribution. That would put it after 1989.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Not done, per Prosfilaes. Thuresson (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Member and Observer states of the Arab League (orthographic projection).svg

This image was deleted by user @M.Bitton: because of a "copyright violation" however I created the image based on another map made by them which is on commons under the the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license and thus in the public domain, I did tag it as "own work" and I do admit I could have been more clear I used a base but if I had been notified of this I could have easily fixed it, I also didn't mean to do this because apparently if you select the "this work contains the work of other" option it does not change anything in the meta data. it also must be stated that I never got a notification for some reason and the image was deleted so quickly that I never had an opportunity to challenge it. PharaohCrab (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

That's not what public domain is. The base image may be freely licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0, but that's not "public domain". Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt mobil: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license is not Public Domain. CC-licensed content is copyrighted, but available for any use, providing that author is properly attributed. M.Bitton was not properly attributed. And claim that the image was deleted by M.Bitton is false. He is not an admin and cannot do so. Ankry (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Ankry (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
@Ankry you ping the wrong person and restate what they said
@M.Bitton you are supposed to notify uploader when you tag their file for speedy deletion. When someone put the wrong source/license please just fix it so we do not have to waste time like this  REAL 💬 ⬆   18:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
I think he tried it just never got it through because a glitch or something PharaohCrab (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
that is a difference of semantics and my point still stands that it was free to use PharaohCrab (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
PharaohCrab, NO, it is free to use if and only if you properly attribute the creator. You tried, whether intentionally or not, to claim the work of others as your own work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose This is a poor choice of base maps for this particular application. It was fine for its original use, which covered only the member states, all in the Middle East, but is not a good choice for the observers, because two of them are at the very left edge of the map and you can't be sure which they are. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per my comment -- poor choice of base map. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:UN Press Release.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: {{PD-UN-doc}}: Published by the United Nations without a copyright notice, was left in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications". It falls into one of the following categories outlined in Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 (paragraph 2):

Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including material that is offered for sale)

See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Nations XavierItzm (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Thuresson (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
 Weak oppose The Terms of Use of the source site state:
(c) The Mechanism grants permission to Users to visit the Site and to download and copy the information, documents and materials (collectively, “Materials”) from the Site for the User’s personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell or redistribute them or to compile or create derivative works therefrom, subject to the terms and conditions outlined below, and also subject to more specific restrictions that may apply to specific Material within this Site.
As this clearly contradicts {{PD-UN-doc}}, this should be resolved prior to undeletion, IMO Ankry (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose It is a personal use only license -- NC, ND, no redistribution, etc. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Laventure.jpg

The photo was taken and uploaded by the subscriber. The photo meets guidelines and is not an image produced or taken by anyone else.


Sony May 29th at 12:17AM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sony.laventure (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Deleted as out of COM:SCOPE. The statement above does not explain why this would be wrong. Also, it is not clear that the person using the nick "Sony.laventure" here is the abovementioned "subscriber" so it may be also copyright law violation (false authorship claim by User:Sony.laventure). Ankry (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)


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

File:Katherine Usmar.jpg

Hello,

This was my first attempt at a page to detail notable, elected, Cabinet Council Councillors I believe that Katherine Anne Usmar meets the criteria for a Notable person.

I'd think managing a £400M+ budget for Gloucestershire County Council warrants a page!

I would like some practical help, as a newbie, in addressing the concerns/reviews raised. I have provided 4 independent references, as an initial start.

Best wishes, James UsmarWrites (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: I have removed the speedy tag from the image, so there is nothing more to be done here on Commons. I agree that a WP:EN page is not out of line, but that is up to editors on WP:EN, not here. Given your username, I assume you are her husband, James. At the very least, you must create a user page declaring your relationship to the subject. See WP:COI for the strict policy on Conflict of Interest. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Sarah Lewis, 2025.png

This image was shared by the photographer for use on Wikipedia after its original inclusion in a public video series shared via social media. The photographer submitted the permissions release, stating her agreement to publish the work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. --JLM39 (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done: Was deleted despite the VRT grace period due to lack of a license. @JLM39: In the future please make sure to include a tentative license tag in the file description even if it is still awaiting VRT. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)


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

Restore Katherine Usmar.jpg please

Hi my name is James and I am documenting notable Usmars. I am not paid, and genuinely want to document notable (as per definition) members of the Usmar family who have public lives.

Katherine is a Lib Dem Politician, currently serving in the Gloucestershire County Council Cabinet.

Please restore Katherine Usmar.jpg and the page that was erroneously deleted.

Thank you

James

 Not done: Duplicate request for a file that has not been deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2025-05&oldid=1038288409"