Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UNDEL)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

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.

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: alsarbarbnbebe-taraskcaeleneteofafifrfrrhehrhyidisitjalbltlvmkmsptroruslsrthtrttukvizh+/−

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

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 LiuTalk 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 LiuTalk 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]

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

Bonjour, désolé je ne suis pas un spécialiste de wikipedia mais je ne comprends pas pourquoi la photo dont je suis l'auteur a été refusée sur la page de "Nicolas et Bruno" que j'actualise régulièrement.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_et_Bruno

Je me suis sans doute trompé dans la définition de la licence. Je souhaite que cette photo soit libre de droit, dans le domaine public, sans restriction d'un quelconque copyright.

Parallèlement on m'a informé que ma photo a été utilisée sur le site Focus-cinema, mais à l'époque avec mon autorisation. >>>> Reason for the nomination: file under copyright (See https://www.focus-cinema.com/7741868/what-we-do-in-the-shadows-vampires-entre-toute-intimite-sortira-fin-octobre-en-france/)

Pouvez-vous m'aider et me donner la procédure pour que ma modification soit possible? Ou pouvez-vous le faire vous-même?

Merci d'avance pour votre aide! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmsChecker (talk • contribs) 15:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FilmsChecker: Bonjour,
Avez-vous l'image originale ? Si oui, vous pourriez l'importer pour prouver que vous êtes bien le photographe. Si non, il faudra confirmer la licence par email en suivant la procédure à COM:VRT/fr. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merci Yann pour votre réponse! Ça y est, je crois que ça a fonctionné!! Merci beaucoup. FilmsChecker (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The image as uploaded has a black border and appears in a number of places on the web. It is only 640px square. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Question Isn't this resolution a standard for this camera model? Ankry (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aha -- I think you are probably right, but it does appear in a number of places without a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do any of those other places include the EXIF? The one I found does not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support undeletion of the deleted version as the uploader was able to upload the version with EXIF. However, this is probably not meaningfull at the momen as the original version is not deleted~and I see no reason to do so. Ankry (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ankry has a valid point. Unless there is an indication from any uploaders site, appearances on other places doesn't matter. The higher version is here and the uploader is of course not spamming (or wrongly regarding others work as own). ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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]

Reason: The original reason of the delete was it's an "exact or scaled-down duplicate of File:Jebi Aug 03 2013 0605Z.jpg." However, the image in question was a scaled-up version I made in MS Paint, and did not have good quality. Therefore, I request for the original image to be brought back. 👦 14:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, How a scaled-up version made in MS Paint in in scope for Commons? Yann (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I got confused by my wording there. The deleted image was the original file, while this file was the scaled-up one, although I reverted it. It should be within COM:EDUSE. 👦 03:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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]

Hello Team, Regarding the next uploads from the user IchibanNOAH, I propose undeleting his first upload of Dr Death Steve Williams. --CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose I see no evidence that the photographer has granted any free license. Moreover, low resolution raises a doubt about authorship. I think, this case needs to be resolved via VRT. Ankry (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg

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

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

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

The logo does not appear to go over the threshold of originality. It is just a simple circle of shapes in a nondescript color of red with no other identifying features. Looking at the TOO page, a similar example logo that was allowed to be uploaded was the Car Credit City logo which is also just a series of shapes in the color red. The original deletion request also seems noncommittal about whether it, or the other logos included in the request, went over the threshold. I wish for this logo to be reinstated so I can put it on its article again for archival purposes. It's a defunct web browser for a defunct operating system made by a defunct company. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The Iris Browser was created by Torch Mobile, in Canada. The Canadian ToO is somewhat lower than that in the USA, see Com:Canada#Threshold of originality, and while there are no examples there, it seems to me that this falls above the ToO as described there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Under the threshold of originality. Strakhov (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to file usage in es.wikipedia, this advertising should have been published in Diario de Cádiz before 1915. Strakhov (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Not done: Below the ToO and also past the copyright period. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please undelete File:Kirk Shaw.jpg. This was a photo commissioned by Kirk Shaw, taken by his photographer Mark Maryanovich. Please advise what the next steps should be. Thank you.

Best, KK --Ambitious KK (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The uploader should contact Mark Maryanovich, the photographer, and request him to send an explicit permission to the VRT team. The instructions and sample emails are available at COM:VRT. Once the VRT verifies the permission, they will undelete the file. Günther Frager (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 9 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Requesting temporary undeletion to allow transfer as fair use content to English Wikipedia. Assuming it is what I think it is, i.e. a freely-licensed photo of a non-free object, it can be uploaded with en:Template:Photo of art/Non-free 3D art and a non-free content rationale, which I can write. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source of this file says "Own construction according to [2] and File:Karl-Marx-Orden.jpg" Abzeronow (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this particular file appears to be from [3] and not own work, can you please check if any of the files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Order of Karl Marx are plain and simple own-work photos? Thank you. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Teppich-Museum Oelsnitz Karl-Marx-Orden.jpg appears to be an own work photograph. It would need to be made lower resolution for non-free use on English Wikipedia though (2,334 × 3,753 is the resolution on it). Abzeronow (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you please undelete that one? en:Template:Non-free reduce can be slapped on it after upload and that'll take care of the resolution. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Finnusertop: It's been temporarily undeleted. Ping me when the transfer is complete. Abzeronow (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: it has been deleted again. I was not online during the time the file was made available. The transfer itself will not take long, but the file must be available when I'm here to do it. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging Krd. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Finnusertop: could you indicate what time(s) of day (in UTC) you are likely to be available? - Jmabel ! talk 04:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Finnusertop: Temporarily undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel and others: I'll be available in the European afternoons/evenings on weekdays, say 3 p.m. to 22 p.m. UTC. Two days of undeletion (or until courtesy ping to delete) was what I was prepared for since that's what the instructions say. But I can also manage with the stated hours. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 21:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Finnusertop: Undeleted for you. I'm hoping you can snag it right now, but I'll leave it longer if needed. Please ping me here when you've got it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel I might be around for another hour. But please note from the discussion above: File:Teppich-Museum Oelsnitz Karl-Marx-Orden.jpg is the file that was agreed to be undeleted. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Finnusertop: so sorry! Available now. It looks like Thuresson had also misunderstood, because that is what he twice undeleted for you. - Jmabel ! talk 23:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel Thank you. I've got the file and its description saved now. You can delete it. I will complete the upload on Wikipedia tomorrow. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfect. - Jmabel ! talk 23:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resolved by a temporary undeletion. - Jmabel ! talk 23:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

While the file was probably not uploaded quite right (sorry for that I am new to this) The owner of the picture is not the owner of the website I got the picture from, i just thought it to be mandatory to leave a link. The original photographer is Marko Pletikosa. Mia Pečnik (the person on the picture) is a personal friend and has allowed me to upload the picture. I highly doubt, that the website I named as source had permission to use it themselves. I am truly sorry for anything i have done.--SimonIMichel (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also if I should then upload it someway else, please advise. As I said, I'm very new to this stuff... SimonIMichel (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose The requester should contact Marko Pletikosa, the photographer, and ask him to send an explicit permission to the COM:VRT team. Once they check he is the copyright holder and the permission is fine, then the file will be undeleted. Günther Frager (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 9 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The source of the file was provided and it's under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam691 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Info Source is CC-BY-3.0. Ten Asia is an established Korean Youtube channel. Thuresson (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: Image isn't found any where in the video source itself which itself is the one licensed under CC-BY-3.0. Taken directly from Ten Asia Twitter post which doesn't indicates any CC-BY-3.0 nor release permission. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 15:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Paper9oll. --Yann (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

著作権のない画像が削除されます。

削除撤回お願い致します。

2024/01/11 Yukihiro Tomimura — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y20240104 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 11 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Google translation "Images without copyright will be deleted. Please delete and retract." That is not a reason to restore the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Not done: as per Jim and The Aafī. --Yann (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Undelete the page Sfurti Sahare, The user owns the copywrite of the image as she herself is the author of the book The Monkey Theory

--Sfurti Sahare (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Hello Wiki team,Reply[reply]

This message is from Sae the PR Team of Sfurti Sahare. She is an respectable Indian author and is quite popular in youngsters for her work.

Some User has deleted her page saying below.

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: https://www.amazon.co.uk/MONKEY-THEORY-Conquer-Mental-Chatter-ebook/dp/B09ZPT1WM5/ref=sr_1_7?crid=2SCY3VIAX48DC&keywords=the+monkey+theory&qid=1668851979&s=books&sprefix=the+monkey+theory%2Cstripbooks%2C321&sr=1-7 No indication that it's free to use Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Our response to it is,

1. The Author owns the Copywrite of the book and to prove this, we have added a document. Click to see the proof that we hold the copywrite. https://drive.google.com/file/d/19aMZv1O9lqMUDEFvBy-eUi4gWNwGhUkb/view?usp=drive_link

2. We are okay not using the images ( If that's the new rule) but we need to be undeleted as soon as possible. We are ready to follow the new guidelines too. Please need a positive revert on this Regards, Sae Supnekar--Sfurti Sahare (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)- ( 11th January 2024) Team Sfurti Sahare www.sfurti.inReply[reply]

 Oppose This is probably about File:Sahare-MonkeyTheory-27547-CV-FT.jpg. I note that this image has been re-uploaded after its deletion. That is a violation of Commons rules. As a general rule, the copyright for a book cover is held by the publisher or the creator of the cover, not the author of the book, so the image cited above and also deleted today as a copyvio, proves nothing. In order for the image of the book cover to be restored, the actual holder of the copyright to the cover must send a free license using VRT.

Please also note Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sfurti Sahare. Making false claims about authorship and re-uploading images after they were deleted is a very good way to be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Not done: per Jim and Elcobbola. --Abzeronow (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted through Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blacked out versions of images relying on FoP in the Philippines, and requested to be undeleted before. Now, requesting for permanent undeletion for use at meta:Freedom of Panorama (FoP advocacy page). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For some concern that blackish silhouettes are also problematic, Kai Burghardt has made a counter-argument at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blacked out versions of images relying on FoP in France. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: File:Burj Khalifa (no freedom of panorama uae blacked-out).png is missing a {{Information}} template. --Yann (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Buenas, necesito que algún administrador restaure el Logo de la Alcaldía de Torres (Estado Lara), en mi opinión es un {{PD-textlogo}} porque logo que según las fuentes en Facebook indica (https://m.facebook.com/people/Alcald%C3%ADa-de-Torres/100083169640620/) qué la iglesia y el sol representan un "geometric shapes" y B) el "Usuario:Josve05a" removió la imagen por un posible "copyright violation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbchyZa22 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 11 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose a drawing of a cathedral is no a "simple" geometric shape. Günther Frager (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Günther Frager:And sun its a geometric shape?? (up of a cathedral) (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is irrelevant as the logo has text, a sun and a cathedral. Günther Frager (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Günther Frager:According to the image (File:Ruinas de La Pastora.jpg) he built in 1776 (now it's a Public Domain according to the law in Venezuela 1964 or before) (Google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The drawing in the logo has its own copyright which is not related in any way to the age of the subject. The logo cannot be restored unless (a) the actual creator sends a free license using VRT, (b) you can show that the actual creator died before 1963, or (c) that the logo was created before 1913. Given the modern look of the logo, (b) and (c) seem very unlikely. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann:Can restore him or not? Please close this Undeletion request.AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose - The drawing may well be derivative of the cathedral, but original contributions by the illustrator would have their own copyright, indeed per Jim above. Would the nominator argue no photograph of the cathedral could have a copyright? One hopes not; why, then, would novel depiction of the cathedral by camera generate a copyright, but not pen or brush? Эlcobbola talk 16:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Deleted as personal and out of scope, but File:Various size penises.jpg is derived from this, so it probably should be reinstated for clarity of the licensing chain. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support per nom --RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mycock5.jpg, but File:Various size penises.jpg is derived from this, so it probably should be reinstated for clarity of the licensing chain. - Jmabel ! talk 04:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support per nom --RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Deleted per was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naked 19 years old boy in bathroom.jpg, mostly based on creepy title. I think the title should be changed, but File:Various size penises.jpg is derived from this, so it probably should be reinstated for clarity of the licensing chain. - Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support per nom --RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Я не понимаю причину, по которой было удалено изображение, и не вижу ее. В связи с этим хотел бы восстановить изображение Фотография из моего личного семейного архива. Буду благодарен, если укажете на причину удаления изображения

I don't understand or see the reason why the image was removed. In this regard, I would like to restore the image Photo from my personal family archive. I would be grateful if you indicate the reason for deleting the image

--VVGutn (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Well-Informed Optimist: you deleted the file, but the logs shows no rationale, and VVGutn has no SD or DR on their talk page. What was the rationale? Günther Frager (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image is undeleted and requested. —Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done by Well-Informed Optimist and DR started. @VVGutn: the discussion should be continued there. Ankry (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Hello, this was deleted for copyright reasons- I think I didn’t specify the the permission correctly, I’m so sorry I’m new to this. It has Crown copyright as it was commissioned by the Recording Britain scheme so they are now public domain items. Shall I upload it again but change the information about it? This is the tag: {{PD-UKGov}}Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom: Why do you think that Charles Knight made this work as a US federal government employee and not as a contractor of AMNH (which is a private institution)? Ankry (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ankry and Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom: This is about the UK government, not the US, but the question is still valid. Yann (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This page is apparently the source and has more details. --Rosenzweig τ 19:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The watercolour history info tends me to  Support undeletion as {{PD-UKGov}}. Ankry (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

This work was commissioned by the Recording Britain scheme and is therefore covered by Crown copyright- as such it is now in the public domain. This is the tag: {{PD-UKGov}}{{Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


✓ Done: Same case as another undeleted file. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please undelete per ticket 2023041310003225. Best, janbery (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


✓ Done: FYI @User:Janbery, please update permissions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

This picture of the actor was published solely by him on his personal instagram short story and is taken by his friends at an event. No party has the copyright of the image. The actor has requested in the Q&A section of his IG on Jan 10, 2024 that his image on his Wikipedia page be updated. Feel free to verify. Please undelete the image as it is free of copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgadj (talk • contribs) 15:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Yes, the photographer gets automatically a copyright. So we need his formal written permission for a free license. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Dgadj, a formal permissions release needs to be sent to COM:VRT by the photographer/copyrights holder, whatever the case. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

nessuna violazione di Copyright--Aliends (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Not done: per Gunther. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

こちら、削除撤回してください。— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Y20240104 (talk • contribs)

Google Translate: Please delete and cancel here.

 Oppose Published before upload to Commons at biglobe.ne.jp. Thuresson (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason & Explanation: This file was speedily deleted by an person, without any proper reasoning. Request for undeletion of this image deleted which was under CC-by-SA 4.0 International license. The image was uploaded on Wikimedia Commons with written permission on mail from the original author.

The image uploaded is a screenshot from a Instagram reel uploaded by the author. Admin can temporarily undelete the media and see it's file page to evaluate it's license. Kindly look into this matter. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rourib.2004 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Info @Rourib.2004: Instagram reel do not have an acceptable license, instagram.com. Thuresson (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose until permissions are properly received. Rourib.2004, the copyrights holder needs to send a permission release to COM:VRT via permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. This file can be undeleted once the requisite permissions are received. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @TheAafi I have a mail from the copyright holder stating he has no issue with me uploading this image on Wikimedia Commons. Only thing he mentioned, is that his name should be mentioned as author on the file page, which was done appropriately. Please tell if I can share that e-mail for you to verify here? Regards Rourib.2004 (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Rourib.2004, They need to send the release email on the email that I mentioned above. This is how COM:VRT verifies permissions. Once a standard permission is received, the file can be undeleted. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 9 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Здравствуйте! Я - Александр Голенчук. Являюсь пресс-секретарем футбольного клуба "Ислочь". Мне хочется периодически улучшать страницу клуба, тренеров и футболистов, загружая актуальные фотографии. Что вам необходимо предоставить, чтобы не было проблем с нарушением авторских прав? Спасибо. Agolenchuk (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Photo was taken from the Internet. The uploader, in case of working for the copyright holder, should submit an explicit permission following the steps in COM:VRT. Once the permission is veirified the file will be undeleted. Günther Frager (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 9 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages: File:Sugar Sugar live.jpg I am the autor of this picture and would like to send my rights.

Julien Lout 01/13/2024 Gojul (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Comment Previously uploaded to facebook in May 2022 at [4], credited "𝘱𝘪𝘤 𝘣𝘺 𝘓𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘪𝘤 𝘗𝘶𝘫𝘰𝘭 (𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢 / 𝘓𝘦𝘴 𝘚𝘢𝘶𝘭𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴)". If that is you, please submit proof via COM:VRT -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 9 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Collection Edmond Wilhelm Brillant

Please restore

We have heir's permission per Ticket:2023112010009167. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Doing… Abzeronow (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source document is under license CC BY-SA 3.0, see https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2023/05/Plato_key_visual Also: File:Plato 2022.jpg --Gampe (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gampe: Why is this PDF file useful to a Wikimedia project? Thuresson (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thuresson Please ask the uploader @Packa. I can see a number of pdf documents on Wikimedia Commons. Gampe (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose Commons has over 100 million media files. My best guess is that at least 1% of them -- a million files -- do not conform to our rules, so there are almost certainly PDFs of images here. However, that does not change the fact that it is against policy to keep PDFs of images and, therefore, this should not be restored. see Commons:Project_scope#PDF. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose the pdf,  Support the extracted image. Abzeronow (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Info If it is not convenient, there is no need to restore this File:2022-Plato Openday.pdf poster. What is important is the File:Plato_2022.jpg, which I extracted from this poster and which shows the current and most detailed view of the PLATO satellite, which is not freely available elsewhere. --Packa (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Hello

This is a new Logo of Arab Labor Organization that is rebranded and used started from 2024

and here's the Organization official website with the new Logo https://alolabor.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mo3taz3zzat (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose the website states at the bottom All Rights Reserved © 2024. This logo is un-free and permissions of release under a free license that allows commercial reuse are required from the copyrights holder. This should be done COM:VRT. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per The Aafī. --Yann (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission has been given in ticket:2023122910001111. I haven't seen the deleted image, but if it matches the one in the email, the deletion can be reversed. whym (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


✓ Done: Whym, please update the permissions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TheAafi Sorry, it looks like I chose the wrong version. I believe the File:FujitaYukihisa公式.jpg is the one that matches and should be restored. whym (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whym File:FujitaYukihisa20231205.jpg deleted, and File:FujitaYukihisa公式.jpg undeleted. Please let me know if anything is missing. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should have taken a look at the ticket myself, anyways, I'm glad that you noticed there was an error. ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The logo is entirely mine, I created it myself. 178.5.245.82 15:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Image was available on the web, thus the requester should submit an explicit permission to COM:VRT team. After it is approved, the logo will be undeleted. Günther Frager (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 9 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Natalija Šeruga Golob

Please undelete the following:

Uploaded by the photographer, but the photos were deleted because they displayed copyrighted works by the subject. Now the permission for those has also been received and approved (tickets #2024010810006414 and #2024010810006423, respectively). — Yerpo Eh? 16:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


✓ Done: @Yerpo: , FYI. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Marie Haisová

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please undelete per ticket 2021091810003176. Best, janbery (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Doing…The Aafī (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Janbery: , please update permissions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please undelete per ticket 2022121610007435. Thanks, janbery (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Doing…The Aafī (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Janbery: , please update permissions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

It is really absurd to delete a photograph with no trial. The photograph complies with Wikipedia policy, no one has evidence to disprove this because it is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunday123321 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 14 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

The photograph was previously published at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm15580086/mediaviewer/rm4177743617?ref_=nmmi_mi_all_pbl_5. You say it is your own work, which I assume means you are the photographer. Can you provide a higher resolution version of the photo (so we can tell that you didn't just take it from IMDB)? In any case, for previously published work, where you were not credited in the prior publication and there is no free license, we'd need you to go through the COM:VRT process. That team can handle confidential correspondence so you can establish with them (confidentially) who you actually are and that you took that photo. - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 9 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png was speedily deleted via Template:Copyvio before I, the uploader, was even aware it had been marked. I think that it should have been nominated for deletion rather than speedily deleted so that a discussion over its licensing could be had. For anyone curious what the appearance of the logo is, here is a link to it. Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png was uploaded under the tags Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, which I still believe are correct. The logo is pretty much a simple wordmark.

If other users disagree with this assessment, it would be helpful to me going forward with other uploads if you could explain why you feel this wordtype/logo is not appropriate for Template:PD-textlogo.

If we are discussing the complexity of the "tears" in the lettering of this file, let us please compare it with the blue detailing contained within the lettering of File:Cyberpunk 2077 logo.svg, which a US court has ruled not to be copyrightable.

Thanks, CeltBrowne (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Could you, please, elaborate what copyrightable have you found here? I tend to  Support undeletion as {{PD-textlogo}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankry (talk • contribs)

Various professional wrestling logos

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

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

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

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

Upon doing further research, I believe that the spherical shape in File:World Woman Pro-Wrestling Diana logo.png is literally File:Globe icon.svg merely rotated a number of degrees. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Empowering Women Through Digital Solutions Wikipedia Mobile Applications.pdf to undelete

This is my presentation at Wiki Women Camp 2023:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Empowering_Women_Through_Digital_Solutions_Wikipedia_Mobile_Applications.pdf&diff=next&oldid=828772575

;The theme is received from the organinzg team at the camp; you can see their branding material from here:

Category:Branding materials of WikiWomenCamp 2023

The source material is rightly under a free license.

Please undo the deletion of the file.

Thanks in advance. ARamadan-WMF (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Support Appears fine to me. WWC 2023 branding material is released under free licenses by their respective uploaders, and I don't see any other red flag. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Why are you repeatedly deleting the picture? Hope you don't do anything like that next time. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryMU (talk • contribs)


 Not done: Obvious copyvio. Redeleted. User warned. --Yann (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image was first published on [5]. The uploader has since edited the website to indicate that it's published under CC0 1.0.--0x0a (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please undelete per ticket 2024011510008926. Thank you, janbery (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


✓ Done: @Janbery: , please update permission,. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, the photo of the author is consistent and free of rights. Please don't delete it and fix this. Sincerely.

16.01.2024 FranCrim (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FranCrim: the photo is copyrighted per this (as noted as the deletion reason). This needs a permissions release from the original author/copyrights holder via COM:VRT in order to be restored here. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]