Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UD)
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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Steinschreiber

I created this DR for a potential problem of DW regarding the images on each cigarette packs. It was closed as deleted by Jcb. Following this discussion on my talk page initiated by Steinschreiber, I'm wonder if we can restore the images. The images were published there and without any special restrictions. Your opinions? Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The copyright notice does not explicitly allow derivative work, which is mandatory to comply with COM:L. So I am afraid the permission is not compatible. Jcb (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
That is true that the legal notice point to this decision. And in this decision we can read at the article 6 (2)b "the obligation not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents", and it looks great to no derivative restriction. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
A) As Christian Ferrer (talk) correctly stated, that in this decision we can read at the article 6 (2)b "the obligation not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents" (or same in official German version of this EU decision: Artikel 6 Bedingungen für die Weiterverwendung von Dokumenten (2)b "die Verpflichtung, die ursprüngliche Bedeutung oder Botschaft des Dokuments nicht verzerrt darzustellen;".
A 'distortion' of a health warning
- is *not* just a photo of the health warning with the same content (i.e. same picture of health warning and same text of health warning) on another background or context or use
- but a 'distortion' is a change which changes the *message*, e.g. changing the text from to "smoking can kill you" to "smoking is healthy" or changing the picture from a person spitting blood to a person smiling happily.
=> undelete
B) Besides that (i.e. even if it would be a distortion), the [Article 6] states that "Conditions for reuse of documents
1. Documents shall be available for reuse without application unless otherwise specified and without restrictions or, where appropriate, an open licence or disclaimer setting out conditions explaining the rights of reusers.
2. Those conditions, which shall not unnecessarily restrict possibilities for reuse, may include the following: [..]
(b) the obligation not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents"

but it only may include "the obligation not to distort" but not do include "the obligation not to distort", because it is not mentioned that this obligation applies in that case/web page. The right to use it for commercial or non-commercial purposes is explicitely stated [see copyright notice]
=> undelete
--Steinschreiber (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If still not convinced, please note: According to the German implementation of the EU Tobacco Product Directive 2 [Directive 2014/40/EU] into German national law [Verordnung über Tabakerzeugnisse und verwandte Erzeugnisse (Tabakerzeugnisverordnung - TabakerzV) § 11 Allgemeine Vorschriften zur Kennzeichnung von Tabakerzeugnissen] (1) Für die Gestaltung und Anbringung der gesundheitsbezogenen Warnhinweise nach den §§ 12 bis 17 auf Packungen und Außenverpackungen von Tabakerzeugnissen gelten folgende allgemeine Anforderungen: Die gesundheitsbezogenen Warnhinweise [..] 4. dürfen zum Zeitpunkt des Inverkehrbringens, einschließlich des Anbietens zum Verkauf, nicht teilweise oder vollständig verdeckt oder getrennt werden; [...] (2) Abbildungen von Packungen und Außenverpackungen, die für an Verbraucher gerichtete Werbemaßnahmen in der Europäischen Union bestimmt sind, müssen den Anforderungen dieses Unterabschnitts genügen. in conjunction with: [Gesetz über Tabakerzeugnisse und verwandte Erzeugnisse (Tabakerzeugnisgesetz - TabakerzG) § 35 Bußgeldvorschriften]
it is an offence under German law to use photos of cigarette packs, on which the graphic health warnings are hidden, for advertising to end customers within the EU (with a fine of up to 30 000 €). (The same is valid for presenting them in a shop (included into the paragraph listed above by Bundesrat (German States Council), Drucksache, 221/17 on 12 May 2017) i.e. the whole idea of the EU law is to enforce the use of graphic health warnings and *not* to hide them. The graphic health warnings were made purely by the EU to spread their messages.
=> undelete
--Steinschreiber (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Indeed my quote did not include the beginning, and my understanding was maybe wrong. My quote above is about one possible condition, but this part only applies when it is specified : "...available for reuse without application unless otherwise specified". Therefore I tend to Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The photographs used on the packs are NOT covered by {{PD-GermanGov}} or {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. There is no CC license attached to those photographs. The photographs are still covered 70 years pma if author is known and 70 years after publication if not. Everything else quoted above is procedural / moral rights and has nothing to do with Commons-compatible licensing. A transfer of the copyright (e.g. to the DE-GOV) is only possible by inheritance, as § 29 UrhG clearly states. The intention of showing the photos and not hiding them seems logical, but is NOT a valid license statement. There's no way Commons can keep these photos. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Except where otherwise stated, reuse of the EUR-Lex data for commercial or non-commercial purposes is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. According to this and ensuing from the image descriptions provided by User:Steinschreiber restoral and tagging with {{European Union Government}} should be fine cause there's no such exception annotated on the page of EU government where the photographs you refer to were originally published. jm2c --Jotzet (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


Please, restore the following speedy-deleted file and nominate for deletion to discuss it: File:Simonyi-Semadam.jpg. The source, an academic work (Izsák, Alajos – Pölöskei, Ferenc – Romsics, Ignác – Urbán, Aladár: Magyar miniszterelnökök 1848–2002 [Prime ministers of Hungary 1848–2002], Kossuth Kiadó, Budapest, 2003. p. 85. and 227.) clearly says the author is unknown and the photo was taken in 1920 (thus it is more than 70 years old). User:Hungarikusz Firkász nominated the image for speedy deletion without giving a reason. When I asked him to describe the reasons, he reverted my edit without comment both in Commons and Hungarian Wiki. Thanks in advance, --Norden1990 (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A kép szerzője Halmi Béla, aki 1962-ben hunyt el. Attól, hogy egy könyvben nem tüntetik fel a szerzőket, nem azt jelenti, hogy a könyv szerzői szerint ismeretlen, hanem csak annyit, hogy nem tüntették fel. :-) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A megadott könyv konkrétan írja, hogy ismeretlen szerző, illetve 1934 helyett 1920 szerepel dátumként. De ha Halmi a fényképész, akkor a kép még nem közkincs (majd 2033-ban). Ugye, hogy nem fájt annyira a válaszadás. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Nem neked válaszoltam. :-) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hmm. I don't think so. The Hungarian law is 70 years pma in the case of published works. Published works by unknown authors are copyrighted for 70 years after publication, but we have no evidence of any publication before 2002. While the 2002 book cited above could publish it legally under the rule that unpublished works by unknown authors are PD 70 years after creation, the publisher of that book has a new 25 year copyright for the work.

(After edit conflict) If HF has correctly named the author above, then the work will be under copyright until 1/1/2033 (1962+70). If not, it will be under copyright until 1/1/2029 (2003+25)..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Egyébként az sem feltétlenül hiteles forrás. Itt például ismeretlen fényképezőt ír, miközben erről a képről egyértelműen lehet tudni, hogy a készítő Jelfy Gyula. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Meg gondolom, a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum sem feltétlenül megbízható, ami a kép adatszolgáltatója. (Institution: Hungarian National Museum) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk)
Jól gondolod, egyetértek. A kép a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Történeti Fényképtár (Historical Photo Collection of the Hungarian National Museum) része, a miniszterelnöki protokollkép 1920-ban készült. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Halmi Béla akkor is 1962-ben hunyt el, a lényegen ez nem változtat. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Ha a honlap téved a dátumban (1934), akkor a szerzőt illetően is tévedhet. Főleg, hogy Halminak 1920-ban még nem is volt műterme. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Tehát a Múzeum csak abban téved, amiben neked jól esik? Gondolod, az élet így működik? Attól, hogy valakinek nincs műterme, még fényképezhet. :-) Az pedig még véletlenül sem fordulhat elő, hogy a Izsák, Alajos – Pölöskei, Ferenc – Romsics, Ignác – Urbán, Aladár szerzők tévednek. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Legalább most ne légy ostoba, bár nyilván, nehéz ezt kérni tőled. :) Az adott kor feltételei mellett a beállított fotók műtermekben készültek. Halmi az 1920-as években még nem volt aktív (maximum tanonc lehetett). A kép más könyvekben is előfordul (pl. legújabban A Horthy-korszak, Helikon, 2017), szintén 1920 és ismeretlen fényképész megjelöléssel. De nekem mindegy, hogy a kép marad-e vagy sem, mert Simonyi-Semadamról legalább van még fotó, igaz, ez volt a legjobb, lévén, hivatalos miniszterelnöki portré. További jó ámokfutást. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Látom, nem sokáig bírod ki személyeskedés nélkül, ha nem bírod a véleményedet ráerőszakolni a másikra, de csak saját magadat minősíted. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Ez van. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Én tőlem, lehet akár ez is, engem nem zavar, ha ilyenképpen mutatkozol be. :-D Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear User:Jameslwoodward, this is a well-known official photograph of a prime minister (1920, so I doubt the date of 1934). It already appeared in the book Magyarország miniszterelnökei 1848-1990, published in 1993. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, if HF is wrong and the author is actually unknown, then a 1993 publication has a 25 year copyright that expires on 1/1/2019. The only way to have it be PD today is to show that it was first published either (a) after 1/1/1991 and before 1/1/1992 (so that the original 70 years had passed, and that the 25 year copyright has also passed) or (b) before 1/1/1926, so that the original 70 years had passed before the URAA date. ..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Which, anyway, is not a criteria for speedy deletion. :) 1993 was just an example, the photo already appeared in earlier works, for example daily 8 Órai Ujság (after his appointment in March 1920). --Norden1990 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
But the author is not unknown. The Hungarian National Museum supports Béla Halmi (see Provenance-Institution: Hungarian National Museum). There is no proof that the museum is wrong, so it is not proven that the author is unknown. (machine translation). Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Another, academic sources, which also confirm that the photo belongs to the Hungarian National Museum, say the author is unknown. An academic source is more relevant than a website (in other case, it claims the author is unknown, while, in fact, the photographer is Gyula Jelfy (d. 1945). Thus this website is not so reliable as Hungarikusz Firkász suggests. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Csakhogy én nem az Eeuropeana megbízhatóságáról beszélek, hanem a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum megbízhatóságáról. Inkább hiszek ennek az intézménynek, mint annak, aki jogsértő képeket töltöget fel. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hát igen, a Fortepan üldöztetése ezek után különösen vicces. :) Egyébként is irreleváns, hogy te mit hiszel. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


O Escudo do time do bandeirantes foi criado em 1951, eu mesmo o refiz a partir de fotos da época o intuito é criar a página com a história do clube Bandeirantes de Itatiba. O clube possui referência bibliográfica, juntamente com imagem do escudo impressa:

referencia bibliográfica, Livro Itatiba na História: 1804-1959

{{Citar livro|autor=Rasmussen Gabuardi|nome=Lucimara|sobrenome=Rasmussen Gabuardi|título= Itatiba na História: 1804-1959|local=Itatiba|editora=Pontes|ano=2004|página=120-121|isbn =85-7113-193-7}}

Url consultável com o escudo

também possui fontes na internet consultáveis, porém creio que a referência bibliográfica citada acima é o suficiente para compreensão de que se trata de arquivo legítimo. Disanf (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


The Mentioned picture was deleted by my request, since at first it wasn't merged with a newer version, but sometime later the problem was solved, and i thought the deletion request isn't an issue any more. In short, the reason for asking its deletion has been solved and i wish to restore it. Thank you--باسم (talk) 11:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: perhaps an admin could view the following files and determine which one contains the graphic. The deletion reasons were either "scaled down duplicate" of each other, or "broken redirect" assumedly of each other, rather than copyright or scope.
seb26 (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Stamps of Tanganyika/Tanzania

In Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by IBEAC-section a number of stamps were deleted. Those of Tanganyika up to 1966 were covered by {{PD-UKGov}} per all other former colonies per Commons:Stamps/Public_domain_templates when a new copyright law in 1966 was passed but appears to have continued the 50 year rule: see Page 2 of this WIPO document. In 1999 a new act was passed that provided from a 50 year PMA for known authors and 50 years from publication for anonymous works: see page 8 of this WIPO document It is not clear if, after 1999, corporate works are treated the same as anonymous works with a 50 years from publication rule but the stamps listed were freely licenced at the time of deletion being more than 50 years old.

I cannot tell if any other deleted files from this deletion nomination were stamps but these ones do have the word stamp in the file name and can be reasonably easily identified in stamp catalogues; there could have been others but I never saw this discussion, otherwise I might have been able to fixed these files. Ww2censor (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: I believe most of these files did not have any verifiable source information, or were falsely claimed to have been created by the uploader. LX (talk, contribs) 22:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @LX: Be that as it may, these stamp images could have been fixed and I believe can still be fixed even though I have not seen them but their description alone convince me. Sourcing of stamps is not usually an issue because the real source of the slavish copy is the postal administration that issued it, but licensing is. There seems to be a failing in our process whereby knowledgeable interested projects cannot be notified of such deletions prior to closure, we have to find such nomination by chance. Ww2censor (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Cook Islands.svg

See also [1]. Looking for an alternative depiction of that image, I found that the image the SVG is based on does not come originally from [2], but it was instead taken from [3] (for proof, see Images from NGW are very commonly used here, although NGW does not appply a specific licence to its images.--Antemister (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Are not uploads by Copyviol

Are not randomly extracted images the copyright of the following images is correct (ANSWERED FILES),,, Can you explain what is the problem of images? They only deal with portraits, photographs and paintings of various times, why then? -- 09:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Public Domain?

I think that this file belongs to the public domain.

Please let me know if I make a wrong decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chukichi7 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This probably relates to File:IPhone 6s Plus Rose Gold.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log). seb26 (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although the image is marked "public domain" at the source site, I strongly suspect that the uploader there did not have the right to freely license it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted files

I ask for the restoration of these ores two remote files that clearly represent two pictures of the eighteenth-century school itliana, where you can clearly see the name "artist in the file of the file, the name of the next author is already embedded in the title; )-- 20:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

These files were nominated for undeletion on 4 August - 8 August 2017 and the request was closed without undeletion. Thuresson (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Stormy Promenade by Carl Rabus.jpg

No copyright violation because uploader owns the painting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesschiffman (talk • contribs) 12:44, 12 August 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 has appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appears to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS.  — Jeff G. ツ 12:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Note also that ownership of a work of art does not give you the right to freely license it. That right is almost always held by the creator. You certainly understand that if you own a book, you may not make and sell copies of it. Exactly the same rule applies to ownership of paintings and other copyrighted works. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Right (except I think "always" is missing from between "almost" and "held"). Given the name, we would need permission from the heirs of Carl Rabus (May 30, 1898 - July 28, 1983), as his paintings won't be PD in Germany or the US until after 1983+70=2053.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Right, sorry, thank you. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Ehr... Jim, I understand your point but - for example in our country - there has always been a distinction between a reproducible work (a music record, a book, and so on) and a not reproducible one (a painting, a sculpture, a piece of architecture). In the first case you only buy the licence to read or listen the work, and the paper or the vynyl of your property are only the material support on which the work, which is immaterial (can be said "immaterial"?), is stored. In case of an unique work like a house or a sculpture, where the support and the work are the same thing, often the material property is considered more relevant than the intellectual property because otherwise we would have the paradox that I couldn't exploit at its fullest a good of my property: if I owned a villa or a mansion designed by a famous architect, I couldn't take photographs of it for commercial use. Of course we are talking of my country, thus I don't know how is the issue elsewhere. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
SERGIO, what you say makes sense, but I'm not at all sure it is the law in Italy or anywhere else. Can you cite the appropriate paragraph in the law or another source for your comment? We all know that copyright law does not always follow what we might think of as common sense. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Civil law is not like criminal law here (in criminal law nulla poena sine legem here), and the judge has a certain amount of discretionality in that field. There are no lawsuits for commercial use of photographs of architectures or publicly exposed works like sculptures or monuments. The only copyright violation lawsuits are about reproducible works like songs or books (memorable the one where Al Bano suited Michael Jackson for alleged copyright violation of an Al Bano's song). -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 16:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
You don't say whether you intend your comment to be general or specific to Italy. Certainly it is not correct in the USA. Frank Gaylord won $600,000 for the US Postal Service's use of a photograph of his sculpture at the Korean War Veterans Memorial without a license from him. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Italian law (Article 89) does have this for photographs: In the absence of agreement to the contrary, transfer of the negative or similar means of reproduction of a photograph shall imply transfer of the rights referred to in the foregoing Article, provided that such rights are the property of the transferor. Article 109 says: In the absence of agreement to the contrary, the transfer of one or more copies of the work shall not imply transfer of the exploitation rights afforded by this Law. However, the transfer of a mold, an engraved plate or any similar medium used to reproduce a work of art shall be deemed, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, to include the right to reproduce the work, provided such right belongs to the transferor. So, they do have some situations where the transfer of the copyright can be implied by the transfer of a physical object. I'm not quite sure which side of the line a painting would fall on though. By the letter, it would see that copyright transfer would not be implicit, as that seems reserved for objects which have no purpose (or worth themselves) other than to reproduce the main work in question. On the other hand, since it's not possible to mass-produce a painting, you would require the original to reproduce it, so maybe that could be read as a painting also being the medium of its own reproduction. I have no idea if there is case law on this topic or not. While normal U.S. law would not (or at least not since 1978) consider the transfer of the physical object a transfer, U.S. courts would likely recognize a transfer of a foreign work if the transfer was valid in that country, per w:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you are reading too much into the law, Carl. As you say, molds and negatives have no use of their own, so transferring them logically transfers the right to use them to create works from them. However, that logic fails with anything else. The whole point of copyright is to prevent people from making free copies of works. If owning a painting gave you the right to make copies of it, then why would not the ownership of a copy of any work give the owner the right to copy it? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The logic would be because it is a single-copy type of work, not one made to be reproduced in the first place, so no reproduction-type item would exist. I would agree that a straight reading of the law text would exclude paintings from that assumption -- after all, you would think an artist should be able to sell a painting without selling the copyright as well. But, courts have used funny logic before, so it's possible someone else knows about a court case which did use some "interesting" logic along those lines. I wouldn't want to use logic like that here though unless someone could in fact point to such a court case -- the law as written does seem limited to items whose primary purpose is to reproduce works of art (and are not the works of art themselves). I was mainly pointing out that the U.S. requirement that transfers must be written is definitely not the case in Italy, so it's at least possible there are some differences in this area. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Friherrliga ätten de Geer.PNG

hallo, ich bitte diese zuvor gelöschten Dateien wiederherstellen, Dateien d ‚Ära Gemälden, einige Mitte des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts, und einige nicht,, Ich möchte sie wieder hergestellt werden und analysiert richtig-- 14:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is Budva Municipality official coat of arms, which can be used for free according to their rules (, which are not violated by publishing it in Wikipedia. Poegva (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


Salut, j'ai récemment trouvé ces fichiers qui sont des portraits de quelques sept cents représentants de « l'aristocratie française, et certaines familles royales de « époque, personnages comme ils sont des portraits du XVIIIe siècle, où certains ont un artiste inconnu,, le droit d'auteur dovrbbe être complètement expiré, puis Egola droits d'auteur--Andrassy66 (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Carla Mauri.jpg

Soy propietario de los derechos de autor de esa fotografía, quisiera donarla a wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorHugoGN (talk • contribs) 05:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@VictorHugoGN: Por favor vea Ud. al Template:Copyvionote/es y Commons:Licensing/es.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

File:شعار صحيفة الطريق.png


I request to remove this file File:شعار صحيفة الطريق.png from the list of deletion, this file has copyright belong to which I work for as developer, meanwhile can I know the reason to delete this file, and what the requirements to not delete it ?

Best regards

Comnarty (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)15 august 2017

File:Tiny Rebel Logo.png

Hi there,

I am trying to amend the information on the wiki page for the company I work for.

I am the Digital Marketing Executive here at Tiny Rebel and maintaining correct information on sites such as wikipedia is my responsibility here.

As such, I have permission from the copyright holder to use the image on wikipedia. If required I can provide my company email address and can confirm my role at Tiny Rebel.

Many thanks, Niall--Themissingdrink (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Themissingdrink: Please note that this project is Wikimedia Commons. We serve as the host for freely licensed media for a number of sister projects, including Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. As just intimated, we only accept freely licensed media, for which we have a clear definition at COM:L: the media must be available for anybody to use, including to modify, for any purpose, including commercial (with provisos for trademarks, etc.). If you are authorized to license your company's intellectual property in this manner, please follow the instructions at OTRS to confirm your intentions to do so... after which an OTRS agent will request the file's undeletion. We certainly would welcome freely licensed educational media that your company produces. That said, please note that Wikipedia (the encyclopedia) has very strict rules about editing articles concerning yourself or your company. You have a very clear conflict of interest, and as such you are essentially prohibited from editing entries about your company. If you find incorrect information about your company, please read the instructions around en:Template:edit request, and restrict yourself to commenting on the article's talk page, or you will likely find yourself blocked from editing. Indeed, you appear to be in breach of the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use regarding paid editing, see meta:Terms_of_use/FAQ_on_paid_contributions_without_disclosure. While you are welcome to edit Commons as a paid editor, you are required to disclose this when editing most other projects, including Wikipedia. Storkk (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Titelblatt Cartographica Helvetica 1990.jpg

Der Ausschnitt des Titelblatts der ersten Nummer der Fachzeitschrift für Kartengeschichte Cartographica Helvetica ist im Internet unter anderem zugänglich auf oder unter Sie zeigt gemäss Quellennachweis den Ausschnitt einer Karte aus dem 18. Jh. Es spricht also nichts dagegen, die Abbildung des Covers der Fachzeitschrift unter der Creative Commons Lizenz in Wikimedia-Commons einzufügen.

-- Tkb (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That is quite true, but I see no evidence of a free license at either site. In fact, the first of the two has an explict copyright notice. There are many things on the Web, but almost all of them are not freely licensed and cannot be uploaded to Commons. Please read COM:L. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support The background image in the magazine cover is PD-old (18th century) and the derivative work (adding the logo and issue number) is not creative enough for its own copyright. De728631 (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I tend to Symbol support vote.svg Support in the extend the artwork is identified (date, country) for being indeed a PD artwork... But what is this artwork? is there a link to this PD artwork without alteration? why there is no version on Commons without the logo addition? is this version (with logo), the only version available? or is it a photomontage of different artworks? what are they?... ouch...maybe I should Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with De728631 that if the background is a single work that is PD-Old, then the subject image is PD. However, that remains to be proven. Is it really out of copyright? Is it one work,or several, in which case the creation of the composite may have created a new copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
According to the imprint, this is one single extract from a map made by Creator:Johann Jakob Scheuchzer. The illustrations are part of the map just like in File:Nova Helvetiae Tabula Geographica 01 12.jpg. De728631 (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Inglehart Values Map2.svg

This image consists of publicly available statistical data from World Value Survey, plotted on an x and y axis. While there are some labels and groupings, they are simple enough that they should not be copyrightable; further this image was not copied but recreated from original data by User:DancingPhilosopher. Further variants of this image exist at Category:Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world anyway, so what made that one problematic? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The uploader says, in one of his upload comments:

"It shows that the map uploaded by me is based on the published data from the authors' website and doesn't differ significantly from the map published in a journal."

While it is true that points plotted on an x/y graph are not themselves copyrightable, the arbitrary shapes used to group the points are creative and it is clear, both from the uploader's words and from a look at File:Wikimedia map compared to published 2010 map.png that DancingPhilosopher had the copyrighted journal version in front of him when he created the subject version. The remaining versions cited above should probably also be deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I support Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, given his explanation about copyright circularity ("citogenesis") here. This map seems to have been released under CC anyway, by virtue of it being uploaded to YT, check the theory, but then I do not have time to delve into the nitty-gritty of the copyright of individual frames.) Zezen (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

First, I don't see what the piece on copyright circularity has to do with this image. The uploader of this image, as quoted above, admits that he copied it from a journal. Second, most YouTube uploads claim copyright. CC licenses are the exception there, not the rule, and unless you can cite a YT page that this appears on, with a CC-BY license, the mention of YT is not helpful. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


I would like to request undeletion for the file Wxel.png for our page: , which was brought to my attention on August 16, 2017 that the file was deleted by user Josve05a. The logo in question is our logo that we designed for our station.—Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2017‎ (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the corporation must send a free license using OTRS. Note that the license must allow use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question for the anonymous nominator: Is this undeletion request about temporary undeletion to transfer to English Wikipedia, or restoration to Commons under a free license? 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 03:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC); edited 03:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Hope Hicks.jpg

Reason: Not a copyright violation. An attributed crop of the public domain image File:Watching final vote on AHCA. BIG win for all Americans. USA.jpg. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The tweet (source) doesn't say who created the picture File:Watching final vote on AHCA. BIG win for all Americans. USA.jpg. It most certainly is NOT Dan Scavino, as he is in the photograph. Starting DR for this file. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


Olá, diversas vezes as foto que contribui foram apagadas, algumas de minha autoria e outras não. Não sei mais o que fazer! Preciso delas para atualizar a página de wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalinerodrigues (talk • contribs) . 02:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm genuinely confused what is going on here. It was deleted based on a Google image search that turns up similar, but not identical images. On the other hand, I'm not at all convinced it's the user's own work: unusual cropping that looks professional, and the user is saying algumas de minha autoria e outras não ("some of my own authorship and others not"), which does not sound like an asertion that the user took this photo. - Jmabel ! talk 02:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:100koruna Velká pardubická.gif

The file is taken from an ordinance of State bank of Czechoslovakia. Should be covered by {{PD-money-CZ}} tag (see Commons:Currency#Czechoslovak_Socialist_Republic_.28CSSR.29). Gumruch (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it is correct that the coin is PD, but the question here was the photograph, not the coin. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The source as a government gazette falls under {{PD-CzechGov}}. The source PDF file, page 8. Gumruch (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't read Czech (or Czechoslovok for that matter) but the PDF does looks like an official gazette, so Gumruch is right. De728631 (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


Designer James Treble

This is the fourth file uploaded by me (the copyright owner of the image) and agreed by the subject of the image (my partner and subject of the wiki page we have just built about him). Already three images have been deleted from that wiki page (James Treble) without consultation, and despite understanding your concerns I find this unfair as I can guarantee the copyright ownership of any of the images that have been deleted so far.

Please, help me find the right way to add a portrait picture to the wiki page (James Treble).


Sandro Nocentini wiki:pikkio66 —Preceding comment was added at 03:25, 18 August 2017‎ (UTC)

File:Centre Logo.png

Please undelete this image. Permission was provided on the previous upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Principessa38 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 18 August 2017‎ (UTC)

File:Jenna Kim Jones, Sirius XM Studio, Nov 2016.jpg

I submitted Tickets 2017081010018836 & 2017081010018836 which included the permissions from the owner of the photo.

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay.insley (talk • contribs) 10:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC); redaction by 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 10:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, note that permissions forwarded by third parties are generally not accepted at OTRS -- the license must come directly from the copyright holder. Second, note that "the owner of the photo" is probably not the copyright holder -- copyright is almost always held by the photographer. Finally, if a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Dodatek k diplomu s ukázkou implementace ISCED stupnice.png

I am almost sure that this file does not violate any copyright law. It is the scan of my diploma supplement. It is the kind of document that is not principally protected by the copyright law.

Could anybody put the file back to the server? It is useful example of ISCED implementation in Czech republic.

Thanks a lot!

--DaSal (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All created works have a copyright upon creation unless they fall under a specific exception in the law of the country of origin. The Czech law allows only limited exceptions for certain government works, so even if the issuing institution is a government institution, I doubt very much that its diplomas are free of copyright. If it is not a government institution then this is certainly under copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

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

File:4.May 2013 Cover with Frame.jpg

Permission received Ticket:2017072910009723 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @4nn1l2: please add the OTRS template. De728631 (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Bum Phillips Opera.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission provided with Ticket:2017080410011381. Ty Arthur Crbz (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Arthur Crbz: please add the OTRS template. De728631 (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

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


Salut, j'ai récemment trouvé ces fichiers qui sont des portraits de quelques sept cents représentants de « l'aristocratie française, et certaines familles royales de « époque, personnages comme ils sont des portraits du XVIIIe siècle, où certains ont un artiste inconnu,, le droit d'auteur dovrbbe être complètement expiré, puis Egola droits d'auteur--Andrassy66 (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I've duplicated it, I think my inquiry has forgotten you, you can take it into consideration, sorry if I did but I felt neglected eheheh,,Can you analyze the first request? --Andrassy66 (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : Exact duplicate nomination. Please nominate only once (cf [4]). --Storkk (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Tavtech logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: CEO of the nonprofit organization approves that its logo be shared/ used by Wikipedia JohnR1948 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We need a permission by email from the copyright holder (see COM:OTRS for details). Apart from that, a permission for Wikipedia-only is neither acceptable at Commons nor at Wikipedia. And please be aware that a Creative Commons license as you selected for your upload will allow anyone to use the logo for any purpose even outside Wikipedia. This is actually required for content at Wikimedia Commons as we do not accept "Wikipedia-only" licenses. De728631 (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)