Commons:Undeletion requests

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


Please undelete the following files:

Swedish OTRS agent (verify): These files has a valid OTRS release, only that the template was added by the uploader and sender rather than an OTRS agent. I can, however, confirm that the release is valid and that the file should be ok. The files were deleted due by a reason not related to this ticket, and on a technicallity, rather than anything being actually wrong, should have been tagged with OTRS pending instead. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Josve05a: I think this is enough to look at for now... we can worry about the others once these are addressed. They actually needed to be temporarily undeleted for review, even by admins, because the filesizes are extremely large....without being able to see the thumbnails, it would be a matter of downloading several gigabytes of data to look at each set. Even undeleting them was rather slow, as it lagged the database a bit. - Reventtalk 05:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


Concerning File:Maurahealey-web-download.jpg

Hello, The file I uploaded is a government photo in the public domain. It was downloaded from the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office website (; high resolution photograph available at According to the website's Terms of Use (see below for text; policy available at, materials, including image files, on the Attorney General's website are under copyright. However, they may be used for "fair use" purposes according to these Terms; for example, using the image to further "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research, and other related activities" is acceptable. Enabling the furtherance of all such activities is Wikipedia's prerogative and is in line with its mission. Therefore, the image should be uploaded, as it is legal to do so under guidelines offered by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, guidelines which are themselves promulgated in accordance with United States copyright law. Thank you, --Harry.breault (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

From Massachusetts Attorney General's Office Terms of Use: "With respect to material copyrighted by the Commonwealth, including the design, layout, and other features of Mass.Gov, the Commonwealth forbids any copying or use other than "fair use" under the Copyright Act. "Fair use" includes activities such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research, and other related activities."

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Commons:Fair use. Please see Commons:First steps before making additional contributions. Thuresson (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
But see {{PD-MAGov}}. Unless there is a copyright notice accompanying the photograph (which there is not in this case), we can assume that all material on web sites of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (but not its subdivisions) is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question What do the EXIF data say about author and copyright?   — Jeff G. ツ 11:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • No such data in EXIF. Thuresson (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Has material from the Commonwealth been discussed earlier here or at English Wikipedia? After searching, at the Commonwealth web site I find the following text about copyright: "The only part of this website to which the copyright rules stated above do not apply is on social media pages that receive comment. Content on these pages is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Content includes all materials posted by the Executive Department of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts." The deleted photo has been posted on what appears to be an official Facebook account here, Thuresson (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

File:V1 40 years Model List of Essential Medicines.001.png

This file was released by its creator User:Lorenzo.moja under an open license. One can google his name to determine who he is. Anyway have uploaded the file locally on EN WP and tagged it with "keep local".[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: Just to make it clear, I quite agree with you that the WHO is perfectly able to use a freely licensed image in one of their publications, and that we do not need OTRS permission if the work has not been previously published. Looking at this, however, the map used appears to be a derivative of (or, possibly, of some other image based on it, but the essential design seems quite clearly the same). If so, the claimed license is not valid. - Reventtalk 03:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to WHOwashing per Revent.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm pretty sure that such a map is a "common idea", and not highly original. I see no reason why a large organization such as WHO would not have made this logo themselves (even if based on other works, this is not original enough to warrant it being a DW of a previous version).However, I would like to see some evidence that the uploader is connected with the WHO, and not just user a "well known" name as their username, and pretending to be that person. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
    @Josve05a: From comments made on enwiki (at the featured list nomination) I think it's somewhat clear that Doc James actually knows the uploader. The problem with simply calling it a 'common idea', however, is that it's not simply an independent version of the same concept.... the pattern is composed of dots instead of squares, but they are in the same positions (including the somewhat unusual projection), and there is an identical choice of which small islands to include. It's an exact overlay, close enough that TinEye matches the images. - Reventtalk 04:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
    So that image that it is potentially based on is listed as CC BY. All one needs to do is add them as an author if it is a derivative no? By the way the account that uploaded the image in question has email enabled. They say no one from here emailed him to notify him of the deletion or to ask him for further clarification. On EN WP we have a policy that no offwiki accounts can be linked to of a user? Does this apply here? I can email people with details?
    Okay will wait to here back on how the uploaded created the underlying map. By the way what is "WHOwashing"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. I fail to understand the deletion rationale. The freepik source is clearly CC-BY, so OTRS is irrelevant and whatever the original license was on Commons, the correct action would be to fix the license, not delete the file. @Daphne Lantier: could you revisit your sysop action here please? Thanks -- (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
    Looking at the fine print of the freepik image, it is not CC BY. But we do have a CC BY version here.[2]. So the image can just be adjusted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I was going by the main page, I see there are a series of caveats on the secondary page. It would be better to have some precedent setting deletion requests that explain the issues with this source, rather than this getting buried at UNDEL. In practice, nobody quotes the UNDEL archives, so novel copyright discussion here is far less useful in the long term than at DR. For this reason when there is doubt at DR the issues should be expanded for the record before a final sysop closure. -- (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
We will recreate the image in question using the dot map on commons.
The prior dot map was within the "Business Strategy suite of templates" of which I do not know the copyright. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Zamiatin WE.jpg

These processes went very quickly, and I did not have the chance to respond before the above file was deleted and the discussion closed. So I'm trying again. If I'm not doing this correctly, apologies. I'd be grateful for guidance on communications through Talk or whatever the preferred platform it.

Anyway, I just reviewed your comments regarding File:Zamiatin WE.jpg at

A few responses:

1. There is only one book pictured here. The black thing behind the book is a slipcase.

2. Zilboorg renewed the rights to his translation, which is not relevant here. The photograph is of the physical book, not of the text. Similarly, I think photographs of the covers Ernest Hemingway's early books are fine, reprinting a Hemingway story is not. Hemingway did not own the copyright to the covers of his books.

3. I think you're right that copyright to the image on the cover probably rested with the artist, or more likely the publisher. But the artist is uncredited, and the publisher surely failed to renew copyright on a book that lapsed out of print in 1924.

4. Later reprints had totally different cover art.

5. Although I think the editorial decisions were hasty here, I recognize the importance of your efforts to protect both the rights of copyright holders and the legal position of Wikimedia commons, and salute you for that.

Best regards,

--Bverter (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bverter: The copyright in the cover design might have belonged to the publisher or an artist, and might not have been registered or renewed. To be honest, we do not know (and it's probably undeterminable). The book is recent enough that it is still possibly under copyright, and the check for registration and renewal I did was simply to see if we could establish that the formalities were not complied with... if the book had entered the PD, that would be an indication that the cover art might have as well.. As it stands, however, we don't have any evidence that the artwork is in the PD, and it's recent enough to possibly still be under copyright in the US. Please read COM:EVID: "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained..." - Reventtalk 17:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. Interesting question. As you say, the copyright was renewed by Zilboorg in 1952 (R101210). In that era, there was typically only one copyright notice in a book, which had to be on the verso of the title page. That notice covered the entire work -- text, translation, and any art in the book, on the cover, and on the dust jacket. The renewal refers to the original 1924 registration by EP Dutton (A815379). I would think, therefore, that the 1952 renewal covers not only the translation, but the entire book since it renews the original registration. I could certainly be wrong in that, but, as Revent has pointed out, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the 1952 renewal did not cover the whole work, including the cover.
The good news is that the renewed copyright lasts for 95 years after publication, so it will be PD on 1/1/2020. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Exactly. The possible caveat that might arise here is that the translator (who filed the renewal) might not have been the proper party to have filed for a renewal of the copyright in the cover art. We would need much more information to establish this, however. - Reventtalk 22:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there is a question of whether the translator could renew the copyright. However, since the Copyright Office accepted the renewal and referred to the original registration, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the renewal was valid for the whole book, including the cover art. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

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)


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)

Maps from the Malay Wikipedia

Hi, Do you think we have enough information to restore the maps from the Malay Wikipedia?

See the request of my talk page: [3]. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please comment. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Wakil Gubernur DKI Basuki TP (cropped).jpg

Previous deletion nomination is not making sense, it is in public domain because it published by the Government of Republic of Indonesia. See the Government of Republic of Indonesia. See Template:PD-IDGov. Hddty. (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I suggest you actually read {{PD-IDGov}} which says, in part,

"(2) publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by and/or behalf of the Government, except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published;" [emphasis added].

The page which this was taken from has an explicit copyright notice, which is also linked at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wakil Gubernur DKI Basuki TP (cropped).jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward:{{PD-IDGov}} is actually outdated; its from 2002, there is a new one in 2014 which basically speaks about how governmental portraits are exempt from the copyright law (there is also a discussion about this in Template talk:PD-IDGov. Here is the translation to English from here:
Article 43
Act which is not considered a violation of Copyright include:
e. Doubling, Announcements, and / or distribution of Images President, Vice President, former President, former Vice President, National Hero, heads of state institutions, leaders of ministries / non-ministerial government agencies, and / or head area with regard dignity and fairness in accordance with the provisions of legislation.
Hddty. (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Also can you undelete File:Wakil Gubernur DKI Basuki TP.jpg? It also deleted in the same deletion requests. Hddty. (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we can use that provision of the law. See my comment at Template talk:PD-IDGov. Until the issue is resolved there, we cannot use it here. Changes in Commons understand of specific laws must always be done at the policy level before trying to apply it to individual cases. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Parks in France

Hi, I think these 2 files were deleted by error. There is no proeminent copyrightable element in them:

Regards, Yann (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In the first, there are two topiary swans in the immediate foreground. The fact that they are plants, rather than bronze or marble, does not somehow take away their copyright. The second shows a lot of topiary, and also the layout of a maze. If the maze were on paper it would clearly have a copyright. I don't see any reason why this one does not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    • It is not because something on paper has a copyright, that a garden that looks the same has also a copyright. A recent map of any place has a copyright, but the place doesn't automatically get a copyright. I don't see any provision for copyright in French law for this. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I think your map analogy fails because the direction of creativity is reversed. A map is created from reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is not, of course, a created work, and does not have a copyright. A topiary maze is created from a drawing which has a copyright. In the technical sense of the word "map", the copyrighted drawing of the maze is mapped onto the ground. The topiary maze is a DW of the copyrighted drawing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment while there is a high ToO, or at least it exist undoubtedly, regarding architecture in France (mainly due to the utilitarian side of the buidings), the ToO regarding the other artistic works, whose aim is artistic, is very very very low in France, e.g. this photo have been considered by a court as a DW of the yellow letters (an artistic work!) above the door! Therefore Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Jim. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Yuen Kay Shan.jpg

RE: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yuen Kay Shan.jpg. The deleted is image is right here in this collage=> File:Wing Chun Collage.jpg uploaded a year ago. If I was a good as you on wikimedia I would have found this pretty quickly... Maybe deleting is your forte @Taivo: *wink*(Australianblackbelt (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC))

Thank you, Australianblackbelt! I'll nominate it for deletion. Taivo (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
If the photo taken in 1930 (for example) was first published in 1979 (for example), it would be copyrighted until 2030. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose without information regarding the original publication. Storkk (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Fafard horses Ottawa.jpeg

Image file, although my own work, was deleted because of no license tag on 15 June 2013. I uploaded it using the wizard and had thought that I had specified a tag but obviously that was not reflected in the Commons entry. Unfortunately, I did not become aware of the deletion until a year later. I hadn't realized that undeletion was possible or I would have asked sooner. I would like to repair the Commons entry. Big iron (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks OK to me. Big iron, what license do you want to use -- CC-0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Two files, OTRS

Request temporary undeletion to evaluate tickets that allege permission for the following files (unrelated to each other):

Can you please ping me they are up? Cheers seb26 (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seb26: Restored. Daphne Lantier 03:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Daphne Lantier, I confirmed WillaSchneberg.jpg but Spirage-panorama.jpg should be re-deleted, I have taken what I needed from it and responded to the ticket but I don't expect a reply on that one for a while and given it was deleted through a DR I'd prefer to respect that for the time being. seb26 (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

More: Request temporary undeletion to evaluate tickets that allege permission for the following files (unrelated to each other):

seb26 (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seb26: Restored. Daphne Lantier 06:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: all taken care of. Daphne Lantier 15:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Myriam Moscona Portrait.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2017061610003362 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   Arthur Crbz (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Crbz: ✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Victor Fink Book Covers.jpg

The file contains covers of the books published in the Soviet Union before 1973, when the USSR signed the Universal Copyright Convention. Moreover, according to the Soviet copyright law, the copyright of a published work lasted only 15 years after the author's death.

Therefore, they are not the subject of copyright. --Doctor Gregory (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, I would not restore this even if it were not a copyvio -- it is too small to be really useful and is blurred. There is no reason why this sort of image should not be tack sharp.

Second, I see no WP article on Fink. I see only a smattering of Google hits. Amazon does not carry any works by him, so whatever his importance may have been 50 years ago, he is forgotten. That suggests strongly that his book covers are out of scope as not useful for any educational purpose.

Finally, I see nothing at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Russia_and_former_Soviet_Union which even hints that the applicable law is pma 15. In fact, the rule is pma 70 and since Fink died in 1973, these will be under copyright until 1/1/2044 unless it can be shown that the copyright to the covers lies with the publisher, not Fink, in which case it will probably last until 70 years after the publication of each of these editions, but that has yet to be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

If he was a published author, he would be in scope for Wikipedia and also for us, regardless of Google hits. Part of an educational mission is to try to preserve the memory of such people, not forget them just because they do not appear online (especially those for non-English authors, where fewer works are online thus far and they are harder to search for, since you may have to search in Cyrillic, etc.). And if the only available photo is small and blurry, we should keep it until we get something better. He does have a Wikipedia article -- ru:Финк, Виктор Григорьевич. Something like this is way, *way* within scope.
However, while Soviet copyright law was 15 years after death, more recent Russian law has retroactively restored copyright to a much longer term. It sounds like Fink was born in Odessa, lived in Paris quite a bit, and also Moscow. Whichever country of those his books were published in, the copyright is today 70 years from the author's death for any of his works. Both Russia and Ukraine retroactively restored copyright to 50 years after the author's death in the early 1990s ; this was a requirement to join the Berne convention. That means that even though the 15 pma term may have expired, copyright was restored going forward. Both Russia and Ukraine later non-retroactively extended copyright to 70 pma (meaning that if a work was still under the 50-years-after-death copyright in the early 2000s, then the term was extended to 70 years after death, but not if the 50 year term had previously expired). Russia later made the 70 year term retroactive as well. France, as with all EU countries, was at least 50pma to begin with, and retroactively restored works to 70pma in the 1990s. So, if these covers were the work of Fink himself, they are all still under copyright. If they were the work of anonymous people at the publishing companies, they would still have a copyright of 70 years from publication. It's possible some of those have expired, although anything published after 1946 would likely still have a U.S. copyright even if they have since expired in Russia/Ukraine (since the U.S. retroactively restored works in 1996 if they were still under copyright in the foreign country on that date, and the terms would have been 50 years from publication then). So... we would need to know the authorship of the covers. If by Fink, they are still under copyright. If anonymous, we would need to know the publication country and date, they would likely have to be from before at least 1946. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my objection on the grounds of Scope, thank you for pointing out the article. The quality objection is debatable, but, as Carl has verified, it is moot, because there is a clear copyright problem. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Truly Madly Deeply.jpg

The above file is a valid file of the 2010 novel of which I am the author and also the creator/designer of the visual cover that has been approved on my request. I have also written to from my official e-mail ID, authorising use of this image in the Wikimedia commons domain.

--Far303 (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Faraaz Kazi, Author of Truly Madly Deeply

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 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) 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : wait till OTRS permission is processed. Daphne Lantier 15:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

OTRS requests

Request temporary undeletion to evaluate the following files with their respective tickets:

Request normal undeletion of the following as permission was confirmed by their respective tickets:

seb26 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seb26: Restored. Daphne Lantier 15:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

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

File:The Last Raja of West Pakistan (Cover Photo).jpg

Hi, User:SpacemanSpiff has taken something personally against me. He is at this moment misusing his administrative powers. The image was uploaded in consent with the publisher such that the publisher sent a written declaration was received via OTPS in May 2016. Still it is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhinav619 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

CC: User:Daphne Lantier, this wasn't supposed to be deleted. --Abhinav619 (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: rostored -- has OTRS permission. Daphne Lantier 16:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Rajabai Clock Tower 2.jpg

Another case of User:SpacemanSpiff mis-using his powers. It is an image clicked by me. The place is a public place what is wrong is difficult to reason. --Abhinav619 (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

But you agree to lying on numerous other own work tags? —SpacemanSpiff 16:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
User:SpacemanSpiff Again you started it. I was busy uploading hence didn't see the notification bar. The idea of Wikimedia is that everyone is on the same platform where one helps the other. The certificate of lying could lead to anything but not cooperation.

✓ Done: restored. Daphne Lantier 16:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:WLM India 2016 28.jpg

I was simply making a report to uploaded on meta for my rapid grant project. The canvas image was a winning image of Wikiloves monument 2016 in India, hence uploaded in Commons. User: SpacemanSpiff deleted it for no reason. --Abhinav619 (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. Daphne Lantier 16:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Reopened. Daphne, Abhinav619, if I understand correctly, the large images in the photo are Wiki images, so they have free licenses. However, unless the licenses are CC-0, we can't use them without attribution. In order to keep this, Abhinav619 needs to find the file for the image on the right and, unless it is CC-0, add appropriate attribution. Even if it is CC-0, it is polite to credit our colleagues when we know who they are.

And, by the way, SpacemanSpiff's action was entirely appropriate. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2017062210003994 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   Arthur Crbz (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Crbz: Restored. Daphne Lantier 17:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Daphne Lantier --Arthur Crbz (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:R.N.X.S LapelBadge.jpg

This is a picture of the RNXS lapel badge They are About 4,980 image results when searched for and (about the same in actual badges issued)

The badge was given to members of the RNXS of which i was a member i am authorised as a member to use RNXS images i have a badge in my possession.its my badge ,any photo i took would look exactly the same. Although i understand the need for copywriter protection, and applaud your diligence i think in this case perhaps A tad over zealous.

Many thanks Andrew Johnston(Ex-L.N.X)Rosyh

Dixon hill (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)