Commons:Undeletion requests

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

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

Other languages:

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

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

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 4 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
0 copyvios • 7 duplicates • 1 selfie • 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Minorax: , @Odder: , @Rama: We need an oversighter here, and Raymond was already involved and says others should take it on. Any other admins won't be able to do anything here. --Rosenzweig τ 09:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm that it is agreed that the privacy concern with regards to the files has been addressed and this is a successful undeletion request? --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 10:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even see the files, nor do I have access to oversighter communication channels, so I cannot confirm anything. Presumably the privacy concern has not been addressed, but that's what an oversighter would need to look into and possibly tell the uploader which parts of the documents would need to be covered/blocked/removed for a re-upload which was already suggested by the uploader (and then probably close this undeletion request as unsuccessful). Any other admins won't be able to move this forward. --Rosenzweig τ 10:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Raymond: Mind commenting on this? Google translate doesn't seem to be helping me to understand the situation. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 02:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are documents of Plessen-family history and historical value. Professor Ernst Münch (University of Rostock)-, the renowned writer Elisabeth Plessen and other experts were involved in the important Plessen documents and the matter at all; activation is also expected for scientific reasons. If there are data protection concerns, certain information may need to be blacked out, which is common practice. - If it causes "a headache", please at least unblock this one document regarding Dolgen-Manor : https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:R%C3%BCckabwicklung_des_Plessengutes_Dolgen_am_See.pdf&action=edit&redlink=1 --- All people involved were named personally by @Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen, the chairman of the Plessen-Family himself; Data protection violations are therefore not apparent. - Best regards : --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Minorax Email sent. Raymond (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen wird sich - mehr als offensichtlich & aus allseits bekannten Gründen - nicht zu den historisch & familiengeschichtlich (enzyklopädisch) wertvollen (hier leider gelöschten) Familiendokumenten bzgl. Rittergut Dolgen einlassen, so denke ich. - PS : Bei Ratten im Langzeitversuch verursachte GVO in der Nahrungskette diverse Krebserkrankungen; ich hoffe dringend, meinem "lieben" Verwandten a.d.H. 19205 Schönfeld blieb- resp. bleibt das Schicksal der armen & kranken Genraps-Ratten erspart ... und der Edelherr äußert sich nun ggf. aus gesundheitlichen Gründen nicht mehr, obwohl er seine "Plessen-Saga" noch allumfassend & in seinem Sinne fortschreiben & bebildern wollte (?) - MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: Please check through. Thanks. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 12:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are a true man of honor and hero of our democracy : Thank you on behalf of my dead Plessen mother and my dead grandfather Leopold from the Dolgen Manor house !!! - Best regards, Michael J. Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Minorax: I've looked at some, but will need a bit more time to read them all and form an opinion about their copyright status, if they're in scope, and about possible privacy concerns. --Rosenzweig τ 08:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Please don't forget : all real names were published by the @Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen (@Christian von Plessen: ) personally. The documents regarding Dolgen manor are of central importance for a truthful continuation of the encyclopedic and family history-relevant "Plessen saga". - Best regards, Michael Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC) )[reply]
@Minorax: I've looked at them all now. As far as copyright is concerned, this is a bunch of letters by lawyers and official agencies as well as contracts, all in a rather factual language and not very original, so I think one could say the texts are below COM:TOO Germany. As far as privacy is concerned, we have a bunch of names here as well as birth dates and street addresses, but the people involved have either already died several years ago or don't seem to be terribly bothered by these letters being public. It's not that the letters contain any intimate secrets anyway, it's all about buying back family property that had been expropriated in the Communist eastern part of Germany after the Second World War.
Which brings us to the 3rd point, project scope. These letters etc. are all documenting a dispute about property and money between various members of this family. It seems the whole thing was pursued in a rather litigious manner, we have a decision by the petition committee of the German federal parliament (the Bundestag) here, and apparently one side tried to bring the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg into this, unsuccesfully as far as I can see.
Gordito1869 argues that all these letters are somehow about the de:Herrenhaus Dolgen manor and therefore share its notability, but I don't quite see it that way. The letters are barely about the house at all, but about agricultural lands that were once attached to it (and were then expropriated), about who will be able to buy them back or get a compensation for them in money etc. That all seems hardly enclycopaedic to me, and probably we should delete the whole bunch of files again (or technically, decline the undeletion request) as being out of scope.
That's how I see it anyway, but we'd need more opinions by others (and we already know that Gordito1869 wants them permanently undeleted, so no need to write that again). You'd need to be able to read German though to understand the content. @Achim55: From what I've seen, you seem to have edited some of the files. Dou you have an opinion regarding the problems above, leave the files undeleted permanently or delete them again, copyright, privacy concerns, project scope? Or anyone else able to read German and understand the files? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 21:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Achim55: Hallo Achim, zugegeben, die Themen "Flucht & Vertreibung", "Lügen vs. Wahrheit" sind nicht einfach und nicht zwingend enzyklopädisch - aber sie gehören imho zur zeitgeschichtlichen & wahrheitsgemäßen Reflexion in seriösen Nachschlagwerken dazu (...und Wikipedia zähle ich ganz sicherlich dazu, sonst wäre nicht kürzlich mein 10.000 Edit unter Commons gewürdigt worden ... und auch meine unzähligen Bilder (seit ca. 15-Jahren) hatten im Masse einigen enzyklopädischen "Wert"). - Die Plessen sind ganz ohne Frage enzyklopädisch relevant - und mein leiblicher und ehelicher Ur-Ur-Urgroßvater Leopold von Plessen und dessen Rittergut Dolgen besaßen bis 1990 Ansehen, Würde und EHRE. - Meine hochgeladenen Dokumente, die hier einmal mehr diskutiert werden, dokumentieren unzweifelhaft, wie das Rittergut Dolgen des LvP durch unberechtigte Dritte endgültig irreversibel zerschlagen und abgewickelt wurde; ich halte das für zeit- und familiengeschichtlich sehr relevant und es entspricht unbedingt auch dem erklärten Ziel von User:Christian von Plessen, der das "Verständnis familiärer und historischer Zusammenhänge" offen legen will : genau das will ich ja auch - aber wahrheitsgemäß und faktenbasiert. - Das Plessengut Damshagen, das dem Onkel Hans-Balduin von Plessen des hiesigen Users:Christian von Plessen rechtmäßig gehörte, findet hier breite wissenschaftliche Beachtung und mannigfache Würdigung in einem Nachschlagwerk ... und auch Dolgen darf imho nicht familiengeschichtlich-, wissenschaftlich-, enzyklopädisch völlig "unter den Teppich gekehrt werden", denke ich. - Ich bitte deshalb sehr höflich darum, die wenigen historischen Dokumente und Urkunden, die Dolgen und seine traurige Geschichte nach 1990 betreffen, zu erhalten. (Wie ich bereits mehrfach vorgeschlagen hatte, mögen ja datenschutzrechtlich bedenkliche Stellen in den Dokumenten gerne geschwärzt werden; das entspricht z.B. auch absolut gängiger rechtlich korrekter Praxis bei der Verwendung/Auswertung von Strafakten, wie ich aus meiner langjährigen Dienstzeit als Bundesbeamter beim (BA)MAD konkret weiß). Da mit dem Nationalsozialisten Reimar von Plessen (2. Vorsitzender der antidemokratischen Herrengesellschaft Mecklenburg) und dem absolut widerwärtigen (!) Nationalsozialisten & Gauwirtschaftsberater der NSDAP, Hennecke von Plessen bereits zwei mehr als fragwürdige und unseriöse Nazi-Schergen den Familienvorsitz der Plessen führten, gilt es heute, das "Verständnis familiärer und historischer Zusammenhänge" im Sinne des aktuellen Vorsitzenden der Plessen - User:Christian von Plessen - besonders emotionsfrei und sachlich - aber insbes. (wissenschaftlich korrekt) geschichtsfest zu dokumentieren. (q.e.d.) - MfG Michael Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC) - ps : "By the way" : Der durch User:Christian von Plessen unter Klarnamen & unter Wiki-Commons genannte- und mannigfach vs. Dolgen involvierte Rechtsanwalt Dr. von Hugo war Geschäftsführer der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Agrarfragen (AfA) und Beschwerdeführer von SBZ-Alteigentümern vor dem EGMR : bitte schauen Sie sich das "Rechts(staats)verständnis" der AfA an (nur völlig "durgeknallte" Reichsbürger würden solche Hass- und Hetzschriften vs. unseren Rechtsstaat und unsere unabhängige Justiz öffentlich publizieren, so denke ich); nur durch eine absolut unheilige Allianz von Vettern-BVVG und der AfA wurden solche (rechtsstaatlichen ?) Machenschaften und faktiischen Insich-Geschäfte überhaupt erst ermöglicht ... und NEIN : User:Christian von Plessen war und ist nachweislich KEIN (!) Rechtsanwalt, der SEINE VETTERN-BVVG in eigener Sache (Damshagen) mannigfach vertreten hatte. - Man darf & kann nur hoffen, dass sich unser Staatsschutz den absolut fragwürdigen Machenschaften von AfA & Vettern-BVVG & und ihren Günstlingen - resp. vertretenden Nicht-Rechtsanwälten im "Outfit" von vermeintlichen "Edelherren" - endgültig rechtsstaatlich annimmt ! --- Achim, wenn sie die +++ realen heutigen Zustände +++ in ihrer und UNSERER geliebten Heimat in der vormaligen SBZ / DDR emotionsfrei und sachlich zur Kenntnis nehmen - dann löschen sie bitte relevante Beweisakten und historisch / enzyklopädisch wertvolle Dokumente (insbes. zum Rittergut Dolgen) nicht; diese "Geschichte resp. Plessen-Saga" von AfA & Vettern-BVVG vs. redliche-, gutgläubige und ehrbare (!) Menschen in Ost und West ist leider immer noch nicht zu Ende "erzählt" worden. - MfG Michael Pfeiffer, investigativer User und vormaliger Nachrichtendienstler alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC) --- ps II : Es sollte mir ferner gestattet sein, eine öffentliche Gegendarstellung (an Ort und Stelle) zu dieser (öffentlichen-, verleumderischen und nachweislich unwahren) Tatsachenbehauptung seitens meines Verwandten User:Christian von Plessen faktenbasiert-, beweiskräftig und wahrheitsgemäß zu publizieren : Zitat User:Christian von Plessen "Sie haben mich wider besseres Wissen wiederholt öffentlich als Schurken hingestellt. Das war keine Fehde zwischen uns, sondern es war üble Nachrede Ihrerseits, die erst durch Rechtsanwalt Kossyk gerichtlich beigelegt wurde." (Zitat-Ende). - NEIN, ich habe User:Christian von Plessen NICHT (!) wider besseres Wissen als Schurken öffentlich hingestellt; meine hochgeladenen Dokumente und Urkunden beweisen familiengeschichtlich-, historisch-, wissenschaftlich und auch strafrechtlich das exakte Gegenteil : (Niemand (...und schon garnicht als treuer Staatsdiener a.D.) muss sich unter Wiki-Commons - öffentlich & ohne Gegendarstellung - durch einen User wahrheitswidrig verleumden lassen, so denke ich.) q.e.d. (Bitte lösche die Dokumente aus zahlreichen Gründen nicht, Achim; wer sich an den nackten Fakten stört wird sich ggf. melden.) --- MfG M. Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diese Tirade lässt mich umso mehr zu der Ansicht tendieren, dass diese ganzen Briefe usw. nichts für Wikimedia Commons sind. Dass bestimmte Personen oder Gebäude usw. für Wikipedia & Co. relevant sind, heißt nicht, dass wir allen möglichen Schriftverkehr dazu haben und aufbewahren wollen. Hier geht es um irgendwelche Privatstreitigkeiten, und wir sind nicht die Plattform, auf der die beteiligten Parteien oder auch nur eine davon ihre Sichtweisen dazu ausbreiten können. --Rosenzweig τ 09:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn ich sie oben richtig verstanden habe, wurde @Achim55: von Ihnen um "dritte Meinung" (but we'd need more opinions by others) gebeten (ihre rein pers. Meinung hatten sie doch bereits artikuliert). - Eine sog. "Tirade" ist auch nicht Gegenstand dieser Diskussion (sondern diente ausschließlich Achim zur reinen Klarstellung der komplexen Situation; wer sollte sich an historisch-/familiengeschichtlich-/zeitgeschichtlich sehr relevanten Dokumenten & Urkunden stören können, die eine Enzyklopädie imho bereichern ?) --- Die Freischaltung der vormals gelöschten Dokumente wurde hier seit dem 27. Januar 2024 umfassend diskutiert; erst danach ist die Freischaltung erfolgt. Die nach demokratischer Willensbildung wieder hergestellten Dokumente sollen doch wohl jetzt - auf blanken Zuruf hin - nicht einmal mehr gelöscht werden ? - Wird hier ein "Ping-Pong-Spiel" auf dem Rücken von Usern & Betroffenen ausgetragen, oder was soll das hier werden ? - Der Abschiedsbrief des Leopold Frhr. von Plessen vom 29. April 1945 auf Dolgen wurde - nach umfassender Diskussion - auch nicht gelöscht; die nunmehr wieder freigeschalteten Dokumente betreffen das Rittergut Dolgen und die Ehre & Reputation dieses Mannes - und die Dokumente haben insgesamt einen erheblichen familiengeschichtlichen & wissenschaftlichen Erkenntniswert und dienen damit Wikipedia. - MfG M. Pfeiffer --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Demokratische Willensbildung? Jetzt ist aber gut, das ist keine Abstimmung hier. Die Dateien wurden vorläufig wiederhergestellt, damit man sie überhaupt erst einmal einsehen (ging vorher nicht, weil "oversighted") und beurteilen kann. Mehr nicht. --Rosenzweig τ 11:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, wenn perverse Pornobilder und abnormale Sex-Videos (sog. "Sexual intercourse in...") einen ganz erheblichen erzieherischen und insbes. enzyklopädischen "Wert" für minderjährige Kinder haben (sollen) - warum dann aber nicht auch zeitgeschichtlich- und enzyklopädisch absolut seriöse und valide Dokumente ? - Wenn es tatsächlich keine mehrheitliche (demokratische) Willensbildung bei Wiki-Commons gibt, dann bin- resp. wäre ich hier - als Demokrat und passionierter Rechtsstaatler - tatsächlich fehl am Platze. Tschüss --Gordito1869 (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Since there were no further comments here, I've turned this into a regular deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Documents regarding Dolgen manor. --Rosenzweig τ 17:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Files of Category:Het_licht_der_bergen

As I corrected after deletion request, all these files are published on https://abs.lias.be/query/detail.aspx?ID=911214 at the archival storage. Free use, no permission needed and public accessibility.I think no reason for deletion. Ouwejokke (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ouwejokke: Current information about the image seems unclear to me: according to Wikidata the author died in 1941, but the work was created in 1955. Also, the permission (if indeed granted by the actual copyright holder - we may need to verify this) is not CC0 as declared. If this is a site-specific license, the appropriate template needs to be created and accepted by the community in COM:VPC discussion. Ankry (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Logos for Kosovo ethnic Serb municipalities

Please permanently undelete these files:

The deletion requests were:

The nominator User:AceDouble gave the rationale "Fictional emblem used by serbian parallel structures and not in official use by kosovan authorities see here: [...]". Similar files have since been kept following deletion requests, on the basis that these emblems are probably not fictional but are emblems of towns or regions in Kosovo that have ethnic Serb majorities, so these files are in COM:SCOPE. The deleting admin has no objection to undeletion, see User talk:Infrogmation#Deleted requests for Kosovo Serb files.

Several similar deletion requests have since been issued with the same rationale, as follows:

Verbcatcher (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbcatcher: Are you able to provide evidence that the logos are really used in public space if the abovementioned DRs are reopened? Ankry (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some or all of them are linked in the newer batch of deletion requests. I will try to add some here. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Verbcatcher: These "logos" were never adopted officially as required per law on local self-government in Kosovo => https://mapl.rks-gov.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Law-On-Local-Self-Government.pdf Article 7 Symbols 7.3 "The symbols of a Municipality shall be approved and changed by the municipal assembly pursuant to the constitutional and legal provisions of Republic of Kosova and shall not resemble to symbols of other states or municipalities within or outside Republic of Kosova". For example: the Municipality of Graçanica which has a serb majority population, did approve its own symbols according to the law and they are included in the official site: https://kk.rks-gov.net/gracanice/
The forementioned files should be removed as well (Leposavic, Zvecan, North Mitrovica, Zubin potok) .png .gif .svg AceDouble (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AceDouble: we do not require that images are approved or adopted by any government. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being official / adopted by any government is not required to host an image in Commons. Being actually used is enough. However, if the image is not official, we cannot apply any copyright exception related to government and official works and so we need an evidence that the image is too simple for copyright protection or a free license from the author. Ankry (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: Verbcatcher has no evidence for the use of these nonexisting symbols in public spaces whatsoever.

Sources:

    • [[1]] - North Mitrovica
    • [[2]] - Zvecan
    • [[3]] - Zubin Potok
    • [[4]] - Leposavic

AceDouble (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AceDouble: , I do have evidence. As I said above "Some or all of them are linked in the newer batch of deletion requests. I will try to add some here." I will add some links soon. Your new links only identify the symbols used by the Kosovo Government. They do not relate to the symbols discussed here. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links that confirm that the symbols are used. I do not have access to the deleted files, but the placenames indicated in the file names match our current files and it is probable that they have the same symbols. I don't understand these languages and I cannot confirm the reliability of these sources.

@Vanjagenije: you commented on some of the recent deletion requests, can you comment here? Verbcatcher (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are Google Maps photos that show the symbols displayed in two of these places.
Verbcatcher (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These Municipalities are located in the Republic of Kosovo full stop. By quoting unofficial links and trying to make them "legal" is not the proper way to enrich wikipedian articles.
Official sites:
AceDouble (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion and reopening the DRs as they may need wider discussion about their status. While they are not "official", the declaraion that they are "fictional" is a lie if they are actually in use. However, the {{PD-Kosovo-exempt}} cannot be applied to unofficial emblems and so we need a valid copyright tag (probably a free licese declaration by their human authors). Ankry (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AceDouble: we are not trying to make these 'legal'. There are other symbols on Commons that are probably illegal in their recognised nation state, such as the flag of Islamic State. If these files should not be used in specific Wikipedia articles then please discuss in on their talk pages, or in a Wikiproject such as w:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kosovo. If it is reliably established that these symbols are illegal under the law of Kosovo then we could indicate this in the description on the file page, or a template could be created.Verbcatcher (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose They are not in use, per given source.
AceDouble (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Hi. I declined a few deletion requests on the basis the rationale was not a valid reason for deletion, but I pointed out copyright status was a more sensible reason for deleting them (for example here), since I took a look on the template used there ({{PD-SerbiaGov}}) and I was not entirely convinced on its applicability. Strakhov (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I accept that these files may have a risk of copyright violation because both {{PD-Kosovo-exempt}} and {{PD-SerbiaGov}} look invalid. The four deleted files should be undeleted (they might have a valid license), and a mass deletion request should be raised for all these files. There are various reasons by which they could be 'free': these could be old public domain symbols, possibly dating from the Yugoslav period. Alternatively, someone with local contacts might identify the authors or copyright holders, and establish free licenses. The municipal authorities might be able to issue valid licenses even if the Kosovo national government did not recognise these authorities. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can assure you that these don't have valid licenses neither they date back from the yugoslav period. And something i almost forgot.. The UN Habitat programme in Kosovo which has partnership with the municipalities of Kosovo, check out these symbols they have for Zvecan, Zubin potok and Leposavic on their site:
    • [[25]] Zvecan
    • [[26]] Zubin Potok
    • [[27]] Leposavic
    AceDouble (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

Files in Category:Order of Karl Marx

  1. Template:PD-GermanGov — Dieses Werk gilt gemäß dem deutschen Urheberrecht als gemeinfrei, weil es Teil der Statute, Verordnung oder ein gesetzlicher Erlass (Amtliches Werk) ist, das durch eine deutsche Behörde bzw. durch ein deutsches Gericht veröffentlicht wurde.
  2. Gesetze, Verordnungen, amtliche Erlasse und Bekanntmachungen sowie Entscheidungen und amtlich verfaßte Leitsätze zu Entscheidungen genießen keinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz (§ 5 Abs.1 UrhG).
  3. Die Vorschriften des Urheberrechtsgesetzes sind auf die vor dem Wirksamwerden des Beitritts geschaffenen Werke anzuwenden (Einigungsvertrag).
  • @Infrogmation, @Rosenzweig. If the image was created by a state act, and images of awards and ribbon bars for them are prescribed in legislative acts, then such images are not protected by copyright. The year of death of the artist-author of the award design has absolutely nothing to do with copyright law. If the image of an award created by a legislative act of the Federal Republic of Germany is not protected by copyright, then, therefore, the image created by a legislative act of the GDR is not protected either. This is even written in Wikipedia. --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So which official work of Germany do you think created this medal design? I mean, not just the decoration as such, but its specific design? --Rosenzweig τ 17:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The order was established by the Council of Ministers of the GDR (p. 69). The statute of the order with a description of the images of the order and the ribbon bar for it was also established by the Council of Ministers of the GDR (p. 610). Do you not consider the Council of Ministers of the GDR to be an official institution? --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The decoration is described in words there. This does not make the medal itself an official work in the legal sense, because the design is not part of this decree. --Rosenzweig τ 17:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Laut Bundesgerichtshof müssen derartige Bekanntmachung „regelnden Inhalt“ aufweisen — Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany/de. «Der Bundesadler ist mangels Schöpfungshöhe gemeinfrei, Blücherorden als amtliches Werk, genauso wie Bundesverdienstkreuz und andere staatlich herausgegebene Medaillen oder Orden» (1). In a number of countries it is stipulated that images of awards are not protected by copyright, but in general this is a completely normal state of affairs - that independently taken photographs of state awards or images of ribbon bars made based on original images are not protected by copyright. Give me at least one law of at least one country in which images of state awards are protected by copyright. Unless it is expressly stated in the law, this does not mean that you can claim copyright protection for images of government awards. Can you see for yourself how many inclusions there are here and there? --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the law of other countries and what is “normal” there, it's only about German law. Unless there are clearly defined exceptions, the regular rules of German copyright law apply: Works are created by authors and protected for 70 years post mortem auctoris. There is an exception for official works, but it is quite restrictive compared to some other countries. German copyright statute law (the Urheberrechtsgesetz) is often less clear than we wish it would be, and that is when (in some cases at least) the courts step in. In the past, we thought that German stamps were in the public domain as official works (until a court told us they're not), and we've also come to the conclusion that German coins are not official works (COM:CUR Germany), and in that context a court even ruled that the official works exception only applies to text, not images. It's a rather low court, one of several, so that is not universal, but it does show a tendency.
I'm curious about these rather random German quotes you're inserting. Do you understand their content (you're not listing German among the languages in your userbox)? For example, the one about "regelnden Inhalt" says that not just any Bekanntmachung is an official work in the legal sense, but that this category is restricted to those Bekanntmachungen with regulatory content only. How does that have anything to do with the question at hand? The quote about the Bundesverdienstkreuz etc. is not a law, court decision or similar, but the opinion of a contributor to the Urheberrechtsfragen, de.wp's version of COM:VPC. I don't agree with all of it. --Rosenzweig τ 19:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose No further reply for more than two weeks, no convincing argument why the files would be in the public domain. --Rosenzweig τ 23:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: no consensus to undelete. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MyHouse.wad title screen.png

File was freely licensed and in scope.

* Copyright / Permissions *

Authors MAY NOT use the maps in this wad as a base for additional maps.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like.

WhoAteMyButter (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Seeing the article, this looks to be notable enough for Commons. --Yann (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stop the A68 Dalkeith Bypass.jpg

VRT ticket:2024031210008044 suggests that these three files come from Flickr and the license information there is the correct one, and the uploader has made some errors while uploading. As such:

✓ Done: 2 files undeleted, as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images of Bolzano/Bozen Victory Monument

Hi, I'm requesting the undeletion of many images of the en:Bolzano Victory Monument: File:Leuchtring siegesdenkmal bozen.JPG, deleted in 2014 in this DR; File:Bozen Siegesdenkmal Inschrift.jpg, File:Siegesdenkmal Bozen Bolzano.jpg, File:Siegesdenkmal Bozen east.JPG, File:Siegesdenkmal Bozen south.jpg, File:Siegesdenkmal Bozen west.jpg, File:SiegesdenkmalBZ.jpg, File:SiegesdenkmalInschrift.2008-11-08.png, all deleted in 2013 in this DR; Image:Siegesdenkmal bozen.JPG, deleted in 2007 in this DR; Image:Bozner Siegesdenkmal.jpg, deleted in 2007 in this DR. The monument was commissioned in 1926 by the Chief of Government (Mussolini) and by the Ministry of Education to en:Marcello Piacentini, and it was inaugurated in 1928 (for the details see here pages 125 and 133). Therefore it should fall under Template:PD-ItalyGov at least since 1949 (way before the URAA, so no issue with the US copyright). The warning put in the category in 2023 by User:G.dallorto should be removed accordingly.--Friniate (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support as in the other undeletions of Italian works commissioned by the Italian state or one of its subdivisions. --Rosenzweig τ 13:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per request and previous requests of Italian government commissioned works. --Abzeronow (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:X Japan logo.svg

Previously deleted per belief that "The X may have some artistic appreciation putting it above COM:TOO Japan.", now with User:Nacaru's rationale for keeping File:Xenoblade 3 logo.webp, I am requesting undeletion of this listed logo.

Thank you. --Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: This looks quite simple. No opposition. --Yann (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mick-a-Matic front.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The Mickey design here seems like early Mickey with the ears, and the white skin tone. The eye color here is blue. This is possibly derivative of now public domain Mickey Mouse designs. (Edit: a different image of the camera https://www.moma.org/audio/playlist/45/714) Abzeronow (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. If the camera were from 1928 or so, it would be clear, but it is from 1971. And with just the head it is kind of hard to determine if it is a derivative of the earliest MM incarnation or of a later one. It doesn't look like either really. --Rosenzweig τ 14:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: The picture is free, Mickey is in the public domain. If anyone has an issue with this file, please create a new DR. --Yann (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bishop of New Guinea.jpg

Reason: Copyright holder has released the photo into the public domain: https://flickr.com/photos/uon/9662505368/ --Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There are two problems here. First, there is no reason to believe that the Flickr user has any right to make the image PD. That right belongs (or belonged) to the heirs of the actual painter. We don't know whether this is still under copyright or not.

Second, we do not know the name of the subject. I looked through the few images of bishops linked at Anglican_Church_of_Papua_New_Guinea and could not find a match. Although the source calls him "Bishop of New Guinea", he is dressed as a priest (bishops wear purple shirts). Without a name, I don't see any educational use for the image. Even if the copyright issue could be answered I can't see that a nameless and ambiguous image of a priest is in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was also hesitant on this since it is an undated painting, but the Flickr user is part of a GLAM, and it's possible that the University of Newcastle Library is the copyright holder. I also agree with you on scope. Abzeronow (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is Bishop Philip Strong (see comparison photos here, here) and will be used on the Philip Strong page. It's not a painting, it's a colorised photographic slide. According to the University of Newcastle Library, the Library acquired the photo and has the authority to grant usage (see here); the Flickr page license makes clear it has been released into the public domain. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On flickr, it's not released into the PD, it's merely tagged with a PD mark, i.e. "free of known restrictions under copyright law". Similarly, on the newcastle.edu.au website, the Library does not claim to hold a copyright or authority, it merely states its opinion that "the photos in this collection are in the public domain" [28], which may well be correct in Australia. The various items were collected by Williamson. Apparently, the creators of the items are unknown to the Library and the Library concludes that the items are old enough that their copyrights have expired in Australia by the effect of law. The item "Bishop of New Guinea" looks like it could be from circa the 1940s, based on the looks of the subject. (The Library says that the items are from "until the mid-1930s". According to the Wikipedia article, Strong was Bishop of New Guinea from 1936 to 1962.) Assuming a first publication in Australia and assuming that the identity of the creator is indeed lost and impossible to know, that would probably make it eligible for the Commons tag PD-Australia. Not sure what its U.S. status can be. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, he is dressed as a priest, not a bishop. If this is Strong -- it's not obvious to me that this is Strong -- then he was made a Bishop in 1936, so the image must have been taken before that. However, we have no knowledge of when it was first published. Before 2005, the Australian rule for anonymous works was 50 years after publication, so if it was published before 1946 if missed the URAA date and is PD in the USA. It is PD in Australia if published before 1974. However, without any evidence of publication before 1946, I don't see how we can keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We usually assume that old pictures were published shortly after they were taken. This seems to be from around 1930, so it is OK with {{PD-Australia}} and {{PD-1996}}. Yann (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Australian photographs were 50 years from creation, not publication, before 2005. The colorization may have a different status, but it seems to be before whatever scratches or dust marks that are in this scan, so it would seem they were done at the time. This seems virtually certain to have been published at the time; copies had to get their way into the archive somehow, and it seems to be a publicity portrait. It's certainly in scope even if not identified now; identification can easily come later. Papua New Guinea law would be 50 years from making available to the public, I think. The dates of the collection are up to the mid 1930s so it would have had to be in the Australian collection since then, presumably published. I can't see any significant doubts that the copyright still existed in either country in 1996.  Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that, without more evidence, it's not obvious if it is a photo of Strong. It might be a photo of any other priest, for example a circa 1900 photo of Gerald Sharp. Commons currently has at least 371 files from the same collection (Category:Archdeacon A.N. Williamson Collection) and their publication histories are probably undocumented also. But given that they're supposed to be from before 1940, they would be PD at least in Australia. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per Carl L. --Yann (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pello Otxandiano.jpg

The image was deleted per discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pello Otxandiano.jpg. Anyway, after consulting with the website about the differences between the cc-by-sa license in the front and the legal notice, the legal notice itself has changed to reflect that all the images are under cc-by-sa license, while the texts are (strangely enough) under cc-by-nc-sa license. The image should be restored accordingly. Pinging @Impru20: , and @Holly Cheng: , who discussed about this issue. -Theklan (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: It seems the license is OK now: content can be used, copied, distributed, shown, publicly displayed, modified, developed, combined with other materials, used for commercial purposes. --Yann (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aurich

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Subbass1 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 28 March 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The uploader is not the author and there is no evidence of permission from the author. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct, permission was sent and there also was a unpleasant discussion. Deleting was an error as there was and is no reason to do so. pls talk tp the deleter. --Subbass1 (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see in the deleted files, they were marked as "permission received" on December 8, 2023 and then deleted one month later on January 8, 2024 as "No ticket permission since 8 December 2023", suggesting that the permission was not accepted. Something might have been missing, or maybe there were unanswered questions still not answered after that month. I can only speculate, as I'm not a VRT member. Without an accepted VRT permission,  Oppose the undeletion. --Rosenzweig τ 21:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the December 8 action by Krdbot makes it is clear that something was received at VRT, but Krd, who runs Krdbot and who is a VRT member, deleted the file for no permission on January 8, so it is clear that whatever was received was not a satisfactory free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the permission was sent fully complete and ok. The error lies on the OTRS member side. --Subbass1 (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Subbass1: You wrote that "there also was a unpleasant discussion." What does that refer to? If, as you are alleging, there was an error on the VRT side, COM:UNDEL is the wrong place for this discussion. You should take it to Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. --Rosenzweig τ 13:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was there already and was pointed here. And could you please refrain from closing this topic over and over again, as it is in no way solved. --Subbass1 (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link: Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard#ticket:2023120810006959. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Subbass1: This topic was not closed. You removed the tag related to the next topic. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Tending to support temporary undeletion in order to have a normal deletion request allowing an ordinary discussion of the FoP issue. From what I understand (n.b.: this is only from the little information publicly available and I could be missing something), the VRT ticket was about the photographs, it was the permission from the photographer. There does not seem to be a problem with the ticket, as shown by the photographs with the same ticket that are not deleted. Apparently, the deletion of the deleted files was unrelated to the ticket and it was about a different issue, a possible FoP thing about a part of the architecture of the building shown. Basically, Krd thinks that something is copyrighted and presents a FoP problem, and Subbass1 thinks that there is no FoP problem. They have not really explained their respective conclusions beyond stating them. IMO, that is the type of issue that is normally discussed and finds its solution in an ordinary deletion request. The protagonists can explain their respective views there. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Subbass1: Why didn't you write right away that you already inquired at the VRT notice board instead of just vaguely referring to an "unpleasant discussion"? If you had done that, the problem would have been apparent right away and all of us would have been spared the waste of time above. Your behavior is not helpful. And as Asclepias has already pointed out, this topic was not closed by anybody (if it had, the complete text would be on a blue background).
That being said, I have temporarily restored the files to aid this discussion. Per the article de:Lambertikirche (Aurich), this church is from 1835 and was altered in 1885, 1899, and 1960. The 1960 alterations seem to have been mainly restricted to removing one of the galleries, closing up two windows with bricks, moving the pulpit elsewhere and bringing back the original white paintwork. If that was all that was changed in 1960, and everything else goes back to the 19th century, there is most likely not a copyright problem with the interior architecture of this church. --Rosenzweig τ 19:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pipe organ of Lambertikirche Aurich now. --Rosenzweig τ 17:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lula's official photographs

All the photographs are available here, here, and here on Commons. Pinging Túrelio. They were simply reposted by an official Flickr account and are not exact duplicates. Quite worrying they were deleted without any warning. Hadn't I seen their logs on my watchlist, no one would ever noticed. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RodRabelo7:
  • Regarding the borderless ones: these images seem to have somewhat different editing from the CC-BY licensed ones. I don't know whether that could be creative enough to attract a copyright (either in the US or Brazil)--does anyone else?
  • Regarding the ones with borders: what is the educational use for them (as opposed to borderless images)?
—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of restoring the "com borda" files. Bedivere (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The edits are certainly de minimis. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
  • Regarding the images with borders, their educational use is quite obvious. Quite sad you even ask. Not only they were published by the official account of the President of Brazil (!!!), but they are also the versions that are used publicly (see the portrait on the wall here, for example). For the non-Brazilians here, the man there is our Vice-President.
Inviting DarwIn. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess so. I still don't think these photos with borders serve any purpose other than ... people downloading them and recreating them? How would you use them in a Wikimedia project? Bedivere (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere, images aren't on Commons to be used in a Wikimedia project. "People downloading" is more than sufficient, but even that isn't neccessary. You're an administrator and you're supposed to know that better than anyone. But you don't?!?! RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I know! I just don't see the point of hosting these images with borders and without them, when there is absolutely nothing creative that adds up to them! For example, we have file:Fotografía oficial del Presidente Sebastián Piñera.jpg, which has an added border but it also contains their name and the coats of arms. I think such an image is acceptable to host. But these have nothing but the frame! Bedivere (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I don't see any free license at the stated source. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward The portraits themselves are already under a free license, as mentioned above. The only difference is the border, but frankly I can't see any good reason to keep them here, unless they were in use (apparently not). Darwin Ahoy! 16:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:EdaEce1990.png

I noticed this image was deleted, but I think it should be undeleted. It was taken from an official distributor channel (FOX) as you can see here: [29] I see the nomination says "The director of this TV serie until March 2020 was Neslihan Yeşilyurt. Since this director didn't publish it on Youtube with CC, we don't use screenshot here with CC" but we can safely assume the official TV channel of the show has the necessary permissions from production crew/director before "distributing" it. I mean, when do you see a show or film release from director's own channels? The director works on the production and the production company/distributor/TV channel handles the release and the distributing part. So for this reason, "because it's not from director's youtube channel" is not really a good argument to delete, it's from official TV channel page after all.Tehonk (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DR does seem to conflate the author with the copyright owner, which are not necessarily the same person or entity. If the director was employed by Fox, then Fox is the copyright owner. Article 10 of Turkey's law even states that for a joint work, the owner is the one who brings the collaborators together, and Article 18 is their work-for-hire clause. I don't know much about that television program. If there was production company, they probably own the rights. If Fox was just the distributor and not the copyright owner, they could not license it. But if Fox was the production company as well and as such owns the rights, it would seem to be fine. The question is if the YouTube account is the copyright owner of the material (which may be different than the author). Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The video cited as the source, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qG-9LDLj-4, returns "Video unavailable. This video is private." The uploader did not request and we did not do a {{License review}}, so we have no confirmation of the license status of the YouTube page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least as of November 2021, that link had that license, per the Internet archive, which I think was a year and a half after the upload. Interesting that it has been taken down now, though. That often happens when Youtube gets a copyright complaint which is not defended. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is confirmation of the license status from the archived link.
@Clindberg no, disappearance would be because of the recent rebranding from FOX to NOW, some old videos/channels were removed as part of it. Tehonk (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zoso.svg File:Zoso-square-layout.svgFile:Zoso Jimmy Page Saturn sigil.svg

These files were removed because of the "ZoSo" symbol, which was considered a protected logo, but wrongly because it is an old astrological symbol, seen for example in this book from 1847 [30].Swiãtopôłk (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support based on that. I could not find any discussion where we had previously deemed the "Zoso" symbol a problem, as stated at Commons:Deletion requests/Logos of Led Zeppelin's fourth album. We had kept them many years earlier at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zoso.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Zoso.svg. Pinging @Moxy as the one who made that statement. This may also mean that File:LedZeppelin.png should be undeleted as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per request and Carl. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parth Siddhpura at an event in 2023.jpg

The deletion of the photo, attributed to the reason "Personal photo by non-contributors," is erroneous. I hereby submit an appeal for the reinstatement of said photo. --PARTH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathaniya (talk • contribs) 18:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This was copied from fandom.com, and the copyright is owned by the photographer, not the subject. And what's the educational use of this picture? Yann (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: LTA nonsense. --Эlcobbola talk 18:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pola Gonciarz.jpg

To zdjęcie jest aktualnym zdjęciem Poli Gonciarz. Zgodnie z prawdą wypełniłam wszystko, co musiałam. Łącznie z wykonawcą zdjęcia i skąd te zdjęcie pochodzi.

Te zdjęcie nie powinno zostać usunięte, ponieważ dodałam je aby Pola Gonciarz miała aktualne zdjęcie w Wikipedii. Tak wygląda aktorka teraz i powinno te zdjęcie być na jej stronie w Wikipedii.

--Poludki (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate: "This photo is a current photo of Pola Gonciarz. I truthfully completed everything I had to do. Including who took the photo and where the photo comes from.
This photo should not be deleted because I added it so that Pola Gonciarz had an up-to-date photo on Wikipedia. This is what the actress looks like now and this photo should be on her Wikipedia page."
@Poludki: Is there a source that can verify that this particular photo is freely licensed by the copyright owner? Thuresson (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the source of the photo: https://www.instagram.com/p/CR1np-gMelY/?igsh=MThpMnlkejRnZTRjZQ==
This is the official account of Pola Gonciarz on Instagram. Poludki (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But where does the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-4.0 license come from? And are you quite sure that this is a selfie? And what was Konrad Szymczak's role in this? Thuresson (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Konrad Szymczak is the stylist who was responsible for Pola's outfit Poludki (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a selfie. When I added the photo to Wikipedia, I wrote who took the photo. Justyna Kozera is a photographer and she took this photo. Poludki (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And the license? Thuresson (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is permission from the author of the photo sufficient? I don't understand what exactly you expect. Poludki (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time adding a photo here and if I did something wrong or didn't do something, I want to know. Poludki (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Poludki: As for any content previously published elsewhere or not authored by you, we need a formal written permission from Justyna Kozera for a free license. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RuizPineda.jpg

From what I gather, this is an image of en:Leonardo Ruiz Pineda, who was killed in 1952. The picture has to be from before this date, and audiovisual works enter in Venezuela's public domain 60 years after its publication ({{PD-Venezuela}}). --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Two problems. First, although the image must have been taken before he died, its first publication might have been after he died. In fact we have no evidence that it was published at all before its appearance here.
Second, if it was first published after 1945, it would have been PD only after the URAA date and therefore would be under copyright in the USA until 95 years after publication. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Jim, we would need publication information to determine its copyright status in the US. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Durga Puja, Singrauli M.P.jpg

I want the file to be undeleted as the creator of the artwork portrayed in the image is me so it doesn't violate the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BhavyaTarun17 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Copied from [31]. No permission. Yann (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photos by agence FRA Architectes / Loci Anima

Please undelete

We have permission per Ticket:2024032010011444.

Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Claude_Brosset_par_Jordan_Diow.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2024032810011528. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:19 Aurangabad - औरंगाबाद - اورنگ آباد.png and 47 other

Dear Administrator,

I am writing to request the undeletion of the Lok Sabha Maharashtra constituencies map images that were previously deleted from Wikimedia Commons.

File(s) in Question:

Reasons for the Request:

The map images were created by me, and I hold the full and exclusive copyright to these works. The maps accurately depict the electoral boundaries of Lok Sabha constituencies in Maharashtra, providing valuable information to users. These images were intended to contribute to the understanding of political geography and electoral processes in Maharashtra. The maps were created in compliance with Wikimedia Commons policies and guidelines, ensuring they meet the standards for free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. I kindly request the restoration of these map images to Wikimedia Commons so that they can continue to serve as educational resources for users.

Thank you for considering my request. If you require any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, --Eaglespirit (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I checked only two of these, but I'd guess they are all the same. They have:

source={{Own}}
author=Eaglespirit
permission=
other versions=
=={{int:license-header}}==
{{t|self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}

They were tagged and deleted for "no permission", but obviously own work with a CC-BY-SA has permission even though the permission line is blank. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying Timtrent (nominator) in case they have information about this. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Jameslwoodward do I need to add permission = {permission} ? or it is ok to be blank? Eaglespirit (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Doing… Eaglespirit, you should make more clear in the sourcing that this is partly derived from a freely licensed map while still being an own work. Abzeronow (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per request and Jim. Restored two in this series that weren't in the request. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Works for hire by Angiolo Mazzoni

Hello everyone. I'm requesting the undeletion of File:La Spezia - Palazzo delle Poste.jpg, File:Messina Centrale RFI Station Entrance.jpg, File:Palazzo delle Poste di Nuoro.jpg, File:Palazzo delle poste, pistoia.JPG, File:Palermo-Post-bjs.jpg, File:Poste Centrali Ferrara.JPG, File:Siena FS 1.JPG, File:Stazione Corridoio Trento Italia.jpg, File:07220008trentotrainstationstreetside.JPG, File:Stazione di reggio emilia.JPG, File:Gorica posta.JPG, File:Stazione Latina.jpg all deleted in this DR in 2013.

The photographed buildings are: it:Palazzo delle Poste (Nuoro) (1927), it:Palazzo delle Poste (Ferrara) (1930), Palazzo delle Poste di Gorizia (1930-1932), en:Latina railway station (1929-1932), it:Palazzo delle Poste (La Spezia) (1933), it:Palazzo delle Poste (Sabaudia) (1932-1934), it:Palazzo delle Poste (Palermo) (1934), en:Reggio Emilia railway station (1934-1935), en:Siena railway station (1935), it:Stazione di Trento (1932-1936), it:Palazzo delle Poste (Pistoia) (1937-1939), en:Messina Centrale railway station (rebuilt in 1939).

They are all general post offices and railway stations, designed by Angiolo Mazzoni in his role as engineer at the Ministry for Communications between 1924 and 1944 (see here for more informations, note that at that time both the Railways and the Post Service were part of the State administration under the direct control of the Ministry for Communications, before their transformation in private societies in the 1990s). They are therefore works for hire, the most recent building between them fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1960 and they are all buildings built before 1990 so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support as with the other cases of Italian "PD-Gov" buildings. --Rosenzweig τ 11:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per previous undeletion requests. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rocky's Fight Against Apollo Creed - Rocky - Prime Video.webm

This file was deleted with reason "This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Although this video was licensed under CC on YouTube, Prime Video is not the copyright owner for the Rocky film". This decision is seemingly an oversight due to the YouTube account being an official account of Amazon, and Amazon having procured MGM studios and rights to the Rocky franchise per [32]. Second guessing whether a studio/label owning a movie franchise really did intend to release something with a CC-BY license was dealt with in some depth at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hogwarts Legacy (outcome was 'Keep') and a decision to second guess Amazon for Rocky would be highly inconsistent with that past decision (and others like it). Note that this YouTube account in question only releases some, not all, videos with a CC-BY license, and the process of selecting a CC-BY license in YouTube's interface is opt-in. The YouTube account of Amazon was created in 2016 and the various CC-BY licensed videos have been published for over a year. --Dhx1 (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The file description says it comes Prime Video AU & NZ. It does not appear on that page and there is no license review. Therefore there is no evidence of the license that was on the file.

Prime Video AU & NZ (PVAN) is probably a subsidiary of Amazon. MGM is a subsidiary of Amazon. However, there is nothing in the law that makes it automatically possible for one corporation to freely license a copyright owned by another corporation, even if both corporations are owned by the same parent corporation.

Therefore this fails for two reasons -- PVAN probably does not have the right to freely license the work and there is no evidence of the license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The licenses are not on the welcome page of the channel, but on the pages of the individual videos, in this case on the page https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GggYdiN_YQ8, licensed CC BY. However, the presence of different corporations does make this sort of licensing situation questionable. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now Amazon owns MGM, including the rights of MGM catalog, so the license is IMO valid. However I am quite surprised they made this bold move. Yann (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, MGM has the rights to freely license the catalog. Amazon, although it owns MGM, is a separate corporation and cannot license MGM's works to others unless there is an appropriate license between the two. Similarly, PVAN is not Amazon, so it would also have to have a separate written license in order to freely license MGM's works. I think it likely that this is an unauthorized action by someone at a small subsidiary company. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: Amazon shows MGM works on its Prime channel, so it certainly got the right of MGM works. Actually that was the reason for acquiring MGM in the first place. We should stop thinking that YouTube channels of big corporations are managed by students in internship or trainees. Yann (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, all that is required for Amazon to show MGM works on Prime is for MGM to have licensed that use. Such licenses, even from subsidiary to parent, would not generally include the right for Amazon to freely license the work to others, let alone for Amazon to allow a different subsidiary to freely license the MGM work. Although MGM is owned by Amazon, you may be sure that the people running MGM are very careful about their copyrights since their bonuses certainly depend on MGM's licensing revenue. Although Amazon owns MGM, it cannot ride roughshod over MGM or it won't have any senior staff there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OK, you convinced me. --Yann (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

file:Ken Macalpin the Niger.jpg

Ken MacAlpin the Niger- i own this file and purchased from Shutterstock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmcdonald19751975 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 2 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There is no Shutterstock plan that allows you to freely license one of their images as required here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Just like buying a book does not mean you own the copyright, buying a photo from a company like Shutterstock does not mean you own the copyright either. Their licenses would not allow you to further give it away or license it to others, which is required by site policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim and Carl. --Yann (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flag of Damyang (2000-2023).svg

I uploaded an old version of the file that was uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, but it was deleted due to copyright issues. -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support unless the SVG contained a copy of the exact bitmap from crwflags, which it does not. Of course a flag drawing from one author is going to look like one from another, but each vectorization is going to be different. This seemed to result out of a violation of COM:OVERWRITE (though by the same author); File:Flag of Damyang.svg was overwritten and the old image was being re-uploaded under a new name. We should probably go through a COM:SPLIT process on that file rather than just restoring this one directly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per Carl Lindberg. --Yann (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HumphreyCarverImage.jpg

has no copyright restrictions. it comes from Library and Archives Canada / PA-205779. https://recherche-collection-search.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/home/record?app=fonandcol&IdNumber=3410143

Library and Archives Canada / PA-205779

shows Nil on Restrictions of Use. The image could say Photo Credit and Copyright John Reeves, so I want to confirm its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22vkm1 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose At LAC, "restrictions on use" and "copyright" are different things and are indicated on separate lines. "Restrictions on use: Nil" means no restrictions on use other than copyright. It does not mean free use. It has been confirmed with LAC. See also the introduction to the LAC category. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Agreed. Note that the cited text shows:

Terms of use:
Credit: John Reeves / Library and Archives Canada / PA-205779
Restrictions on use: Nil
Copyright: John Reeves [emphasis added]
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Main Wiki Photo, Grace Strobel.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo was taken by Linda Strobel, the subject's mother, who provided it for purpose of including it on Grace Strobel's Wiki page. AllianceWriter (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AllianceWriter: So why did you claim at upload that YOU are the photographer who made it? This is blatant copyright violation. Ankry (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Linda Strobel must provide a free license via VRT. 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 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liviu_Russu.jpg

deleted file by mistake I am creating an article about my father and the photo is a portrait of him taken by me

--Petru.russu (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose In order to request a succesfull undeletion, please provide a link to an accepted article. Photos are in scope if used not if intended to be used in an article that does not exist yet and may be accepted or not. Ankry (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is Liviu Rusu (literat)? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:General Mohammed Sheikh Osman.jpg File:General Elmi Nuur Tareey.jpg

The photos were published by the government of Somalia and are in the public domain as they are the works of Somalia which has no existing enforceable copyright law. They are not subject to copyright protection.--Solanif (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Missing verifiable information about the source and author. These photos may have been taken by anybody, including a news agency or photo journalist. Thuresson (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source for Mohammed Sheilk Osman.jpg was Xildibhan publications. The photos were taken by the Somali National army and distributed after the coup.
Image source:http://www.xildhibanpublications.net/M.Sh.%20Osman%20copy.jpg
Site:http://www.xildhibanpublications.net/index.htm (Scroll down)
I found another accepted Image taken from the same source whilst searching:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Musa_Rabile_God.jpg Solanif (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The site cited above has an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WSAW TV 2023.svg

This logo will return

 Not done procedural close: not an undeletion request. Ankry (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Santa Maria Salome.jpg

The file Santa Maria Salome should not be deleted because it is a public domain. It was shared with permission from the owner who shared it publicly. With that, I request for the said file to be undeleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser1770 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The upload says that the image is from Facebook, but doesn't cite the page there. We do not know the copyright status of either the image or the sculpture. Sharing something publicly does not freely license its use by others..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alex Ramirès.png

Dear all, This picture has been deleted after I uploaded it, for copyright reasons. However, this picture cannot be deemed "original" under copyright laws, as the personnality of its author is not expressed through it - anyone could have made the same picture of this man standing still. There is no particular effect, no filter, no research of an artistic input. Thus, it seems it is not protected by copyright laws and belongs to public domain. Would it be possible to restore it please? Thank you for your help. HippoDream12 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose By French copyright law "The following are considered in particular as works of the mind within the meaning of this code: [...] Photographic works and those produced using techniques similar to photography" (Loi nº 94-361 du 10 mai 1994 art. 1 Journal Officiel du 11 mai 1994). Thuresson (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under French copyright law, in order to be protected, the work must me deemed "original". As a consequence, there must be an intellectual effort put into the work. When it comes to photographic works, it cannot be a picture taken without any effort, like this picture Alex Ramirès.png. Multiple court decisions have developped this criterion of originality (for instance: Cour de cassation, 1ère chambre civile, 10 avril 2019, nº 18-13.612 [[33]]). Even though this work is a photographic one, listed under Loi n°94-361, it must also be original in order to be protected under copyright - which is not the case. HippoDream12 (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how French copyright works. Any picture taken by a human is subject to copyright. It doesn't matter if it took 5 seconds or hours to create it. Yann (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may find additional information on the "threshold of originality", which is the reason why any picture taken by a human is not de facto subject to copyright, on this Wikimedia page [34]. HippoDream12 (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Definitely above the ToO in the US, and likely above the French ToO since this is not a booth photograph or some other perfunctory photograph that essentially eliminates creative choices. Abzeronow (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose COM:L requires works to be either freely licensed, or in the public domain in both the country of origin and the US. First, there is no evidence that the photographer has released this photo with an acceptable license. Second, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that this publicity photo of Alex Ramirès is below the threshold of originality in France, it certainly is above TOO in the US, so the US copyright to this photo from 2021 presumably expires 70 years after the death of the photographer. —RP88 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose @HippoDream12: Hi,
1. The Cassation Court ruling that you cite is not relevant for the point you are trying to make. For the following reasons:
1.A. The case is not about photographs at all. It is essentially about other elements of graphism present on the album covers. (This ruling does not restate why the photographs present on the album covers were not part of the case. I'm guessing that it may have been simply because the copyright owners of the photographs were not parties to this legal case, which was between the copyright owner of the other elements of grahism and the reuser of the album covers.)
1.B. On the elements of graphism that were actually in dispute, this Cassation Court ruling overturns the ruling of the Versailles Appeals Court that had previously ruled that the graphical arrangements of the album covers were not original. And the Cassation Court sends the case to the Paris Appeals Court. Therefore, the Cassation Court does not make your point.
2. Although indeed some works can be below a threshold of originality required for copyright in some countries, please keep in mind the following aspects:
2.A. In France, through the years, you will find court decisions going both ways about simple photographs.
2.B. Anyway, Wikimedia must comply with the law of the United States. On Commons, it is considered that, under the law of the United States, almost all photos, even very simple, can be considered original enough for copyright.
3.C. Even in the hypothesis that someone could try to make an argument that a photo might be below a threshold, it would be impossible for Commons to make interminable discussions about millions of contributions to decide if they are accepted or not on Commons. Not to mention going to court. Therefore, the practice is to stick to the principle that almost all photos are considered copyrightable, with limited exceptions.
-- Asclepias (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 1 A it seems, if I understand correctly, that the record companies used identical graphic elements and typography when the album was rereleased. Several albums were considered by the court. In one example, identical graphics and fonts were used as in the 1961 edition of the music album but a different photo of the artist was used when the album was rereleased in the 2000s. Compare version A and version B of the record cover. Thuresson (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Almost ceertainly under copyright in France, certainly in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Geschwister-Scholl-Weg Ruhland, 100. Geburtstag Sophie Scholl, am Gedenkstein, 03.jpg

Please restore the File - I have forgotten the license. The right license is {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (like my photo File:Geschwister-Scholl-Weg Ruhland, 100. Geburtstag Sophie Scholl, am Gedenkstein, 02.jpg). Thank you in advance FrenzelAlexander (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as requested, license tag added. --Rosenzweig τ 19:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:UDETANGERLOGO.png

I do not think it is right to remove this file, as it is the logo of a team that stopped practicing more than 30 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaheray (talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Copyright terms are long and can outlast sports teams easily. When was this logo originally created? Abzeronow (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: 30 years old logo won't be in the public domain before the 2060s at the earliest. --Yann (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20220518 Frankfurt vs Rangers UEL Final Dichi Kmada Trophy.jpg

不当な削除で復元を求める。

一丁前にしゃべんじゃねえよ泥棒風情が。--2400:2200:622:B488:109:43F8:9C26:80B2 10:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Two problems -- it is a Getty image, not {{Own}} as claimed, and it infringes on the copyright for the trophy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Obviously not, as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FurryManforme1976_Portrait_Picture.jpg

--FurryManforme1976 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Deleted as personal photo by non-contributor. No reason given here why it should be restored. Commons is not Facebook. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2024-01-27 Ausstellung Antike in Bayern 2.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2024030410006016. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. I don't understand why this was deleted, as there is a ticket number, and the DR is still open. --Yann (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pipe Bueno 2023 01.jpg

I suggest to restore this file that was deleted recently, The video where this file comes From YouTube was originally uploaded with a CC license until it was changed to a more restrictive license, so, a user JosefinaDiLeo did post this file to speed deletion, and the original license is archived and avaliable on Wayback Machine as the link of The source says, I don't understand why was deleted before it was reviewed RevengerTime (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AKP_Chinraj.jpg

This file is a copyrighted work of the Government of India, licensed under the Government Open Data License - India (GODL). Authorization Method & Scope Following the mandate of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) of the Government of India that applies to all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various agencies of the Government of India, all users are provided a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, adapt, publish (either in original, or in adapted and/or derivative forms), translate, display, add value, and create derivative works (including products and services), for all lawful commercial and non-commercial purposes, and for the duration of existence of such rights over the data or information.


Examples of other images which have been accepted https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bishweswar_Tudu.jpg --TigerPeacock24 (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TigerPeacock24: This photo was uploaded as "own work" by User:Arunkumar at KMDK who presents himself/herself as an employee of the political party Kongunadu Makkal Desia Katchi. How can the photo be a government work? Thuresson (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No evidence that GODL applies. --Yann (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deleted text on Nikolina Brnjac's profile along with the proposed image change

The deleted text on Nikolina Brnjac's profile along with the proposed image change has been personally approved by Nikolina Brnjac herself and has been taken from the official website of the Government of the Republic of Croatia. There is absolutely no infringement of copyright here, as the text change was done in collaboration with Nikolina Brnjac, and she personally approved the use of her image, which is again publicly available on the Government of the Republic of Croatia's website. Following all that has been stated, we kindly request that the deleted text in the 'Professional Career' category, along with the proposed image change, be restored as proposed yesterday.

https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolina_Brnjac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radicigor1110 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 5. Apr. 2024‎ (UTC)

 Comment I guess this is about File:NIKOLINA BRNJAC.png, which was deleted by Didym as a copyvio and meanwhile re-created (!) by Radicigor1110.
 Oppose the undeletion and  Delete the re-created file. That a photo is available on a Croatian state web site does not mean that it is in the public domain or free to use (per COM:NOP Croatia), and [35] explicitly says "Copyright © 2024 Vlada Republike Hrvatske". I did not see a CC license or similar there. --Rosenzweig τ 12:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"publicly available" does not mean "copyright expired" (which is what we mean by "public domain"). While it may not be infringement to host it here, site policy requires either freely-licensed or copyright-expired works only -- we call anything else a "copyvio" even if not a violation to host it here, but rather because we want works to be able used elsewhere in many contexts, and we can't promise that with a press-only type of implied permission. A photo must be explicitly licensed with a "free" copyright license (see Commons:Licensing). Additionally, because accounts are anonymous and it's easy to copy photos here, for previously-published works we typically need communication from the copyright owner over private email per the COM:VRT process, which should state the license. Files can be undeleted through that process. The other option would be to state a free license (such as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike) on the government website where the photo can be found. The stated license tag (PD-US) on the current image is impossible; the U.S. would recognize copyright in an anonymous Croatian work for 95 years from publication (and if the photographer is named and it's not a work for hire, 70pma). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mauretania in drydock 1928 autochrome process port side.jpg

Image deleted in 2022 with the reason of "© Clifton R. Adams/National Geographic Society/Corbis/All Rights Reserved". However, that Clifton R. Adams died in 1934, so it may be in the public domain currently. 193.146.182.6 07:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., date of death is not used for the copyright term (though that does mean it's PD in most other countries). The U.S. is 95 years from publication (or 120 years from creation if that is earlier), though older works were subject to certain formalities. The question is if (and when) they were published in National Geographic Magazine. Per UPenn, National Geographic started renewing its issues from February 1929 and on. If this was published in a 1928 edition (or Jan 1929), then it would be PD-US-not_renewed and be OK. If it was published in the magazine only later, it is not OK yet. If it was part of an archive not published in the magazine but only published recently, then copyright would still exist and last a while longer. this page shows a number of other photos from that series, but does not mention if they were originally published in the magazine or not. So, we probably need more information on when this image was first published. If it is the same photo (I'm not an admin so I can't see this one) on this page from 2012, that source states the photo had just "come to light" about a year before that. If true that this was an unpublished image unearthed from National Geographic's archives in 2011, then it will become public domain in 2049 (120 years from creation). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support 1928 picture is in the public domain in USA. If the author died in 1934, it is also in the public domain in UK. The description says "RMS Mauretania in drydock November 1928, Southampton, Hampshire, England". Yann (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support The Facebook image Carl cites is the same image, cropped more tightly. Therefore this is an image first published in 2012 with a known author who died in 1934. The US rule for post 2003 publication with known authors is 70 pma, so it became PD in the USA and the UK in 1/1/2005. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: The U.S. term for a work for hire is always 95 years from publication / 120 years from creation, regardless if the author is known or not, unfortunately in this case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The Facebook image Carl cites is the same image, cropped more tightly. As noted by Carl above, the fact that it was a work for hire means that it is under copyright until the earlier of 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication. The former is earlier, 1/1/2049. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Per Carl Lindberg. Unfortunately. --Rosenzweig τ 15:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. If it was only published in 1929, it will be in the public domain in 2025. Yann (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was first published in 2011-2012. Thuresson (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, never mind. Crazy copyright rules. Yann (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, and particularly bad for this one. If we can find publication back in the 1920s that would help a lot. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carte-poitevin-saintongeais.jpg

Bonjour,

N'ayant pas de réponse, je vous retransmets mon message :

J'ai créé cette carte de voeux pour Parlanjhe Asteur, gratuitement.

Je l'ai modifié ensuite pour Commons W., cette version ne leur appartient pas, et si elle ressemble à leur publication, c'est normal, c'est le but.

Je vous ai déjà écrit, en anglais. Ça n'a pas marché ? Je n'en vois pas la trace.

Dites moi comment justifier tout ça... Pour remettre cette pauvre carte visible sur les articles (peu illustrés) concernant le poitevin-saintongeais.

Merci.

En attendant une réponse de votre part, Bonne journée à toutes et tous.

J.B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiròni B. (talk • contribs) 08:56, 5 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Support:

  • The file was uploaded to Commons in August 2015, which was before the external webpage mentioned in the deletion, webpage created in December 2015.
  • The two images on the external webpage are signed by J.B., who is also the uploader of this file to Commons.
  • The uploader publishes some of his works on his personal website under free licenses, which is good. Although there is no real doubt about this contributor who has been contributing to Commons for more than 10 years, maybe he could send one mail to VRT to confirm his identity, which might serve if someone makes deletion requests in some other cases. But it is not required for this file, because of point 1 above.

-- Asclepias (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JungStahlhelm.png

This image is both ineligible for copyright and too old for copyright. Hence, it could be tagged with {{PD-shape}} and {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} or similar. Moreover, it was even used as an example in Commons:Threshold of originality#Logos and flags. --Leyo 21:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: It was created in 1918 in Germany by an author who could have been known at the time, therefore I don't think we can automatically say it's too old for copyright. I'll wait for others to comment on whether it is below the ToO of Germany or not. Abzeronow (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The original metal pin (try a web search for "Jungstahlhelm Anstecknadel") was a bit more intricate, but this is just a very much simplified recreation which should be well below both COM:TOO Germany as well as COM:TOO US. How much historical value such a simplified recreation has is another question though. --Rosenzweig τ 21:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The historical value is higher than for the re-drawn version (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jungstahlhelm.svg). --Leyo 22:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JTobia1.jpg

I'd like an admin to check this file's metadata to ensure if it contains camera info or not. This is to verify that this file was either a work from elsewhere improperly tagged as the uploader's own work or if the uploader did indeed take the photo in question. If this photo was indeed taken by the uploader, this file should be undeleted. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnCWiesenthal: It does contain camera metadata. The reason given for speedy deletion was "license laundering". Abzeronow (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, please undelete it as I failed to check the metadata before nominating the file. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Regular DR created. --Yann (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vuillard - L'Essayage, 1892.jpg

 Keep File:Vuillard - L'Essayage, 1892.jpg has correct proportion compared to File:VUILLARD Édouard L'Essayage Huile sur bois.jpg (2,520 × 3,780 pixels). See https://musees-reims.fr/oeuvre/l-essayage (H x L en cm sans cadre 23,8 x 18,5) --Maltaper (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: OK. --Yann (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Victor Nkindi.jpg

The ticket permission was sent through email. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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