Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests

File:ROC Ministry of National Defense Seal.svg

Please restore the following pages:

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

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

@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]
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]
 Support. (And should recover all revision history altogether) —— Eric Liu（Talk） 23:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[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]
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]
Only this file. Wcam (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait_de_Nicolas_&_Bruno.jpg

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]

@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]
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]

 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]

 Question Isn't this resolution a standard for this camera model? Ankry (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[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]
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]

 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]

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]

File:Orussus coronatus.jpg

Both the earlier, higher quality image (this one) and the later lossier image were erroneously deleted in response to a deletion request that was only supposed to encompass the latter as a redundant file. This former file wasn't requested for deletion. This has also resulted in numerous delinkings across language Wikipedias after pages were updated to use the better image. Lhikan634 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

�Comment It seems @Krd: deleted it 2 hours after Materialscientist closed the DR. I assume it was by mistake, as sometimes deletion jobs fail and need to restarted again. G�nther Frager (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded by User:Ctdmc

The source has released the contents with CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL. --Wcam (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

�Support So contents are under compatible licence and can be hosted on Commons. Michalg95 (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Michalg95 and Wcam: I think I saw a free license at the source, but I can't see it any more. Was it removed? Yann (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is still there. 本網站（或頁面）的內容（或圖片、視頻等）允許在CC-BY-SA 4.0授權條款和GNU自由文檔許可證下修改和再使用。 (translation: The content (or images, videos, etc.) on this website (or page) is licensed under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GNU Free Documentation License to be modified and reused.) Wcam (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, at [1]. Yann (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (137).JPG

I cannot see the picture, so cannot be sure which one it is, but there have been a number of requests for deletion, referencing images from my photoshoot at a village called Minskip, which was holding a scarecrow festival. The theme for the festival was Disney. Because the reason for deletion was given as "toys" in this case, I think this picture may be the one of two stuffed animals, made to look like dalmatian dogs, that is, dogs with black spots on a white background.

The two dogs were slightly different from each others, therefore almost certainly hand-made, like the rest of the festival exhibits. The dalmatians looked as if they were just representatives of dalmatians, that is, they did not imitate in any way the cartoon-designs by Disney in their film of the book. In the UK we often see the real dogs on the street, and it is common to see dalmatian-shaped objects which have nothing to do with Disney. There is no reason to suppose that the householder who made those dogs were interested in copyright, because they had displayed the dogs on the street, where we in the UK have panoramafreiheit, and in scarecrow festivals, all the passers-by are photographing the exhibits. So please confirm which picture this is, because if it's the dalmatians, I do not believe they are commerical orbjects or copyrighted, and they are certainly nothing to do with Disney's own designs. Disney cannot copyright images of the real dogs. Also the book, 101 Dalmatians, is popular here - it is read in schools - so it is highly likely that the objects refer to that story, i.e. the idea of real dalmatians. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Support This is a (very) stylized bee, and I can't see any copyrighted element here. Yann (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (137).JPG. Thuresson (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

�Oppose The sculpture of the bee certainly has a copyright, so don't we need a free license from the bee's creator? .� � �Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is one of the scarecrows, then would be possible this 3D artwork, which would definitely be copyrightable in the UK, was permanently displayed (since they are destroyed a few days afterwards)? Abzeronow (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, this is not a sculpture, it is very simple plush. Yann (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, it has a copyright as a sculpture. It is nowhere near simple enough to not have a copyright. .� � �Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess from the above comments that the photograph concerned is the one of the bee, not the dogs?
This and this should answer your question on UK copyright laws regarding toys.
A photograph of a toy is not an infringement of copyright in the UK. Panoramafreiheit in the UK covers anything photographed from the public highway. The "permanent exhibition" element is about panoramafreiheit in museums, but a scarecrow exhibition photographed from the public highway is not a museum.
The one-off, handcrafted example in my above links is about a registered and patented original design example made by an artist for potential factory manufacture and sale. But manufactured toys are not copyrighted against photography in the UK, and neither are stuffies (as I believe you call them in the US) handmade by mothers and kids at home.
It also looks as if there are some misunderstandings in the above comments, about what we are doing on Commons (regarding the UK). We are licensing free use of our 2D images, including for commercial use. That is to say, the public can use our 2D photographs. We cannot be held responsible for what the public does about what they can see in the picture. For example, suppose that a criminal decides to copy that bee, handmade by the mother and child residents and not copyrighted (after all, who copyrights a stuffie?) Even if the criminal is a stuffie-design expert, they cannot know the shape of the base-piece, or how many darts and spacer pieces are used, or where they are used, if at all, or the exact size of the thing, or how exactly the face is created. This is because they can only see one aspect of the 3D object.
I have made stuffies all my life (called stuffed animals in the UK) - it is part of my background culture - but I could not expect to copy that item well enough so that an observer of both objects in real life could not tell the difference between my work and the original. This is one of the reasons why the law makes a differentiation between photographs of 2D objects and 3D objects for copyright purposes in the UK. So I think what is happening here is a US-oriented reaction to UK photographs, while referencing only US law. This platform respects the existence of international laws regarding copyright, e.g. panaoramafreiheit. Storye book (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether FOP-related questions can be accounted for toys. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, the bee certainly has a copyright. In both the UK and the US toys are copyrighted as if they were sculptures and in both countries copyright attaches automatically upon creation. Second, as clearly noted at the top of this discussion, the sculpture was displayed as part of a scarecrow festival. In the UK, FoP requires that the work be displayed permanently. That is clearly not the case here.
As for CDPA section 51, cited above, it allows people to make 3D copies of the design, but is absolutely silent on making photographs of the design. Note also, that even if the UK law allowed the photograph, US law does not. The note above assumes that only UK law applies here. That is not the case. Photographs on Commons must be free in both the USA and the country of origin. .� � �Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Storye book above, it is clear than industrial produced items like this do not have a copyright. If such a simple toy would have a copyright, it would be similar to having a copyright on an idea, and ideas do not have a copyright. No toy like this could ever be made, because they would be derivative works of each others. This is obviously not the case, therefore there is no copyright on these. Yann (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Infinity Train HBO Max logo.webp

The image was deleted by User:MGA73 together with some copyvios, however, in my opinion it qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}} as well as File:Infinity Train series logo.png. The image was used in plwiki. Ankry (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

�Support This isn't probably a complex logo. Michalg95 (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


File:Jebi Aug 3 2013 0605Z.jpg

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]

Hi, How a scaled-up version made in MS Paint in in scope for Commons? Yann (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[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]


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

File:Somorjai Martina 2.jpg

This is my own photo of Martina Somorjai I have used the same photo for several internet articles. Martina Somorjai specifically agreed that I can use this photo of her on various media platforms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsoga (talk • contribs) 22:57, 21 December 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

This was a F10 speedy deletion but this shouldn't have been deleted under that since subject is notable since there is an article on Hungarian Wikipedia about them. hu:Somorjai Martina. Abzeronow (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a selfie, so we need the permission from Martina Somorjai for a free license. Could you please ask her to send the permission via COM:VRT? Yann (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per Yann. Note that "permission to use the image on various platforms" is far more restrictive than what we require. Freely licensing it to anyone for any use is a far broader license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ind�pendance R�publique du Congo.png

Per [2], User:Kani Beat says that the image was originally published on his own Facebook page and that he is, indeed, the holder of the rights. (But I don't see it at https://www.facebook.com/kantchapi.cmosa, which I assume is the Facebook page in question; Kani, correct me if I'm wrong about that). I'm trying to work out the best way to move forward. My suggestion is that the simplest thing would be if he can make the relevant image public on his Facebook page (if it isn't already), be explicit in a comment there about offering the license, and link to that post. Assuming Facebook was first publication, the original timestamp of the post should establish when it was posted. Or do we really need to go through the full-blown COM:VRT process? - Jmabel�! talk 23:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with arguments provided in its DR: it is a derivative work of earlier posters. If the uploader is the original author also of the earlier versions, COM:VRT may be an option. But we cannot verify this on-wiki. �Oppose here.Ankry (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

�Not done: per Ankry. .� � �Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request by Vuvueffino

File:04 2022 Roma (Via Fori imperiali- Mercati traianei-Casa dei Cavalieri di Rodi-Pini Marittimi) FO228704 bis Photo by Paolo Villa.jpg Is not a duplicate, see very well buildings, there are more details, because it was retouch only this area (for see this, zoom only light area with buildings, if you use good and big screen you could see difference very well), with gimp is easy to change some photo things (Vuvueffino (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)).[reply]


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

File:Screenshot_of_a_Singlish_IME_for_Windows..jpg

it's a free screenshot of a software I have developed

it's a free screenshot of a software I have developed https://dasith.me/2016/11/29/first-blog-post/#singlish-and-sinhala-transliteration {{Free screenshot}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasiths (talk • contribs) 15:04, 25 December 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Dasiths: We need either an evidence that the software is under a free license, or a free license permission from the software copyright holder following VRT. Wikimedia users are anonymous; we have no way to verify on-wiki that a specific user is the copyright holder of anything published outside of Wikimedia. Ankry (talk) 03:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Samoobrona rs.png

This also applies to other recently deleted logos, such as:

These files were deleted under F1, even though the F1 criteria do not apply there and these are logos for parties that had been dissolved over a decade ago. There was never a deletion nomination for them and so they appear to have been deleted arbitrarily.

Brat Forelli (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brat Forelli: Where do the Creative Commons CC-0 license come from? Thuresson (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your answer!
The party behind this political party was deregistered in 2007 and all the rights waived; the logo was shown to the media in 2006, and the upload file is a reconstruction of it (the logo can be seen here: [3]). Brat Forelli (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The CC-0 license was released in 2009, hence I am not convinced that anybody can use these logos without permission from the copyright owner. Thuresson (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brat Forelli: Copyright for such works expire 70 years after initial publication. Till then, we need a free license permission from a legal successor of the party (whoever they are) or from the logo designer. Ankry (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for your help! Will treat it as a non-free logo then. Brat Forelli (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, request withdrawn. Thuresson (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:General Viacheslav Trubnikov.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Erroneous deletion. This is already repeated deletion of various files that have permissions and which then have to be restored regularly. The license of these files is correct, uploaded by the author. The General Viacheslav Trubnikov.jpg file's metadata shows that this is the original photo of the author, taken from a phone. Please restore the files. Niklitov (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per above. @FlorianH76: what were your doubts based on? Ankry (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Govardhan Temple, Nawada.jpg

{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Aayush Raj (talk • contribs) 02:34, 26 December 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Not currently deleted. See deletion request. --Yann (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Critical race theory book display.jpg

This file, imported from Flickr, is a photograph of a display table at a university with books pertinent to critical race theory. There is a simple sign reading "critical race theory" with an all-black fist that does not rise above com:TOO. It was deleted under the claim that the book covers are not de minimis, which I assert is an overly restrictive reading of the policy.

The situation is most analogous to the Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the subject, and is essential to the subject (e.g. blacking it out would make the file useless) but the work is shown in insufficient detail and/or with insufficient clarity, so de minimis may apply category, which has two examples of works with a similar level of detail — File:Banners CIMG0256.jpg and File:Museu Valencià de la Il·lustració i la Modernitat, interior.jpg — that were ultimately kept. In those works, like this one, the copyrighted objects are plentiful but small and partially obscured (in this case by other titles or by lighting glare), and the purpose of the image is clearly to show the ensemble as a whole as well as its context (a library setting in this case) rather than the individual works. As such, they qualify under a sensible reading of de minimis. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support undeletion as initiator. I additionally request that the file be temporarily undeleted to help facilitate discussion by allowing other participants to see the size and visibility of the books within the image. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Those other two have barely-legible, obscure, and/or small protected items. In this case, multiple whole protected items (book covers) are clearly visible in high detail. DMacks (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Copyrighted poster + books covers. --Yann (talk) 13:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Files from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mrmw

The rationale of the DR was inaccurate. Two of the files are {{PD-shape}} as derivative works of File:Amtrak logo.svg:

Four of the files were created by the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, which is a California government entity and thus PD as {{PD-CAGov}}, rather than by Amtrak:

One file is {{PD-US-no notice}} because it was published in the 1940s with no notice:

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to capitalcorridor.org CCJPA is a partnership between six local transit agencies in the San Francisco area. Which is the state government's part in this? Thuresson (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The CA-Gov license extends to county and municipal agencies so if they're government agencies, that applies to them. Abzeronow (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Inhaler band lille2023 - 53422645854.jpg

This photo was taken by myself with my phone, and i put it in my Flickr account with a CC0 license — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulysse.mey (talk • contribs) 17:43, 26 December 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Didym: Is there any specific reason to believe this is Flickr washing? Thuresson (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Indeed, most probably COM:LL. User blocked, all files deleted. --Yann (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gdragon Chanel Frieze 2023.jpg

The same account keeps removing my image which is not copyrighted — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Soyer (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Both your files were copied from YouTube. So yes, they have a copyright. Yann (talk) 09:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Manselton from above.jpg

This photograph is my own photo which I uploaded freely to Wikimedia Commons relinquishing licence for its free use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swans07 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 27 December 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Swans07: How come that you credit Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales for this photo? Thuresson (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose This photo is credited to somebody with a different name than the one on OP:s user page, en:User:Swans07. Thuresson (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kənan Kərimzadə.jpg

The file of the picture in the wiki page of the Deputy Minister of Science and Education Ministry of Republic of Azerbaijan was deleted. As a representative of the ministry I would request to undelete the picture and prevent this happen again in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikov1996 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Not currently deleted, but I don't see anything in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Azerbaijan which suggests this might be OK. See also message on your talk page. --Yann (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geographic place names changed as part of Black History Compilation Project (33044619471).jpg

I'm wondering about this image, is it able to be reinstated? It was deleted for no license, but the Flickr upload (by the Government of New Brunswick) is categorized as Public Domain. If it's able to be reinstated, I'd like to use it for a future BLP of somebody in the image. Thanks. B3251 (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr metadata shows the photographer is Michael Hawkins at https://wordphoto.ca/ and thus is not actually a work of New Brunswick's government. Metadata also shows "all rights reserved". We'd need VRT permission from Hawkins to restore. Abzeronow (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know! B3251 (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since New Brunswick always uploads images to Flickr as PD, is it pretty much hit or miss on whether it's available for use or not? (whether it has an original photographer or not) @Abzeronow B3251 (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of organizational flickr account is often poorly managed. They may have a mix of courtesy photos, some presumably political staff photos, unsourced photos. This flickr account seems to have its copyright settings stuck on an unexplained "public domain mark" regardless of the provenance of each file. I would not automatically trust the copyright info from this account. You can evaluate and research on a case by case basis. Most photos may be legitimately owned and released by the NB gov, but it's difficult to know for sure which are and which are not. With substantial exif data, at least you can contact the photographer, as with the Hawkins photo, to check the copyright status and maybe obtain a free license. Photos without substantial exif data cannot be automatically trusted. You can try to find the origin. For example, this photo, posted to the flickr account on 6 November 2023, is a photo published on 3 October 2023 by NBMEF inc. on their all rights reserved website. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:RAUF CAVAD.jpg

Hello. Have a good time. write and ask you to return RAUF JAVAD.jpg, which was deleted by mistake. Many thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arif Hikmət türk (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 December 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This was an F10 speedy deletion. Is the subject notable or is any actual educational use for the photo? Abzeronow (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is trying to use Wikimedia projects for self-promotion. The article about him was deleted fro Azerbaidjani Wikipedia 6 times [4]. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Same photo as File:Rauf Cavad.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Protest against Islamophobia in Uk uder the super vision of Pir Alauddin Siddiqui.jpg

Hi! Kindly restore this file. It is officially available on the Baharemadinah website. If you scroll down to see that they have clearly mentioned that "Their is no copyright, Share as you wish". Link to file [5] 39.62.18.194 19:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a collage of three photographs, which may have had other sources. Abzeronow (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, sir this image is only available on that website. 39.62.18.194 16:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

�Oppose The statement "There are no copyrights here. Share as you wish." is incorrect -- everything is copyrighted and that statement is not a general, irrevocable, release. Also note that the next line reads, "Copyright (c) 2023". .� � �Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary undeletion of photos of Jacques Aeschlimann

Can the following images

please be temporarily restored? We have ongoing correspondence per Ticket:2023072010005839 about those images, and I see a good chance that we can get valid permissions from the heirs of the photographers. The client needs to see the photos again to determine the photographers.

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mussklprozz: FYI. Yann (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, @Yann!�:-) Mussklprozz (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Woman shot in her bedroom in Kfar Aza by Hamas on October 7.jpg

Why was it deleted one day after the nomination? The nominator has made certain claims about the copyright status of the bodycam footage but did not give the original uploader or others time to respond. Tagging Zero0000 as the nominator, Mhhossein as the closer, Omphalographer who participated in the discussion. Btw how can I tag the uploader? Alaexis (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Woman shot in her bedroom in Kfar Aza by Hamas on October 7.jpg was the DR, and I agree with the nominator in that there is no proof this is from a bodycam, and we don't know if Israel is like the US as far as CCTV or like the UK. There was a good point in that the person wearing the bodycam can chose when to turn it on, and can chose where to point it so it would functionally be similar to a handheld camcorder. Abzeronow (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis: Actually I nominated it on Dec 22 and it was deleted on Dec 27. That's not one day. There was plenty of time to respond. Zero0000 (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, for some reason I thought it was nominated on 27th. I'll try to check the copyright status of bodycam footage in Israel. Alaexis (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis: That would be good. I read several detailed articles on Israeli copyright law without finding an explicit answer. In any case, this photo is unacceptable regardless because there is no evidence it is a bodycam photo. Investigators don't use bodycams to document crime scenes. Zero0000 (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carlos-Meyer-Baldo.jpg

The image was taken during Bald�'s military service during World War I, between 1914 and 1918, and Carlos Meyer Bald� 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]

@NoonIcarus: When was this photo first published in Venezuela? Thuresson (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[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]
 Comment If the above questions remain unresponded, {{PD-old-assumed}} can be applied in 2039. Ankry (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was first published in 1918, along with other pictures ([6]), 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]
The deleted file appears to have a modern colorization, which could have its own copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[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]
 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]

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

File:Joseph.gattegno.png

Why do you want to delete it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphaelosgal (talk • contribs) 12:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal photo by non-contributor. Per COM:SCOPE Commons isn't Facebook. Michalg95 (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per COM:SCOPE Commons isn't Facebook. Michalg95. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Example.jpg

Paylaşım sadece eğlence ve bilgi vermek amacıyla yapılmıştır. 29-12-2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Türk-Genci8 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Presumably about (one of the files deleted at) Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Türk-Genci8 Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bibel im Grundstein des Gemeindehauses der Auferstehungskirche Herne-Wanne.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

das Foto "Bibel im Grundstein des Gemeindehauses der Auferstehungskirche Herne-Wanne" ist mein Eigentum und ich erteile hiermit folgende Lizenz auf Wikimedia Commonsː „Eigenes Werk, Namensnennung erforderlich, Copyleft“ ({{CC BY-SA 4.0}}). Bitte machen Sie die Löschung der Datei rückgängig.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Jessica Kirstein User:Jessica Kirstein/sig 29.12.2023 —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2003:d1:2745:c700:1d83:95e8:ed2b:c533 (talk) 29. December 2023 (UTC20:40)

@Jessica Kirstein: , bitte denken Sie daran, sich einzuloggen, und ihre Diskussionsbeiträge mit ~~~~ zu unterschreiben. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This is apparently a 2023 photograph of an older photograph from the 1980s. We'd need a permission from the 1980s photographer. @Jessica Kirstein: Das sieht ganz danach aus, als sei das ein 2023 abfotografiertes älteres Foto aus den 1980er-Jahren. Wer hat dieses ursprüngliche Foto von 1980 gemacht? Von dieser Person müsste die Lizenz erteilt werden. Und das üblicherweise per E-Mail, siehe COM:VRT/de. --Rosenzweig τ 23:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Брачен пар од с. Волче, Порече.png

i'm preety sure that it should be in the public domain by now, seeing as it's a part of Józef Obrębski's study of poreche, with a wide collection of photos of the time between 1932 and 1933 https://neweasterneurope.eu/2018/01/22/jozef-obrebskis-work-display-skopje/ Big ooga booga mf (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Big ooga booga mf: Is this by the Polish researcher Józef Obrębski, who passed away in 1967? Where does the Creative Commons license come from? Thuresson (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:嘉道理涼亭啟用典禮的照片.jpg

I am writing regarding a photograph I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, originally taken from The Hong Kong Heritage Project Limited archives. I had permission to photograph this image for research and archival purposes.

I understand the importance of adhering to copyright laws and Wikimedia’s guidelines. I am reaching out to clarify the permissions related to this image and ensure its compliance with Wikimedia Commons' policies.

Please advise on the appropriate steps to confirm the image’s eligibility for Wikimedia Commons, or if necessary, I will proceed with its removal.

Thank you for your guidance.

File:Hotel Athenee Palace - Calea Victoriei (25403752402).jpg

... as well as the entire batch of photos that was deleted with it on December 24th. Please consult Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Athenee_Palace_Hilton.JPG --Bukarester (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RAUF CAVAD.jpg (May our new city be auspicious!)

Hello. May our New Year be successful, and may our days be good and meaningful. Please return File:RAUF JAVAD.jpg. Thank you very much in advance for your understanding and courtesy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arif Hikmət türk (talk • contribs) 22:51, 30 December 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close, double entry for undeletion of File:RAUF CAVAD.jpg. Same photo as File:Rauf Cavad.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Correspondent Bruce Gilley in September 2002.jpg

Public Doman (Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution.) https://www.c-span.org/about/copyrightsAndLicensing/

(from the website): Under C-SPAN's copyright policy a license is generally not required to post a recording of C-SPAN's video coverage of federal government events online for non-commercial purposes so long as C-SPAN is attributed as the source of the video. However, simultaneous streaming or retransmission of the C-SPAN networks' video coverage of any event not in the public domain, live or recorded, may not be posted under any circumstances without a license.Keeping a C-SPAN logo on the screen during the non-commercial use constitutes sufficient attribution under this policy. Federal government events include:
  • Congressional committee hearings
  • Executive agency hearings
  • Events at the White House
  • Congressional and Presidential Commissions

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a020:1:d4cf:a11b:7ecb:da08:b1e0 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 31 December 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Public domain is not the same as "for non-commercial purposes". Per Commons:Deletion requests/C-SPAN images of congressional hearings. Thuresson (talk)

File:The Best Footballer in Asia 2016 Shinji Okazaki.jpg

File:The Best Footballer in Asia 2016 Shinji Okazaki.jpg Identify the file in question: Shinji Okazaki displayed the Best Footballer in Asia trophy in Stayen of Sint-Truiden on 8 February, 2023

State the reasons for the request: The photo is sent by the photographer to us for free use and distribution. Therefore we hold the license to publish the three photos. As we have license to use the three photos, they don't violate copyright at all.

This is a photo with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:

Overall: the photo meets all criteria for publication in wikipedia.

Please restore the photo. Or please let me know what further materials or license you need to have the photo restored.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujishadow (talk • contribs) 03:29, 31 December 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

File:Best Footballer in Asia 2021 Son Heung-min.png

File:Best Footballer in Asia 2021 Son Heung-min.png

State the reasons for the request: The photo is sent by the photographer to us for free use and distribution. Therefore we hold the license to publish the three photos. As we have license to use the three photos, they don't violate copyright at all.

This is a photo with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:

I checked all past messages left by the editor who deleted the photo. The only reasonable accusation is that the photo was previously published.

"This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Photo: Tottenham Hotspur

This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: https://www.thenationalnews.com/sport/football/2022/05/24/son-heung-min-describes-big-honour-of-winning-seventh-best-footballer-in-asia-award/ Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing."

I have defended that the photo is our own work. John Macauly, the reporter of the National News who is our friend, used this photo with our approval. The publisher don't have the copyright, which is owned by us.

Overall: the photo meets all criteria for publication in wikipedia.

Please restore the photo. Or please let me know what further materials or license you need to have the photo restored.

Best regards

File:The Best Footballer in Asia 2016 Shinji Okazaki.jpg

File:The Best Footballer in Asia 2016 Shinji Okazaki.jpg

Identify the file in question: Shinji Okazaki displayed the Best Footballer in Asia trophy in Stayen of Sint-Truiden on 8 February, 2023

State the reasons for the request: The photo is sent by the photographer to us for free use and distribution. Therefore we hold the license to publish the three photos. As we have license to use the three photos, they don't violate copyright at all.

This is a photo with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose

Overall: the photo meets all criteria for publication in wikipedia.

Please restore the photo. Or please let me know what further materials or license you need to have the photo restored.

Best regards

File:Best Footballer in Asia 2022 Son Heung-min.jpg

File:Best Footballer in Asia 2022 Son Heung-min.jpg

Identify the file in question: Son Heung-min displayed the Best Footballer in Asia trophy in the training center of Tottenham Hotspur on May 25, 2023

State the reasons for the request: The photo is sent by the photographer to us for free use and distribution. Therefore we hold the license to publish the three photos. As we have license to use the three photos, they don't violate copyright at all.

This is a photo with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose

Overall: the photo meets all criteria for publication in wikipedia.

Please restore the photo. Or please let me know what further materials or license you need to have the photo restored.

Best regards

File:Example.jpg

自拍照 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 唉呀我的媽 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Only deleted file is File:1234IMG 8686.jpg, which was deleted for "missing permission" @Shizhao and Krd: as involved. Yann (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=837092351"