Commons:Undeletion requests

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

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

Other languages:

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

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

Commons deletion (policy)
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

Projects that accept fair use

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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Byars Harley Davidson Dealership.jpg and File:Ray Byars Harley Davidson Shop.jpg

I can't see the deleted images, but one of the other's up for deletion was taken by a photographer who died more than 70 years ago. The question appears to be whether the images were taken by the local photographer Ward Jaycox (1869-1944). Unless stamped like File:1918 Pearl St Shop.jpg, the image is anonymous, and would be "PD-US-not renewed". US case law, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg, sides with publication (made available to the public), occuring when an image leaves the custody of the photographer.

The DR says that File:Ray Byars Harley Davidson Shop was most likely published in 1928, which is less the the -expired threshold. Whose name did we search for renewals under? Seems fine to undelete in 2024, but before then was there a name associated with the photo that renewal searches could be done under? Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The images need to be temporarily made visible. Images had to display a copyright notice, and be renewed up until 1964. If there is no name attached to the image it was made public, and is anonymous. There in nothing in the renewal database for "Harley Davidson" and "Texas" or "Ray Byar" at 1928+28 +/- 5 years. I have yet to see a local Texas photographer appear in the renewal database. You can find news agencies and big city photographers. --RAN (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not correct. Having a paper photograph without a copyright notice does not affect the copyright status of the image. In order to use PD No Notice, one must prove that the photo was published without notice. A single notice suffices for all photos in a book or periodical. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The images need to be temporarily made visible. Wouldn't the burden be on the deleter to present evidence that the image appeared in a book? The uploader has scanned a paper print image, so we know it existed as a physical print, not appearing in a book or a newspaper. They have made no claim that it ever appeared in a book. The argument that any image could have appeared in a book, and it is up to the person scanning it to prove that it has never appeared in a book goes against Commons:Precautionary principle. United States case law has ruled that when a physical print leaves the custody of the photographer it has been made available to the public. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg. Also the copyright for images in books are not held by the author or publisher, they are owned by the photographer and have to be renewed by them. Publishers license the images for use in the book, they do not buy the copyright outright. Google Books was sued over that very issue. If the author takes all the images in a book, then the renewal would cover those images. --RAN (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The copyright owner of a periodical, or other composite work, can file a renewal as the "proprietor of copyright in a composite work". A book does not always rise to that level, but I believe that type of renewal can preserve the copyright of the contained works, even if the owners are different. The DR asks for some evidence of publication without notice. If it was scanned from a paper print, fine, where did that paper print come from? A modern paper print would not be evidence. The related file File:Ray Byars Harley Davidson Shop.jpg, also deleted, seems (in Google cache) to show a caption underneath, so it came from some publication. If scanned from that publication, not sure that is evidence either way (even if the book was renewed, could be a long-existing photo). The "own work" claim is false, and no provenance information is given, which is required to claim PD-US-no_notice. Odds are high that it is, but we need something to rest the PD declaration on, at least until 2024. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The images need to be temporarily made visible. The images if published, would have to renewed by the copyright holders, not the publisher, just like as required for advertisements in newspapers. Any renewals by the publisher would only cover images produced by the author/publisher and not third parties, just like advertisements. --RAN (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Advertisements in newspapers/magazines are a particular exception to the usual periodical copyright covering the contained works. They are treated different than material the editors put in there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Google Books was sued over that very issue that the publisher of a book does not hold the copyrights to the licensed images contained within the books. Licensing allows the use of the image in the book, and does not transfer any copyrights. --RAN (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well sure -- each photo can have an independent copyright. For photos first published in a periodical, a renewal on the entire periodical can serve to renew the copyright on the contained items, even if the owner of a particular photo copyright is different. For re-used photos where the periodical proprietor merely had a non-exclusive license, which is often the case for books, they wouldn't be affected at all by a periodical renewal. That may not be the case here, just noting the possibilities, but if this was taken from a 1928 publication which was renewed, then it might. If it was from a newspaper of that era, then it's OK, as only a few NYC newspapers renewed their pre-WWII issues, and nothing outside of NYC did. However, would like to know which publication this was scanned from, so we at least know a date it was published on, and also any provenance information from that publication. There is a claim of PD-US-not renewed, which implies publication before 1964, so when was that exactly? Renewal searches using the subject information are not really enough; the title may be unrelated, and it's the photographer or copyright owner which usually need to be searched for. It was clearly published elsewhere, and I'm not comfortable assuming publication only after 2003 (especially given the tag that was applied, which claims publication before 1964). That may well not have been the first publication, either. There are many ways it could be PD, but also ways it might not. When we have basically no information on an image (especially knowing it was previously published), I'm not comfortable saying there is no significant doubt. If we are scanning from a book or magazine, name the source, and give all the provenance information for the photo given in that source, at the very least. We are left guessing on something the uploader could have easily done themselves (if they were the scanner, and if not we know even less). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{Temporarily undeleted}}. Yann (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The font used in File:Ray Byars Harley Davidson Shop.jpg points to post-1978 publication and probably post-2003 publication. If it can be shown that Jaycox is the photographer, I'm inclined to support this staying undeleted. Otherwise, we may have to wait for 2049 since 1928 seems like the most plausible date of creation and I'm not seeing any evidence this was published before 1978. (EDIT: I'm read the other related stuff. If there is evidence that proves that the photograph was used as a carte de visite or publicly displayed at the dealership before 1978, I'd also support this staying undeleted. I don't think we have that as evidence yet though). Abzeronow (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Claudio Caniggia Boca Juniors.jpg

This was marked for deletion because it was a poorly sourced upload by a sockpuppet but because it was (likely) out of copyright in Argentina and potentially useful, I fleshed out the file description and licensing, and uploaded a higher-quality version before it was (understandably) deleted by EugeneZelenko. You can see the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Claudio Caniggia Boca Juniors.jpg. Please restore this image as it is a valuable photograph of his time at Boca Juniors playing alongside Diego Maradona. Thanks in advance. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Tokyo Skytree light up in US flag for Trump's visit.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: At section 5(6), the policy of Facebook page of the Japanese Kantei is complied with the GJSTU 2.0 license. A1Cafel (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Joseph Prill (1934).jpg

I don;t understand why this pic was removed, but I got the permission of the owner of this site to use it for Wikipedia: https://www.heimat-lohmar.de/exponate/bilder/prof-prill/ So please restore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasvonderDunk (talk • contribs) 22:15, 28 December 2022‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

[confidential information removed]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A 1934 German image was under copyright in Germany until at least 1/1/2005 and is therefore under copyright in the United States until 95 years after first publication, that is, until at least 1/1/2030. I doubt very much that the person giving permission actually has a written license from the photographer allowing them to freely license the image. Also note that "permission ... to use it for Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Both Commons and WP require that an image must be free for any use by anybody anywhere..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, photos of this type can be difficult. First, for photos first published elsewhere on the web, we need a free license directly from the copyright holder, via the process (using private emails) specified at COM:VRT. We have too many photos simply copied from the Internet, and accounts here are essentially anonymous.
If the copyright on the photos has lapsed, then it is OK, but that can be surprisingly difficult to determine (as copyright lasts a very long time). We need works to be public domain in both the country of origin, and the United States. This would appear to have been published in Germany, so that is the country of origin. Since this was definitely still under copyright in Germany in 1996, the U.S. restored any copyright for 95 years from publication, so it will not be public domain in the U.S. until 2030. The German copyright might be even more difficult -- the source states that a Hans Dieter Heimig is the author. If that was the photographer, we would need to find out how long they lived, and add 70 years to that (plus to the end of that year) to know when it will be public domain in Germany. If that name is a modern person, i.e. a contributor but the actual photographer is unknown, we'd need to see how it was credited at the further source. If it was published anonymously, it may have become public domain in Germany 70 years after publication (so, 2005), so then we'd just have to wait for the U.S. copyright to expire. However, for non-simple photographs like these (studio portraits were considered full works of art, not simple photos), they were always supposed to be 70 years from the death of the human author, and not sure the 70-year anonymous term common to the EU shortened that (though that is still a bit nebulous to me). If you subscribe to that theory, or Hans Dieter Heimig actually was the photographer but we can't find how long they lived, you'd have to wait until a reasonable amount of time passes (100 or 120 years) before using it.
If the site owner actually does own copyright somehow (that would need to be explained to the COM:VRT team), then they can license it, though as mentioned not for "Wikipedia only" -- it would have to be for anyone. But if they don't own the copyright, then they can't license it, and policy is to wait out the copyright term, as frustrating as that can be. I think the German Wikipedia has a rule of thumb that allows any work older than 100 years if the author's death date can be determined, though Commons uses 120. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hans Dieter Heimig seems to be the author of a chapter in the 2016 book in which this image was apparently published. It's unclear if the image had been published before. --Rosenzweig τ 23:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For anonymous works in German law, see the rather comprehensive COM:Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works. For anything created before July 1 1995, if the author's name became known in any (unspecified) "other way", that was enough for the work to not be an anonymous work anymore, even if originally published without a named author. Which might work somehow for complete books, but is rather crazy for single photographs. Nevertheless it was the law before that was changed in 1995. --Rosenzweig τ 23:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, OK. For photographs then, the situation was similar to now -- if published without attribution to a human author, and the author did not become known in the next 70 years, the term expired then. We'd have to assume anonymous publication in this case, which we don't always do without having some evidence of that. (For simple photos, such as snapshots of everyday life, the anonymous aspect was irrelevant in Germany -- those were at most 50 years from publication, or 50 years from creation if not published, before the 1995 law changes, regardless of author. The 1995 law retroactively changed them to 70pma though, or the anonymous term.). But, the U.S. term seems fairly straightforward. We could undelete in 2030. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The copyright situation in Germany of this photo (and also the US) is still unclear. It is said to be taken in 1934, and it was published in a book in 2016. We don't know if it was first published before 2016. Unlike the situation in the US, where the sale of a print by the photographer to the customer could (at least in some cases) already be publication, publication in Germany required the dissemination of copies to the general public. We also don't know if the 2016 publication (or any other publication) named a photographer or not. If that 1934 photo was first published in 2016 and we don't know the author, we can't tell if it is still protected by copyright in Germany or not. Under the "new" method explained at COM:Germany, the copyright of an anonymous work expires after 70 years, so it would have expired at the end of 2004 in this case. But under the old method, the term of protection would be 70 years pma even if the author is unknown. And the longer term of those two applies, even if we don't know which one is the longer term. Very unsatisfying, but that's what you get when laws don't really fit the subject matter they're meant to regulate, or at least not all aspects of it. Without further information about the first publication and the photographer, I can only see us hosting this with {{PD-old-assumed}} after 120 years, in 2055. Which would also be the US term for works of unknown authorship unpublished before 2003.
Btw, the terms for "simple" photographs in Germany have a rather convoluted history. In 1965, when the distinction between "Lichtbild" (= "simple" photograph) and "Lichtbildwerk" was first introduced in the then new Urheberrechtsgesetz (copyright law), they both had 25 year terms from publication (or creation if unpublished within 25 years after creation). In 1985, photographic works went to 70 years pma, while "simple" photographs stayed at 25 years from publication/creation, unless they were "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" (documents of contemporary history), which got a 50 year term from publication/creation. Then in 1995, that "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" category was eliminated, and all "Lichtbilder" got the 50 year term. Courts then whittled down what can be a "Lichtbild", and now, only images from automated photo booths, x-ray images, satellite imagery, surveillance images (from automated cameras) and similar stuff can be a "Lichtbild", but not a photo taken by a human being. Not by law (there is no clear definition there), but because of court decisions. --Rosenzweig τ 01:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, as far as I understand it, the courts changed their interpretation what a "Lichtbild" is due to the EU regulations. So, before the EU regulations, the "documents of contemporary history" type photograph were a 50 year term from publication/creation, then after the EU regulations they were 70pma, or 70 years from creation/publication if anonymous. So there could be no "longer existing term" for those, unlike for anonymous sculptures, which are more nebulous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as this photo, it sure looks like something published in a school yearbook or something like that. The web page source does mention a further source, a "monography" by a Wilhelm Pape from 1993 or something like that. Unsure if that was just for the text, or the photo too. I do see there is some disagreement over whether the old 70 year term required the distribution of copies to the general public, or not. I typically dislike deletions based on extremely delayed publication possibilities, unless there is some evidence which points to that situation actually happening -- most works were made to be published, one way or another. I would not have a problem assuming that it became public domain in Germany in 2005, though there are some uncertainties, though the U.S. status seems clear (if published in 1934, which I am assuming). If it was truly unpublished until recently, it would get more "interesting". Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Arxiu RTVV Castelló 29-XI - 2.jpeg

Part of a set of pictures covering an historic event (the closure of the Valencian Public TV-radio network), deleted because of alleged no educational potential. Simply, nobody could say it was a pic of a historic event.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is of poor quality. Isn't there anything better than that? Yann (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no idea because it's not my file and I can't see it because it's deleted. Is it blurry or just "poor quality"? Because if it's because of resolution, I believe we should undelete it, because it's the only free set we have of that particular event.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The file has no description or categories. It is a blurry image of what looks like a VCR tape library, but might be something else entirely. I can't imagine any situation in which it would be useful. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support It can be used to illustrate the closure of the Valencian Public Broadcasting Corporation, because the name is descriptive enogh to know when and where it was taken. I can add a description, if that's the problem.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done, plenty of non-blurry useful photos at Category:Closing of RTVV, several lacking relevant description. Thuresson (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:SeminariTLB - Quina RTVV volem - 1.jpeg

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A consensus is not required. Deletion is entirely up to the closing Administrator's judgement. That being said, note that two Admins -- the nominator and the closer -- thought that the images should be deleted and only TaronjaSatsuma thought otherwise. I also note that two of the three images infringe on the copyright for the poster on the wall behind the speakers. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support per King of Hearts.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Prayetietia.png

Deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prayetietia.png

This file was deleted with this message: per nomination, not notable. But the only users to actually investigate the subject’s notability concluded that the subject is notable. The closing admin did not respond to my query. Brianjd (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, but I would ask for the original image with EXIF data. Not a small thumb in PNG format. Yann (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Child prodigy River Mason Eromosele honored by Harlem Fashion Week 2022.jpg

Hi,

This in fact did happen and he was honored at harlem fashion week for being a child prodigy. I can forward over video an a possible statement from harlem fashion week stating it did happen. if needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamikaWest (talk • contribs) 02:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High-resolution photo with iPhone XR in the EXIF, no reason to doubt claim of own work (I see other iPhone XR photos in their uploads). Previously posted to the Instagram of the subject (https://www.instagram.com/rivermason_/), who is not the copyright holder, so COM:VRT is useless here and the EXIF serves as adequate proof of authorship. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: as per KoH. --Yann (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:060219 StAugustineMassGregory.jpg

Please restore the following file:

I mistakenly tagged this image as “no permission” based on the source website’s terms of use. The images on this page are explicitly declared as free to use. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Emblem Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Alang Iskandar, Bagan Serai, Perak 2022.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am a student in the school and technically my teacher allows me to remake the emblem of the school. I hope that the page could be restored so people can take the logo for school design or maybe freelance also for the school staff usage. Thank you. Ashraf Syaamil (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Robinsons Place Bacolod.jpg

File to restoration due to building's copyright expiration, so it's free to be on Commons. Michalg95 (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Koran Pikiran Rakyat (Depok, Sunda atau Betawi?).jpg

This is my own cellphone shot and I don't think there is a copyright problem. Blackman Jr. II (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The article text (other than the title, which is probably below COM:TOO) is illegible, so I think it's fine from a copyright perspective. However, then it becomes a question of COM:SCOPE: what is the educational use of a newspaper article with a title followed by a bunch of unreadable gibberish? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed. It may be barely legible to an Indonesian reader, if it is, it's a copyvio and if it's not, it's out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Denise_Doring_VanBuren.jpg

Undelete request. This photograph is published by the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution with the express intent for it to be republished elsewhere, as it is a publicity photograph. Thank you. https://blog.dar.org/rise-and-shine-america-and-dar WindingRoad (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The source page which you cite above has an explicit copyright notice:

"© National Society Daughters of the American Revolution (NSDAR) | All Rights Reserved"

and no evidence of any free license. I see no "express intent for it to be republished elsewhere", and publicity photographs are almost never published with a license that permits commercial use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1992 Iranian banknotes (2nd time)

Hi. This is a request for files mentioned in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-07#1992 Iranian banknotes, we are in 2023 now and we can undelete them. Thank you. HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Copa FIFA Mundial.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This picture is my own work and there are some pages that need it. Thank you Pedromariagutiarejano (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Your photo infringes on the copyright for the trophy, which is held by the heir(s) of sculptor Silvio Gazzaniga who died in 2016. It will be under copyright until 1/1/2087. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of Latvia (Soviet colors).svg

On this page I discovered some comments told there are some Latvian people used the flag with medium red in some anti-Soviet demonstrations, and such flags were disappeared after the Latvian flag is restored with correct shade of red. I think it's reasonable to restore this file. --Great Brightstar (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This image should add more descriptions after restoration. --Great Brightstar (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Professor K. J. Ray Liu 2020.jpg

Hi,

The copyright of the image Professor K. J. Ray Liu 2020.jpg is owned by K. J. Ray Liu from https://kjrayliu.org, instead of from the website "event.ntu.edu.tw/distinguishedalumni/2021%E5%B9%B4%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83%E6%9C%8D%E5%8B%99%E9%A1%9E%EF%BC%8D%E5%8A%89%E5%9C%8B%E7%91%9E%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F/". The copyright is released by the holder for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts), indicated at the footnote of website https://kjrayliu.org. Could you please undelete it so that we can put it back to the wikipage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._J._Ray_Liu? Thanks!

Best, --YYY66 (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As a general rule the copyright for images is owned by photographer. Any license which the subject may have is almost always for the subject's use and does not include the right to freely license the image as required here. In order to restore this image either the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or someone else may send a free license together with a copy of the license from the photographer allowing that person to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Jill_Underly.jpg

This photo is the official headshot portrait of the Wisconsin State Superintendent that is available for media use and is the most accurate picture of her. It is public domain and not licensed. The photo that someone keeps putting on the wiki article for Jill Underly was available on an ad from two years ago and does not resemble her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Savannarose22 (talk • contribs) 21:36, January 2, 2023 (UTC)

Hi Savannarose22. A couple of things seem to be going on here. First, as you can see by clicking on File:Jill_Underly.jpg, it hasn't been deleted from Wikimedia Commons. So, there's nothing to undelete from a Commons standpoint. Wikimedia Commons and English Wikipedia are separate projects with their own specific purposes and their own respective policies and guidelines; so, what's happening over on English Wikipedia is not really something that Commons has any control over. I'm assuming that you posted here because this file keeps getting removed from en:Jill Underly by someone over at English Wikipedia. What I suggest you do is start a discussion about the photo at en:Talk:Jill Underly and explain why you think this photo should replace whatever photo is currently being used in the article. If there's a disagreement over which photo to use, then that will need to be resolved on English Wikipedia in accordance with en:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. From a copyright standpoint, this screenshot appears to be OK for Commons; it's not really in the public domain per se (at least from a copyright standpoint), but it does seem to be released under an acceptable copyright license according to the YouTube source. Any other contextual related issues associated with using the photo will, once again, need to be resolved on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not deleted; LicensedReviewed to put any copyright issues to rest. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Vivian Blaineová.jpg

The image was deleted because it was found on an autograph auction site and the reason for deletion was that it needed to be reviewed. That is a reason to go through the standard deletion process, not speedy deletion. I need to see it to find an approximate year. --RAN (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it is this photo: https://www.regisautographs.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/BLAINE-Vivian.jpg Ellywa (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Probably, I can't see the deleted one, more people should have access to deleted images. --RAN (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=657884750"