Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page

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

Other languages:

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

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

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 2 subpages) • 0 malformed
21 copyvios • 2 selfies • 2 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

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

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

Adding a request

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

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

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

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Park Sung-jae.jpg

This photo was originally uploaded on the “Open Minister's Office”(열린장관실) homepage of the Ministry of Justice. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll notice three things.

  1. “COPYRIGHTⓒ MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. REPUBLIC OF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.” — This claim is on every website of the South Korean government, even on the page of the KOGL. This is just a general disclaimer only.
  2. Logo of WebWatch in green color — A web standardization certification that has nothing to do with copyright. (It's like W3C or HTML5 logo)
  3. The KOGL Type 1 logo ({{KOGL}}, File:KOGL 1.svg) — It is clearly indicates that the entire content of the this subdomain of MoJ is released under KOGL Type 1. Please note “Open Minister's Office” homepage is separated from the original homepage of MoJ. It is only accesiable by click "법무부 소개" > "장관소개" from top menu and it will be open in new tab. You can obviously see that it's separated from the original site with diffrent logo, title and web design.

Average Pennsylvanian mentioned that he couldn't be sure because each photo didn't have the KOGL logo, which is not true. Here's an example of a misuse of the KOGL logo. This is the homepage of the Office of the President. It also displays the KOGL logo(File:KOGL wordmark (Korean).svg at the bottom of the page, but it doesn't say what kind of KOGL it is at all. In this case we cannot use the image unless there is KOGL logo and specified type on each page.--Namoroka (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antigua.news.jpg File:Antigua.news small icon.jpg

File: antigua.news.jpg File: Antigua.news small icon.jpg

Hi,

I noticed that the above files have been deleted for copyright reasons. However the owner of the images authorizes the use of them with credit and link. Both requirement have been met on the wiki page where there are used.

Please note that on antigua.news website there is this copyright message on the bottom of the page, which confirms what I wrote above:

“All contents of this site including images, texts and other assets are copyrighted and owned by Antigua.news. No contents of this site may be reproduced, altered, or distributed except you give appropriate credit and provide a link to the copyright holder, and indicate if changes were made.”

Therefore, I kindly request to undelete the images.

Thanks and regards.

--Mediascriptor (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The requirement for a link cannot be met in print use, so the permission cited is not enough for Commons. These are fairly simply and probably don't have a USA copyright. We know nothing about the Threshold of Originality in Antigua, but as a former UK colony it is probably very low, so these probably have a copyright there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can the requirement for a link be met in print by simply including a URL in the printout? I'd hope so. In this case, that's probably moot (in the U.S. sense) because of your salient point about COM:TOO Antigua, but it's still worth a thought. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Lunda Tchokwe.svg

This file was just deleted because it doesn't fit in TOO Angola, but the symbol in the middle is the traditional lusona symbol for antelope footprint. [1] Other than that the graphic consists of just simple rectangles and circle. Therefore the deletion was incorrect. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, although COM:Angola also notes that "Traditional learning and use are treated the same as literary, artistic and scientific works." I will admit that my knowledge of African symbols like this is lacking so I won't oppose restoration here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about it before, but the pattern probably already existed in colonial times and Portuguese law, where folk patterns are not protected, may apply. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I might need to try to find someone who is an expert on Angola and then temporarily undelete to get their opinion. (if someone else thinks I should reverse my deletion, I'll also do so.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fanta Fruit Punch (37211095091).jpg

File:Heinz Organic Tomato Ketchup (28723042688).jpg As per the discussion at [2] and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg, we need to be consistent in our decisions. Pinging @Jameslwoodward, King of Hearts, Glrx, Clindberg, and Josve05a: involved people. Yann (talk) 11:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still object to this interpretation, but do not care at this point. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support My opinion is unchanged from the original deletion discussions,1 and 2. Takipoint123 (💬) 19:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak oppose IMO, we should be able to allow derivative works, including reasonable cropping. Unlike De minimis cases, where cropping to copyrighted items is mostly pointless due to their size and crop quality, the label here is prominent part of the photo. Same applies to File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg, IMO. If the label quality was low or copyrighted parts were not fully visible, I would change my opinion. Ankry (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this is similar to a FOP situation. The picture would be OK on Commons, even if a crop might not be. Yann (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support If it's the photo at https://www.flickr.com/photos/85567416@N03/37211095091, I would say it's directly in line with Ets-Hokin. Similar to de minimis, cropping to just the label may be an issue (it changes the "underlying work"). Though in this case, the only copyrightable parts of the label are the pictorial representations of the fruit and leaves, so that may be actual de minimis as well. But a pictorial label would still be "incidental" to the photo of the entire bottle regardless, per that ruling. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carl Lindberg: Yes, that's the file. The other one is this picture. Yann (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chandraprabha Saikiani Stamp.jpg

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India stamps of India are now PD per the Government Open Data License. I'm also requesting that the following files be undeleted for the same reason.

Along with all the files that were previously deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps of India and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Koiladababu (the second one might need extra review). --Adamant1 (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info #1 is not a stamp of India. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Filipe Nery Xavier commemorative stamp - 450th anniversary of Portuguese India.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support per COM:India. Ankry (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antrag zur Wiederherstellung von File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Administratoren,

im Frühjahr 2014 habe ich von einem Plakat des Kameradenkreises der Gebirgstruppe die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht kopiert und in die jeweiligen Artikel der Divisionen eingefügt. Dabei habe ich bei jedem Divisionsabzeichen fälschlicherweise (damals war ich Anfänger bei Wikipedia) als Urheber den Kameradenkreis angegeben.

In der Beschreibung aller Divisionsabzeichen muss es richtigerweise heißen: - Quelle: Archiv Kameradenkreis der Gebirgstruppe - Autor: unbekannt, da heute für alle Divisionen nicht mehr nachvollziehbar - Lizenz: Dieses Bild stellt das Wappen einer deutschen Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts dar. Nach § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG (Deutschland) sind amtliche Werke wie Wappen gemeinfrei. Zu beachten: Wappen sind allgemein unabhängig von ihrem urheberrechtlichen Status in ihrer Nutzung gesetzlich beschränkt. Ihre Verwendung unterliegt dem Namensrecht (§ 12 BGB), und den öffentlichen Körperschaften dienen sie darüber hinaus als Hoheitszeichen.

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung des File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg und auch die der übrigen 12 Gebirgsdivisionen, falls die auch schon gelöscht worden sind.

Mit Dank im Voraus für Ihr Verständnis und Ihre Bereitschaft helfen zu wollen -- Jost (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: I am the deleting admin. Jost, can you cite which statute or decree these patches are part of? (and I've discussed similar cases with Rosenzweig on my talk page.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: These patches were worne as an official part of the uniform. Each mountain division of the Wehrmacht have had their own patch. The patches were created by the staff of the division and were approved by the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH). I have read your dicussion with Rosenzweig. Jost (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JostGudelius: Ob die Bundeswehr oder ihre Untergliederungen wirklich Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, finde ich zumindest zweifelhaft. Müsste man evtl. mal bei de:WP:URF klären. Aber unabhängig davon sind auch Gemeindewappen usw. deshalb gemeinfreie amtliche Werke, weil sie mal in einer amtlichen Verlautbarung bekanntgemacht wurden. Die ZDv 37/10 hat bspw. diverse Verbandsabzeichen. Ist das hier auch so? Wenn ja, wann und wo? Oder hat das irgendjemand inoffiziell erstellt? --Rosenzweig τ 21:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Es handelt sich hier um die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht. Diese Abzeichen wurden wahrscheinlich von den Divisionen geschaffen und vom Kriegsministerium bzw. Oberkommando des Heeres genehmigt. Urheber und Genehmigungsprozess sind heute nicht mehr nachzuvollziehen. Ob Streitkräfte Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, kann ich nicht belegen - ich bin kein Jurist. Sie sind aber eine vom Staat beauftragte Organisation/Körperschaft mit einem Auftrag und klaren Rechtsrahmen, der mit der Verfassung / dem Grungesetz beginnt.Gruß --Jost (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Deine Frage bezüglich der ZDV 37/10, die diverse Verbandsabzeichen enthält, trifft den Nagel auf den Kopf. Diese Verbandsabzeichen werden bei allen Verbänden, die eines Artikels bei Wikipedia würdig sind, in der Info-Box ohne Probleme eingefügt. Das gleiche muss auch für die Verbandsabzeichen der Verbände der Wehrmacht gelten; sie haben von ihrer Entstehung und Genehmigung her das gleiche Procedere und den gleichen Status. Sie sind offizielle Abzeichen/Wappen einer deutschen Behörde/eines Verbandes der Wehrmacht und m.E. gemeinfrei. Ich bitte Dich, dies @Abzeronowzu erklären und darauf hinzuwirken, dass die Löschungen der Divisionsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht rückgängig gemacht bzw. unterlassen werden, damit wir uns in Zukunft diese Diskussionen ersparen. Dein Englisch ist weitaus besser als das meinige, bitte mach es. Ich werde inzwischen Quelle und Urheber in den Beschreibungen der Verbandsabzeichen bearbeiten/korrigieren. Gruß --Jost (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ich übersetze das mal: Du weißt demnach nicht, ob besagte Grafik mal in irgendeiner Vorschrift bekanntgemacht o. ä. wurde. Du vermutest es nur. --Rosenzweig τ 18:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig:zunächst mal herzlichen Dank, dass Ihr weiter mit mir kommuniziert und versucht, mir zu helfen. Inzwischen habe ich heute nach heftiger Recherche folgende Aussagen und Quellen gefunden, die belegen, dass meine Vermutung (Erfahrung aus langjähriger Tätigkeit in den Streitkräften bei der Truppe, in Stäben und im Ministerium) durchaus richtig ist und auch bei Wikipedia und Commons bearbeitet wurde. Siehe:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Verbandsabzeichen_1._Gebirgs-Division.png in: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Insignia_of_the_Wehrmacht?uselang=deDivision.png?uselang=de.
Mützenedelweiß, Ärmelabzeichen und Verbandsabzeichen (für Fahrzeuge und Gerät) der 1. GebDiv wurden vom Oberkommando des Heeres mit Verfügung vom 2.Mai 1939 eingeführt; siehe in: Thomas Müller, Verheizt - Vergöttert - Verführt, Die deutsche Gebirgstruppe 1915- 1939, Veröffentlichung des Bayerischen Armeemuseums Band 16, 1. Auflage 2017, S. 68. Die Divisionsabzeichen/Truppenkennzeichen der Wehrmacht wurden vom OKH endgültig legitimiert mit Befehl Nr. 21 vom 16.Februar 1944 (OKH GenSt d H Org Abt II/31 180/44); siehe in: W. Fleischer, Truppenkennzeichen des deutschen Heeres und der Luftwaffe, Dörfler-Verlag 2002, ISBN 3895554448.
Ich meine, das reicht Ich bitte Dich und @Abzeronow, die Verbandsabzeichen der 1.GebDiv (Edelweiß) und der 3.GebDiv (Narvikschild) wiederherzustellen. Gruß --Jost (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jost, Ich habe Ihre Aussagen über Google Translate gelesen. Da ich kein Deutsch spreche, habe ich mich auf Englisch verständigt. Aber ich werde bei Bedarf maschinelle Übersetzung verwenden. (via google translate) Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: I hope you can although translate my answer to @Rosenzweig. I think all doubts are now cleared up. Greetings --Jost (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are potentially many more cases like these, I think we should get to the bottom of the matter. I've started a thread at de.wp's equivalent of the copyright village pump (at. de.wp because I feel more people who know German law will particpate there): de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Militärische Verbandsabzeichen Deutschlands. Hopefully a consensus can be reached there. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rosenzweig. I can use Firefox's beta translation feature on that page so I'll follow along as best I can (I won't post there since I know so very little German) Abzeronow (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reiterate something Rosenzweig said there here, there is no rush on this, if it is found by dewiki legal experts that these are lawfully in the public domain, I can restore them myself. These cannot be in the public domain as "anonymous works" because 1.) German copyright law for pre-1995 works and 2.) URAA if these were not seized by the Office of Alien Property Custodian. Abzeronow (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Russian Paralympic Committee flag (2021).svg

This file was deleted because the original uploader didn't provide sufficient evidence that the file was in the public domain or with a free licence. However, a user on zh-wp gave evidence that the logo was proposed by International Paralympic Committee (IPC) (per Paralympic document). We can assume that the IPC created the logo since there's no other information about the designer. We can, therefore, use pd-textlogo by COM:TOO Germany (since the IPC is based in Germany) to deal with the logo and the special emblem, per №.N at the deletion request.

Here's the original text:

这个标志最初由国际残奥委会推出[3]。原设计者不明的情况下可以认为是国际残奥委会的作品，技术上可依据国际残奥委会总部所在国德国的原创性门槛来处理。（以下信息皆仅用于本讨论作为参考）另外，合理推测俄罗斯残奥委会的标志中明显的俄罗斯国旗元素，是国际残奥委会推出这个special emblem的原因之一（俄罗斯在东京奥运可以直接使用俄罗斯奥委会标志，因为俄罗斯奥委会标志的俄罗斯国旗元素相对没那么明显），同时这个special emblem原设计者是俄罗斯籍的可能性也很低。

— User:Liu116, in: 檔案存廢討論#File:Russian Paralympic Committee special emblem (Tokyo 2020, Beijing 2022).jpg

--Saimmx (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Full erection of circumcised 76-year-old.jpg

This image depicts a 76-year-old male (it used to be in the category Nude 76-year-old male humans per Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/05/Category:Nude 76-year-old male humans and the preceding CfD linked there). A 76-year-old male would be an ‘old man’ (per the de facto Commons categorization scheme).

The mere fact that this image depicts an erection of an old man seems to make the image notable.

It is not clear how many other images Commons has depicting this topic, but there is strong circumstantial evidence that Commons lacks such images. There is no category Nude old men with erect penis. There is a category Nude old men, which contains (directly or indirectly) a total of 5 files, none of which depict erections. There is one image that I am aware of, File:00000 An Erect human penis viewed from the front 190mm.jpg, and even that image narrowly escaped deletion after a dubious discussion. Brianjd (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Undeletion of Image of Erika Hagelberg

Please could the Commons:File:Hagelberg Erika.png be undeleted? It was deleted without warning for the reason that it didn't have permission to be used, but this was not correct as permission had been provided by the copyright holder of the image. I have tried to contact the user who deleted the image twice but have received no response. The file is a colour portrait/headshot image of Erika Hagelberg. Thanks for your help. Srsval (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted without warning, uploader was notified and had 7 days to start the VRT process. We need COM:VRT permission from the copyright holder, we cannot assume the uploader had permission to upload it. Abzeronow (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted without wider notice, I don't think that the uploader is regularly on Wikicommons so they wouldn't have seen the notification. I don't understand, why can't you assume the uploader had permission to upload the image? Isn't that how releasing the copyright for an image works? Someone says that it's their image and they release the copyright, and the file is used. Why is it different now? What is com:VRT permission? Many thanks for your help Srsval (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose In the case of an image created by the uploader, we do assume good faith and take their word for it. Images created by third parties are more complicated, because copyright licenses must be in writing, so we need to see a writing from the creator. We have a team that deals with this privately which is why you were referred to COM:VRT above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me). How do you know it wasn't created by the uploader? Is that assumed because the same image appears elsewhere on the web, and so it is assumed that it has been taken from there and uploaded to Wikicommons by someone who doesn't hold copyright? I've tried but I can't figure this system out, it seems that some images are ok and others are arbitrarily deleted because they don't have copyright. Thanks, Srsval (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a judgement call. It is true that the uploader, Magdeburg47, claims to be the photographer. But in the file description written with the upload, they say, "private photograph of Erika Hagelberg, owned by Erika Hagelberg, used by Erika Hagelberg in her departmental web page." This suggests strongly that Magdeburg47, a user with only two uploads, has mistakenly claimed authorship. Added to that is the fact that the image is small and has no EXIF, both of which suggest it was lifted from the web rather than actually the work of Magdeburg47. All of this is why we assume good faith and accept the word of the uploader when they claim to be the photographer, but require the use of VRT when there are elements that raise questions. VRT is always required when the image has been previously published on the web or elsewhere without a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

اردبیل بنیانگذار ایران نئومدرن.jpg

حذف حذف شود --Hasan mammadov (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasan mammadov: There is no file by that name. Perhaps you mean File:اردبیل بنیانگذار ایران نئومدرن.png, a file you uploaded that was deleted? It was a personal photograph for someone who has not otherwise contributed to Commons, and that is out of scope. (See:COM:SCOPE.)
ترجمه ماشینی فارسی: فایلی به این نام وجود ندارد. شاید منظورتان File:اردبیل بنیانگذار ایران نئومدرن.png]، فایلی است که آپلود کرده اید و حذف شده است؟ این یک عکس شخصی برای کسی بود که در غیر این صورت در ویکیانبار مشارکت نکرده است، و این خارج از محدوده است. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 00:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Алексей Сюмак, 2018.jpg

File:Алексей Сюмак, 2018.jpg

Прошу восстановить данное фото, т. к. автор фото отправлял письмо с разрешением на указанный для данных писем емайл. Кроме того, участник Википедии с доступом к VRT, Владимир Соловьев, самолично проверял фото и помогал с загрузкой (сохранилась переписка в разделе, связанном с VRT). Прикрепляю Ticket#: 2025012010006023

--NeannaSi (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Press photographs from before 1978

I believe that File:Orangeburg Massacre Times and Democrat February 9 1968 Dozier MobleyA.jpg (and other similar press photos) fall under {{PD-Pre1978}}.

The same logic applies to this picture as to most AP photos from this time period (such as File:Saigon Execution.jpg). Per the US Copyright Office's Circular 3, "In general, for works first published before March 1, 1989, the copyright owner was required to place an effective notice on all publicly distributed 'visually perceptible' copies. A visually perceptible copy is one that can be seen or read, either directly or with the aid of a machine. Examples of visually perceptible copies include a book, sheet music, a photograph, or film." Commons:Publication also quotes US law as saying "The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication." In other words, the fact that newspapers published the image with AP's permission and without a proper copyright notice forfeited copyright to the image.

If this interpretation is correct, I hope it can be more clearly stated on the pages for the Category:Photographs distributed by Associated Press and Category:United Press International photographs.

SilverStar54 (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I think, perhaps, you misunderstand the law as it was then. While it is true that before 1989, notice was required, that notice needed to appear only one place in the newspaper. This was often on the masthead, although the New York Times put it on the front page. Very few newspapers of the era did not have notice. While the notice included only the name of the newspaper and not AP or UPI, the newspaper was printing the photo as a licensee and therefore its notice was all that was required. Note that this did not include advertisements, which required a separate notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Question: Still, that interpretation means that if the newspaper had no copyright notice anywhere, the photo is in the public domain. The undeletion request does not provide a link to the issue of the newspaper to check but, for example, this other newspaper, which published an AP photo of the same event on the same date, does not seem to have a copyright notice, although from a quick look I could have missed it. DRs have been decided both ways by the same administrator. In the DR for this file, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Orangeburg Massacre Times and Democrat February 9 1968 Dozier MobleyA.jpg, the approved deletion rationale is "lack of copyright doesn't make it in the public domain", implying that the photo is not freely usable even if there was no copyright notice in the newspaper. By contrast, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nixon Steps Into Mess in Uruguay.jpg, including an AP photo, was decided as keep. How does that really work? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph was published in the Orangeburg Times and Democrat in their February 9, 1968 issue. Sadly, I don't think I have access to their archives myself, but a photo I found online shows that their masthead (at least) did not mention copyright. Can someone explain why this is relevant to the copyright status of the photograph itself? If the newspaper is copyrighted, is the photograph copyrighted too? SilverStar54 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Please note that there are many on going DRs with a similar situation, i.e. Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Gacy Pogo December 1976 Martin Zielinski.jpg (and others mentioned on [4]. Yann (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward, do you mind providing a source for saying the notice only needed to appear one place in the newspaper? From what I could find, the Copyright Office's explanation (specifically 2121.4(A)) seems to say that the copyright notice has to be on the photograph itself. But I admit that I could be misinterpreting it. I know about as much about copyright law as a squirrel knows about duck hunting. SilverStar54 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See USCO Circular 3, page 3, under "Position of Notice":
"Works Published as Periodicals or Other Serials
Any location acceptable for books
• As part of, or adjacent to, the masthead or on the page containing the masthead
• Adjacent to a prominent heading, appearing at or near the front of the issue, containing the title of the periodical and any combination of the volume and issue number and the date of the issue"
This is very logical. A newspaper or other periodical is a single copyright unit, just as a book is a single unit, and therefore requires only one notice.
I might suggest that you keep a copy of Circular 1, Circular 3, and Circular 40 at hand, as they are authoritative and much easier to understand that the text of the law and regulations. You can find them at https://www.copyright.gov/circs/.
As I noted above and as described in Circular 3, notice can be in any of several places, so without access to the whole newspaper, I think that PCP requires that we assume notice appears somewhere in any newspaper published in the USA before the law changed in 1989. It is hard to imagine a newspaper putting its entire contents in the public domain and would, by the way, violate its contracts with UPI, AP, and most freelance contributors.
Finally, in the case of third party contributors such as UPI and AP, I strongly suspect that is a newspaper printed an AP or UPI image without notice, that a court would hold that the image was not made PD by that action because such action would have been unauthorized by UPI or AP and it is well established that unauthorized publication does not put a work in the PD.
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LeoHattonActressActorHeadshot.jpg

This photograph was paid for by the actress of herself to use as and when she pleases. it is her main headshot that her agent uses in publications such as deadline, a leading Hollywood news site. please can you move to undelete this, it is a published photograph and therefore the actress can use it as her photo on her bio page as she paid for this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaElves (talk • contribs) 16:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Fair use not accepted on Commons, and no evidence of a free license, please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the subject may well have paid for the image, including a license covering the right to use the image for her own publicity purposes, it would be very unusual for such a license to permit her to freely license the image to others. Restoration will require the actual photographer to send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per above. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BrookeAlexx.jpg

The photographer, Josh Kranich has uploaded the photo to flickr with a Public Domain Mark 1.0 Universal. https://www.flickr.com/photos/194834257@N05/54324364978/

--JTorn (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)  Oppose Pure Flickrwashing. The image appears on the subject's official web site, "https://www.brookealexx.com/. with:[reply]

"© BROOKE ALEXX 2025. PHOTOGRAPHY BY PEYTON DOLLAR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED."

The Flickr user is a not the actual photographer and has no right to use the PDM on the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Jim. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mary-Rose Papandrea.jpg

Picture was taken at a public event in which everyone was taking pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0162739p (talk • contribs) 22:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support The image is a good size, has full EXIF from an Apple Iphone, and except for here, does not appear in a Google search -- although the dress appears many times. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per Jim. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by LuchoCR

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The license for these files was {PD-CRCGov}; the bot tagged them by mistake because there was no English translation for that template, however, a translation already exists. LuchoCR (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per request. --Bedivere (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw on Italian Wikipedia, that nobody has uploaded a map of the Province of Latina, Lazio, Italy. So, I decided to upload this file showing a better map of this province. Please don't delete it, or else I will be sad! Please... 🥺🙏 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grizzy&TheLemmingsFan2763 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Irina Antonova (2025-02-12).jpg

Summary

Description
Русский: ученый-экономист и общественный деятель в Республике Татарстан и Российской Федерации
Date
Source [5]
Author Tatcenter 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Антонова Ирина Ильгизовна (talk • contribs) 08:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Presentation by Chairman of the State Council of the Republic of Tatarstan Farid Mukhametshin of the medal of the Order of Merit for the Fatherland, II degree (2022).jpg

Summary

Description
Русский: Вручение Председателем Государственного Совета Республики Татарстан Фаридом Мухаметшиным медали ордена «За заслуги перед Отечеством» II степени (2022)
Date 12.11.2022 15:41:00
Source [6]
Author Kiu 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Антонова Ирина Ильгизовна (talk • contribs) 08:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Handing over an honorable call to a friend Ilgizovna.jpg

Summary

Description {Почётное звание и знак "Рыцарь науки и искусств", решение президиума РАЕН от 14 февраля 2001 г.}
Date
Source [7]
Author Ruviki 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Антонова Ирина Ильгизовна (talk • contribs) 09:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Description В рамках торжественных мероприятий, посвященных 25-летнему юбилею Казанского инновационного университета. Диплом дипломанта общероссийской общественной премии "Стандартизатор года" в номинации "За вклад в образовательную и учебно-просветительскую деятельность в области стандартизации и смежных с ней дисциплин"
Date
Source [8]
Author Ruviki 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Антонова Ирина Ильгизовна (talk • contribs) 09:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Presentation of the award — honorary title Honored Worker of Higher Education of the Republic of Tatarstan (2015).jpg

Summary

Description Заслуженный работник высшей школы РТ
Date
Source tatarstan.ru
Author Tatarstan.ru 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Антонова Ирина Ильгизовна (talk • contribs) 09:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=969879230"