Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests

Shortcuts: COM:UDR • COM:UDELC • COM:UNDELC

Request undeletion

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

File:KAIA DAY LOVEME17 - LOVE.webm

The YouTube account was closed. It was not terminated for TOC violation. CC is not revocable. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency you can check Category:LOVE (magazine), as I believe some of those are also from the old channel. If I recall correctly almost everyone of the videos on the old channel was listed as CC. For what it is worth Love is a professional magazine company owned by Condé Nast. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is only clear or evident to those who can see the file, am not an admin so I can't see it, just working from memory. Could we be worth someone looking at Category:LOVE (magazine) to see if anything else needs deleting, although it looks lik those are more obviously not taken by the person in the video clips. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Emir of Wikipedia: While there are some I might bring into question, all the current files do appear to be the works of LOVE and Condé Nast or work product which LOVE or CN could claim to be the copyright holder. Although the file in question does appear to be for a LOVE marketing campaign of sorts, the video description clearly indicates that Gerber is the one recording, and had sent in the video. There is no indication that Gerber was an employee, and the norm is to assume that such a video remains her intellectual property. And while there is without a doubt that the video was used with permission from the copyright holder, there is also no indication that Gerber released the work under the licence stated on the video page. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Why are we assuming that any CC release would have been done by Love or Condé Nast? Perhaps they were merely reporting that the photographer had already taken this action. Thincat (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I was trying to say. But clearly didn't say it very well. If a website places a CC licence it doesn't necessarily mean the site operator or uploader is issuing a licence. It may be they are reporting what licence has previously been issued by the creator or their licensee. Thincat (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said, the former channel (in YT lingo, the "creator"), i.e. that of LOVE, has a pattern of having attached a CC-BY licence to all content it publishes on YouTube. Channels on that site rarely report what licence has previously been issued by the creator or their licensee. They are not reporting. This is a clear example of a channel attempting to license something that may not be theirs to license. That's it. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 00:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't go on their old channel, but if I recall correctly not every video was marked as CC-BY only a large majority. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smbaliuagjf243.JPG

File was deleted in 2012, according to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smbaliuagjf243.JPG, the file was deleted because of no-FOP (freedom of panorama) in the Philippines. However, the deletion request for another mall of the same mall chain – Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sm megamall.jpg – ended up as "kept" because, according to @King of Hearts: , the SM Megamall lacks characteristics that makes it copyrightable. Quoting from King of Hearts' statement:

I just found the following in Sec. 186: "Copyright in a work of architecture shall include the right to control the erection of any building which reproduces the whole or a substantial part of the work either in its original form or in any form recognizably derived from the original: Provided, That the copyright in any such work shall not include the right to control the reconstruction or rehabilitation in the same style as the original of a building to which that copyright relates." While not directly related, I think this implies some sort of threshold. Think about it: Suppose someone built a building shaped like a grey cube, with no features, nothing at all. If someone else came along and built a grey cube-shaped featureless building (which is almost identical to the first by necessity of the description), is that a copyright violation? You could say, well, it's almost identical, and hence "recognizably derived from the original." But an idea that can be expressed in a short phrase like "grey cube-shaped featureless building" is merely a style, and so we have a contradiction. So we conclude that there ought to be some threshold of originality, only above which is an idea separable from its expression.

Using this statement by King of Hearts, it can be interpreted that SM Malls like SM Megamall have little copyrightable elements present. It can also be interpreted that all other malls belonging to SM can be considered as having little threshhold of originality, as evidenced by the successful defense in the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smmarilaojf.JPG (for SM City Marilao). Then SM City Baliwag (and possibly other malls by SM Supermalls) also fall under the low or little TOO as said by King of Hearts for both SM Megamall and SM City Marilao. However, I might need the insights of some other Filipino Wikipedians regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: I'm not sure if this TOO rationale can be safely be considered for other photos of SM malls deleted, such as File:SM_Aura_in_Bonifacio_Global_City.jpg found at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Shopping malls in the Philippines. But I can assume that this low or little TOO can be applied to other malls, judging from the case of SM City Marilao. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that one looks pretty complex. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: here is a (partial) list of deleted photos depicting malls by SM Supermalls. Since I'm not an admin, I can't identify whether they can be undeleted just like the case of SM Megamall pic and of SM City Marilao or they do not pass low TOO.

I don't know if other Philippine malls (e.g. Robinson's, Gaisano, and others) may have the same treatment as that of SM Malls. Comments and insights to be placed beside the aboveventries are very much welcome. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quezon memorial.jpg

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Quezon memorial.jpg, file was deleted because of "no FoP in the Philippines," deletion was made in 2012. However, per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Circle (dated 2019), QMC (esp. the monument) was designer by Federico Ilustre who "was working for the Bureau of Public Works when he did this design." (per User:Jameslwoodward) Added basis is from @Seav: , quoted by @Markoolio97: :

The architect was an employee of the government and the shrine is owned and maintained by the government. As such the shrine is considered a work of the government and according to the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, no copyright subsists in works of the government. This also applies to when the Philippine government was part of the United States during the time the shrine was designed.

As such, QMC is PD (a work of and owned by the government) and photos of it are permissible at Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Hmmm. While I'm not opposed to undeletion, the statement that Federico Ilustre "was working for the Bureau of Public Works when he did this design." overlooks the fact that per the English Wikipedia article: His most notable work would be his design of the Quezon Memorial Shrine monument, a design he made for a national design competition held in 1951 for the then-planned monument for late President Manuel L. Quezon, where he won the grand prize, which indicates that he may not have been working on this design in his capacity as a government employee, but as a private citizen competing in a national design competition. Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nat: in this case, I might mention again the two users — @Seav: and @Markoolio97: — who interpreted this "commissioning of works by the government as equivalent to PD-PH government" and were active in the prior undeletion attempts at QMC (which somehow were 98% successful). I also passed by this previous undeletion request of 98% of the deleted pictures of QMC - Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-02#Photographs of Quezon Memorial. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nat: found an insight at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Shrine, by @TagaSanPedroAko: "The FOP issue is a gray area of Philippine copyright law that affects images of many modern architectural works in the Philippines posted here on Commons (but not elsewhere on the Web), and I agree with the two this should not be deleted as Seav states is clearly a government-commissioned work. It's just time not to step too far regarding lack of FOP in the Philippines, but I agree US copyright law prevails (the work needs to be both free in the US and the Philippines) and the nominator just did it right. As far as I know, Filipino architects don't mind any pictures of their works, even where posted on the Net; it's just the existing law (from the 1990s) that doesn't reflect reality."
I somehow agree with TagaSanPedroAko, and also with @Sky Harbor: in his futile attempt to "save" a pic that was eventually deleted. Despite vagueness of our copyright law, with incompatible fair use guidelines, and the non-mention of a FOP-like provision, it can be said that there is "status quo" situation for photography prevailing in the Philippines, since no case lawsuit against Filipino photographers has ever been filed by the architectural community, at least for those photographing structures that were built or designed by the now-deceased people. This might be against the 5 precautionary measures, but that is the reality in our country. I might also quote a so-called general principle in our laws that was uttered by to Hon. Alfredo Garbin Jr. of the w:Ako Bicol party list during the June 8 hearing for the ABS-CBN's franchise (link to the w:Philippine Star video - [1]). At point 1:47:50, he said that "the basic principle in law, and that principle is that what is not prohibited is allowed." Although this might only apply to the station's franchise woes, it can be interpreted that his statement is for all Philippine laws, whether network franchise or copyright or even photographic restrictions. I previously posted this insight on King of Hearts' enwiki talkpage.
If there are some restrictions in photography, these are usually non-copyright restrictions such as needing an access permit to visit a landmark or asking permission from the management or the security officers. @Judgefloro: once responded Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Quezon Memorial Shrine that upon asking permission from the officers, he was told that it is permissible to take pictures for purposes of Wikimedia Commons since such purposes are for "public learning" (i.e. educational purposes). So I can assume that pictures of QMC and its monument are allowable here in accordance with Commons' aims JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manila Cathedral wts.jpg

File was deleted in 2013, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manila Cathedral wts.jpg "no-FOp in the Philippines." Nevertheless, per @Ymblanter: , the present cathedral (although built in the 1950s) is "apparently a derivative of the previous edition of the cathedral" (in other words, the construction in 1950 was actually a reconstruction of the old cathedral in the pre-war era). And according to @Thincat: , the façade survived (per File:Manila_Cathedral_after.jpg). Should this basis is invalid, another basis is the successful undeletion of File:Philippines National Museum.jpg and File:Supreme Court of the Philippines.jpg. Quoting from @Clindberg: 's statement:

At the time, the Philippines' copyright law was based on the U.S. Copyright Act 1909, which did not protect architecture. In 1951, the Philippines joined the Berne Convention, which eliminated the formalities and should have mandated architecture protection, but I'm not sure they passed any explicit laws on the matter. The law was replaced in 1972, which did explicitly protect architecture, but it also explicitly said that copyright protection was only granted for works still under protection of the previous law (i.e. non-retroactive). The non-retroactive part is still in their newer law today. It is *possible* that no copyright protection exists for works which predate 1972, or maybe 1951. Protection would have needed to have been retroactively restored, and not sure any law actually ever did that, unless the provisions of the Berne Convention effectively did, and not sure that is required. For example, the U.S. still does not protect buildings constructed before 1990 (when they added protection mandated by the Berne Convention); there was no retroactive copyright for those. It's a bit murky, but you would expect any retroactive law to exempt certain existing uses, and things like that, and not sure any such law was ever passed, so architectural rights probably were not retroactively restored.

Using Clindberg's statement, it can be interpreted that all architectural works in the Philippines that were completed from 1971 backwards were (and are still) unprotected, since the copyright protection for architecture which was added in 1972 is "not retroactive." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding: File:Cathedral side.jpg. Also deleted under same reason per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cathedral side.jpg, but @Sven Manguard: says it was completed in 1936. Not sure what is this cathedral (since the file name is itself ambiguous), but judging from Sven Manguard's statement on the year, it can be considered as PD if using Clindberg's statement, which again said that the US Copyright Act of 1909, from which the Philippine copyright law emerged, didn't explicitly mentioned architecture as one of the protected works. Despite the Philippines joining the convention in 1951, no law replaced the American-era law of 1900s until the 1972 law was formed, which explicitly protected architecture but also explicitly retained copyright on works that were still in copyright, i.e., excluding architecture completed from 1900s to 1971. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church of the holy sacrifice historical marker 1.jpg

Both files were deleted due to no FOP (pls. see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Church of the holy sacrifice historical marker 1.jpg for reference). However, a glance at Category:Church of the Holy Sacrifice historical marker proves that deletion is invalid. Using Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paco Park - Gomburza Memorare NHCP historical marker.jpg, markers such as these are commissioned by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines or NHCP (for the markers of the old era, by the predecessors of NHCP). According to @Seav: , such works are works of the Philippine government and owned by the state. He even introduced this enwiki article as an evidence: w:Historical_markers_of_the_Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Life Theater Main Facade.jpg

Also:

No FOP per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Life Theater (Manila), as its architect died in 1975, so 1975+50=2025 (+1=2026). Nevertheless, w:Life Theater states that it was completed in 1941, and rebuilt in 1946. Henceforth, it is not protected by copyright if using @Clindberg: 's statement at this successful undeletion request for File:Philippines National Museum.jpg (completed in 1921, rebuilt in 1946) and File:Supreme Court of the Philippines.jpg (the dates are confusing at w:Supreme Court of the Philippines, unfortunately). To summarize Clindberg's position: the American copyright law, in which the Philippine copyright law is based, was enacted in 1909 for the then-PHL Is., but didn't explicitly mentioned architecture. PHL joined the convention in 1951, though a new law that replaced the outdated American-era law was enacted in 1972. This new law only retained copyright for subjects that were in actual copyright, i.e. excluding architecture. As such the copyright protection for architecture is "non-retroactive" and buildings completed from 1971 backwards are considered PD. To add one reason to prove this, no case law has ever filed to prosecute any photographers in the Philippines taking pictures of older buildings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Churchbaler2jf.jpg

File involved: File:Churchbaler2jf.jpg JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Churchbaler2jf.jpg, it depicts a plaque (I feel that it is the same as File:Baler Church in Aurora province historical marker.jpg, the NHCP marker or Baler Church). If it is indeed the same as that, then it falls PD as the subject is a work (and owned by) the government per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paco Park - Gomburza Memorare NHCP historical marker.jpg, in which Seav said that such markers are commissioned by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines or NHCP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I'm not sure if these two other files — File:Bayanbalerjf.jpg and File:Baler400jf.JPG — are the same subject (or are differenr subjects). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also addition: File:Aurorahouse2jf.JPG (I dunno if this plaque is from NHCP, since I'm no admin and all deleted files are absolutely "invisible" to me. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ultraman Overseas Dispute Contract of 1976.jpg

The premise of copyright is the work, and this is a contract about of Ultraman and Tsuburaya Productions. The contract is not a work, so there is no copyright. Therefore, I apply for restoration.wanqi|Huang|！ (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@黄琬琦: The above declaration contradicts your claim that this is copyrighted and the copyright holder has granted CC0 license. How would you like to fix this? Ankry (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: I don't know, because I'm not aware of any precedent for contract documents on Wikimedia Commons,So I don't know what to do with itwanqi|Huang|！ (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I chose CC0 because I didn't find the right option and assumed that CC0 was copyright-free,I'm sorry that I chose CC license without knowing whether there are similar contract documents, but I did not find any relevant contract documents.wanqi|Huang|！ (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@黄琬琦: CC0 means "the copyright holder granted Creative Commons - Public Domain Declaration license" and this requires an evidence. If there is no appropriate copyright template, then we cannot undelete the file without creating the template, providing there PD rationale based on copyright law and accepting the template by community in COM:VPC discussion. Frankly, I am unsure if the contract is indeed not copyrighted. Ankry (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: creative work according to the definition of Copyright law in Japan :"思想又は感情を創作的に表現したものであって、文芸、学術、美術又は音楽の範囲に属するもの". i.e., Something that creatively expresses thoughts or feelings, which belonging to the range of literary arts, academics, art, or music.and

Japanese copyright laws :

第二章　著作者の権利 第一節　著作物 （著作物の例示） 第十条　この法律にいう著作物を例示すると、おおむね次のとおりである。 一　小説、脚本、論文、講演その他の言語の著作物 二　音楽の著作物 三　舞踊又は無言劇の著作物 四　絵画、版画、彫刻その他の美術の著作物 五　建築の著作物 六　地図又は学術的な性質を有する図面、図表、模型その他の図形の著作物 七　映画の著作物 八　写真の著作物 九　プログラムの著作物

i.e.,Chapter II Rights of the author Section 1 Works (Examples of works) For example article 10 the works referred to in this law are roughly as follows. 1.A novel, play, essay, lecture, and other work written in other languages 2. Musical Works 3.Dancing or silent drama 4.Paintings, prints, sculptures and other works of fine arts 5. Architectural Works 6. diagrams or academic schemata, diagrams, models or other graphic works 7.A book of films 8.A book of photographs 9.The works of programs [1]

The US Copyright Office also said protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture.[2]

So you know contracts not are works and creative works, and you know it that no copyrighted.wanqi|Huang|！ (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody suggests a copyright template that can be used here? Otherwise we have to close this as not done. Ankry (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not done? Those "contracts" are {{PD-ineligible}} at least in Japan, or are you asking that such can be copyrighted in the United States (if yes, why? and I'm afraid that this need COM:VP discussions). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nat: Because I want it to be used by Wikipedia in all kinds of languages,It is helpful for items that deal with this aspect.As for Everyone's proposal, I support PDwanqi|Huang|！ (talk) 03:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would  Oppose because you can't be able to identify yourself as S.Sands, only the actual copyright holder, the S.Sands, has right to license their works as CC-0 or other CC licenses, you can't do so for other peoples' works. And you didn't provide evidences why this is Public Domain in Thailand. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: I added Sompote Sands because this is an Ultraman overseas copyright dispute contract between Sompote Sands and Tsuburaya Productions is the contract between them, but because I didn't find any other contract documents, I don't know how to fill in the author.wanqi|Huang|！ (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nat: Because Commons is a place where documents can be included in the public domain, and the documents (contracts) belong there


It's in the link you gave:

Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content, in other words files that are either freely licensed or which are in the public domain. A file is considered public domain if either all copyright has expired or if the copyright owner(s) has voluntarily placed the content of the file into the public domain by irrevocably renouncing all copyright. A file which is ineligible for copyright protection is also considered public domain.

Any file hosted here must normally be freely licensed or public domain according to both the law of the United States and according to the law of the source country, if different.wanqi|Huang|！ (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liuxinyu970226: มาตรา ๖ งานอันมีลิขสิทธิ์ตามพระราชบัญญัตินีได้แก่ งานสร้างสรรค์ประเภทวรรณกรรม นาฏกรรม ศิลปกรรม. ดนตรีกรรม โสตทัศนวัสดุภาพยนตร์สิ่ง บันทึกเสียง（Section 6 Copyrighted works under this Act are Creative works of literature, drama, fine arts, music, music, audiovisual, cinematic, sound recordings）[3]wanqi|Huang|！ (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ↑ https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/search/elawsSearch/elaws_search/lsg0500/detail?lawId=345AC0000000048#E
  2. ↑ https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect
  3. ↑ http://www.music.msu.ac.th/seninar-music-copyright.pdf

@Nat: Because it conforms to scope: First of all, it's a media file

and .jpg is also a free file format that is allowable

And by the [1] [2] [3] We can conclude that public domain

This document can let people know the specific content of the contract mentioned in the incident, which has a realistically useful for an educational purpose.

And this file is obviously more than just plain text，And that's what it says"Also allowed are files which embody something of value over and above raw text."So it's not only excluded educational content.

So it is compliant scope.wanqi|Huang|！ (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ↑ https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/search/elawsSearch/elaws_search/lsg0500/detail?lawId=345AC0000000048#E
  2. ↑ https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect
  3. ↑ http://www.music.msu.ac.th/seninar-music-copyright.pdf


File:Solar eclipse of December 26, 2019 Kollam 17.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The photographs were taken by the uploader User:Fotokannan himself. I do not think we need to ask for OTRS permission. Also, the paper/film they are holding qualifies to be De minimis. Please undelete. Sreejith K (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Info They were deleted as they lack EXIF metadata. Ankry (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Lack of EXIF is not, in and of itself, a reason to delete. His other uploads (e.g. File:Solar eclipse of December 26, 2019 Kollam 8.resized.jpg) establish that he did in fact attend the event. I see no reason to doubt that he is telling the truth that the first photo is his son. It seems the FB determination was based solely on the metadata; Tineye turns up blank, so he probably didn't upload them to Facebook publicly. So currently we don't have an email address for OTRS to confirm, and it is an unreasonable intrusion of privacy to ask someone to make a private Facebook photo public just so we can verify the copyright (they might be content to share the photo itself, but not necessarily the Facebook comments on it). So in these cases we have to assume good faith. I agree with the COM:DM assessment as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imagine logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is a non free logo which is used in the wikipedia page that contains information about the business in question. I believe that the image in question is being used with fair use as it is used in the infobox. Additionally upon reading Wikipedia:Logos I believe that the logo may actually fall under copyright free logos as it is only made up of simple geometric shapes (circles) and text. Nathanielcwm (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Non-free logos cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, see COM:L. Ankry (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could the file be moved to the english wikipedia then? Nathanielcwm (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:IE LOGO Colour.pdf this is the logo of the company IE Abroad - www.ieabroad.com. It is created and owned by the company that is spoken about in the Wiki page

File:IE LOGO Colour.pdf this is the logo of the company IE Abroad - www.ieabroad.com. It is created and owned by the company that is spoken about in the Wiki page

--Brentwiliammorris (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tallukh film poster.jpg

I am the owner of this file ANURAGJHA CREATIONS. I HAVENT PUT A COPYRIGHT ON IT AND I ALLOW IT TO BE FULLY DISTRIBUTED. PLEASE UNDELETE IT. Thanks. Also i would love to prove this fact http://www.anuragjhacreations.in/ here is the official website at the bottom you will find the email id feel free to mail me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSantashines (talk • contribs) 13:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose - This has been previously published and thus requires permission to be submited using the process at COM:OTRS. Note also that "I HAVENT PUT A COPYRIGHT ON IT" is contradicted by your application/purport of a cc-by 4.0 license and "I am the owner of this file" is contradicted by your caption "The poster art copyright is believed to belong to the distributor of the Film, the publisher of the Film or the graphic artist" (!!!) It is incumbent on you to provide appropriate evidence, not for us to seek it. ("feel free to mail me") Эlcobbola talk 13:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a little more background here, for info, including the fact it was uploaded from IMDb, for some reason, and did carry an explicit © tag. Crep171166 (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Elcobbola. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 02:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:ROCAF Air Defense and Missile Command emblem 20170902.png

This file was deleted because of wrong license. But recently, I found it licensed under GWOIA. Here are the copyright declaration [2] and source file [3].--Larryasou (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Last Request (2019 film).png

I own the copyright to this picture. This is an image that I own. I am not using anyone else's image. Please undelete this. Thank you. --Dallasryanactor (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC) I own the rights to this picture. I am the person who made this image and that is me in the image. It is my image. Please undelete this. Thank you. --Dallasryanactor (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=437556815"