Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


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 Edit

Files uploaded by Xerxessenior

These files have been deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Xerxessenior:

The nominator said the first two images "have two different cameras". Today, most people have a cell phone, which typically has a camera, and a digital camera. It's not a surprise to have two different cameras at all. Nevertheless, this user has uploaded some of his files locally on Persian and German Wikipedias. Take a look at the metadata of the following files:

Nokia E72-1: fa:File:Hashiyeneshinan Frankfurt.jpg and fa:File:Gushtkub 1.jpg

Pentax Optio M10: fa:File:Darolfonun WikiFa 1.jpg, fa:File:Mobile Foghetakhassos 1 1.jpg, fa:File:Sarv-Harzevil-GLB-2012.jpg, and de:Datei:Chemical warfare warningboard iran.jpg

The last file is uploaded on the German Wikipedia. If you look at his SUL, you will see that he has 93 contributions on German Wikipedia and can speak German fluently. fa:File:Hashiyeneshinan Frankfurt.jpg shows some homeless people in Frankfurt, so I can personally believe that this user lives in Germany and File:Aldi empty leer.jpg and File:Zip trafic 1.jpg are his own work.

File:Shaban Jafari Tudehiha.jpg is clearly a scrap of an old Iranian newspaper so we can make sure that the image has been published before (i.e., not been in a private collection). Article 16 of the Iranian copyright law (the 3rd item in {{PD-Iran}}) stipulates that all photographic works fall into public domain after 30 years of publication date. The image is about the w:1953 Iranian coup d'état.

File:Shaban Jafari Kotak.jpg: I talked with the user on Persian Wikipedia about this image, which is also about the 1953 Iranian coup. He claims that this image has been taken from an old Iranian magazine published in 1953. He currently cannot prove his claim because the magazine belonged to one of his former friends. I do believe his honesty and integrity based on our mutual cooperation on Persian Wikipedia.

The decision about the last image is up to you but I think the first three images can be restored safely. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Were File:Aldi empty leer.jpg and File:Zip trafic 1.jpg in use? These seem like random cell phone pictures with no genuine educational value. How are they in COM:SCOPE? Эlcobbola talk 00:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
File:Zip trafic 1.jpg is about w:Merge (traffic). It was used in a Persian Wikipedia article. I have not seen File:Aldi empty leer.jpg personally but the uploader claims this is a picture about an empty chain supermarket in Germany, called w:Aldi. It was also used in a Persian Wikipedia article. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose File:Zip trafic 1.jpg, File:Shaban Jafari Tudehiha.jpg and File:Shaban Jafari Kotak.jpg; Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral on File:Aldi empty leer.jpg. The Aldi and Zip images were added to articles by the uploader ([1] [2]), so their use ceteris paribus is not supportive of scope. The Zip image is terrible quality, including with poorly censored number plates, and is from a vantage that doesn't really illustrate the zipper merge; thus I don't think it's in Scope. For the other "self" image, if we need a image of Aldi shelves that need restocking, so be it. As for File:Zip trafic 1.jpg and File:Shaban Jafari Tudehiha.jpg, we require a source. "He claims that this image has been taken from an old Iranian magazine published in 1953. He currently cannot prove his claim because the magazine belonged to one of his former friends" (emphasis mine - !!!) is not acceptable. COM:L requires source "information sufficient for others to verify the license status"; we cannot say to re-users of our content "you will need to find a friend of a friend of Xerxessenior to verify the PD claim." The images are not of the full publication, so there is no way to verify date or jurisdiction (for example, Persian is also spoken in Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, Azerbaijan, and elsewhere.) Certainly the aforementioned claim is believed and not meant to deceive, but people can misremember and make honest mistakes which is precisely why COM:L and COM:EVID require verifiable sourcing. Эlcobbola talk 17:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
COM:INUSE states that "It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope." I do not see any mention to "ceteris paribus" in the policy page. He added the pictures and the Persian Wikipedia community decided to keep them. One way to build consensus is through editing (en:WP:EDITCONSENSUS). If nobody objects, a new consensus has been reached. And nobody objected. We had used the Zip image to illustrate this traffic method in high speeds. If you still disagree, I am more than happy to continue this discussion on Persian Wikipedia, not here.
Regarding the Iranian coup pictures, what kind of source should he provide? Does it suffice to name the magazines? He knows the name of magazines and their publication year: fa:خواندنیها (de:Khandaniha) and fa:تهران مصور both in 1953. These magazines were published in Iran. They stopped being published after the w:1979 Iranian Revolution (37 years ago) so their content is definitely in the public domain. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ellin Beltz: and @INeverCry:, I am pinging you as the nominator and the eliminator respectively. I have kept an eye on this page during the last two weeks but nothing has happened. Could you please consider this request? 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I nominated the images. I see nothing new which changes the nomination and applaud elcobbola's analysis and conclusion that verifiable sourcing is required. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:KSO vaakuna.png


I would like to provide evidence why the decision to delete this picture was unfounded. The decision 1997:11 by the Copyright Council under the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture states that all the Coats of Arms of the municipalities of Finland are not copyright protected due to the 9th paragraph (9§) of the Finnish Copyright Law regarding the copyrights of public decisions.

Keskisuomalainen Osakunta (KSO) is a student nation, and according the the Finnish university laws, it is an autonomous statutory corporation. Like for the Finnish municipalities, the decisions made by student nations are the use of public policy. This means that the 9th paragraph of the copyright law of Finland also holds for student nations. Hence, I argue that the decision to delete the picture was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakkogo (talk • contribs) 16:59, 04 September 2016 (UTC)

There may be something missing in translation, but an "autonomous statutory corporation" makes it sound like it would be treated like any other corporation / legal person, and would not be considered a public authority (part of public government). Universities themselves are legally corporations from the looks of it, which are therefore also not public bodies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The Keskisuomalainen Osakunta is not a municipality. According to Nations in Finnish universities, the existence and overall purpose of these Nations is regulated by the Universities Act. That an act says "The University of Helsinki shall have Finnish- and Swedish-language student nations corresponding to specified regions of the country" does not establish them as governmental entities, and language therein only supports, through implication, that they are private (e.g. " The student nations shall be self governing", "Provisions concerning the members, administration, finances and other operation of the student nations and the duty of the members to pay fees to the nation shall be laid down in the rules of the student nations", etc.) Эlcobbola talk 22:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong about the student nations being completely "private" entities. There are plenty of self governing public organizations in Finland, for example all the university student unions. They all are part of the indirect public administration in Finland. Student nations are not municipalities, but they are related. As the previous page states "Although the organisations of indirect State administration are not part of the actual State administration, they carry out statutory public tasks and, in some cases, execute public powers". I don't know if you can find a translation for the Finnish Copyright Law but it states that all public decisions are excluded from having a copyright. I brought up the case regarding the municipalities' coats of arms since it was similar legal case and it works well as a reference point. Student nation's decision about their coat of arms falls under this. The student nations have probably around 4000 members in total so it would be rather optimistic to hope that there were many specific legal cases about them. But if this doesn't convince you, I would like to know how could the image be reinstated? I am actually the treasurer of the said student nation and I honestly believe we can't grant a permission to use some picture that we can't legally claim copyright to. That decision might be illegal. Do we need to get a court decision to prove this? --Jaakkogo (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The World Intellectual Property Organization provides a translation. A coat of arms for a student nation (organization) is not 1) a law or decree; 2) a resolution, stipulation or other document (these all imply prose); 3) a treaty, convention or other international obligation document; 4) a decision or statement; or 5) a translation of a document. To the extent you imply the "Copyright Council under the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture" found otherwise, and that coats of arms are indeed among one of those categorizes, your own words are that the council's findings pertain to "Coats of Arms of the municipalities of Finland". A student nation, even if chartered or organized by an organ of the state, is not a municipality. If you want to restore this image, we need to receive permission directly from Keskisuomalainen Osakunta indicating that the coat of arms is free. If what you say is true, this should be a very simple to obtain. Эlcobbola talk 19:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand your point of view into some extend. But the Coat of arms and its chosen design is indeed a decision made by the student nation and hence it falls under the part 4) of the section 9 of the law. I can't understand how can you claim that it wasn't a decision. The precise form of the coat of arms is stated in written form in each student nations rules. How do you think those rules are made if not by a decision made by the student nation? The student nation has only written down on how its coat of arms should look like and the version I downloaded here was actually made by me.
Or do I understand correctly that you disagree about the student nations being "public authorities or other public bodies" as the law states? That also is that I can't understand since the student nations and their legal statuses are clearly founded in the university law. The fact that they are, makes them a public organization. I brought the case about Finnish municipalities up because it resembles this one and in jurisdiction similarities between legal cases and statements are important. The board even used these same argument in their decision.
Anyways, this probably can't be settled unless we give a direct permission. Would you care to advice us on how to provide this evidence? To whom shall we send it and what are the required evidence that it actually comes from us? I will most likely ask a statement from the copyright council regarding all Finnish student nations but that might take time and we would like to have the picture reinstated before that. --Jaakkogo (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Permission is handled through the OTRS process. INeverCry 04:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are two issues here. First, the source given ( has an explicit copyright notice, so permission is required. Second, although the blazon (the written description of the CoA) may be PD, that does not make the specific realization shown here PD. It is often the case that the CoA is old or PD for other reasons, but this affects only the blazon -- the actual drawing has a separate copyright which must also be free. That has not been addressed above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reuploaded on to fi:File:KSO vaakuna.png by original poster without permission while this undeletion request was ongoing. I've nominated for speedy deletion on Finnish Wikipedia as well. Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This kind of behavior is not very appreciated. 20:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The reupload image there indicates that it is non-free and is being claimed as fair use (the Logo template), which is perfectly legitimate and exactly what the OP should have done (assuming it complies with the EDP.) Эlcobbola talk 15:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done (Non-administrator closure) Per opposition and Commons' precautionary principle, until more evidence of free use can be provided through OTRS. 13:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Notepad++ screenshot2.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The claimed content copyrighted by Microsoft (the border at the top?) is below COM:TOO. The DR and deletion seems to been in error. Josve05a (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Undelete. Hi. I concur with the nom. This image is deleted because of a semi-transparent border around main window. Multiple DRs so far have established that such items are below TOO. (In the event that the border becomes too elaborate, it is still de minimis.) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • (It would not be de minimis, since it is a screenshot, but it is below TOO) Josve05a (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. That tarnished and censored image distorts the fact about its subject, requiring a verbal warning. But more importantly, it does so without just cause. What is free is removed from it and it is very dangerous to make it a precedent. (For the people outside U.S., these portion are free in U.S., which is the country of origin. I am aware that had these parts were made in e.g. Japan, they would have not been free.) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you insist on displaying the window title bar, I recommend taking a new screenshot with a non-transparent theme (Windows 8 or later) for the sake of unambiguity of Template:PD-shape or Template:PD-ineligible for everyone. It's not much effort if you have one of those operating systems around, which I don't have. The decision to crop was per Commons:Screenshot guideline: Cut away all possibly non-free elements. Only show the relevant content. Emphasis mine. There is no port to create this screenshot on a free operating system. 19:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
    In doing so I must go through a lot of trouble of installing Windows 8 or 10, install Notedpad++, grabbing a copy of MediaWiki source code, etc.? Even if my time was so worthless as to undertake such an nonpaying task, I don't see why should I indulge you with a violation of all previous DRs precedents. I am certainly not a proponent of cutting away free content whenever the next Mr. Nobody comes along, put his finger on a part and says "in my mind, this part is possibly non-free; cut it away". (If anything, in my mind everything on Commons is possibly non-free. Shut the site down and go home!) You have misunderstood Commons:Screenshot. That's a great wrong that should be set right. —Codename Lisa (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
    I'm still undecided (leaning towards undelete but I'd like to see sample DRs of the same issue first), but to be fair, we've required far much more difficult tasks in the pursuit of free content such as traveling to North Korea hoping to catch a glimpse of Kim Jong-un. -- King of ♠ 06:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
    Yes. But now imagine you did travel and capture a photo of Kim Jong-un, and then someone came along and said your image is possibly not free, even though all evidences support the fact that it indeed is! Add to it the fact that photography is an art form (thus entitled to the licensing by the photographer) but screenshooting isn't.
    Here is a sample DR:
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info And again superseded by File:Notepad++ v7 on Windows 10, with MediaWiki 1.27.1 source code, with split window view and autocompletion.png over disagreements about the previous superseding screenshot. 18:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of pictures (now well-founded): File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg; File:Khudoer-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg; File:Amdinov family2.jpg; File:High School was established in 1936.jpg

Please restore the pictures (now well-founded): File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg; File:Khudoer-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg; File:Amdinov family2.jpg; File:High School was established in 1936.jpg listed on the project page of Commons: Village pump[1]. Thanks in advance Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Apparently in relation to [1]. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi! Carl Lindberg Sorry, i'm forgot, I want fix like this - "Commons:Village pum# 4.5 Need in practical help on fixing the category or what else can be done|I didn't delete these in a hurry. I looked at ...", but your choice more better - with respect. Thanks Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • See the below links for temporarily sort out the complicated discussion:

File:Okmir Agakhanyanc (right side)-and-Khudoyor Yusufbekov his sons Khurshed-Isfandiyor.jpg;
File:Khudoyor Yusufbekov (right side) his son Khurshed-Okmir Agakhanyanc-Isfandiyor Yusufbekov (left side).jpg;
With respect, Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC), updated Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. a b Commons:Village pump#Need in practical help on fixing the category or what else can be done

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk • contribs) 11:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Gestandaardiseerde woningbouw - Standardized housing (9322119032).jpg

File:Gestandaardiseerde woningbouw - Standardized housing (9322119032).jpg was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gestandaardiseerde woningbouw - Standardized housing (9322119032).jpg after my nomination. I've recently contacted the archive on another similar case (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Huis - House (9547367952).jpg), here they were able to verify that indeed the rights were transferred. The answer convinces me that their releases of works are indeed on valid grounds, and therefore I think this files licensing can be trusted and thus the file can be undeleted. Pinging @Krd: as deleting admin, pinging @: as uploader. Basvb (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If there is already contact established, OTRS permission should be achieved IMO. --Krd 11:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Krd: The permission is already provided on Flickr, at least the permission from the archive. The email I got is a clarification from their side, not a permission in itself (Having those kinds of non-permission emails in OTRS doesn't add a lot IMO). Another thing would be to ask them to provide the individual permissions from the architects, but that is not something that I see happening. Basvb (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Montakhab Jameeat Baghdad celebrating, 1975.jpg

The image is an inartistic photographic work in nature that was first published in Iraq before 1 January 1999. It is in the according to Law No. 3 of 1971, amended by Order No. 83 in 2004 as it is mentioned in the template below:

{{PD-Iraq}}— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashima20 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

--Hashima20 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The photograph may have been taken in 1975 but do you have evidence that it was really published before 1999? It looks like someone's personal snapshot rather than a press photo that made it to the newspapers, so if it was first published in this forum then the rationale doesn't work. De728631 (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
As it states in the forum, the publisher of the post in the forum cropped the photo out of a 1975 edition of the University of Baghdad magazine and took a snapshot of it. --Hashima20 (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think that can be correct. When a newspaper photo is scanned -- whether you scan the newspaper itself or, as claimed here, a photo of a newspaper, the very coarse halftone screen always shows in the scan, usually as a moire with the scan resolution. Therefore newspaper images that are uploaded to Commons are unmistakable. This image shows no sign of the halftone screen, therefore I doubt very much that it came from a newspaper. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
If it was taken from a magazine as Hashima20 wrote, and not from a newspaper, would there still be a halftone screen? AFAIK magazine images tend to have better resolutions. De728631 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
(ec) FWIW, Hashima20 said magazine, not newspaper, which would change the consideration of halftones. That said, the areas of black on the edges suggest this is a scan of a standalone photograph, not of a page from a publication, be it newspaper or magazine. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per COM:PRP. To paraphrase: "someone in an internet forum said they got it from a university magazine" is not adequate evidence. COM:L requires "information sufficient for others to verify the license status" which is not a threshold I believe to have been met, especially given that this appears to be a standalone photograph (i.e. not scanned from a publication) per my comment above. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Other than the not adequate evidence part, the photo was actually cropped from the magazine because the University of Baghdad magazine is known for its hard paper so the publisher of the post, who is a known archivist, could have simply cropped out the photo from the magazine but the hard paper made it look like a standalone photograph. --Hashima20 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I copied it into GIMP and blew it up to 800% and saw no sign of the halftone, which would have been present if it came from a publication. I also note that the corners are rounded, which would be typical of a simple photo, but not present if the image were simply clipped from a publication. In order to keep it Commons requires proof beyond a significant doubt that it has been published. So far, that is completely lacking. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

U.N. Security Council Resolutions

Files and reasons detailed in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#U.N._Security_Council_resolutions (link when archived). Thanks. -Aleator (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have commented at the VP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I have also commented there. The reasoning for undeletion has nothing to do with the copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support As Seucurity Council Resolutions are legal documents they would fullfill {{PD-EdictGov}}.--Sanandros (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
"These do not include works first published by the United Nations"... Thuresson (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Blason DE empereur Adolphe de Nassau.svg

I have created this file from files available on commons. It was nominated for deletion with no other explanation than "Copyright issue". I asked for precision and provided the files I had used to make my file :

I got no further explanation on the "Copyright issue" and my file was deleted under the reason that the eagle was different from the source file (which is obvious as I mentionned that the file had been edited). If the file is really problematic, could at least someone give me a precise explanation of what the "Copyright issue" was ?

Biplanjaune (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand this from a COM:SCOPE standpoint. Does the above imply that you are concocting your own blazon for Adolphe de Nassau ("own" not related to rights, but in the sense of own rendition--a fictitious or imagined blazon)? If so, how would that be realistically useful for an educational purpose? Эlcobbola talk 15:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
As long as the blazon, i.e. the heraldic description of a coat of arms, is observed it is totally irrelevant how the actual depiction is realised in terms of style and graphical details. There is not a unique valid rendition of a coat of arms but any artist is free to draw their own version according to the blazon, so this has nothing to do with COM:SCOPE. As I read Biplanjaune's request, he took some previously uploaded graphical elements as linked above and gave them a personal touch. That is alright given that the source content is freely licenced or PD. This procedure is a common practice at Commons when new images of arms are created. The only thing he forgot to do was attributing the source files and authors on his own upload from the beginning. This can be healed though so I support an undeletion. De728631 (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand the distinction. The word "blazon" was used to mirror the file name. The issue, perhaps not well expressed, is that there is no source information whatsoever (i.e., we do not even have the heraldic description to determine, per Carl below, whether it's a known blazon and true to the description.) Эlcobbola talk 21:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support if it's a known blazon, and the above descriptions are true. The DR was lacking in information as to what the copyright issue actually was, so does not seem like a valid reason to delete on its face. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per my comment(s) above. The blazon vs. description issue is a red herring, as this image doesn't even have a source for the latter. Without a source for the description, reusers have no way of determining whether this is inline with the description, or merely a figment of the uploader's imagination. A realistic educational use is required, where educational is "providing knowledge; instructional or informative." Whether this provides knowledge, instruction or information cannot be assessed without a sourced heraldic description. Эlcobbola talk 21:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Ok, I got your point, without a reference for the blazon it looks like Biplanjaune just made this up. The arms of Nassau in the inescutcheon are actually lacking the typical billets, and this should be fixed, but the general combination of Imperial Eagle plus Nassau arms has been attested by Siebmacher. For the greater arms of Adolph, see File:Siebmacher 1701-1705 C002.jpg. If Biplanjaune's image is not restored, we should also delete the similar versions in Category:Coats of arms of Adolf of Nassau. De728631 (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

File:The Battle of Vimy Ridge.jpg

I don't quite understand why this file was so briskly deleted. The image sourcing did contained a link to the Canadian Library and Archives record which clearly indicates that Canada considers the copyright expired. The link to the record is here: [3]. The record also notes that the "Copyright entered in the Library of Congress". As this image was registered in the US before 1923 it's automatically PD in the US. The painting is the result of Jack's employment as a Canadian official war artist which is why the image record notes the Canadian War Records Office any why that office exercised copyright control in the UK. I'm not sure what I'm missing because this appears to be a straightforward keep.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The original copyright was owned by the Canadian War Memorials Fund, which appears to be a charity, not part of the Canadian government, so I don't think Crown Copyright applies. The copyright would have expired in Canada (50pma) and the US (published before 1923). They could be uploaded to en-wiki, for sure. However... even if a work for hire, the term is still usually based on the life of the human author. The "country of origin" is the country of first publication. It sounds like the painting was made in the UK by a British artist (who later emigrated to Canada). Per this page, it does sound like the CWMF commissioned works were displayed in London after the war and through the 1920s and 1930s. They were eventually moved to the National Gallery of Canada and later to another museum there. That admittedly does sound like the country of first publication is the UK, which is 70pma. Now... if they were *simultaneously* published (within 30 days) in Canada as well, that would change the country of origin to Canada, since (in the case of simultaneous publication) it is the one with the shorter term. But we may need some better evidence of that. The source link simply says the copyright has expired (which is true in Canada regardless of country of origin), not that it was Crown Copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
My understanding was that the Canadian War Memorials Fund was in partnership between Lord Beaverbrook and the Canadian War Records Office, the creation and collection of the pieces being for the Canadian War Records Office. In effect Beaverbrook put up the cash by the CWRO was the holder.(Death So Noble: Memory, Meaning, and the First World War by Vance, p. 164-165). The fact that most Canadian War Artist were commissioned so that they could work in the field is clear demonstration of this partnership. Likewise, the image record at LAC clearly states that the Canadian War Records Office exercised authority over the publications of reproduction images in the UK images by The Medici Modern Art Society. The publication of Art and War: Canadian War Memorials in 1919 is also a clear demonstration that the Canadian War Records Office took control of publication rights of the images.--09:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That may or may not be be case (I don't doubt it, but I have not investigated it either). However, it is largely irrelevant. As Carl says, since the work was first published (in the legal, copyright sense of the word) in the UK, then the country of origin is the UK and the UK copyright expires 70 years pma. Since Richard Jack died in 1952, it will be under UK copyright until 1/1/2023 and, since we require that works be free of copyright in the country of origin, we can't keep it until then. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like it was set up as a charity... if an external entity put up the money, I don't think it would count as being for the Crown (it would not be a work for hire if the government was not paying for it). If a private entity creates a work, they can donate it to the government, but it would not become Crown Copyright, but rather a normal copyright administered by the Crown. Anyways, the fund was explicitly claiming copyright back then (per the notices and US registrations), and if it was crown copyright, that would have been the claim instead. Per here, Beaverbrook also created the Canadian War Records Office using his own funds. Individual government departments usually don't claim copyright for themselves. @Jameslwoodward -- if it was Crown Copyright, that would trump the copyright term to be 50 years from publication. Once that happened the lifetime of the author ceased to matter. You might argue that if the work was first published by the government, it became Crown Copyright by the terms of the UK Copyright Act 1911. It just sounds like this was a pretty tenuous link to being a government department -- it was mostly a private effort engineered by Lord Beaverbrook, with permission from the Canadian government but not really under their control. It does seem that a lot of works were exhibited in January and February 1919 in London -- see here. If we could show that pamphlet was also distributed in Canada at the same time, that might help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

File:倉山満.jpg 肖像者本人より、この写真を使って欲しいとの依頼があり、掲載しましたが、今回も同一人物からの依頼で削除されました。

肖像権保有者よりこの写真を使えとの指示がありましたが? なんなら倉山本人に倉山満の砦や倉山塾にて名指しで「eien20がウィキペディアで肖像画像削除依頼をしてきた。笑止千万!」とでも 呟いて貰いますので。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by あきつの飛鳥山 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, 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 the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp 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.
File: from Mitsuru Kurayama .jpg portrait in person, there is a request of the want to use this photo, but was published, it has also been removed at the request of the same person this time. There was a indication of the use of this photo from the portrait rights holders? What if Kurayama so you got muttered himself to by name in Mitsuru Kurayama of the fort and Kurayama cram school "eien20've been a portrait image deletion request in Wikipedia. Highly ridiculous!" And even.
translator: Google

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The Google translation of this request doesn't make a lot of sense, but the case is straightforward. The author cited in the file description, 倉山塾用宣材写真, is not the same as the uploader, あきつの飛鳥山, and the uploader does not claim that the file is his or her own work. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright owner must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


Здравствуйте, Александр! Конечно фотографировал не я, но эти фотографии мне достались в наследство от отца и следовательно я могу их публиковать. Или я что-то не знаю? заранее извините, что отвлекаю. С Уважением, Евгений. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divbig (talk • contribs) 23:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Krassotkin: I can't read Russian except for the name Александр (Sasha), so I'm guessing this concerns the various deletion requests you filed for this user's images. De728631 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Divbig: Согласно законодательству, авторскими правами на снимки обладает фотограф. Все остальные владеют только правами на экземляры, и не могут их сканировать в целях распространения, а тем более устанавливать на них свободную лицензию, что требуется при загрузке на Викисклад. --sasha (krassotkin) 05:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If the requester's father was the photographer, then this is OK. If not, then Krassotkin's comment is correct. Perhaps Krassotkin can ask that question in Russian? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Divbig: Джим просит уточнить, был ли ваш отец фотографом, сделавшим все эти снимки? --sasha (krassotkin) 21:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Siseministeeriumi valgustatud hoone.jpg

OTRS request via ticket:2016070810011431. Picture taken for the Estonian Ministry of the Interior by Kaupo Kalda. As employer, the copyright belongs to the Ministry, I reckon, even if in the forwarded mail there is the (informal) authorization by the photographer as well (can an Estonian-N double check it please as I used Google translator). --Ruthven (msg) 11:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Estonian OTRS member needed - see request below. INeverCry 22:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Hanno Pevkuri portree.jpg

OTRS request via ticket:2016070810011431. Picture taken for the Estonian Ministry of the Interior by Renee Altrov. As employer, the copyright the Ministry holds the right, I reckon; anyways, in the forwarded mail there is the (informal) authorization by the photographer as well (maybe an Estonian-N can double check it please). --Ruthven (msg) 11:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ruthven: Do you have a list of Estonian OTRS members on the OTRS wiki? Or can you find an active OTRS member amongst Category:User et-N or Category:User et-4? INeverCry 22:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The other request (above) needs to be checked. INeverCry 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@Kruusamägi: Can you double check the tickets above please? --Ruthven (msg) 06:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I looked into that and well .... technically, it was just asked if the use of those photos would be ok in wiki (even thou the specific license should had been specified and that fact clarified, that after adding the photos there with that licence everyone could use them i.e. the ordinary stuff), but at a same time it's clear from the letters that as long as authors names are mentioned, then both of them are ok with it (for example Kaupo said that "If possible, then get my name next to it. It would be great.") And it's clear that they were ordered from photographers to be used as a promotional images of Ministry and Minister. So it had to be clear from the start to them, that those images would be used in that way.
You could also inform him, that he could send future permissions to "permissions-et@" if he would prefer Estonian to have a look at it. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


thumb|Escudo heráldico del apellido Pozzo Ardizzi.

Dear, I do not know why it was removed the image of coat of arms of my family. The image is our property. I ask you please to be included again.

Thank you very much.

--Dacpa2 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Daniel Pozzo Ardizzi 23/09/2016

The image was deleted because you did not properly indicate the source of the picture. You wrote "propio" (own) but it was not clear that it was scanned or photographed off this old document. Do you know when this family tree document was written? And could Matteo Pozzo Ardizzi also have drawn the image of the coat of arms? It looks sufficiently old enough to be out of copyright but we need more information about the original artist of this image. De728631 (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Gustavo Souza5000.jpg

In the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gustavo Souza5000.jpg, the image was claimed as "out of project scope", without any explanation. The image was deleted without further discussion.

However, User:GRS73 had deleted the whole file description of File:FotoGustavoparaWK.jpg and proposed it for speedy deletion with a link to this closed DR discussion, although the image is used in pt:Gustavo Lopes Pires de Souza. Both images seems to be related to that person. Photos of well identified jurist are IMHO in scope, regardless of fate of the article. --ŠJů (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Apparently our colleagues at WP:PT disagree with you about whether this man is notable. Since there is no article there, an image of him is indeed out of scope for Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Flag of Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region.svg

-- 02:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region.svg. No new arguments have been presented. Thuresson (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Fantasy flag. No reason for undeletion given. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Presid 1.png

Motivo: Las imágenes son una edición personal realizada, utilizando la imagen de un baner institucional del Poder Judicial de la Provincia del Chaco ( En consulta con el organismo, ellos declararon que sus imágenes son de dominio público. Archivos Borrados: Presid 1.png Presid 2.png Presid 3.png Presid 4.png Presid 5.png --Anderwsont (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Adicionalmente encontre en la Web de "prensa" lo siguiente:

Se permite su reproducción con la condición de citar la fuente. Diseñado por la Dirección de Tecnologías de la Información - Área Sistemas Poder Judicial de la Provincia del Chaco

--Anderwsont (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:أحمد السقا.jpeg

About a famous actor.if it was the source file personal and unhelpful, This image about an important character.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support This appears to be an image of Ahmed El Sakka. It was deleted because it is a crop of an image that was deleted as a personal image, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:محمد فرج ابو العلا.jpeg. The subject image, however, might be useful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Comic mural Olivier Rameau, Dany (Daniel Henrotin), Brussels.jpg and more


As you know, in Belgium there is now Freedom of Panorama. Therefore I am requesting here to restore all my following pictures, which were just deleted because of lack of FOP. At that time I had not experience enough and I did not konw about the FOP. However, since the 15 july 2016, the FOP exist in Belgium (have a look here: Commons:Freedom of panorama). Now they can be all restored:

Thank you!

--Ferran Cornellà (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

and by the way, just as example, you can see as example that this file has already been restored:

--Ferran Cornellà (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not so sure. Clearly, any of these murals that were created entirely by the artist who painted them are now OK for Commons, and should be restored.
However, it appears that many of them include comic characters that themselves are copyrighted, so that there are two copyrights at work, that for the comic character and that for this representation of the comic character. I think that it is very likely -- certainly beyond our standard of "significant doubt" -- that most, perhaps all of those murals are not licensed from the holders of the copyrights for the characters portrayed.
FOP only works on the copyright belonging to the artist who created the public work. It does not allow use of works that themselves infringe on other copyrights. We cannot keep an image of Charlie Brown just because someone has painted it on a wall in an FOP country without a license from Charles Schultz's estate. Unless the mural shown in File:Comic wall Le jeune Albert, Yves Chaland, Brussels.jpg has a license from Yves Chaland's heirs, we cannot keep it, either.
I suggest that we close this request and that Ferran Cornellà post two UnDRs, one for those images that show works that are not derivative works and the other, those that are. We can then rapidly undelete the former and consider the latter more carefully. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Schlieren SBB train station.tif

Hi: Jcb has deleted my photo of Schlieren train station. The copyright for this photo is fully mine. Balabinrm (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

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


Please note that this article is created by me only and have not copied. The Image is used as free image which is not copyright. Hope your agree. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhuaman (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done , See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Madhuaman. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Reason for deletion is not clear.Work is original and own work.Please keep it.--Nagric 14:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Reason is not clear for deletion.Work is original and notable.Please keep it.--Nagric 15:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Dihedral Angle.jpg

Reason for deletion is not clear. Work is original , notable and own.Please keep it--Nagric 15:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)--Nagric 15:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Reason for deletion is not clear.Work is original , notable and own.Nagric 16:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacher1943 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Dihedral angle.jpg

Reason for deletion is not clear.Work is own, original and notable.--Nagric 15:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Reason for deletion is not clear.Own work,original and notable.Please keep it.Teacher1943--Nagric 15:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Right Circular Cone.jpg

Reason for deletion is not clear.Own work,Original and notable.Please keep it.Teacher1943--Nagric 15:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)