Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]

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

As I corrected after deletion request, all these files are published on at the archival storage. Free use, no permission needed and public accessibility.I think no reason for deletion. Ouwejokke (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ouwejokke: Current information about the image seems unclear to me: according to Wikidata the author died in 1941, but the work was created in 1955. Also, the permission (if indeed granted by the actual copyright holder - we may need to verify this) is not CC0 as declared. If this is a site-specific license, the appropriate template needs to be created and accepted by the community in COM:VPC discussion. Ankry (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I don't see a free license of any kind at [1]. It's an archival web site, they say that the file in question is public and that no permission is required for "usage" (or "gebruik" in Dutch). As I interpret it, you don't need a permission to access and read the file (or "use" it, "gebruiken", in archive speak), which is not surprising because you can use only the digital copy in PDF form ("Enkel digitale kopie consulteerbaar"). I don't see any permission to re-publish etc. those materials there, which is the kind of permission Wikimedia Commons wants. --Rosenzweig τ 22:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per discussionj. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logos for Kosovo ethnic Serb municipalities[edit]

Please permanently undelete these files:

The deletion requests were:

The nominator User:AceDouble gave the rationale "Fictional emblem used by serbian parallel structures and not in official use by kosovan authorities see here: [...]". Similar files have since been kept following deletion requests, on the basis that these emblems are probably not fictional but are emblems of towns or regions in Kosovo that have ethnic Serb majorities, so these files are in COM:SCOPE. The deleting admin has no objection to undeletion, see User talk:Infrogmation#Deleted requests for Kosovo Serb files.

Several similar deletion requests have since been issued with the same rationale, as follows:

Verbcatcher (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbcatcher: Are you able to provide evidence that the logos are really used in public space if the abovementioned DRs are reopened? Ankry (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some or all of them are linked in the newer batch of deletion requests. I will try to add some here. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Verbcatcher: These "logos" were never adopted officially as required per law on local self-government in Kosovo => Article 7 Symbols 7.3 "The symbols of a Municipality shall be approved and changed by the municipal assembly pursuant to the constitutional and legal provisions of Republic of Kosova and shall not resemble to symbols of other states or municipalities within or outside Republic of Kosova". For example: the Municipality of Graçanica which has a serb majority population, did approve its own symbols according to the law and they are included in the official site:
The forementioned files should be removed as well (Leposavic, Zvecan, North Mitrovica, Zubin potok) .png .gif .svg AceDouble (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AceDouble: we do not require that images are approved or adopted by any government. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being official / adopted by any government is not required to host an image in Commons. Being actually used is enough. However, if the image is not official, we cannot apply any copyright exception related to government and official works and so we need an evidence that the image is too simple for copyright protection or a free license from the author. Ankry (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: Verbcatcher has no evidence for the use of these nonexisting symbols in public spaces whatsoever.


    • [[2]] - North Mitrovica
    • [[3]] - Zvecan
    • [[4]] - Zubin Potok
    • [[5]] - Leposavic

AceDouble (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AceDouble: , I do have evidence. As I said above "Some or all of them are linked in the newer batch of deletion requests. I will try to add some here." I will add some links soon. Your new links only identify the symbols used by the Kosovo Government. They do not relate to the symbols discussed here. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links that confirm that the symbols are used. I do not have access to the deleted files, but the placenames indicated in the file names match our current files and it is probable that they have the same symbols. I don't understand these languages and I cannot confirm the reliability of these sources.

@Vanjagenije: you commented on some of the recent deletion requests, can you comment here? Verbcatcher (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are Google Maps photos that show the symbols displayed in two of these places.
Verbcatcher (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These Municipalities are located in the Republic of Kosovo full stop. By quoting unofficial links and trying to make them "legal" is not the proper way to enrich wikipedian articles.
Official sites:
AceDouble (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion and reopening the DRs as they may need wider discussion about their status. While they are not "official", the declaraion that they are "fictional" is a lie if they are actually in use. However, the {{PD-Kosovo-exempt}} cannot be applied to unofficial emblems and so we need a valid copyright tag (probably a free licese declaration by their human authors). Ankry (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AceDouble: we are not trying to make these 'legal'. There are other symbols on Commons that are probably illegal in their recognised nation state, such as the flag of Islamic State. If these files should not be used in specific Wikipedia articles then please discuss in on their talk pages, or in a Wikiproject such as w:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kosovo. If it is reliably established that these symbols are illegal under the law of Kosovo then we could indicate this in the description on the file page, or a template could be created.Verbcatcher (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose They are not in use, per given source.
AceDouble (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Hi. I declined a few deletion requests on the basis the rationale was not a valid reason for deletion, but I pointed out copyright status was a more sensible reason for deleting them (for example here), since I took a look on the template used there ({{PD-SerbiaGov}}) and I was not entirely convinced on its applicability. Strakhov (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I accept that these files may have a risk of copyright violation because both {{PD-Kosovo-exempt}} and {{PD-SerbiaGov}} look invalid. The four deleted files should be undeleted (they might have a valid license), and a mass deletion request should be raised for all these files. There are various reasons by which they could be 'free': these could be old public domain symbols, possibly dating from the Yugoslav period. Alternatively, someone with local contacts might identify the authors or copyright holders, and establish free licenses. The municipal authorities might be able to issue valid licenses even if the Kosovo national government did not recognise these authorities. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can assure you that these don't have valid licenses neither they date back from the yugoslav period. And something i almost forgot.. The UN Habitat programme in Kosovo which has partnership with the municipalities of Kosovo, check out these symbols they have for Zvecan, Zubin potok and Leposavic on their site:
    • [[26]] Zvecan
    • [[27]] Zubin Potok
    • [[28]] Leposavic
    AceDouble (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lula's official photographs[edit]

All the photographs are available here, here, and here on Commons. Pinging Túrelio. They were simply reposted by an official Flickr account and are not exact duplicates. Quite worrying they were deleted without any warning. Hadn't I seen their logs on my watchlist, no one would ever noticed. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the borderless ones: these images seem to have somewhat different editing from the CC-BY licensed ones. I don't know whether that could be creative enough to attract a copyright (either in the US or Brazil)--does anyone else?
  • Regarding the ones with borders: what is the educational use for them (as opposed to borderless images)?
—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of restoring the "com borda" files. Bedivere (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edits are certainly de minimis. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
  • Regarding the images with borders, their educational use is quite obvious. Quite sad you even ask. Not only they were published by the official account of the President of Brazil (!!!), but they are also the versions that are used publicly (see the portrait on the wall here, for example). For the non-Brazilians here, the man there is our Vice-President.
Inviting DarwIn. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess so. I still don't think these photos with borders serve any purpose other than ... people downloading them and recreating them? How would you use them in a Wikimedia project? Bedivere (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere, images aren't on Commons to be used in a Wikimedia project. "People downloading" is more than sufficient, but even that isn't neccessary. You're an administrator and you're supposed to know that better than anyone. But you don't?!?! RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I know! I just don't see the point of hosting these images with borders and without them, when there is absolutely nothing creative that adds up to them! For example, we have file:Fotografía oficial del Presidente Sebastián Piñera.jpg, which has an added border but it also contains their name and the coats of arms. I think such an image is acceptable to host. But these have nothing but the frame! Bedivere (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I don't see any free license at the stated source. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward The portraits themselves are already under a free license, as mentioned above. The only difference is the border, but frankly I can't see any good reason to keep them here, unless they were in use (apparently not). Darwin Ahoy! 16:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this image was deleted, but I think it should be undeleted. It was taken from an official distributor channel (FOX) as you can see here: [29] I see the nomination says "The director of this TV serie until March 2020 was Neslihan Yeşilyurt. Since this director didn't publish it on Youtube with CC, we don't use screenshot here with CC" but we can safely assume the official TV channel of the show has the necessary permissions from production crew/director before "distributing" it. I mean, when do you see a show or film release from director's own channels? The director works on the production and the production company/distributor/TV channel handles the release and the distributing part. So for this reason, "because it's not from director's youtube channel" is not really a good argument to delete, it's from official TV channel page after all.Tehonk (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DR does seem to conflate the author with the copyright owner, which are not necessarily the same person or entity. If the director was employed by Fox, then Fox is the copyright owner. Article 10 of Turkey's law even states that for a joint work, the owner is the one who brings the collaborators together, and Article 18 is their work-for-hire clause. I don't know much about that television program. If there was production company, they probably own the rights. If Fox was just the distributor and not the copyright owner, they could not license it. But if Fox was the production company as well and as such owns the rights, it would seem to be fine. The question is if the YouTube account is the copyright owner of the material (which may be different than the author). Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The video cited as the source,, returns "Video unavailable. This video is private." The uploader did not request and we did not do a {{License review}}, so we have no confirmation of the license status of the YouTube page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least as of November 2021, that link had that license, per the Internet archive, which I think was a year and a half after the upload. Interesting that it has been taken down now, though. That often happens when Youtube gets a copyright complaint which is not defended. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is confirmation of the license status from the archived link.
@Clindberg no, disappearance would be because of the recent rebranding from FOX to NOW, some old videos/channels were removed as part of it. Tehonk (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

deleted file by mistake I am creating an article about my father and the photo is a portrait of him taken by me

--Petru.russu (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose In order to request a succesfull undeletion, please provide a link to an accepted article. Photos are in scope if used not if intended to be used in an article that does not exist yet and may be accepted or not. Ankry (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is Liviu Rusu (literat)? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No response after two weeks. I deleted File:Liviur.jpg which is the same image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is the inner side of the front page of the little handbook listed in the references of article en:YES stroke alphabetical order. And the outer side in red is shown at the top of the article. I am the editor of the book.

--Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have no way here of knowing who Ctxz2323 actually is, so it would be good if you confirmed your editorship for both this file and File:YES handbook.jpg with a message via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My user Page will tell you that I am Xiaoheng Zhang, 张小衡,the editor of the book. Ctxz2323 (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but unfortunately we get many imposters on Commons -- anyone could claim that they are you. That is why we have VRT, which can deal with you confidentially. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No response from uploader. If permission is received, it will be restored. --Bedivere (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

salam səklin bərpasına koməklik gostərin Vəli Ələkbərov Yusif Məmmədəliyev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Şamxal1990 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Şamxal1990: I assume this is about File:Vəli Ələkbərov yanında Əli Əliyev,Şəfaət Mehdiyev Elmi Bilikləri Yayan Cəmiyyətin Ümumittifaq plenumunda akad. Yusif Məmmədəliyevlə birlikdə. Moskva, Kreml 1955.jpg? We need a source for the photograph since you being the photographer of a photograph from 1955 is very unlikely. Azerbaijan has a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years so this is photograph is not public domain there yet. Who is the photographer and when did they die? Abzeronow (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image was taken in Moscow. The country of origin depends on where it was first published -- Russia or Azerbaijan. In fact we have no evidence that it was published at all before it appeared here. In both Russia and Azerbaijan anonymous works are under copyright until 70 years from first publication. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, no response from OP other than reuploading the file as File:13x18 02 (1).jpg. Thuresson (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am the copyright owner of these images I want to Undelete em.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglespirit (talk • contribs) 20:50, 8 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Why do you claim copyright for all of these? An examination of some of them, as noted above, does not find any images that freely licensed and none with your name at the source. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Images copied from the Internet. No evidence of permission or a free license. --Yann (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hola se ha eliminado la fotografía del candidato un bot Ruso la ha estado modificando

[Hello, the candidate's photograph has been deleted, a Russian bot has been modifying it / Google translation]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chacheraruto (talk • contribs) 22:25, 8 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image was deleted because the EXIF shows:

Author Delia_Martinez
which is not the name of the uploader. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by 阿米娅2011[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Bcoz I am do just can say little English, so just can provide Simplified Chinese text. Coser1和2图像很显然是AI生成图片,上传者明显不持有任何著作权,CC0无问题。其次是Bili World图像,那张图片是我自己拍摄的,由于相机过老,原始图像只有那么大。邮资邮简被删除原因我看不懂。 阿米娅2011 (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The first two are the front and back of a copyrighted postal envelope. The second is probably below the ToO but is meaningless without the front.

The next two are AI images. We do not keep personal art from non-notable artists, so these are out of scope.
The Squirrel Conspiracy deleted the last as a copyright violation, but it is not obvious why. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first two were copyvios, the second two would be copyvios if AI art were copyrightable (it's not the uploader's work, they ripped it off a social media site), so it's safe to assume that the fifth is also probably a copyvio. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
De facto, bili~Kal'tsit 这张图片的确是我自己拍摄的图像,那台相机的分辨率只有那么大,如果你看过那张照片的EXIF信息,你查阅一下这台照相机的参数你就明白了。(I am do not know the text how translate it to Eng. Just can provide Chinese text)Jameslwoodward 阿米娅2011 (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I am need to prove the pic copyright belong to myself?? Other pics was deleted I am do not have any problem. 阿米娅2011 (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the pic was generated by myself, 是否我可以上传?(也是和这两张图片的主题一致) 阿米娅2011 (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: ToO? what does mean? 阿米娅2011 (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
如果这张图片不能以CC-BY-SA 4.0的协议下保存,能不能转换成合理使用内容?(因为中文维基百科的确缺少对此的图像,有期望使用。) 阿米娅2011 (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ToO means Threshold of Originality -- which is to say that the envelope back is too simple to have a copyright.
Fair use depends on the country and is not permitted on Commons, so this is the wrong place to ask about it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean is how to move the file to Chinese Wikipedia... C.W. allow fair use file. 阿米娅2011 (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
首先請善用翻譯器。其次,如果有原檔的話,應該自己上載到中維就可以。 TanoDano (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
该文件我上传时已经没有了,恐怕就是需要临时还原一下。避免自动翻译翻译错意思我就没用。 阿米娅2011 (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

GODL Application

@Yann: @Thuresson:

The image was removed because of a copyright violation citing the following link which is a Government of India website. The image is an official portrait that has been taken by the Lok Sabha for the members of Parliament and hence GODL applies. The original uploader probably made a mistake in classification as own work which could be related to the fact that the uploader works for the party which the MP is a member of. --TigerPeacock24 (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to resolve competing copyright claims at this page. The established procedure is for the copyright owner to follow the instructions at Commons:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 12 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file, a photograph of a bronze age helmet, was deleted by User:Jameslwoodward as a copyright-based restriction, but as I read the BCS license it is a non-copyright restriction, not a copyright-based one. I believe the image is allowable, though it may need a caution about possible limitations on reuse, such as {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} or {{Greek-antiquities-disclaimer}}. In discussing this with Jameslwoodward, he suggested there may be nuances in the BCS license that would benefit from review by a native Italian speaker. —Tcr25 (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read the BCS as a restricted copyright license. If it is not a copyright license, then we have no license at all for the use of the photograph. As Tcr25 says, I agree that there may be subtleties here that I don't understand..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: @Friniate: for their Italian language skills and Italian copyright expertise. Abzeronow (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, in 5.2 they state that BCS is not a license : "Beni Culturali Standard (BCS) : Questa etichetta non è una “licenza” bensì si limita a sintetizzare il contenuto delle norme vigenti in materia di riproduzione di beni culturali pubblici, definendone i termini d’uso legittimo." -- Asclepias (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asclepias, OK, but if isn't a license, then how do we keep the photograph? It's clearly a modern photograph of a 3D object, so we need a license in order to keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the file deleted, it's hard to know what other info was provided by the uploader. Is it a picture taken by the uploader? Is it from a museum? {{PD-art}} wouldn't apply since it isn't a 2D object, but does another valid license cover a photo of an ancient 3D object? —Tcr25 (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tcr25: source is Abzeronow (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I keep coming back to the BCS algins with NoC-OKLR 1.0 (No Copyright - Other Known Legal Restrictions). It doesn't appear that there is any assertion of copyright over the photo itself; the Catalogo generaledei Beni Culturali's terms and conditions mentions CC by 4.0 and the need to comply with BCS. (There is a mention of Law No. 633, but there's no indication of who the photographer is, implying that it is the property of the stated museum. If the "Data di Compilazione" (1999) is the date the image was created, then the museum's 20-year copyright would have expired, leaving just the non-copyright restriction in play. —Tcr25 (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: Your conclusion seems correct. But I am not an Italian speaker either. The whole long document should be read in its entirety. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tcr25 on the reading of the BCS license. The link to the NoC-OLKR statement contained in the BCS license is broken, but we can read it here (english version here), and it begins with Use of this item is not restricted by copyright and/or related rights. So it seems to me that the BCS license is a non-copyright restriction, since in the text of the BCS license is said that it complies to the NoC-OLKR. Adding the {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} should be sufficient for what regards the copyright on the object.
I'm much less sure about the copyright on the photo though. The terms and conditions mention indeed CC-BY-SA 4.0 (actually that is something that is valid for the entirety of the Italian Public Administration) but they also contain a specific exception for the photos, for which is clearly said that is necessary to obtain an authorization from the owner of the object (in this case the Soprintendenza Archeologica delle Marche), which will concede it with the same conditions that are applied for the photos of the object taken by other people (these). You can try to obtain an authorization from the Soprintendenza, asking if you can use these images with the Mibac-disclaimer, they may agree. Friniate (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot to address the issue of the date of compilation. Yeah, it seems likely also to me that the photo was taken in the same occasion, but it's not clearly stated either... Friniate (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I actually nominated the file for deletion because of the NoC-OLKR statement (something close to {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}). But, if it is just a request, and not a copyright statement (in fact, in the very same page it is written that BCS applies to public domain artworks), we should consider the file/photograph as published under CC BY 4.0 license, like the whole website [30]. --Ruthven (msg) 12:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The general terms of use (which mention the CC license) begin right at the start with the familiar statement that it applies only "Dove non diversamente specificato", i.e. "Where not otherwise specified". The specific terms of use of this photograph clearly do specifiy otherwise with the BCS. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that's the Catch-22, the BCS says it's not a license, but if it isn't a license then the default license seems to be CC by 4.0 albeit with BCS as a non-copyright limitation on use. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CC license is excluded by the specific terms of use statement. Not every work is under a license or another. (And if a work was not copyrighted anywhere, it could not be licensed.) If the BCS tag means that the image is not copyrighted in Italy, either because this type of image is uncopyrightable under Italian law or because a 20-year copyright has expired in Italy, the question for Commons is if and how could that unlicensed image be used in the United States? A photo published after February 1989 is directly copyrighted in the U.S. (If the URAA is added, the photo would need to be from before 1976.) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"And if a work was not copyrighted anywhere, it could not be licensed" but that's part of the issue. The Italian cultural law, as I understand it, specifically looks to allow monetization through licensing of cultural artifacts that are no longer covered by copyright. It's not that a specific photograph requires a license, but any photograph of a cultural artifact would require a license. There is a current court case regarding the validity of this rule involving a German puzzle maker and Da Vinci's Uomo Vitruviano. Under Commons:NCR, "non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia." I'm not sure where the right line is here, but I don't think that we can say there is a clear copyright-based reason to exclude the image. If the image, like other parts of the website is CC-by-4.0 with the BCS limitation, wouldn't that be the baseline for the copyright status, not an unasserted U.S. copyright? —Tcr25 (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Friniate: There is no question about the free nature of the object. The question is indeed about the nature of the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asclepias Similar limitations as the BCS apply to all photos of objects classified as italian cultural heritage, also if you go to the museum and take one, for example. That is the reason why the Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer is embedded within all the photos taken within WLM Italy. Friniate (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such photos taken by Commons contributors are not a problem because contributors necessarily release them under free licenses. Such photos by Wikimedia Commons contributors are even mentioned in section 2.4.1 of the Linee guida per l’acquisizione, la circolazione e il riuso delle riproduzioni dei beni culturali in ambiente digitale. But the photo in discussion, File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg, is not a licensed photo by a Commons contributor, but an unlicensed photo from an external site. The problem for Commons is not the Italian BC directive. It is the absence of license and the U.S. copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make things clear, since if the BCS license is interpreted as a copyright restriction, that would mean the deletion of all the photos on almost every italian cultural object.I let other people more expert than me in the US copyright judge if according to the US law the image is ok or not. Friniate (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the very simple question: If the BCS is a copyright license then it is an NC license and not acceptable here. If it is not a copyright license, then we have no license for this photograph. I doubt very much that it is PD-Old, so on what basis can we keep it on Commons?

Also, statements such as "that would mean the deletion of all the photos on almost every italian cultural object." are not helpful. If we determine that this image is unlicensed then it cannot be kept. If we have many similar images that must also be deleted, so be it. We do not make decisions on copyright issues by talking about how many images will be deleted if we decide against keeping this one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not implying that we should keep the image for what you are saying, I only said that if commons deems as unacceptable hosting objects covered by non copyright restrictions as the BCS or the Codice Urbani, that means deleting the photos of almost all italian cultural objects. It's a fact, not an opinion, everyone can decide what to do with this fact. By the way, I was not even saying that in order to argue for undeleting this image. Friniate (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per COM:GVT Italy, According to article 52, paragraph 2 of the Digital Administration Code, data and documents published by Italian public administrations without any explicit license are considered "open by default" (with exception of personal data). In this case, data and documents without explicit license can be used for free, also for commercial purpose, like CC-BY license or with attribution. Since the photo is a work of the Soprintendenza Archeologia delle Marche, the COM:GVT Italy statement would seem to apply. If the BCS considered a copyright restriction, despite its language, then this does become a wider problem, as Friniate noted. Regardless of the decision around this specific image, I think there needs to be broader consideration of how the BCS limitation is considered/handled. Also, this discussion, once it's closed, should probably be attached to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg to update/expand the deletion rationale. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this matter we have finally a verdict on the lawsuit of the Italian Ministry against Ravensburger for the usage of images of the en:Vitruvian Man, which has clarified that restrictions as the Codice Urbani or the BCS are non-copyright restrictions which can not be applied outside Italy. Friniate (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file that I am requesting to undelete adopts the same copyright policy as File:Digital Certificate for Technical Grades of Athletes (Zhan Ying).png. (PD-PRC-exempt|type=documents) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TanoDano (talk • contribs) 15:42, 11 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

Please undelete this file: File:Sharan Pasricha.jpg|thumb|Image of Sharan Pasricha Reason: File has license to be used as noted by image here: Jjsmith11 11 04 24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjsmith11 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Support Licence is compatible with Commons (CC-BY-4.0) Michalg95 (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is "© Ennismore 2024" anywhere near compatible? Bedivere (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Upon closer review the file is actually CC-BY. --Bedivere (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is my own work that is highly useful for the public to know especially if they are interested in DC Transit Routes. Also, I no longer have the map I took pictures of since I misplaced it in my home so please at least temporarily undelete this file. I want to download that file back as well as other pictures I took of the WMATA Metrobus Route Map on March 12, 1995. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor of Directions (talk • contribs) 17:07, 11 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Yes, your file would have educational value, but the photograph on the cover of the map is copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but it is my own work that is a primary historical source. I didn't have to take pictures and upload them to wikimedia but chose to do so to allow others to know the history too. I paid lots of money for this map on Ebay, so at the very least, allow me temporary access so I can download all of the WMATA Metrobus Route Map 1995 files I have uploaded. I misplaced the map, thinking that wikimedia commons would allow the photos to remain, and really want to redownload those files on my phone but am unable to access them on wikimedia commons, even if you do not want to allow my pictures to be posted on wikimedia commons permanently. Doctor of Directions (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paying money for a map on Ebay doesn't give you any part of the copyright of the map. I do hope you're able to find your copy of the map, I have a bit of a collection of maps myself, so I understand how you feel about them. Abzeronow (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can my pictures of WMATA Metrobus Route Map March 12, 1995 be all temporarily undeleted on wikimedia commons so I can download them now? I would really appreciate this. These photos were deleted yesterday before I even had knowledge of them being deleted. By the time I saw my wikimedia commons profile, they were already gone and nowhere to be seen. Doctor of Directions (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was the first time I have seen my wikimedia commons photos gone right away after the warning. Doctor of Directions (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have close to 38 photos of the WMATA Metrobus Map March 12, 1995 on wikimedia commons that I need temporarily undeleted so I can download them back onto my phone. Doctor of Directions (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my own work that is from a primary source I took pictures of, the WMATA Metrobus Route Map 1995. This is useful for those who want to know about the history of DC Transit Routes. Please at the very least, temporarily undelete this file so I can redownload it on my phone as I misplaced the actual map in my house.

Signed by: Doctor of Directions

April 11, 2024

Please group your requests. It adds work for us when you attempt to make 20+ individual requests when 1 request will do. Abzeronow (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Doctor of Directions These maps and all of your still existing copies of maps on Commons are copyright violations, so I suggest you download them now because they will be deleted soon. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my copies are nowhere to be found though. I am only looking for the copies of WMATA Metrobus Route Map March 12, 1995 Doctor of Directions (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose as deleting admin. These are photos of a copyrighted work and the claimed license was false. Additionally, poor-quality photos of tiny sections of a map are not useful for Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need my photos of the WMATA Metrobus Route Map March 12, 1995 (deleted by you, :Pi.1415926535) temporarily undeleted ASAP so I can redownload those files since I misplaced the map. PLEASE 23:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I need my photos of the WMATA Metrobus Route Map March 12, 1995 (deleted by you, :Pi.1415926535) temporarily undeleted ASAP so I can redownload those files since I misplaced the map. PLEASE I am begging you, at least grant me temporary access by temporarily undeleting these photos! Doctor of Directions (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible for you to email me the photos of WMATA Metrobus Route Map March 12, 1995 that you administrators can still view which I cannot view, if at all you do not want to temporarily undelete my photos? Doctor of Directions (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No consensus to restore. --Bedivere (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This picture of former MP of Georgia, Mariam Jashi was a work of Parliament of Georgia (Public Relations and Information Department). The photo was in a free circulation across Georgian web and media, including Parliament of Georgia website. The Georgian Parliament does not have protective rights on this file and to any photo materials at all, unless it is watermarked. And as I indicated in my explanation all legal aspects regarding the photo were protected and the final deletion of the file by Jameslwoodward was incurred without further investigation, which is very disappointing. The user "Emperor of Emperors" who nominated the deletion, spams the deletion process of the photo materials of Georgian politicians on Wikimedia Commons. This is a mistake and instead of wordless deletion, an additional edit suggestions should have been recommended for the uploader in case it was needed. Crazy users like these poison Wiki and make the platform very subjective beyond the line. Sakweb (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Ad hominen attacks are unwelcome here; continuing them will get you blocked. You say without any basis in fact, "the final deletion of the file by Jameslwoodward was incurred without further investigation, which is very disappointing." All the further investigation that was required was to go to the source, where I found a clear and explicit copyright notice "© 2019 საქართველოს პარლამენტი".

Please remember that all media is copyrighted and may not be kept on Commons unless (a) the copyright has expired, (b) the file is PD for some other reason -- too simple, made by a US Federal Employee, etc, or (c) is explicitly freely licensed. Almost all images freely circulating on the Web are not free for use on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Jim. This file can be undeleted only after evidence of it being freely licensed is provided. ─ Aafī (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images of Stadio Artemio Franchi[edit]

Hi everyone. I'm writing here to ask for the undeletion of File:ArtemioFranchiwiki2.jpg, File:ArtemioFranchiwiki3.jpg, File:Entrata artemio franchi.JPG, File:Stadio artemio franchi (esterno).JPG, all deleted in this DR in 2013. The depicted monument is en:Stadio Artemio Franchi, built between 1930 and 1931 and designed by en:Pier Luigi Nervi. As we can read here, the stadium was commissioned and paid by the Municipality of Florence. Therefore it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1952. The vast majority of the building was built before 1990 so it has no issue with US copyright. The only thing that was built in 1990 are the lowest part of the terraces (the green ones here), built by excavating the pitch. I don't know if they are visible in the aforementioned photos, but anyway I don't think that they are original enough to be above the high italian ToO. And letting aside that, the works of 1990 were commissioned by the Municipality of Florence too and even if there was a copyright, this expired therefore in 2010. The only thing that could be relevant could be the US copyright, but AFAIK the current consensus on commons is that the US law in these cases would give to foreign architects on foreign works the same rights that it gives to US architects on US works, and therefore US FOP should be appliable here. The warning in the category should be removed accordingly.--Friniate (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support as with the other Italian "PD-Gov" buildings. --Rosenzweig τ 13:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per request and previous requests. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


The original file I uploaded was a first version, which required the artist's signature for the rights. I visited the artist, and we agreed to upload a different version of her artwork instead, one that I photographed in her atelier. Following the guidelines, I have sent an email to with an attached file containing the necessary permission for this artwork. However, the file was deleted before my email could be processed. I sent the email on April 10, 2024, at 23:23 European time. Could you please advise me on the next steps? I want to ensure that the email met all requirements as per the instructions on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaMarieDvorakova (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose An email from you will not be accepted. We have seen too many forged permissions, so the license must come directly from the artist. Once the artist has sent the email, the image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 12 days. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I found the image from a random site on google. Source= This doesn't infringe any copyright. I think it is for public domain. And the original author of the picture is Zee Bangla, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Pvt Ltd. I would request to Wikipedia team to accept my undeletion request and restore the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎KJKDITY (talk • contribs) 13:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Yes, it does infringe upon the author's copyright. Please read COM:L. --Yann (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

La presente es para solicitar la restitución de la imagen File:Manuel rosales gobernador zulia.jpg ya que la misma es usada en todos los perfiles verificados de esta persona. No tiene derechos de autor y la persona en cuestión autorizó su uso para esta pagina.


--Mgm.brandmkt (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Maria Gabriela Moya[reply]

 Oppose This is a Twitter image lifted from the account of the subject. There is no reason to believe that the subject has authorized its free license, but even if he had, he does not have the right to do that -- that right belongs to the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per Jim. --Bedivere (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

削除されたファイルはイベントの時に、投稿者が撮影した写真になります。削除される理由がわかりません。別のページと同様の写真と同じようにルールに乗っ取り、写真を投稿しました。ご確認下さい。 The deleted file will be a photo taken by the poster at the time of the event. I don't understand why it's being deleted. I hijacked the rules and posted the photo just like I did with another page and similar photos. Please check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanamiku39 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose @Tanamiku39: This was copied from Instagram. Please upload the original picture, or send a permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Original picture with EXIF uploaded. --Yann (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request by Mykhailo Hoy[edit]

For the File: Гой Володимир Михайлович.jpg, this is a drawing by me of which I possess the copyright. For the pictures of the buildings, these are photos by me, and since the architect is my deceased grandfather, the copyright is transferred to my family and is thus not infringed. Mykhailo Hoy (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mykhailo Hoy: File: Гой Володимир Михайлович.jpg is not a drawing, but an old black & white picture. File:Південна трибуна Тернопільського міського стадіону.jpg looks like a copy from an old print. None of these files had a license. Yann (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mykhailo Hoy: What license do you want to give to the pictures you took yourself? Yann (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No answer to the crucial question above. Ankry (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Its my own work, uploaded with permission from subject, for his own request to replace the old photo on wikipedia page which does not represent him good enough Fediak22 (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fediak22: Why such a small file? It looks like a screenshot or something copied from the Internet. Could you please upload the original image? Yann (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its screenshot from the stream, is a one-of-a-kind photo, and it was uploaded with direct consent from the subject. Fediak22 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For any previously published work (the photo originates from a video published on Instagram without evidence of free license), we need a free license via email coming directly from the work (photo/video) copyright holder; see VRT for details. Ankry (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not from published work; it is from livestream that is not published. Please restore the file. Fediak22 (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Fediak22: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that File:Testxss.gif is not out of scope because it shows that generating a high-resolution GIF file with only 30 bytes is technically possible. It can be used to examine the capabilities of the GIF file format.

That file is listed on the Wikipedia records (revision as of writing) as "Highest size-to-resolution ratio: Testxss.gif, which is 24,891 x 25,964 (646,269,924 pixels) despite being only 30 bytes". The file is potentially interesting to anyone researching properties of the GIF file format.

After undeleting this file, please also rename it to something descriptive like File:High-resolution GIF with only 30 bytes.gif .

Regards, Elominius (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Random demonstrations of tech stuff is not in Commons' scope. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed it falls under "educational purpose", but otherwise, would someone send it to me using catbox or some other file sharer? Elominius (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC) - last modified 06:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

ticket:2024032310002243 is received and approved. Анастасия Львоваru/en 18:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Undelete. Strange deletion. I was only notified due to [31]. If this file is copyvio then so is File:Fredrick Brennan selfie (cropped).jpg, but neither are copyvios and that one is used on many more pages. cc: @GRuban. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 19:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Deletion completely unwarranted. I have warned Grandmaster Huon not to add such tags without proper investigation. --Bedivere (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image is the source material from which the concert poster, announced on the website of the Haifa theater, was later created. There are no copyright violations here.

Not true, there is: you claimed that you, Wikimedia user Mark Alef, are the author of the poster and all photos used in it. Are you indeed? De you personally own its copyright as claimed? Ankry (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As VRT ticket 2024041510000802 is received, we can close this now, I think. After the permission is processed and accepted, the image will undeleted. Ankry (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: See above. Please rename it with a mainingful name. --Yann (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

General information. Scientific use

 Not done: No file name provided. --Yann (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I request to cancel the removal of this image.

Because the upload of this image was made by the copyright holder and also complies with the CC license.

This image was produced by NIRVA, Inc. which is represented by Atsuhiko Nakata, the subject of this photo.

The subject image can be found at the following URL in the web community operated by NIRVA Inc. and is marked with the cc license symbol and other information.

I am in charge of systems at NIRVA, Inc. and am uploading this photo to wikipedia at the request of Atsuhiko Nakata, the representative of NIRVA, Inc. and in compliance with the CC license.

I would appreciate it if you could cancel the deletion of this image.

Translated with (free version)

--安在哉 (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose @安在哉: This need to be resolved in VRT ticket 2024031410003723, not here. If the ticket is unresponded or you have questions about its processing, you may ask in COM:VRTN. Note: the permission must come directly from the photo copyright holder and if the copyright holder is not the author (photographer), VRT may need an evidence of copyright transfer. Ankry (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Person claims per Ticket:2024040910005113 that the image is a selfie. If this seems plausible, please restore it. If not, please give me a reason so I can answer the client within the ticket. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. It could be taken with a timer. --Yann (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the file. There are many images on Fortepan that are legally unclear, Tamás Urbán's images are uploaded with a Cc-by-sa 3.0 license. On 2017031210011731 number ticket you can read his confirmation that his photos on Fortepan were provided by him under a Cc-by-sa free license. So the file is free to use. thank you! Translated with ) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hungarikusz Firkász: No, we can't. A VRT agent can. If a VRT agent confirms here that this permission covers the mentioned photo, we can go on. It is unclear to me if the permission covers (and even if it can legally cover) future uploads. Ankry (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ankry. so hundreds of Fortepan images may be up because their site says they are available under a Cc-by-sa licence, when in many cases they have been found to be there in an infringing way.

But! The images cannot be up if the author has confirmed that he/she has licensed them to Fortepan under a Cc-by-sa license, and we have a letter to that effect in VRT.

So why don't you delete all the Tamás Urbán images that come from Fortepan? Why just this one? Where and from where does the ticket apply to the images? Since when does it not apply to them? Where and from when is it possible to upload a picture of Tamás Urbán from Fortepan and from when is it not?

You can sense the strong contradiction in this, can't you?

I know what the letter contains, when we received it I was still the operator. The content of the letter has not changed because I am no longer an operator. The letter confirms that the author, Tamás Urbán, is the one who gave Fortepan his images under a Cc-by-sa licence. ( Translated with ) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, does not seem like this should have been speedied. Agreed that a VRT agent would be the only one who could confirm, but seems like it should not be deleted until that question is answered. If VRT permission was supplied, then the uploader did enough. A regular user being unable to read a VRT ticket is not grounds for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) @Hungarikusz Firkász: The problem is that administrators are not able to verify what is inside the ticket. We rely in this matter on VRT volunteers who make UDR requests if they need and add the appropriate ticket numbers to the images if this is needed. In this case, no ticket was added and I see no verifiable information on your homepage that you are a VRT volunteer. Also, maybe, we need a specific Fortepan template containing the ticket number for this author? But this page is not a venue to discuss it.
We are not talking about any other image, just about this one.
BTW1, the link to the image is [32].
BTW2, pinging users involved in the deletion: @Didym and Krd: It is standard to do so.
BTW3, I do not oppose undeletion; just pointing out that referring to a VRT ticket requires to involve a VRT volunteer. Ankry (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ankry, You don't seem to understand the situation.

In addition to this file, there are hundreds of Fortepan images and dozens of Fortepan images by Tamás Urbán uploaded.

For the hundreds or dozens of images, why are these conditions not expected? Why is this one?

Why is the ticket accepted for the templated images? Why not for this one? The same content of the letter applies in the same way to images of Tamás Urbán uploaded to Fortepan and taken from there.

For the hundreds or dozens of images that do not have a VRT template, but are Fortepan images and were taken by Tamás Urbán, neither VRT nor operators are required. Why? Why only for this one image?

Do you see why I see a very strong contradiction here?

Translated with Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I think all that happened was that the uploader accidentally put out a Cc-by-sa 4.0 license instead of Cc-by-sa 3.0. It would have been enough to put the correct template instead of the wrong one. Translated with Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hungarikusz Firkász: No. I understand. I do not think that any other image should be deleted and I do not know if this one should: that is why I think that the deleting users should be pinged and given time to answer (maybe thay made a mistake, maybe they have seen a reason that we do not see). The question why are these conditions not expected? Why is this one? should be directed to the deleting admins, not here. Here we do not know.
In my comments above I am referring strictly to your request and a VRT ticket reference in it: you suggested that a VRT ticket contains important information concerning licensing of this image - in such cases this ticket should be added to the description page (either by a VRT volunteer who verify that, or - as I suggested above - through creation of a specific template - if it is general permission ticket, referring to multiple files). If the ticket is irrelevant, just forget all my comments above. My intention was to point you, that referring to a VRT ticket as an undeletion argument by a non-VRT-member is pointless. Only that. Ankry (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: We could undelete until a VRT response is gotten, or at least convert to a regular DR. If there is a significant question like this, it probably was not an "obvious" deletion. Seems like somebody marked it "no permission" and an admin just processed it, but that initial tagging was maybe not appropriate given there was a stated license from Fortepan. The guidance at Category:Images from Fortepan does say that images do need to be checked, so agreed there should be a VRT or a specialized template on the images, or a specific category of them, eventually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{Temporarily undeleted}} per Carl request. Ankry (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


I'd like to request undeletion of this picture. As the photographer that took the image, officially for Stockport County FC, I am personally in a position to use images of this nature for use like this.

Evidence of my potion at the club can be found here... under the heading: Club Photographer

--MGPetch (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MGPetch: :
  1. At upload you declared that you are the author of the photo (photographer). This is not the same as I am personally in a position to use images of this nature and providing false or inacurate information is serious violation of Wikimedia Commons policies.
  2. Being in a position to use images is not the same as authorized to grant a license for them. License is a contract signed by the copyright holder ir their official representative.
  3. Per our policy, for any image that has already been published without evidence of free license we require a written free license permission via email. See VRT for details. Ankry (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the photographer that took the image. As stated above. 14:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So forget 1. above (sorry my mistake), and note that 3. still applies. We are unable to verify your identity on-wiki. Ankry (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion request: I wrote this page based on a request from Ms. Shoko Noda, my previous supervisor. I have a permission from her to use the photo. How can I prove it and make this photo undeleted? Thank you for your advice in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuta Kono (talk • contribs) 16:43, 15 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

In the upload, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Is that correct? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello! I would like to attach this image for Wikidata page of the model as well- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andedonia tamaraa (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose "© Copyright 2024 GTFlix tv s.r.o. All Rights Reserved." The pornographic business usually do not give away their products for free. Thuresson (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Supposedly deleted because it was empty or corrupted. But when I tried to upload a valid map in its place, I got an error that it was identical to the deleted file. The file was therefore evidently valid.

This is simply a copy from the file history of File:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg. Kwamikagami (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Info No such deleted file. And File:Same-sex marriage in the United States.svg is not deleted. Ankry (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since it was never deleted, I re-uploaded it despite being instructed to request it be undeleted here instead. No further action required. Kwamikagami (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Info: File name is File:Same-sex marriage in the United States prior to Obergefell.svg. --Achim55 (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: withdrrawn. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This isnt a Spam[edit]

This isn't a Spam, I am trying to talk about my life and my upcoming opportunities careers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NehemiahENT (talk • contribs) 22:55, 15 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. About en:User:NehemiahENT. Thuresson (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Esta imagen fue borrada arbitrariamente, está contemplada en la página 25 del convenio de coalición celebrado entre los partidos PRI, PAN y PRD ( Además de que en México, el artículo 14 de la Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor, la considera NO elegible para proteccion federal. --Alberto0617 (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so can I get my article without the images? 00:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The cited PDF does not have a free license. Also note that when they uploaded the image, Alberto0617 claimed that they created it. Now they say something different. Making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons. rules. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files deleted by Krd[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The files were deleted because they were uploaded by an abusive account, but they all are PD images, so I guess we can keep it here. Sreejith K (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Being free is not enough to host an image here. As we do not want to support abusers, the images may be undeleted if you need to use them in a specific article. Please, point out the article. Ankry (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion. There has been consensus that having been uploaded by a blocked user who is abusing multiple accounts is per se not a valid reason for deletion if the images are out of copyright. Unfortunately hundreds of images have gone down the drain this way. --Achim55 (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Achim55 , you are not one of us who has to fight serial abusers. I strongly oppose giving them any encouragement. If we continue to refuse to keep images that they have uploaded, perhaps they will go away and stop wasting valuable CU time that could better be used for other activities. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think some people are not aware that we've had a RfC 4 years ago. As already said, deleting an image that would be kept if someone else had loaded it up is IMO nonsense. To demonstrate: See File:Réception des chevaliers du Saint-Esprit dans la cathédrale de Reims.jpg and File:Porträt von Erzherzog Ernest von Habsburg.png. In addition, I'd like to point to the punitive/preventive thing. What is prevented by such deletions? Nothing, there's just a little hope the user might give up. --Achim55 (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
off topic: you are not one of us who has to fight serial abusers made me smile, thanks! You know who is holding the highscore of blocks here on Commons? --Achim55 (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support There is a consensus (up to now) that images can be undeleted if there is no copyright issue, and the request is made a user in good standing. Both points are fulfilled here. Yann (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No clue why this discussion is here and not on my talk page. The files can be undeleted if the undeleting admin as self verified evidence that the files are in the PD, without trusting any statement the uploader made, as the uploader is known to forge everything. Krd 05:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Related discussion. Per {{PD-ROC-exempt}}, the file is not copyrighted, and the edit history should be restored.—— Eric LiuTalk 03:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done procedural close: image not deleted - nothing to undelete. Ankry (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankry: The original file history before the deletion are still missing. The current version is re-uploaded by transferring the file from zhwiki, but not the result of Common file undeleted. The former delete decision should be overturned too. Please see this discussion for reference. —— Eric LiuTalk 13:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored previous editions but these are not from the Chinese Wikipedia, but local ones. Bedivere (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe the content of the page is accurate and provides valuable information about [Subject of the Page]. Please restore the page for the benefit of Wikipedia users.[edit]

I apologize for any confusion caused by the uploaded image. I do not require the image and would appreciate it if you could restore the page without the image. I've been in contact with support for a few days now and have removed all content that is harmful or violates Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you for your understanding and assistance.

With respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MainMasked (talk • contribs) 03:49, 16 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Oppose Unsigned request with no subject named. Editor's only contribution, File:Masked.png was deleted as a personal photo of a non contributor. The page referred to above is probably on WP:EN where the user is blocked. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Obviously not, as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is my photograph, I own it. Malbuff (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Malbuff: Physically possessing a photograph doesn't mean you have the copyright to it. This appears to be created in 1946 in China, who is the photographer and where and when was it published? Abzeronow (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hudson Towers 17 month old Rent Strike tenant vol 2 no 5.pdf[edit]


Gillian Horgan has provided me with emails giving permission to use this article, from both the author, Rick Rossein and from Andrea Shapiro, LMSW, Director of Program and Advocacy, Met Council on Housing. I'm not sure how to show that to you for verification.

Ingrid Hughes — Preceding unsigned comment added by IV2022 (talk • contribs)

@IV2022: , please see COM:VRT for instructions on what's needed and where to send it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose First, while this is a newsworthy event, we do not generally keep newspaper articles about such events. WP articles may quote from newspapers, but this PDF is probably out of scope. Second, in order to keep this, we will need a free license from each of the writer, the photographer, and the publisher. If the writer and the photographer have work for hire agreements in place, then only the publisher will be required..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image from 1903, over 120 years old. Please undelete it because it's {{PD-old-assumed}}. Michalg95 (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per above. Ankry (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please undelete per ticket 2023062410004772. Thank you, janbery (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Janbery: FYI. --Yann (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Canceled file is a close-up of allready commons loaded File:Madonna Kehrstr. Niederfell A 2023.jpg

Gelöschte Bilddatei ist eine Ausschnittvergrößerung der bereits auf commons hochgejadenen Datei File:Madonna Kehrstr. Niederfell A 2023.jpg--Dieter rogge (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support undeletion. License had been added. --Achim55 (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per above: out-of-process deletion; @Krd: please, be more careful when deleting. Ankry (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi My name is Adrián Pérez.

This fanart is made by me, I am a choji Akimichi fan, I request the undeletion because I stated that I own the Instagram accounts where I upload my drawings, Sparkyrocket.

I uploaded It to devian art also

Same email, <redacted>.

Contact with me and I can show you a sketch from this same project I did. Screenshots yo confirm that I own my account, (Sparkyrocket).

Whatever. I dont want to steal my own creation. Please fix It.

If the watermark needs to be removed just tell me.

I just LOVE this character.

I Hope i helped the community, including choji fans and Naruto comunnity

--Byrocket09 (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Since it was published elsewhere before being uploaded here, a formal written permission from the copyright holder is needed. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'm Loyer8, I write you by file deleted (File:RAUL LEONI.jpg), my reason for i'm writing it's because i need that file by a page in the spanish Wikipedia, because it is the presidential photography of Raúl Leoni (President of Venezuela 1964-1969).--Loyer8 (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Loyer8 17/04/2024[reply]

Who is the photographer? Where does the Creative Commons license come from? Thuresson (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello This is Mohammad Zaid Mansoori musical artist in india he has launched many music in difference platform also he is digital marketing artist in india also he has google Knowledge panel as an musical artist