Commons:Undeletion requests

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


Other languages:
العربية • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎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.

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/headline: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:Image: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 Edit

File:Yoosef abbad.jpg

This is not a copyright violation. Restate the picture please that some overzealous person flagged out of viciousness. This is the reason that Wikipedia contributors are a dying breed. They keep getting punished for providing information and working for free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reubenzadeh (talk • contribs) 23:00, 25 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Your upload had the following information in the file template |Description={{en|1=Picture of the Yusef Abad Synagogue, Tehran, Iran}} | |Author=Website of the Jewish Community of Tehran. It was nominated as a copyright violation due to being found at . I searched the image after your request here and while the tineye search shows it at ; I did not find the photograph at that address. That page has a statement that using these materials with attribution is free; however - and here's the tough part - that site doesn't provide any useful information as to who created the images which are a hodgepodge of photos and documents apparently culled from a wide variety of sources. Commons can only take free materials as described in COM:L and therefore your image was removed. The remainder of your communication fails COM:AGF and has been overlooked. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Ao Tawhiti Discovery Campus.jpg

This is one of three images I released the rights to. The photo was taken at the school with permission, I had organized this weeks a go to improve the quality of the Ao Tawhiti article. There is no reason it should have been removed and I am happy to follow the steps necessary to prove rights ownership.

There were three files which were wrongfully removed:

File:Ao Tawhiti Discovery Campus.jpg

File:Ao Tawhiti Unlimited Campus.jpg


I had released these images to the public domain, as I have the right to.

--Melonbob (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Melonbob: I urge you to read COM:L prior to future uploads. Your most recently removed images were sourced as follows "taken by student and rights released". The license was given as a self-license. Obviously if someone not you took the picture, uploading it as user's own work is incorrect and the license is invalid. There is a process by which the copyright holder (the student) can provide permission for those images here, it would be to follow the instructions on COM:OTRS, filing the email requested. Additionally I think larger versions than 473 × 321 should be encouraged for your future uploads to Commons. I am sorry that in your good faith efforts to improve an article, you missed the complicated situation created by uploading the work of another and claiming it as own. It is that latter which caused the nomination and subsequent deletion of your uploads. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Brasão de Itatira.jpg

Solicito o restauro do arquivo Brasão de Itatira.jpg. A figura é o brasão real do Municipio, é de uso público e não tem direitos autorais conhecidos. Favor verificar em: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valberto Silva (talk • contribs) 13:20, 26 June 2015‎ (UTC)

A figura é de uso público. Foi recortado de uma figura já existente no site ou Ninguém tem direitos autorais sobre essa figura. Além disso esta no meu álbum particular no flickr, — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 19:14, 27 June 2015‎ (UTC)

File:FC8.H8177.879dc - Des destinées de l'ame - Harvard.jpg

There should be no copyright for this book. This may be a 3-dimensionial photograph but it has no additional creative element other than the original design from the 19th century. Further, as an official representative of the alleged/presumed copyright holders (Houghton Library, Harvard College), I was granted permission to offer a public domain license to the file (under the name User:Rob at Houghton. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As you say, the book has no copyright, but the photograph certainly does. Assuming that the photographer who made the image is an employee of Harvard and has a work for hire agreement, Harvard owns the copyright to the photograph. Therefore, policy requires that in order for it to be restored, an officer of the library must send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, in case it isn't clear: I uploaded the image as an employee/officer/representative of the library with the blessing of a PD tag. The image was created specifically to be entered into the public domain. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Uploaded by a Wikipedian in residence as part of their job at Harvard. My deletion was likely mistaken. INeverCry 19:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect to my colleague INC and to Midnightdreary, the latter hasn't answered the question of who took the photograph. The fact that Midnightdreary is Wikipedian in residence says nothing about whether he or she has been appropriately authorized by Harvard to give away its property.
If the image was taken by Midnightdreary, then it should be labeled as "own work" and we have no problem. If not, then policy requires that we have OTRS confirmation from Harvard in one of two ways -- either that Midnightdreary has a blanket authorization to upload works for which Harvard owns the copyright or that Harvard gives a free license (which could be CC-0 = PD) for this image. In either case, since Harvard will be giving away valuable property, that OTRS e-mail should come from an officer of the Harvard Corporation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
True, I did not take the photograph myself. I hope you understand that I was employed by Harvard for this work, not merely a volunteer, so I was acting as an official authorized representative of the College. Nevertheless, I will have my former supervisor send an email, as you suggest. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
As a general rule, only an officer (President, Vice President, Treasurer, etc.) of a corporation can give away corporate property, which includes giving away free licenses to corporate owned-copyrights. That authority can be delegated, but the delegation must begin with a corporate officer. As far as I know, we have no evidence on record that Harvard has delegated that authority to you, hence the requirement for OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that we can undelete, and add {{OTRS pending}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Maldita Ramona.jpg File:Nahiara.jpg

son fotos sacadas por mi y tengo derecho hacer lo que quiera con ellas

(Franco Ramono (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC))

File:Nokia N1 tablet (16928811487).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Images are licensed as cc-by-2.0 and were verified as suitable for use on commons by the Flickr2Commons upload bot.

It seems the user who deleted the files (User:1989) has been blocked for misuse of these tools.

- RaviC (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose These are COM:DW of copyrighted software screens. INeverCry 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That isn't true. The icons are actually from the open source Numix Project (circle theme - see here). The rest is just AOSP. --RaviC (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Desempleo España 2015.png

I, creator of the file, finally grant license CC-BYSA 30 for Wikimedia for this file, to avoid the deletetion.


faelomx (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Two pictures of Gandhi

Hi, Could you please restore 2 pictures of Gandhi, should be licensed under {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • File:Gandhi studio 1931.jpg
  • File:Gandhi Downing Street.jpg
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose According to the deletion requests, there is no evidence whatsoever that the photographers are anonymous. {{PD-UK-unknown}} requires evidence of this. Besides, according to COM:L#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law, the files also need a valid copyright tag which proves that the files are freely licensed or in the public domain in the United States. You therefore also need to provide a valid United States copyright tag which proves this. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I am studying Gandhi documents for the last 22 years. The author of these pictures is unknown. The copyright also expires before the URAA date. According to en:Copyright law of the United Kingdom, the term was 50 years until 1995. So the copyright expired in 1982 for pictures taken in 1931. This is the same situation as all other pictures in Category:Mohandas K. Gandhi in England. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • No, the UK retroactively restored copyright to 70pma on January 1, 1996, which coincided with the URAA date, so those restorations had an effect in the US as well (even if they were PD in both countries the day before). They are likely now fine in the UK but not the US, unless they were published in the US within 30 days of their being first published in the UK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
        • That's not what the article says: they extended the copyright period for all works which were then still in copyright. These pictures were out of copyright, so why would the copyright be extended? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
          • That's only a partial quote; the rest of the sentence says ", and (controversially) revived the lapsed copyright of all authors who had died in the previous 70 years, i.e. since 1925." I'm pretty sure the author of that sentence was not taking anonymous works into consideration one way or another. There's another sentence about this extension:
It contained a controversial provision, which caused certain copyrights to revive; material which had been out of copyright came back into copyright. If the 1988 Act offered a shorter term of protection than the new Regulations, and if the work was still under copyright on 1 July 1995 anywhere in the EEA, then the copyright of that work was revived.
Which means Germany law would have reanimated the copyright in the UK.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Right, the article says and if the work was still under copyright on 1 July 1995 anywhere in the EEA. That is anywhere in the EEA, not just in the UK. So far, I don't think we've found an example of a work exempted because it was PD in all EEA countries. (The "anywhere in the EEA" text was right from the directive; some countries dispensed with that and basically codified the intended effect, i.e. that it applied to all works basically in order to harmonize the terms.) For example, Spain had an 80pma rule and I think used the rule of the longer term, which would probably cover just about anything less than 70pma / 70 years from publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
According to the Phil Collins ruling from 1993, it's illegal to discriminate EU citizens, so EEA countries are unable to use the rule of the shorter term if the photographer is an EEA citizen. For that reason, British photos taken by EU citizens (i.e. the vast majority of all British photos) get the full copyright term in for example Spain and were therefore copyrighted in Spain on 1 July 1995. The situation may be different if you have a British photograph (that is, a photograph first published in the UK) which was not created by an EU citizen. In that case, EU countries were allowed to use the rule of the shorter term, so maybe British photographs by non-EEA citizens were in the public domain in the entire European Economic Area on 1 July 1995, provided that they were at least 50 years old as of that date. One of the photos of Gandhi has a name suggesting that it was taken in London, so I suppose that the photographer was a British (i.e. EU) citizen. No idea about the other one. Is there some information on the file information page? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Both these images were taken in London during Gandhi's visit in 1931 there. On was taken in front of the Prime Minister's Office [1], the other one in a studio [2]. It is quite remarkable that Dinodia sells pictures on which they have no right, and without crediting the author (e.g. Cartier-Bresson). Regards, Yann (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, there isn't much penalty for claiming copyright when there is none. And they may just trying to claim copyright on a scan, or something like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Spain used the rule of the shorter term before... here is their 1987 law; Google Translate is not the best but it seems as though they gave foreign authors the same terms as their own. I'm guessing at the least that would be any author from either Berne or UCC countries, which is most of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a typical case where URAA is a complete nonsense... How long are we going to follow this? Yann (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It is complete nonsense to imagine that British photographers should have rights under US law? The photographers here have the same 95 years in the US they would have had had they been Americans (and followed all the paperwork.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is a complete nonsense because it is in the public domain in the UK and everywhere else in the world for more than 33 years. Beside that, the photographer is anonymous, and most probably dead. Yann (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It was required by the Berne Convention, and is the law, like it or not. I also don't like the retroactive 70pma terms the EU imposed around the same time but we don't get to ignore those either. Pretty sure the UK and US already had a bilateral treaty from 1891 which (if it was like the others the U.S. signed at the time) gave British authors the same rights in the US as U.S. authors. Granted that included the requirement of copyright notice, but the URAA basically returned to that situation without notice requirement. 95 years from publication is a very long time but quite often 70pma lasts even longer. Also, it has only been PD in the EU for 13 years (and Spain likely just for 3 years). Several EU countries had 70 year terms before the directive (80 for Spain) so it never became PD in those before 2002. And that is all assuming it qualifies as "anonymous" in those countries... some have some maddeningly vague requirements on that score. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I assume that the rule of shorter term is used. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, that is also not the law. (The U.S. has a number of bilateral copyright treaties still in force which would prevent it anyways, just as that same treaty prevented Germany from using that rule for U.S. works.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Amaia del Campo.png

Me parece que la imagen de Amaia del Campo no viola ningún tipo de derechos de autor, ya que es una imagen tomada por los servicios de prensa del Ayuntamiento, y ofrecida como material a los distintos medios de comunicación. Es más, algún medio digital ha utilizado una foto que es, evidentemente, de dominio público. --Barakaldotar (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Barakaldotar: Que el ayuntamiento la ofrezca a los medios de comunicación no significa necesariamente que permita cualquier uso de la imagen, incluso comercial y las modificaciones, para siempre, que es lo que se pide en Commons. Aún menos significa que esté en dominio público.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Pere prlpz: Sin embargo, ¿sería correcto subir una imagen de esta persona si la he sacado yo mismo con mi móvil? Sino, no entiendo como poder subir una foto de una persona relevante. ¿Puedes explicármelo? Muchas gracias. --Barakaldotar (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Barakaldotar: Si la sacas tú mismo (con el móvil o con una cámara), entonces no hay problema. El problema es cuando subes una foto sin que quede justificado que tienes el permiso del fotógrafo.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Mapa Norfeu.JPG and other ICC maps

Institut Cartogràfic i Geològic de Catalunya (ICGC), previously known as Institut Cartogràfic de Catalunya (ICC), used to release their maps under a non free license. Now, it has licensed its geoinformation under CC-BY 4.0, according to . Therefore, now we can happily undelete all ICC maps previously deleted because of being non free.

I think there must be tens of such deleted maps in Commons, but atm I just found Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mapa Norfeu.JPG.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

More maps: File:Map of Collserola.gif, File:Map of Serra del Cadí.gif and other ICC maps uploaded by same user (which only sysops are able to see). More information at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Please_check_ticket_for_ICC_maps.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Decido Decision Ciudadana.jpg

It's a free file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumball2 (talk • contribs)

It looks to be free, but is it within COM:SCOPE? I don't see an article even on on this political party. INeverCry 18:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:David Cats.jpg

This image was given to me by the person in the photo to place on wikipedia and either he does not have any copyrights.7/3/15--Nocompromise16 (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)