Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests

[edit]

File:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg

[edit]

There was no consensus in favour of deletion. The larger file from which it was cropped (and the series of which that file was part) remains in place unchallenged. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin S. Taylor, It would be good of you to link the larger file which you indicate was uploaded while the license was valid, since I can't find that in the file history of the deleted file. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There may be a basis for discussion, although not for the reason stated in the request. From its logs, it looks like the file "Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg" was uploaded to Commons on 22 June 2024 and was sourced directly from flickr. As such, it was under the CC NC-ND license on flickr. The only argument to keep that was made in the deletion discussion was that seven days before the upload to Commons, the flickr photo had, very briefly, a CC BY license. That could not be a valid argument to keep the file, based only on the facts presented in the DR. The deletion decision is correct based on those facts. However, you mention the larger image "File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg" (currently sourced from the wrong flickr page), uploaded to Commons on 15 June 2024, which brings an interesting aspect, because the chronology gets much more compressed and because it seems to have exif data that are apparently not displayed on the flickr page. The chronology goes like this. Everything happened on 15 June 2024. The photo was taken at 12:19 (UTC or UTC+1 assumed). The photo was uploaded to flickr at some unknown time apparently very briefly under CC BY, the license was almost immediately set to CC NC-ND at 13:40 UTC, and the file was uploaded to Commons at 21:14 UTC. Even with that compressed timeline, the upload to Commons still occurred after the license was already CC NC-ND at the flickr source used. (And the fact that the license was CC BY for only a few minutes suggests that it may not have been intentional.) However the exif data on Commons display these usage terms : "Usage terms: This image is for Editorial use purposes only. The Image can not be used for advertising or commercial use. The Image can not be altered in any form. All images are Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ Pictures marked as the copyright of a third party may only be re-used with permission from the rights holder." That sounds like the restrictions exclude the OGL. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


To closing admin: if the license on the original file was valid when it was uploaded, then this file should be restored, since that one is the source. If not, we should obviously delete that one as well. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 27).jpg
This was the source file.

The copyright on UK Government photographs is often confusing and contradictory, but the impression I've garnered over the past few months is that all the files copied to the Government Flickr Archive are automatically covered by that site's general licence even if the information for a specific image says otherwise, and indeed that the Number 10 Flickr account's general statement on image usage trumps whatever may be applied to individual pictures (hence Wikimedia having a dedicated licence tag for that). My general impression for a long time has also been that once a copyright-holder has released some intellectual property under any Creative Commons (or equivalent) declaration then they cannot revoke said declaration later, so if there are multiple contradictory official notices for the same photograph then we should take the most permissive one as correct.

I agree that it "may not have been intentional" for whichever government employees actually operate the Flickr accounts to initially release under one licence and then change after a few minutes, but then I'm not sure what those people's intentions have ever been because different images on those accounts are under a smorgasbord of different tags with no apparent rhyme or reason behind them. To take one example, a large number of coronation photographs from last year (and a smattering of other ones for many years before that) uploaded to Flickr under the Public Domain Mark rather than the Public Domain Dedication and eventually the community decided to treat them as the same, realising that in many cases the uploaders themselves didn't know the difference. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin S. Taylor: 1. About the CC license, you may be confusing the notion of "cessation to offer a license at a source" with the notion of "revocation of a license already granted". Please see the Creative Commons FAQ for more details. 2. On principle, the specific conditions trump the general conditions. 3. The mention of a dedicated license tag for Number 10 relates to Template talk:Number-10-flickr, and the previous decisions might be worth exploring to see if you can find something there. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose First please note that

File:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg is not extracted from
File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg

While the two are similar, the pattern of rain drops is different and in the first, the hair is surrounded by white from the opposite window while in the larger image the hair is surrounded by black. On the other hand

File:Trooping_the_Colour_2024_(GovPM_27).jpg, is the source image. This has a CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 license so both the subject image and the larger one cannot be kept here.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've just unilaterally deleted another image within fifteen minutes of seeing it and with no deletion discussion nor acknowledgement of anything I said about it. This is unacceptable. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robin S. Taylor I am willing to give the benefit fo the doubt, however, those two pictures, while uploaded under a CC-BY license, were changed within a day to the by-nc-nd license. What that tells me is that the license they were uploaded with was incorrect, and they corrected it within a reasonable amount of time. What we don't do here at Wikimedia Commons is play "gotcha" with people who have uploaded under erroneous licenses. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim, the other one has the same license problems as the ones already deleted. I've put that one in a DR. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened per request. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for leaving it open for a little while. Although the part about the CC license is settled, it seems that the part about the OGL might need to be addressed, in light of Template talk:Number-10-flickr, listing some keep decisions for other cases. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, apparently the metadata states the OGL, but does that supersede the Flickr license? Does Number 10 know what they are doing? Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, considering the metadata is the only actual per-file licensing statement that complies with the UK government licensing framework, it should be taken as an appropriate attribution statement. Some files explicitly change their statement to remove the OGLv3 notice, which shows that there is at least some awareness of the meaning.
A Freedom of Information request and/or a Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations request can always be made if further clarification is needed. It is worth noting that images uploaded recently have made the attribution statement just Crown copyright. Licensed under the Open Government Licence. For any of those images, a RPSI request can compel them to OGL it anyways. Isochrone (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per discussion. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely sounds like a complicated request. I deleted it since as I said in the closing message that the photograph had an unfree license at the time of upload. I agree with Jim that CC-BY was not the intended license. The OGL question is a tough one, since as mentioned above, it appears Number 10 licenses under OGL unless otherwise stated. CC-NC-ND is not a default on Flickr so it feels to me that it would fall under the otherwise stated. I almost feel like we should ask Number 10 about this. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of Information request filed. I also note that, as stated here, No 10 has not obtained a delegation of authority to exempt itself from the Cabinet Office licensing framework. Isochrone (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bastique has now withdrawn his deletion nomination for picture No. 26 based on seeing the outcomes of similar discussions. Logically it follows that No. 27 and its derivatives shouldn't be deleted either. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew my nomination primarily because I didn't want to separate the point of discussion for what appears to be a larger discussion. Until we come to some consensus about this, this shall remain open. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 00:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Park Sung-jae.jpg

[edit]

This photo was originally uploaded on the “Open Minister's Office”(열린장관실) homepage of the Ministry of Justice. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll notice three things.

  1. “COPYRIGHTⓒ MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. REPUBLIC OF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.” — This claim is on every website of the South Korean government, even on the page of the KOGL. This is just a general disclaimer only.
  2. Logo of WebWatch in green color — A web standardization certification that has nothing to do with copyright. (It's like W3C or HTML5 logo)
  3. The KOGL Type 1 logo ({{KOGL}}, File:KOGL 1.svg) — It is clearly indicates that the entire content of the this subdomain of MoJ is released under KOGL Type 1. Please note “Open Minister's Office” homepage is separated from the original homepage of MoJ. It is only accesiable by click "법무부 소개" > "장관소개" from top menu and it will be open in new tab. You can obviously see that it's separated from the original site with diffrent logo, title and web design.

Average Pennsylvanian mentioned that he couldn't be sure because each photo didn't have the KOGL logo, which is not true. Here's an example of a misuse of the KOGL logo. This is the homepage of the Office of the President. It also displays the KOGL logo(File:KOGL wordmark (Korean).svg at the bottom of the page, but it doesn't say what kind of KOGL it is at all. In this case we cannot use the image unless there is KOGL logo and specified type on each page.--Namoroka (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prasklina na okne auta 32.JPG

[edit]

File in use at v:cs:Uživatel:Juandev/Problémy/Volkswagen Golf/III/Variant/Juandev/Nejde otevřít nádrž and might be moved to main ns in the following days. I wonder how the user could nominate this and other files for deletion if they were in use in the WMF project. How files are used in other projects might be out of scope.--Juandev (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Assuming that Google translate is doing a good job here:

  1. The photograph has no explanation of what it is and its file name does not match the photo at all
  2. The caption for the place where the photo was used calls out a "cotter pin" but there is no cotter pin in the photo, so it is actually irrelevant to the place where it was used.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antigua.news.jpg File:Antigua.news small icon.jpg

[edit]

File: antigua.news.jpg File: Antigua.news small icon.jpg

Hi,

I noticed that the above files have been deleted for copyright reasons. However the owner of the images authorizes the use of them with credit and link. Both requirement have been met on the wiki page where there are used.

Please note that on antigua.news website there is this copyright message on the bottom of the page, which confirms what I wrote above:

“All contents of this site including images, texts and other assets are copyrighted and owned by Antigua.news. No contents of this site may be reproduced, altered, or distributed except you give appropriate credit and provide a link to the copyright holder, and indicate if changes were made.”

Therefore, I kindly request to undelete the images.

Thanks and regards.

--Mediascriptor (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The requirement for a link cannot be met in print use, so the permission cited is not enough for Commons. These are fairly simply and probably don't have a USA copyright. We know nothing about the Threshold of Originality in Antigua, but as a former UK colony it is probably very low, so these probably have a copyright there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can the requirement for a link be met in print by simply including a URL in the printout? I'd hope so. In this case, that's probably moot (in the U.S. sense) because of your salient point about COM:TOO Antigua, but it's still worth a thought. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Lunda Tchokwe.svg

[edit]

This file was just deleted because it doesn't fit in TOO Angola, but the symbol in the middle is the traditional lusona symbol for antelope footprint. [1] Other than that the graphic consists of just simple rectangles and circle. Therefore the deletion was incorrect. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, although COM:Angola also notes that "Traditional learning and use are treated the same as literary, artistic and scientific works." I will admit that my knowledge of African symbols like this is lacking so I won't oppose restoration here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about it before, but the pattern probably already existed in colonial times and Portuguese law, where folk patterns are not protected, may apply. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:구 제일은행 여수지점 1.jpg

[edit]

These images are released in {{KOGL}} by Korea Heritage Service (previously known as Cultural Heritage Administration). link 1, link 2. KOGL Type 1 is a Commons-compatible license, it seems that the original uploader may have misunderstood something.--Namoroka (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this building was bulit before 1942 during the Korea under Japanese rule.--Namoroka (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

※ko:special:diff/38476991, https://www.kogl.or.kr/info/licenseType1.do 

I. 이용조건의 표시 및 변경
1. 이용자가 공공누리 저작물 활용시 출처표시를 꼭 해주셔야 합니다.
2. 공공누리 저작물의 이용조건은 변경될 수 있습니다. 다만 이용자가 이용조건 변경전 사용하셨다면 해당저작물 한해 용도변경 없이 계속 이용할 수 있습니다.

III. 공공기관의 면책
1. 공공기관은 공공저작물의 정확성이나 지속적인 제공 등을 보장하지 않습니다.
2. 공공기관 및 그 직원은 이용자가 공공저작물을 이용함으로써 발생할 수 있는 어떠한 손해나 불이익에 대해서도 책임을 지지 않습니다.

본인은 KOGL과 CCL 라이선스가 호환되지 않는다고 판단합니다.(I believe that KOGL and CCL licenses are incompatible.)
2016년 당시나, 지금 시점이나 마찬가지입니다.(It was the same in 2016 as it is now.)
본인(메이)은 '이용자'였었고 면책 대상이 아닙니다.[I(메이) am not exempt from liability]
위키미디어 공용에서 왜 KOGL이 허용되는지까지는 모르겠습니다.(I don't know why KOGL is allowed on Wikimedia Commons.)
파일을 복구하여 저를 손해나 불이익의 당사자로 만드는 것에 절대 동의할 수 없습니다.(I absolutely cannot agree to restoring those files and making me a party to any harm or disadvantage.)
영어 내용은 구글 번역 사용하여 덧붙였고, 영어로 쓴 내용은 한글로 적은 내용에 우선하지 않습니다.(The English content was added using Google Translate, and the content written in English does not take precedence over the content written in Korean.)

감사합니다.(Thank you.)-- 메이 (토론) 16:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay. This user believes that KOGL is not a free license. There was a lengthy discussion about KOGL long time ago. However, KOGL is still an accepted license here in Commons, and personal beliefs are irrelevant. If this user does not wish to upload files under his/her own name, please allow me to upload the files instead.--Namoroka (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:문재인 대통령, 2018 평창패럴림픽대회 선수단 출정식 참석 2018-03-02.jpg

[edit]

This file was deleted through deletion requests but it was released in {{KOGL}} Type 1 in 2 March 2018 by the Blue House of South Korea. (archived link) KOGL is non-revocable. {{Change-of-KOGL}} This file was first uploaded on Commons in 7 March 2018, only four days later.-Namoroka (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The mascot character in the background seems to be fine under COM:DM.--Namoroka (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sanshokuki2.svg

[edit]

The symbol in the center (the reason for the file's prior deletion) may be too simple to exceed COM:TOO Japan. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 16:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NiloferQureshi.jpg

[edit]

I am writing to request the undeletion of an image I previously uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The image in question was taken by me using my equipment, and I am the sole owner of its copyright. I am granting free use of this image to the public, including for its use and upload on my new wiki profile. Additionally, I have emailed the appropriate channels to confirm my release of rights for this image but have not received a response yet. Nilofer Qureshi 1/10/2025 Niloq (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support --Yann (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per Yann. I've converted it to a DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:NiloferQureshi.jpg. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asahara shoko 1990-02-10.png

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: After "Template:No permission since" had been pasted to this file's page, a cut of TV program of political view for election's candidates by NHK, I added the words that this image is non-copyrighted because of Article 40 of Copyright Act of Japan, stipulating "political speeches and statements that were delivered in public can be exploited by any means". As well, similar images in Category:Political Opinion Broadcast have been kept till now. Nevertheless, the image I uploaded was deleted with no explanation. Why should non-copyrighted image be deleted, though other similar ones are kept? Thus, I would like to request its undeletion. Viator Liber (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC) / Some words added. Viator Liber (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The law speaks only to the text of the speech, not to photographs of the speaker. We have over 100 million images on Commons. It is inevitable that there are many that should be deleted. Feel free to nominate similar images for deletion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make more detailed explanation why this image is not copyrighted as below;
1. "Political Speeches and Statements" in Article 40 of Copyright Act of Japan includes broadcasts of political views for election, testified by Kurita Takashi, professor of legal studies at Kansai University (quote: 「公職選挙法150条1項による政見放送も本条に含めてよい」).
2. Its broadcaster NHK declared that it does not have the copyright of broadcasts of political views at its own website (quote: 「公職選挙法に基づく番組につき、ＮＨＫに編集権や著作権等がない」]).
3. Article 13 of Copyright Act of Japan stipulates that public notices, instructions, circular notices and the like issued by organs of local public entities are not copyrighted. Therefore, Tōkyō Metropolitan Government Election Administration Commission, who produced this broadcast and belongs to Tōkyō Metropolis (local public entity), cannot be copyright holder of its own works. Viator Liber (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fanta Fruit Punch (37211095091).jpg

[edit]

File:Heinz Organic Tomato Ketchup (28723042688).jpg As per the discussion at [2] and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg, we need to be consistent in our decisions. Pinging @Jameslwoodward, King of Hearts, Glrx, Clindberg, and Josve05a: involved people. Yann (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still object to this interpretation, but do not care at this point. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support My opinion is unchanged from the original deletion discussions,1 and 2. Takipoint123 (💬) 19:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Krishnakumarsinhjigohil.jpg

[edit]

Request for Undeletion of File:Krishnakumarsinhjigohil.jpg

Dear Wikimedia Commons Administrators,

I am writing regarding the file File:Krishnakumarsinhjigohil.jpg, which has been marked for speedy deletion under CSD F10. I would like to request the undeletion of this file and provide clarification.

1. Ownership: I am the rightful owner of this photo. It was either taken by me or by someone who has granted me full rights to upload it to Wikimedia Commons.

2. Permission and Licensing: I understand Wikimedia Commons requires freely licensed content. I confirm that I am willing to license this photo under [choose a license, e.g., Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)].

3. Purpose: This photo was uploaded to contribute to Wikimedia projects in good faith, and it is relevant to my profile or related work.

If any additional documentation is required to verify my claims, such as a permission statement or copyright declaration, please let me know, and I will provide it promptly.

Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. I hope for a favorable resolution to reinstate the file.

Best regards, Krishnakumarsinhji Gohil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnakumarsinhjigohil (talk • contribs) 14:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose F10 is "Personal photos by non-contributors". This contributor has been blocked at enwiki and mediawiki for "Spam/advertising-only account". Thuresson (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Obviously not, as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Dayton, Ohio (1917–1958).svg

[edit]

These files were originally uploaded by a user who did not provide a source, then deleted as fiction/vandalism in a mass deletion of unverified files. I will add the sources myself after they are restored. I want to restore some of them that are real and useful. I hope I do not have to write about each file individually. File:Flag of Dayton, Ohio (1917–1958).svg
File:Flag of Dayton, Ohio (1958–2021).svg
File:Flag of San Bernardino County, California (2024).svg
File:Flag of San Bernardino County, California (1973–1984).svg
File:Flag of Los Angeles County, California (2014–2016).svg
File:Flag of Los Angeles County, California (2004–2014).svg
File:Flag of Los Angeles County, California (1967–2004).svg
File:Flag of Frankfort, Kentucky (2024).svg
Swiãtopôłk (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Swiãtopôłk: Besides lack of source, most of the flags have also copytigh issues: The uploader declared them under CC0 license by them which is obviously invalid. In order to restore them we need an evidence that they are free. Ankry (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Costume1 2.png

[edit]

My file was innocent and someone recklessly deleted it, I need it back soon! It was the wrong decision to delete this file, it had nothing wrong, it didn’t even have any bad words. Someone randomly deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousguy9593 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also i created this art by hand, I didn’t copy it Anonymousguy9593 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: I've indeffed the requester. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the Chicago Police Department.png

[edit]

The only element that might deserve protection is the seal of the city of Chicago, but that is at least 120 years old and we have it here - File:Seal of Chicago, Illinois.svg, I don't know what this file looked like exactly, I found its existence by accident, my arguments refer to the flag that looks like this [3] Swiãtopôłk (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The seal has changed many times since its first use, see https://design.chicago.gov/city-seal. The 1990 version shown on the flag is still under copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward According to what you sent, the 1905 version is indeed different, but the current version, the one we currently have, is almost the same as the 1918 version (there is a bit less detail, but from what I know there is not even an official standardization of these elements and I don't think that a less detailed image can have a different copyright status than a more detailed and older one). Swiãtopôłk (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rapids, Sculpture by David Black.jpg and other photos of David Black sculptures uploaded by User:DBSculpture

[edit]

Per discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turning Points, sculpture by David Black.jpg. A list of the deleted files in question can be found on User talk:DBSculpture. Nakonana (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also wanted to add (but got distracted) that David Black used the "DBSculpture" handle himself (see his official website), which adds to the evidence that this Wikipedian was likely the sculptor himself. Nakonana (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Makes sense to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Whitby Instagram April 2020.png

[edit]

This image can and will be re-uploaded with proper permission. User talk:Techoliver298 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techoliver298 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It is a waste of time resources to reload an image and against Commons rules to do so. Images are never actually deleted. If an image was incorrectly removed from public view it can be restored without reloading. This was apparently an Instagram image not your own work as you claimed. That cannot be restored to Commons without a free license from the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeffrey Grant, American lawyer and minister.jpg

[edit]

On the website this photo was pulled from, https://grantlaw.com/about/ , explicitly states the photo is available under Creative Commons CC0. It is not a copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siankea (talk • contribs) 23:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NahidSultan:  ? Ankry (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:2000 Today Ident BBC1.png

[edit]

Please undeleted because it was copyrighted by the BBC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordisk Plus (talk • contribs) 00:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose No evidence that BBC granted the CC0 license. Ankry (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=982789283"