Commons:Undeletion requests

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

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

Other languages:

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

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

Commons deletion (policy)
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:ROC Ministry of National Defense Seal.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file had been deleted per this DR due to "Logos are not covered under {{PD-ROC-exempt}} or {{GWOIA}}" and then it was re-uploaded by User:人人生來平等.

However, according to the email response by the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office "故政府機關之部徽、署徽或局徽，如其形式係依法所制訂者，依著作權法第9條，不得為著作權之標的。" (English Machine Translation: "Therefore, the emblems of ministries, departments or bureaus of government agencies, if their forms are made in accordance with the law, shall not be the subject of copyright in accordance with Article 9 of the Copyright Law." ) Since this logo is the Seal of Ministry of National Defense, in my opinion, it is not copyrighted and is covered under {{PD-ROC-exempt}} . The previous delete decision should be overturned and the previous page history also need to be recovered. cc @Wcam, Mdaniels5757, and Ericliu1912: Thanks. SCP-2000 18:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SCP-2000: If the emblem is made in accordance with the law, such law needs to be specified. In the email you quote, the national flag is defined in 中華民國國徽國旗法第4條, and the Taipei City's seal is defined in 臺北市市徽市旗設置自治條例第4條. A seal/emblem/logo is only in the PD if it is based on a law. Wcam (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, it is based on 《陸海空軍軍旗條例施行細則》第五條. Looks ok to keep. --Wcam (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support. (And should recover all revision history altogether) —— Eric Liu（Talk） 23:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The revision history of File:Seal of the Ministry of National Defense of the Republic of China.svg should be merged with this file if the latter get restored. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only this file (to request restoration of all deleted revisions) or for all deleted files of that DR? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only this file. Wcam (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Afghanistan-Spange.jpg

And also:

I created the picture myself. So please restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User85521 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Carlos-Meyer-Baldo.jpg

The image was taken during Baldó's military service during World War I, between 1914 and 1918, and Carlos Meyer Baldó died in 1933. The image's age means that it already is in the public domain per {{PD-old}}, and in the worst case scenario media enters in Venezuela's public domain after 60 years of its publication ({{PD-Venezuela}}). --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NoonIcarus: When was this photo first published in Venezuela? Thuresson (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NoonIcarus: Who is the photographer and has she or he been dead for 70 years? Thuresson (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment If the above questions remain unresponded, {{PD-old-assumed}} can be applied in 2039. Ankry (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The picture was first published in 1918, along with other pictures ([1]), during Baldó's service as an instructor (Fluglehrer) at the Fighter Squadron School Nr. II to train Jasta pilots. The copyright law in Venezuela does not consider the author's death for media such as photographs (unlike music, for instance), but rather its publication date. At any rate, {{PD-US-expired}} also applies given that the picture was published before 1928. Best wishes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The deleted file appears to have a modern colorization, which could have its own copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Was it already in its original version or was it added by an user? In the case of the former, I can withdraw my request and ask for undeletion to be applied in the respective years (like 2039). --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is only one version that we have (the colorized version). Abzeronow (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose The template "PD-Old" can not be used without knowing who the photographer is and when she or he died. "PD-Venezuela" can not be used without providing the authorship and publication details. If the photo was first published on Twitter, it may be undeleted in 2081. Thuresson (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image was not first published in Twitter (Twitter's version is black and white while the deleted one is colorized, for instance). It was simply provided for context about the other images it was first published with. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support Per NoonIcarus --Wilfredor (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support:Per NoonIcarus, Venezuela license it's OK. AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: Could you, please, elaborate which 60 years old publication you mean? Ankry (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ankry:Buenas según Wikipedia (https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Meyer_Bald%C3%B3) el murió en 1933, por eso es que según Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Venezuela son 60 años después de la publicación (osea después de la muerte del autor) por eso está OK. AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: But where is an evidence that the photo was published (available to the general public) during his life? Photo creation date is irrelevant for copyright (except US 120 year cut-off time). Ankry (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ankry:Look (https://www.meer.com/en/58066-carlos-meyer-baldo-a-venezuelan-fighter-pilot-of-the-wwi) in the photo number 5 (Carlos Meyer piloting his Fokker D.VII “Drooling boxer” in the summer of 1918 (photo Greg van Wyngarden)) (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: This page is dated 17 October 2019. This is not 60 years ago. Also the photo #5 is not the photo we are discussing here (the photo requested here is a colour portrait photo - or maybe a painting? - this one; claimed to be made personally by the uploader). Ankry (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We usually assume that old pictures were published at the time they were taken, but this is not photo #5 mentioned above. But that picture is available at File:Bóxer Babeante.jpg. Yann (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Greg vanWyngarden is a contemporary writer about fighter planes of WW1, he is not the photographer. Thuresson (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg

Buenas, necesito que algún administrador restaure la imagen por que la Bandera del Municipio Libertador de Caracas, Venezuela es una invención por eso está en el Dominio Público según el Articulo 325 de la Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, Trabajadores y Trabajadoras en Venezuela. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbchyZa22 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Commons:Coats of arms, each rendering can have its own copyright. Was this a user-drawn version or copied from a copyrighted source? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg:Buenas, pero en el artículo 325 dice:Invenciones, innovaciones y mejoras en el sector público
La producción intelectual generada bajo relación de trabajo en el sector público, o financiada a través de fondos públicos que origine derechos de propiedad intelectual, se considerará del dominio público, manteniéndose los derechos al reconocimiento público del autor o autora.
El {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} aplica directamente a los Logos, Banderas y escudos de Armas por que son invencionales (significa se basa en la imaginación de los autores osea personas.) AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As mentioned in the other discussions you started last week about art. 325 at HD and VP/C, that argument is not necessarily convincing without authoritative interpretation by courts or doctrine and without evidence that these artworks by independent artists meet the factual conditions. Even if hypothetically it applied, that would be for the Venezuelan copyright, not for the United States copyright. However, the concept of the flag designed in 2022 by María Jiménez and Víctor Rodríguez might be (or not) too simple for copyright, but even then, each particular artistic rendering of it can be copyrighted. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg:Aquí esta las fuentes https://elpais.com/internacional/2022-04-21/el-chavismo-entierra-el-legado-espanol-del-escudo-de-caracas-400-anos-despues.html AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is the source for the escudo at File:Coat of arms of Caracas (2022).png. The question by Clindberg was what is the source of the particular rendering of the bandera in File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Buenas aquí esta la fuente:https://eldiario.com/2023/10/12/nuevos-simbolos-de-caracas-concejo-municipal/amp/ AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of the particular svg rendering in File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The statement by the uploader in the original upload log was "own work". Pinging the uploader User:Salvadoroff. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Echando una mano: Buenas y Feliz Año, por favor una pregunta es posible restaurar la foto de la Bandera de Caracas (2022) con respecto a este tema??
AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: lo siento, no lo sé. Feliz año a usted también. Echando una mano 21:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's truly a vector version drawn by a contributor, I'd lean towards keeping it. If it was extracted from a PDF of a government source (or is an SVG wrapper around a bitmap taken from another unlicensed source), then I'd go the other way. I would treat each drawing as its own copyright (even the choice of vector points in an SVG can in theory have a copyright, if complex enough, beyond the rendered image). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg:Buenas, con respecto a la Bandera, aquí esta las fuentes:https://eldiario.com/2023/10/12/nuevos-simbolos-de-caracas-concejo-municipal/amp/ AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: Given that any drawing must be derived from the original 2022 design by Jiménez and Rodríguez, do you evaluate that their work is below or above the threshold for copyrightability? The composition with the triangles of colour, the star and the mountain is not as simple as bands of colour, but it's not very complex either. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Often the design is an idea, with each drawing a particular expression of that idea. That is more straightforward with seals with a written blazon -- a drawing cannot be derivative of the written description. But in general we seem to allow self-drawn images of flags too. Furthermore, as far as the design is part of law, that part would be {{PD-EdictGov}}. Any additions done by a private party (even particular vector points) may qualify for copyright though, so we often look at the history of the specific drawing. If it's the flag as seen here, the only part which may be copyrightable is the very specific outline of the mountain or hill or treetops or whatever that is, which likely differs a little between versions and so they may well not be derivative of each other. If that image was self-drawn without slavishly copying the outline, I would restore it. A lot of this gets into highly theoretical territory, as it would probably be near impossible for a country or city to sue over copyright infringement of a flag, where the scope of fair use and PD-edict is probably pretty wide. I think as such, we would respect any copyright of a privately-drawn version, but if self-drawn it's probably fine. (Individual government drawings may not be OK though; we tend to not copy those from websites.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Buenas ,por favor lee el Artículo 2 del Derechos de Autor en Venezuela,en que está sometidos los derechos del Autor?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: Hi, What about it? If it's still about its scope, I already commented in your thread last month at Commons:Help desk/Archive/2023/12#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Caracas (2022).png. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Buenas, una pregunta que pasaría si el Artículo 325 de la Ley Orgánica del Trabajo los Trabajadores y Trabajadoras en Venezuela es Constitucional, es posible restaurar la foto de la Bandera?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: A) Constitutionality is only one of several questions to which we do not have answers for now. Other questions, already mentioned above, are B) can the intended goal and scope of 325 include this type of artistic works and, if so, C) does the particular work meet its conditions of application? (Did the two authors get any money and, even then, would their flag proposal be considered "financiada" solely for winning the first prize in the contest?) Again, all that sounds like specialized matters of Venezuelan law. Getting reliable answers require research in court decisions and doctrinal texts or the help of jurists in Venezuelan law. However, and fortunately, we probably do not need to consider that at all here. From the above discussions, if the original flag is considered to be below the "Umbral de originalidad" ("threshold of originality"), both in Venezuela and in the United States, and if the subsequent svg drawing is considered to be the own work of the uploader, then this file with the flag could be undeleted under that rationale only. (It is different for the other file with the coat of arms, wich is above the threshold of originality and directly reproduced.) -- Asclepias (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elcobbola:Hi, please can you close the UDR (Undeletion Request),the flag its a invention in 325 Article in Venezuela law (its a Public Domain) and the SVG its a valid? (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Buenas, por favor lee artículo 33 numeral 3 de la Ley de Propiedad Industrial en Venezuela con respecto a la Banderas y Escudos de Armas municipales y estatales de Venezuela. AbchyZa22 (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@User:AbchyZa22: Hi, That is about trade marks (marcas comerciales). It is not a concern as such for Commons (Commons:Non-copyright restrictions). -- Asclepias (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Ok en el Artículo 33 dice:”No podrán adoptarse ni registrarse como marcas:
En el numeral 2 dice “la Bandera, Escudo de Armas u otra insignia de la República, de los Estados o de las Municipalidades y, en general, de cualquier entidad venezolana de carácter público” (fuentes:https://sapi.gob.ve/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ley_propiedad_intelectual.pdf) AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: That is about marcas comerciales (trademarks). It is not about derechos de autor (copyright). No marcas does not mean that there are no derechos de autor. Commons is not much concerned with marcas. Commons is concerned with derechos de autor. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This request having been open for some time, can there be some consensus to accept it along the lines suggested by Clindberg, assuming that the original flag is considered to be below the threshold of originality, both in Venezuela and in the United States, and assuming that the subsequent svg drawing is the own work of the uploader? That does not seem to require taking a position on other points of Venezuelan law raised in the request. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:The sims 4 moon sofa set.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image represents a 3D sofa set modeled in the Blender program and its coverings adjusted. It is an example of 3D models created for video games in the Blender program.

It was reported that the reason for deleting the image was because the products sold on the website were spam.

The sofa set in the image is a mod made for The Sims 4. And these mods are offered for free on the website. The image uploaded here is not taken from the game. They were made in the open source blender program.

The purpose of the images here is not advertising. It is an example of 3D objects made by fans for games. Pentapixel (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The terms of service at the source site are far from our requirements. They are explicitly revocable and explicitly forbid commercial use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jameslwoodward There is a statement saying "Do not use without a license", but the necessary permissions have been given to Wikipedia in writing. Still, I informed the site that they should update that section to be more clear. You can check again. Pentapixel (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While they show a CC license for the images, the site explicitly states that they may change anything on the site at any time. Such a specific statement overrules the fact that CC licenses are ordinarily irrevocable. Specific always overrules general. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jameslwoodward Yes, I didn't realize that. I talked to the site management and they admitted that there was a discrepancy and said they would update it. Pentapixel (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Jameslwoodward You can check again. Pentapixel (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ToS still says, "Customcontent.net reserves the right to change or modify any of the terms and conditions contained in these Site Terms, or any policy or guideline of the Site, at any time and in its sole discretion." which, as I noted above, is unacceptable on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jameslwoodward Can you check again. I think it was showing you the old version because the site caches were not updated. I checked from different browsers and now that part seems to have been removed. Pentapixel (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support Looks ok, IMHO. The authors grant an unrestricted non-exclusive license to the website and then the website offers a CC license to the public. The website may cease to offer new CC licenses, but that does not revoke licenses already used. That happens on flickr and elsewhere. We have LicenseReview for that. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Various professional wrestling logos

As with File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png, all of these files were marked as for speedy deletion instead of nominated for deletion, which allowed no room nor time for discussion. I object in particular to the deletion of File:World Woman Pro-Wrestling Diana logo.png (consisting strictly only of text and geometric shapes), File:Pure-J wrestling logo.png (a variety of colours does not mean this is anything more than text and geometric shapes, as was discussed in the recent undelete for File:PCW-Ultra.jpg), File:Wrestling Society X logo.png (the "complexity" is minimal, and still geometric. Certainly not more complex than anything featured in File:Cyberpunk 2077 logo.svg) and File:Association les Professionnels du Catch 2019 logo.png (this is text on a circle + stars which are also geometrical) and File:Insane Championship Wrestling logo.png, which is simply the lettering I C W with some minimal red outlining. File:House of Glory wrestling logo.png may be the most egregious deletion of the batch; it's lettering only.

If someone wants to make an argument that the crown featured in File:All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling logo.png precludes that, I can at least understand that argument, but for the rest these are very simple text + shapes. File:Pro Wrestling NOAH 2021 logo.svg is simply text + straight lines; the "ring" featured on top is not a "complex" shape and is formed via straight, geometric lines.

To help this process; the majority of these logos are American, some are Japanese. If users need help differentiating which are American and which are Japanese because of a threshold discussion, please don't hesitate to ping me.

Thank you for your time, CeltBrowne (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upon doing further research, I believe that the spherical shape in File:World Woman Pro-Wrestling Diana logo.png is literally File:Globe icon.svg merely rotated a number of degrees. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't want to sound impatient, but almost all these files are the primary image/infobox image for different individual articles. 11 articles are without a primary image until they are (hopefully) restored, therefore I'm eager to see this matter resolved fairly quickly if possible. If you have the time to look into these files, I'd appreciate it. As with File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png, they were all marked as Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: as deleting admin. Yann (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with the undeletion of File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png and with your assessment of all of the logos you linked, with the possible exception of File:World Woman Pro-Wrestling Diana logo.png. That said, if another admin feels comfortable undeleting any of them, I'm fine with that as well. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also disagree with undeleting File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png. The text is OK, but the tear in the middle is not a simple geometric shape. We could make a similar image with our own tear, but the author has a copyright on his drawing of the tear. I cannot view the deleted files, so I will not comment on them. Glrx (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I renominated this file: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png. Yann (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruthven: @TheAafi: @Ankry: @Jameslwoodward:
Sorry to bother you, but as you were all involved in undeleting either File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png or File:PCW-Ultra.jpg, I'd really appreciate the insight of someone familiar with Template:PD-textlogo. I'd really like to get this resolved as it's been going on for many days now.
Even if you disagree with undeleting some of these files, your input will still be valued. I would find it difficult to believe all 11 of these files do not qualify as PD-textlogo. I feel very strongly, for example, that File:World Woman Pro-Wrestling Diana logo.png and File:House of Glory wrestling logo.png should be a very straight-forward cases of PD-textlogo.
Just to remind me people, the term "Geometric" covers w:Hypotrochoid and w:Epitrochoid shapes, so a logo containing a curve can still be geometric in nature. Also, as File:HypotrochoidOutThreeFifths.gif demonstrates, many stars (even "non-angular" one) are geometric in nature. So for example the 4 point star in File:Pure-J wrestling logo.png is still geometric in nature. In fact, File:Astroid2.gif in w:Hypocycloid literally demonstrates as much.
File:Wrestling Society X logo.png is clearly a vectorised image despite being in .png format. The point of "vectorising" shapes is (besides smoothing edges) to make them more angular, sharp and otherwise geometric. At least that's the case in this particular example. File:Wrestling Society X logo.png is an entirely text+geometric entity.

Can we restore the files in this batch that are clearly PD-textlogo, and any of them that are considered borderline cases, I'm happy to discuss any issues with those. Thanks, CeltBrowne (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm unsure why I have been pinged. I haven't undeleted either of the two files? ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was under the impression you supported the undelete for File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png? If I'm mistaken I apologise, there was a user who didn't sign their comment and an Template:unsigned was used to attribute the comment to you CeltBrowne (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hardly leave my comments unsigned. I'd be glad if you can show that diff, so that I can help fix. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, looking at [2] and [3] this, it was Ankry who forgot to sign their comment. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should I nominate each file individually instead?

It's been over a week and a half now, and no one besides the original uploader and original deleter has commented on these files. I'm taking it that by nominating all these files collectively, I've "scared off" the average person from commenting on them. This is based on the fact that other similar files I've recently nominated were processed almost immediately. Should I ask that this thread be deleted/archived and that I (re)nominate each file, one by one, instead? CeltBrowne (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: Some files undeleted. See new requests below. --Yann (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Files deleted by Jameslwoodward

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the Template:PD-US-patent was changed recently after an argumented edit request at the talk page.
Between 2013 and this change, the template erroneously stated that US patents were not in the public domain if they were published after 1989 (without any source to support this claim). Now, the template has been revised to correctly state US patents are generally in public domain. Veverve (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As noted in the template, the applicant may claim copyright in the body of the patent application. In the second case, we have the whole patent and there is no such claim there, so I  Support restoration of File:Magpul Magazine Patent No20100212653A1.pdf. In all of the other cases we have only a part of the application, so until someone reads each of the patents to determine if there is a copyright claim, we should not restore them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: until someone reads each of the patents to determine if there is a copyright claim, we should not restore them: but most users are not admins, and thus they have no way to know the references needed to check the patent's contents. Indeed, most of the titles of those files do not contain the references needed to know what patent the file is taken from. Are you implying you are awaiting for another admin to check? Veverve (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support If the default is public domain, we should at least check the copyright status. Yann (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Veverve: I {{Temporarily undeleted}} them. Please check and report. Yann (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: thanks. I will put the bibliographic data needed, taken from the descriptions, and I will check (using Patent Public Search Basic) during the week end. Those data can also be used for people to check if the file gets deleted again.
Veverve (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Veverve: Does it mean that the files which are not a patent should be deleted? Yann (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: the USPTO states: "the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions". I believe this concerns patents and not patent applications. So, yes, I think files which are not a patent should be deleted.
However, I am no expert and others should feel free to challenge my claim and thought process. Veverve (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cleared the files above which are part of a patent. @Jameslwoodward: Should we delete the others? Yann (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: I have checked all patents:
I think as a general rule, all wrongfully deleted patent files should be restored; since the general rule, as the USPTO says, is that "the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions", the burden of proving those files do not comply with WCommons should lie on the person who nominate for deletion. Moreover, we are in this situation because someone included an erroneous information in a template and that nobody acted to correct it for more than 10 years, so we should give those uploaders the benefit of the doubt and be lenient. Veverve (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Veverve: OK with that. Please request undeletion of concerned files. Yann (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: Patent files undeleted. --Yann (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Jinan Safa Safira Last Show off air at Musical 12 March 2023.jpg

File:Jinan Safa Safira Last Show off air at Musical 12 March 2023.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernadettehartman (talk • contribs) 10:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Copied from Instagram, no evidence of a free license. Yann (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose This requires a permissions release through COM:VRT. The photographer/copyrights holder is required to send the release and until then it'd not be deleted because it is unfree, and uploading such content on Commons infringes copyright. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:"İstikrarın Yüzyılı" Pano, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.jpg

There is no explanation for the deletion by User:Wdwd. --Bjelica (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bjelica can you prove the billboard graphics is in public domain? Your claim here is not true; not everything found in public is free. The billboard, for it to be in public domain, must have been created by artists who already died more than 70 years ago, or 70 years after the artwork was first published. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for interest @JWilz12345.
These posters were produced by the Turkish Directorate of Communications. They are all related to the Turkey's Centennial campaign. It's all public property, it doesn't belong to anybody. It's more freely licensed than anything else here. Bjelica (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted photo ss.--Bjelica (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is the terms and condition or law that states that their content is in the public domain? The website you are point to has as a footer "© 2018 T.C. İletişim Başkanlığı" and in its English version: "© 2019 The Republic of Türkiye Directorate of Communications". Günther Frager (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:První obálka časopisu Ladění.jpg

File:První obálka časopisu Ladění.jpg

Reason of request - consent from owner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiskařka Zuzka (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Per Gunther -- 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 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Maria riva.jpg

Hello, I would like a previously removed photo of Maria Riva to be published again. Greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eros alatus (talk • contribs) 10:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Question You didn't provide a reason for undeletion. Why this wouldn't be under a copyright? For the record, it is this picture, taken from [4], credited to Getty. Original source at Getty is [5]. Yann (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maria riva.jpg and Getty page for the photo. --Rosenzweig τ 06:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg

Thank you for asking. The picture belongs to me and was taken by me and my team. I am also in the picture, but thank you for checking. Therefore, the copyright is with me because I am in it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangeltunesentertainment (talk • contribs) 11:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: No file name provided. All your files need a confirmation of the license via COM:VRT. --Yann (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Vouga-ponte-mf.jpg

Hello

the author of the image Vouga-ponte-mf.jpg has in the meantime granted permission for using the it.

His permission is as follows: "I, as author of the above image, authorize that the image can be used under the license CC-BY-4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). You are free to share and to to remix under the following conditions You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use."

You can find this permission in his response here: https://www.facebook.com/skyviewmf/photos/a.113469703519886/262372808629574?locale=pt_PT

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lslopes (talk • contribs) 11:53, 24 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support The CC BY 4.0 license is available to the public at the page linked above and the facebook account looks legitimate. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, what is the next step now? Lslopes (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undeleted. @Lslopes: please have some patience. We are all volunteers here. It has literally been about 9 hours from your original request to having the file restored. - Jmabel ! talk 21:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:T.Nelson Williams.jpg

Please do not delete. I will start working on this article ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex0770426071 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: as per The Aafī. --Yann (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Luisa Castellani Wiki.jpg

File:Luisa Castellani Wiki.jpg Avevo inserito la stessa foto il 08 08 2023 su commons e poi nella voce di Luisa Castellani ma è stata cancellata perché non avevo indicato il copyright corretto. Ho visto che la licenza giusta dovrebbe essere questa e quindi la riporto qui sotto. {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} Ribadisco che ho scattato io questa foto ed è di mia proprietà Per favore, io no sono esperto, se non va bene nemmeno così scrivetemi semplicemente come devo fare o a chi devo scrivere e come, possibilmente senza rimandarmi a tutorial complessi. Grazie --Acroche (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Support Tagged for no license. I think we can Assume Good Faith. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: per request and Jim. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Boris and Ardyth.jpg

This picture was taken by me. Someone voiced concern that some photos on this page were of concern because they were new and why should a new account have new photos. Subject had just been awarded Canada's highest civilian honour -- the Order of Canada.--Tapyram (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)tapyramReply[reply]

 Oppose as MGA73 wrote on your talk page, if you are the genuine copyright holder, then you should send an explicit permission to COM:VRT. Günther Frager (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Eliza Lopes Elizabeth.jpg

This is not a copyright violation. It is initially from GettyImages which allows everyone to primarily use their pictures. I cropped this from the website ‘https://www.popsugar.co.uk/celebrity/photo-gallery/49140878/image/49140934/Eliza-Lopes’ willingly knowing the terms and conditions. I gave credits in the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyayhaqyyaha (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: apparently a copyright violation. If this is not, a permissions release from the photographer/copyrights holders to COM:VRT should help get this file undeleted. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Stephen A Unger.jpg

Please restore File:Stephen A Unger.jpg as we have ticket:2024012410012912 from the photographer for this file. Ww2censor (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Ww2censor: FYI. --Yann (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Hans Friessen.jpg

In Mexico law anonymous works are considered in the public domain until the author or the owner of the rights are identified and no author could be identified after a research The New Foxy (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose to determine that we need at least a copy of the publication where it first appeared. Showing a bunch of webpages that use the image without even citing the source only means the author is unknown to us. It is not the same as stating that the author is anonymous. Günther Frager (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. 2017 picture, the author can most probably be identified. --Yann (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Luigi's Mansion Arcade Interior.jpg

Simple logo The New Foxy (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose I see very little that is simple in this image, all of which is All Rights Reserved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Oreo shake.jpg

Oreo logo is simple The New Foxy (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Yes, but the package also has a photograph of an Oreo, which is not free. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. Without the Oreo package, the image has little value. --Yann (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Luigivari.jpg

Il file Luigivari.jpeg è libero da ogni copyright in quanto è un opera da me creata.

Richiedo il ripristino del file Luigivari.jpeg--Albabiancazzurra (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose we need an explicit permission that the requester should send to the COM:VRT team. Once they review and approve it, the image will be undeleted. Günther Frager (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Netflix poster

This is a Netflix poster for the Ricky Gervias comedy special "Humanity". I didn't put the right copyright databse and I'm sorry for that. I'm commited to correct my mistake in order to reupload it. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvadrosss (talk • contribs) 13:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)~ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Netflix posters are not free. Please read COM:L. --Yann (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Giordano Bruno Lattuada.jpg

We are looking at a 50 year old man, not a 75 year old man, so yes, the image was created prior to 1976. He died in 1978. We are also relying on case law where an image is "made public" when it leaves the custody of the photographer. --RAN (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not quite accurate for Italy. Under the Berne Convention https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/283698 "The expression “published works” means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication." I'd say that 1950s is more likely than the 1970s in the creation of this photograph, however I would say this is an artistic photograph with a term of PMA 70 rather than a simple photograph with a term of 20 years plus publication. Abzeronow (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Italy is a 20 years from creation copyright jurisdiction for photographs. "Artistic photographs" would be found in museums like this image: File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg, a picture of an artist, does not make an image artistic. Art photography involves costuming and staging and props, not just clicking the shutter. For instance the photographs of Annie Leibovitz and Anne Geddes. Their images are in museums and they sell signed, numbered prints of their photographs as works of art. Just pressing the shutter is something a monkey can do: File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg. We also have no evidence that the image was made public without the "consent of their author". That argument that we need to prove that an image was distributed with the author's consent could used to denigrate any image, we have no proof for any historical image we host from Italy, and we have over 10,000. I would agree if we had evidence that the image was stolen like we had with the 2014 celebrity pictures hack. Those images did not have the "consent of their author". Non digital photograph is also not like a painting/performance, once the negative (the original creative work) is turned into a positive print, we now have a perceivable copy made, and the copyright clock starts. --RAN (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • OK, this photo has props (pipe, cup with brushes, artist's artwork) and staging (artist is posed deliberately in constrast to the art work). It is not a simple photograph, it is not documentary in nature. Abzeronow (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you give some examples where courts have ruled on what is art, and what is not art in photography? That would be helpful. I would assume art is found displayed in galleries and museums. --RAN (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what Italian jurisprudence says on this. @Ruthven: @Blackcat: Abzeronow (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Picture from the 1950s. {{PD-Italy}} applies. Yann (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support first of all, even before thinking of deleting it, the file itself never should have been proposed for deletion. At least, advice from Italian Commoners was recommended because they know the Italian law. Second, no one in good faith can assume that this is a photograph of a 70+ old man (GB Lattuada died in 1978 aged 74).
    The photograph itself was uploaded by his son Bruno Lattuada, who was an architect born in 1956 and dead in 2020. This is clearly a photo taken way before the 1970s.
    That apart common sense suggests prudence in these cases. We are not talking of vandalism or blatant copyright violations immediately recognizable via reverse search. -- Blackcat 21:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Lieutenant Governor Tammy Miller.jpg

This is an official portrait taken by a State of North Dakota employee. Everything produced by the State of North Dakota is in the Public domain- Therefore, it is not copyrighted — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReitenJohn (talk • contribs) 16:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:AI Jenny Everywhere fanart.jpg

A case of anti AI images crackdown where lots of far less useful images are kept and the deletion is not justified by the deletion discussion. Per the debate the closing conclusion was Deleted: with exception of File:AI Jenny Everywhere fanart.jpg per nomination & discussion Of the people participating in the debate, two briefly called for deletion of all while three asked for this one to be kept. It is useful for being one of very few (maybe just two) illustrating Dieselpunk as well as for Category:Jenny Everywhere. If the file remains deleted despite all of this, at the very least an explanation is needed. See the DR for info/context. --Prototyperspective (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Mynampallyrohit.png

Hi It is an original picture, it was also used in election campagining that is why it is seen somewhere else. Please process the undeletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishikanthprabhu (talk • contribs) 09:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose File copied from the Internet. The copyright holder must send a permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Носов, Сергей Константинович.jpg

Фото не нарушает авторских прав. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkrylov (talk • contribs) 09:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The EXIF data says you are not the author. Please request the copyright holder to send a permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per Yann 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 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:koovode.jpg

It's me, and it is 100% valid files, so I request for Un deletion of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N Adarsh N P V (talk • contribs) 09:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: No file by that name. All your files are out of scope. Please read COM:SCOPE. Blocked on the English Wikipedia for self-promotion. --Yann (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Danielle Dunsmore Official Campaign Photo 2024.jpg undeletion

I am the owner of this photo, and the copy write owner. The photo was created for the use of all candidate material including Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielledunsmore (talk • contribs) 11:00, January 26, 2024‎ (UTC)

The deletion reason says there is a copyright notice of (C) Rix Ryan Photography Qld. Normally, the photographer owns the copyright, and is the only one who can license it the way we need, even if you have a wide license to use it to promote a campaign. It would be legal to host here, but per site policy we need the photo licensed per the definitions at Commons:Licensing, which require it to be allowed anywhere. The photographer (or copyright owner, if there was a transfer) would need to follow the steps in COM:VRT, sending a private email, and the photo would be undeleted at the end of that process.
Current Australian law does say (article 35(5)):
where:
(a) a person makes, for valuable consideration, an agreement with another person for the taking of a photograph for a private or domestic purpose, the painting or drawing of a portrait or the making of an engraving by the other person; and
(b) the work is made in pursuance of the agreement;
the first-mentioned person is the owner of any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of this Part, but, if at the time the agreement was made that person made known, expressly or by implication, to the author of the work the purpose for which the work was required, the author is entitled to restrain the doing, otherwise than for that purpose, of any act comprised in the copyright in the work.
It does not seem as though this was for a "private or domestic purpose". Earlier versions of Australian law did not have the "private or domestic purpose" qualifier, nor the long clause after the "but" at the end -- so the copyright to such photos were for a long time owned by the commissioning party. But, it would appear, that is no longer the case unless there was an express agreement to transfer the copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose I, agree with Carl. In addition to the fact that this is not a "private or domestic purpose", the requester tells us, "The photo was created for the use of all candidate material including Wikipedia". That does not include freely licensing it here. Since that was not the purpose for which the image was created, "the author is entitled to restrain the doing, otherwise than for that purpose, of any act comprised in the copyright in the work.
In order to restore it, we will need a free license from the phtographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: this requires a permission release through COM:VRT for getting undeleted. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:K-On anime logo (US).svg

The file was deleted in October 2023 and has never been used since. It was uploaded as PD-textlogo.

However if this restoration is denied on the Commons, I request this file to be transferred for the English Wikipedia article: K-On! (TV series) in accordance with fair use.

Contingency: Request temporary undeletion

-Imperial meter (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Imperial meter: when are you usually online? Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm alive. User:LaMagiaaa deleted those back in October here. In addition to above, could you also undelete File:K-ON anime logo.svg and transfer the file to the Japanese Wikipedia via fair use if the file is unable to remain in commons? -- Imperial meter (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can temporarily undelete the file, but you would have to do the transfer to English Wikipedia yourself. Same case with Japanese Wikipedia (I don't read or speak Japanese, so transfering it there would be very difficult for me.) Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you mentioned me, I want to notice that it seems Japanese Wikipedia not allow this picture by the policy. Be careful about that. See w:ja:Wikipedia:FAQ 画像などのファイル#フェアユースによるファイルのアップロードはできますか. LaMagiaaa (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, LaMagiaaa. Imperial meter, I cannot undelete the one you want on Japanese Wikipedia because the copyright is still active in Japan. Japanese Wikipedia only allows fair use for media that is expired in Japan but not in the United States (which tends to include many things from the 1940s to the 1960s, and also post-1928 media from authors who died from 1947 to 1967.). Abzeronow (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harry Topham.jpg

Consensus was to keep the images because they are in the public domain because of their age and because they are anonymous, all circa 1900. The argument for closing as delete was that the images could be from as late as 1909, and are past the 1996 URAA date, but it is not, 1954 is the correct cutoff date for creation. If we assume they were never made public, the license reads: "A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1954)". --RAN (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The math is wrong in the deletion reason, but the above also is not quite correct. PD-UK-unknown is 70 years from the "making available to the public", not creation. That does include public display and broadcast, so is less strict than the term "publication". To avoid the URAA, they would have needed to be made available before 1926. Of course, if these were "published" (in the U.S. sense) before 1929 then the URAA is irrelevant as they are PD-US-expired regardless. 1909+70 is 1979, not 1999, which is the year stated in the DR. It is true that these may not be old enough for PD-old-assumed, which is 120 years from creation. The only chance these have to still be under copyright is if the photographer was named at the time (and just not mentioned in the online copy), and lived to 1954 or later. For the U.S., if the photo was unpublished until 1989 it could still be under copyright, but that seems rather unlikely. Some of the images at the source were clearly published at the time. In most of the EU, determining "anonymous" often needs some idea of the original publication. So if no source was given, the DR seems justified. The UK with it's "unknown" may not need that, though some effort to find the publication probably needs to be done. I was not able to find anything further on the Topham photo with a quick search. I can't see the deleted photos to see if they are from the stated source, and look like crops from published team photos, or other obvious publications, or if look like they may be a private photo (more of a potential problem). But if they look like team photos which would have almost certainly been published, PD-UK-unknown and PD-US-expired seem like reasonable assumptions. So lean  Keep, probably. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: See above. @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Please fix the license, and add categories. --Yann (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Pure-J wrestling logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and should be reinstated. The entire logo is either text or simple geometric shapes. The logo consists simply of the white text "Pure J" and "Women's Pro Wrestling" over 7 straight coloured horizontal bars, going in a rainbow scale. All of that is undisputedly covered under PD-textlogo.

The only other shape in this logo is a four-point star. This is literally a geometric shape: The article w:Hypocycloid uses File:Astroid2.gif to demonstrate as much. The star does not place this logo over the threshold of originality, and in fact we have an entire category here on the Commons dedicated to such instances: Category:Stars in logos, and more specifically Category:Four-pointed stars in logos.

Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files: [6]

This file should be undeleted post-haste. Thank you, CeltBrowne (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:World Woman Pro-Wrestling Diana logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and should be reinstated. The entire logo is either text or simple geometric shapes.

The logo simply consists of the text "DIANA" and "World Woman Pro-Wrestling Diana" over a spherical globe shape. I believe this spherical globe shape to literally be File:Globe icon.svg merely rotated a number of degrees. File:Globe icon.svg is, of course, a simple geometric shape.


Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files:[7]

Given that this logo is very simply an instance of text + a geometric shape, it should be undeleted post haste. Thank you CeltBrowne (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:House of Glory wrestling logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and should be reinstated. The entire "logo" (actually a wordmark) is simple text and nothing more. It was speedily deleted via Template:copyvio instead of being nominated for deletion, and I believe if more time had been taken to examine it properly, it never would have been deleted in the first place.

The logo is as simple as simple gets: It is the text "HOG" and "House of Glory" written in orange with black and white bordering. The text itself is highly angular, with the "O" in "HOG" being, in fact, a rectangle.

Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files: [8]

I find it incredible this file was nominated, much less approved for deletion, in the first place and believe it should be undeleted post haste. Thank you. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Insane Championship Wrestling logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and should be reinstated. The entire "logo" (actually a wordmark) is simply the white text "I C W" with some red and black bordering. The entire wordmark is 2D. There is no complexity of any kind to this wordmark and it is entirely within the bounds of Template:PD-textlogo.


Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files: [9]


This file should be undeleted post-haste. Thank you, CeltBrowne (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: From UK, so it may not be OK, but not eligible for speedy deletion. Regular DR created. --Yann (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

My own pms from Steam, my own messages from forums

Were deleted as speedy without specifying exact paragraph (which is unacceptable for me). Not all were deleted, File:Почему нет 2.png was not deleted, but it has the same content.

Were deleted:

So you're either

  1. Clarify the speedy paragraph under which they were deleted and delete File:Почему нет 2.png as well.
  2. Restore the rest of the files. You don't have to apologize to me, although you can.
  3. Leave everything as it is, admitting to the lack of basic intelligence.

In case the demons don't try to eat my soul, I'm leaving some holy symbols.

🄯🄯🄯

UnWikipedian (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose I don't think these are in scope -- I can't read them, but the heading above suggests that they are the personal opinions of a non-contributor, which are out of scope both that they are text, which we don't keep unless it is notable and the personal work of a non-contributor, which we never keep. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then delete Почему нет 2 too. I need not a restore, I need logic and consistency. UnWikipedian (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted. 1-2 images for use in userpage may be in scope. But 6 is too many. Ankry (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Pro Wrestling NOAH 2021 logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and should be reinstated. The entire logo is either text or simple geometric shapes.

The logo consists of the stylised green text "NOAH" on a simple black geometric shape. At the top of the logo is a very simple, abstract representation of a wrestling ring consisting only and simply of 2 horizontal lines, and 2 vertical lines. This is as simplistically as a wrestling ring can be possibly represented, and it is done so entirely geometrically. It does not breach the threshold of originality, even a child could construct this shape with a ruler.

Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files: [10]

This file should be undeleted. Thank you, CeltBrowne (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Shimmer wrestling logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and should be reinstated. The entire logo is either text or simple geometric shapes. The logo consists simply of the black text "SHIMMER" with purple bordering, and three instances of a 5-point star. Stars are simple geometric shapes and their inclusion on the Commons is exceedingly common, to the point where we have the specific Category:Five-pointed stars in logos.

Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files: [11]

This file should be undeleted post-haste. Thank you, CeltBrowne (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:World Championship Wrestling (1999-2001) Logo (Alternate).svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files were uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and should be reinstated.

Both files are the text "World Championship Wrestling" on a geometric six-pointed star shape. Above the text "World Championship Wrestling is the text "W W", and both above and below is a stylised "C".

I want to be very clear about this: This logo is entirely geometric, and in fact, I believe it could be easily constructed by a graphing calculator, or on paper simply using a ruler and a geometry compass. In fact, I believe the entire intention of the logo is to be as geometric as possible.

Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files: [12] (The second file is the exact same logo, but in alternating colours)

Because both of these are simple text + geometric shapes, which are covered by Template:PD-textlogo, I believe they should be undeleted. Thank you, CeltBrowne (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: Not eligible for speedy deletion. Regular DR created. --Yann (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Pro Wrestling Freedoms logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and I feel it should be reinstated.

This is a logo (actually, closer to a wordmark) consisting of the white text FREEDOMS in the style of stencilled text, with a black border. The "O" in FREEDOMS is stylised, being a perfect circle of red within a perfect white ring within a perfect black ring.

The only contentious aspect of this wordmark is that the white stencil text contains some black "dirt" or "grunge" styling. I am not sure if this does or does not mean the threshold of originality in Japan, it's country of origin. If this wordmark was American, based on the court ruling surrounding File:Cyberpunk 2077 logo.svg and the blue detailing found within the yellow text, I do not believe it would be above the TOO.

Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files: [13]

I would appreciate a third party, one familiar with TOO in Japan, commenting on this case.

If it is the case that this wordmark is above TOO, I believe that an altered version, in which the "dirt"/"grunge" is removed from the white text, would definitely be suitable for the commons.

Thank you for your time, CeltBrowne (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: May or may not be OK, but not eligible for speedy deletion. Regular DR created. --Yann (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Wrestling Society X logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and I believe it should be reinstated. This logo is arguably *entirely* text, as it consists only of the white text "Wrestling Society" placed over a large red "X".

This logo has been clearly vectorised, and the entire shape of the red X is sharp and angular. The entire shape could be constructed on paper simply using a ruler.

I don't believe this wordmark has anywhere near the complexity needed to be considered above the threshold of originality in America, the country from which it originated. I don't believe there to be a radical difference in the red X contained in this wordmark and the blue detailing found in File:Cyberpunk 2077 logo.svg, which a US court ruled to be below TOO.


Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files: [14]

I would appreciate anyone who takes the time to give their view on this file. Thank you, CeltBrowne (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Association les Professionnels du Catch 2019 logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and I believe it should be reinstated. The entire logo is either text or simple geometric shapes.

The logo consists simply of the black text "A P C" on a white circle, surrounded by a red circular ring containing the white text "Association les Professionnels du Catch".

Also contained in the logo are two instances of four-point stars. These are literally geometric shapes: The article w:Hypocycloid uses File:Astroid2.gif to demonstrate as much. The stars do not place this logo over the threshold of originality, and in fact we have an entire category here on the Commons dedicated to such instances: Category:Stars in logos, and more specifically Category:Four-pointed stars in logos.


Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files: [15]


Although this logo is "busier" than perhaps the average instance of a Template:PD-textlogo, it remains at its core comprised simply of only text or geometric shapes.

Because it is only text and geometric shapes, I would ask that this file be undeleted unless someone can specifically show that it would be considered above TOO in France, its country of origin.

Thank you, CeltBrowne (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: Not eligible for speedy deletion. Regular DR created. --Yann (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and I believe it's deletion should be re-considered.

The logo itself consists of the pink text "Victory through guts - All Japan Women's Pro Wrestling Promotions" in a circular ring. At the center of the logo is a geometric shape representing a "W". Also contained in the logo are 2 instances of a 5-pointed star. Stars are geometric shapes and they are so commonly part of PD-textlogos that we have Category:Five-pointed stars in logos.

The only contentious aspect of this logo is the presence of an abstract representation of a crown appearing over the "W". This crown is done in a simple, "vector" style similar to that of File:Crown Silhouette.svg and File:Crown linear.svg.

Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files: [16]

This logo country of origin is Japan; can anyone familar with TOO in Japan confirm that the crown is above Japanese TOO?

Your help would be appreciated,

Thanks, CeltBrowne (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Cefn Cribwr F.C.png

Logo was designed by myself for club, I give permission for it to be displayed for informational purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.93.32 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 27 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Procedural close, double request. Thuresson (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

File:Chunjaesoo portrait.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is published under Korea Open Government License Type 1, which is free license. See copyright policy (저작권 정책) section and KOGL logo on This page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashflu (talk • contribs) 08:52, 27 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Procedural close. Please do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted. Follow the instructions to open a deletion request. Thuresson (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Not currently deleted. Please comment in the deletion request. --Yann (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Dariusz Klimczak 2024.jpg

Witam.

Nazywam się Aleksander Łokietek i jestem pracownikiem Ministerstwa Infrastruktury. To zdjęcie zostało dodane na polecenie mojego przełożonego, rzecznika prasowego MI, Pana Rafała Jaśkowskiego. Marek Gorczyński to jeden z fotografów zatrudnionych w naszym ministerstwie. Aktualnie to zdjęcie jest wykorzystywane również na stronie MI (Ministerstwo Infrastruktury).

Proszę więc o przywrócenie zdjęcia.

W razie pytań proszę o kontakt na stronie dyskusji, albo na mail aleksander.lokietek@mi.gov.pl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.infrastruktura (talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Please ask the copyright holder to send a permission via COM:VRT. A legal representative of the Ministry of Infrastructure should send the permission. Yann (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:KIM DOEUP official portrait.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is published under Korea Open Government License Type 1, which is free license. See copyright policy (저작권 정책) section and KOGL logo on This page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashflu (talk • contribs) 08:57, 27 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Procedural close. File is not deleted, follow the instructions to open a regular deletion request. Thuresson (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Yang hyang ja official portrait 2020.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is published under Korea Open Government License Type 1, which is free license. See copyright policy (저작권 정책) section and KOGL logo on This page.

Procedural close. File is not deleted, follow the instructions to open a regular deletion request. Thuresson (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Cefn Cribwr F.C.png

Club badge was uploaded with author's permission for informational purposes. Club or author submitted no copyright infringement claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshfootballwiki (talk • contribs) 09:01, 27 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose "Informational purposes" does not allow anybody to use this logo for any purpose. Thuresson (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Ноздрачов Олексій Олексійович.jpg

The file was deleted by mistake. It was shared under a free license:

See orange text in the bottom: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. Also, you can see this image here:

I believe it's just a part of disruptive work of Kursant504, as it was specified here:

--VoidWanderer (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is the burden of the uploader or those who want to keep a file to present evidence of a free license. COM:EVID Evidence was not presented so it was deleted per policy. However, it does appear that this was freely licensed. Abzeronow (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support with the note that has been made above. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support I admit I didn't look in the Wayback Machine, where it shows the license in the footer: https://web.archive.org/web/20191213130004/https://cimic.com.ua/chief (the current version of the site does not have any info about licensing). —holly {chat} 21:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen ausgefertigte Heimatverzichtserklärungen zu Dolgen im Entwurf, die abgelehnt wurden.pdf

Guten Abend, es handelt sich bei dem gelöschten File um ein familiengeschichtlich relevantes Dokument der Plessen-Familie. Das Dokument ist bzgl. des abgewickelten Rittergutes Dolgen von zentraler Relevanz und erklärt historische Fakten nach der Wiedervereinigung Deutschlands. Das Rittergut Dolgen ist insgesamt von enzyklopädischer Relevanz. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of the people mentioned are identified by their real names by the Chairman of the Plessen-Family and I therefore see no violations of personal rights through the historical family document. - My mother Rosemarie Pfeiffer (geb. von Plessen) is dead. This is a historical- and one of the last documents of the Dolgener-Plessen-Family and it was the last with of my dead mother to complete the family documents, regarding "Rittergut Dolgen" of her suicided father Leopold Freiherr von Plessen, in an encyclopedic format for all Plessen-members and Wiki-readers. I think the chairman of the Plessen family - User:Christian von Plessen - also agrees, since he has publicly named everyone's real names. " Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Raymond du hast offenbar eine Oversight Anfrage zu dieser Datei bekommen und diese durchgeführt. Abgesehen davon waren die Angaben zu Autor und Urheberrecht falsche, es müsste auch geklärt werden, woher das Dokument stammt. GPSLeo (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Das historische Familiendokument der Plessen stammt - völlig klar erkennbar von User:Christian von Plessen - dem Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen. Ich denke, Herr Rechtsanwalt Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen zu Damshagen & Schönfeld wird mit der Veröffentlichung des historischen Dokuments bzgl. des Rittergutes Dolgen sehr einverstanden sein, da er selber alle Klarnamen öffentlich publiziert hat und immer an einer wahrheitsgemäßen enzyklopädischen Außerdarstellung der Familie von Plessen sehr interessiert ist, so denke ich. Als Rechtsanwalt und Volljurist hat er die Publizierung der Klarnamen hinsichtlich des Datenschutzes ganz sicherlich geprüft, so denke ich. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPSLeo Das ist richtig. Der Benutzer mag sich gerne für eine Überprüfung wieder an die Oversighter, aber logischerweise nicht an mich, wenden. Raymond (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@(Christian von Plessen möge sich zur mögl. Freischaltung äußern) - Das historische Familiendokument der Plessen stammt - völlig klar erkennbar von User:Christian von Plessen - dem Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen. Ich denke, Herr Rechtsanwalt Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen zu Damshagen & Schönfeld wird mit der Veröffentlichung des historischen Dokuments bzgl. des Rittergutes Dolgen sehr einverstanden sein, da er selber alle Klarnamen öffentlich publiziert hat und immer an einer wahrheitsgemäßen enzyklopädischen Außerdarstellung der Familie von Plessen sehr interessiert ist, so denke ich. Als Rechtsanwalt und Volljurist hat er die Publizierung der Klarnamen hinsichtlich des Datenschutzes ganz sicherlich geprüft, so denke ich. Ich bitte hiermit um Freischaltung des Dokuments, da es im Interesse einer enzyklopädisch korrekten Außendarstellung der Ur-Adelsfamilie derer von Plessen liegt. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support My vote, the reasons have been explained. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gordito1869: you cannot vote on your own undeletion request. Günther Frager (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only wanted to express my argument visually. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The activation of this historical document +++ https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:R%C3%BCckabwicklung_des_Plessengutes_Dolgen_am_See.pdf&action=edit&redlink=1 +++ would be even more important, as it clearly documents the final and historical demise of the Dolgen manor. All people were publicly expelled from Commons by the chairman of the Plessen-family association +++ here +++. I therefore do not recognize any data protection violations. I would very politely ask you to also unlock this encyclopedic and contemporary historical document. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC) - PS : "...das Verständnis familiärer und historischer Zusammenhänge" ist das enzyklopädische Ziel; deshalb ist die Freischaltung i.S. des Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen enzyklopädisch dringend geboten & absolut erwünscht, so denke ich. ... vgl. auch +++ hier +++; die neuesten Forschungsstände zum abgewickelten Rittergut Dolgen wurden leider bisher noch nicht enzyklopädisch erfasst resp. dokumentiert. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)-Reply[reply]
@(Christian von Plessen have now been repeatedly asked publicly to support the activation by publicly agreeing; since it is a verified user Template:User account verified I suggest that the support team made a corresponding request to the verified User / Benutzer Christian von Plessen via e-mail. The matter is very important for all Plessen and CvP will certainly agree, I think. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Various illustrations for which copyright has expired

These were all deleted in 2009 on the basis that the illustrator, Arthur Herbert Messenger, died in 1962. Under New Zealand's life+50 copyright term, they were therefore still in copyright in their country of origin. Since that time, the New Zealand copyright has expired (check COM:NEW ZEALAND to confirm NZ copyright term). They are public domain in the US because they were published before 1929 (exact publication, year, and page number listed in parentheses for each item). Therefore they are public domain in the US as well as in their country of origin. --Superiority (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: PD now. @Superiority: Could you please check Category:The New Zealand Wars and Category:Arthur Herbert Messenger, and link/add a Wikidata item to the first category? --Yann (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Frank Moss Bennett Up before the magistrate (sketch) 1933.jpg

Painting by Frank Moss Bennett, who died in 1952. Please undelete it because it's in the public domain. Michalg95 (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose A 1933 UK work is not in the public domain in the US yet. I uploaded this file and then immediately deleted it again specifically so it can be undeleted in 2029. --Rosenzweig τ 15:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per Rosenzweig. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Logo mlekovita na www.png

Speedydeleted in 2023, however it was was previously decided in that DR that it's {{PD-textlogo}} and there wasn't any other DR to override that decision. ~Cybularny Speak? 11:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Masur: Why was this deleted despite the deletion request? Thuresson (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support undeletion. The deletion seems to be an out-of-process action. Ankry (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment Honeslty, I had to miss the del req on this one. For the record, for me personally it isn't PD-shape. Masur (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Acción Democrática Legítima.png

Buenas, esta imagen fue removido hace 2 días por el Usuario Krd por falta de permiso del copyright, éste Logo está en el Dominio Público con respecto a ese Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acción Democrática.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbchyZa22 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 28 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Blurry PNG version of File:Acción Democrática.svg. Thuresson (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment Buenas, pero es una versión derivada de este que tu agregaste la foto AbchyZa22 (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:1994 circa Eva Friedrich Rötelzeichnung Selbstportrait.jpg

Die Datei wurde heute gemeinsam mit Eva Friedrich (Benutzerin:Eva Friedrich) abfotografiert; die noch wenig erfahrene Benutzerin:Eva Friedrich hat sie - mit meiner Hilfe - nur wenige Minuten später auch auf Ihre deutschsprachige Wikipedia-Benutzerinnen-Seite Benutzerin:Eva Friedrich eingebaut. Damit wurde ihr konkludentes Einverständnis gegeben. Ich bitte höflich um Wiederherstellung. Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo, Maimaid. Schaust bitte mal. Gruß von Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo Bernd Schwabe in Hannover, von einem "konkludenten Einverständnis" habe ich bisher in den Urheberrechtsregeln auf Commons noch nicht gehört. Ich kenne nur das vorgeschriebene Procedere via Mail an den Support. Gruß --Maimaid (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mit konkludentem Einverständnis behilft sich oft die Presse, wenn es darum geht, ob jemand damit einverstanden war, bei irgendeiner Veranstaltung fotografiert zu werden. Winken in die Kamera oder so wird dann als besagtes konkludentes Einverständnis aufgefasst. Wikimedia Commons arbeitet aber in Sachen Urheberrechte mit expliziten, bestätigten Genehmigungen per E-Mail, siehe COM:VRT/de. --Rosenzweig τ 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo Maimaid, hallo Rosenzweig. Ich stelle gerade aus im Zentrum Hannovers zwecks "Werbung" zur Beteilung an allen Wikimedia Projekten (mehr als 10 Stunden täglich). Wegen dem Löschantrag auf Eva Friedrich habe ich diese von der Ausstellung aus - zuvor unbekannterweise - nach Telefonsuche angerufen und ihr meinen einzigen "freien" Tag zwecks Einführung in Wikipedia angeboten. Das war gestern ab vormittags, ebenfalls dann mehr als 10 Stunden (inklusive Sichtung ihrer Belege, Bücher etc., Korrekturen usw.). Ihr auf meinen Wunsch hin mitgebrachtes Selbstporträt habe ich gegen Abend mit meinen Smartphone abfotografiert und mit der Commons-App hochgeladen (die App hat keine Wahlmöglichkeit außer dem unterstellten "eigenen Werk".) Eva Friedrich hat das Selbstporträt dann sofort - mit meiner Hilfe - in ihre Benutzerinnen-Seite eingepflegt. Heute mittag haben wir das von mir gemachte Foto von ihrem Selbstporträt dann erneut hochgeladen. Gruß und Dank für die gemeinschaftliche Arbeit sendet Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hallo Bernd! Dein Ärger kann ich gut verstehen, nur gibt es dazu eigentlich keinen Anlass. Du hast fotografisch eine Reproduktion von einem Gemälde gemacht. Dieses Gemälde hat eine Urheberin, und schon kommen Urheberrechte zum Tragen. Frau Friedrich ist die Urheberin und hat mit Sicherheit auch die Bildrechte an ihrem Porträt nicht abgetreten. Das reicht bei Commons aber nicht aus, uns das mitzuteilen. Die Urheberin muss damit einverstanden sein, dass wir das Foto ihres Selbstporträts unter der Lizenz, die Du mit CC-by-sa-4.0 angegeben hast, auf Commons hochladen dürfen. Diese Lizenz hat Attribute, mit denen die Urheberin ebenfalls einverstanden sein muss. Diese Einverständniserklärung muss die Urheberin einreichen, also Frau Friedrich selbst. Die einzige Möglichkeit dazu ist der Weg über den Support, den hatte Dir Rosenzweig schon verlinkt: COM:VRT/de. Eine Email von Frau Friedrich, wie es dort beschrieben ist, reicht also schon aus, damit das ganze dann vom Tisch ist. Liebe Grüße nach Hannover, – Doc Taxon • Talk • 13:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per discussion, was re-uploaded by the actual author of the drawing. --Rosenzweig τ 14:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Louis Partridge.jpg

A imagem está licenciada sobre licença livre do YouTube CC-BY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentim0106 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose No such license at source. "CC" stands for "Closed captioning", not anything else. Thuresson (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ancona - Monumento alla Resistenza al Pincio - Pericle Fazzini.jpeg

This sculpture was deleted in 2022 following this DR for supposedly violating the copyright of the author, Pericle Fazzini, died in 1987. The sculpture though as we can read here was commissioned by the municipality of Ancona, and therefore it falls under the provision of article 11 of the italian copyright law, which states that the copyright of the works commissioned by italian public administrations, belongs to them and lasts 20 years (see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#General_rules). The work was finished in 1965, and therefore it fell under PD in 1985, before the URAA. The relevant template here is Template:PD-ItalyGov.--Friniate (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support That appears to be correct. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Volver '88.jpg

File:Volver '88.jpg

Quiero mostrar en el artículo de Roberto Carlos '88 cómo es en realidad la portada del disco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo Salazar R (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose That's not a reason to undelete. On Wikimedia Commons, we can only host files that are either freely licensed or in the public domain. This is neither. Abzeronow (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:JJ Kriegsmann Youth.jpg to undelete

This photograph is a self-portrait taken by my grandfather, owned and distributed by me, and contributed to his Wikipedia article by me and with my permission. There are no other permissions required for its usage.

--Tkriegsmann (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=840982298"