Commons:Undeletion requests

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

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

Other languages:

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

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

Commons deletion (policy)
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

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

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

Adding a request

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

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

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

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:ROC Ministry of National Defense Seal.svg

Please restore the following pages:

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

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

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

File:Afghanistan-Spange.jpg

And also:

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

File:Carlos-Meyer-Baldo.jpg

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

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

File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contingency: Request temporary undeletion

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

@Imperial meter: when are you usually online? Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm alive. User:LaMagiaaa deleted those back in October here. In addition to above, could you also undelete File:K-ON anime logo.svg and transfer the file to the Japanese Wikipedia via fair use if the file is unable to remain in commons? -- Imperial meter (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can temporarily undelete the file, but you would have to do the transfer to English Wikipedia yourself. Same case with Japanese Wikipedia (I don't read or speak Japanese, so transfering it there would be very difficult for me.) Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you mentioned me, I want to notice that it seems Japanese Wikipedia not allow this picture by the policy. Be careful about that. See w:ja:Wikipedia:FAQ 画像などのファイル#フェアユースによるファイルのアップロードはできますか. LaMagiaaa (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, LaMagiaaa. Imperial meter, I cannot undelete the one you want on Japanese Wikipedia because the copyright is still active in Japan. Japanese Wikipedia only allows fair use for media that is expired in Japan but not in the United States (which tends to include many things from the 1940s to the 1960s, and also post-1928 media from authors who died from 1947 to 1967.). Abzeronow (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Imperial meter: since it's been more than a week. As mentioned, I cannot undelete for Japanese Wikipedia but I could still for English Wikipedia provided that you want to transfer it yourself. Abzeronow (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Requestor has not answered in more than two weeks. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Theriologia Ukrainica cover volume 18.jpg and File:Pts15-cover1-RGB.jpg

These files uploaded by @Zag: were deleted by @Fitindia: as missing permission. However, these are covers of a journal that a) is entirely open-access and under a free license, b) the uploader is an editor and designer of the covers of. You can check here a page with this covers and a license cc-by-sa: the whole journal is available under a Commons-compatible CC license. The fact that the uploader is also the editor-in-chief can be confirmed here and he also confirmed on his Wikipedia talk page that he designed these covers himself. If the official website of a journal already shows a free license, this is already an acceptable permission for Commons. Here in addition the images were uploaded by the editor-in-chief himself, so I don't see what other permission we might need — NickK (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support peer NickK, I checked the page and have a license (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: See above. License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chilean TOO files

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

Some of the files include:

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

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

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

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

File:Logo Alcaldía Municipio Blvno Angostura (2021-2025).jpg

Buenas,necesito que algún administrador restaure el logo (busque en instagram la cuenta oficial de la Alcaldia),por que esta en el Dominio Público ({{PD-VenezuelaGov}}) esa Alcaldia forman parte del sector público como indica la licencia en Venezuela. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbchyZa22 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 3 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{O}} Initially declared at upload as {{PD-textlogo}}: but it contains also images, not only text. Moreover, {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} applies only to "texts of laws, decrees, official regulations, public treaties, judicial decisions and other official acts.", it does not apply to images. Mayor's Office is not a legal act. Ankry (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment The last paragraph of license says: "Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector or financed through public funds that generates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, while maintaining the authors' rights to public recognition." And this is CoA of local government. License seems plausible. (Google translator) y otra cosa más la Alcaldía (Mayor Office) forma parte del sector público (public sector) por eso que esta en el Dominio Público. AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Taivo:Buenas, este logo de la Alcaldía esta en el Dominio Público ({{PD-VenezuelaGov}}) porque forma parte del sector público?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which exactly exception in Venezuelan copyright law states this? No such information in ({{PD-VenezuelaGov}} or COM:Venezuela. The only exception we know applies to legal texts only. And copyright law has to be interpreted explicitly. Ankry (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ankry:Te explico,en Venezuela el sector público está constituido por Legislativo, Ejecutivo, Judicial, Ciudadano y Electoral.Excepto el logo de un partido político no es un sector público si no un privado, según la legislación venezolana (todo que se relacionado con el sector público eso está permitido agregar el {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} osea los logos relacionados con el sector público tanto nacionales como estatales y municipales (por ejemplo el Logo de la Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela (La Asamblea nacional de Venezuela es el Poder Legislativo Nacional):File:Logo Asamblea Nacional.svg) AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: Do you refer to the last paragraph of the template ("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.", English: "Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector—or financed through public funds—that generates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, while maintaining the authors' rights to public recognition.")?  Weak support then as we do not know if the author was an employee or how the cration of the logo was financed. But the most likely from public funds. Ankry (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ankry:Para mi opinión es  Support ,el alcalde lo creó el logo pero como forma parte del sector público (osea tiene que estar relacionado con política ejemplo:Ejecutivo,etc.) eso está en el Dominio Público (osea está OK),pregunta al Usuario Taivo ,o Wilfredor?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Please remember that the article that you invoke (LOTT, art. 325) requires "manteniéndose los derechos al reconocimiento público del autor o autora". Therefore, the identity of the author should be researched and credited. Which also has the good effect to help determine if that person was an employee of a public entity and if their "invention, innovation or amelioration" was financed. We must also keep in mind that "art. 325: Inventions, innovations and ameliorations in the public sector" ("Artículo 325 : Invenciones, innovaciones y mejoras en el sector público") is restricted to inventions, innovations and ameliorations. That notion is defined in art. 323 and applies both to the public sector (art. 325) and the private sector (art.326). Art.323: "Will be considered inventions, innovations or service improvements, those made by workers employed by the employer for the purpose of researching and obtaining different means, systems or procedures." ("Artículo 323 : Invenciones, innovaciones o mejoras de servicio : Se considerarán invenciones, innovaciones o mejoras de servicio aquellas realizadas por trabajadores contratados o trabajadoras contratadas por el patrono o la patrona con el objeto de investigar y obtener medios, sistemas o procedimientos distintos.") It must be something by workers in the course of the employment for the purpose of researching and obtaining different means, systems or procedures. That seems meant for research and development (for example in the petroleum industry and other enterprises). It might seem a bit of a stretch to apply that to a municipal logo. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment @Asclepias:Buenas por ejemplo (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alcaldía BMUracoa (2021-2025).jpg) según el Usuario Taivo (Admin of Wikimedia) indica que el Logo es plausible. AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, With a half-dozen separate discussions about the same topic scattered over different pages and sections, it's not surprising to have various comments. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Ok,Cual es tú opinión restaurar la imagen ( Support) o oponerse ( Oppose)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The requestor has asked me for my opinion on this. My opinion is similar to Ankry, it doesn't appear to be explicitly public domain but as Taivo said in the DR, it appears that it may be so. So it would be a  Weak support from me. Abzeronow (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel.jpg

Image was deleted in "speedy deletion" process but from discussion I understand that permissions were not explained well enough. There was the claim that "there's no reason to believe this—or any of the miscellaneous disparate photos used on his wanted poster—are the works of the FBI or US federal government". Actually there is a reason because this photo did not appear only on his wanted poster but also as a saperate image in FBI Multimedia database here: [2].
The footnote of the main page here - [3] - clearly states "These images are for your use in publicizing the FBI and may be used without cost or permission. Please credit the FBI or the appropriate individual/organization listed in the description field." There is no additional information on in description field so we have actual claim from federal agency that this photo is free to use and there is no reason to distrust it.

 Comment Parallel discussion of a point raised in the DR is also being discussed at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#%22Booth_Pictures%22_and_U._S._Threshold_of_Originality. DR is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel.jpg. Abzeronow (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support as I said, this should be {{PD-ineligible}}. Yann (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose Yann argues that this is a booth picture and therefore has no copyright. That may be true, but it is certainly unproven. The image is very poor quality and is probably a crop from a much larger image, not a booth photo. As noted in the DR, the subject has never been in US custody, so it can not be an FBI photo. The FBI's claim is probably based on Fair Use or simple ignorance of copyright law. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Jim, By the look of it, this is certainly a booth picture. See my detailed arguments on COM:VPC. User:Yann
Yann, you miss my point -- I fully agree that booth pictures probably don't have a copyright, but I don't think this is a booth picture. If it were, it would be much higher quality. It looks to me to be cropped from a much larger photo. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support In my opinion also it is booth picture. Low quality is the result of how it was acquired by FBI. It may originate from a photo print inside a document and was scalled up. It does not seem to be a crop from a photo with wider view. Ankry (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can't randomly decide that federal agencies are wrong about copyrights of pictures on their websites because then we will have to delete whole database of pictures that are publicized by any federal agency with permission to use. After all nobody can prove that they didn't use copyrighted pictures and just acted ignorant about copyright law. Wikimedia's treatment of such photos is based on trust that federal agencies don't lie about copyrights therefore since FBI stated that every photo in "FBI Multimedia" gallery section is free to use then this is our prove that they either made a photo or gained copyrights to it and have the power to approve free distribution of these photos. --Czarnybog (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing should be random. For any picture there which seems to have originated from the FBI, it is PD-USGov. For a photo knowingly given by another organization to be used in a PD-USGov context, you can make that case too. For a photo which obviously was not taken by the FBI, but they obtained from online or family photos or whatever, they own nothing of the copyright and nothing they do can make it a free license. They are certainly (well) within their fair use rights, and as long as you are using for the same purposes (reproducing the help wanted poster) then you are too. Site policy needs more than just that though. Maybe you can argue any use of the wanted poster itself is inherently fair use, though once you crop to a non-free photo then that argument is gone. Even their permission statement -- These images are for your use in publicizing the FBI and may be used without cost or permission -- is a little problematic, as it may (intentionally or not) imply that the only licensed use is "publicizing the FBI" (which would still be fair use for the external photos). Obviously for PD-USGov works they can't limit the use, but offhand licenses can often end up with restrictions that may make them non-free. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But those are only your suspicions and not certain facts. Even so, what we are doing here is "publicizing the FBI" since we credit them as a source in description. They state the conditions to use the photo clearly: "may be used without cost or permission" and "Please credit the FBI". That's what we were doing. That's what licence we were using means. We only have this discussion basically because some people don't trust FBI and their statements. We don't require from White House a certificate proving that president portraits are really a work of an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States and they didn't just use copyrighted photo and ignored the law. --Czarnybog (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carl has it right. The image was clearly not taken by the FBI --the subject has never been in custody. The FBI acquired the image somehow, and, as Carl says, is entirely correct in using the image as Fair Use. That's OK, but the FBI does not have the right to freely license the image as required here because it does not have a license to do so and Fair Use does not permit it. Therefore, the FBI's permission statement, "These images are for your use in publicizing the FBI " is limited to just that. Commons requires that images be free for any use anywhere by anybody. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done, no consensus to undelete, nobody knows who took the photo but the claim that subject has never been in custody by FBI has not been disputed. Thuresson (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Ricardo Montero Allende 2023.jpg

This photo is already used as a Twitter profile photo, so its rights have been released. Please undelete.

This photos is already used at https://twitter.com/Rmontero_. Please undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashvak (talk • contribs)

 Not done: Per discussion, the image was not restored, but a good substitute was loaded. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Russo-Mugs.jpg

Source: https://archive.org/details/mafiagovernments0000unse/page/322/mode/2up?view=theater&q=Russo. All rights belong to the United States Department of the Treasury, as well as HarperCollins Publishers. -> This is where the copyright belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloody-pin (talk • contribs) ‎08:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}} anyway, but IMO also {{PD-ineligible}}. Yann (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: per discussion. Put PD-US as the license, these are public domain. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Astronaut amid flowing colors 'Push Your Envelope'.jpg & 2 other files deleted despite of a Keep outcome

Another case of unwarranted deletion amid the anti-AI crackdown. It's not okay to transgress established reasonable WMC policies for AI images in particular. The 2 other ones are File:Biopunk world of 'The Windup Girl' – megodont with neurotech being led through a megacity.png and File:'The Scalya Autonomous Region' - Flickr - Dennis S. Hurd.jpg

Nothing more needs to be said. Admins can't just go ahead and delete arbitrary subsets they subjectively personally think would be good to delete when these subsets have not been clarified in that DR or alternatively a new DR is made for them (asking about or facilitating either of these two things could be good). In addition to the two points above:

  • The deleting admin wrote deleted a few as part of this closing that had especially bad generation errors, as recent DRs show a consensus for getting rid of those but there is no consensus for that as written, rather there could be some agreement in DRs that when misgeneration a) clearly outweighs usefulness, b) is not a good / nearly-unique illustration of some shortcomings of AI tools, and c) is too severe then it's good to delete. However, for example misgeneration can be rather minor issues in the background and/or would be simple to solve by editing the image or via another AI tool that corrects these where the improved image could be uploaded as a new version, as has already been done in a number of cases (example). The requested ones at least would still be useful (e.g. as nearly the only and/or highest-quality of their kind) and are likely to be easily fixable if they have minor misgeneration issues.
  • The three I request to undelete did not have misgeneration (or if they had and I didn't notice, it's only minor misgeneration; the third where that is debatable was created at an early point of AI art tools and could also be improved but it's rather a resolution-type issue than misgeneration there)

Note that I don't know if File:A lone astronaut on a desolate planet, looking up at the night sky filled with stars.png, File:A scientist and an android female in a laboratory looking at a laptop.jpg, File:AGI circuit board.png, and File:A cityscape at night, with towering skyscrapers and bustling streets illuminated by neon lights like chinese cities.png would also be good to undelete but this UR is only about the three above.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose It is well established that works of art from artists who are not themselves notable are out of scope. Commons is not an amateur art gallery. I see no reason why an AI work is any different from a hand drawing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not well-established, there are lots of hand drawings on WMC, there are lots of artworks by nonnotable artists & illustrators on WMC, and all of that doesn't matter the the points I raised which includes that the DR was closed as Keep. WMC does not become an amateur art gallery if useful art & illustrations are kept, especially if they are the first or nearly only of their type or among the best for illustrating something like a subject, style, or genre. Indeed: AI works should not be handled any different to other artworks & illustrations. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose - Per Jim. This AI output is fan art and nothing more. And, yes, it is well established that works of art from artists who are not themselves notable are out of scope. Эlcobbola talk 16:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Source for your claim? It's a false entirely unsubstantiated mere claim. Even if that was true it's essentially irrelevant. No this is not fan art. Are you also refusing to read any definitions of fan art like en:fan art or COM:FAN?
    Question: since when is it okay for admins to just ignore DR conclusions and implement whatever they subjectively think would be best with, in addition, false rationale? This is not a vote, we have policies which you are not free to ignore.
    In regards to your point about unnotable artists, maybe take a look at all the other art cats which could be as much as ~90% by nonnotable artists such as Category:Middle-earth fan art Category:Abstract art, Category:Street art‎, Category:Erotic art (where apparently ~everything is kept for no reason other than than 'why not'), and whatever else. Just randomly pick any art category. No idea why there is this particular objection to AI art when such is much higher quality than let's say most other images in Category:Psychedelic art and Category:Astronauts in space suits in art.
    Nothing about the policies change if even 10 more put an oppose vote here with some false unsubstantiated refuted claim and even if they were good explanations those need to be made at the DR not at the UR once images are arbitrary deleted. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    DR and UDR archives are at your disposal; consider also reading w:WP:OTHERSTUFF; w:WP:IDHT; w:WP:BLUDGEON. Эlcobbola talk 19:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Those are WP policies, not WMC ones and there I'd suggest w:WP:NODEMOCRACY. Addressing of my points is missing but that is not necessary anyway since I'm just asking for a DR conclusion to not be overturned against important well-established policy. Make a new DR for these files or ask participants what they think of deleting whatever subset you'd like to delete. And I'm allowed to ask for undeletion of files that were deleted clearly against a DR consensus. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They are not policies on en.wiki, or any project. They are descriptions of concepts. They apply to collaborative editing in any namespace, project, website, or real world situation. You might know that if you'd read and understood them. Эlcobbola talk 21:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose as closer When I said "recent DRs show a consensus for getting rid of those" I am referring to the large number of recently closed DRs of files with serious misgenerations where everyone or nearly everyone - you often included - agreed that the files were out of scope.
    File:Astronaut amid flowing colors 'Push Your Envelope'.jpg had misgeneration issues in the chest and arms with wires/fabric/pipes blending into each other and noticeable pixelation inconsistently appearing around the image.
    File:Biopunk world of 'The Windup Girl' – megodont with neurotech being led through a megacity.png had misgeneration issues with the elephant (megodont?) headband (which seemed to be a collage of bad geometry), the humans in the background (weird heads), and the buildings (nonsense architecture)
    File:'The Scalya Autonomous Region' - Flickr - Dennis S. Hurd.jpg had the most serious misgeneration issues of the lot; buildings blended into mountains, random floating bits everywhere, and inconsistent but prominent blur that looked like jpg compression.
    These are all images that, if nominated individually, would have been deleted as out of scope.
    As for the argument "The requested ones at least would still be useful", I really don't get the argument that some speculative, future, undefined use means these images would be in COM:SCOPE. The nature of AI images is that they can be created instantly, at no or low cost, as needed. If there was a valid use for them, they would already be in use. If a valid use for an AI image appears in the future, an image can be generated for it. This is seen on some projects that use AI images to illustrate folklore. They generate an image and stick it in the article.
    The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, but you misinterpreted that as to mean there's consensus for deletion of each and every misgeneration. Elaborated on that in point #3 above. I wouldn't have requested undeletion if these three or at least only that Scalya image were deleted. But these three, or at least the two other ones did not have much misgeneration.
    • The pipes showing there were minor and could even be just how a far advanced space suit looks like. In addition it's probably easily fixable but again it could be realistic and doesn't degrade the image a lot. Image is here
    • The headband was a main element of the image and that was a neurogear headband and could be the first case of neurotech in art here since another one of mine showing a wizard hat with brain-reading/… tech was deleted (for no good reason). I don't see any nonsense architecture there. And the people in the background were in the background and not so severely misgenerated that it was much of an issue – they're so much in the background that one can hardly tell there's any misgeneration and that could probably also be easily fixed at a later point.
    • That image was made at an early stage of Midjourney and looked images typically looked at the time but for that time it was of quite good quality and in addition this could be useful since there's no or nearly other image showing what it depicted. Also it could be used as input image and a new version be uploaded; if there's some old Midjourney images to delete, it's not that one.
    The main issue is that rather than deleting images as unclear as the above when they have not been specified in the DR, one could rather ask or make it a common procedure to specify images that would be fine to delete. If nothing of that occurred, please either ask about it or don't delete any. They aren't as easily generated as you think they are when they are not about where simple subjects like showing some android or animal doing nothing specified or sophisticated specific concepts. These were generated and sticked into categories (concepts), where there was no equivalent and nearly no other images, rather than into articles. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose. A deletion discussion is a discussion, not a vote. Closing administrators can use their discretion when closing nominations, which may include mixed verdicts on bulk listings. Omphalographer (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per discussion. Out of scope personal art. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Генерал-майор Алаудинов Апти.jpg

Файл является скрином публичного видео. Предоставлен на тех же условиях, что и действующее в настоящий момент изображение. Замена произведена для актуализации воинского звания. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Алексей Павлович (talk • contribs) 15:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per User:Elcobbola. A public video is not the same as a freely-licensed video. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Anshuman Tiwari Artist.jpg

This pic was deleted by mistake. Recover this pic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayamam123 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 7 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done clear copyvio, the requester already blocked. Ankry (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Church and Harbour in Noumea.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: files deleted through Commons:Deletion requests/No Freedom of Panorama in New Caledonia. However, by 2024 the architect of w:en:Nouméa Cathedral is already dead for more than 70 years, so we can safely assume the building is already in public domain this year. If the third image ("File:Church and Harbour in Noumea.jpg") is not the same church, then kindly ignore that one (the file name is too generic to determine if the image shows the same cathedral). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Church and Harbour in Noumea.jpg, based on its source, is the same building as the building in Category:Cathédrale Saint-Joseph de Nouméa. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added comment by requester: {{PD-old-assumed}} is applicable here. 1897+120+1=2018. Passed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:樂小姐生活照.jpg

Please kindly undelete File:樂小姐生活照.jpg,it is a normal photo for description — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesley533 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 8 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose No Creative Commons license at the source. Thuresson (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: This request was already submitted and declined earlier for the same reason. --Yann (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Jorge gimenez bech.jpg

The photo was taken from this website: https://nordanor.eus/norda?id=112&tmp=1707380307904&h=en As can be seen below in the Legal notice and privacy policy section, the contents are protected by a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. Therefore, the file in question is also subject to said license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotzon (talk • contribs) 04:21, February 8, 2024‎ (UTC)

 Support English language version of the Legal Notice says:
"EIZIE is the owner of this website and the various content, references, texts, photos, images and logos; it is likewise the owner of the design and structure of the website itself.
As a result of this ownership, EIZIE offers the user the Creative Commons licence. This type of licence offered is as follows: Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International." --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Διαμαντής Καραναστάσης 2017.jpg

Η φωτογραφία μας έχει παραχωρηθεί για προσωπική χρήση του κ. Καραναστάση. Το γεγονός ότι έχει αναρτηθεί σε τρίτες ιστοσελίδες, δεν την καθιστά κτήμα τους. Συνεπώς το αίτημα διαγραφής για παραβίαση πνευματικών δικαιωμάτων είναι άτοπο. Marque41 (talk) 12:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose until permission has been received via COM:VRT. Google Translate of first sentence above: "The photo has been granted to us for personal use by Mr. Karanastasis." If that is true, then proof is needed from the copyright owner for such grant, see COM:VRT. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per P199. --Yann (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Queen Victoria's signature.jpg

This signature is public domain in the United Kingdom, when the author died in 1901. --49.150.0.134 12:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, but there is no source. That should not have been deleted, but please add a source. Yann (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source was en-wiki. A bot removed it. It was imported here in 2008, so en-wiki even earlier. Not sure the source really matters for that one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: OK fine. --Yann (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Messerschmitt Bf 162 Jaguar (D-AOBE).jpg

This is an 85+ year old photo of a German aircraft. The photographer is dead, the company that made the plane no longer exists and the regime that created the image no longer exists. I'm uncertain how this image has copyright

Troy Tempest

@Troy von Tempest: Who is the photographer and when did she or he die? Thuresson (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Troy, who is the photographer and when did they die? German photographs are life of the author plus 70 years. Companies no longer existing doesn't make the copyright expire. Copyrights are long, they survive companies and regimes. Please note that post-1928 German photographs also had their copyrights restored by URAA so 1940s German photographs are still in copyright in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: Not eligible as SD. --Yann (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Heinkel He 280V3 (GJ+CB).jpg

This is an 82 year old image of an aircraft. The company no longer exists, the photographer is dead, the regime he served hasn't existed since 1945. How is this covered by copyright? Does Nazi Germany still hold copyright? Who would be contacted to ask for permission to use this image from 1941 please?

Troy Tempest

✓ Done: Not eligible as SD. --Yann (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Arado Ar 240A.jpg

Why is this image covered by copyright? The company that made the aircraft no longer exists. The photographer is dead. The regime he served hasn't existed since 1945. Does Nazi Germany still hold copyright? Who would I contact to ask for permission to use it?

Troy Tempest

✓ Done: Not eligible as SD. --Yann (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:U-16.jpg

The photographer is dead, the photo is over 80 years old, the regime he served no longer exists, does Nazi Germany still hold copyright?

✓ Done: Not eligible as SD. --Yann (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Junkers Ju 87 Stuka's.jpg

I'm uncertain why this image would be covered by copyright? Does Nazi Germany still hold copyright? The photographer is dead, the regime he served does not exist, the company that made the plane no longer exists. Who would I need to ask for permission please?

✓ Done: Not eligible as SD. --Yann (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Messerscmitt Bf 109E wind tunnel testing at the Deutsche LFA.jpg

This is a photo inside a secret Nazi aircraft test centre. It is 84 years old. The photographer is dead. The regime he served no longer exists. Does Nazi Germany still hold copyright? Why isn't an image from 1940 taken by a dead, unknown photographer who served a regime that was destroyed in 1945 not fair use please? Who would need to be asked for permission? The company that made the aircraft also doesn't exist anymore. I'm unsure of how this Nazi wartime photo is copyrighted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy von Tempest (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Troy von Tempest: . I'll address the issues one at a time. Yes, it is 84 year old. Copyrights can last for over 100 years. Germany has terms of life of the author plus 70 years, and Germany generally doesn't recognize pre-1995 works as having any anonymity. Germany is the legal successor of Nazi Germany and thus copyrights from 1933 to 1945 that are not expired from the authors being dead for 70 years are still valid in Germany. This is fair use in my opinion, but Wikimedia Commons doesn't allow fair use files. Please check m:NFC for Wikipedias that allow fair use and their rules. As far as permission, you would have to research who took the photograph and if you can find that, ask their descendants to write COM:VRT that they grant a free license to the file if the photographer lived past 1953. Copyrights last far longer than companies. Abzeronow (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is one of a series of bad deletion nominations. As I can't see the image (hey, that's convenient!) then I can't comment on whether we should keep the image or not, I'm prevented from even being able to judge this. But (in terms of the project) it's just as important that we delete things the right way, for the right reasons, as it is to just get as much deleted as possible with minimum effort.
These are speedy deletion nominations that are right outside the speedy deletion process. If we're having to discuss the niceties of German copyright law across three historical jurisdictions then that is complicated and by that reason alone it's not suitable for a speedy deletion.
The nomination reason is garbage. "found in the net" is not a valid deletion reason, let alone a straightforward speedy deletion. Yes, most images here that are 'found on the net' have IP problems but that is not an implication that all of them do, or that we can behave as if they do. For a simple counterexample, how much do we bulk import from Flickr, Geograph et al?
The nomination is misformed and invalid. It's an F5 "The file is missing essential information, such as a license, permission, or source." yet the justification is something different: "found in the net". There was a licence claim made, it might turn out to be an unjustified (and thus deletable) claim, but that's a lot different to these over-simplistic speedy claims just because the nominator can't be bothered to make a real case at a proper DR.
The nomination is lazy and dismissive of other editors here. No-one should ever make a simple deletion nomination on the basis "found in the net" without also giving a source URL for it. No one is so important here (even an admin) that 'their time is so much more important than other editors' that they don't have to give the reasons which form part of a valid DR, they just delete by unchallenged authority because it's less effort for them.
The bulk nominations were abusive with their repeated (and unjustifiable) threats to block the uploader. Especially against an editor with relatively few edits here, working in a field that's acknowledged to be difficult. How about instead we talk about blocking people who bulk-issue invalid speedy deletions?
This file was deleted four hours after its nomination. Because the idea that this is supposed to be a collegial project where more than one editor's experience and opinion might be needed over complex copyright issues is just a sham. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: Not eligible as SD. Andy Dingley has a good point. It seems to me that Nazi government pictures are covered by {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} + {{PD-US-alien property}}. --Yann (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Artworks-KDyi5dSK8Aakpqtn-cGI16w-t500x500.jpg

This file should not be deleted because this is the cover art for the song. A lot of the songs posted here have cover art, and this is no exception. When people search for a song, they will usually see the cover art for it. So this image should not be deleted, as it fits right in with the other songs that have a cover art to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadBetweenTheLines345 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: Obvious copyvios. --Yann (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Centenario dei bersaglieri giorgio ceragioli.JPG

The copyright of Giorgio Ceragioli (died in 1947) expired in 2018. In that year File:Centenario dei bersaglieri giorgio ceragioli 02.JPG, deleted in this DR, was restored, but File:Centenario dei bersaglieri giorgio ceragioli.JPG, deleted in the same DR, was not restored. I guess that it was a simple inattention, therefore I'm asking for the undeletion of the second image too.--Friniate (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: Been public domain in the US since 2019. --Abzeronow (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:London Film Museum (3301350440) (cropped).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted through Commons:Deletion requests/Alien sculptures. However, assuming the London film museum allows public to visit its interiors, then the two image files should be covered by {{FoP-UK}}, similar to both Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-01#File:InSapphoWeTrust - Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts at Madame Tussauds London (8481389580).jpg and Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-01#File:Ron Mueck head.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support Abzeronow (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Sarah Louis-Jean.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2024013110010302. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: Please add ticket etc. --Rosenzweig τ 12:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sede Alcaldía de Maracaibo.jpg

Buenas, necesito que algún administrador restaure la imagen de la sede de la Alcaldía de Maracaibo (Estado Zulia) (osea:File:Sede Alcaldía de Maracaibo.jpg) el arquitecto quien construyó la Alcaldía, el Zuliano Hermes Romero Villalobos <Romis> falleció en 1940 y según la legislación venezolana (se creó 1964 o antes, osea 60 años después de la muerte del derechos del autor) y el Usuario Taivo borró la foto porque la licencia es incorrecta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbchyZa22 (talk • contribs) 2:54, 9 February 2024‎ (UTC)

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Efe Cakarel.jpg

We now have a permission statement from the photographer under Ticket:2022031410004557, so please undeleted for review before it can be verified. Ww2censor (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Ww2censor: Temporarily undeleted, please add ticket etc. if everything is in order. --Rosenzweig τ 12:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Yangon_Fashion_Exhibtion_2017,_Yangon_1.JPG

I don't understand why this file was deleted on grounds of: "No permission since 1 February 2024." I am not aware that self-published files need a permission. Thanks for clearing this up. Munfarid1 (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, The permission is needed for the exhibition, not for your picture. This is a derivative work. Yann (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Yann, and thanks for your explanation about the derivative work, which I wasn't aware of. In this case, the black-and-white photographs by unknown authors that appear as an underlying work are older than 50 years, which means that they are in common domain in Myanmar. If you can undelete this file and tell me, where I should enter this rule on the file page, I can add this permision right away. - Munfarid1 (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In order to be free of a US copyright, they would have to be PD in Myanmar before the URAA date, 1996. It is up to you to prove that -- you can't simply guess that a B&W photo is more than 50 years old -- they may be recent and printed in B&W for esthetic or cost reasons (very large color prints are expensive). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me explain what I know about the underlying photographs: They were collected on postcards or as other anonymous photos by Lukas Birk, a photography historian, in Myanmar and given to the Myanmar Photo Archive. In 2017, on the occasion of the Yangon Photo Festival, they were enlarged and exhibited by the local German Cultural Centre, a government-funded NGO, in a public garden in the capital Yangon. (See the article Myanmar Photography Archive for more information and sources.) There, Lukas Birk took his own photo reproduced in this file, of visitors before two underlying black-and-white photos that he believes to have been taken by Burmese photographers in the 1960s. - I don't know, if he has proof of their original publishing date or the name of the photographers or if he based this date on formal scrutiny, such as the clothes shown in the pictures. - Now how can he prove that? - Given the explained context, can't we AGF? And, INMHO, your argument about black-and-white photographs that look like historical ones, but may really be recent works, could be applied to any anonymous photograph in PD, given the almost unlimited possibilities of creating images from historical sources. So do we have to contest PD of any anonymous photograph that seems to be older than 70 years? - If it would help for Birk to write that these underlying photos are likely to be older than 50 years, based on pure formal grounds, would that solve the problem? - Thanks for helping to sort this out. Munfarid1 (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Munfarid1: US copyright for anonymous photos lasts 95 years since their initial publication or 120 years since creation, whichever expires first. See COM:HIRTLE for details. Ankry (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I noted above, in order to be free of US copyright, they would have to have been free of Myanmar copyright before 1996, which would mean they would have to have been made before 1946. You say they were made in the 1960's -- so as Ankry says above, they will have a US copyright for 95 years since their initial publication or 120 years since creation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for adding this information that I wasn't aware of. I assume this discussion can be closed. Munfarid1 (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Implicitly withdrawn by requestor. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Felice Venezian.jpg

The image of this statue made in 1933 was deleted in 2013 after this DR. Since I cannot see it, I'm only 95% sure about this, but it should represent a statue in Trieste commissioned by the local municipality. As it can be read here though (p.203), the sculptor was Giovanni Mayer, who died in 1943. The artwork is therefore in PD since 2014.--Friniate (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Info It is the bust on pg. 205 of the document but a different photo. @Friniate: Abzeronow (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow Ok, thank you, then the monument should be in PD, so I think that it should be restored, provided that the license of the photo itself is ok... Friniate (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just so I'm clear, PD-ItalyGov is the license of the object? Abzeronow (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow Yes, it is PD-ItalyGov, thank you. Friniate (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: per discussion. --Abzeronow (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Chet -parachute unifom c. 1942 edited.jpg

The photo is a personal photo of the deGavre family. It was taken on Chet deGavre's personal camera. After his death, it was found in a box of Chet's Kodak slides marked Fort Campbell/Fort Benning by his stepson (me). There are no copyright issues. Robert deGavre February 9, 2024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.11.78 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is the photographer? Who is the copyright owner? Has this photo ever been published with permission from the copyright owner? Thuresson (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This photo was taken on deGavre's camera and saved as a Kodak slide. Following is death in 1993, his heirs found this slide in a box of slides entitled "Fort Campbell/Fort Benning 1942-1944". They were recently cleaned and digitized. There are no copyright issues. Please undelete this photo. Thank you Robert T. deGavre Robert T. deGavre (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file was deleted for not having a license on it. If these are just being published now, they have a copyright which lasts until 2064 (his lifetime plus 70 more years). The heirs would inherited the copyright, so they can give a license -- but the specific free license must be chosen. The license must allow anyone to use it, including commercial use (no publicity rights are being licensed, just the copyright) -- see Commons:Licensing. The license must be chosen when uploading. For one example, {{Cc-by-sa-all}}. Some license tags have heirs-specific versions to make the situation more clear -- see Category:License tags for transferred copyright. Or, use the {{Heirs-license}} wrapper tag, e.g. {{Heirs-license|cc-by-sa-all}}. Those would need to be edited into the page after upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose Without information about the photographer, the copyright owner and publishing date, this photo is public domain in US 120 years after creation, eg. in 2063. There certainly are copyright issues, the heirs of the subject can not license a photo. Thuresson (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chet deGavre had numerous photos taken on his personal camera by his fellow officers. There are slides on him taken by someone else in Puerto Rico, Fort Campbell, Fort Benning, England, Ethiopia, and Korea.
The date as indicated on the box containing these slides was 1942-44. In those years cameras did not have the technology to print on the photo the date taken. Official Army photos were taken in black-and-white, not in color and not distributed as slides.
These were part of his personal effects that he owned and that I acquired upon the death of his wife in liquidation of the estate. I was the named executor of their wills.
Please reconsider your opposition. Robert T. deGavre (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Robert T. deGavre: , the problem is that this is an unpublished photograph that appears to have been first published on upload, and since deGavre was not the photographer, you cannot license it because copyright vests with the photographer and not the subject.  Oppose Abzeronow (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Per discussion. The actual photographer or his heirs must license the image. Ownership of the camera is irrelevant. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:SUTERMEISTER H M. Summa Iniuria (cover).jpg

Hello, please undelete the image. The image lacks originality, only featuring a pink background and text. It can be used to illustrate the article de:Summa Iniuria: Ein Pitaval der Justizirrtümer. Thank you in advance.--194.230.160.56 09:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support Licensed as {{PD-text}}. Thuresson (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oddly, it was deleted as a "duplicate" of a file which had a day earlier been nominated for deletion as "out of scope" -- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grundbegriffe der Psychologie von heute.pdf, despite being a different format entirely. What is in the PDF file? More than just the cover, or is it really just an image in a PDF wrapper? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The PDF file is the first edition from 1976, all 500+ pages. Thuresson (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And by w:Hans Martin Sutermeister, so not PD before 2048. Yann (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: PD-text. --Rosenzweig τ 14:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:) at piano LCCN2014719114.jpg

We keep both the tif and jpg of LOC images. This image was deleted and turned into a redirect of the tif. --RAN (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: by Infrogmation. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

deGavre with Regimental colors Feb-Mar 1953

I refer to a color photo I attached to my draft on Chester Bradick deGavre. The photo shows deGavre holding one edge of the 65th Regiment's colors in Korea.

You deleted this photo due to questions of copyright.

This photo was taken in Korea on my stepfather's camera. The photo was saved as a Kodak color side and placed in deGavre's collection of over 137 slides that he took in Korea. In this collection, there are numerous other photos of deGavre that he had someone else take on deGavre's camera.

Following deGavre's death in 1993, I (his stepson) found a box containing these slides in his desk. It along with deGavre's other photos are in my possession and I own after the estate was liquidated.

There are no copyright issues on this photo. Please undelete this photo. I will add information to it to indicate its provenance.

Thank you. Robert Thompson deGavre February 11, 2024 Robert T. deGavre (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is the photographer? Who is the copyright owner? Has this photo ever been published with permission from the copyright owner? Thuresson (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Info per policy, if the photographer is unknown we need to wait until the photo is 120 years old. See {{PD-old-assumed}}. Ankry (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Per discussion. The actual photographer or his heirs must license the image. Ownership of the camera is irrelevant. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:20061221.Mannheim.Jürgen Schön.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2023121110004909. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Universiteti Metropolitan Tirana.jpg

This is the logo of the university "Universiteti Metropolitan Tirana". Website as reference: https://umt.edu.al/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juada.J (talk • contribs) 11:14, 12 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Obviously not, see above. --Yann (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Richard Lintern Headshot.jpg

I own this photo and I want to upload it to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timlintern (talk • contribs) 21:12, 12 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per Эlcobbola. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Douglass DeVorss.png

A 1935 US image deleted because of link rot and the site not picked up by Wayback Machine. If we set a precedent that we delete images because of link rot, we will not have many images remaining 50 and 100 years from now as more and more disappear. The images is PD-US.The deleted image was a crop from a hires version of this image: https://coolwisdombooks.com/neville/there-are-no-ascended-masters-neville-goddard-on-baird-t-spalding/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 15:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: No valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Jean Tatlock.png

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

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

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

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

File:Sageleaves.jpg

no reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjgdzn (talk • contribs) 03:02, 13 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sageleaves.jpg. PLease stop wasting our time. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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