Commons:Undeletion requests

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


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

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

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.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

Projects that accept fair use

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

Adding a request

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

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

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


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

File:Alishan Taiwan Xiang-Lin-Elementary-School-03.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: COM:FOP Taiwan accepts 2-dimensional works A1Cafel (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose for files like File:COVID-19 Pandemic Prevention Notice of a Cram School in Hsinchu.jpg and File:COVID-19 Epidemic Prevention Information Board at Campus Bus Stop in National Tsing Hua University.jpg. By the file names these depict COVID-19 information boards which IMO may not fulfill the requirement at COM:FOP Taiwan ("Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, may be exploited by any means..."). Are COVID-19 information boards/announcements for long-term basis? I doubt they would. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Also File:Doraemon 2007 poster on CTS Kuang-fu Building.jpg seems to be an indoor photo. Few others may need to be verified by Chinese-speaking users as they may refer to some temporary events. Also content of bilboards unlikely can be considered permanent. I suggest temporary undeletion of the images for discussion. Ankry (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Support for temporary undeletions. Since I'm from the Philippines, I hope Wikipedians from Taiwan (and perhaps from PRC) to conduct thorough individual reviews on each of the files indicated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Pinging users like @Solomon203, KOKUYO, Taiwania Justo, Kai3952, Reke, 廣九直通車: for discussion.--A1Cafel (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
          • @A1Cafel: All images are deleted, then I can't see what the problem is in this situation. If you need to discuss further, please restore these images as they are vital to the discussion. By the way, I have patiently and calmly discussed this issue with Reke many times, but the result was 'no consensus'.--Kai3952 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
            • If you ping me about the FOP-Taiwan part, I hope you'll consider my situation seriously. Because I was told by reke that I'm an annoying person and accused me of doing a destroy user pictures using DR (see: special:diff/514139241). In fact, he previously said that you (Kai) have Asperger's syndrome, and he also stressed that any disputes between me and someone else could be a problem for the disease. My plight in talk or communication with is similar to that of most users at Commons. It's very difficult to avoid disputes with users, and everyone should understand. I think...don't let them (including me) go away from Commons by the stigma of being labeled “Asperger.” I know it is hard not to become frustrated and the frustration just made it worse, but can't bear the stigma of choosing such a notoriously mental illness or psychiatric disorde. I impacted by the stigma of being labeled “Asperger,”so please don't ping me about COM:FOP Taiwan.--Kai3952 (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Temporary undeletion per Kai3952, unless I can see what they were, I'm not sure if they are photographed indoorly or outdoorly. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Temporary undeletion. Per above. SCP-2000 13:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

For the "勞基法..." one, @Reke: is that TIPO article requires permanently placed, or temporary ones are also applied? The second one may fall under COM:CHARACTER so indeed shouldn't apply --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: as a nominator, do you agree me to "non-admin closure"-like remove the temporary undeletion tag here? That isn't even a 2D work, it's a 3D work. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: as it seems COM:FOP Taiwan now permits photos of exterior fixed 3D works, I support undeletion, but removal of temporary undeletion tags should wait for consensus here.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I deleted most of images that doubts were raised about. The only remaining is File:勞工是我心中最軟的一塊 20191214.jpg where User:Liuxinyu970226 opposes basing on TOO, while we are discussing permanence. I do not understand how TOO is relevant here. I assume, all others can be considered kept already. Ankry (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Note also that natural destruction of medium is generally not considered an argument against permanence. Not permanent = intended to be removed or replaced after some period of time. Not because of natural destrution of medium (eg. paper) due to weather conditions. Ankry (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Ankry: For "勞工是..." one, that has an animation/a cartoon-like artwork, so the question should be answered by the author @Solomon203:: Is this artwork really "your own work"? See also COM:CHARACTER. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Solomon203, KOKUYO, Taiwania Justo, Kai3952, Reke, 廣九直通車: is the illustrated advertisement at File:Hsinchu City - panoramio.jpg still exists (or has it already been replaced by another ad)? If replaced (just like most billboard ads), I'm sorry - this should remain delsted until it falls public domain. Most billboard ads are temporal in nature. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    JWilz12345, I told you guys before that I'm not going to speak about the FOP-Taiwan part because Reke claims that he is more familiar with the policy than I am. You can look at his edits to see how 'claim' he is.--Kai3952 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    "勞工是..." is an outdoor political sticker on Section 3, Xinsheng South Road, Da'an District, Taipei City. --Solomon203 (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    So we can assume it is intended to be shown during an election campain or another temporary action, not permanently. Am I right? Ankry (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry reply so late. In my opinion:
  1. File:多個單位善心捐助高市圖通閱、故事書車_05.jpg is a bookmobile and it may not meet "long-term basis" since it has visited to school sometimes per this article
  2. File:Hsinchu City - panoramio.jpg is a advertising board, which was placed temporary in common sense, thus we can presume it is not meet "long-term basis" FOP requirement.
  3. There is no evidence can demonstrate File:The Art decoration in Chung-Wen Elementary School 01.jpg is in public domain at present and that should be deleted per COM:EVID.
Thank you. SCP-2000 02:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @SCP-2000: Nothing is late while the case is open. However, I think that we need some clarification of your comments.
    (Ad. 1) Why visited to school sometimes is relevant? Do you mean that the car decoration is dedicated per visit (or per few visits) or that Taiwanese FOP does not apply to art placed on vehicles per general? While I doubt the first, I have no opinion about the latter.
    (Ad. 2) Being an advertisement does not contradict being permanent (cf. signboards); that is why I asked for help here: is there any element in the content of the advertisement qualifying it as temporary? The board does not seem to be a displayboard for rent. Note, that removal of an art due to its weather-related destruction or even vandalism, does not contradict permanence. BTW, the copyright notice may mean that COM:CHARACTER applies here.
    (Ad. 3) Why we need an evidence that the art is still present? Do you mean that FoP did not apply at the time when the photo was taken, or something else? Note that permanence is not based on measured time that something was displayed, but on the intention. Even if the wall was destroyed in an accident few minutes after creation, it still can be considered permanent. Ankry (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Then I think that these are very likely permanently "set": File:Mackaystatue.jpg, File:Public art at the junction of Provincial Highway 20 and Provincial Highway 21.jpg and File:The Art decoration in Chung-Wen Elementary School 01.jpg, while others may not, so we can only permanently restore these 3 files. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info and Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Ankry, SCP-2000: the description of File:The Art decoration in Chung-Wen Elementary School 01.jpg is "臺灣嘉義市崇文國小圍牆裝飾,磁磚上上繪有林玉山的畫作:高山晨暉." When using literal Google machine translation: "The wall decoration of Chongwen Elementary School in Chiayi City, Taiwan, with Lin Yushan’s paintings on the tiles: Gao Shan Chenhui." The artist seems to be w:Lin Yushan (d. 2004), who seems to mostly work for w:En plein air paintings (perhaps the art in the image is... semi-permanent/semi-temporary???) For me, Purple question mark.svg Unsure. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Pictogram voting comment.svg respond So it's not in public domain, but still FOP applies. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Android Marshmallow Logo.svg

This logo was included with Android Marshmallow which is avilable under Apache 2.0 licensing as Android Open Source Project. link —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not think we can rely on pages that require login as they cannot be archived. Ankry (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
There is temporary problem with site thats why it is asking for login. Here is today's archive link —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support: As avilable under Android Open Source Project. Haideronwiki (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose The licensing page has clear restrictions: “Google's trademarks and other brand features (including the Android new logo 2019.svg stylized typeface logo) are not included in the license.” --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 21:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Android Marshmallow Logo neither trademarked by Google nor a brand logo of Google. And this page haven't restrictions for such a logo. Haideronwiki (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
@Haideronwiki: You marked this logo as trademarked: so whose is the trademark if not Google's ? Ankry (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I wrongly marked it as trademarked logo. I added template to file under it is available. Haideronwiki (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Files under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Madame Tussauds Hong Kong

All files under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Madame Tussauds Hong Kong:

According to COM:CRT/Hong Kong#Freedom of panorama, FOP applies to premises that are open to the public. Per Copyright Ordinance (Chapter 528) (consolidated version of May 27, 2016), "it is not a copyright infringement to make graphic representations, take photographs, or broadcast the images of buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if the object is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public." The CRT page adds, "Because Hong Kong was a territory of the United Kingdom until 1997, Hong Kong law is modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be similar." Various images of British wax figures inside the London branch of Madame Tussauds have been restored because of their FOP provision. Thus it is reasonable to say that Hong Kong FOP applies also to indoors, as a territory that follows British heritage of copyright law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

For a recent restoration request for Madame Tussauds London wax figures, see Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-01#File:Ron Mueck head.jpg and Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-01#File:InSapphoWeTrust - Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts at Madame Tussauds London (8481389580).jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Wcam: agree or not? At least some were 3D artworks (sculptures and 3D-printed models?!) iirc. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: as deleting admin. Do you agree or not? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
If I read the above literally, it says that every sculpture in any museum in the UK (and Hong Kong, for that matter) is free. I doubt that this is the correct interpretation of the law. I do not see so many sculptures of Antoine Pevsner or Alberto Giacometti for example though there are plenty of those in British museums. I believe the question should go at least to the relevant village pump.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
The sculptures are not free, but pictures of them might be. That's an important difference. And that's the consequence of FoP rules where they exist. The issue here is "is Madame Tussauds Hong Kong a premises open to the public"? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Kizuna AI artwork.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image was taken from a video source that is licensed under CC Attribution Sharealike 3.0 (File:Kizuna AI 新種のSCPが怖すぎる件【SCP Foundation】.webm), which was confirmed by reviewer User:Techyan in 2020. The video, and by extension the image, was released under this license intentionally by the original author, being Kizuna Ai k.k. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Time2wait.svg On hold for a decision in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kizuna AI 新種のSCPが怖すぎる件【SCP Foundation】.webm. Ankry (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Bupati Bekas dari Masa ke Masa.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Source: License {{PD-IDGov}} A1Cafel (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info I got timeout attempting to connect. Ankry (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Aya to Majo title.jpg

I'm sorry I didn't explain it earlier. I think this logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text and It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. Please restore the following pages:

File:Aya to Majo title.jpg - Hijikatayyy (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thibaut120094: Pinging the DR nominator who seems to think otherwise. Ankry (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC) Ankry (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Above ToO. Clearly not simple geometric shapes or text. It is not even a traditional text logo, and is not composed of a non-copyrightable standard font, but appears to be hand-drawn when it was created and it has “artistic appearance that is worth artistic appreciation(COM:TOO Japan). Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 13:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Two Capitals Tower.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via COM:Deletion requests/File:Two Capitals Tower.jpg. However, FOP now exists since 2014 for Russian buildings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Unsure here: this photo shows the building construction in 2006. Ankry (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think there are enough features shown to be copyrightable. The question is, is FoP retroactive? -- King of ♥ 17:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    @King of Hearts: I think so. After the introduction of architectural FOP in Russia, many images were restored. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    I think it is not. We need an evidence that the objects existed when the FoP law came into force. And this the is source of my doubts above: I am not sure if the photo presense the same architectural work as it was available in 2014. Ankry (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    Per the log, the description was "The tower Two Caspitals in Moscow-City" in English. In Russian "Башня Две Столицы в Москве-Сити 21 июля 2008." I may try finding out what object is this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Ankry: I think the depicted buildings are the twin towers of the w:City of Capitals (not sure because the file is invisible), which exist up to this day. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Two images of the interior of Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche where I believe de minimis was ignored

First of all: You don't bring up any new arguments. Exactly this text is already in the deletion request and has already been taken into account there.
To the first one: Can a room be copyrighted in Germany? - Yes, of course. "Werke der bildenden Künste einschließlich der Werke der Baukunst und der angewandten Kunst und Entwürfe solcher Werke" (UrhG §2 (1) 4).
To the second one: Yes, an organ is a musical instrument. But the organ case is a very special part, mostly elaborately designed. So it's the same thing as above ("der angewandten Kunst"). You ask for any precedent at all for saying that a photograph of a musical instrument needs permission. I say it is stated in German law, UrhG §2. So maybe you should search for any precedent at all for saying that a photograph of an organ case needs no permission. --Stepro (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I would like to point out that in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pipe organ of Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche, new building organs are considered non-copyrighted utilitarian objects. And whether a particular organ is copyrightable or not is disputable. And according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany non-technical artistic aspects of the subject should be pointed out to consider it copyrightable. Acoustic or internal architecture related should not be considered artistic and copyrightable, IMO. Pinging @Ruthven, Christian Ferrer, Pi.1415926535: few admins who were taking decisions in similar DRs. Ankry (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
As far as I've understood these deletion requests, and considering German FOP law, the copyrighted work are the stained glass windows of Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche. A stained glass is made by an artist, the glassblower, and can be an artwork and hence copyrightable. Here we can discuss if these particular stained glass windows are above of below ToO for Germany. My opinion is that each single window is not, but their composition is. Thus, the two files mentioned here represent the stained glass windows as a whole, while the other ones we're discussing have as main focus the pipe organ, an utilitarian object like a car, and not some specific artistic detail of the organ (like a marquetry). Of course also in the other files representing the organ there were some part of the windows, but they were 1) out of focus 2) de minimis. --Ruthven (msg) 16:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • As far I understand it, FoP in Germany is not for indoor, therefore File:Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche interior pano 01.jpg is likely under copyright protection, because the main subject is well the indoor architecture. For the second image File:Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche organ 01.jpg, there are several things (the walls and glasses, the platform, the roof and the organ). The walls, glasses, and roof are copyrightable things, the platform could be simple enough but as part of an architectural ensemble it is likely also copyrightable. The organ itself is likely not protected by copyright. The organ is obviously the main subject but the remaining question being: are the copyrightable things De Minimis? Stricto sensu likely not, because a thing is de minimis when you don't notice that it have been removed from a photo if either you remove it. But well, I'm quite neutral, and I don't know if Germany copyright law has exception for something incidental in a photo.Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the second. The organ is a non-copyrightable utilitarian object, and it is not possible to show the organ without also showing the windows (it is already cropped pretty tightly on all sides). -- King of ♥ 17:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    Thats not correct. Objects of utility are certainly eligible for protection under German copyright law, see Geburtstagszug-Urteil of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) from 2013. Since then, the same protection threshold (§ 2 para. 2 UrhG) has applied to applied art as to so-called "pure art" in German copyright law. --DCB (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    An organ is a utilitarian object which is not copyrightable under US law. A toy train is a non-utilitarian object which is copyrightable under US law. If German law considers a toy train to be utilitarian but copyrightable, then you're just calling something a different name but the copyright status is fundamentally unchanged. -- King of ♥ 19:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    Note also that even if the organ is impressive, that is in fact the case of almost all organs by nature, and IMO there is nothing "very" artistic in its design apart a quite basic obligatory geometric arrangement of the organ pipes. But to the argument "it is not possible to show the organ without also showing the windows", that is not entirely true, just take the photo with a bigger zoom. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Davao City mall fire.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: was speedily deleted on Jan. 2020 because "Media missing permission as of 19 January 2020. Please send a permission statement to undelete this file." But it was kept at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Davao City mall fire.jpg, because it was taken by the now Senator and Special Assistant to the President w:Bong Go. So {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} applies here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Arthur Crbz, Patrick Rogel: Any comment? Ankry (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Was this taken by an official or employee of the Government as part of their official duties? If the answer is in the affirmative, then we can undelete the image. If the image was taken outside of their official duties, then the image should remain deleted. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    • See DR discussion. IMO, if there is a doubt concerning the issues discussed in a DR, the image does not qualify for speedy. DR discussion should be reopened. So the question is whether the copyright doubt is related or unrelated to the DR discussion, or maybe just a mistake. Discussion here is not a replacement for a DR. Ankry (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Nat: according to enwiki the fire occurred around December 2017. According to the biographical enwiki article of then-special assistant to the president, "Since 1998, Bong Go has served as executive assistant and personal aide for then-Mayor of Davao City Rodrigo Duterte. Being in charge of both personal and official matters, he has called himself as Duterte's all around 'utility man'." There's no specific mention at enwiki on which of his works are part of his official duties and which are not. Anyway, ping @Pandakekok9, Howhontanozaz: over this matter. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
      I don't think the photo was part of Bong Go's official duties. But then it's not totally clear what the duties of a SAP is... pandakekok9 04:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I would Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion to reopen the DR. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 23:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Jan de Bray kol.1627-1697 - Podobizna petileteho devcatka.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This painting image is PD-Art-100-expired and I can't discover the reason for deletion anywhere. I created a Wikidata item for it to be added to the file upon undeletion: Q106813052 Jane023 (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  • I also cannot identify which Deletion Request is related to this image. @Gbawden: can you help us? Ankry (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ankry. This was deleted under Commons:Deletion requests/Uploads by NGCZ - I had to a batch delete of all the files uploaded by this user. Gbawden (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Good grief I can't believe that happened! Of course the non-free files need to be deleted, but in the case (such as this one) where no other file is on Commons yet, then they should definitely not be deleted! I thought I was going after one specific file but I am cringing at the thought there are others. PD does not mean "only with the institution's say-so". Jane023 (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. The image seems to be PD regardless of its origin. Ankry (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Lone Star College Texas Logo 2021.jpg

Template:Connected contributor (paid)

The file is a logo but not a trademark, and freely available on the Internet, through Facebook page of Lone Star College. In this case, it is used specifically for the Wikipedia page of Lone Star College. Please undelete it. --NatalyaMARCOM (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@NatalyaMARCOM: If is irrelevant whether it is a trademark or not. We cannot host non-trivial (copyrighted as art) logos without free license permission from copyright holder. Ankry (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry, Ankry: Hi, this artwork was created by a group of people, our design team. I guess the copyright belongs to Lone Star College, but there is no license aka trademark for the logo. How can we make it work? Will it work if I list all the people who were involved in its creation? Would it be enough?--NatalyaMARCOM (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
No license = Wikimedia Commons cannot host it, see COM:L for requirements. We need a license from authorized person. Ankry (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Hamburger Pomade.jpg

Das von mir erstellte Foto zeigt ein Produkt mit Verpackung, die natürlich beide nicht von mir geschaffen wurden. Entsprechende Urheberrechte wurde von mir weder in Anspruch genommen noch auf dieser Basis Nutzungsrechte abgetreten. Eine Urheberrechtsverletzung liegt nicht vor. --Fritz1934 (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fritz1934: Granting a free license on an image of copyrighted packaging without appropriate permission from the packaging copyright holder is copyright infringement. If the package copyright has expired, we need an evidence of this. See COM:DW for details. Ankry (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry:; bitte begründe Deine Auffassung allgemeingültig. Zumindest mit Recht und Gesetz in Deutschland ist diese Darstellung unvereinbar. --Fritz1934 (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Fritz1934: See COM:DW and COM:PACKAGING. CC license allow anybody to make derivatives and use them for any purpose. Are you authorised to grant anybody the right to make a similar packaging and use it while selling their own product? This is one of things that you are granting anybody to do if the packaging is not trademarked. The other side is that we have to follow also US copyright law. Ankry (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Artwork by Peter Marggraf

Please undelete

We have permission from the artist under cc-by-sa-3.0 with Ticket:2021050910004707.

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done @Mussklprozz: FYI. Ankry (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


файл нашей группы напечатан моим агентством . прав не нарушает.--Александр Малков (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Александр Малков: Which image do you mean? File:Example.jpg is not deleted. Most of your uploads are non-justified claims of own work. Claiming authorship on somebody else's work is blatant violation of copyright law and Commons policy. Ankry (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done, no response. Thuresson (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


Please restore the following for review because a permission has been received for them:

Ww2censor (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Fleurs, peinture de Louise Desbordes, Musées d'Angers.tif


This is a painting by Louise Desbordes, a French painter who died in 1926. I'm not sure which license template was used, but it should be in the public domain ({{PD-Art|PD-old|deathyear=1926|country=fr}}). The source is Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Angers, according to Frank Blason, the original uploader.

Orlodrim (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info The only tag that was used was (C) Musées d'Angers, D. Riou. Ankry (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this information was correct. Since the painter died more than 70 years ago, nobody owns the copyright for it. Orlodrim (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, maybe. But a tag mentioning this was missing. In order to undelete we need a proper copyright tag or tags describing copyright status in both: country of origin and US. Ankry (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Orlodrim: {{Temporarily undeleted}} Please fix the information template and copyright status if the image is indeed PD. Ankry (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, please give me some time so that I can confirm the exact year with the uploader (since apparently it matters whether it's exactly 1926 or before). Orlodrim (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
According to Frank Blason, the painting was probably exposed for the first time before 1926, but he does not have the confirmation. In the unlikely case where it would never have been exposed before, it would be in the public domain in the US only in 2022. I'm not sure what should be done on Commons. In doubt, I copied the picture to fr:Fichier:Fleurs, peinture de Louise Desbordes, Musées d'Angers.tif. Orlodrim (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Orlodrim: I think, if the author died in 1926, the painting was PD in France in 1996 (50pma + 8⅓ years wartime extensions), so it is PD-1996. Am I right? Ankry (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: You're right, thanks. I didn't know that the copyright term was not yet 70 years in France in 1996. Orlodrim (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done Ankry (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

File:George Thanos.jpg

Please undeleted the photo of myself taking by me.

-George Thanos --GrayGhost20 (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Previously published images require COM:OTRS evidence of permission, and copyright initially vests in the author (photographer), not the mere subject ("the photo of myself")--this is clearly not a selfie; that this was "taking (sic) by me" is dubious. Accordingly, the aforementioned evidence would need to be in the form of a copy of the document that transferred copyright to you or direct (i.e., not forwarded) permission from the actual author. Эlcobbola talk 16:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

File:C402B N5550K.jpg

I am the owner of the scan that I made. I may not have attributed it correctly? It is not copyrighted...

Ddevillers (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You need a permission from the heirs of Werner Stoy to distribute his photos. Thuresson (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Constituciones 1591.jpg

Clearly old enough (scan of a page of a book published in 1591). Strakhov (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)