Commons:Undeletion requests

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


Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎italiano • ‎日本語 • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文

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

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

Commons deletion (policy)

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

Adding a request

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

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

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


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

Files uploaded by MARTA MANCINICons

Mostly scans of photos over a century old. Except one, they all had date/description and sufficient author information, plus a copyright tag. Blatant deletion mistake. Nemo 06:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. As they stand they could not be kept and the DR was open for a month without the uploader fixing them.

In several cases I looked at, it would be easy to determine the author and, probably, his date of death, that should have been done before upload. The uploader certainly cannot claim "own work" for any of these, as was done without source in several cases. Come back with this request one by one with the necessary information supplied, and we can restore them -- but not en masse. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Some of them already contains required licensing information so they should never be deleted while procession this DR. In some cases the information may be incomplete or incorrect (eg. PD-anon-EU template for a US work), but this was not raised in the DR. As per above oppose, I suggest reopening the DR and continue dispute there. Ankry (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, the uploader had a full month to deal with the various problems and made no effort to do so. I don't see that opening an unwieldy DR solves anything. If you have any specific files that you think should be restored, please list them and the community will consider them, but my look over the list suggests that the bulk of them cannot be kept as they are now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Note, that:
  1. the UDR request is not from the uploader; so any requirements directed to the uploader are irrelevant here
  2. most of the images already had proper copyright info fixed before they were deleted; so the deletion in the DR process was not correct, IMO. I have restored them: feel free to re-nominate for deletion (en masse, or one-by-one) if you wish
  3. we are all volunteers so we cannot require a specific user will respond in a specified period of time; we should be able to deal with such cases even if the uploader did not respond
  4. assumption that we can delete any image because its uploader did not respond is not the right way, IMO
  5. for few remaining images you are right: more information is required (@Nemo bis: eg. the death date of G[iovanni] Gussoni from Milano) to resolve their copyright status.
I think, we can close this case. Or anything else can be done/said here? Ankry (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
It is entirely out of process for you to restore these images when there are only two opposing comments on the UnDR. I suggest you redelete them and wait until there is more support for your side of this discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - none of them had a valid license, the files with a license only had a US PD rationale, and no license on the source country - Jcb (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

New York seems to be located in US. What source country rationale is expected then?
Anonymous-EU is a valid Italian copyright tag when no author/publisher info is provided on the work itself. (work = diploma form; the written text is purely informative and so not eligible for copyright); AFAIK, in some countries such diplomas can be considered "official documents", not eligible for copyright, but unsure about Italy here.
Italian diplomas with author/publisher info remain deleted. Ankry (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
The diplomas are clearly above TOO, so eligible for copyright. Also several pictures of people are involved. To use Anonymous-EU, you have to show that the author actually published the work without disclosing his identity. This is completely different from 'we at Commons do not know the name of the author'. Jcb (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: Indeed, clear copyright mark: "Mishkin Studio, New York", "(C) H. Mishkin, N.Y." and clearly pre-1923 published. Why they needed to be deleted? Ankry (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
None of the images seems to origin from the US, so it's not sufficient to only deal with the US copyright situation. (I wrote that earlier, as you can see a few lines above). Jcb (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
False asumption. "Boston Conservatory of Music" is probably a Russian school. And two photos were created in New York near Rome. They were photographed in Italy, but it is irrelevant for definition of their country of origin. Some works are Italian, one is definitely German (also PD) and at least three are US. Ankry (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry, but what you write is very difficult to understand and very vague. E.g. what is "created in New York near Rome" suppose to mean? And claims like "one is definitely German (also PD)" should come with a file name and a PD rationale. Jcb (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: This means that you deleted images with valid author/copyright information without even looking at them. Ankry (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Boston Conservatory of Music is here. This and this images have clear copyright mark from a New York photographer. How did you find them to be non-US works? this has clear authorship of a German photographer (death date unknown, but active since 1864, so PD-old-assumed is an appropriate rationale). And recent deletion reason is clearly fake for them.
Regarding File:Agide Jacchia 04.jpg, the same photo-card has been published under a CC-by-4 licence by Deutsche Fotothek, so we could either restore this one accordingly or upload the Fotothek image. De728631 (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC) restore it. The autographs seen in Agide Jacchia 04.jpg are not copyrightable and if the photograph is available under CC-by I support restoration. De728631 (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


I also request that these files that I uploaded to the Northern Football League Wikipedia Page be undeleted;

Reasons: These images were drawn by me on Microsoft Paint and therefore not official pictures that were created by the football clubs involved and not under copyright, they can be free to be used anywhere on the internet. It is already common for the jumper designs of football clubs to be uploaded to Wikipedia - for example, if you look at the Goulburn Valley Football League and the Central Murray Football League Wikipedia pages, they have pictures of the jumper design of all of their clubs. The pictures I uploaded completed the missing jumper designs from my league, bringing the Northern Football League Wikipedia Page close to completion and accuracy. The only difference I can see between the jumper designs on the other Wikipedia pages and my own, it is that mine have the Northern Football League Logo on the jumper design. If this is what the issue was, I will remove it and reload the images. I believe that the addition of the jumper designs for teams in the Northern Football League Wikipedia Page adds interest for anyone reading the page.


--Dpeters1980 (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Robert Cena 1863-1945.jpg

"The source for this photograph has now been determined. This photograph has been published on page 92 of the book by Adam Serdeczny, “Morawsko od czasów starożytnych do końca XX wieku”, Jarosław 2006, ISBN 83-86697-63-6 – already cited in the original biographical note Robert Cena. It is argued that the photograph of a known source may now be attributed a free licence due to its age (PD-Polish: above 70 years). If this fulfils the licensing requirements, the request to delete is hereby withdrawn. Regards Henry39 (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)" per this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Some additional information that the discussants might find useful.

Robert Cena was in the last years of XIX century an important leader and deputy representing the Agrarian-Christian Party from the Polish part of Austria in the then Imperial Austrian parliament in Wien. Since 1900, this area (Jarosław, now in the South-Eastern corner of Poland) suffered two world wars and was invaded by Russians, then Germans, and Russians again. It is now (partly only) a part of Poland as it always was before the troubled years. There are very few archives left and available. The Polish archives (the Jagiellonian Library in Cracow in particular) are incomplete. Moreover, there are no successors to the XIX century photographers or publishers. Hence, it is practically impossible to locate the original source of the Robert Cena’s photograph. However, we know a lot about the image. First, it shows Robert as a young man, taken presumably at the peak of his political career. It means that the photo is about 120 years old. Second, the photo published by the local historian Adam Serdeczny (mentioned above) was already a rather poor copy/scan from, it may be assumed, some printed material and it was/is not one of those formal XIX century portraits produced in a photography atelier. Third, the image is that of Robert Cena, as we have the evidence from Adam Serdeczny himself and it agrees with a detailed facial description in an article in newspaper Cracow Daily (30 March 1897) giving the news of Robert’s election. The description, in Polish, is presented in full in reference No. 6 in Robert Cena in the Polish Wikipedia. Adam Serdeczny, the local teacher/historian has passed away (in 2009). Robert Cena biograms have already been written and published independently in both the Czech and the Polish Wikipedias. Regards - Henry39 (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Surb gexard.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is from Christian Armenia Encyclopedia which is under cc-by-sa-3.0 (file:Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան Հանրագիտարան (Christian Armenia Encyclopedia).pdf) ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that is a completely different photo. As noted last time the file was deleted before you recreated it outside of process, the file was actually taken from hy:File:Surb gexard.JPG, which has no source, authorship or licensing information whatsoever. LX (talk, contribs) 13:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
See the third image. These two images are the same. My (and hywiki) version is just with better resolution.--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
ԱշոտՏՆՂ, please be honest to yourself. These are two photos of the same subject, but not two identical photos. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Sealle (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Repeating the claim doesn't make it any more true. Even if it were the same photo, the licensing claims for File:Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան Հանրագիտարան (Christian Armenia Encyclopedia).pdf and all the images it contains aren't exactly convincing either. LX (talk, contribs) 15:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
OK :(. BTW, can I cut and upload the image (or any other image) from the encyclopedia?. I just want to understand the rules.--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Ordinarily, you can reuse content that you find on Commons, but as I said, I'm not convinced about the copyright situation for File:Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան Հանրագիտարան (Christian Armenia Encyclopedia).pdf, and I've just started a discussion about that. I wouldn't upload anything extracted from the file unless it is shown that the licensing is correct and applicable to the illustrations used in the file. LX (talk, contribs) 08:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

File:-KM 30 (canto).jpg

Ni que decir tiene que nada más lejos de mi intención que tratar de subir una imagen cuyos derechos de publicación, verdaderamente, no me pertenecieran. Así, si solicito la restauración del archivo indicado es simplemente porque no alcanzo a entender qué violación de derechos de autor puede haber en el hecho de que haya fotografiado, en este caso el canto, de una moneda de mi propiedad, con una cámara de mi propiedad. Si así ha sido, ruego me indiquen para sucesivas ocasiones qué manera completamente acorde con la legalidad hay de subir este tipo de imágenes.

Un saludo. --Mperezreviriego (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Files in Category:Falla Gayano Lluch 2015

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Falla Gayano Lluch 2015. Mistakenly deleted by EugeneZelenko who ignored Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Coentor.--Coentor (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think he ignored the earlier DR -- he was probably not aware of it. There is nothing in these file descriptions to indicate that these sculptures are temporary and are burned. In fact, you have not said that here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Almonty Industries and Panasqueira Mine

File:Pe. Leal.jpg


Good afternoon

I'm Nuno Alves director of mine developmentof Almonty Industries, the owner of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal that is the legal owner of the concession on Panasqueira Mine in Portugal. Please see:

I published the file Frentes convergentes - Panasqueira.jpg in commons, to update a wikipedia article on Panasqueira Mine.

That file Frentes convergentes - Panasqueira.jpg is from the internal records of the corporation that I represent (Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal) that has all the rights over that photo. It was published by Ing Cláudio dos Reis in an official state publication in 1992 in behalf of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal.

In case of needing additional clarifications please contact me by:

Thanking you in advance

Nuno Alves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuno Madeira Alves (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because we do not know who you actually are and identity theft is common here, policy requires that an authorized official of the oprganization owning the copyrights to the images must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Produção mineira histórica.jpg

Good afternoon

I'm Nuno Alves director of mine developmentof Almonty Industries the owner of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal that is the legal owner of the concession on Panasqueira Mine in Portugal. Please see:

I published the file File:Produção mineira histórica.jpg in commons, to update a wikipedia article on Panasqueira Mine.

That file File:Produção mineira histórica.jpg is from the internal records of the corporation that I represent (Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal) that has all the rights over that photo. It belongs to the production record that the corporation keeps updating year after year. It is also published in:

In case of needing additional clarifications please contact me by:

Thanking you in advance

Nuno Alves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuno Madeira Alves (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image is out of scope. We do not keep images of text material that should be set in wiki markup. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Côrrea de Sá et al 1999.pdf

Good afternoon

I'm Nuno Alves director of mine developmentof Almonty Industries the owner of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal that is the legal owner of the concession on Panasqueira Mine in Portugal. Please see:

I published the file File:Côrrea de Sá et al 1999.pdf] in commons, to update a wikipedia article on Panasqueira Mine.

That file File:Côrrea de Sá et al 1999.pdf] is from the internal records of the corporation that I represent (Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal) that has all the rights over that work. It was created and published in 1999 by Beralt. Ing António Correa de Sá is actually chairman of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal and gave all authorizations for the publication of this work also.

In case of needing additional clarifications please contact me by:

Thanking you in advance

Nuno Alves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuno Madeira Alves (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved
I just wrote to this person by email with further guidance on emailing OTRS. That resolves this matter for now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
At ticket:2017041810014761 the user made a copyright release for these images. I cannot see the images but here are their names -
These can go into Category:Panasqueira Mines.
Can someone else process the undeletion at least temporarily, if not the entire ticket? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No. Making a request here does not allow uploaders to jump the long OTRS queue. These images must wait their turn.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward It was not my intention that anyone should jump the queue, but that is what I incorrectly did and I apologize for the sake of those waiting. At this point, could we make this an instructional experience so that I learn the correct way and share the information with others? Suppose that I did come to this request in the OTRS queue - what is the correct process for a non-admin like me? Should I as a non-admin not touch the ticket, or request undeletion to examine them, or what would you advise? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I came on a little strong above -- the length of the OTRS queue makes me unhappy and I don't always deal with it well.
When you process the OTRS queue in the routine way, oldest first, then you can and should bring those that deserve it here for restoration. That will usually be done routinely. If you have any doubts, you can list out the files included in the e-mail and ask that an Admin look them over.
It's not a bad idea to check the reason for deletion. An OTRS license will not allow restoration of a file that is out of scope, such as this uploader's File:Produção mineira histórica.jpg, mentioned above, which is an image of a table which should be set in Wiki markup. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Related DR's

Please, undelete this files until resolving the main DR. Thanks.--MaGa 17:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What "main DR"? The first of these files is the base map for the others. It has no source and was deleted. Unless someone can up with the source, freely licensed, it and all its subsidiaries cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

This (deleted) and other files have the same problem. As you see, main DR is still open, so individually deleting of some files is not correct. It's very simple: all or nothing.--MaGa 19:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Main DR is linked in the title of this section.--MaGa 19:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

File:La nostra Polizia locale a Mirandola per il terremoto (13944014636).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the original author/owner of the image deleted is a Local Government of Italy (Comune di Sesto San Giovanni = Sesto San Giovanni municipality) that uploaded its official/original work on Flickr with Public Domain Mark. The image was deleted sice "PDM is no-license". If so, according to national law of Italy (article 52.2 of Digital Administration Code of Italy - D.Lgs. 07/03/2005, n.82) this work published by an italian public administration without a license is considered by law as "open data by default" and totally free (for commercial use too) with attribution or CC-BY (see also National guide lines, page 84, of the AgID - National Agency for Digital Italy). For these reasons, I guess that this PDM image (and all images published by any italian public administration with PDM) could be compatible with Commons copyright policy. Thank you for your attention. Holapaco77 (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support PDM is not a licence but if we can establish why something is in the public domain, the image can be kept. In this case, {{Attribution}} should be alright considering the Digital Administration Code as linked above. De728631 (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Nagyvasútállomásnál. Tatai buszjáratok, térkép. - Komárom-Esztergom megye, Tata.JPG

Reason of the discuss

Hi Jcb! Globetrotter19 contacted me and said that the deleted file is a cropped version of File:Nagyvasútállomásnál. Tata várostérkép. - Komárom-Esztergom megye, Tata.JPG which shows an information table erected in a permanent manner (Hungary has FoP). Thus, I think FoP applies in this case and the file can be restored. Would you mind taking another look at it? Thanks, Einstein2 (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2017 ([1])

After that Jcb immediately designated for deletion the 'big file' (File:Nagyvasútállomásnál. Tata várostérkép. - Komárom-Esztergom megye, Tata.JPG). The discuss is here [2].

So, if 'the Big' is FoP, I think the cropped version also FoP and can be restored.

Sincerely, - - Globetrotter19 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Ibradili ibrahim hayrettin.jpg

I greatly appreciate the careful and thoughtful approach of Wikipedia about copyrights. At this point, I request that the deleted image file be loaded again. I am the grand-daughter of İbrahim Hayrettin Ağıldere. This photograph belongs to our family. We have the copyrights of the photo. Yet, as our grandfather is an eminent historical figure and this is his only photograph in a formal suit representing an important image of the First World War Era, as members of the family, we use the photograph online and also allow those who write about history to use the photo on the subject freely. The photograph has already been published in many books with our permission of free use. Therefore, please get in touch with me if you have any further questions, and accept my sincere and true declaration that publishing this photograph will not cause any liabilities or shame on Wikipedia. 20 April 2017 F Gulsima Baykal (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @F Gulsima Baykal: Reading the deletion request of this file, you sent before an email to the OTRS, am I correct? I would like to note that owning a photograph doesn't make you the copyright holder, unless you are the one who made it. The copyright holder of this image is the photographer. Please ask the photographer, if they are still alive, or their heir(s), if dead, to send a declaration of consent via email to the OTRS. For now, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeleting this image until permission from the photographer is received and confirmed. -- Poké95 09:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ibradili ibrahim hayrettin.jpg, this file had what turned out to be Ticket:2015050910014351 and no investigation when it was on Turkish Wikipedia.   — Jeff G. ツ 09:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Unless the OTRS volunteer is no longer active, can someone confirm who the OTRS volunteer was for this ticket and ping them here for an explanation of their actions please? I see no reason why this should be a secret and there may be a great deal of benefit in having some public scrutiny of other tickets. Thanks -- (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fae: The agent is still active, and I sent them an email asking them to comment here. - Reventtalk 11:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to explain, some agents use an alias instead of their real name when handling tickets, and some use their real name. I don't know which is the case here, but the username in combination with the email itself might expose personal info (re otrswiki:List of accounts "The contents of this page (which exists merely for internal coordination) are confidential—they should not be given, in part or in full, to anyone who is not an OTRS agent. This applies specifically to response names, email addresses, as well as the list of roles held by a particular agent." - Reventtalk 11:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: Yes, I know how OTRS works, having been a volunteer for two years. This does not stop us from identifying who added the OTRS ticket from the image page history. Please ping that account here and we will be able to discuss if there are issues with other tickets or not. Being an OTRS volunteer should never be an excuse to evade basic transparency and accountability for their actions taken on this project. Thanks -- (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fae: The OTRS ticket was added on trwiki, and then the file was transferred here by someone else...I have never seen the trwiki history. Like I said, I pinged them by email and they will probably comment here, but I'm not going to say who it is, as it would potentially 'out' them to anyone who has a copy of the OTRS correspondence. Maybe I'm being overly cautious, but it's safer... you are asking for info that I, and indeed anyone who cannot see the history of deleted files on trwiki, obtained under a confidentiality agreement. - Reventtalk 12:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be a disconnect here. The only people with access to the OTRS correspondence are those with access to OTRS. Nobody has asked for that to be published. I am, directly, asking for public information, which is precisely the account name that added the OTRS ticket to the image. Again this is public information, not covered by any WMF confidentiality agreement, which deletion is not intended to obscure (this was not the reason for deletion), and does not "out" the name used for external correspondence, which itself can be a pseudonym and there is no reason to associate with the account name I'm asking for.
Please add that public and non-confidential information to this UNDEL request. Thanks -- (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fae: That's exactly it. I cannot tell you "the account name that added the OTRS ticket to the image", because it was done on trwiki, and I cannot see it. All I can see is the name of the OTRS account that handled the ticket, and use the confidential account page to find out how to contact the agent. They might be (and probably are) the same, but I have no way to know that. - Reventtalk 12:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Hakan Duran: as you were adding OTRS tickets on Commons, could you clarify the circumstances of who did what on trwiki? I am exceedingly uncomfortable that public information is being obscured in a way that avoids any direct accountability for actions taken. Thanks -- (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@: I have added a note to that ticket referencing this conversation and reopening the ticket, as it is now an open question. Be aware, that agent has not edited any project in over a month.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: That depends on your definition of "active". Also, in order for ping to work, you have to use the actual username, "Fæ", rather than typing "Fae". Copy/paste is best for this, as most of us probably don't have the "æ" glyph on our keyboards.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Oi, I always forget his actual username is weird. Thanks. - Reventtalk
@Revent: You're welcome. However, unless you know something I don't know, and in the spirit of COM:GNL, please avoid using gendered pronouns to refer to Fæ, as it seems a sensitive subject.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The OTRS e-mail is from a g-mail address whose name is similar to that of the uploader. It is one sentence that says only that the sender licenses the file -- the sender does not claim to own the copyright. Assuming that the sender is the same person as the uploader, as noted above, there is no reason to believe that he or she has the right to license this image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @Pokéfan95: The photograph, which must have been taken in early 1920s, has been the property of the family since then. We don't know who took it. Most probably, the photographer, who was paid for it - if not taken by another family member - died. This is a kind of photograph that belongs to public now. It has been published, through books and on the internet for more than 40 years. If there was a licence owner in the sense it is mentioned here, the owner - who is definitely me, my two siblings and my two cousins, as the only heirs of all Ibrahim Hayrettin's belongings - would have long ago objected to it. Is a legal document needed, to show that I am his grand-daughter and his heir?In addition, I would also like to mention that between 3rd and 10th of May 2015, I have corresponded with someone from the Wikipedia Information team and I did everything required from me so that we do the right thing. The photograph will definitely add great value, increasing the quality of an important Wikipedia item.

20 April 2017 F Gulsima Baykal (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @Jameslwoodward: Dear Jim, ı find it difficult to follow the OTRS issues. But I understand your concern about copyright issues very well. Here, the subject matter is a photograph that was taken nearly 100 years ago, and we have it in the family album as one original copy. We provided this copy's prints for writers and other concerned historians whenever needed. In other words, there is no license issue about this image. The image is the photograph of a historical figure (my grandfather) in the formal dress code of the first world war era. That's why it is important that it can be seen together with the written information. I'm kindly asking you to reconsider your opposition of my request. The photograph will definitely not violate any license rights. It will only add value to this Wikipedia item. PS. I'm also publishing the same photo in a blog and a facebook page of his name.

20 April 2017 F Gulsima Baykal (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

F Gulsima Baykal, unfortunately, as has been pointed out above, your understanding of copyright is incorrect. Repeating the facts will not change the fact that owning a paper copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it. You certainly understand that if you own a paper copy of a book, you cannot make and sell copies of it. Exactly the same rules apply to photographs. In order for the image to be restored to Commons, an heir of the actual photographer must freely license it. If the photographer is unknown, then the image cannot be kept on Commons until it is old enough so that we can assume that the photographer died more than 70 years previously. If the image was taken in the 1920s, that will be forty years from now.
There is another possibility. You say that it has been published before. Where and when was it first published? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: The first book (to my knowledge) that used the image was published in late 1980s in Ankara, Turkey. It is a book by Prof Dr Izzettin Baris named “Canakkale Savaslari (Gallipoli Wars)”. The book was published again in 2000 in Istanbul. They were distributed in Turkey. The books listed in the references no. 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the entry also include the same image. They are still available for sale. Additionally, the same image was used in at least two history magazines; NTV Magazine (2011) and Ibradı Magazine (2016). Finally, it will be useful to remember that the ownership of copyrights do not always have to belong to the author only. It is determined by the author and the service buyer mutually. There is a clear and great difference between “owning an inherited property from the family” and “owning a book or a photographer’s work”. On important occasions, we invite a photographer and pay him to take photographs for us, making the photographs our property – having paid the person to produce a “property” that we could use for our own purposes. The agent who helped me with receiving a valid OTRS ticket for the image did so because of our ownership of the image with all its rights, and that we allow the image to be used as public property because of the historical importance of the person, who has only one photograph that can reflect the historical event. Finally, 1920s was nearly 100 years from now, not forty. 21 April 2017 F Gulsima Baykal (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

First, again, it does not matter if the photographer was paid, unless there is a written agreement with the photographer which licenses the rights, you do not have the right to freely license the image. That is well established law and no amount of your wishing it were otherwise will change it.
Second, my "forty years from now" was the time when we could assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years -- that is, in 2055, 130 years after the image was created. In order for the image to be out of copyright now, we have to assume that the photographer died only 20 years after taking the photograph, and that is not a reasonable assumption.
Third, I asked the question about publication because, in some countries, the law is that a photograph taken by an unknown person goes out of copyright 70 years after publication. However, if first publication was in the 1980s, that does not help. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jim.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Dutch spoken articles

File:Nl-BNN Today-article.ogg and Nl-Dirk van den Broek-article.ogg. These are spoken versions of the respective Dutch articles nl:BNN Today and nl:Dirk van den Broek. See also Matthijs van Nieuwkerk.ogg, which has been restored for the same reason. Wikiwerner (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

These were deleted in 2013 for missing licenses. Which is the copyright status of a reading of a Wikipedia article? Thuresson (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
It is public domain: see File:Nl-Matthijs van Nieuwkerk-article.ogg, which was deleted for the same reason, and had been restored recently. Wikiwerner (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Public Domain cannot be correct. The recordings are derivative work of a CC-BY-SA 3.0 Wikipedia article. The license of the recording should be CC-BY-SA 3.0 as well. Jcb (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The recordings itself don't add a new copyright. Natuur12 (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, there is clearly some original authorship in the recording. But due to the license of the article, the recording must have the same license. To satisfy the license requirements, the person who made the recording has to be attributed for making the recording. Jcb (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
If a back seat conversation isn't copyrighted, why would readin a text generate a copyright? Natuur12 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
A back seat conversation may be on the edge, but for a recording of a Wikipedia article it's quite obvious that there is original authorship. You make choices e.g. in intonation, speed, how to read non-proza parts. But fortunately this whole discussion is hardly relevant for these recordings, because the license is already obvious, and the user who made the recording is attributed correctly if they use our standard templates. Jcb (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Rene Liu.jpg

It's my own work. Or can be release under cc-by-sa 3.0, you can see the license on this page (my blog). And why the file be deleted without noticing uploader?--Reke (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Dialog, St. Hanzík, 1983, Voršilská zahrada u Nové Scény, Národní divadlo.jpg, File:Danae, Stanislav Hanzík, 1967, vápenec.jpg

Hello, I would like to ask for undeletion of:

Both are artworks of Mr. Stanislav Hanzík, both were depicted in public places and both author of the picture is unknown (according to OTRS correspondence). Do they reach a threshold of originality or are they out of scope of licensing and therefore Public domain? I deleted them once so I would like another user to help me making the final decision. Thanks --Mates (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mates: What does COM:FOP have to say about the country they were in?   — Jeff G. ツ 13:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: As stated in FOP#Czech Republic. --Mates (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mates: Since the matter has no precedent in the Czech courts and the Czech law on the matter is murky, I'd follow COM:PRP, as you did initially. Rereading your post, we don't have permission of the artist and he's still alive, so wait ~75 years after his death before thinking of restoring.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: OK, as you say, that artist's permission is needed. I can get that quite easily, but I was uncertain if we need a permission from the person who has took the picture itself. --Mates (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mates: Whether or not we need the photographer's permission depends on the perfection of the 2D copy of the 2D original, right?   — Jeff G. ツ 23:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Peugeot 2008DKR Tehran.jpg

This file was deleted by user:EugeneZelenko because it was not in original resolution. It was my own work, but I was edited it before uploading here. how shall I get it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahdi666 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Mahdi666 (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mahdi666: You have two options: one, upload the original photo here, or two, follow the procedure at OTRS. I would Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion of this image for now until this issue has been resolved. Thanks, Poké95 08:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

File:THW WP Reinfeld.jpg

Bild Quelle: THW

Alle vom THW zur Verfügung gestellten Bilder sind honorarfrei und dürfen unter Angabe der Quelle "THW" für die Berichterstattung über das THW und das Thema Bevölkerungsschutz verwendet werden. Hiermit bestätige ich die Einhaltung der Nutzungsrechte zu Bildern des THW. --2A02:8108:AC0:2EC4:8C4B:FAD1:8564:614B 11:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Björn Staats THW OVELM

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Can not be used for any purpose. Thuresson (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Fool Moon 2016.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permission (ticket:2017040110006579) Regasterios (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Regasterios: go ahead and add the ticket. Thanks. --Daphne Lantier 19:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Srinath Singh.jpg

This image is published for public use anywhere by the permission of Sushila Chauhan,daughter of Thakur Srinath Singh, resident of Allahabad. This work now follows The Copyright Act Of India 1957,which is also recognized by United States Of America under the treaty of both countries. So please undelete the specified image. Thanking You, Pushpendra Singh (son of Sushila Chauhan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpschauhan (talk • contribs) 13:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Drpschauhan: Hi,
"published for public use" is not sufficient for Wikimedia Commons. We need either a free license, or an evidence that the file is in the public domain. For that, could you please provide when the picture was first published, and who is the photographer? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


The front page of Balsakha magazine is published 100 years ago in 1917 and according The Copyright Act Of India 1957,which is also recognized by United States Of America under the treaty of both countries, which states that after 60 years from publication,any such work is not considered under this copyright act and can be used by anyone. So please undelete the specified image. Thanking You, Pushpendra Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpschauhan (talk • contribs) 14:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support PD-India. Source: @Drpschauhan: Next time, could you please provide the correct source, date, author, and license? Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Undeleted some files uploaded by Vpe

I work essentially on the project of Montpellier and I live in the same city.
Is it possible to restore files that were erased too quickly ?

I've open a request (in french) for a same situation with this file : "Affiches électorales 2012.JPG". In France, in a electoral period, it's a biggest moment and this image is representative for the posters in a public domain.
I am in the process for update the file, but all images are not in Commons and the links with the pages that are used this file are broken. I just need an access to copy the links with the pages of the different projects.
I've geolocated this file "Église Saint-Marc" but my changes are't update ! This file complies with the rules of Commons.
This file is the only one that is not distorted after the restoration of the historical monument. The file is small but the photograph is unique.
The file is unique to Montpellier and there are only three files in the category : Radomes in France. It would be a shame to delete a file that complies with the rules of Commons.
I've also geolocated this file but my changes are't update. I take photos regularly from the city but there is already so much work to do in categories before dropping files.
For these four files, we do not yet have an equivalent on Commons (Patrimoine de l'Université Montpellier I (sorry, in french) ).
I've also geolocated this file but... no update of my changes.
It is the only file of this church that we have for the village of Satillieu (in french because he's too poor in English). Why remove the file from a church ?

Thank you in advance if this restoration can be possible ! —— DePlusJean (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you please upload the original unmodified images (except the election posters)? (Message in French to the contributor's talk page). Yann (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Bonsoir @Yann, je me suis permis de vous répondre sur ma pdd.
Cordialement, —— DePlusJean (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
File:Affiches presidentielles 2017.jpg cannot be restored because it is a derivative work of non-free campaign posters, and there is no freedom of panorama in France. So even if you took the photo, you're not allowed to publish it without consent from the copyright holders of the posters.
File:Montpellier montage couv.jpg: did you take all these individual photographs yourself? If so, please upload them all separately in original resolution including the EXIF metadata. Otherwise, please tell us which freely licensed images you used to created this montage. De728631 (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @De728631 for your quick reply and for the information provided.
  • For the file Affiches presidentielles 2017.jpg : During elections, posting is allowed on the public domain (In accordance with the Environmental Code (articles L.581-13, R.581-2 et R.581-3)). The photo was taken in the street, for a display during the election period of 2017 (Category with 27 files) and for validated candidates. I think that this photo is in agreement with a freedom of panorama, derivative works and respects French law.
  • Unfortunately, no. There is no freedom of panorama in France, and the posters are under a copyright, even if displayed on public places. Yann (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Cordially, —— DePlusJean (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Raymond Persin par Georges Paul-Manceau (1908).png

I personally took this picture of this painting which belongs to my wife, great granddaughter of Raymond Persin.

Thanks --AgathaNi (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Georges Paul-Manceau (1872-1955). Thuresson (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Thuresson.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Krzysztof Pastor, photo Łukasz Murgrabia.tif

The file was deleted before we (at permissions-pl) could process the OTRS ticket. Permission filed under #2017041910010496. Halibutt (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Halibutt: {{Request temporary undeletion}} has proven useful for me in such requests.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)