Commons: Welle mer dat zerök han?

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 4% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Undeletion requests and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

Heh kam_mer dröm frohre, fottjeschmeße Sigge udder Datteije wider zerök ze holle. Jehder_ein kann doh en Meinjnong zoh affjävve, dat heijs et jidd_ene zwaite Klaaf doh drövver.

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

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 1 timestamp • 0 reasons • 1 subpage) • 0 malformed
116 copyvios • 384 duplicates • 3 selfies • 178 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

Projects that accept fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

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

Adding a request

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

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

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

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (19).jpg, File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (18).jpg, File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (16) 2.jpg

No protected 1960 interior as krd errorously tells. Photographer is the organ builder himself, iirc. Discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pipe organ of Lambertikirche Aurich --Subbass1 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pipe organ of Lambertikirche Aurich was closed on the statement that the pipe organ is protected. The architecture seemed to not be an issue. Abzeronow (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote: Photographer is the organ builder himself, iirc. Besides that on commons an organ case is never protected and is shown thousands of times. --Subbass1 (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted in the DR, the problem here is not the organ itself, but the church architecture, which is modern and likely copyrighted.  Oppose unless we have a free license permission from the architect also or an evidence that the church architect died more than 70 years ago.
If the images are cropped / altered to show the organ only and the church architecture in the background / surroundings is not shown at all or minimized, the photos may be OK. Ankry (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The church architecture is not "modern". Try reading the german Wikipedia article. --Subbass1 (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It is from 1830s, I withdraw my comment. Ankry (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I think Abzeronow has it right -- perhaps User:Ankry should read the DR again. The problem here is that the design of the organ case goes way beyond utilitarian and therefore has its own copyright. If, as claimed above, the organ builder actually took the pictures, then a note to VRT from an address at https://www.orgelbau-ahrend.de/ should be easy to get (The other named builder, Gerhard Brunzema, died in 1992). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The VRT team of course already has a permission from Hendrik AHrend for the pictures. For the organ case itself it's not necessary (but here included..), in common use on Commons. --Subbass1 (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the DR, we have the photographer's permission per ticket:2023120810006959. If that photographer and the organ builder is one and the same person (which I did not know until User:Subbass1 wrote it here, and which was not mentioned in either the previous undeletion request or the deletion request), that ticket should be re-evaluated to see if the permission also covers the organ itself. Else a new permission which explicitly covers both the photographs and the organ design should be sent. --Rosenzweig τ 14:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: it's NOT necessary to have a permission for organ cases on commons. Just keep doing so to scare away the last people who provide pictures. In this case, unfortunately, even the "superintendent" had to deal with the claim of a "modern church design". Ridiculous. --Subbass1 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly the situation, these photos of the organ are offered under a free license by the copyright owner of both the organ and the photos. Therefore, there is no problem of copyright violation with these photos. These photos of the organ are fine and free to use and have all the permissions necessary. The organ itself does not need to be offered under a free license. There is no need to force the organ builder to allow his competitors to build identical organs. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As discussed in the first round at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-04#Aurich, the only goal of sending these files to a deletion request was to clarify the status of the church architecture, and on that point the closing administrator of that DR agreed that the church architecture is not a problem. The VRT permission 2023120810006959 from Hendrik Ahrend for the photos of the organ was not disputed. The organ is attributed to the organ building business [1]. It was built when the father of Hendrik owned the business. Hendrik Ahrend is now the owner of the business. (Hendrik himself also worked on the organ in 2022/2023.) He free licenses his photos of the organ. That's sufficient. We don't need to require that he sends another email to spell out that as the owner of the business he's giving the permission to himself to show the organ in his own photos, nor that his 94 year old father send an email as former owner. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    never ever Ahrend has to prove anything further. I don't wish that he is contacted from hee again, ok? Instead some persons here should overthink their behaviour (and knowledge) and inform themsleves better before making others lots of unnecessary work. --Subbass1 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ed Force One TF-AAK.jpg

There seems to a misunderstanding as to who is the copyright holder of the image in questions, as can be deduced from the communications regarding the deletion request of this file (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ed_Force_One_TF-AAK.jpg). It took the supposed copyright holder 6 years (!!) to file a complaint regarding this file, in which time it was used all over Wikipedia as well as outside of the Commons platform by news websites such as ours. Now, more than two years after the file has been deleted off of Wikimedia Commons (so 8 years after it was uploaded to Commons), another individual is hiring law firms to charge (news) websites that used the image in good faith, based on the reasonable understanding that they were able to use the file due to its Commons license, ridiculous amounts of money for using the image. Reading the transcript, it seems that an employee of the company claiming ownership of the picture uploaded it to Commons at the time (2016). That means that the image was provided to Commons under a Creative Commons license, which means that other websites/individuals that use the file have acted completely in good faith. The fact that due to (it seems) an internal misunderstanding within the company, the file has now been deleted off Commons, causes a situation where other users (like news outlets) that have used the image get targeted by law firms with abusive claims despite having acted in complete good faith. The file should therefore be undeleted, thereby also eliminating the risk of Wikimedia being held liable for the claims as referred to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.239.132 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 30 July 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

COM:CARES and we don't always detect these issues in a timely manner. I agree with Ellywa's close here. Abzeronow (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trains de banlieue de l'AMT (logo).svg

File was attempted to be transferred from French Wikipedia.

File was deleted because it was tagged as ((Marque déposée)) in French Wikipedia.

A comparison of similar files on Wikicommons (related logo File:Montreal Metro Logo (with text).svg and unrelated logo File:Renault 2021.svg) are tagged as both ((Trademarked)) and ((PD-textlogo)).

I asked on the French Wikipedia forum for guidance and they suggested uploading the file independently to Wikimedia Commons, taggin correctly and then requesting deletion from Wikipedia. Doing that led me to a warning that the file has previously been updated.

So here I am. If this is the wrong way about this, please let me know. One of Many Tims (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted for not having a proper license. And this file is more complex that the Montreal Metro Logo. I'm not an expert in the Threshold of Originality in Canada and it looks borderline to me. Abzeronow (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert either, but I think we can find similarly complex logos of trains in public transport on wikimedia. Examples:
All of these were tagged with ((Trademark)) and either ((PD-textlogo)) or ((PD-simple)). One of Many Tims (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold of originality can differ (quite a bit) by country. Canada used to have an extremely low one inherited from UK law; more recent rulings (en:CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada) said that the NAFTA treaty had necessarily moved their threshold to somewhere in between the UK and the US. I'd guess it's below the US threshold, but less sure on Canada. For US logos, the threshold is higher, and they also have the chance of being published without a copyright notice before 1989. Unless it's from before that date, File:El Paso Streetcar Logo.png is clearly copyrightable and should be deleted. The German threshold for logos used to be very high (they did not like overlap between copyright and trademark, unlike the US and many other countries), but that has changed more recently I think. en:WP:OTHERFILESEXIST is usually not a good argument, as other files may simply not have been noticed yet. The Canadian ruling rejected sweat of the brow, but did not require the modicum of creativity the US does. I'm really not sure here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Close call on this one -- probably above the Canadian ToO. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:El Paso Streetcar Logo.png per Carl's comment. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to note that this logo (or derivatives of it or very similar logos) is also used in many files on Commons, perhaps 40, many of which seem for some reason claimed as free licensed by the users who uploaded them. For example in this category. Also sometimes in previous versions of different logos. If this logo is not ok for Commons, a look at the other files may be necessary. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a lot of Canadian rulings on stuff like this so it's hard to say. Given that it seems to have been uploaded here for 14 years at least in many variations, and I think would be below the US threshold, I guess  Weak keep for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chicago Portage National Historic Site.png

This file was deleted by billinghurst on 8 July, based on suspected “CopyVio” flagged by user Enyavar on 14 May.

This file is a map that is a part of the Chicago Portage article and shows how the course of the Des Plaines river has changed since the time that native Americans and others had used the portage. The image shows an aerial photo of the current geography of the Portage site as it looks today with an overlay that shows what the river looked like originally before it was straightened by the Corps of Engineers.  It is therefore within the scope of Wikimedia as per com:project scope. It is also not covered by copyright. The source of the underlying aerial photo is the United States Geological Survey. I did the overlay and it is based on a map that was part of study published by the Chicago Historical Society in 1928 and is therefore in the public domain. When I uploaded the finished image to Wikimedia, I showed “source” as “own work”, meaning that I had done the overlay. User Enyavar flagged the image for deletion on 14 May saying “Satellite maps cannot be ‘own work’”. Of course, he is correct. So, my mistake. I propose that the image be re-instated with “source” showed as “United States Geological Survey for the underlying aerial photo plus my own work for the overlay based on Knight, Robert; Zeuch, Lucius Henry (1928). The Location of the Chicago Portage Route of the Seventeenth Century. Chicago Historical Society.” Let me know what else I might do to get this image un-deleted. Thanks for your help. Joe Bfsplk (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marienkapelle (Obererthal) – 20160505-042.JPG, File:Marienkapelle (Obererthal) – 20160505-051.JPG

Please undelete the above mentioned files and giv them the "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license", as the rest of the files in Category:Marienkapelle (Obererthal) has it, too. I may have forgotten to register the license during the original upload. Thanks in advance and greetings, --Darev (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! --Darev (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Img017 QuelleKaeswass ready 2 RBG.jpg

Bitte um entgültige Löschung. Diese Datei erhielt zwecks Vereinheitlichung in Kategorien (++): History by location History by location by location History of Kalchreuth einen neuen Namen. File:Kalchreuth Sperkquelle 1843.tiff Heinz Wehrfritz (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure what is the request about? The file was renamed without leaving a redirect, so nothing exists under the name provided: nothing to undelete here. Ankry (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Wehrfritz in German asked to permanently delete (!) the file File:Img017 QuelleKaeswass ready 2 RBG.jpg, stating it was renamed File:Kalchreuth Sperkquelle 1843.tiff. That is not true: "Img017 QuelleKaeswass ready 2 RBG.jpg" is now File:Quelle Kaeswasser.jpg, and File:Kalchreuth Sperkquelle 1843.tiff is a completely different file. Anyway - File:Img017 QuelleKaeswass ready 2 RBG.jpg is deleted, and there is no request of undeletion here! --ThomasPusch (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fanta raspberry 330ml can-front PNr°0853.jpg

The file was part of a DR on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fanta cans.
File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg is not the same can, but pretty much the same setup. It was kept per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg.
To images with pretty much the same content can not be treated differently.
Add the personal note by Ellywa: "As an amateur artist, I am often amazed how people think it is very simple to make a graphic design. No, it is not. It is difficult, it is a complex skill." - It may is challenging for the individual to draw something out of simple shapes that can also be recognised. Yet, the question if the image passes the threshold of originality is a separate one. So it's possible that the author does take time and need skill to create something like it, while at the same time they are creating something that is not eligible to be protected by copyright law. I have created many drawings that took a lot of time to make and required a certain skill to create, even they are just 'simple' shapes (for examples see here, here or here). Yet I consider all of them below the threshold of originality.
"Although the overall 3D shape of most packaging [...] is not copyright-protected, the printing on such packaging is often legally protected as an artistic work [...]" (source). In my opinion the shapes on the can are way too simple to even get close to the threshold of originality and are thereby not legally protected. --D-Kuru (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Assassination_of_Abe_Shinzo_Yamato_Saidaiji.jpg, File:Itagaki_Taisuke_100kaiki_Shinagawa_Tokyo_2018.jpg, File:Tennoheika_gosokui_30nen_kinenshikiten.jpg

表題の3件の写真の削除復帰を求めます。上記3件はInstagramの https://www.instagram.com/p/CpGNVS9ScFC/ https://www.instagram.com/p/CnO6Ml8y0qH/ https://www.instagram.com/p/Cl3hoEJyJcK/ の写真の著作権を侵害したとして削除されましたが、このInstagramの写真の撮影者は、 https://www.instagram.com/hyuga_takachiho/ に掲示されている通り、私自身（私が撮影者）です。（私が英語がわからなくてすいません。もしwikimedia commonsにアップロードする際に、著作権の表示が適切でなかったのならば、正しく記載の上、写真の復帰を行ってください）Photo memories 1868 (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Ticket#: 2024080410006409]で「許諾書」を送りました。--Photo memories 1868 (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forêt cachée.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: https://thatgamecompany.helpshift.com/hc/fr/17-sky-children-of-the-light/faq/460-eula-terms-of-service/

" User Generated Content We encourage our End Users to create and share fan art, fan fiction, video montages, Let’s Play videos, and other creative content with our Community (herein “User Generated Content”). Likewise we encourage streaming and recording your gameplay and sharing it with our Community or through social media video streaming services such as YouTube.com or Twitch.tv—for the purpose of these Agreements, we also consider your streams and videos containing our Game “User Generated Content”.

We want you to create and express yourself freely, and you retain all rights in and to your User Generated Content. By sharing your User Generated Content with the Community, you grant thatgamecompany an unrestricted, irrevocable, non-exclusive and universal right and license to reproduce, modify, and redistribute your User Generated Content solely in connection with our Games.

However, User Generated Content shared with the Community must comply with these Community Guidelines, the Term of Service and our End User License Agreement. Failure to comply with any of the terms contained therein may result in the cancellation of your TGC Account and whatever other legal remedies may be available to us, including issuing takedowns to the appropriate service providers due to the breach of the licenses and rights granted to you herein.

As our latest game, “Sky”, includes chat functionality, it is important that you comply with our Community Rules and Restrictions when linking or sharing any User Generated Content. The Privacy Policy is also important in connection with User Generated Content, as we may collect, store, and share your User Generated Content pursuant to that policy. " LeoMatthi (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose No part of the game has a Creative Commons license. The End User License Agreements restricts any use to non-commercial license only. License available here. Thuresson (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Ŝmurlo.jpg

The file is needed, in d:Q2356083 and at least in the Esperanto branch of Wikipedia, possibly in all 5 articles about him (Владимир Шмурло/Vladimir Szmurlo, 1865-1931). The person in question died in 1931 and was photographed clearly before, so the chances of the file to be PD are high. Anyway, the reason to delete the file were "no indication of early enough PUBLICATION to be PD". So the source of publication was not exactly enough indicated. That was certainly true, but there is no way anymore of knowing who was the uploader, what was indicated in the upload or when the upload took place. I would like to ask to temporarily undelete the file, for two, better four weeks, to send a personal information about the undeletion at lesat to me, one of three bureaucrats of the Esperanto Wikipedia - no problem if the note is adressed to all three bureaucrats of the Esperanto Wikipedia, and to let us check the file. --ThomasPusch (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator, I can see the file. It's an old low resolution photograph. Uploader was User:Wierzbowski. It was uploaded in 2016 and the photograph is said to be "circa 1910". It's not clear it was published before 1917 though. Source is listed as an archive of an Esperanto society. Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haraszti Peter portrait.jpg

The owner of the photo, Gábor Stiglincz sent you an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the given template around 8 July. His email address is (Redacted). What else can we do to prevent the portrait being deleted again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisscsi (talk • contribs) 2024-08-06T08:39:51‎ (UTC)

@Günther Frager Thank you for your answer. Kisscsi (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nahashogyoseimon.jpg

I took this picture and posted it with personal information hidden. Also, the location where it was filmed is open to everyone. So I would like you to restore the image.

File:Riccardo Spagni 03.jpg, File:Riccardo Spagni 02.jpg, File:Riccardo Spagni 01.jpg

Dear Wikimedia Commons Administrators,

I am writing to formally request the undeletion of the files named File:Riccardo Spagni 03.jpg, File:Riccardo Spagni 02.jpg, File:Riccardo Spagni 01.jpg. I understand that the file was previously deleted, and I believe that there are strong reasons to reconsider this decision.

Reasons for Undeletion:

1.Significant Public Figure: Riccardo Spagni is a well-known public figure who has played a substantial role in the development of cryptocurrency technology, Monero. As such, there is a strong public interest in images of him.

2. Free Use Image: The images are indeed freely licensed (e.g., under Creative Commons) and the only copies on the internet, it meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and serves the project's goal of providing freely accessible knowledge.

3. Informational Value: The images can be used to illustrate articles related to Riccardo Spagni, cryptocurrency, and related topics, providing valuable visual context for readers. This is especially important as he is on the news for having a legal battle with the USA government.

4. No Copyright Infringement: The images do not infringe on any copyright or privacy rights, there is no legal impediment to their inclusion on Wikimedia Commons.

5. An image of him already exists on Wikimedia (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Riccardo_spagni.png) but it's outdated because he has lost a lot of weight as can be seen on his official Twitter handle @fluffypony.

I am confident that upon careful review, the administrators will agree that the benefits of undeleting File:Riccardo Spagni 03.jpg and related images outweigh any potential drawbacks. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, --Ozehlaw (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iwaqarhashmi:
 Oppose as deleting admin. If in scope I have copyvio concerns - no meaningful exif, etc, would need VRT if in scope Gbawden (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We might need to check for copyright if we keep it. Waqar💬 13:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr Jennifer Tsai.png

I have rights on this image. Is a public picture either way. I'm employee of the person in the image --Maely GG (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)maely gomes[reply]

Which rights do you have? Many things are public without being freely licensed. e.g. the Harry Potter novels. Thuresson (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:031424 PALMROYALE PREMIERE SAMUELGOLDWYN LA EC 0167.jpg

We have the non-commercial use license and also cleared it with the photographer for it to be used as a wikipedia image. As long as the following credit is used, all is clear: Kristen Wiig attends the World Premiere of Apple TV+'s "Palm Royale" © 2024 by Eric Charbonneau is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Please let me know if you need any further information.

Thank you! Corsica Steding Relevant PR (Kristen's PR Team)

--Corsica.k (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Corsica Steding, 08/06/2024[reply]

  •  Oppose - Nonsense request. Links and requests to review our licensing policy have been provided directly to you four times ([2][3][4][5]). That licensing policy includes, for example, "Media licensed exclusively under non-commercial only licenses (like CC BY-NC-SA) are not accepted" and "Some examples of licensing statuses commonly found on the Internet, but forbidden on Commons, include: Creative Commons Non-Commercial Only (-NC) licenses (and) Creative Commons No-Derivatives (-ND) licenses" (bold in original). One does not even need to speak English, or even really to be literate in any language, to understand this, as is graphically depicted as Not OK. Эlcobbola talk 18:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Signs of the swarm.jpg

I was given premission by the author to use this photo, however, it got taken down. How do I proof that the author has given me premission?

File:Enterprise Earth.jpg

The author of this image has given me premission to upload it, however it got taken down. How do I proof that the author gave me premission?

File:2024-03-01 Nicaragua - Privación arbitraria de libertad por motivos políticos.webm

The video was uploaded by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, which uploads its videos with a Creative Commons license. Said license wasn't placed due to an error using video2commons. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:GVE-197系 at 豊田車両センター.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have acceptable evidence of license at ticket:2024072210007895. whym (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Palazzo dell'INA(Giuseppe Samonà)14.jpg

Hi evereyone. I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of Image:Palazzo dell'INA(Giuseppe Samonà)14.jpg, deleted in 2007 after this DR. The image depicts the it:Palazzo dell'INA (Messina), designed by en:Giuseppe Samonà, it:Camillo Autore, it:Raffaele Leone (architetto), and Guido Viola. The palace is part of a project of reconstruction of a part of the city destroyed with the earthquake of 1908. The entire project was commissioned by the local municipality in 1930 (see here). The construction was finished in 1946, and therefore the building fell into Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1967. It's a building built before 1990, so no issue with US copyright. The copyright warning in the Category:Palazzo dell'INA (Messina) should be removed accordingly.--Friniate (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lila Abrahim Wiki Profile Image..png.jpg

Good Day Wiki Team

Trust you are well.

Please can you undelete the File:Lila Abrahim Wiki Profile Image..png and kindly re-upload Lila's image onto her page.

I have been given ownership release rights from the owner (Ben Catchpole) for this file.

Please view permission notice sent below from Ben:

I hereby affirm that I represent Google LLC, the sole, exclusive licensee of the exclusive copyright of the media work attached to this email and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Ben Catchpole Appointed representative of Google LLC

Regards, Jessica Lee

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/ksh&oldid=756610952"