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 • ‎svenska • ‎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

Image:Lighting McQueen.jpg

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lighting McQueen.jpg. A skilled automotive customiser has taken a drivable vehicle, shortened the wheelbase and replaced the standard body panels with customised ones that make the vehicle look like a cartoon character, but the car remains drivable. Image is not a sculpture but a {{Useful-object-US}} (or whichever country the photo was taken; it looks to be a motorshow in the UK): one cannot remove the customised body from these vehicles and leave nothing in its place without affecting the utilitarian aspects of the motorcar, as these body parts are not merely decorative - they protect the mechanical workings of the car from the elements, just like the standard body panels would have. As such, the deletion of the image is erroneous. Furthermore, the image does qualify for fair use on en.WP as w:Eddie Paul discusses this specific group of automotive customisations, including this specific vehicle. Clearly, en.WP should be hosting these images locally instead of here if the result of upload here is that legitimate content which is in active use is disappearing in this manner. Please undelete this to upload it to en.WP directly, fair use for w:Eddie Paul as an encyclopaedia article which discusses the making of this specific three-dimensional article. K7L (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems to me, that you cannot see thru the windows, they are painted over. Even if it has engine, you cannot drive it anyway, when you cannot look out of car. So it is not a drivable car, but piece of art and copyrightable. Taivo (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (emphatically) It seems rather obvious that the intent of the modifier was not to merely modify a utilitarian object to some new design, but instead to explicitly duplicate a copyrightable design as closely as possible. The work at hand (the photograph itself) is essentially a two-dimensional depiction of the copyrighted character. Even if the vehicle itself avoids a copyright violation (about which I an very dubious), the photograph itself does not, as the actual 'depiction' of the vehicle is essentially identical (patently, as much as possible) to the copyrighted cartoon character. Revent (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


Por enésima vez borran archivos de billetes y monedas que subí y que están en dominio público y que no tengo los escaneados disponibles ya. Los 100 años no son válidos para trabajos de hasta de 1952 y los trabajos de gobierno se refieren a los del gobierno posrevolucionrio. Por lo que solicito restauren de nuevo primero fue el usuario ARTEST4ECHO y ahora Mattflaschen el que borra mis archivos sin mas ni mas. Además los billetes pertenecen al gobierno de Yucatán y la Comisión del henequén, NO AL GOBIERNO FEDERAL, ya que los estados y particulares al monento de la creación del Banco de México empezaron a tener prohibido emitir billetes y monedas.--Inri (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons debe respetar la Ley local, en este caso México, y la de los Estados Unidos por estar alojado en su territorio. Por lo que no se permite nada que no cumpla con ambas legislaciones. Ver VOM:L y COM:URAA.
Además las moneda y billetes de México deben respetar lo siguiente: Commons:Currency#Mexico
En base a lo anteriormente mencionado y en vista de que no cumple con todo, Symbol delete vote.svg NO corresponde restaurar las imágenes.
Un saludo. Alan (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Benedict XVI coat of arms with Tiara and Pallium.svg

The image in question is a "fastasy" in the official sense, it is true that the coat of arms of Pope Benedict XVI uses a mitre, but there is documentation where the papal tiara has been used. This includes on gifts to the Pope and at the Vatican Gardens. Fry1989 eh? 00:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This UDR does not address the point addressed in the DR close, that the image is not in scope. Fantastical versions of a real COA are not in the scope of Commons unless they have actually been used in some notable context. Please actually cite the contexts in which such a variant CoA was used... if you can show that it's not literally 'fantastical', then it would be in scope... without such evidence, it would be just 'something someone made up' as far as we are concerned. Revent (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg

The previouly deleted File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg Haven't problems with copyright, because is the flag of an municipality of Parana State, in Brazil, which have the official flag defined in the law 1636 of 2005, July 18, which says in her chapter II, Article 3 (translate not official, made by me)

“Art. 3º The Jaguariaíva Municipally Flag is originary form a aggregate of studies, elaborate by the artistic and cutural comunity of jaguariaiva, based in advanced search with base in the description maked by heraldist Arcinoé Antonio Peixoto de Faria, of Municipalist Heraldic Encyclopedia, and present the following characteristics and forms

I - Quartered in saltire, forming the loaded quarters of geometric figures irregularly cubic, green in color, and consist of four yellow bands, arranged two by two, in-band and bar, and starting from a central circle, where the Municipal coat is applied in accordance with the descriptions provided for in Article 9 of this Law.

a) The quarters are loaded with yellow pine brought into abyss

II - The Municipal Flag in accordance with the tradition of Portuguese heraldry, which inherited the canons and rules, obey the general rule laid down for making municipal flags.

III - The coat at the center of the flag represents the Municipal Government and the circle where it is applied is the host city of the municipality.

a) The circle is the heraldic symbol of eternity, for them not to be found beginning and no end.

IV - The tracks departing this circle, dividing the flag into quarters, symbolizes the irradiation of the Municipal Government, to all parts of the territory of the municipality and thus constituted barracks symbolize the existing farms in territorial extension.

V - The green color alludes to the abundant natural forests and plant extraction and is the pastures where cattle are apascentado, symbolizing this context abundance, victory, courtesy and hope.

VI - The yellow color represents great fortune, the splendor and wealth arising from the plant extractive industries and agriculture production from the labors of the field.

VII - The white color is the eternal symbol of peace, labor, prosperity and peaceful coexistence among its inhabitants” (Font: Law 1636/05 - Municipal Chamber of Jaguariaiva)

In chapter 4, article 9 of this same law, is descripted the coat of the municipallity, as is, the image share the same license of File:Brasaojaguariaiva.png, which was maintained in common even being from the same law

because this i think that the exclusion of this image from commons was of no reasoned explanation, based on a legal provision which another picture which is still held shares

no more to treat, wait return


Jose8122 (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

  • You tagged this as {{PD-BrazilGov}}, but it doesn't meet the conditions there. It is post-1983, and is not a text.
  • However, if the rendering is your own, based on the verbal description (vs. someone else's graphics), it should be possible for you to license your rendering.
  • Can someone who's more familiar than I with how to proceed give him some more specific instructions? - Jmabel ! talk 22:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Google indicates that this is indeed not a unique depiction of the flag by the uploader, but instead an image taken directly from an official government website... an identical image, at exactly the same resolution. While a independent depiction of the flag as described usually would be ok, just grabbing the image from a website is not (unless you can show that the particular depiction of the flag is PD or freely licensed). Revent (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Arsenal FC 1920-21.jpg

The file was deleted after being attributed to former Arsenal FC player Bernard Joy (died in 1984) so this photo would be still copyrighted. Nevertheless, as the photo was published on Forward, Arsenal!, a book written by Joy in 1953, there are no credits about who took the pictures (see book pages here). Furthermore, I could not find any source stating that Joy was photographer apart of being a journalist/writer. Fma12 (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm.. Joy was born in 1911, so it's dubious that he actually took the photo... he was at most ten years old at the time. It's a matter of if the image was truly 'anonymous', or just unattributed in the specific book. Judgement call, really... if being strict, I would say that unless it can be shown that the image was truly 'anonymous (by the intent of the photographer) and not just unattributed, then we would have to 'assume' that the image is under copyright until 2060 or so (that's the most conservative estimate). Really, without evidence that it is actually PD, it's questionable to assume it. Revent (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Sir John Woodroffe.jpg

I guess this file corresponds to ru:Файл:Sir John Woodroffe.jpg. I propose to undelete this image, as it is {{PD-old}}, as File:Sir Frederick Pollock 3rd Bt.jpg. Like this file, it should be within Category:Lafayette Studio. Thanks, --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Who's the author and when did they die? If it was taken in 1928, then it was in copyright in the UK in 1996 even if it is anonymous and thus will be in copyright in the US until 2024.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Just verifying that, yes, same image. Revent (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg (part 2)

(em português)

(continue from Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Bandeira_do_Município_de_Jaguariaíva.jpg

Eu li o Commons:Marcas_de_direitos_autorais, e na página é mencionado

{{PD-BrazilGov}} - para emblemas, bandeiras, escudos, armas, medalhas e monumentos oficiais, públicos, nacionais, estrangeiros ou internacionais.”

nesse caso, a imagem que peço a restauração é a bandeira oficial de um município, que se encontra de fato em domínio público

(in English)

I have read the Commons:Marcas_de_direitos_autorais (portuguese version) and in the page means

{{PD-BrazilGov}} - para emblemas, bandeiras, escudos, armas, medalhas e monumentos oficiais, públicos, nacionais, estrangeiros ou internacionais.” (transalted: “for emblems, flags, shields, coats, medals and official monuments, public, national, foreign or international.”)

In this case, the image what i am uploaded is an flag of an municipallity, setting as an public image

Jose8122 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of Juneau,Alaska.svg

For the United States, this image is absolutely below the Threshold of Originality, no question about it. Fry1989 eh? 17:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

That is almost certainly above the threshold. Selection and arrangement is copyrightable at the very least. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
No it's not! How do you feel it is above anything here when the seal is nothing but text and simple geometry? The mountain is two triangles, the waves are a simple repetitive pattern, there's nothing there above threshold. Fry1989 eh? 18:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not just simple geometry. The Copyright Office decisions go a little deeper than that. Mostly, there is a "selection and arrangement" copyright where an arrangement of uncopyrightable shapes may itself be copyrightable. The mountains may be fairly simple, but I'm not sure they are simple enough. The combination of all of that probably exceeds the threshold. (Look more closely as the decision in the CCC example on that page -- there was a version of that surrounded by a few lines which did get a copyright registration. The line is low) That said... I do forget these things are also defined in state or city law and therefore the selection and arrangement may be PD-EdictGov to begin with. I do see a law here which includes pretty close to that representation. I doubt the changes from that version amount to copyright. So, I could see undeletion on that score. Dates from 1970 as well so there may also be PD-US-no_notice representations. But the design was PD from the outset, as were most of the arrangement decisions, so... I could see undeletion as PD-EdictGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is about simple imagery. Simple geometry placed alongside more simple geometry doesn't make it complicated geometry. There are examples on the TOO page of denied copyrights that are more complicated than this image. Fry1989 eh? 02:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
It depends where you place it -- the placement itself can indeed be grounds for copyright. There is a threshold for that as well, and if this was a private logo I would still lean against it. The arrangement here is far more complex than anything on the example page. The second logo here is copyrightable, for example. The difference here to me is the PD-EdictGov which covers most of the normally-copyrightable aspects. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Explain to me what part of the seal you believe brings it about TOO? As I explained, there is nothing there that isn't derivable from simple work. The mountain is two triangles over-lapping and the waves are a simple repetitive scalloped pattern. The rest is nothing but text. Your example is not comparable, because File:CarCreditCity.png is not simple geometry, there is no simple geometric pattern that could create those shapes. You are wrong on this, absolutely wrong. Fry1989 eh? 16:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with Carl. Symbol delete vote.svg Keep deleted per COM:TOO. Alan (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
File:CarCreditCity.png is actually not copyrightable; it is variations on a utilitarian object (the letter "C"). In the example I pointed out to you, it's actually the rest of the lines in the second logo which make it copyrightable. So those lines are above the threshold. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Every drawing is at some level derived from simple geometric lines or patterns. It's not the fact that something is made up of simple geometric shapes... something has to be only simple geometric shapes. It does not take much enhancement to be copyrightable. Secondly, there is a "selection and arrangement" copyright. If you take 10 squares and place them in arbitrary positions, the result is most likely copyrightable -- not the squares themselves, but the specific arrangement. If someone makes a "best songs" compilation album, the selection and ordering of the songs on that album is actually a valid copyright independent of the songs themselves. An arrangement of all-centered and stacked items would not be copyrightable, but if there is creativity in the arrangement, then there can be. If you want to go more in-depth, you can read the chapters of the Copyright Compendium, which is what the U.S. Copyright Office uses to guide their inspectors when it comes to allowing a copyright registration. There is obviously a lot of gray area, and the content is not legally binding (though is based on case law and judges are likely to follow their logic), but it's incredibly helpful to get a sense as to what is and is not copyrightable. For this case, you can look at section 906.1 of Chapter 900. As it notes, Generally, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a work that merely consists of common geometric shapes unless the author’s use of those shapes results in a work that, as a whole, is sufficiently creative. They will look at the work as a whole, including each element, and the selection and arrangement thereof, to make a decision. While it is common to use triangles like that to represent mountains, is that exact representation (the specific relative size and arrangement of the two triangles) a common symbol itself? It's not the same thing as just a triangle. I don't think it would be copyrightable on its own, but it does start to add complexity to the arrangement of the design as a whole. The location of the star is not a standard arrangement. The relative sizes of the stripes of water is not necessarily standard. The way the top water stripe is shortened to make way for the mountain symbol is not a common arrangement. The question is whether all of those things, plus possibly the placement of the text, as a whole add up to a copyrightable selection, arrangement, or coordination. While it's probably not too far from the line, my guess is that it would be enough. I could be wrong, but it's far from obvious. The examples in the Compendium are made to be obvious; you can read through some of the appeals board decisions to look at stuff which is more borderline. You can read the specific reasoning in each case. Unfortunately there are relatively few which are overturned on appeal (most ones worthy of it would have been overturned earlier in the appeals process), so most examples are of ones below the threshold. However, if you note the arrangement on all our example images is very simplistic -- either all centered, or reading like lines of text, or text in a circle, etc. I don't see anything which has this level of complexity in the arrangement, nor do I remember any in reading any of the appeals cases. Since I have not seen similar examples ruled to be ineligible, it's my sense that something like this probably is eligible. However, since that arrangement is PD-EdictGov to begin with, if the SVG is basically the same as the one you linked above, then I would Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion on those grounds. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You're both wrong. Fry1989 eh? 17:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. What do we have here? Two green triangles, two concentric circles, one five-branched star, a lot of horizontal blue lines and some text. Even I am able to reproduce the logo, so I consider it simple. Taivo (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Group of files deleted

The following pictures were taken by myself. I am the copyright owner and I give permission for them to be used freely.

--Nosebleed03 (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Viasat Eesti

These logos are not from Russia, they are from Sweden and are textbook cases of PD-textlogo. Fry1989 eh? 17:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Whoops, awkward error. I intended to write Sweden because my logic doesn't apply to Russia unless we know something more about when a work is copyrighted in Russia. But this error doesn't change the outcome. Europe has a low TOO in general. Natuur12 (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment European countries have very varying thresholds of originality. I have not heard of any logo TOO cases in Swedish courts, so it isn't trivial to tell whether any particular logo would be fine or not. Nordic countries have generally written copyright laws together, so it may help to look at the sections for other Nordic countries at COM:TOO. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
This is barely complicated at all, except for the stylised H. It's not a signature, it's not a unique font, it's barely changed at all. I am extremely doubtful it is above TOO for much of Europe. The same applies to several other Viasat channels. Fry1989 eh? 01:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan4: One of the problems of our TOO section about European countries is that we referre to ancient court verdicts from before the Court of Justice of the European Union did some rulings about the threshold of originality. See for exmple this and this document. Morale of my story is that the copyright in th EU is being harmonised. Regarding the question when a work is copyrighted is: it has been harmonised over the entire EU. Unfortuanatly some countries interpertate it wrongly or supreme courts even violate European law by mistake. Stating that European countries have various threshold of originalities is a blast from the past and basing when something is TOO or not on verdicts when court cases are either to old or likely to be overturned by the Court of Justice of the European Union is wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I've not heard of the first case before, so I'll have to read that one. In the second case, the court states that the originality criterion to be used is whether the material contains 'the expression of the intellectual creation of the[...] author'. The court notes that 'it is for the national court to make this determination', suggesting that different national courts are allowed to interpret the wording differently, thereby allowing different thresholds of originality in different countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes of course, otherwise people have to go to the Court of Justice of the European Union for such copyright cases if local courts are not allowed to interpertate their wordings. However, their interpertation has to be in line with the wording of the Court of Justice of the European Union. There can be slight differences but every court can rule differently. Two judges from the same court could rule differently when the case is borderline. This however, does not mean that great differences should excist and those differences can be overturned if a local court is out of line. At least that is the theory. Of course the theory differs from the real situation but that doesn't mean we should treat indenvidual court cases like some holy bible as happens every now and than. Not everyone agrees with those opinion but when their are no local court cases we should stick with what the Court of Justice of the European Union wrote. Natuur12 (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hm... Looking at this case (which is later than the other one), I get the impression that the European Court of Justice only mandates an originality-based threshold (as opposed to a sweat of the brow-based threshold), but that countries are given some liberty in choosing their preferred originality-based threshold. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I think we should follow the actual situation, which at the moment means that different countries may apply thresholds differently. Rulings by EU judges will probably change things over time and make countries closer on such matters, but even reading those links, it is still up to national courts to determine a certain amount of it. Secondly, the EU directives basically mandate a minimum level of protection; it might be possible that countries can still protect items which do not qualify as a "work" under the EU directive (such as simple photographs) and those laws can still make something "unfree". Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
In order to create protection for other things (such as simple photographs), EU countries are required to create a formal neighbouring right (and also inform some EU organisation about this, I believe). But yes, EU countries can do this. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Louvre Pyramid


I would like you to watch the last Deletion request of the page Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Louvre Pyramid. It was closed last September 8th, with a complete deletion of all proposed files. Of course some of them had, unfortunately, no chance of being kept, the Louvre Pyramid being the main subject. But this is not the case of all pictures. In the DR I suggested to keep these ones: File:Louvre Pyramid construction 1987.jpg, File:Louvre (8271748749).jpg, File:Louvre at dusk.JPG, File:Louvre at dusk2.JPG, File:Vue de la pyramide, Louvre.jpg, File:France-000100 - Louvre Museum (14524274070).jpg, File:From Inside the Lourve - panoramio.jpg, File:Le Louvre IMG 20141106 213829 (15576336810).jpg, File:Le Louvre IMG 20141106 213851 (15576336540).jpg, File:Le Louvre IMG 20141106 213904 (15759267771).jpg, File:Louvre (4856978474).jpg, File:Louvre by day centered.jpg, File:Louvre France.jpg, File:Louvre Museum - entrance.jpg, File:Louvre pyramid 2.JPG, File:Louvre-Bannenhaff-mat-Pyramid--w.jpg and File:Pyramide du Louvre et la cour Napoléon.jpg. For the first one, the subject is the construction and the pyramid is not completely built on that, moreover this is a general view of the Louvre Museum at that time, the pyramid is De Minimis for me. For all the other ones I quoted, they are general overviews of the museum, the pyramid is not the main subject and therefore is De Minimis too. The Louvre Building is too old to be copyrighted, the museum has been inaugurated in 1793 and the building was a Palace before being a museum. Then when the Pyramid is De Minimis, the Louvre Building is in the public domain. Thank you very much for your help. Jeriby (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I stand behind my decision. None of them was de minimis. Objects under construction can also be protected with copyright, general views can also be protected with copyright. Taivo (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
These below are certainly OK. Some others may also be OK.
Buildings under construction are usually accepted. There is a clear court case, where unavoidable copyrighted items are OK. See Commons:Freedom of panorama#France. Yann (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


The logo is almost equal to File:Disney Channel 2014 HD.png only that the only difference is that it has two circles above the "I". That will not too for TEXTLOGO. If one considers the discussions in "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disney Channel 2014 HD.png", the deletion would be wrong. Note: both logos are used in Disney Channel Germany since January 2014 (According to German Wikipedia). --Mega-buses (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Disney Enterprises, Inc. has registered a work entitled 'Disney Channel' and described as 'Logo' for copyright. Copyright registration number VAu000575197, date of creation = 2002, date of registration = 2003-02-20. Which logo is this? I note that Wikipedia reports that Disney Channel was launched in 1983, so I assume that there have been other logos prior to 2002 and I don't know whether the 2002 logo is the current one either.
As the logo from 2002 has been registered for copyright, it means that the United States Copyright Office thinks that the 2002 logo is copyrighted, so that logo can't be hosted on Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
That is the 2002 logo (and this, the wordmark, with two deletion requests with result "kept".) This is the current logo, deleted on commons but more big (and as I said, the difference with File:Disney Channel 2014 HD.png is the two circles in the "I" then, practically no difference.). --Mega-buses (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Gualberto in Puerto Vallarta 1979.jpg).

File:Gualberto in Puerto Vallarta 1979.jpg). I own this image. I took the photo. What more do you need? Chaos4tu (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done : as above. Yann (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Christina Baumer auf der Berlinale Opening Night 2015.jpg

Diese Bild sollte wieder wiederhergestellt werden, da es um ein Bild von mir handelt, welches ich fotografiert hatte mit dem Einverständnis der Person darauf. Ich sehe hier keine Urheberrechtsverletzung (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Christina Baumer mit Jasper Joseph auf der Berlinale 2015.jpg

Diese Bild sollte wieder wiederhergestellt werden, da es um ein Bild von mir handelt, welches ich fotografiert hatte mit dem Einverständnis der Person darauf. Ich sehe hier keine Urheberrechtsverletzung (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


This author is missing at sea and hasn't been seen in years. He was a friend and a community leader in my city. He has no family that owns the book picture and no publishing company owns the title. This book I helped him develop and I personal know that there is my copy rights being held in his name around this book or the picture. Jbignell (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Aditi Bhagwat.jpg to be undeleted

The photo is taken from the Aditi Bhagwat's website and she holds sole copyrights. she has made it available for free usage over the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashodhanborkar (talk • contribs)

@Yashodhanborkar: Hi,
We need a free license. See COM:L, and COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done : as above. Yann (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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


I uploaded a picture of a public monument, the statue "El oso y el madroño", made by me. The photo was made on 1 October at 9 am — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariatejero (talk • contribs)

@Mariatejero: Hi,
Could you upload the original image with EXIF data, and without a watermark? Otherwise, please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done : No answer. Yann (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Paco the hedgedog.jpg

This is my character and my drawing!
--2015/10/3 21:47 User:Sky-Yoshi_4444

File:Mountainview High School crest.tif

The crest deleted is for the school I teach at. Mountainview High School. It was given to me by the computer technician. We use it on our paperwork. How on earth does it violate copyright to use the Mountainview High School crest on the wiki page of Mountainview High school?

I also use it on the Mountainview High School Agriculture Facebook page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markypoo nz (talk • contribs) 04:13, 4 October 2015‎ (UTC)

File:Kölnbarde Figur.jpg

die Genehmigung ist an permission commons verschickt. "Ticket#2015100410004923" Roxjay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxjay (talk • contribs) 11:12, 4 October 2015‎ (UTC)

File:It's all Greek to Sholing's boss.jpg

The image is 100% free to use, I did publish this image after a personal request to the owner. It has never been published by Southern Daily Echo (or the main author Wendy Gee) on the internet before, this is the first publication online for this image, the only exception will be one publication of the original file with minor changes in the original personal website of the person involved who is a friend of mine and granted me a permission to publish it on Wikipedia, therefore I consider it to be a valid publication and I request an undeletion. Many thanks in advance.--Skycraper (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of audio examples

I added short edits that I made myself to do what many other music pages do and have examples of the work we all love so much. Please consider that most of my favourite artists have such audio on their Wikipedia. How is this done, I worked hard to contribute well to this article.

Concerning Kelsely Abaza Article Short Audio Samples Copyright

I added tracks to other artists' pages with audio already there, why are they different?