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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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 | +/− Wikinews: en | no | pl | +/− Wikibooks: en | it | +/− Wikisource: fa | fr | +/− Wikiversity: en | +/− Wikivoyage: en | fa | fr | ru | zh | +/− Wikiquote (regarding images): he | +/− 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.

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.

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

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

Interesting, although COM:Angola also notes that "Traditional learning and use are treated the same as literary, artistic and scientific works." I will admit that my knowledge of African symbols like this is lacking so I won't oppose restoration here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought about it before, but the pattern probably already existed in colonial times and Portuguese law, where folk patterns are not protected, may apply. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I might need to try to find someone who is an expert on Angola and then temporarily undelete to get their opinion. (if someone else thinks I should reverse my deletion, I'll also do so.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rui Gabriel Correia: to see if they can assist. Abzeronow (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow and Swiãtopôłk: My apologies. Somehow I missed the notification. I will look at this tomorrow and get back to you. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've temporarily undeleted the file to help this discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abzeronow. The justification for the deletion was that it is "copyvio – found elsewhere", with a link to where it was found. The flag is going to be found/ seen elsewhere because it is widely used by the movement for independence of the Lunda-Cokwe (one of a number of spellings in Portuguese) Lunda-Chokwe (in English) people as one of their symbols. For background, they are considered a separatist movement by some, a term that the Lunda-Chokwe reject, as they do not see themselves as part of Angola, as they maintain that because at one point Portugal had conferred on their region/ Lunda Kingdom the status of protectorate (Protectorate of Lunda Chokwe), they should not have later been lumped together with the rest of Angola as a unitary country (the same argument is used by the Cabinda independence (separatist movements). Their leaders and activists are imprisoned or routinely arrested, cited here, under "Arbitrary arrests, torture and other ill-treatment" and more recent news here (in English). A number of court cases are ongoing (in Portuguese). Use of the flag can be seen here (in Portuguese) in an article by Voice of America (VoA) Portuguese Africa service, which is a fairly reliable source when it comes to matters Angolan. Here is another (in Portuguese), this time from the Portuguese Catholic Church broadcaster, Rádio Renascença. Hope this helps. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rui Gabriel Correia: Yes, but I need to know if Lunda-Chokwe has a copyright on this flag or if the lusona depicted is actually a public domain symbol or a copyrightable expression of traditional learning. I'd also appreciate it if we had a better idea of what the threshold of originality is in Angola. I agree with you that this is within scope, I need to know if the flag is public domain or not. Abzeronow (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Administratoren,

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

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

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

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

@Rosenzweig: I am the deleting admin. Jost, can you cite which statute or decree these patches are part of? (and I've discussed similar cases with Rosenzweig on my talk page.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: These patches were worne as an official part of the uniform. Each mountain division of the Wehrmacht have had their own patch. The patches were created by the staff of the division and were approved by the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH). I have read your dicussion with Rosenzweig. Jost (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JostGudelius: Ob die Bundeswehr oder ihre Untergliederungen wirklich Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, finde ich zumindest zweifelhaft. Müsste man evtl. mal bei de:WP:URF klären. Aber unabhängig davon sind auch Gemeindewappen usw. deshalb gemeinfreie amtliche Werke, weil sie mal in einer amtlichen Verlautbarung bekanntgemacht wurden. Die ZDv 37/10 hat bspw. diverse Verbandsabzeichen. Ist das hier auch so? Wenn ja, wann und wo? Oder hat das irgendjemand inoffiziell erstellt? --Rosenzweig τ 21:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: Es handelt sich hier um die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht. Diese Abzeichen wurden wahrscheinlich von den Divisionen geschaffen und vom Kriegsministerium bzw. Oberkommando des Heeres genehmigt. Urheber und Genehmigungsprozess sind heute nicht mehr nachzuvollziehen. Ob Streitkräfte Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, kann ich nicht belegen - ich bin kein Jurist. Sie sind aber eine vom Staat beauftragte Organisation/Körperschaft mit einem Auftrag und klaren Rechtsrahmen, der mit der Verfassung / dem Grungesetz beginnt.Gruß --Jost (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: Deine Frage bezüglich der ZDV 37/10, die diverse Verbandsabzeichen enthält, trifft den Nagel auf den Kopf. Diese Verbandsabzeichen werden bei allen Verbänden, die eines Artikels bei Wikipedia würdig sind, in der Info-Box ohne Probleme eingefügt. Das gleiche muss auch für die Verbandsabzeichen der Verbände der Wehrmacht gelten; sie haben von ihrer Entstehung und Genehmigung her das gleiche Procedere und den gleichen Status. Sie sind offizielle Abzeichen/Wappen einer deutschen Behörde/eines Verbandes der Wehrmacht und m.E. gemeinfrei. Ich bitte Dich, dies @Abzeronowzu erklären und darauf hinzuwirken, dass die Löschungen der Divisionsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht rückgängig gemacht bzw. unterlassen werden, damit wir uns in Zukunft diese Diskussionen ersparen. Dein Englisch ist weitaus besser als das meinige, bitte mach es. Ich werde inzwischen Quelle und Urheber in den Beschreibungen der Verbandsabzeichen bearbeiten/korrigieren. Gruß --Jost (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ich übersetze das mal: Du weißt demnach nicht, ob besagte Grafik mal in irgendeiner Vorschrift bekanntgemacht o. ä. wurde. Du vermutest es nur. --Rosenzweig τ 18:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig:zunächst mal herzlichen Dank, dass Ihr weiter mit mir kommuniziert und versucht, mir zu helfen. Inzwischen habe ich heute nach heftiger Recherche folgende Aussagen und Quellen gefunden, die belegen, dass meine Vermutung (Erfahrung aus langjähriger Tätigkeit in den Streitkräften bei der Truppe, in Stäben und im Ministerium) durchaus richtig ist und auch bei Wikipedia und Commons bearbeitet wurde. Siehe:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Verbandsabzeichen_1._Gebirgs-Division.png in: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Insignia_of_the_Wehrmacht?uselang=deDivision.png?uselang=de.

Mützenedelweiß, Ärmelabzeichen und Verbandsabzeichen (für Fahrzeuge und Gerät) der 1. GebDiv wurden vom Oberkommando des Heeres mit Verfügung vom 2.Mai 1939 eingeführt; siehe in: Thomas Müller, Verheizt - Vergöttert - Verführt, Die deutsche Gebirgstruppe 1915- 1939, Veröffentlichung des Bayerischen Armeemuseums Band 16, 1. Auflage 2017, S. 68. Die Divisionsabzeichen/Truppenkennzeichen der Wehrmacht wurden vom OKH endgültig legitimiert mit Befehl Nr. 21 vom 16.Februar 1944 (OKH GenSt d H Org Abt II/31 180/44); siehe in: W. Fleischer, Truppenkennzeichen des deutschen Heeres und der Luftwaffe, Dörfler-Verlag 2002, ISBN 3895554448.

Ich meine, das reicht Ich bitte Dich und @Abzeronow, die Verbandsabzeichen der 1.GebDiv (Edelweiß) und der 3.GebDiv (Narvikschild) wiederherzustellen. Gruß --Jost (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jost, Ich habe Ihre Aussagen über Google Translate gelesen. Da ich kein Deutsch spreche, habe ich mich auf Englisch verständigt. Aber ich werde bei Bedarf maschinelle Übersetzung verwenden. (via google translate) Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: I hope you can although translate my answer to @Rosenzweig. I think all doubts are now cleared up. Greetings --Jost (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are potentially many more cases like these, I think we should get to the bottom of the matter. I've started a thread at de.wp's equivalent of the copyright village pump (at. de.wp because I feel more people who know German law will particpate there): de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Militärische Verbandsabzeichen Deutschlands. Hopefully a consensus can be reached there. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rosenzweig. I can use Firefox's beta translation feature on that page so I'll follow along as best I can (I won't post there since I know so very little German) Abzeronow (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate something Rosenzweig said there here, there is no rush on this, if it is found by dewiki legal experts that these are lawfully in the public domain, I can restore them myself. These cannot be in the public domain as "anonymous works" because 1.) German copyright law for pre-1995 works and 2.) URAA if these were not seized by the Office of Alien Property Custodian. Abzeronow (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: @JostGudelius: It's been 3 weeks since any comment at dewiki and this request has been stale. Since I am the deleting admin I don't want to close this request. But I'm not seeing any consensus there or here for me to reverse my deletion. Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: I'd be fine with closing this request here for now and open a new undeletion request if there is a positive result at de.wp. But Jost will have to decide. We've had undeletion requests that were open for months. --Rosenzweig τ 19:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenzweig and Abzeronow, till now I don't get any answer by the Military Archive and I think they will not answer in future.

I don't understand why the divisional insignia of the mountain divisions are deleted, while hundreds, maybe thousands of insignia of troops around the world exist on Wikipedia.--Jost (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jost, different countries have different laws. In my country (the United States), works by the federal government are public domain. For Russia and Ukraine, army emblems would fall under state symbols that are exempt from copyright. Germany appears to be more complicated, and I have a mandate to respect Germany's copyright laws. I don't wish for this to be remain deleted either, but unless I have a legal leg to stand on for it, I just cannot restore it now. Abzeronow (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jost has opened a new request below so we may as well close this one. Abzeronow (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here's the original text:

这个标志最初由国际残奥委会推出[2]。原设计者不明的情况下可以认为是国际残奥委会的作品，技术上可依据国际残奥委会总部所在国德国的原创性门槛来处理。（以下信息皆仅用于本讨论作为参考）另外，合理推测俄罗斯残奥委会的标志中明显的俄罗斯国旗元素，是国际残奥委会推出这个special emblem的原因之一（俄罗斯在东京奥运可以直接使用俄罗斯奥委会标志，因为俄罗斯奥委会标志的俄罗斯国旗元素相对没那么明显），同时这个special emblem原设计者是俄罗斯籍的可能性也很低。

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

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

support restoration. ltbdl (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellywa, @Tholme, and @Liu116: this undeletion request has been delayed for two months, and, so far, the request looks frozen. Any instructions to inform others who may be concerned? Saimmx (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saimmx. This is not a simple geometric shape nor a text only logo as can be seen in the document listed. It consists of flamelike shapes in various colors. Therefore it is imho not in PD or below threshold of originality and should not be undeleted. Ellywa (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Best to use some similar cases as references to prove that this picture is copyright protected according to Commons:TOO Germany. As Threshold of originality in Germany is not relatively low. --№.N (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...Or someone ask IPC about copyright of the picture via email. --№.N (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with @Liu116 - the File:Russian Olympic Committee competing flag.svg, Category:Russian Olympic Committee flags, and Category:Russian Olympic Committee logos were all considered below TOO in Germany. I see no reason the flag is over TOO in Germany if the flag is what I have seen in Chinese Wikipedia. Saimmx (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saimmx: I need to correct you that the Russian Olympic Committee logo and flag should be considered as works by Russians, not German. (我要纠正你一下：俄罗斯奥委会标志和旗帜应被视为俄罗斯作品，不能用德国的原创性门槛来衡量，这和IPC公布的特制RPC残奥旗帜是不同的) --№.N (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yup, this. Saimmx (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Candidplatz - Flickr - iEiEi.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Candidplatz Subway Station Munich.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Munich 5 Feb 2021 23 40 02 810000.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Munich 5 Feb 2021 23 40 10 378000.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Munich subway station Candidplatz.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:München - U-Bahn-Bahnhof Candidplatz (Bahnsteig).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:München - U-Bahn-Bahnhof Candidplatz (Farbgestaltung).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz9.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz

I'm asking for a deletion review of files that I had deleted in October 2023. I had essentially felt that the interplay of colors had pushed it to a level that would have been copyrightable. Recently a few similar files to ones I had deleted were kept by User:Infrogmation, and I was essentially asked to reexamine my decision. I want to see if I had missed some reason why these would be too simple for copyright as User:IronGargoyle says since I'd like stay on the same page as my colleagues. Abzeronow (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Why would this place not being covered by Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Freedom of panorama? Yann (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what that page says, many commentators consider that subway stations are interior spaces and do not meet the requirement for FoP of being public streets, ways, or open spaces. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but that's weird. There is nothing more public than a subway station, in the common sense of the word. Yann (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but German law appears to treat them as indoor spaces @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Abzeronow (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no exact definition in the actual law, and apparently there are no court decisions if places like train station halls and subway stations are “public” as required by the law. About half of legal commentators are in favor of it, half are against it (de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80). --Rosenzweig τ 08:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I think that when there are several possible interpretations of the law, we should use the most favorable for Commons. Yann (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COM:PCP says something else IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what PCP says. We should not use PCP to be more royal than the king. If several legal commentators say that a work is OK, we should use that. Yann (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you know about this, but there has been a big discussion in the past about artwork and creative designs in subway stations in Germany. As a result, as far as I understood at the time, the precautionary principle was invoked, among other things. The decision should be to delete if the design is creative enough to be worth protecting. And this is exactly the question that arises at this subway station. Different administrators have decided differently. I think there should be a unified decision. Kind regards Lukas Beck (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't go against the consensus, and I will let another admin decides, as if we can't use the FoP provision, I don't know if these are OK or not. But my opinion about interpretation of COM:PCP remains. Yann (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To me, half of the commentators saying it's not allowed definitely meets the threshold for significant doubt but I'm not a lawyer. FoP would make this easier I'd agree. I also agree with Lukas that decisions like this should be unified if possible. (which is why I asked for a review). Abzeronow (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow@Asclepias@L. Beck@Rosenzweig@Yann reading about "legal commentators" reminds me of the situation of COM:FOP Japan. In fact, there are mixed insights from lawyers and other legal commentators there. Several Japanese lawyers contend that commercial use is allowed under the Japanese Article 46 rule, while few others argue that buildings must be subject to the non-commercial restriction, based on the analogy that buildings with sufficient architectural properties must be treated as artworks. The prevailing majority of the legal commentators there agree that use of Japanese buildings in commercial photos are legal, under the Japanese FoP.

Roughly how many of the German legal commentators agree that German FoP covers subway architecture, and how many do not? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: Of the ones named at de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80, 11 are against fop being applicable in such cases, and 7 are in favor if I counted correctly. So my initial quick estimate of half/half was apparently a bit off. --Rosenzweig τ 06:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question about originality: As I see it, there's nothing very original about both the architecture and the coloring in this subway station. I'd say they are below COM:TOO Germany, which is higher than in other countries like the UK. I also think the coloring is below COM:TOO US, so I  Support undeletion. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the subtleties of German FoP, but I think it likely that the architectural detailing around the pillars is sufficiently creative to have a copyright in both Germany and the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: But per COM:FOP US, photos cannot be derivatives of architectural works in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 12:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow@Asclepias@Jameslwoodward@L. Beck@Rosenzweig@Yann apparently, there is a legal advice Wikimedia Deutschland received from lawyer Philipp Hellwig, way back 2023. It might be of relevance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the applicability of FOP in subway stations in Germany. The conclusion (C. I.) is on page 5: Keine Geltung der Schrankenbestimmung, FOP is not applicable in such cases. C. II. also says photographers might violate house rules, though per Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum and interior photography, that is not the primary concern of Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 09:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remeber that some similar cases were kept, but I really don't know what the correct answer is here. I try to avoid these cases :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Kloster Garnstock Gebetsecke.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Also

• File:Kloster-Garnstock Seitenaltar.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Del Req)

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kloster Garnstock Gebetsecke.jpg. The nominator mistakenly gave the link to the German FoP template here, but Category:Kloster Garnstock is located in Belgium, which has slightly-lenient FoP rule than Germany.

It appears it shows some work inside the church. Likely it is eligible; as per Romaine at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/12#Mini-Europe, FoP-Belgium was "based on how it is in the Netherlands". Per Romaine again here (with respect to the Dutch FoP rules in churches as per a government opinion), "if a church has opening hours and anyone can freely access and walk inside, it is a public place, if a church is only open with services then it is not." Kloster Garnstock is a Catholic monastery, and Catholic churches typically have set opening and closing hours, unlike a few Protestant churches which are only open to their congregations during worship hours. Therefore, this image file likely falls under {{FoP-Belgium}} and needs to be undeleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:FOP Belgium, “the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public.” If a Catholic church has opening and closing hours just like a museum, it would appear to not be permanently open to the public, just like a public museum. --Rosenzweig τ 10:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. These days there are very few buildings that are open to the public 24/7/365. Surely "permanently open to the public' should be read as "open to the public daily except major holidays" or something similar. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Even subway stations are closed at night these days (i.e. German case discussed above). Yann (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"open to the public daily except major holidays" was obviously NOT what the Belgian FOP lawmakers intended if “the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums”. --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geertivp: who could grant us some insight into Belgian FoP. Abzeronow (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The community have voted to keep this photo once and yet Yann decided to SD it without any community consensus

If Yann wants the photo gone it should be done through a proper DR---Trade (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Neutral I agree that the deletion was out of process, but I also can see Yann's viewpoint here. Abzeronow (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We also have to take into consideration of the viewpoint from people other than Yann. We cant do that with the file gone Trade (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should also be sensitive to the people depicted in our media. Given the uploader's apparent disregard of consent, I'm not sure if we can in good faith accept that the woman consented to this photograph being published. Abzeronow (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the DR were to discuss Trade (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: Why do you think that the photo is in scope and should be here? Out-of-process deletion is not a sufficient reason for undeletion. Ankry (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to follow the process is not a sufficient reason for deletion. Trade (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the girl is quite recognisable, there should be an attestation of her consent to be published in that position. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given recent discussion elsewhere, I looked. Yes, I'd say that the reasons to delete this are clear: a readily identifiable person performing a sex act in a private place; point of view suggests that the man in question is the photographer, so not a situation where it's at all obvious she knew that photo was going to be re-shown at all, let alone free-licensed. Subject's consent for publication is not at all obvious. And, frankly, the user's other uploads don't increase my confidence.

The basis on which this was kept earlier was unrelated to this; apparently no one thought to raise these issues at the time of the DR. I think the deletion showed good judgement. - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Das Bundesarchiv Abteilung Deutsches Reich hat mir mit E-mail vom 27. März 2025 auf meine Frage, welche Urheberrechte im Zusammenhang mit Verbandsabzeichen der Wehrmacht - hier Verbandsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht - folgenden Text geschrieben: "Die ehemalige deutsche Wehrmacht hat unserer Kenntnis nach keinen Rechtsnachfolger. Die durch sie erlassenen Vorschriften, Erlasse und Befehle sind mittlerweile Schriftgut des Bundesarchivs und unterliegen dem Bundesarchivgesetz. Personenbezogene oder zeitliche Schutzfristen bestehen für die Art Schriftgut nicht."

Da die Verbandsabzeichen nicht willkürlich verwendet werden konnten, sondern auf Grundlage übergeordneter Stäbe genehmigt und angeordnet wurden, bitte ich um Wiederherstellung der gelöschten Verbandsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht - 1.GD, 3.GD und 4. GD - unter der Lizenz "gemeinfrei". --Jost (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This information could have been shared in the still opened but stalled UDR of this file. The Federal Republic of Germany is the legal successor of the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Regardless if Bundesarchiv feels Wehrmacht insignia are public domain, they should contact COM:VRT so this information is on file. Abzeronow (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That actually says nothing about the copyright situation of the insignia. They're writing about "Schutzfristen", a kind of waiting period before archives can allow access to files to protect interests of people who might still be alive or died recently. So nothing to do with copyright. They probably didn't even understand the problem we have here. Which is understandable, because they are archivists, not jurists, and normally wouldn't bother with copyright at all. --Rosenzweig τ 18:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Rosenzweig. From my perspective, the question is more about TOO. Gnom (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke with both the photographer and his son at the time (the image is part of a family photo). The puppets were crafted by the same person who appears in the image, and he personally granted the usage rights. The logistics were somewhat complex, as it required explaining to the son (who uploaded the image to Commons on behalf of the author) how to do it properly and guiding him through the site's policies. This is a well-known individual who has a Wikipedia article. I strongly recommend the restoration of this image. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wilfredor, in the case of o photo of an artwork, we need permission from both the artist and the photographer. Can you ask them both to send a permission to the support team, via permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? They can use Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator to create their permission mail. – Having received the proper permissions, the support team can successfully demand restauration. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in that time the person passed away Wilfredor (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilfredor, that is really sad. Are there heirs who can take over the baton? The son? Mussklprozz (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Es war derselbe Sohn, der das Foto gemacht und hochgeladen hat. Ich habe seit drei Jahren keinen Kontakt mehr zu ihm, da ich ihn nur speziell für dieses Foto kontaktiert habe. Es handelt sich um sehr bekannte Personen, die schwer erreichbar sind. Da er das Bild selbst unter der richtigen Lizenz hochgeladen hat, halte ich es für überflüssig und bürokratisch, ihn zusätzlich um eine schriftliche Bestätigung per E-Mail zu bitten Wilfredor (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Question en que año publicaron la fotografía?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translation for English speaking admins: It was the same son who took the photo and uploaded it. I haven't had any contact with him for three years, as I only contacted him specifically for this photo. The people in question are very well known and difficult to reach. Since he uploaded the picture himself under the correct licence, I think it would be superfluous and bureaucratic to ask him for additional written confirmation by email. Mussklprozz (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can some admin please temporarily undelete the image? I would like to check the file description and history. If I find it okay, i think we can accept Wilfredor's argument above. I would write an artwork template in connection with a heirs-license into the file description. --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mussklprozz: {{Temporarily undeleted}} Yann (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Mussklprozz/Yann, for taking on this case and I really appreciate it! 🙏 Just a quick heads-up, I noticed that the image had been deleted when I checked my restored version and saw that the source link was showing up in red. Wilfredor (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support I think the arguments of User:Wilfredor are legit, but the VRT ticket granting the permission will be ideal --Ezarateesteban 21:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Ezarate for take a look Wilfredor (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Советский проспект, 115, Ульяновка, ЛО 05.jpg (del) -> File:Советский проспект, 115, Ульяновка, ЛО 03.jpg
• File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 18.jpg (del) -> File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 17.jpg
• File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 13.jpg (del) -> File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 10.jpg
• File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 12.jpg (del) -> File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 09.jpg

Túrelio deleted them by suggestion of OptimusPrimeBot. I asked him to show me the files, because I check what I upload and so many duplicates seem like not my mistake. He says that bot can not be mistaken, but I also know that I regularly get mistakes during uploading; I didn't pay too much attention, but maybe it is related. So I suggest that something happens during uploading -> problems with metadata -> problems with OptimusPrimeBot (I am sorry for 'something', I will pay more attention and will use phabricator after the next uploading). Please, take a look. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 08:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had the 1st file already undeleted, as an example. It is clearly a duplicate of the paired file. --Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree about the 1st. Did you recheck others? Анастасия Львова^ru/en 12:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this file isn't eligible for deletion because it's author has released it on GitHub under a free license (MIT license) source and because this image doesn't contain any derivative work from the game Sekiro (also see: commons rule).

Thank you for participating in this discussion Kakučan (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is the only public repository of semimqmo on GitHub and they posted on Reddit that they just took this wallpaper from https://wallpapersden.com/sekiro-shadows-die-twice-art-wallpaper/2560x1440 where the author is not even credited. And maybe some people do not think of a software license applying to images  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, there is no evidence that the creator of the image is the person who posted it with the {{Mit}} license at github. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in this and this commit the final screenshot is composed of resources which automatically fulfill the commons rule of threshold of originality except this one (which is considered it to be not semimqmo's original work). I found this theory to be true but I couldn't find any license posted with this resource which leads me to think that John Devlin had given a permission to semimqmo to repost this resource under MIT license (otherwise semimqmo's repo on GitHub would've been taken down for copyright infringement). Thank you for your response Kakučan (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I say again -- there is no evidence that Devlin has given a free license. The fact that GitHub has not acted against this post proves nothing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a logo for JS13K games. I am writing on behalf of the creators Andrzej and Ewa Mazur who wishes it to not be deleted. This image was being used on the wikipedia page for js13k also. Thank you for fixing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slackluster (talk • contribs)

 Support If this is the logo shown at the top of https://js13kgames.com Andrzej Mazur uploaded this file under CC0 in 2018  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   21:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Although Ewa Mazur is mentioned on the web site, Andrzej is not. This logo was uploaded by USER:Mypoint13k in 2021. The web site has "©2024 js13kGames & authors". If the owners of the site actually want the logo freely licensed here, they must do it with a message to VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is in https://github.com/orgs/js13kGames/people. He uploaded the logo on the website in a GitHub repository under CC0 in 2018  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yann I don't think so. Aside from the explicit copyright notice which I cited above, the legal section of the web site has

"As a condition of submission, Entrant grants the Competition Organizer, its subsidiaries, agents and partner companies, a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, publish, distribute, publicly perform, create a derivative work from, and publicly display the Submission."

That is a free license only in the sense that no money changes hands. It does not include the right to freely license anything. Also, please remember that even in the case where the software may be freely licensed, the logo for it is often not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is an agreement for entrants who submit games to the competition, not anything to do with the website itself, which in fact has no license on GitHub at all. However, one of the staff of js13kGames uploaded this logo in a different repository under CC0. The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted, which has not been done so there  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted. Yes, I agree with that. Yann (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, j'avais mis ces images issues de conférences scientifiques en ligne à la suite de plusieurs demandes de journalistes qui voulaient les utiliser pour des articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annebessette (talk • contribs) 11:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose First, the two uploads are claimed to be {{Own}} work, but they do not look like selfies, so I suspect that they are copyright violations. Second, except for two images, both deleted, this editor has made no contributions here. Commons is not a web host, so the purpose stated above for the uploads is not allowed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

با سلام لوگوی بارگذاری شده باز طراحی اینجانب میباشد و بنده لوگو را از روی یک ویدئو طراحی نمودم و کاملا اثر شخصی بنده میباشد.

 Oppose Complex logo, no permission. Yann (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the same logo https://www.instagram.com/wearesepahan/p/DHI2zQEIFnj, that post says it is from the 70s, is Template:PD-Iran 30 years after publication of a work by a "legal person" mean government only or business entities?  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same logo. The logo might be from the 1970s, but is the blazon from the 1970s or more recent? Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are talking about.. @Hanooz do you know anything about this?  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   20:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edited "from there" to "from the 1970s" to make my meaning more clear. (And I mean to ask if the interpretation of the logo is from the 1970s or more recent) Abzeronow (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see now (I didnt know what "the blazon" was referring to). Now that I look more closely, I can't find this logo by reverse image search anywhere else than the Instagram account, so we definitely need to learn more from someone who knows about Iranian football clubs back then  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   22:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is in the public domain if it was published before 1995 (1375 SH). I was also unable to find any information about the logo. Hanooz 20:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Alp Güngör, 2020 yılında Na'Vi formasıyla

Bu fotoğraf şahsıma aittir ve telif hakkı sahibiyim. CC-BY-SA 4.0 lisansı ile paylaşıyorum. Lütfen silmeyiniz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolasjackson25 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This file was (most likely) made by the uploader himself using his phone camera -- it contains the original metadata, and the reverse image search didn't return any results for me. The reason for deletion was ostensibly "not having a licence tag", added by UCinternational, even though there was a licence tag on the file. I contested the original warning, but the file was deleted anyway. I propose that the file should be restored. Le Loy (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support This was deleted for having no license, despite at all times having a license tag. If the license is disputed, a deletion request should be initiated. Thuresson (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. The uploader, User:Mikhail2710, is copyvio recidivist. "Own work" statement by Mikhail2710 is completely unreliable. UCinternational (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info I tagged the file as , not . The premise of this undeletion request has collapsed. UCinternational (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Aside from the copyright question, this image is so dark that it is unusable for any purpose. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see User_talk:DinoThaiThai_Chatchy. The removal was unjustified. These images were deleted due to copyvio templates by User:shizhao. However, the website link provided as evidence of copyvio is invalid as it was added after the images were uploaded. First image was already used in 2022,[3] but the link shizhao proposed was from 2023.[4] Second image os uploaded in March 31st,[5] website they proposed is from April 3rd.[6] Therefore, I believe the removal of these images was unjustified and they can be reinstated. There is a testimony on the talk page from uploader DinoThaiThai Chatchy, but if more solid evidence is needed, should contact the uploader. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support evidence has been presented that the claims of prior upload were incorrect, and therefore the images should be reinstated unless proper evidence can be found that they are copyvios. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose restoration of the first image. There are two copyrights here -- one for the image and one for the sculpture/reconstruction. While we have a request which covers the first of these, there is no mention of the copyright for the sculpture. The file does not tell us where the sculpture is, so it is possible that Freedom of Panorama might apply, but that must be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this was posted for a Thai competition and the site that was supposedly a copyvio was also Thai, FOP in Thailand would seem logical here. Abzeronow (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Thailand is probable, although not certain. Thai FoP requires that it was in public place when photographed, but permanent installation is not required. We need to know where this photograph was taken. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward permanence is required. According to @Paul 012 at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prince Dipangkorn Rasmijoti poster for mother's milk.jpg, the original Thai version included a Thai term which translates as "regularly", but "regularly" is missing from most unofficial translations like those held by WIPO. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather support undeletion but opening up a regular deletion request on the basis of being suspected recent works of taxidermy/anthropological reconstructions, and DR history of Wikimedia Commons shows many of the more notable recent taxidermies are found in countries that either have no indoor FoP (e.g. Germany and Netherlands) or no FoP at all (whether complete or partial, like the United States or France); see this and this for the case of hominid reconstructions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• File:In front of royal palace phnom penh.jpg
• File:Family in throne palace.jpg
• File:In royal palace phnom penh.jpg
• File:In royal palace Phnom Penh front of king house.jpg

Files were deleted for either copyright or scope reasons. This account seemingly belonged to the royal imposter of Norodom Ekcharin, who used to be accepted into the Cambodian royal family. The educational value is obvious to me at least, given that these photos were the only photos we had for members of the House of Norodom on Commons.

In regards to copyright reasons, I don't think there were earlier uploads of those pictures. I couldn't find anything from Tineye, Google Images, or Bing Images. The lack of metadata can be explained by the fact that this person was at once point considered part of the royal family, and the files taken look like they were taken on a phone. I doubt the phones given to any royal family (especially back in the early 2010s) would store metadata because that would be a security risk. In any case, we wouldn't be able to get a hold of the guy, considering he's been inactive on Commons and has gone off the radar after his explusion from the royal family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TansoShoshen (talk • contribs) 08:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The file was speedily deleted for the reason "per COM:Speedy" without mentioning a specific reason as to why it was speedily deleted.

Presuming the reason being F1, the original source of the image was a thumbnail from a YouTube video that was listed under a CC license. The thumbnail does contain copyrighted Fortnite imagery, but was cropped to exclude any of it. There isn't a COM:NET issue as far as I'm aware because Ali-A does actually talk in that video. In other words, the subject of the file is affiliated with the uploader in that specific video. This isn't just some random upload of gameplay that put his face in the thumbnail for clickbait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TansoShoshen (talk • contribs) 08:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging @Yann: as the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose without more information. Image included in a game video. Where does this image come from? Also what's the educational purpose of this? Yann (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that this was 2010-era YouTube, and that after scrolling across the videos of YouTube channel and checking with both Tineye and Google Reverse Image Search, this seems to be just a unique instance of Ali-A doing the "stereotypical clickbait face". The educational value is that the subject depicted, Ali-A is a notable subject with his own article on Wikipedia. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly do not delete this file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishan Sengupta (talk • contribs) 08:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

 Oppose This is about File:Niranjan_Sengupta_1.jpg. The file was deleted at the request of the uploader, Ishan Sengupta, who is now asking for restoration. The file dates from 1925, but Ishan Sengupta claims that he is the photographer. While I suppose that is technically not impossible, it seems extremely unlikely. Making false claims about authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to being blocked from editing here.

In Bangladesh, copyright for an anonymous work lasts for sixty years after first publication. Since this probably came out of a family album and may never have been published before, it is likely that it will have a copyright until 1/1/2086. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support There is no reason to doubt publication at the time. And copyright was counted from the date of creation, not publication. Also Bangladesh was part of the British Raj at the time, so {{PD-India}} or {{PD-Pakistan}} could also apply, depending on the exact place of creation and publication. Out of copyright in Bangladesh, in Pakistan, in India, and in USA. Actually, no pre-WW2 image from the British Raj is still under a copyright. Yann (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This was certainly published at the time, so the reason for deletion is not valid: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portret van een prostituee met een glas whiskey, RP-F-F00149.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, we already have a copy: File:StoryvilleRaleighRyeGal.JPG. Yann (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it was "certainly published" in 1912? Per the MOMA book, Bellocq took these photographs for himself (he apparently was friendly with the prostitutes, don't know if he was a customer there) and kept the glass negatives at home, where they were found in some piece of furniture after his death. His main occupation as a photographer was apparently working for a shipbuilding company, photographing ship parts and machinery. --Rosenzweig τ 10:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Nosferattus: as the nominator. --Rosenzweig τ 10:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Oversimplification - Many of the now best known Bellocq nudes are from the chest of glass negatives rediscovered in the 1960s but Bellocq also printed some at the time, both for the prostitutes themselves and their customers. As a professional photographer during his life he was better publicly known for his industrial photography, photographs of Mardi Gras floats (seasonal but extensive work, was official photographer for some krewes), photographer for the Archdiocese of New Orleans, and also did portrait photography. While the "Storyville" red-light district was quasi-legal, association with it was not something which would publicized by someone doing respectable work outside of the demi-monde (even if it was an open secret in some circles). IMO there may be a case that Bellocq images known only from prints produced by Lee Friedlander, may still be under copyright, this is not one, being one of the long better known Storyville portraits. Some Storyville historians have even questioned the attribution of this one to Bellocq. (This is mostly off the top of my head as a long-time researcher in early New Orleans jazz, which is an adjacent topic to Storyville history with some crossover, knowing and interacting with some working in the latter field, but some details are likely covered in the late Al Rose's "Storyville" book.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Infrogmation and Yann: Do you have any evidence that this specific photo was published before 1970? Nosferattus (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo rights have been added under my username (ARABXOOPS) at the same link, please take a look.

https://www.facebook.com/elbejoo/photos/%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%83-%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%83-%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%B4-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D9%88-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%83-%D8%A3%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%B6%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%B5%D9%8A%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B4-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%83-%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D9%84%D9%88-%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%83-%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%AC-%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D9%82/997644375136084/?_rdr — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARABXOOPS (talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

I am the original author of File:LulaLevy.jpg. I uploaded it on April 12, 2025, but it was deleted on April 20 due to missing license. That was an omission on my part. I confirm that I took the photo myself and release it under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0). I kindly request undeletion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonterski (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Banfield: , who tagged this as not having a source. Thuresson (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image was a photo taken by the uploader according to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tandisss--Trade (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Modern Sciences and Yann: What was the evidence that you used to conclude that the image was not own work? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is an old image of en:Jome Mosque, i.e. [7], image. Seeing the short duration of Iranian copyright, this may be in the public domain, but unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bluto and many other Thimble Theatre characters are already in the public domain due to the strips from late 1930-1936 and maybe upward not renewing their copyright: Commons:Character copyrights

Bluto's debut strip was not renewed in 1959 and 1960 same for Wimpy's in 1958 and 1959. Swee'Pea, Poopdeck Pappy and Eugene The Jeep same for Alice the Goon's debut strips also never renewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:e00:83f0:3cf9:5606:3cbd:15a2 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This request probably concerns all files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bluto. Yann (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Infrogmation and Nosferattus: for deleting admin and nominator. Yann (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Signature (this is texted from a school computer): Zig-Zag. 63.81.59.162 13:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put all the proper Details and also the license on the picture but it still got deleted --ItsNotMeHeaveny (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Needs a free license directly from Richard Howard using VRT. We do not alow third party licenses. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i am legally allowed to license it on his behave? should i send the e-mail? ItsNotMeHeaveny (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Richard Howard has given you a written license which allows you, in turn, to freely license the work, then you may send both the license Howard gave you and the free license you give using VRT. It is generally easier and faster if the creator himself sends the free license to VRT. We are very careful with this because we do get forged licenses from fans or others who want to put works on Commons without a license from the actual creator. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what could possibly be wrong with the photo since it was taken with a cellphone and just been uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luan Nobrega (talk • contribs) 18:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info The stated reason for deletion was "Probable press photo; no metadata that proves ownership". Thuresson (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May be in actual use on-air and on the website Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support This looks very like the logo at https://www.wwltv.com/. I don't think the eye is above the ToO. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]