Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-02

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

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

File:Acción Democrática Legítima.png

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

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

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:©David Wölbitsch.jpg

We have received a permission ticket Ticket:2024013010010297 for this file from the person we believe to be the author. Please restore for VRT review. Thanks. Ww2censor (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Undeleted. @Ww2censor: Abzeronow (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission OK now. --Yann (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Couple fighting.jpg

I specifically searched for a picture (I called it possible codependncy photo when I saved it to my computer) that had a creative commons license, meaning it was free to use. I found the image originally on google and then followed it to its source, a website called Pexels. On the website, I found the creator of the picture (Timur Weber) and his files that are licensed under creative commons. I found the date that he took the photo and similar photos from his work. He specifically allows these photos to be used freely, thus allowing it to be accepted on wikipedia.

Cannymaiden73 (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Эlcobbola. The Pexels license explicitly prohibits having the picture on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Zamora_(pianist).jpg

Hi

The picture of this artist was unfairly deleted.

You can find the following text at the bottom of the page where the picture of this artist is located

“Artist pictures and biographical information are granted for use in the public domain”

http://alejandrozamora.com/www_eng/bio/full_bio/full_bio.htm

So, please restore this picture ASAP and do the same with this picture that was removed too:

File:Zamora_Grammy_DeLorean.jpg

And

After that

Restore those pictures again in his page @ Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamora_(pianist)

Thank you

Johnjmuller (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Geom: Please, explain why the abovementioned declaration on the source page qualifies the image for speedy? Ankry (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 Support
Unfairly removal
The article with the pictures was already reviewed, approved and published years ago by another Wiki Admin (C. Fred)
PS
I am not expecting any answer from Geom
He has more than 5 years without answering messages in his own talk page.
Note:
The permission to use the pictures is located at the bottom of the biography page:
http://alejandrozamora.com/www_eng/bio/full_bio/full_bio.htm
Johnjmuller (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose There are two problems. It is not explicitly irrevocable and there is no evidence that Zamora has the right to freely license the images. Performers' publicity photos are typically licensed for use in publicity for the performer, but photographers rarely allow the performer to freely sublicense them as required here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Support
Hi Jim
If it were as you said then you had to start to delete almost all the pictures uploaded to Wikipedia Commons.
There are many pictures from artists published in their websites and uploaded to Wikipedia Commons (thousands of millions) with the same permission embedded in the artist website.
As you can see, the permission to use pictures is at the bottom of the biography page and the pictures already had a couple of years in Wikipedia.
Also, IMHO everything as with other pictures from artists with the same permission (a selfie in this case and all other pictures posted in his website) is based in “good faith” and “fair use” copyright law.
Johnjmuller (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 Support

So, looking forward for an Admin to restore the pictures ASAP.

Johnjmuller (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 Comment You're the one who has brought forward this undeletion request, please don't keep adding a support vote every time you reply to a message, it's already implied that you support undeletion. Also please don't use en:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a rationale. Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
You can't support your own request. Yann (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Images copied from external website without a valid license. There is no evidence that the license at the source is valid. Please ask the copyright holder to send a permission via COM:VRT. --Yann (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Other files of the Monumento alla Resistenza al Pincio

File:Ancona - Resistenza 1.jpeg and File:Ancona - Resistenza 2.jpeg: same case as above, these two images were deleted after this DR. Requesting undeletion for the same reasons stated above, the relevant template is Template:PD-ItalyGov.--Friniate (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: per previous request since its the same artwork. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Information Ticket:2024013010010608 (see above)

@Abzeronow and @Elcobbola: No, the client did *not* name File:Louise Carrin.jpg in her email, but File:Louise Carrin.jpeg. However, from above I can now see that File:Louise Carrin.jpeg was an older photo which was already deleted in 2017. So File:Louise Carrin.jpg might indeed be the one she meant. There remain doubts, however. I am also not convinced that the client is really the photographer. I will request clarification from her within the ticket. Only if I get a convincing explanation from her, I will put the permission badge into the file. If not, I will request re-deletion.

Just to inform you; at the moment nothing needs to be done by you. Cheers, --Mussklprozz (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Procedural close. Seeing as I am the only one who is both an admin and VRT member, both Abzeronow and Mussklprozz are missing pieces to the puzzle: The client included a copy of the photo they were referencing in the ticket (!!!). That photo is File:Louise Carrin.jpg. The client simply had the wrong suffix. It is as simple as that. That file is restored, File:Louise Carrin.jpeg is not. Nothing more is needed, and adding new "information" sections to UDR is not the proper manner of discussion. --Эlcobbola talk 21:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

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

File:The overthrow of the monument to Dzerzhinsky in front of the KGB on Lubyanka in Moscow.jpg

I ask for the file to be restored File:The overthrow of the monument to Dzerzhinsky in front of the KGB on Lubyanka in Moscow.jpg, since I am the sole copyright holder and creator of the image and agree to the use of the license, for which I have sent you a confirmation letter. Dmitry Borko (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC) Dmitry Borko 31/01/2024

 Oppose The file will be undelete by the COM:VRT team once they review and approve the permission sent by the requester. Günther Frager (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: Permission pending. Please renominate if permission not valid. --Yann (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Deleted TV station logos

Please undelete the following files:

Reason: These logo images consist only of simple geometric shapes or text. They do not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and are therefore in the public domain. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Undeleted as {{PD-textlogo}}. Pinging the deleting admin @Fitindia: if any doubts. @BMarGlines: be more careful with licensing. And you can fix your mistakes: that is why the warnings on your user talk page appears. Ankry (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Chinchilla Café presents 2023-08-17.png

The file is a concert poster from Chinchilla Café (Q115621122).

The poster designer has permission recorded with VRT in ticket:2023091010005532 and ticket:2023113010007391. The uploader User:Fabebk has those tickets noted on their userpage, and I also linked to those tickets at Chinchilla Café to better communicate the permission.

I am requesting undeletion because this file has an appropriate open license. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Please resolve problems with tickets at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard, instead of requesting undeletion. Thuresson (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I made the request at Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#Request_undeletion_of_concert_poster. Bluerasberry (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: It would be automatically undeleted when adequate permissions are received at VRT. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Ankush Kumar.jpg

File:Ankush Kumar.jpg--Ankush Kumar (Ansh) (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The requester gave no rationale to undelete it and Commons is not a COM:WEBHOST to store personal photos. Günther Frager (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Images by Museo Textil de Oaxaca

Please restore

We have permission per Ticket:2023121510000236.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mussklprozz (talk • contribs) 10:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Burmese_Photographers_Exhibtion_2018,_Yangon_1.JPG

Request undeletion, as this file was uploaded as Own work by the same user Anameaname1 as in their other file included here: File:Yangon Fashion Exhibtion 2017, Yangon 1.JPG. I don't understand why the bot deleted the image, or is there really something missing I should tell the uploader about? Munfarid1 (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The abovementioned photo is a DW of the photos in exhibition. You provided no evidence that you have free license permission from their authors or that they are already PD> Ankry (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Photos of Willy Aeschlimann

Please restore

We have (heir's) permission per Ticket:2023072010005839.

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Fictional flag of the Third Mexican Empire.svg

I request for undeletion. It was deleted on the basis that it is a fictional flag. There are many fictional flags on Wikimedia, which are even categorized. It was also said that there was no educational purpose behind this fictional flag, even when there is a historical background. The fact that it is not known because it’s Mexican history doesn’t make it as a non-educational. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Your rationale is en:WP:OTHERSTUFF. I also didn't see you present any historical background for the flag in the DR. Abzeronow (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Historical background for the flag was given at the description of the image. I didn’t know I was to describe again the image in the DR. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Not done, per COM:WEBHOST. There are several websites where you can store your personal files for a fee. Thuresson (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Gillian Brett by Coline Dupuis.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2024012810001891. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

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

ar:السلسلة الفيكتورية الذهبية

== https://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B0%D9%87%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A9&action=edit&redlink=1 ==

استرجاع الصفحة السلسة الفيكتورية الدهبية ا — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.84.17.8 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 February 2024‎ (UTC)

Procedural close, can not be undeleted at WikiCommons. Please use the proper channels at ar wiki to request undeletion. Thuresson (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Alain_Chivilò_Art_Critic_and_Curator.jpg ‎

File usage on Commons: there are no pages that use this file. Photo uploaded for mistake, now not necessary: low quality and not representative of the man in charge, because already a new one uploaded in the profile. --Unas (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This is undeletion requests; that file has not been deleted. As for deletion, this file is in use. Even if was replaced by something better in most/all situations, it was in use for years it would seem and thus seems to be in scope, so I'd vote keep if you did nominate for deletion. The "better" image seems to be File:Alain Chivilò art critic and curator, portrait, 2016.jpg, which was uploaded by the same person two months after this image, so this image was the only one we had for a while. And if someone finds that the better portrait was published elsewhere before July 2018, that file would require COM:VRT confirmation from the photographer (even if the uploader is the photographer) unless the CC0 license is also repeated elsewhere, so may be more in risk of being deleted in the future. I would certainly replace the remaining usages with the newer portrait, but that does not mean it's no longer in scope for Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
In this edit, the original uploader claims to be the subject, and states they do own the copyright despite the photographer being someone else. I guess Italian law does have a clause that the copyright to commissioned portraits is owned by the commissioning party. So it's likely fine, but some may insist on COM:VRT procedure just to verify the account is who they say they are. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Alain Chivilò Pop Art Version .jpg

As file usage, no pages on the English Wikipedia use this file (pages on other projects are not listed). The file has been digitized and has been modified from its original state. The image has no purpose to remain in Wikipedia as it does not represent the person. --Unas (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Not currently deleted. --Yann (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Louise Carrin.jpeg

I hereby affirm that I, Louise Carrin, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:

content attached to this email. This photo is a selfie of my self.

The file is : File:Louise Carrin.jpeg

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Louise Carrin

30.01.2024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelfilm (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 January 2024‎ (UTC)

For scope, a filmmaker with at least some modest notability (grand prize of Oberhausen) may not meet completely the notability for a Wikipedia article but a photo can be useful for the public and be in scope for Commons. (Apparently, on Wikipedia, the deletion request of the article was decided as keep in 2017 before a new deletion request was decided as delete in 2023.) For copyright, considering the claim that the photo is a self-portrait, does that mean that the claim was found to be false or not believable? If that claim is not disputed and if the VRT correspondance establishes the identity of the person, is it ok? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: VRT agent confirms permission below, photo is in scope per Asclepias. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

A different file with a similar name was on the ticket below. Reopening UDR Abzeronow (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Not done, ticket issues should be resolved through Commons:VRT/Noticeboard. Thuresson (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Tarjeta electoral Partido Regional Progresistas Merideños Independientes.jpg

Buenas, necesito que algún administrador restaure el Logo del Partido Regional Progresistas Merideños Independientes, en mi opinión se trata de un {{PD-textlogo}} el Logo contiene texto como indica en (https://twitter.com/PartidoPMI) como en la mayoría de categoría los logos de partidos políticos en Venezuela son de texto (Category:Logos of political parties in Venezuela) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbchyZa22 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

License says, that "Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector" are ineligible for copyright. Is the political party part of public sector? Taivo (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Buenas Taivo con respecto a "License says, that "Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector" are ineligible for copyright. Is the political party part of public sector?", te voy a responder, si forma parte de un partido político del sector público AbchyZa22 (talk)
Not done, per Ruthven. Also, File:Logo de la Unidad.jpg is not public domain. Thuresson (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Popeye

Hi, The Popeye character is already in the public domain, as its first appearance in 1929 was not renewed. See Commons:Character copyrights and the talk page for details. So the following files can be undeleted. Yann (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  •  Neutral It's more complex then that; the 1933 Popeye cartoons were renewed, and I'd say the later shorts are generally derivatives of that Popeye as much as the newspaper Popeye.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Hm. As Prosfilaes noted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Popeye 4th of july.png, the initial comic strip with Popeye from early 1929 was renewed, R164887 under King Feature Syndicates, claiming as proprietor of a work for hire. That may have not been enough to create a character copyright, but the possibility of a derivative work on a simple drawing basis may remain. And as additional elements can be added to the character later, creating a derivative work of that character, you'd have to make sure that later versions don't reproduce those copyrightable increments. If there were no other renewals until the 1933 cartoons, I may wait a year then undelete 1929-1932 versions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for this, Carl. My apologies in not finding that. I really appreciate this. Sorry to @Yann as well for this miss. SDudley (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: OK, let's wait until next year. --Yann (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:SASKATCHEWAN 1922 ---EMBOSSED LATE ISSUE PASSENGER BASEPLATE (4574441701).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A resized version of this image (File:Saskatchewan License Plate 1922.jpg) is now in use on en:Vehicle registration plates of Saskatchewan, so I don't think this is out of scope. The version currently in use is inferior because it's been resized down. I think we should restore this image and redirect the new one here. Alex Cohn (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Both images are of the same plate. Is there any reason why you can not download the version from Flickr and overwrite this image? Thuresson (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The warning message I got when I attempted to do that (MediaWiki:File-deleted-duplicate) told me to request undeletion instead of reuploading a previously-deleted image if I disagreed with the original deletion rationale. Alex Cohn (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Alex Cohn: , please cleanup categories a little. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Wall of sorrow at the first exhibition of the victims of Stalinism in Moscow.jpg

I request to restore this file, because the uploader verified his another deleted file here File:The overthrow of the monument to Dzerzhinsky in front of the KGB on Lubyanka in Moscow.jpg.--FlorianH76 (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The permission in ticket:2024013110000181 has not been accepted, yet. If the ticket contains a valid permission for the abovementioned file, the image will be undeleted after the permission is verified and accepted by a VRT volunteer. No action by you is needed here. Ankry (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 18 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:The Finn 2000 NYR 09368 0148 000(011217).jpg

out of process deletion - The Finn by Andrew Wyeth (b. 1917). published "B. O'Doherty, R. Meryman and E.P. Richardson, The Art of Andrew Wyeth, Greenwich, Connecticut, 1973, p. 103, illustrated" [1]. no notice, no renewal, therefore PD-US. maybe you should stop warning people about US copyright. --Frypie (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Frypie: If you added this information at upload instead of pre-1929 publication declaration, then the image would probably not be deleted. And per policy, it is up to you to provide proper copyright-related information, not up to others to search for a PD rationale.
But now, how can we verify that the declared publication is indeed without copyright notice? If the book is PD, it can be publicly available and also its scanned version can be uploaded to Commons. Ankry (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Moreover, Google finds multiple books under the same title published in 1973 by Wanda M. Corn. They are not available for download, so most likely copyrighted. How did you verify that the initial publication of this image was without copyright notice? Was the one mentioned by you earlier than the others, or only this one contains this image? Ankry (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Template:PD-US "This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1929, and if not then due to lack of notice or renewal. See this page for further explanation." what is the standard of practice to indicate PD-US, since the license with the plain statement was ignored? would any amount of evidence avoid a speedy deletion, since the rationale was "The artist died in 2009" ? the extensive publication history is strong evidence it was published without a renewal. what evidence would you accept?
if you have questions about US copyright, leave a message on talk, but do not speedy with EU retionales. --Frypie (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Not good that some took the PD-US tag to only mean publication before 1929 -- that tag it is rather when the precise reason is unknown (i.e. the precise publication date is unknown, but is known enough to be sure that a renewal would have been needed and does not exist, something like that). The tag is sometimes used by upload bots on collections of known-US-PD works so that the precise reason does not need to be identified in a bulk upload.
However, I'm not sure we know this one is PD-US. It was certainly published, yes -- it was exhibited starting in 1970 given your link, but that was not necessarily publication. It was published in that 1973 book, but did that book have a copyright notice? If so that would cover any images within (i.e. it would not lose copyright by being in that book). And in fact, that book did have a copyright notice.[2] If a work was exhibited in public before 1978 without any attempt to say stop photography, it may have been published then, and a notice would have been needed around the painting somewhere. We deem many old public statues public domain for that reason. "Publication" of paintings is unfortunately very difficult to determine, especially more recent ones, and if not published by 1978 it got even harder to do (especially losing copyright due to it). Basically, after that copies have to be actually distributed without a notice, so we would need to be able to show such actual copies (other than the painting itself) without a notice. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US for some of the complications on this. A 1970 work did not need a registration or renewal to keep its copyright, so the lack of them also does not prove anything. Basically, we need to identify an act which was deemed publication by the courts at the time, and which also had no copyright notice with it. You identified a 1973 publication for sure, but that had a copyright notice. Any other books it was in were likely to have a notice. It sounds like it was in a catalog for a Boston exhibition in 1970; if that publication had no notice we may have a chance, but I would guess that is unlikely. So PD in 2066 at the latest, but we may need some more concrete evidence of it becoming PD earlier than that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The Art of Andrew Wyeth is in the 1973 Catalog of Copyright Entries, see [3]. Per the page at Christie's, it was exhibited at Washington, DC, The White House, February-March 1970 and Boston, Massachusetts, Museum of Fine Arts, Andrew Wyeth, July 1970, no. 169, pp. 162-3, illustrated. --Rosenzweig τ 18:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The 1970 Boston exhibition catalog, titled Andrew Wyeth, is in the 1970 Catalog of Copyright Entries, see [4]. --Rosenzweig τ 18:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. Rosenzweig has found two possible copyrighted publications for the painting. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Microsoft Surface Pro (2017).png

File was tagged "copyvio" for containing the Windows 10 default wallpaper, and I had since uploaded a blurred version. But it was still deleted, probably because the thumbnail was not updated in time and the administrator did not notice the blurred one. So, please restore the blurred version. Thanks 0x0a (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: See above. I fixed the author and source. --Yann (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Lisa Shtormit.jpg

Can you please check [Ticket#2023110810005167]. Photographer and artist portraiyed in the pictured both have signed the agreement.

 VRT agent: The permission is fine, but it seems to be a problem with the file itself. I see permission for File:Lisa_Shtormit_by_Victoria_de_Rocco.JPG. That file doesn't exist in Wikimedia Commons. When I tried to upload it, the software says that file is the same as File:Lisa Shtormit.jpg. When I click that file, I only see this edit. I'm unable to solve this problem. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ganímedes: , I undeleted the rest of File:Lisa Shtormit.jpg. Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done by Abzeronow, marked with permission ticket by the VRT agent. Nothing more to do here. Ankry (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Artur Puzio.jpg

There is a proper agreement of copyright owner sent to VTRS. See ticket:2023092710009097 Polimerek (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done: @Polimerek: , please update permissions. ─ Aafī (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:The Mad Doctor (1933).webm

The short was deleted under the unfair statement that Pluto appears and this is not true because i edited all the scenes he appears so this must be inmediately undeleted The New Foxy (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Notifying Racconish. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  • It could still be derivative of intermediate modifications to Mickey Mouse, if those increments were enough for a copyright on their own. There were some comments in Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Mad Doctor 1933 Mickey Mouse Sound Cartoon.webm and elsewhere on that matter. Unfortunately, each film or short which adds a copyrightable amount of expression to a character creates an ongoing derivative work really, and so the character will expire bit by bit. The initial expiration has happened, but if there were copyrighted movies in 1929/1930/1931/1932 which added enough expression, then copying that expression later in this movie could still be derivative. We would probably need a list of what intermediate films were renewed, and try to see beyond a significant doubt if nothing has been added in those, which is present in this one. It is unfortunately messy and open to a lot of argumentation. I have seen some sites which show some drawing changes to Mickey in 1929. I still think we should avoid restoring anything after 1928 for that reason, though the analysis may be more possible next year once those 1929 films expire. None of this is easy and there is little court precedent so far to help us. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose peer Carl Lindberg AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above & previous. Editing out scenes with "Pluto" character IMO dubious. Just wait 5 years for it to be clearly PD. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Jacek Strojny.jpg

Hello, please consider restoring the file File:Jacek Strojny.jpg. The photo had the copyright owner's consent sent via email to share it under a free license. Thank you in advance for your assistance. --MagdIng (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 18 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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 restore this image file :) This photo is a casual and daily photo of Lok Yee Ling. It was upload by her on social media as icon for RedBook account ➡️ https://www.xiaohongshu.com/user/profile/5b5b67ab11be1010141d8451 It is a licence-free photo.

 Oppose per COM:L. Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed. Photos without licensing info isn't "license-free". --Wcam (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Obvious copyvio, redeleted, user warned. --Yann (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

@Imperial meter: when are you usually online? Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

{{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)
 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)
@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)
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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
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)
 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)
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)
@Asclepias:Ok,Cual es tú opinión restaurar la imagen ( Support) o oponerse ( Oppose)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
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)

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

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: [5].
The footnote of the main page here - [6] - 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)
 Support as I said, this should be {{PD-ineligible}}. Yann (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 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)
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)
 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

 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)

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)
  •  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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
  •  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)
    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)

 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)

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

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)

 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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
  • Support No problem with the building. For the 2nd and 3rd photos, their licenses on flickr now are not free, but from their license histories, they were CC BY 2.0 at the time of the uploads. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

 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)

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

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)

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)
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)

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

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)
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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)
  • 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)

✓ 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

 Support Abzeronow (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

  •  Oppose - Whatever the status of the building, the photograph itself has a copyright. The source you provided says "Copyright © 2013-2024 El Zuliano Rajao. Todos los Derechos Reservados". I see no evidence on offer that the photograph is free, or even that that site is the true "source". A higher quality and higher resolution version is on this site, for example. This appears to be nothing but a COM:NETCOPYVIO. Эlcobbola talk 15:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)

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

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)

 Info It is the bust on pg. 205 of the document but a different photo. @Friniate: Abzeronow (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@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)
Just so I'm clear, PD-ItalyGov is the license of the object? Abzeronow (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
@Abzeronow Yes, it is PD-ItalyGov, thank you. Friniate (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)


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)

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)
 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)
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)
@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)

 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)

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)

 Support Licensed as {{PD-text}}. Thuresson (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
The PDF file is the first edition from 1976, all 500+ pages. Thuresson (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
And by w:Hans Martin Sutermeister, so not PD before 2048. Yann (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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)
 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)

 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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

 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)

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

File:ROC Ministry of National Defense Seal.svg

Please restore the following pages:

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

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

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

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

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

File:Afghanistan-Spange.jpg

And also:

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

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

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

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

File:Carlos-Meyer-Baldo.jpg

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

@NoonIcarus: When was this photo first published in Venezuela? Thuresson (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@NoonIcarus: Who is the photographer and has she or he been dead for 70 years? Thuresson (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 Comment If the above questions remain unresponded, {{PD-old-assumed}} can be applied in 2039. Ankry (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
The picture was first published in 1918, along with other pictures ([10]), 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)
The deleted file appears to have a modern colorization, which could have its own copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
@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)
There is only one version that we have (the colorized version). Abzeronow (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 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)
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)
 Support Per NoonIcarus --Wilfredor (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 Support:Per NoonIcarus, Venezuela license it's OK. AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
@AbchyZa22: Could you, please, elaborate which 60 years old publication you mean? Ankry (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
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)
Greg vanWyngarden is a contemporary writer about fighter planes of WW1, he is not the photographer. Thuresson (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose The file requested to be undeleted is a smaller version of the color portrait which can be seen at [11], which is clearly a colorized (possibly also "enhanced"?) version of the b&w (sepia tinted) one which can be seen on the left here. Since Meyer Baldó was living in Germany at the time, was serving in the German forces and is shown in what appears to be a German (possibly Prussian) uniform, this photograph was presumably taken in Germany. There's some kind of embossing at the lower left (I can't really read it though, would need a larger file), which suggests a professional photographer.
So: The photograph is not a "Venezuelan" photograph, but of German origin, and we would need to look at German law, which uses 70 years pma. As the embossing shows, the photograph is not anonymous, but has an author. If we can find that photographer/author and that person died over 70 years ago, we can consider uploading the original photograph (not undeleting the colorized version though, which appears to be modern and may have its own copyright). --Rosenzweig τ 10:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg

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

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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
Of the particular svg rendering in File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
@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)
@AbchyZa22: lo siento, no lo sé. Feliz año a usted también. Echando una mano 21:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
@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)
@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)
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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
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)
I agree with that. Bedivere (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. —holly {chat} 22:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

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)
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)

 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)

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)

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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
    • URAA restored works which had their US copyrights expire like Metropolis (1927). This work was also definitely restored by URAA regardless if it had a US copyright or not. And Rosenzweig is correct. Abzeronow (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
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)

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

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

File:Stanley nwabali profile.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was copied from [12]. But is it in scope? Is there any use on Wikimedia projects? Yann (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

File:A.Candu_profile_photo_2021.jpg

Dear Wiki team,

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

--I.timcu (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

File:Mk.portrait.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

File:Slam Director's Poster Oct18 Low.png

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

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

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

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

File:Lunar Glitch VHS 01.png

I received a wiki notification requesting removal of my file

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


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

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

🙄

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Flipaclip-logo 5.png

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

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

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

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

File:Giuseppe Barone al lavoro.jpg

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

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

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

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

File:Shafeeque2020.jpg

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

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

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

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

File:Yundi Gloria.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Boceto Puente de sangre.jpg

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

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

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

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

File:Colourful parade at Calabar Carnival.jpg

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

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

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

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

File:Calabar Carnival 2017.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 18 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

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

File:Lunar Glitch VHS 01.png

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

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

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

File:Marek Walczewski.jpg

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

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

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

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

File:Tulu's Selfie.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Jason Rowe.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:The Norwegian scientist Karen Blaauw Helle.jpg

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

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

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

File:RTL D Boris Breuer.jpg

Liebe Wikimedia-Commons-Community,

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

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

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

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

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

File:Realna-mzda.png

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

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

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

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

File:Copenhagen RLFC Logo.png

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

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

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

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

All files of Dmitry Borko

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

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

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

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

File:汉质帝.jpg

Dear to whom deleted it,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request temporary undeletion.

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

Additionally, I have had some of my recent uploads nominated (manually) for speedy deletion as duplicates (SD|F8), such as [14]. However, all seven of my files that had been manually tagged for speedy deletion were appropriately kept by OptimusPrimeBot. Thank you, --Ooligan (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

To me, they look like exact duplicates, same size, same source, same date, same image content. --Rosenzweig τ 07:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok, @Rosenzweig. So, what was the exact time stamp for each file? -- Ooligan (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
You can see them yourself in the logs: [15] [16] So uploaded 14 minutes after the files that were kept [17] [18]. --Rosenzweig τ 17:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig, Are redirects not required to be left by Administrators?
If a redirect had been left on these two files, I could have easily found and verified this information myself and not made a request here. The usual practice by the majority administrators that I have seen, is to simply leave a redirect when deleting their "duplicate." I think leaving redirects is a "best practice," even if it is not a requirement. Redirects can facilitate auditing and research into deletion-related activity, including potential abuse.
Thank you for those links and your help. Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Per COM:DUPE: “After deleting the duplicate, redirect the deleted filename unless it is misleading or a very recent upload. (This avoids breaking links from external reusers of images.)” These probably qualified as very recent uploads. --Rosenzweig τ 22:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

File:Frintova03.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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

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

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

File:MANIC KAT RECORDS LOGO FINAL 2016.png

Hi,

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

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

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

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

File:Jüri Antsmaa.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2024-02&oldid=856503005"