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)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
66 copyvios • 9 duplicates • 4 adverts • 5 selfies • 252 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

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

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

Adding a request

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

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

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

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

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

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]

✓ Done: since nobody objected for over two months, I've gone ahead, restored the old file and merged all versions with the new file. --Rosenzweig τ 22:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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]

✓ Done: From what I gathered, these were originally created by some German state institution (a Behörde), which would make them some kind of official work (de:Amtliches Werk). Not the kind that is acceptable for Wikimedia Commons (per § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG) though, but the other kind (andere amtliche Werke per § 5 Abs. 2 UrhG). These are not acceptable for Wikimedia Commons because they must not be altered (kind of an ND restriction). While the files contain the coat of arms of Germany (which is in the public domain), I don't think they are coats of arms themselves.

However, their content is rather limited. Apart from the German coat of arms (in the PD), they contain some text/letters (too simple to be copyrighted) and the German and (old) Afghan flags, both simple tricolors without seals etc. and therefore also too simple to be copyrighted. The only thing possibly copyrighted is the (rather simplified) map outline of Afghanistan, and I'll go out on a limb here and say that this outline is below the threshold of originality in both Germany and the US.. --Rosenzweig τ 09:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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]
 Oppose The file requested to be undeleted is a smaller version of the color portrait which can be seen at [2], which is clearly a colorized (possibly also "enhanced"?) version of the b&w (sepia tinted) one which can be seen on the left here. Since Meyer Baldó was living in Germany at the time, was serving in the German forces and is shown in what appears to be a German (possibly Prussian) uniform, this photograph was presumably taken in Germany. There's some kind of embossing at the lower left (I can't really read it though, would need a larger file), which suggests a professional photographer.
So: The photograph is not a "Venezuelan" photograph, but of German origin, and we would need to look at German law, which uses 70 years pma. As the embossing shows, the photograph is not anonymous, but has an author. If we can find that photographer/author and that person died over 70 years ago, we can consider uploading the original photograph (not undeleting the colorized version though, which appears to be modern and may have its own copyright). --Rosenzweig τ 10:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: No consensus to undelete, and possibly still under copyright. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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]
I agree with that. Bedivere (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. —holly {chat} 22:57, 23 February 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]

...zur vollständigen familiengeschichtlichen-, historischen- und auch enzyklopädischen Dokumentation der Abwicklung des historischen Rittergutes Dolgen wäre sicherlich insgesamt die Freischaltung folgender - gelöschter - Files wünschenswert und im enzyklopädischen Interesse der Familie von Plessen :

  • File:Rückabwicklung des Plessengutes Dolgen am See.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen Einlassungen eines unberechtigten Dritten Vorsitzender des Familienverbandes der Plessen.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen gemeinschaftlicher EALG-Antrag an LARoV Hartwig von Plessen, Rosemarie Pfeiffer, 10-1994.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen ausgefertigte Heimatverzichtserklärungen zu Dolgen im Entwurf, die abgelehnt wurden.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen Notarvertrag zum Erbe des Rittergutsbesitzers zu Dolgen Leopold Freiherr von Plessen.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen LARV Schwerin Entscheidung nach AusglLG.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen Flächenerwerbsabsicht auf dem vormaligen Rittergut Dolgen nach ALG.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen Beschluss Deutscher Bundestag zu vollmachtloser BVVG-Vetternwirtschaft zu Damshagen, mit Auswirkung auf Dolgen.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Rittergut Dolgen - BVVG Landerwerbszusage nach ALG bzgl Dolgen.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Widerruf der BVVG bzgl einer zuvor bereits mehrfach durch LARoV und BVVG schriftlich erteilten ALG-Landerwerbszusage auf dem Rittergut Dolgen am See.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Aufkauf der (E)ALG-Rechtsansprüche an Plessengütern in der vormaligen SBZ.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Rittergut Dolgen - EGMR-Beschwerde 2005-1.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Rittergut Dolgen - EGMR-Beschwerde 2005-2.pdf

Die Freischaltung der vorstehenden Files würde die komplette jüngere Vergangenheit der sog. "Nach-Wende-Zeit" vollständig visuell ab dieser Zeit abbilden; genau das liegt exakt im erklärten wissenschaftlichen Forschungs-Interesse des Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen @(Christian von Plessen, so denke ich. Beste Grüße --Gordito1869 (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)--Gordito1869 (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC) --- ps : es liegt leider die absolute Vermutung nahe, wir könnten es hier mit einem Hochstapler der PLESSEN zu tun haben, der sich als vorgeblicher Rechtsanwalt in eigener Sache mutmaßlich widerrechtlich ausgegeben haben könnte, so denke ich (nach meiner sehr validen Kenntnis familiärer Zusammenhänge ist CvP kein (!) Rechtsanwalt ... und auch niemals Rechtsanwalt gewesen, so denke ich. - MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC) ... ps II. - ich denke, die aktive Untätigkeit des Vorsitzenden der Plessen - @(Christian von Plessen - resp. Rechtsanwalt (?) Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen - könnte als passive Zustimmung zur Freischaltung der historischen- & familiengeschichtlich besonders wertvollen Dokumente ausgelegt werden. Vielleicht kann mit der Freischaltung des ersten Dokuments begonnen werden, das den Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen sehr persönlich angeht ? - MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ... ich denke, CvP liest - wie eigentlich immer - vollständig hier mit; wenn nunmehr auch noch eine e-mail Anfrage des support teams an @(Christian von Plessen ohne Reaktion verläuft, sollte m.E. freigeschaltet werden. Die unvollständige & absolut beschönigende resp. wahrheitswidrige Plessen-Saga des Edelherren Christian von Plessen muss unverzüglich geschichtsfest fortgeschrieben werden, so denke ich. - Ich habe ein aller-letztes Mal persönlich versucht, mit familiären & sehr persönlichen Worten, diesen offenbar völlig "abgetauchten" User "aus der Reserve" zu locken. - Alle entscheidenden familiären Zusammenhänge waren dem Vorsitzenden der Plessen bekanntlich leider bisher nicht bekannt, das sollte sich durch Freischaltung der hist. und enzyklopädisch wertvollen Familiendokumente aller Plessen sicherlich ändern können, so denke ich. --- Wie vermutlich einige (deutschsprachige) User bereits festgestellt haben werden, haben wir es mit dem widerwärtigsten und ehrlosesten VERRAT in der 1000-jährigen Geschichte der Plessen zu tun; Wiki-Commons ist m.E. der würdigste Ort, Geschichte enzyklopädisch und familienhistorisch korrekt zu schreiben resp. zu dokumentieren. - Wikipedia und Wiki-Commons sind "Orte", die sich der Wahrheit verschrieben haben und deren User/Benutzer nicht käuflich sind (ich selbst war und bin als Mensch und Bundebeamter niemals im Leben käuflich) : nur deshalb war ich lange Jahre Wikipedia Autor (158-Artikel & Listen) ... und bin seit ewigen Zeiten Wiki-Commons-User. Geschichte muss immer & überall auf UNSERER Welt auf nackter & ungeschönter Wahrheit beruhen, so denke ich ! - MfG Michael Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)--Gordito1869 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ... ich denke, wenn @(Christian von Plessen keinerlei "Lebenszeichen" mehr seit nunmehr 3-Jahren - als vormals sehr aktiver Commons-User & hochtalentierter Wikipedia-Schriftsteller - von sich gibt, ist das sicherlich kein gutes Zeichen. (Bei Wikipedia gibt es für diesen Fall eigens die "Liste der vermissten Wikipedianer". Eine Anfrage unter dessen hinterlegter e-mail Adresse wäre vor Aufnahme in die Vermisstenliste - rein aus Fürsorgegründen - dringend geboten, so denke ich. Auch die durch Herrn Rechtsanwalt Dr. jur. Christian von PLESSEN vor 3-Jahren bereits angekündigte enzyklopädische Fortschreibung der "Plessen-Sage" darf m.E. nicht auf unbestimmte Zeit ausgesetzt werden, so denke ich. --Gordito1869 (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guten Abend + kurz nachgefragt : Spricht etwas dagegen, die enyklopädisch- und insbes. familiengeschichtlich- resp. historisch relevanten Dokumente in anonymisierter Form (wie z.B. hier : geschwärzt) ggf. neu hochzuladen ? - H.E. steht nicht mehr zu erwarten, dass der mannigfach "angepingte" User einer Publizierung zustimmen wird; ich denke, die Gründe dafür sollten hinlänglich bekannt sein. Das Anonymisieren von Akten ist allgemein üblich - ohne die zu dokumentierenden Fakten auszublenden. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guten Morgen, gibt es administrativ irgend eine Vorstellung, wie meine "undeletion requests" zum Abschluss gebracht werden könn(t)en ? - Ich möchte nochmals höflich darauf hinweisen, dass die familiengeschichtlichen Dokumente der "Plessen-Family" zum Verständnis der komplexen historischen Situation nach 1990 (Wiedervereinigung) von zentraler Bedeutung sind und - auch enzyklopädisch relevante - Zusammenhänge wahrheitsgemäß geschichtsfest dokumentieren (...ggf. mögen einzelne Namen und Adressen - aus Datenschutzgründen - geschwärzt werden; das ist/wäre ein absolut übliches Verfahren). - Herr (Rechtsanwalt (?)) Dr. jur. @(Christian von Plessen wird sich aus nachvollziehbaren Gründen sicherlich nicht mehr zum endgültig abgewickelten Rittergut Dolgen einlassen, so denke ich. - Die historischen Dokumente gehören allesamt +++ hier hin +++. --- MfG Michael Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)--Gordito1869 (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Minorax: , @Odder: , @Rama: We need an oversighter here, and Raymond was already involved and says others should take it on. Any other admins won't be able to do anything here. --Rosenzweig τ 09:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to confirm that it is agreed that the privacy concern with regards to the files has been addressed and this is a successful undeletion request? --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 10:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't even see the files, nor do I have access to oversighter communication channels, so I cannot confirm anything. Presumably the privacy concern has not been addressed, but that's what an oversighter would need to look into and possibly tell the uploader which parts of the documents would need to be covered/blocked/removed for a re-upload which was already suggested by the uploader (and then probably close this undeletion request as unsuccessful). Any other admins won't be able to move this forward. --Rosenzweig τ 10:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Raymond: Mind commenting on this? Google translate doesn't seem to be helping me to understand the situation. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 02:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are documents of Plessen-family history and historical value. Professor Ernst Münch (University of Rostock)-, the renowned writer Elisabeth Plessen and other experts were involved in the important Plessen documents and the matter at all; activation is also expected for scientific reasons. If there are data protection concerns, certain information may need to be blacked out, which is common practice. - If it causes "a headache", please at least unblock this one document regarding Dolgen-Manor : https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:R%C3%BCckabwicklung_des_Plessengutes_Dolgen_am_See.pdf&action=edit&redlink=1 --- All people involved were named personally by @Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen, the chairman of the Plessen-Family himself; Data protection violations are therefore not apparent. - Best regards : --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Minorax Email sent. Raymond (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chilean TOO files

Hello there. I want to ask for the undeletion of some images from Chile that have been deleted as a result of the misleading effect a now-removed phrase included on the COM:TOO Chile had. Per my reasoning at Commons:Deletion requests/File:AbcdinLogo.svg, these files are not copyrighted in Chile as they are way too simple, and the former claim that the "Estamos bien los 33" was copyrighted was not correct, there was a "presumed copyright" which has since been disputed in court.

Some of the files include:

  • File:Primera dama logo.png
  • File:MegaDementeLogo.jpg
  • File:Estación Vivaceta.png
  • File:Mega.png
  • File:Logotipo de Teletrece (1994-1995).png
  • File:Logotipo de Teletrece (1970-1972).png

--Bedivere (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was your statement in that DR a ruling by the court, or just an argument by one of the parties? Not sure we can take an argument by one party in a court case as evidence that they will win on that argument. That all said, if the authority that registered the phrase earlier did not have any obligation to determine if it was above the threshold of originality in the first place, then not sure the registration can be taken as evidence for their being a copyright (unlike the U.S., where a copyright registration comes with that determination, so if published as a registered work there, it's likely above the threshold). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's correct. The registration authority just complies with registration requests without actually pronunciating or determining the registered work is or not copyrightable, that's what I've called presumed copyright. The court case is still ongoing (has been for several years for causes unrelated to the actual Leitmotiv). Sernageomin's position (to my knowledge of Chilean law, and as a graduate) is entirely correct, but it just helps (within the DR comment) to illustrate why giving the "Estamos bien..." registration as the cause for deletion of files such as those I've mentioned is not prudential, as the registration does not imply a copyright was actually generated, and including it in the TOO Chile page was not helping. You've understood the whole point though Carl. Just a close look at the pertinent law clears up the whole picture Bedivere (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Jean Tatlock.png

Please temporarily undelete, the image was deleted without comment because it appeared to be part of a second deletion request at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Portrait_of_Jean_Tatlock_in_her_20s.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13. Feb. 2024‎ (UTC)

The file was not deleted "without comment", but "per nomination" accd. to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jean Tatlock.png. It's another (PNG) version of File:Portrait of Jean Tatlock in her 20s.jpg which is under discussion now. Why do you want it "temporarily undelete"d? --Rosenzweig τ 08:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had already written that it is the same photograph in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portrait of Jean Tatlock in her 20s.jpg, so I don't quite understand this undeletion request. --Rosenzweig τ 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: As noted above, this is a smaller version of File:Portrait_of_Jean_Tatlock_in_her_20s.jpg, which is a much larger image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Hey American! Join the winning side and be paid! You don't have to fight! This Girl & $10,000 Cash - North Vietnam 01.jpg

Reason given for deletion: "this file was uploaded to be undeleted in the future. As the author (photographer) of this Communist Vietnamese government work isn't provided I assume that it's 1980 + 100 = 2080, this around 110~120 years after its initial publication and would likely be in the public domain then".

However, this is an anonymous work. From what I can tell, with Vietnam's accordance to the TRIPS agreement, they have adopted without alteration, the Berne convention's 50 year term on anonymous works. As this work was definitely made before the end of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, it cannot have been published after 1975, and thereby it would enter the public domain, at latest, in 2025.

A further discussion on the copyright of Vietnamese propaganda can be found at the following link (although as this is discussing commercial exploitation of propaganda posters, no mention is made of some exemptions that Wikipedia may also fall under): here ATOMICMOLOCH (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vietnam, Vietnam has a 75 year term (after first publication) for both photographs and anonymous works. That would mean 1975 + 75 + 1 = 2051. Also still protected on the URAA restoration date, which is 23 December 1998 for Vietnam. Per Commons:Hirtle chart therefore protected in the US for 95 (+ 1) years from publication = 2071. --Rosenzweig τ 08:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Hirtle Chart and {{PD-1996}} both state that for foreign publication to be eligible for a US copyright from 1929 through 1977 you still had to be in compliance with US copyright formalities, which would include a copyright symbol and US copyright registration. --RAN (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're wrong. Restoration by the URAA did not require anything like a registration, notice or copyright symbol. COM:URAA: “7 USC 104A effectively restored the copyrights on foreign works that previously were not copyrighted in the U.S. due to a failure to meet the U.S. formalities (such as not having a copyright notice, or not having been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, or not having had its copyright renewed) or due to a lack of international treaties between the U.S. and the country of origin of the work.”--Rosenzweig τ 19:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
URAA is the reason why Hitchcock films from the U.K. had their U.S. copyrights restored, and as I mention below, Metropolis, which we cannot host here until 2047 due to German copyright, but it is once again public domain in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As mentioned above, that is not correct. The URAA applied regardless of formalities, provided the work was protected in the source country on the URAA date. What those references mean, is that if a work did conform to U.S. formalities, then it's still protected in the U.S. for the full term regardless if it had expired in the source country before the URAA date. It never expired, so it never needed to be restored in that situation. That is rare for anything outside of books or music, but it's possible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Stanley nwabali profile.png

Please I'm appealing for the above file which was added to deletion by Adeletron As copy violation of which was not. The picture is my own work and wasn't copied from any site and I have this photo from the first day it was taken. If someone gets hold of it and used it before me does that mean that the original owner is copyvio? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnefx (talk • contribs) 03:50, 15 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose If a photo was published elsewhere before its upload to Commons without a free license, then the policy requires that the photo actual copyright holder (who is the photographer by default) needs to send a formal free license permission to VRT. Ankry (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Seo consulting - missions d’un consultant SEO.png

This file is a creation of mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathros jo (talk • contribs) 11:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was copied from [3]. But is it in scope? Is there any use on Wikimedia projects? Yann (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per Yann. Source site has explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:A.Candu_profile_photo_2021.jpg

Dear Wiki team,

Please approve the request to undelete the file A.Candu_profile_photo_2021.jpg This photo can be used free, no copyright needed. It was taken by pr&communication team of Mr. Andrian Candu, which I lead in 2021. Thank you in advance.

--I.timcu (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose @I.timcu: Previously published files like this need additional verification that the copyright holders agree to a free license. Please contact COM:VRT if you are the copyright holder or have the authority to represent them. Abzeronow (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Mk.portrait.jpg

Прошу повернути фотографію військовослужбовця Кобилянського Мирослава як таку, що була надана ним особисто для використання на сторінці Вікіпедії. Daryna.svitloitin (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC) 15.02.2024р.Reply[reply]

Google translate: "Please return the photo of military serviceman Myroslav Kobylyansky as the one that was provided by him personally for use on the Wikipedia page."

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mk.portrait.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Slam Director's Poster Oct18 Low.png

Please undelete this poster. This is a low-resolution poster of the film - Fair use images of film posters. Why was it deleted? I'm the filmmaker & copyright holder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:3d42:ca00:9178:ad0:23d5:5257 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 16 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Commons doesn't allow Fair use. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Lunar Glitch VHS 01.png

I received a wiki notification requesting removal of my file

📌 in May 2022 he deleted all the metadata (data from categories like: astronomy,… etc as you will see in the video) to classify as: screenshot (that suits me, but deleting the other categories is an abuse) but that's not all: the image is part of a wiki sciences competition so was uploaded seen registered and approved years ago and also: used by two pages; just for that plus according to the charter, the deletion should not even have been considered.


Info: 📌 This media file has been nominated for deletion since 9 February 2024.

Reason for the nomination: Appears to be a screenshot from a camera, not uploader's work

🙄

If this is a screenshot? I didn't know that a VHS video could be entered on Wikicommons!


It turns out that all these interactions have no real meaning; everything points us towards harassment since he takes months and has interactions on my work when I don't know it and several months later, he wants to destroy the work, again:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by VeronicaInDream (talk • contribs) 15:24, 16 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment This does look like a VHS tape being used to record a lunar eclipse in 2019. It looks like this was originally posted to your patreon and also your website
"https://www.patreon.com/posts/done-on-time-22432857utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=postshare All the steps are in my Patreon https://www.patreon.com/InDream" and "Video https://www.veronicaindream.space/videos?wix-vod-video-id=41da9eb8a8294bcb8153a9f3c417fa7b&wix-vod-comp-id=comp-iyanye7c#" Abzeronow (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes! What is the problem ? I can’t upload the tape here! .. VeronicaInDream (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll wait a few more days to see if anyone has any objection to undeletion. Abzeronow (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh! Really sorry for the delay.. I don’t received any notification ;( okay many thanks. VeronicaInDream (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: appears to be an own work. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Alex Stenzel, Seyhoun Gallery 2009.jpg

The file must have been mistakenly been deleted as it is currently registered on Flickr as attribution and share a like.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/145135015@N07/32292326040/in/dateposted-public/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonlandsberg (talk • contribs) 16:17, 16 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vonlandsberg: , this looks like a classic case of license laundering. Account has no followers, and on Flickr, there is no camera EXIF. We would need Stenzel to contact COM:VRT to restore this photograph. Abzeronow (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose Two further reasons not to restore: First, the reflection makes it almost impossible to see the work of art. Second, while if it is not license laundering, the license covers only the photograph. The image still infringes on the work of art and requires a license from the artist as noted by Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Ron Lesthaeghe ,Demographer and Contributions to Social Demography.pdf

1. Wikipedia contains hundreds of biographies, and why could this not be the case with scientist ? 2. The contribution is much more than a simple biography but equqly contains an elaborated annotated overview of his various contributions to the field of social demography and especially to the issue of the Second Demographic Transition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Lesthaeghe (talk • contribs) 16:51, 16 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ron Lesthaeghe: This .pdf file is out of Commons scope. It is not a notable work and this is a not a media file. Wikimedia Commons is a media repository. Abzeronow (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume this is about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ron Lesthaeghe ,Demographer and Contributions to Social Demography.pdf (which is not deleted yet). Wikimedia Commons is not Wikipedia; it is a repository of media. Large text-only documents do not conform to Commons:Project scope. If the text is worthy of a Wikipedia article, then it should be created as an article there (each project has their own determination of "notability"). If it works as a Wikibook, then the text can be added to the Wikibooks project -- basically if it's the text which is the important part, it should be editable by all, and there is a different Wikimedia project which is more appropriate than Commons. We do host large PDFs if the source document itself is notable, and is the basis for a transcription on Wikisource, but that does not appear to be the case here. See Commons:Project scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Flipaclip-logo 5.png

The logo was deleted for representing a non-notable animation app (and therefore out of scope), but now a Wikipedia article draft has been accepted: w:FlipaClip. ObserveOwl (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where does the Creative Commons license come from? I can't find it in the terms of use. Thuresson (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The logo is apparently a {{PD-textlogo}} per this discussion. ObserveOwl (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support: I agree with ObserveOwl as above. - THV | ♂ | U | T - 23:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Giuseppe Barone al lavoro.jpg

Nominated because new editor uploaded it as own work. The attribution was fixed, but the image was still deleted because of PCP. Italy is a 20 year copyright jurisdiction but the deleter believes it may be less than 20 years old, so PCP applies. Deleted because dating and image is "just assumptions; we need proof". Before exif data, all images are estimates based on contextual clues and the birth and death dates of the subject. There is rarely proof, unless they are holding a daily newspaper or aboard the sinking Titanic. --RAN (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A posed, portrait photograph may not count as a "simple" snapshot-type photo in Italy but rather be 70pma. I can't see it, so not sure, but I think usually, studio portrait photos were not considered "simple" but rather a photographic version of a painting, and thus a "work". Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That photo is obviously a work, but it doesn't have to get to that level. It's definitely not commercial vs amateur -- amateurs can create "works" and professional photos can still be simple. One judge said: Creativity is characterised by the originality of the image detail, the image composition, the photographer’s ability to create a particular effect that goes beyond the reality depicted. These features characterise the personal style of the author.[4] If you can recognize a particular style by the photographer, it's probably a "work" -- the distinction is more in how much creativity can the author adds, and does it bear the personal stamp of the author (the EU directive's term is the author's own intellectual creation). When a photographer has full control over the photo, that situation gets a lot more possible. Obviously, there will many that are arguable either way; this is probably one of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I can't see the image here, and don't think I found this one while searching, so I can't have an opinion on this image in particular unless there is a link somewhere. But, the general discussion above holds -- all photos are not automatically 20pd in Italy. But it could be old enough to not matter, as mentioned below. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment The picture quality is low, but Giuseppe Barone is less than 40 years old here, so this is from around 1925 or before. So, as the author is unknown, it is most probably in the public domain, i.e. 70 years after creation. Also in the public domain in USA, as from before 1929. Yann (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose I agree with Yann that the photograph itself is likely public domain, but this appears to be a photograph of Barone's studio with half of the photograph taken up by artworks by Barone who died in 1956. Undelete in 2027. Abzeronow (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would support undeletion, and cropping that part, as there is no other picture him around that date. Yann (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, fine.  Support a cropped version. Abzeronow (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support Also, support cropped version. --Ooligan (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support Agreed, although I would like to see a little blurring of the work immediately to the left of his head which would be included in any crop. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: See above. IMO the remaining background painting is de minimis: blurry, unavoidable, a small part and not the main subject of the picture. --Yann (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Shafeeque2020.jpg

Regrettably, the file "Shafeeque2020.jpg" appears to have been inadvertently deleted under unknown circumstances. Despite efforts to pinpoint the cause, the reason for its removal remains unknown. Your assistance in restoring this file would be greatly appreciated. If there are any avenues or solutions you could recommend to retrieve this crucial file, it would be immensely helpful. Thank you for your understanding and support in resolving this unexpected issue.--Shafeeque Thooshi Kannan (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Info: See Special:DeletedContributions/Shafeequeg of his previous account. --Achim55 (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Yundi Gloria.jpg

So, the photo orignates from Polish government department, Polish Institutes, https://instytutpolski.pl/beijing/pl/2019/11/15/li-yundi-laureatem-zlotego-medalu-zasluzony-kulturze-gloria-artis/ I uploaded it under the category Polish copyright law article 4, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Polish_Copyright_Law

Article 4 The copyright shall not cover: 1) legislative acts and their official drafts, 2) official documents, materials, logos and symbols, 3) published patent specifications and industrial design specifications, 4) simple press information. which considers the work as public domain

The deletion reason is Apparently not "official documents, materials, signs and symbols". I believe the official news from an official Polish department shall be an official document, if not official material.

File:Yundi being awarded with Gold Medal for Merit to Culture - Gloria Artis.jpg is being deleted for the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EleniXDD (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Question How does this picture is included in the categories listed above? Yann (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the official news from an official Polish department (Polish Institute in Beijing) shall be an official document, if not official material. EleniXDD (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose 2024 © Instytut Polski w Pekinie | Wykonanie: sm32 STUDIO - this page seems to be created by an external company, not Instytut Polski. While Instytut Polski may be the copyright holder, I see no evidence that the content is copyright free. Ankry (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Boceto Puente de sangre.jpg

This is a picture I took of the draft of Puente de sangre. Then, I loaded onto Commons. What else should I do in order to keep the photo in the article, Jesús Izcaray? Thank you! February 17, 2024 Josefa Báez — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefaIz (talk • contribs) 18:41, 17 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JosefaIz: Apparently an unpublished work by Jesús Izcaray (1908-1980). Do you have permission from the copyright owner to publish works by Izcaray? Thuresson (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose No response to a relevant question. May be undeleted in 2061 (1980 + 80 + 1). Thuresson (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: No response. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Colourful parade at Calabar Carnival.jpg

Please delete the File:Colourful parade at Calabar Carnival.jpg Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeola Ready O (talk • contribs) 16:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose I blocked this user for one month (2nd block for copyvios). Not own work, no permission. Yann (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Calabar Carnival 2017.jpg

Please delete the File:Calabar Carnival 2017.jpg Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeola Ready O (talk • contribs) 16:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose I blocked this user for one month (2nd block for copyvios). Not own work, no permission. Yann (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:VOSS Turbo Box Art1.png File:VOSSTurbo 64BowFighter.png

My images for my game have been deleted and I cannot find them in my uploaded files page any longer. I own the rights to all artwork for this game, I have created the images uploaded, I own the company that published this game, I own the trademarks for this product and the Maverick Software LLC which own the license for said product. I would like to un-delete these images. I am new to Wikipedia editing, and any advice or information to help me streamline the editing process as far as permissions go would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavericksoftware315 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Please send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. This is necessary for all content previously published elsewhere. Be aware that this would allow anyone to use them for any purpose, including commercial ones. Yann (talk) 16:18, 18 February 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) 13:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Lunar Glitch VHS 01.png

Can you please un delete the file? Iam PhD student. My work have a place here. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeronicaInDream (talk • contribs) 01:41, 19 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Procedural close, double entry. Thuresson (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Marek Walczewski.jpg

File was yesterday deleted, it qualifies as fair use image od deceased actor. Use of this image in low resolution won't harm commercial abilities of original product. This image will be used to identify visually person depicted. Michalg95 (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose It may qualify as Fair Use on WP, but the nature of Commons precludes any Fair Use here, so we do not allow it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Tulu's Selfie.jpg

Reason: It got deleted citing "personal photo." But I uploaded it to use it in an article on the English Wikipedia. Ashiquzzaman Tulu. Please bring it back.

 Support The subject is the founder of Ark (Bangladeshi band), which has had a WP:EN article since 2007. The subject posted it on Flickr with a CC-BY-SA license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: Subject is notable and it's freely licensed. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Tuffolino.jpg Artwork is from WW2-era Italian comics, semi-historical purplses

Basically, this piece is work is: A) Likely from someone dead. B) From WW2-Era Italian Comics. Could possibly be used for historical purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot655 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 19 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hot655: Copyright in Italy for creative works is life of the author plus 70 years, and in 1996, Italy essentially had a Life plus 56 years copyright term due to wartime extensions so it might not be PD in Italy or the US. The second rationale would fit for en:WP:NFCC but not here since fair use is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose Tuffolino was created by Federico Pedrocchi (died 1945) and Pier Lorenzo De Vita (died 1990) https://weirditaly.com/2023/03/28/tuffolino-the-alter-ego-of-mickey-mouse-from-fascist-italy/ Undelete in 2061. Abzeronow (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Jason Rowe.jpg

My file was deleted without discussion despite being my own work as are many other images of the same subject I already uploaded in this years. I don't really know the reasons since the file was there from 2009 without any problem and no one complained about it, the picture contained all the info about the author (myself) and permissions. --Cesco77 (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Odd. It was deleted for not having any license specified, but seems like it was uploaded in 2008 so it should have had some license all those years. Would need an admin to find out what happened to the license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support On 11 February 2024 User:Εὐθυμένης marked it as "No Source" although it clearly had "Source={{Own}}". User:Krd then deleted it for "No License". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: per request, looks like a file that had been transfered from en.wiki. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Danielyan Mushegh Archive1.jpg File:Danielyan Mushegh Archive2.jpg File:Danielyan Mushegh Archive3.jpg File:Danielyan Mushegh Archive4.jpg File:Danielyan Mushegh.jpg

5 files were deleted from me, indicating that there was no source. One of the deleted photos is a photograph of my grandfather from a family album, taken in the 1930s by an unknown author(File:Danielyan Mushegh.jpg). 4 other photos are archival certificates issued by organizations of the Armenian SSR (the Armenian SSR no longer exists)(File:Danielyan Mushegh Archive1.jpg, File:Danielyan Mushegh Archive2.jpg, File:Danielyan Mushegh Archive3.jpg, File:Danielyan Mushegh Archive4.jpg). I kindly ask you to help me recover these files. Thanks Samveltunyan (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The last item is, as the request says, a photograph taken by an unknown author in the 1930s. Armenian copyright for anonymous works runs for 70 years from publication, so the earliest that the Armenian copyright could have expired would be sometime in the 2000s and it is still under copyright there if its appearance here is the first publication. However, the Armenian URAA date is 10 October 2000, so unless it can be proven that it was taken before 10 October 1930, it has a US copyright.

The other four images are copies of documents. I can't read them, but at a minimum the same rules apply as for the photographs. If the authors are identifiable, then they have or had Armenian copyrights lasting 70 years after the death of the author. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what should I do? How can I prove that the photo was taken at that time? This is a photo of my grandfather and I don't have the right to publish it? Samveltunyan (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless you can prove beyond a significant doubt that the photo was published before October 10, 1930, it cannot be kept here. If, as you say, it was in a family album until it appeared here, then it has an Armenian copyright until 1/1/2094. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The photograph must be uploaded to the local wiki as a fair use. However, the documents can be restored according to {{PD-Armenia}}: we can consider these documents published in a sense in the moment of being issued, i.e. more than 70 years ago. The uploader's mistake was marking these documents as an own work. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's probably not correct. Unless the documents were published before October 10, 1930, they have a US copyright which will last until 95 years after first publication. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As we know, A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. As long as Works not copyrightable in the United States are not affected by URAA restoration, it might depend on what governmental body issued these documents and other conditions of this kind. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your use of the quoted statement is long obsolete. We routinely delete any work that was under copyright in the country of origin on that country's URAA date. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) You only address my first quotation and not the second one. If this kind of documents would not be copyrighted in the USA, it does not matter if they were copyrighted in Armenia on the URAA date. 2) I don't get the idea that the help page says this and everybody routinely does the contrary. That is not how the Project works: if the users, and the more so administrators, routinely do something that is at odds with the page instructing users about the problem, it is mandatory to edit the page and not to mislead other people. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It depends on how you interpret "A mere allegation". If someone says, casually, that the work might be affected by URAA, then the work will not be deleted for that reason. However, when it is proven that the work's dates put it under the URAA, then it cannot be kept on Commons. That is the case here. As for your second point, I can't read the documents in question, but I see no reason why they would not have a US copyright. If you can show that the nature of the documents is such that they would not have a copyright in Armenia, then they don't fall under the URAA and should be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: I have discussed the origin of these documents with the uploader and got ensured that they a protected by copyright because they are not old enough and issued by the entities which are formally not a part of the governmental apparatus. Still I believe that the current wording of Commons:URAA-restored copyrights must be corrected. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Alex Stenzel, Seyhoun Gallery 2009.jpg

Please undelete this file as it is licensed as attribution and share a like and it seems like it was uploaded by the artist him self as the name in the photo next to the artwork and Flickr user name are identical. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonlandsberg (talk • contribs) 14:15, 20 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Repeated requests without new information are a waste of your time and the time of Commons Administrators. As noted in the first UnDR, we have no way of knowing if the Flickr user who posted the image is actually the artist. I would be very surprised if he were -- why would a noted artist post an image of his work that is so badly obscured by reflection? As I noted above, the reflection is so severe that the work is out of scope even if it could be proven that Stenzel has given permission for its free use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:The Norwegian scientist Karen Blaauw Helle.jpg

We have VRT permission for this file at ticket:2024011610006766. I am a VRT agent for the permissions-no queue. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Jon Harald Søby: FYI. --Yann (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Khoshnevis Mansion

@Krd: I'm repeating my request here, to you or someone else. Once again, seven deleted files show a historical building, almost 200 years old. That's pretty clear from it's infobox (Khoshnevis Mansion) which states it's style is the Qajar architecture, further linking to parent categories which shows it's the 1789–1925 period. Also, I used four references for the style in Wikidata (which I always do for historical monuments). A lot of time of searching, reading and referencing, all for nothing, because the careless editor A1Cafel nominated all for deletion, without a basic check. Really frustrating. --Orijentolog (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The WP:FA article tells us only that, as you say, the building dates to the Qajar period, which ended in 1925. While the building may well be 200 years old, we have no evidence of that. A 1925 building is far too recent to assume that it is out of copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: there is nothing, I'll repeat, absolutely NOTHING of Qajar architecture which is copyrighted. I personally passed over 1000 locations and there was never a copyright issue. Even virtually all Pahlavi architecture (1925–1979) sites are today free (30 years passed since public presentation). Please elaborate your claim that "a 1925 building is far too recent to assume that it is out of copyright". It makes zero sense. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment Iran has a very short copyright duration, so anything from 1925 or before is certainly in the public domain. Yann (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consulting COM:Iran says copyright for architectural works are expired if the author died more than 50 years ago (1973) or if they had died before 22 August 1980, for works that their copyright expired before 22 August 2010 according to the 1970 law. 1925 is too young for even a 100 year assumption (1923 would be the last year as far as that goes), and an author who created something in 1925 could have lived beyond 1980. I agree with Jim here.  Oppose (see below) Abzeronow (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: did you read the rest of the COM:Iran? "In cases where the work belongs to a legal personality or rights are transferred to a legal personality, it will go into the public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation"? This is really getting more and more bizarre. --Orijentolog (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, the page mentions "financial rights" while the template PD-Iran has the wording you quote. When one tries to remember the copyright laws for 200+ countries, occasionally one forgets the finer details, we are only human after all. Usually this is where we'd try to ascertain whether the building in question belongs or rights were transferred to a legal personality. Abzeronow (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO this is greatly exaggerated. We have accepted many pictures of works from the time of the Shah regime, as sufficiently old. The 50 years pma duration supposes that the architect is known. For pre-1925 works, it is very unlikely. Even with 50 years pma, they works are most probably in the public domain. Architects of pre-1925 works most probably died more than 50 years ago. Yann (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Krd: @Jameslwoodward: @Abzeronow: feel free to delete thousands of other sites. I don't care any more. Thanks for proving this website isn't for professionals but destructive charlatans. This is really below my civilizational and intellectual level, so I'm out of this savagery. Goodbye. --Orijentolog (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am very sorry for these excessive positions which led Orientolog to abandon its precious work on Commons. Invoking copyright for works created 100 years ago (and 1925 is 100 years ago) leaves me very perplexed. Best regards, DenghiùComm (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. We use a 120 years rule when the copyright duration is 70 years pma, so for Iran, where the copyright duration is at most 50 years pma, a 100 years rule seems appropriate. Yann (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of the above speaks as if we have exact knowledge of when the building was built. It may be 150 years old, or 100, or 75. PCP requires us to have proof beyond a significant doubt. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: It can not be "75 years old" because the Qajar period lasted until 1925. That's 99 years ago. To summarize:
  1. Dating: no precise information, unfortunately. The website of Iranian architectural encyclopedia is down at the moment, so I can not check is there any indication about dating. I strongly believe it's the second half of the 19th century, considering the comparative analysis with other Qajar houses from that area, but we can ignore it as personal guessing.
  2. "Young" architect: even if we take "1925" as the year of construction, it is impossible that in strict patriarchal society like Qajar Iran some nobleman will give the construction of his mansion to a young apprentice architect who is 20-25 years old. That's totally out of question.
  3. Architect's lifespan: even if we take the (im)possibility that architect was born around 1900, the life expectancy in Iran in the middle of 20th century was less than 40 years old (yup, less than forty). An average person would be dead by 1940. Even if we assume he lived 80% longer than average person, 50 years still passed since his death. For that reason, there is no way that anything from Qajar period can be copyrighted. It relies on multiple impossibilities.
  4. The property is almost certainly acquired by ministry of culture or other governmental organization decades ago (likely there's info about it on the down website), as is the case with over 90% cultural monuments, and then leased to a private owner who use it as hotel (as sourced). It means 30 years passed from the date of public presentation.
Again, this is not the issue of the Khoshnevis Mansion in particular, but about over 1000 Qajar sites on Commons. If they're endangered by bizarre interpretation, I'm really out of this project. --Orijentolog (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Orijentolog, Architectural design eras do not have exact boundaries. While the Qajar period lasted until 1925, buildings designed in that style may have been built long after the period formally ended. Houses in the Victorian style are still being built, although Victoria died in 1901. It is, as I said, entirely possible that this building was not built until 1950 or later. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: Not correct, for Iranarchpedia the "Qajar architecture" means the period strictly between 1789 and 1925, not a year later. The same goes for other periods. There's not a single exception, I know it because I personally edited and checked virtually all Cultural heritage monuments in Iran here (>2000) and many more on Wikidata. --Orijentolog (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: For example: in a strict architectural sense, the Cossack House (Tehran) was built in the Russian neoclassical style, but Iranarchpedia treats it as "Qajar and Pahlavi" (قدمت: قاجاریه و پهلوی) because it was built in the Qajar period and renovated in the Pahlavi period. In other words, their periodization ain't artistic but purely historical. --Orijentolog (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no problem waiting a few days for the Iranian architectural encyclopedia to come back online, if it can be shown that this building dates from the second 19th century, then I'll strike my oppose and support your request. Even if it can be shown this was from 1915, I'd probably support your request. It would definitely be helpful if someone else who was an expert in Iran weighed in on this. Abzeronow (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: some items have permanently broken links to the PDF files, as the Iranarchpedia's director explained me few months ago when we exchanged emails. I can ask him. This article confirms my latest point, a newly established hotel was opened by Ali Asghar Mounesan, then minister of Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism, and other regional cultural officials. The property is state-owned, and leased to a private investor. There's the nearby Pahlavanpur Garden, again Qajar architecture and sourced as the 20th century (UNESCO's file, p.391). The document speaks about original owners as the former ones (p.390), and explains the registered gardens in general are under state ownership (p.664-). For sure it implies for Khoshnevis Mansion also. The architect of much recent Azadi Tower is still alive, but many times it was explained that it's under gov/municipal ownership and 30 years passed since public presentation. --Orijentolog (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, striked my oppose.  Support as public domain as a government owned building. Abzeronow (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have to be careful with using life exectancy. Life expectancies of 40 generally indicate high infant mortality. See the graph at Mapping History - University of Oregon. When the US had a life expectancy of around 40, a 20-year-old man would be likely to hit 60, and a 40-year-old man would be likely to see 65.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but even taking that into account, it is very unlikely that an architect working in 1925 would still be alive in 1973. Yann (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:RTL D Boris Breuer.jpg

Liebe Wikimedia-Commons-Community,

hiermit möchte ich darum bitten , den o.g. File wiederherzustellen. Der Urheber Boris Breuer hat das Foto, ein Portrait von Sascha Schwingel, zu seiner freien Nutzung zur Verfügung gestellt. Es handelt sich um ein offizielles Profilfoto der Geschäftsführung der UFA. Teilen Sie uns gerne mit, was wir für die Freigabe Sonstiges tun können.

Beste Grüße, Sophia Jarai (UFA) --VerLie2012 (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The source site has a clear copyright notice. In order to restore the image, the photographer, Boris Breuer, must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Realna-mzda.png

File:Realna-mzda.png The file was my work. I described the license exactly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cizinec (talk • contribs) 16:29, 22 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose No free license at https://www.kurzy.cz/mzda/realna-mzda/%7D/ Abzeronow (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Abzeronow. --Yann (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Copenhagen RLFC Logo.png

The logo was my own personal property, I own the rights and wish to renounce them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevendavy (talk • contribs) 22:24, 22 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Stevendavy: Please contact COM:VRT to confirm that you are the creator or can legally represent the copyright holder. It will be restored if VRT approves permission. Abzeronow (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done As per Abzeronow. Ankry (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

All files of Dmitry Borko

This user is confirmed (ticket:2024013110000181) that he is photojournalist Dmitry Borko. He uploads his archives, those from them, where he has executive rights. So please restore all deleted files - I see File:Wiki-oyub.jpg, File:Oyub Titiev.jpg, File:Wall of sorrow at the first exhibition of the victims of Stalinism in Moscow.jpg. Анастасия Львоваru/en 23:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Info I do not see identity confirmation on the uploader userpage. Is it publicly available elsewhere? Ankry (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My fault - it's a rare situation for me as an agent, so I requested to undelete and marked all existing files but wasn't sure where else it should be done. Can you guide me? Just to put vrt permission ticket on his userpage? Анастасия Львоваru/en 00:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rather than the permission template, it would be better to put a short note with your sig such as: "As shown on ticket:2024013110000181, User:Dmitry Borko is the owner of this web site. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I edited the page again. Just in case - yes, it is discussed in the ticket that he chooses only files for which he reserved the rights. Анастасия Львоваru/en 17:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Lvova: FYI. --Yann (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:汉质帝.jpg

Dear to whom deleted it,

I am Anshan, Historydiver, the one who edited some Chinese emperor pages in Wikipedia, albeit some got reversed for no citations, I want this picture back because it's used in Edgar Cheng, a YouTube channel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historydiver (talk • contribs) 04:27, 23 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The image was deleted because we have no way of knowing whether it is old or modern and because https://kknews.cc/zh-my/other/p24e2np.html has an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done No response. No information provided that justifies painter's death before 1924 as declared. All provided sources are modern. Ankry (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Yulia Navalnaya met President Joe Biden to mourn the death of Aleksey Navalny on 22 February 2024 02.jpg

File:Dasha Navalnaya and Yulia Navalnaya met President Joe Biden to mourn the death of Aleksey Navalny on 22 February 2024 01.jpg

Request temporary undeletion.

Please, temporarily undeleted these two files. I want to verify the date and time to help determine if an undeletion request discussion is warranted. Also, no redirect was left on either file. Most duplicate (F8) deletions I have seen, leave a redirect on the kept file(s).

Additionally, I have had some of my recent uploads nominated (manually) for speedy deletion as duplicates (SD|F8), such as [5]. However, all seven of my files that had been manually tagged for speedy deletion were appropriately kept by OptimusPrimeBot. Thank you, --Ooligan (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me, they look like exact duplicates, same size, same source, same date, same image content. --Rosenzweig τ 07:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, @Rosenzweig. So, what was the exact time stamp for each file? -- Ooligan (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can see them yourself in the logs: [6] [7] So uploaded 14 minutes after the files that were kept [8] [9]. --Rosenzweig τ 17:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig, Are redirects not required to be left by Administrators?
If a redirect had been left on these two files, I could have easily found and verified this information myself and not made a request here. The usual practice by the majority administrators that I have seen, is to simply leave a redirect when deleting their "duplicate." I think leaving redirects is a "best practice," even if it is not a requirement. Redirects can facilitate auditing and research into deletion-related activity, including potential abuse.
Thank you for those links and your help. Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per COM:DUPE: “After deleting the duplicate, redirect the deleted filename unless it is misleading or a very recent upload. (This avoids breaking links from external reusers of images.)” These probably qualified as very recent uploads. --Rosenzweig τ 22:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: I'll close this despite being involved, as the original problem seems to be solved and there's no need for a temporary undeletion anymore. --Rosenzweig τ 19:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Frintova03.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please undelete per ticket 2024022310003815. Thank you, janbery (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Janbery: , please update permissions. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:MANIC KAT RECORDS LOGO FINAL 2016.png

Hi,

Requesting undeletion of this image as I am currently working on revisions to re-submit page for review. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearefromjersey (talk • contribs) 14:13, 23. Feb. 2024‎ (UTC)

This is a previously published, copyrighted image. We would need permission from the copyright holder. --rimshottalk 14:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per rimshot. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Jüri Antsmaa.jpg

I do not see any valid reason for deletion. We have over 100,000 images using the license but this image is being held to a higher standard of proof than the others. The Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle requires "significant doubt", not just generalized FUD to delete an image. --RAN (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That rationale is en:WP:OTHERSTUFF. User:From Hill To Shore was correct in that an internet search is insufficient to establish the research needed to say a photograph was truly anonymous. Abzeronow (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Awesome, but you are quoting something from English Wikipedia, the Commons rule is the Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle which requires "significant doubt", not just generalized FUD to delete an image. Even if the en:WP:OTHERSTUFF rule applied here, 100,000 "stuffs" means that we have a consensus on the due diligence required to show that an image is anonymous. The argument that searching through 15 billion images is enough, has been accepted by over 100,000 images. You can always argue that if we just look under one more rock, a named author will be found, but that is just FUD, and could be applied to any of the 100,000 images, and it is not "significant doubt" or actionable evidence. --RAN (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • RAN, you're forgetting that this was a crop of a physical photograph, and the uploader might be cropped out the physical information on the photograph itself like a credit to the photograph or the photograph might have a credit on its backside. As said below, many photographs are not online, and we were missing crucial information which could have determine whether this 1916-1920 photograph was truly anonymous or had a credit that the uploader had left out for possibly innocuous reasons. Abzeronow (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Claiming that a photo is "anonymous" when not even a proper original source is given cannot be accepted, and just searching the internet is not enough. While "15 billion images" sounds impressive, that is only a fraction of of those existing overall, not all of which are even available via the internet. --Rosenzweig τ 07:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Oppose Much like the original discussion, RAN makes another sweeping generalisation with flawed logic. RAN identifies that around 100,000 files use the same anonymous licence template but then makes the unfounded leap of logic that all 100,000 have been justified through internet searches alone. Ergo, if those 100,000 are kept this must be kept too; or conversely, if this file is deleted, all 100,000 must be deleted. It is a logical fallacy.
While I am not going to make my own sweeping generalisations, I suspect that the majority of the 100,000 will have included a source. We will know the file has come from a book, an archive, a family album or some other named source. We will assume good faith in the uploader and accept their claim that the author is not named in the source. An internet search in those situations merely corroborates what the uploader has told us.
In this case the uploader made no claim that the author was unknown and (speaking from memory) I don't think they identified a source. It is quite plausible that the source included a named photographer but the uploader failed to mention them. However, without any knowledge of the original source, RAN has declared that because they can't find the source, it must be anonymous. All the failed internet search tells us is that we don't know where the image has come from. It is another leap of logic to jump from "We don't know the source," to "The work must be anonymous." From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The uploader never provided a source, only stating it as an "own work" (which could have been them misunderstanding our definition as they appear to have taken a photograph of the original photograph which was cropped). Abzeronow (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done, nobody knows where this photo came from, except the uploader, who chose not to take part in the deletion request. Most likely a studio portrait made by a professional photographer. Thuresson (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:3-Hydroxypropionic-acid-2D-skeletal.svg

The file was deleted minutes after nomination, which is unacceptable! I didn't have the time to respond properly. I hereby nominate the file for undeletion because it was drawn with a completely different style compared to the suggested replacement (File:Structural formula of 3-hydroxypropionic acid.svg). In the Commons:WikiProject Chemistry we have guidelines for drawing chemical structures and this structure followed the Manual of Style guidelines from the English Wikipedia, whereas the proposed replacement was drawn for the German Wikpedia project. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I'm just an ignorant non-chemist, but to me they don't look like they are in "completely different style"s. Some proportions might be slightly different, but that's it. --Rosenzweig τ 07:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those proportions are each exactly according to specific and (as you note) slightly different style guidelines. Each is a consensus on their respective Wikipedia site. DMacks (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not that it is Commons's place to question *wiki good-faith EDUSE, but Chem Sim 2001 I know the enwiki guidelines are taken from ACS. Do you know the basis for the dewiki guidelines (de:Wikipedia:Wie erstelle ich Strukturformeln?/Tutorial Strukturformeln)? I do not speak any German. But User:Rosenzweig, you can see from those two pages that the graphical parameters are indeed not the same. DMacks (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly, the en.wiki guidelines are based on the ACS suggestions. As far as I know, the de.wiki guidelines are based on decisions and evaluations made by the de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Chemie (the German Wikipedia chemistry project) long ago and have since been widely applied and established in the German Wikipedia. — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support OK, if the chemists insist that they need both of these slightly different drawings I won't stand in the way. Maybe put a note in both file descriptions that they are drawn accd. to de.wp or en.wp specifications and link the other version(s)? --Rosenzweig τ 09:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, since there are no objections anymore, can we restore the file? — Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Usually that is done by someone else a day later. --Rosenzweig τ 19:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noting for the record that undeletion of a speedy-deletion (that's not a copyvio) appears to be the automatic default action upon good-faith request, per COM:D policy, where objecting to a speedy is allowed and instead would lead to regular SD. Chem Sim 2001, I'm not sure if you are able to see that User:The Squirrel Conspiracy was the one who did the actual deletion, but sometimes it's easier to ask an admin directly about an action they take (and can quickly undo on their own when given a good reason) rather than a central notice-board that is sometimes more sluggish. I know you patiently explained to the tagger about this MOS difference, and they have now recognized the situation for the future. DMacks (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: <shrug> Sure, have at it. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File: rythme et chant Beninois.jpg

Salut. Ce file sert de témoin au gagnant du wiki love folklore 2023 que je suis. Wiki media ne vend pas les œuvres ils les conserve pour partager les connaissances donc cela permet la visibilité à l'artiste puis au soutien au contributeur gagnant. Car c'est juste du bénévolat et par ce prix vous nous consolez et soutenez nos recherches. L'art en Afrique se repose sur la renommée et l'image le reste il y a pas de gain. Donc la visibilité pour ses artistes traditionnels qui sont oubliés doivent être soutenu. User:Komavo, 24 février 2024 à 10h44 (UTC).

 Comment I'm assuming this is actually about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rythme et chant - Béninois.ogg. --Rosenzweig τ 11:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Komavo: What about the license: which license, who granted it and where? Per US copyright law almost all recordings are copyrighted. Ankry (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I added a message in the uploader's talk page in French requesting permission from performer(s). Yann (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:1963 asalto.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per Deletion requests/File:1963 asalto.png. Deleted in 2018, the file has entered the public domain a few months ago per {{PD-Venezuela}} NoonIcarus (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Still protected in the USA until the end of 2058. --Rosenzweig τ 14:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Per Rosenzweig. Will be under USA copyright until 1/1/2059. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

tatintsian.com

Please, undelete File:PeterHalley1.jpg, File:Peter_halley_at_GTG4.jpg, File:Peter_halley_at_GTG1.jpg, File:Chuck_Close._Infinite.jpg as far as ticket:2024020510006678 is received and accepted. Анастасия Львоваru/en 19:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @User:Lvova: Please add tags etc. --Rosenzweig τ 21:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Aleksandr Veprev Soarele cartofilor.jpg

ticket:2024022310007919 is received and approved. Анастасия Львоваru/en 19:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @User:Lvova: Please add tags etc. --Rosenzweig τ 21:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Dexter Goldberg.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2024021610004686. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @User:Mussklprozz: Please add tags etc. --Rosenzweig τ 21:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Sutermeister, H M. Zwischen zwei Welten (1942).JPG

The book cover lacks originality.--194.230.160.99 08:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support {{PD-ineligible}} The logo in the middle could be blurred if needed. Yann (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging the deleting admin @Jameslwoodward: as I do not understand the deletion reason. Any evidence that the logo was still copyrighted 75 years after publication? Trademark protection is irrelevant. Ankry (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the logo seems to be from 1940s, so it became PD is Switzedland in 2010s (before 2013) and is still protected by URAA. Ankry (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you just answered your own question. It seems to me the design in the center of the cover -- I assume it is the publisher's colophon, but it doesn't matter what it is -- is above the ToO. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said above, it could be blurred, and the file would still be useful. Yann (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support hosting the file with blurred logo; but does it require undeletion or just uploading a new file? Ankry (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: Image overwritten with blurred logo, so that history is preserved. --Yann (talk) 11:14, 26 February 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 Hunziker et Friedrich Sutermeister.jpg

The photograph of Friedrich Sutermeister (1873–1934) is old enough to assume that the author died more than 70 years ago (compare this discussion to another image where Friedrich is depicted with other people.).--194.230.160.99 08:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not from 1896, is it? Do you have an estimate of the year? Thuresson (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He married the depicted Marie Hunziker (1875–1947) in 1901. The photo shows them as a young couple. Due to their facial features, the photo was surely taken before 1910.--194.230.160.99 10:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support Probably taken shortly after the wedding. {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. Yann (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done as per Yann: it seems to be a wedding photo. Also undeleted the cropped version File:Maria Hunziker et Friedrich Sutermeister (cropped, Friedrich Sutermeister).jpg. Ankry (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Bob_van_der_Houven_(2022).jpeg

See: [Ticket#2024021110002142]

Since I am the person in the picture, I bought it from the photographer, Ben Eekhof, and have his written permission (see ticket) to use it for any purpose. I use it for press/media purposes, e.g. for newspaper interviews. So I am the owner and subject of the photograph.

I hereby affirm that I Bob van der Houven, the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work as shown here: Bob_van_der_Houven_(2022).jpg and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Bob van der Houven Copyright holder --Bobtales (talk) 15:57, 25 February 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) 19:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Flag of Grounding Countries.svg

I would like to nominate this file for undeletion, I believe it was wrongfully deleted as it is not copyrighted and there wasn't a clear reason given to delete it. Furthermore, I actually know Grounding Countries on YT and I helped him come up with the flag design. Don't believe me? Just ask him on his YT Channel. I hope you understand all of this.

--TheKumquatGuy2662 (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that it is too simple for copyright in the US, but I don't see an educational use for this. Is Grounding Countries a notable YouTube channel? Abzeronow (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but when he saw that I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, he did not show any signs of disapproval. In fact, it's quite the opposite of disapproval. TheKumquatGuy2662 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not seeing much that indicates Grounding Countries is notable as far as independent press coverage of them (I do see they are on a Fandom wiki). Abzeronow (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I don't see an educational use for this."
There could be some use in this, people can use it to express themselves better in some way that you and I don't know about. I don't know, that was just one possibility. TheKumquatGuy2662 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I call on all parts to remain calm and amiable, as well as exercise restraint:
-To experienced users: It is true that fictional flags are not only being permitted but also included in Wikipedia articles in lieu of real flags. Name calling from more experienced is not part of community guidelines (actually it suggests the contrary).
-To the user: Keep bringing the same points that are not convincing other users should give you a hint to change tactics or give another rationale. Any user can jump in to voice their opinions, this is a communit, and we are part of it (or we want to be part of it) Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point is that this "flag" does not represent anything but a YouTube channel which is non notable by any Wikimedia project standard, therefore outside of the project scope. Bedivere (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Per Discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Anto Finnegan.jpg

The photo of Anto Finnegan is running the other direction and the photo that they should he was running the left side, which makes that they don't owner the image of he running the right side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupusareawesome (talk • contribs)

 Not done: Complete nonsense argument. Copyright violation. --Yann (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Tour Perret, parc Paul Mistral.jpg

As of today, this building is not any more under copyright since Auguste Perret died on 25 February 1954. The Architect is dead for over 70 years. So this picture can be undeleted since it's now under free licence. regards, --Silex (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Oppose Copyright expires on 1 January after 70 years have passed, so the restriction you mention will be removed on 1 January 2025. I can't see the file myself, is this just the source country's copyright? Will the US copyright also have expired by next year? From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To answer From Hill To Shore's it's a French copyright problem indeed. Thank you for the information about the 1st January, I was not aware about this rule. --Silex (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: This can be undeleted next January. --Yann (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To answer From Hill To Shore's question, architecture in the US did not have a copyright until December 1990, so there is no US copyright in buildings created before then. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ishaan Dhawan in 2023.jpg

This file is of mine. So it shouldn't be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarapriya (talk • contribs) 11:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose I blocked this user for uploading copyright violations. They got a last warning on February 11th, but continued to upload copyvios after that. Seeing the history, it is very unlikely that they are the copyright holder. Owning a picture doesn't make you the copyright owner. Yann (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Riya Sharma in 2023.jpg

This file is of mine. So it shouldn't be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarapriya (talk • contribs) 11:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose I blocked this user for uploading copyright violations. They got a last warning on February 11th, but continued to upload copyvios after that. Seeing the history, it is very unlikely that they are the copyright holder. Owning a picture doesn't make you the copyright owner. Yann (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:John Howard Davies c. 1951.jpg

This old photograph is in the public domain what I replaced on Wikipedia, but it was deleted before. --2001:4452:16B:1900:F8B8:CCCA:F110:DAC7 15:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose 1951 presumably British photo, deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Howard Davies c. 1951.jpg; still protected in the US until the end of 2046. Per [11], it's from the Hulton Archive, so I'm not sure it is in the public domain in the UK. --Rosenzweig τ 16:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Info The photo has the initials "PP" which probably stands for Popperfoto; London based photographer Paul Popper died in 1969. Thuresson (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ASSURE WCD system - Garment, Style B.jpg

The photo was deleted because of copyright reasons and showed it on the website: https://sessions.hub.heart.org/sponsored/kestra-medical-technologies/modern-wearable-defibrillation/6345bd9b3a44c70001c69077

That website however, doesn't own the image either. It was also leant by Kestra Medical Technologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick98115 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In cases like this, we will need some evidence that the copyright owner has released the copyright under a suitable licence. You can do that through following the process at COM:VRT. If you include the name of the deleted file in the email to VRT, it will be undeleted once the team agrees the evidence is valid. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hans_Martin_Sutermeister_1961_(cropped).jpg

The photo is a cropped version of this photo. If the original photo wasn't deleted after this discussion, why was the cropped photo deleted? Thank you in advance for restoring the cropped photo.--194.230.160.86 20:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lina Baumberger (grayscale).jpg

The photo is a version of this photo grayscaled by User:MagentaGreen. If the original photo wasn't deleted after this discussion, why was the modified photo deleted? Thank you in advance for restoring the grayscaled photo.--194.230.160.86 21:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:AWH MP 2021 CC BY 4.0.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The source page notes that the image is under CC BY 4.0. Thanks, Frostly (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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