Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UR)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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

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.

Projects that accept fair use

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

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. Watch your request's section for updates.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

Files uploaded by Tontonyua

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable and extremely important part of Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020) announced by People's Government of Beijing Municipality. According to Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China, as well as Article 9 of Urban and Rural Planning Law of People's Republic of China ("All units and individuals shall abide by the urban and rural planning approved and announced in accordance with the law, ..."), these files are out of copyright protection. Where are copyright violations? WQL (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Shizhao, Jcb: Pinging sysops concerned. --WQL (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - We do not work for the Chinese government. I see no valid reason why these files would be PD. None of the reasons for {{PD-PRC-exempt}} applies. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose How can urban planning law make something public domain? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jcb, Gone Postal: Because in China, all plans are enforced according to these texts and maps in the plan. Government shall enforce the plan in reference of these maps according to the planning law. And, in many time, maps are the ONLY legal reference. So, these maps have an obvious administrative nature, and are not subject to copyright, which meets the criterion of "resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs". --WQL (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Ok, that sounds reasonable, but I do not know enough about China's law to say more. There was that case where annotated legal documents were judged as public domain in the USA even though they were created by the private entity[1], so this is not unreasonable to believe that something that appears not to be "law" is still in public domain. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 10:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
        • In fact, all content created by government with administrative nature to all people are in public domain, and all these maps have this nature. In the letter Reply of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on the "Beijing Urban Master Plan (2016-2035)", the State Council said, "XIII. (The Beijing Municipal People's Government shall) [R]esolutely safeguard the seriousness and authority of the plan. The "Master Plan" is the basic basis for the development, construction and management of urban areas in Beijing. It must be strictly implemented. No department or individual may arbitrarily modify or violate regulations." Also, if there are any parts that are not covered in the planning text, planning maps shall be followed as the only reference. --WQL (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I disagree that these maps would be documents with an administrative nature. They are also derivative works of maps that are unsourced and probably not in the Public Domain. Jcb (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I have given sources in this request before (repeat them again:Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020)), and I affirm that my view is right. Also, in China there is no doubt that all government planning documents' copyrights held by the government. WQL (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
            • Symbol support vote.svg Support This appears to be a benefit to us of China's system of government.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
            • copyrights held by the government ≠ public domain (in China). and see [1]: "以北京市城市规划设计研究院、中国城市规划设计研究院、清华大学三家研究单位牵头,30个国家级和市级权威机构、近200名专家学者参与了研究工作。",很难说这些文件与图表全部都属于PD(特别是政府完全可以以行政司法名义合理使用受著作权保护的作品)--shizhao (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
              • 或许我们也得看是相关机构做了这些工作是为了谁。您看,此类大型规划,政府必须向符合一级城乡规划资质的机构公开招标,同时也一定会拨给一定款项,所以我基于这一原因也相信政府拥有相关版权。--WQL (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Inclined to support restoration and keeping files that were reuploaded by a different user out of process. They appear to be "indispensable" to the proposed city planning Abzeronow (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As noted in the discussion below regarding File:印军越界现场照片(一).png, {{PD-PRC-exempt}} applies only to "textual documents" and not to maps, plans, or photographs. Unless we can get a colleague who reads Chinese to offer a different opinion, I think we are stuck with the precedents cited there. Entirely aside from that, I think that the images that include photographs must be deleted on the grounds that the photos may well be copyrighted and all of the maps must be shown to actually be Chinese government creations. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think two articles of the law are most relevant in this case. (You may read the corresponding English translation.) Article 5, 本法不适用于: (1) 法律、法规,国家机关的决议、决定、命令和其他具有立法、行政、司法性质的文件,及其官方正式译文. Article 22, 在下列情况下使用作品,可以不经著作权人许可,不向其支付报酬,但应当指明作者姓名、作品名称,并且不得侵犯著作权人依照本法享有的其他权利: (7) 国家机关为执行公务在合理范围内使用已经发表的作品. What I think it says is, all government documents of administrative, legislative and judicial nature are not subject to copyright. 文件 means documents, which can include images. However, article 22 gives the government exemption to use copyrighted works. So my conclusion is, if an image is attributed to a government, or unattributed but included in a government document, it is free; if a work is attributed to some other organisations, for example File:福州烟台山历史文化风貌区土地利用规划图.jpg by Shanghai Tongji Urban Planning & Design Institute and Fuzhou Academy of Planning and Design, it is an instance of fair use by the government and hence unfree. For the free files, they should be verified by licence review. Also in this regard, 董辰兴 (talk · contribs) has recently uploaded a lot of copyvios.--Roy17 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Roy17, I will gladly defer to your native Mandarin skills, but I would like to be sure we are clear. At Commons:Deletion requests/File:China Immigration Inspection brand image-nihao.jpg, Stefan4 says:

"Case 1 in {{PD-PRC-exempt}} uses the word 文件, which seems to mean 'textual documents', i.e. literary works"

That would not include photographs and maps as they are not textual. On the other hand, above, you say:

"... 文件 means documents, which can include images."

Are you sure that 文件 is not just textual, but includes images and maps? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: wikt:文件[2][3]. What you cited is not even a valid precedent for this UDR, because (if that image is [4]) it should be deleted because it is not part of a document. The analysis in that DR was not correct, but the decision was.--Roy17 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Roy17, but I am not concerned about that as precedent here, but simply the meaning of 文件. Does it clearly mean "documents, including text, photographs, plans, and maps" or is its meaning limited to "textual documents" as Stefan4 says in the cited DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Then you should not be concerned with a Swede's words "the word 文件, which seems to mean 'textual documents'" in a wrong analysis.--Roy17 (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a piece of regulations zh:s:党政机关公文处理工作条例(Regulations on the Handling of Official Documents by Party and Government Organs) in which all 14 types of official documents are enumerated, but the whole text does not mention any non-textual content such as images, photos, or graphics. Therefore, from a legal perspective (rather than a lexical one), it is safe to assume that "official documents" do not entail images, especially when images are taken out of a collection and presented as only images. --Wcam (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
zh:s:党政机关公文处理工作条例, article 9, 公文一般由份号、密级和保密期限、紧急程度、发文机关标志、发文字号、签发人、标题、主送机关、正文、附件说明、发文机关署名、成文日期、印章、附注、附件、抄送机关、印发机关和印发日期、页码等组成。 (9) 正文。公文的主体,用来表述公文的内容。 (15) 附件。公文正文的说明、补充或者参考资料。 There is no mention of excluding any form of media or restricting documents to the text. Part 15 goes on to say that attachments/appendices are indispensable components of the documents. (Often they take the form of photos and diagrams, but could actually be any kind of media.)--Roy17 (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Regisseur Karl-Martin Pold auf dem Filmfest München 2017.jpg

Ich habe alle Rechte an diesem Foto vom offiziellen Filmfestival und des Fotografen per Mail bekommen und dieses Dokument auch an Wikipedia Persmission geschickt. Es sind alle Rechte somit geklärt und es gibt keinen Grund das Foto zu löschen. Anbei das Permissionformular ausgefüllt.

Hiermit erkläre ich in Bezug auf das Bild [ Regisseur Karl-Martin Pold auf dem Filmfest München 2017 ]

[ ] dass ich der Urheber (Fotograf, Grafiker, Maler, etc.) bin.

[ x] dass ich der Inhaber des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts bin, das mir beliebige Veröffentlichungen, Bearbeitungen und Unterlizenzierungen dieses Werkes gestattet. Der Name des Urhebers lautet [Dominik Bindl].

Ich erlaube hiermit die Weiternutzung des Bildes/der Bilder unter folgender freier Lizenz/folgenden freien Lizenzen:

[LIZENZ (z.B. „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen Deutschland in Version 3.0 (abgekürzt CC-by-sa 3.0/de)“)]

Mir ist bekannt, dass damit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritte das Recht haben, das Bild zu nutzen und zu verändern. Dies schließt auch eine gewerbliche Nutzung ein.

Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann und kein Anspruch darauf besteht, dass das Bild dauernd auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.

Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, auf Grund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.

[11.2. 2019], [Dominik Bindl]

Volcanus99 (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Je suis Charlie, Brussels 11 January 2015 (107).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The drawing perhaps should be de minimis as it is not at the centre and not the main subject of the photo. B dash (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The two signs are the whole point of the image. Without them, you just have a sea of faces with no meaning. As noted, one of the two signs has a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The drawing is quite simple. It may be acceptable. --Yann (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Another opinion? --Yann (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Ajinomoto Sweeteners Collection.jpg

Hello , This image is based on the image with the following OTRS ticket.

Other images you deleted are created based on images with OTRS tickets in the same way.

Please return these images.Thank you.Jonathan7375 (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, please note that the files were deleted as violations of COM:ADVERT, not for copyvio. I agree with that. Second, while OTRS ticket:2018121410000239 is long and complicated and I don't read Japanese, so I may have missed something, it appears to contain several lists of files which are approved for Commons. The files above are not on the lists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Pinging @Whym, Roy17, EugeneZelenko.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not oppose undeletion, but the files must be properly attributed. It appears that Jonathan7375 is somehow authorised by the company, but proof of authorisation must be explicitly appended to each file.--Roy17 (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg QuestionIs it easier to resolve by applying new tickets to OTRS?—Jonathan7375 (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to support undeletion, because they are depictions of a notable company's products are likely to be used in Wikimedia projects. The 'collection' images here seem to be essentially collages made of OTRS-approved images, created for the purpose of comparison and maybe presenting a timeline - it was also what I was told in the last part of the OTRS conversation. (I'm assuming good faith and I believe they contain no new images - at the moment I don't have time to match the images one by one.) If so, there wouldn't be copyright problems. Jonathan7375 said they wanted to put collection images to Wikipedia pages about the company who produces the depicted products. If Wikipedia uses (and continues to use) the images, they will automatically be in scope. whym (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would undelete under the request of an OTRS agent, if checking the files is needed during the verification process, or because the permission is checked and approved; in case @Whym: you can directly do that. But undeletion is not possible on a random request. Ruthven (msg) 09:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what OTRS agents are supposed to do here. In my view, what is neededd is review by admins, not OTRS agents. Base images of these collage images are already uploaded and approved (at least that's what is claimed here). You would need to match deleted images and uploaded images - no new privately provided images would be involved. Any admin can see deleted images and check if they all consist of images already uploaded and marked confirmed by OTRS agents. In case a new or questionable image is found, the matter can be passed onto OTRS agents, but I don't see how OTRS agents will be involved before that. whym (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jonathan7375: チェックを助けるため、合成画像と個別画像の対応表をここに書くといいのではないかと思います。 (I would suggest providing the list of base images for each 'collection' images.) whym (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Whym, Roy17, EugeneZelenko, Jeff G. The sentences will be longer. Please pardon me for troubling you.

that's all. — Jonathan7375 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Craig A Jones.jpg

The file is a photo of Craig Jones and the photo was taken by a Ministry of Defence Photographer under MOD Crown Copyright. MOD Crown Copyright grants worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive licence for the image. The original deletion request was made because the photo was found elsewhere on the internet, namely website: As Craig Jones is depicted in the photo he has emailed his permission request under Crown Copyright license to wikimedia permissions. © Crown copyright [2003].

(Moorerichards (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)) 4th March 2019

Can you clarify your claim "Craig Jones owns the photo and user moorerichards has permission to use the photo.". Can you explain why you uploaded this photo with a Creative Commons license? How did it come about that the subject owns the copyright? Also, Crown Copyright lasts for 50 years, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom. Thuresson (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
please see information on the MOD Crown Copyright consent license on the link below. the subject does not own the copyright but under the license if he is depicted in the imagery he needs to consent to its use. (Moorerichards (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC))

File:Teddy Roosevelt Statue (Marble).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mparrishxx

circa 1923 US photograph. Both statue and photograph may now be PD-US-expired. Abzeronow (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Striked inaccurate portion since I misunderstood that portion of DR. Statue is circa 1923. I can't see file so I don't know how photograph was credited. Abzeronow (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Description: Sculptor Vincenzo Miserendino with a Marble Statue of Teddy Roosevelt in his Bowery Studio. According to w:en:Vincenzo Miserendino the statue is from 1922 and the photo is also likely from 1922; both from US. No information when/whether the photo was published, however. Ankry (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Do we have any reason to believe that it wasn't published around 1922 or 1923? Abzeronow (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is actually the 1923 portrait at the AB Davis school mentioned in the text at WP:EN with two images at SIRIS. This question might better be phrased in the positive ("was" vs "wasn't"):
"Thanks. Do we have any reason to believe that it wasn't published around 1922 or 1923? Abzeronow"
because the burden of proof is to show that the image is OK. Therefore it must be proven that this photograph was in fact published during 1923. Without that, we cannot restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
If it's absolutely necessary, I can always put an Undelete in 2044 for this photo in the Deletion Request or put the file name directly on the "Undelete in 2044" page.(since 2044 would satisfy the 120-year rule) However, I think it's rather plausible that publication was around 1923. The sculptor had a 1923 book according to the page and Theodore Roosevelt(who died in 1919) was a popular subject in 1920s books (Lord Charnwood even had a Roosevelt biography for a British audience published in 1923). It seems the sculptor's book is not available on Hathitrust so I don't have a way of searching for that to see if this photograph was somehow published in that book. Abzeronow (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem with that line of reasoning is that the sculptor did quite a few works of Theodore Roosevelt. The WP:EN article, Vincenzo Miserendino, lists six and there may be more. The assumption that this particular image appeared in print within the year of its creation is beyond a significant doubt. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I could try a few more attempts to see if I can find anything more about this particular sculpture and see if I can find something like this photograph(which I can't see but description Ankry unearthed is helpful). Otherwise, what would you recommend as far as when this can be undeleted? Abzeronow (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support as per above. Yann (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Antóninho Baptista Alves 2018-11-20.jpg

Reason mention was "Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1)". I asked the deleter for further infomations. Answer was "No acceptable license is indicated at Facebook. Please don't grab pictures from Facebook"". But this doesn't matter. According the current law in TL the images "published and distributed by the Government of Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" are for free use (Template:PD-TLGov). There is no need for further license needed, when it is published and distributed by government. In this case, it was the office of the prime minister. The kind of media is not playing a role. --JPF (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Since Facebook itself is copyrighted, it does not have a way to show whether an image is under another copyright or not. The Government of East Timor can make an image PD only if it has the right to do so. We do not know that that is the case here. Unless the image is a work for hire of an employee of the government, the actual photographer is the person who must freely license the image for Commons. I suggest you find this or another similar image on a web site belonging to the Government where its copyright status will be clear. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, FB does not have any copyrights. The owner is the government of Timor-Leste, which is publishing via FB. --JPF (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
To clarify: Facebook has using rights, but not copyright. A PD-image does not get copright, by posting it at FB. --JPF (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info @J. Patrick Fischer: We need an evidence that the image is free in (1) the initial publication country and (2) the US. As Facebook is not located in Timor-Leste the copyright status in Timor-Leste may be irrelevant for Commons. Has the image been published in Timor-Leste prior to its publication on Facebook? Ankry (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK not. But the government of TL is posting without any "infringement of copyright", according their law. Are there any American laws, which are restricting the will of publisher? --JPF (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
the copyright status in Timor-Leste may be irrelevant for Commons - sorry, but this is absurd and definitly incompatible with the Rules at Commons. The Commons rules say the images must be published under a license, that makes the images free for their home country and the United States. The rights Facebook climes are not of importance here. And not just because a lot of lawyers say, that FB did not have the right to claim any right on the images of others. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: What is the publication country if first published on Facebook? What is the publication country if first published in Wikimedia Commons? I dispute assumming that it is just TL. That's all. If this is US, we need an evidence that it is PD in US. If it is "the whole world" we need a clear license from the author as PD status in TL is irrelevant for most of world. Ankry (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The author is the government of TL. Even if they are publishing in the USA, they are bound on Timorese law, that all their publications are PD. When I am publishing my images under PD, US law is not restricting my images under a higher level of copyright. --JPF (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
What is the country of first publication? If it is USA, I have no opinion of the legal status; but it must be US copyright law based, not TL copyright law based. If a country that does not recognize PD as a legal category (like any EU country) should be taken into account, then the photo is copyrighted in these countries: rights belong either to the photographer or to the TL government, depending on their relations. Ankry (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here. The Facebook copyright claim is irrelevant to the status of this image, but, as I tried to say clearly, because Facebook claims copyright, they do not make it possible for their users to declare an image's copyright status. Therefore we do not know the copyright status. It seems to me that this overreaches:

"According the current law in TL the images "published and distributed by the Government of Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" are for free use "

Clearly the government of TL cannot make something PD if its copyright is owned by someone else. We all know that images created by US Federal employees in the course of their work are PD, but also know that many images on US Government web sites are not PD because they are the work of people who are not Federal employees. I have a significant doubt that whoever manages the TL Facebook page is very careful about ensuring that the TL government has the right to make PD everything posted there. Therefore, while material posted on the Facebook page may be PD in TL, it may be under copyright everywhere else in the world. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

"Everywhere else in the world"? I believe you, if you say, you do not know the copyright law of El Salvador, but this couldn't be an argument, because unknowledge of all laws in the world would request the deletion of all images in Commons. ;-)
But which copyright could be affected anyhow? A staff of the Timorese prime minister made a photo like it is usual on dozens of meetings there, added the watermarking of the Timorese government on the photo (check the linked source) and posted it on the Facebook account of the Timorese prime minister. This is not an image from outside of the state institution, like an countryside image for example, which maybe was taken by a tourist for example.
So, you are distrusting the staff, who is posting on FB? Why? Because this are Timorese, not US officers? What is the difference between PD-TLGov and PD-USGov?
Only your doubts can not be enough, there has to be concrete possible laws, which could be affected. --JPF (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@J. Patrick Fischer: 17 U.S.C. ch. 3: "Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death." You cannot refer to TL copyright status when investigating US copyright status unless you are considering a work that was published before 1996. And you need to point out the an appropriate exception in the copyright law if the general rule does not apply. Ankry (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: So, who is having the copyright on the image? The photograph gave it in Timor-Leste to the government. The government can not publish sth else than PD. --JPF (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


Please undelete this file [5]. Reason for deletion was: "Dw no source since 2 February 2019". Music was written in ca. 1450 and performed by myself in 2019. I am pretty sure (cannot check since the file got deleted) that I checked "own work" and licenced it under a permissive licence. 18:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

If you perform music composed by somebody else, this is not your purely own work, even if you hold copyright for this. You need to provide author/source info about the original work even if it is PD. As you did not compose the music, you did take the composition from somewhere. So more information is needed in order to restore the file. Ankry (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
The author is unknown, the collection is "Codex Faenza", compiled in the 15th Century. I believe I added this information when I first uploaded the file, but I cannot be sure because the metadata is public no more. Is there anything else needed? 11:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems you did not:
|source=Own work
but I Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion per the above explanation if the above information is confirmed by the logged in uploader. Ankry (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I am logged in, I confirm the above information Fari2 (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Richard Boddington iEmmys.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Mr. Boddington, who is in the picture, purchased the correct photo license from Getty Images. Mr. Boddington has a copy of the license from Getty Images and can upload it if required. Mr. Boddington used his Flicr page to simply host the picture. W Green007 (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @W Green007: Getty Images offers no license on it's website which is compatible with Wikimedia Commons because doing so would destroy it's profit model. If you have a special case with a contract, please send a copy of the contract via OTRS.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 06:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jeff G.: In order to simplify the process Mr. Boddington's wife uploaded pics of the event she took to her Flickr account with the correct release. I would like to add one of Mr. Boddington's pics he took himself and is on his Flickr page was incorrectly flagged by Wikipedia as a copyright violation for being the same as a pic on IMDB. It is Mr. Boddington who owns the pic and supplied it to IMDB, not the other way around. Mr. Boddington informs me he has sent emails to,, with the affirmations to release this pic and two others into Wiki commons. The pic you applied a copyright violation to is:,_Against_The_Wild_(2013).jpg. This is Mr. Boddington's pic, correctly released on Flickr, and the copyright strike against me should be removed.   — W Green007 please ping or talk to me 06:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
As the Flickr image is newer than the Imdb one, we need to wait for an OTRS agent decission. Ankry (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry:Well please excuse me, but, the timing at which a pic appears on the internet has nothing to do with establishing who owns the copyright to that pic. 100% of the pics on IMDB for the movie, Against The Wild, are under Mr. Boddington's copyright ownership. IMDB does NOT own the rights to any of the pics appearing on their site. Mr. Boddington supplied all of those pics to IMDB, and he can just as easily delete them tomorrow if he chooses to. The fact that Mr. Boddington is now releasing the same pics onto his Flickr page, does not in anyway mean that he has lost the copyright to these pics.   — W Green007 please ping or talk to me 17:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, if we have an evidence that the mentioned Flickr page belongs to the official Flickr service of the movie director, then I tend to Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. Noting, that this discussion should be linked from the image talk page to prevent further deletion requests. Ankry (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Mr. Boddington's IMDB credits provide this evidence, as does the name & picture on his Flickr page. As I am a new contributor, perhaps you could explain more clearly what you mean by, "Noting, that this discussion should be linked from the image talk page to prevent further deletion requests."W Green007 (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I did not find any link to the Flickr account from any official Mr. Boddington's page. So still waiting for another opinion. Ankry (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Um, all you have to do is type, "Richard Boddington" into, and there it is. He is listed as "producer" on both Against The Wild, and An Elephant's Journey. Not sure it can get any simpler than that? W Green007 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I should add that from reading the other posts on this board photographers are going to have to start having another photographer, take a picture them, taking a picture. In order for the first photographer to prove that they took the picture and it belongs to them. In this case, a picture belonging to Mr. Boddington was deleted before any chance to reply was allowed. All based on the fact that it was also on IMDB, a site that Mr. Boddington provided the picture to! W Green007 (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

File:philip Birk Porträtt.jpg

I was very selective and I made sure i could use the picture. The picture is Creative Commons approved and i also mentioned the photographer under the photo.

--Maiianilsson (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC) 2019.03.11

@Maiianilsson: Where did you find information that the photo is under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license? Free use is not the same as free license. Ankry (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The source shown in the file description is:

That site is clearly marked "© HISTORISKA MEDIA 2018. Allt material på denna webbplats tillhör Historiska Media." Therefore, in order for the image to be restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 187 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

OP probably found the photo here (CC-BY-3.0). Thuresson (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support per Thuresson above. Ankry (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Again, Thuresson,Ankry, as I said above, the source given in the file description is whcih has an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I am unsure what do you suggest here: that the photo should be uploaded with another source? or that using a photo from a freely licensed site (like a photo from Commons) in a copyrighted site makes resonable doubts about the original license or revokes it? Unless there is a clear evidence that the license here was stated after upload to commons (or just before), I tend to consider that the usage may be a copyright violaion (however linking to the author/license information might fulfill the CC-BY-SA license requirements). copy seems to be newer than the freely licensed one (and because of the link I tend to consider that the copy is under the same license). Ankry (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Files uploaded by DarwIn

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Deletion reason ignores 500px had free licenses up until July 2018. See Commons:500px_licensing_data. All files have documented free licenses. Chico Venancio (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What about the rationale that these were intended as advertisements? Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DarwIn Abzeronow (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Abzeronow, I'd refer you to the answers there. In a nutshell, we have no rules about users uploading images here that were made intended to be advertisements by the author, only a rule to remove files uploaded as intended advertisements. Falling back on the project scope the files can be useful for to illustrate several aspects that are clearly on scope for Commons. As stated there by Teles DarwIn and myself. Chico Venancio (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no evidence that they originate from 500px prior to their licensing change. You enter into license contract while downloading. The pending license contracts are irrevokable, but after license chabge you no longer can download under the earlier license. So Darwin's uploads are copyvios, IMO. Regardless of the above scope doubts. Ankry (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Ankry, as can be seen Commons:500px_licensing_data (here using the first file as an example:

Going to the correspondent 500px page you can see the license snippet in the source code, including a link to the license:

<a about=' ' href='' id='server_photo_cc_license' rel='license'></a>

Check the existence of the snippet "license_type": 6 on that page by viewing the source code.

And you can confirm that 6 there means CC-BY-SA in the 500px API documentation (version 3.0 can be confirmed in the archived version of the 500px CC page). Chico Venancio (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, I don't believe there can be any doubt that the files I uploaded here from the Internet Archive originated on 500px, and that they were freely licensed back then, at the time they were exported to the Internet Archive. There even is a Panoramio style import project going on dedicated to import what is on scope for Commons from there. The reason stated for the elimination is invalid, indeed, and the files should be restored.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Aside from the copyvio question, there is the fact that these have significant watermarks top and bottom showing name, address, telephone, and e-mail. Such watermarks cannot be removed from a CC-BY licensed image, so they cannot, as a practical matter, be useful anywhere. Note also that COM:ADVERT explicitly prohibits images that constitute advertisements. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(Jameslwoodward), Why would the license not allow the image to be cropped? That seems a like very strange interpretation of CC-BY-SA 3.0.
COM:ADVERT explicitly states it is not a policy but a shorthand for COM:SCOPE, and the argument here is that these files are "realistically useful for an educational purpose". As all have stated in the DR, cropping the advertisement is the ideal solution here. Chico Venancio (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
As I understand it, WMF Legal's interpretation of section 4B of the license is that you cannot remove watermarks that tend to identify the source of the licensed work.
As for COM:ADVERT, you're splitting hairs. It describes the rules we follow when looking at images as dictated by policy. This is clearly advertising and therefore it cannot stay. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
(Jameslwoodward), what is your source for WMF interpreting CC-BY-SA 3.0 in such a manner? Chico Venancio (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I must say this is the first time I heard that interpretation about cropping images. Cropping stuff to remove water marks has been common practice here in Commons since I joined a decade ago. If I've been doing something wrong all of this time, I would really like to know. @Jameslwoodward: the right link is [this one], this is CC-BY-SA-3, not 2.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
As for COM:ADVERT: "As dictated by our scope, content which constitutes advertising or self-promotion may be deleted from Commons." May be deleted. Not must be deleted, not even should be deleted. If it's useful and educative, advertisements and other files originally spammed here are welcome on Commons, given that there are no copyright issues with them.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

For the watermark issues, please see Commons:Watermarks#Legal_issues_with_the_removal_of_watermarks where it says:

"Opinion from the Wikimedia Foundation legal staff indicates the removal of watermarks may place the remover at legal risk given the provisions of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act regarding "copyright management information" (such as the title, author's name, copyright notice, etc.)"

Note that this is not limited to removing copyright notices, but extends to removing "copyright management information", which includes name, address, etc.

Also note the intro to that page where we have:

2.✘ Promotional watermarks, which go significantly beyond asserting authorship/copyright, for example to promote a website.

Obviously, the watermarks on these images promote the web site. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose restoration per Jim. @Yann: if you wish to take yourself the legal risk related to removing the watermatks, feel free to upload cropped, non-watermarked images. Ankry (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
If the images are free, I don't see what is the issue with removing the watermark. I would undelete the files, crop them, and then hide the old versions. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

(Jameslwoodward), as can be noted in the actual WMF's legal opinion CC-BY-SA is compatible with watermarks removal. About this new DMCA goalpost I would not be certain these watermarks qualify as copyright management information (information not directly listed in statute or case law and the intent of the author here, per you interpretation, is advertisement. You either have to imagine a copyright management intent without copyright notice or believe the author did not intend these as advertisements). And together with Yann, and DarwIn I volunteer to do the actual cropping. Chico Venancio (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to see these restored if someone is willing to take the DMCA risk and crop out all of the watermarks. While I think it is highly unlikely that an Indian company will come after a Commons user under USA law for that act, it is not something that I can recommend. However, we have all seen many unfilled promises of image modification in the past, so if the watermarks are not removed promptly after restoration, I will delete the images again. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


Добрый день! Файл File:N.ermekbayev.jpg был скопирован с сайта для использования на вики странице Нурлан Ермекбаев. Разрешение на использование данного изображения имеется. Прошу восстановить изображение. --QZRustemmedia (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The copyright notice at the bottom of this page states: "2009 – 2019 © Министерство обороны Республики Казахстан Все права защищены" that is not a free license. @QZRustemmedia: plese do not upload images from sites that do not claim a free license explicitely. Ankry (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "From81"

This was a bad decision took by a sysop that clearly do not know what his is talking... Commons:500px licensing data, I've being importing free images from 500px, and this set of images receive an allegation of manipulation that do not affect their quality as an education media.

Moreover the sysop delete it writing: "Probably out of scope as noted -- we do not keep art from artists who are not notable. However, they also appear to be copyvios as there is no free license at 500px.", two false allegations, all photos are art, and this are free images. And note the "probably", if you are not sure, why do you took the most aggressive action, and delete it????

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not all art is within Commons's scope. Were these photographs clearly labelled as photomanipulations? Abzeronow (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThey are obviously photo-manipulations and are therefore out of scope since the person doing the manipulation is not notable. Also note that I have carefully followed the instructions at Commons:500px licensing data to look for a license and found none. Finally, note that since 500px does not show a license icon or text with the images, the license may not be valid -- CC licenses must be shown with the image. In order to have a solid trail of evidence, we must have a clearly licensed image, not one where the license may or may not be buried in the source code at the source. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
You just need to correct follow the instructions
We have images from Paranomio here, that one time was clearly tag as free, now the project is over, we are the guarantee, exactly same thing here, with a bonus the possibility to verify.
A robot already did this work for us, even you not trusting the volunteers, is a fact that this images was previously published under a free license.
And we create permanent links with the license originally published:
As I explained before, 152946273, 152946275 are not "obviously photo-manipulations"
And excluding 156642269, 154288761, by a lack of warning is not the correct way to do things, this both photos only have "unreal" colours, but this colours do not completely remove their capability to illustrate the places and provide us a educational media.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 04:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Dr Jonas Ekfeldt.jpg

I, personally, own the copyright to this image, as well as the domain Hence; It's publishing on Wiki has wrongfully been flagged as a potential copyright violation.

15 March 2019 Viroptimus (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Viroptimus: All permissions have to be confirmed via OTRS mailing system. Please follow the procedure. Due to high backlog of requests it might take up to 185 days to proceed your e-mail. I recommend sending your e-mail to in order to get response speedily. The file will be undeleted once the request is processed. --Mates (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

File:1944 destructed buildings pushkin road bobruisk.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:1944 destructed buildings pushkin road bobruisk.png

Description is cut off in all public logs, but it might be PD for the same reason that [[6]] was (could be PD-Belarus if description is the same or similar) Abzeronow (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Image description: "destructed buildings Pushkin Road Bobruisk (Belarus), autumn 1944". Source: "Russian State Archive (former Archive of the USSR), scanned from book: Е. Морозов (Ed.); Преступления немецко-фашистских оккупантов в Белоруссии. 1941-1944 Минск, "Беларусь", 1965". The same photo is also available at [7] with the caption "Zerstörungen in Babrujsk, Bereich Puschkin Straße" (Destruction in Babrusjk, area Pushkin street". Thuresson (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info If autor is unknown, the photo seems to PD in Belarus since 2016 (50 post publication) but we still have URAA problem here. Ankry (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

File:KingsprimeTV Logo Icon.png

This file is owned by me. i created this file by myself. please reinstate File:KingsprimeTV Logo Icon.png--Joseph Ozojie (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info The file was deleted based on Commons:Deletion requests/File:KingsprimeTV Logo Icon.png closed by @Ruthven:. I assume the problem with the file was not because of copyright but COM:SCOPE (marked as spam). I recommend to specify where would you like to use the file if restored. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Mates (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I should have written "closed per discussion". Begoon had it right, because the copyright violation identified by Jeff G. was very relative: the file was used for self-promotion, being apparently out of scope as well. --Ruthven (msg) 23:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Meh, it seems pretty spammy to me, see also w:File:Kb global, kptv kingsprimetv.png and w:Draft:kingsprimetv which will never be accepted in its current form, if at all. Again, my heart says delete because [a] I dislike spammers as much as the next man, and [b] I personally think US(/Canadian) TOO is too permissive (and we can tend to be even more permissive in our interpretations) - but my head says keep because those are my personal opinions rather than policy and it seems to me to be below TOO as we do interpret it. This time, though, I'll vote with my heart: Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Begoon 11:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It was used for spam, we have no approved OTRS permission, and there is no actual use for it at present. If an unbiased policy-compliant article were to emerge and we had approved OTRS permission for it, I would reconsider.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Ineffable EP Album Artwork.jpg

I own the record label that this EP was released through and created the artwork. I own all the rights to this content. My company is registered with PPL and companies house in the united kingdom. We also have deals with Gracenote, Nielsen and Lyricfind.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alystarhynes (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Alystarhynes: All permissions have to be confirmed via OTRS mailing system. Please follow the procedure. Due to high backlog of requests it might take up to 185 days to proceed your e-mail. The file will be undeleted once the request is processed. --Mates (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


Photo was taken by Kari Sunnari from TTT-Theatre. Permission has confirmed via phone to use this picture at Wikipedia.

Kari Sunnari, tel. +358 44 7201 218

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Genz (talk • contribs) 08:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Genz: All permissions have to be confirmed via OTRS mailing system. Please follow the procedure. Due to high backlog of requests it might take up to 185 days to proceed your e-mail. Based on your phone number, I recommend sending your e-mail to in order to get response speedily. The file will be undeleted once the request is processed. --Mates (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


venho fazer esse pedido levando em conta que sou o outro da imagem e a mesma refere-se a mim mesmo.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nestorferras (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Take note that the current backlog for OTRS is 187 days, OTRS depends completely on volunteers, who work as hard as they can. Ankry (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Landa Freak foto de perfil.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The link has been deleted and the picture is public we have the rights and we give the rigts to anyone to distribuite or share for any purpose this pic Landa_Freak_foto_de_perfil.jpg SKYREDBot (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All permissions have to be confirmed via OTRS mailing system. Please follow the procedure. Due to high backlog of requests it might take up to 185 days to proceed your e-mail. The file will be undeleted once the request is processed. --Mates (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Headshot - Dan_Pickett_CEO_nfrastructure.jpg

Hi -

I am trying to undelete the head shot that we had previously uploaded on Daniel T Pickett III's wikipedia page. This is a head shot that was purchased from a photographer years ago.

Please advise as to how I can re-upload or undelete the photo. I still don't understand why it was deleted.

Thank you, Amy Harlow on behalf of Daniel T Pickett III

--Abharlow (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Abharlow: You didn't upload any file here, and you don't have any deleted one. You probably want to ask on Wikipedia instead. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is probably about Dan Picket CEO nfrastructure.jpg. Uploader claimed that the subject himself is the author, now it is claimed that the author is an unnamed photographer. The permission should be clarified through Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Turkish newpaper reporting on arrests of turanists may 1944.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turkish newpaper reporting on arrests of turanists may 1944.jpg

"The newspaper has been published in 1944 and according to Template:PD-Turkey it will be public domain in 2015." Abzeronow (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info And PD in US in 2040? Ankry (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Bust of Salvochea in the Loreto neighbourhood, Cádiz, unveiled March 23rd 1985 and paid for by popular subscription.jpg

"{{dw no source since}}-tagged" by User:Jeff G., deleted by Jcb. This is a sculpture in a street/park of Cádiz (Spain), covered by COM:FOP, regardless of when the sculptor died.

[SPAIN]: Works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public places may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by means of paintings, drawings, photographs and audiovisual processes

The uploader, User:Percy Moo, claims "own work" on the photograph (credible claim, IMHO). Strakhov (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems to fall under Spanish FoP. Abzeronow (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - the 'own work' claim is not credible at all: very low resolution and no EXIF - Jcb (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment user does not have a bad upload record and they specifically stated it was their own work. Unless evidence on the contrary is provided (the image being found in Google), WP:AGF should be applied. Strakhov (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Recent pictures with such a low resolution and missing EXIF are suspect by default. We would normally want to see the original file, e.g. via OTRS. Jcb (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
      • By the way, what do you mean with 'user does not have a bad upload record'? This file was their only upload. Jcb (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
        • I mean it's not like they had been caught many times lying (losing their credibility). Anyway, if someone (in this case "a rookie") wants to donate a low resolution pic, go to "OTRS-inferno" by default, whether we have found the pic in the internet or not, regardless they say it was their photo or not, regardless it is a mediocre photograph. I can't say I agree with that, but if nowadays it is the rule applied here... Strakhov (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
          • As long as COM:PCP is in place, yes, we will need verification for this kind of uploads. Jcb (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Strakhov: I suspected it, that's why I tagged it. The uploader had 10 days of opportunities to claim FOP, and chose not to.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: [8] Are you aware a user with no contributions in Commons most probably doesn't even know what "FOP" is? Strakhov (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Strakhov: They probably know how to click a "Convert to DR" button or reply to what became Commons talk:Abuse filter/Archive 2019#Report by Percy Moo, though.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
It would be wise lowering the expectations wrt how much a 4-edit-newbie know about Commons, and the expectations wrt someone replying to a question whose answer they simply don't know (and do not need to know, after all). Strakhov (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Αεν τιμησ logo.jpg

Please undelete this image since is the logo of our team and since I am in the board of the team I own the copyrights to upload this photo.

Thank you in advance

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Proman545 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Proman545: you provided contradicting info in the image description: (1) that this is the official club logo, and (2) that you are the author and exclusive copyright owner of the logo. If the club wishes to make the logo available under a free license, their official representative still can send a free license permission following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ankry. Another – and faster – method would be releasing the logo under a free licence at the club's website. De728631 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Giza zoo 1950.jpg

Kindly undelete this image. The copyright has ended in Egypt. It's in public domain as by Egyptian bylaws. It was taken in 1959 AD. The photographer is unknown. The source is a facebook group of history interested critics. Regards. --Ashashyou (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ashashyou: The copyright lenght depends not on photo creation date, but on the photo publication date. What is the initial publication date/place of the photo? If in 2019 on Facebook, then the copyright did not expire yet. Ankry (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


The pictures were artistic impressions of free copyrighted pictures available on the Internet. They were not any type of copyright violations.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maiju Perälä (talk • contribs) 15:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Why do people request all the time to undelete File:Example.jpg, although this file has not been deleted for the past decade? Jcb (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: If you expand the "request undeletion" box, you'll get the answer. --Mates (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All of user's deleted files were copyright violations of pictures available on web. I don't know what is meant by "Artistic impressions of free copyrighted pictures" but I guess it would be considered against COM:DW or COM:L. --Mates (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


Копия изображения разрешено использовать на викистранице Ермекбаев, Нурлан Байузакович на всех версиях языка <img style="float: left;" src="/uploads/11на сайт.jpg" width="349" height="350" alt="Копия изображения разрешено использовать на викистранице Ермекбаев, Нурлан Байузакович на всех версиях языка"> Источник-

Копия изображения разрешено использовать на викистранице Ермекбаев, Нурлан Байузакович на всех версиях языка

<img style="float: left;" src="/uploads/11на сайт.jpg" width="349" height="350" alt="Копия изображения разрешено использовать на викистранице Ермекбаев, Нурлан Байузакович на всех версиях языка">--QZRustemmedia (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can't find any indication for a Creative Commons licence at Maybe someone with a knowledge of Russian or Kazakh can find anything there? De728631 (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2018080810009018 regarding

Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ganímedes: ✓ Done - please process the ticket - Jcb (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


Pretty sure I filed an email with you when I originally uploaded this photo, indicating it was sharable: The file name even states the author. Will resend email.--A21sauce (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's email address for this again? It seems like I'd need to upload the file again to find it. If's you'ad answer on my Talk page, thanks.A21sauce (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Aouatefe LAHMANI.png

--Shihab.iglesias (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Associação Nacional de Estudantes de Engenharia Biomédica.jpg

A imagem foi feita pelo departamento de Marketing da Associação Nacional de Estudantes de Engenharia Biomédica (ANEEB). Não existe qualquer violação dos direitos de autor, uma vez que estes são da ANEEB. É importante termos a imagem na wikipedia da ANEEB pois esta refere-se ao atual logo da associação.

17-03-2019 Diana Cruz, Presidente da Mesa da Assembleia Geral da ANEEB

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diana S Cruz (talk • contribs) 22:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Passiflora pectinata.jpg

The use has agreed to make this photo public domain. See the original Flickr page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaattc (talk • contribs) 22:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

File:JR 2019-1.jpg


When I first uploaded the photo, I thought it was copyrighted material and it was sent to me following an interview I did with the artist an I assumed it was a professional piece.

It was actually a personal photo and actually has no copyrights on it at all.

Does that qualify for un-deleting the image?

--Wayneb13 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jason clendenen

The name is EXIF data matches the uploader username. No reason to doubt that these are his pictures. This was part of abusive deletion requests by T Cells. See also COM:AN/U#User:Anthere. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Yann Please stop this falsehood! I didn't nominate these photos for deletion. You have threatened me with a block and now you are spreading falsehood against me. Stop! You are always bias in your judgement in cases involving me and Anthere. You only draw conclusion from her own comments and you don't bother to read mine. Anthere made this claim and she has retracted it after my comment on the thread. And because you don't care about my own view and you are one-sided, you repeated her false claim here. I know I don't have powerful friends around but note that the person behind the T Cells account is human too. T Cells (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)