Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.


Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎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.

Commons deletion (policy)

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

Files of user User:BavariaYachtbau

The files

have been recently speedy-deleted by user:Ellin Beltz. The deletion reason seems to have been that the files do not have identical metadata and therefore an own-work claim is dubious. The uploader is a confirmed account of Bavaria Yachtbau, a well-known german boatbuilding company (see en:Bavaria Yachtbau, de:Bavaria Yachtbau). That the company is not the photographer on itself is obvious, but that the company has the necessary rights for distributing their promotional images (which they obviously were) is very likely. We do have an OTRS ticket (#2012022710009281) about the account, so the content of this should also be considered when making a decision on these images. If something is still unclear, there should at least be a contact in that ticket to clarify the situation. (XenonX3: can you check that ticket?).

The images themselves would be very valuable, as they're among the best images of modern sailing yachts that we have. Others of similar good quality I've found seem to be obvious copyvios (that's a different story though). --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The files did not have any OTRS information, no descriptions and were uncategorized in addition to having two different photographers (uncredited). If restored, please take the time to adequately describe and categorize the images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course. That is no problem at all. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not sure that the fact that this is a well known company is relevant here. Ticket:2012022710009281 does not come up when requested. Aside from a deleted logo, these are the only contributions from this user. We have no evidence that User:BavariaYachtbau is in fact the company -- it could well be a fan or customer of the company. We also typically require a free license via OTRS for images that are not PD, own work, or from freely licensed sources. We also need to know the actual author, because in most countries that determines the life of the copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible that you don't have the rights to see that ticket? It might be on the permissions-de list. This edit is very unlikely to be fake. XenonX3 is admin and OS on dewiki. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I have pinged de:User::XenonX3 on their talk page on German Wikipedia. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
When I search for the ticket on the OTRS main page it comes back saying there is no result. But, of course, strange things happen. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Note: XenonX3 seems to be taking a wiki-break. He hasn't edited for half a year. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I also cannot view this ticket. As a matter of principle, if an OTRS ticket provides the permission (i.e., foundation) for hosting on the Commons, it needs to be in a permissions queue accessible to Commons' OTRS volunteers. If the ticket is valid as claimed, please assign it to a permissions queue. Эlcobbola talk 16:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    That ticket is in info-de and contains nothing but an account verification. --Didym (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    In that case I Symbol support vote.svg Support restoration of the files. These are clearly promotional images by the manufacturer of the boats and we can assume that they have secured all necessary rights to publish those photos under the licenses stated. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Знак на Армијата на Република Македонија.svg

The PRP does not apply to simple geometric shapes like squares, triangles, or stars, which this is. It is a simple 12-point star, there is nothing original about that. We have much more complicated police stars on Commons from other countries. Fry1989 eh? 03:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

For reference: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Знак на Армијата на Република Македонија.svg. The problem is that we have no idea about the standards for TOO of Macedonia. Therefore, the PRP applies. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
As I stated, TOO does not matter for simple geometry. I asked the question of what is different between this file and File:Silver star.png, and nobody answered me. I don't think it is appropriate deleting the file without deciding if it is really any different from any other simple star geometry we have on Commons. I see nothing complicated enough about this to be deleted. Fry1989 eh? 18:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussed image, even though geometric, is significantly more complex than a simple 'star'. - Reventtalk 13:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not. It's less complicated than the image I provided for comparison. The image I linked uses a variety of colours on each point to stand out, whereas the file deleted only uses two colours. And then it has another star with the same number of points, flat, and some letters. It is simple as anything. It should not have been deleted. Fry1989 eh? 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Quiron el Centauro Dicta el Primer Tratado Terapeutico, oleo sobre lienzo (590x410 cm) pintado por Vicente Puig y Antonio Pena en la Facultad de Medicina, Uruguay.jpg

This image may qualify for UNDELETION on the basis of FREEDOM OF PANORAMA {{FoP-Uruguay}}

The picture shows the claustro of the School of Medicine in Uruguay. In the background it can be seeing a mural painted by Vicente Puig and Antonio Pena. This photo has been uxed extensively public media for decades. It is frequently used to announce public activities or celebrations by the School of Medicine as may be seen in the following URLs .

The photo has even been used to feature tourism opportunities en Montevideo Uruguay as may be seen in the following link —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This file was not deleted because of the painting in the background, although that might be a problem. It was deleted both because there is no evidence that it has been freely licensed by the photographer and because the uploader did not put any license on it. In order for it to be restored to Commons, (a) the actual photographer must send a free license via OTRS and (b) someone fluent in Spanish must determine that either the painting is PD because its copyright has expired or that FOP covers works in schools. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : as per Jim, only the copyright holder of the photo can decide to put one of the licenses allowed here on his artwork. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Brook Bernacchi 1965.jpg

It was said that it was a duplicate image but it was not. It was from the Reform Club Election Bulletin of 1965 but what the author of this image is remains unknown. --Lmmnhn (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted after a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brook Bernacchi 1965.jpg. Do you have any new information not known at the deletion request? Thuresson (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Lmmnhn: anonymous images are a big problem as:
  • it is very difficult to prove that they are really anonymous
  • Wikimedia Commons images are required to be PD in US also, not only in the country of origin.
And according to this guide, US copyright for anonymous images last much longer than in other countries (120 years from the image creation or 95 years from their first documented publication). If you can point out an image that was published in HK in 1945 or earlier, or that was first published in US (and not in HK) in 50ties-60ties, we may go forward because of some extempts. Otherwise an identified author is necessary. Ankry (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


REASON: This file is correct & needed, because:

  • It is an original composition by Mr. Márton Bujdosó, notable Hungarian composer, who is uploaded it and gave correct OTRS permission Ticket#2016112510017171 permission
  • AND this file is absolutely IN SCOPE of Wikimedia Commons PROJECT SCOPE, because:

Aim of Wikimedia Commons

The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository:

   that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and
   that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative".

This is file is needed int the common repository because it referred from various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. E. g. the Wikipedia Article about the the composer: Márton Bujdosó

Please, undelete it (because it was mistakenly deleted and this absolutely correct and needed) SZERVÁC Attila (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

If the creator of the derivative work is also notable, the work obviously is in scope. See also --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. But: this is not a derivative work (narrow sense of the term). The title quotes a verse from the English poet (not composer!!) G. M. Hopkins, but the musical material contains no quotation or transciption. Ellin Beltz wrote this ("derivative work", "as an amateur copy of a famous painting") complete mistakenly. In broad sense, naturally, all works are derivative works. :) BUJDOSÓ Márton (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThis work has been discussed before -- see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-12#File:MB.E2.80.A6read_the_unshapeable_shock_night.E2.80.A6.ogg. The OTRS ticket is new, however, so this is a legitimate request. However, I oppose it.
First, we must discount all of the comments about scope and value above because they were made in complete violation of WMF's policy on Conflict Of Interest. See WP:EN's summary of the COI policy which is applicable to all WMF projects. A person cannot comment here about the value of his own work as BUJDOSÓ Márton has done here.
Second, although BUJDOSÓ Márton does have an article on WP:HU, the first entry was on January 13, 2017 and a significant portion of the article was written by our uploader, also in violation of the COI policy. Google has no significant hits for this person other than Facebook and similar self-promotional sites. I doubt very much whether our Hungarian colleagues will keep the article.
Third, there are no Google hits for "read_the_unshapeable_shock_night" except in direct reference to Gerard Manley Hopkins. That strongly suggests that the musical work does not meet our requirements for notability.
Fourth, a musical work has many copyrights -- composer, lyricist, arranger, producer, and, in many countries, the performing artists. While not all of these may be applicable here, the OTRS message speaks only to the composer's copyright.
Last, the OTRS e-mail is from a gmail account. We do not generally accept licenses coming from gmail account because, of course, the owner of a gmail account can be anyone.
Any one of the five points above are enough reason to oppose this restoration. The five of them are overwhelming. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Blas Piñar1.jpg

The picture was rightly deleted on the grounds of what is exposed here. However, Raderich has tracked the source and clarified that it is under a cc-by-4.0 license (it's a little bit tricky as the license is only "viewable" under the Dublin Core RDF description of the file). Best regards --Discasto talk 13:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg AgreeThank you, Dicasto. Just to clarify, we're talking about the pic uploaded with that name on 18 Jan (which had a nomination) not the one uploaded with that name on 13 Jan 2017, which had an unvalid license. If you go to the link provided and select Formato -> Ficha, you'll see that it's the same photo as the uploaded one.--Raderich (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:LordsGroup2015 4.jpg

I am the singer for this band. I own full rights to this picture, and I allow open use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mshabooboo (talk • contribs) 16:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please have the copyright owner send permission using: OTRS If everything checks out, the file(s) will be restored. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS-permission from photographer (not from depicted person) is needed. Taivo (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Inner Shadows cover.jpg

Hello! I am member of Inner Shadows community. I absolutely confident about authorship of this image. It was drawn by Andrew Saraew specially as cover for project group. If you need more evidence than publishing it on project page, I ready to provide evidences, but I need to know, what kind of evedences you want. I expect we will resolve this misunderstanding quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BSamedy (talk • contribs)

Hi. If Andrew Saraew is prepared to release this image for use here, he will have to email us by following the instructions at COM:OTRS, but a response will not be immediate due to backlogs. You might also want to take a look at COM:LICENSING to see what sort of licences are acceptable. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Rehan_Yar_Khan.jpg File used by owner's permission. Issued to public domain for publications.

This file has been released by author for publication, thus it's presence on other websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veejs7er (talk • contribs) 08:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

So why did you claim that you have created this photo? Thuresson (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : The uploader has now admitted they are not the source, and nothing stated here indicates that the image has been released under a free licence as required by COM:L. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The deleted item is book cover done by us so we do not violate any rights. Please restore it. 2A00:1028:9195:B5D6:7585:51FA:EEDA:DE13 11:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please have a representative of your company send an email as outlined in COM:OTRS. Unfortunately a simple statement like yours is not sufficient to verify the permission for works that had been published before. De728631 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : Requires permission sent to OTRS, as indicated above. If a satisfactory release is received via that route the image could then be undeleted. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Writer with No Hands Festival Poster.jpg

This is an image I made, without using any other images from anywhere else, so there should be no copyright problems with it at all. Thanks you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollywoodpolitics (talk • contribs) 12:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Since we have no way of knowing who you actually are, policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright holder (usually the production company) must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Kunstmuseum Albstadt.jpg

Bild selbst und im Auftrage des Kunstmusuems Albstadt erstellt. Das Bild ersetzt ein früheres Bild, das nicht mehr aktuell ist. Das frühere Bild wurde nie gelöscht, warum dieses?

Ncarste (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image appears with an explicit copyright notice at In order to restore the image, an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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


File:4FKtZan.jpg was mistakenly flagged as a copyright violation.

There are a few things which struck me about this particular deletion as odd, namely that it was a photograph I took myself and freely licensed during my mid to late 2014 sojourn in South Africa. I created the photograph with my personal CANON PowerShot ELPH 135 or an iphone on the week of July 1-9, when I was visiting that country's Free State Province. It illustrates the end of a long day on the N1, South Africa's national highway.

I upload all the photos of my travels here on Wikimedia Commons, and post them on specific gallery pages, which is how I know this was one of them.

The file appears to have been deleted solely due to its ubiquitous file name, which Dispenser identified as an "Imgur file name". I also uploaded the same file to Imgur, and may have subsequently re-uploaded it to Wikipedia, which explains why the file name is the same.

Look, I'm not a fan of copyvios, but to delete an image solely because it had an Imgur-generated file name is unacceptable in my opinion. That is not reason enough in itself to prove a copyvio. You need to look at the context of each individual image, see if it has appeared on other image-sharing sites or social media, or been published at a prior date, etc.

When it comes to a pretext this flimsy, at the very least open a deletion request and ping me on it. But I was not consulted, I was not given the reason why my original photograph was marked as a copyvio (which really grinds my gears, given how understandably bizarre this would seem to any other photographer of an original work); Yann just slapped me with a standard copyvio template and deleted the file later in the day. So, I get home from work to find the procedure had already been undertaken before I was permitted a chance to appeal and explain myself, or indeed, even notified why it was incorrectly marked as a copyvio.

The image was part of a general series of photos taken on the N1 outside Bloemfontein, which you can find here. Again, I took all of those myself and am the creator of those works.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, It was published [1] on November 27th, 2014, before being uploaded here December 29th, 2014. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Howzit, does this mean the file will not be restored? --Katangais (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please remember that we get 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 1,500 of them. Ten Admins do the bulk of that work so we must work fast. If we had many more active Admins, we could give more personal service, but as it is, we are barely staying ahead of the deluge. When we see an image that has appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license, policy allows us to delete it on sight.
Since we do not know who User:Katangais actually is, or whether he or she is actually the same person who uploaded the image elsewhere, policy requires that he or she must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Understood, but an OTRS ticket is unnecessary. I can prove I am the same photographer who uploaded the image on Imgur with a few simple keystrokes. Go to the link posted by Yann above and read the new image description. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Thanks for that. I have restored the file for you. Apologies for the inconvenience. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:AbuseMark AfroFlight Naze 32 Flight Controller rev5 white.jpg

This file was deleted by Hedwig in Washington with the rationale "Layout not free". I was going to ask them but I saw that they are taking, with humor, a kind of break, then I come here. I was not aware that photos of printed circuit boards, which are utilitarian objects, are prohibited here. Further opinions to confirms or cripples this are welcome. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support In the USA, the masks for integrated circuits have a special ten year protection period which is not a copyright, see Integrated circuit layout design protection, but, because they are utilitarian, there is no copyright or other protection for printed circuit boards. The law may differ in other countries. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jim. In the US, to the extent that they are utilitarian, the design of the traces on circuit boards are not protected by copyright. Only the rare layouts in which the design incorporates non-function creative elements above the threshold of originality are protected by copyright. This does not appear to be the case for File:AbuseMark AfroFlight Naze 32 Flight Controller rev5 white.jpg. German copyright and IP laws appear to function similarly. —RP88 (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


Hey guys, User:Jcb, User:INeverCry, the author of these file has just left me a note on my local wiki talk page about possibility of restoration of these files:

I know the user is very active on creation of political related maps and as he claims he is the author of these files I also can trust him on that. I can not find any similar image on Google Images to these files, and I guess this is used as source but I ask him about exact reference if needed. So, do you see any other specific issue with these? Thanks −ebrahimtalk 08:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The PDF you linked is all text, so, while I cannot read it, I can say that it is not relevant. The problem here is not the source of the data -- data does not have a copyright. The problem is that he gives no source for the maps. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Mahrman19

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: i don't think that pictures are allowed and i wrote its source and its owned ... so what i have to do too . Mahrman19 (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In order for images to be kept on Commons, they must have a free license from the actual photographer. So, in order to restore these each of the actual photographers must send a free license directly using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Copied straight from a blog that says "Copyright ©2017 RETROKIMMER.COM". If you are the blog owner and photographer, you need to send a notification to OTRS as stated above. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Michael, that's only the first one. The three that I looked at all had different sources, hence my more general comment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


File:GramHar.jpg has been deleted by Jcb despite of clear arguments that {{PD-Hungary}} #2 applies. There was Ungvar 1941 dateline at the page, so this has been published in Hungary in the year of 1941, and the drawing has been made by unknown author. Please review this request. --Яй (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The issue here is that there is no evidence that the artist who drew the building in the center of the seal is actually unknown. The fact that we don't happen to know who he was is irrelevant -- he must be unknown after serious inquiry has been made at the organization represented by the seal and elsewhere.

However, under the circumstances and particularly given the very small size of the drawing on this cover, I think it would be OK to restore the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - this in not just about the small image. The depicted work is not just the small image, but rather the page as a whole. The page is not PD-ineligible IMHO. Hungary has the PMA+70 rule, so as long as we do not have any indication that the author of this 1941 work would have died before 1947, I see no reason to undelete the file. Jcb (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This picture is the logo of Subcarpathian Science Society ([2]). It is very unlikely that the publishing house would name the author of their logo in this particular book. {{PD-Hungary}} states that the year in which the author died is only relevant when ...the author becomes known during this time (70 years). Is anybody can prove that the author becomes known? --Яй (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • First it's unbecoming to respond to a reaction without reading it. As I wrote above, the copyright issue is about the depicted page as a whole. Then about your anybody can prove that part, it's actually the other way round. We have COM:PCP. You have to show evidence that the author was unknown, which you apparently cannot. Jcb (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)