Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Undeletion requests

Translate this page

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

Other languages:

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

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

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
34 copyvios • 3 adverts • 13 selfies • 5 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

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

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

Adding a request

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

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

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

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:EdaEce1990.png

I noticed this image was deleted, but I think it should be undeleted. It was taken from an official distributor channel (FOX) as you can see here: [1] I see the nomination says "The director of this TV serie until March 2020 was Neslihan Yeşilyurt. Since this director didn't publish it on Youtube with CC, we don't use screenshot here with CC" but we can safely assume the official TV channel of the show has the necessary permissions from production crew/director before "distributing" it. I mean, when do you see a show or film release from director's own channels? The director works on the production and the production company/distributor/TV channel handles the release and the distributing part. So for this reason, "because it's not from director's youtube channel" is not really a good argument to delete, it's from official TV channel page after all.Tehonk (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg

This file, a photograph of a bronze age helmet, was deleted by User:Jameslwoodward as a copyright-based restriction, but as I read the BCS license it is a non-copyright restriction, not a copyright-based one. I believe the image is allowable, though it may need a caution about possible limitations on reuse, such as {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} or {{Greek-antiquities-disclaimer}}. In discussing this with Jameslwoodward, he suggested there may be nuances in the BCS license that would benefit from review by a native Italian speaker. —Tcr25 (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read the BCS as a restricted copyright license. If it is not a copyright license, then we have no license at all for the use of the photograph. As Tcr25 says, I agree that there may be subtleties here that I don't understand..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: @Friniate: for their Italian language skills and Italian copyright expertise. Abzeronow (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, in 5.2 they state that BCS is not a license : "Beni Culturali Standard (BCS) : Questa etichetta non è una “licenza” bensì si limita a sintetizzare il contenuto delle norme vigenti in materia di riproduzione di beni culturali pubblici, definendone i termini d’uso legittimo." -- Asclepias (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asclepias, OK, but if isn't a license, then how do we keep the photograph? It's clearly a modern photograph of a 3D object, so we need a license in order to keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the file deleted, it's hard to know what other info was provided by the uploader. Is it a picture taken by the uploader? Is it from a museum? {{PD-art}} wouldn't apply since it isn't a 2D object, but does another valid license cover a photo of an ancient 3D object? —Tcr25 (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tcr25: source is https://catalogo.beniculturali.it/detail/ArchaeologicalProperty/1100094920#lg=1&slide=1 Abzeronow (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I keep coming back to the BCS algins with NoC-OKLR 1.0 (No Copyright - Other Known Legal Restrictions). It doesn't appear that there is any assertion of copyright over the photo itself; the Catalogo generaledei Beni Culturali's terms and conditions mentions CC by 4.0 and the need to comply with BCS. (There is a mention of Law No. 633, but there's no indication of who the photographer is, implying that it is the property of the stated museum. If the "Data di Compilazione" (1999) is the date the image was created, then the museum's 20-year copyright would have expired, leaving just the non-copyright restriction in play. —Tcr25 (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: Your conclusion seems correct. But I am not an Italian speaker either. The whole long document should be read in its entirety. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tcr25 on the reading of the BCS license. The link to the NoC-OLKR statement contained in the BCS license is broken, but we can read it here (english version here), and it begins with Use of this item is not restricted by copyright and/or related rights. So it seems to me that the BCS license is a non-copyright restriction, since in the text of the BCS license is said that it complies to the NoC-OLKR. Adding the {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} should be sufficient for what regards the copyright on the object.
I'm much less sure about the copyright on the photo though. The terms and conditions mention indeed CC-BY-SA 4.0 (actually that is something that is valid for the entirety of the Italian Public Administration) but they also contain a specific exception for the photos, for which is clearly said that is necessary to obtain an authorization from the owner of the object (in this case the Soprintendenza Archeologica delle Marche), which will concede it with the same conditions that are applied for the photos of the object taken by other people (these). You can try to obtain an authorization from the Soprintendenza, asking if you can use these images with the Mibac-disclaimer, they may agree. Friniate (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot to address the issue of the date of compilation. Yeah, it seems likely also to me that the photo was taken in the same occasion, but it's not clearly stated either... Friniate (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I actually nominated the file for deletion because of the NoC-OLKR statement (something close to {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}). But, if it is just a request, and not a copyright statement (in fact, in the very same page it is written that BCS applies to public domain artworks), we should consider the file/photograph as published under CC BY 4.0 license, like the whole website [2]. --Ruthven (msg) 12:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The general terms of use (which mention the CC license) begin right at the start with the familiar statement that it applies only "Dove non diversamente specificato", i.e. "Where not otherwise specified". The specific terms of use of this photograph clearly do specifiy otherwise with the BCS. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that's the Catch-22, the BCS says it's not a license, but if it isn't a license then the default license seems to be CC by 4.0 albeit with BCS as a non-copyright limitation on use. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CC license is excluded by the specific terms of use statement. Not every work is under a license or another. (And if a work was not copyrighted anywhere, it could not be licensed.) If the BCS tag means that the image is not copyrighted in Italy, either because this type of image is uncopyrightable under Italian law or because a 20-year copyright has expired in Italy, the question for Commons is if and how could that unlicensed image be used in the United States? A photo published after February 1989 is directly copyrighted in the U.S. (If the URAA is added, the photo would need to be from before 1976.) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"And if a work was not copyrighted anywhere, it could not be licensed" but that's part of the issue. The Italian cultural law, as I understand it, specifically looks to allow monetization through licensing of cultural artifacts that are no longer covered by copyright. It's not that a specific photograph requires a license, but any photograph of a cultural artifact would require a license. There is a current court case regarding the validity of this rule involving a German puzzle maker and Da Vinci's Uomo Vitruviano. Under Commons:NCR, "non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia." I'm not sure where the right line is here, but I don't think that we can say there is a clear copyright-based reason to exclude the image. If the image, like other parts of the website is CC-by-4.0 with the BCS limitation, wouldn't that be the baseline for the copyright status, not an unasserted U.S. copyright? —Tcr25 (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing is certain, it is that the image is not under CC BY 4.0. The photo might be in the public domain or it might be non-free, but it is not CC BY 4.0 because CC BY 4.0 is explicitly excluded by the website for such photos.
  • The nature of the BCS statement has some similarities with a "Public Domain Mark" (PDM) statement, plus non copyright restrictions. Commons accepts that the PDM can be considered as an equivalent of a release to the public domain by the copyright owner, if the PDM is issued by the copyright owner and if it is clear that the intention is to release the work in the public domain.
  • The problem with the source website Catalogo generale dei Beni Culturali is that it does not specify the initial origins of the photos, the photographers and who owns, or owned, the copyrights, including copyrights in countries other than Italy. The photos were possibly made for the respective museums. Depending on the contracts, the copyrights may have been owned by the photographers, the museums, or someone else. It is unclear how the BCS statement in the Catalogo can be interpreted. A possible meaning is something like "this photo is old enough to be in the public domain in Italy". But without details, it is not much use for Commons. If the ministry of Culture was not the owner of the copyright, the BCS cannot be interpreted as a release to the public domain by the copyright owner.
  • However, if we assumed that the ministry of Culture had somehow acquired the copyrights, we could consider the BCS as a release in the public domain worldwide. It is tempting to do so and to say that if they don't give details it's their problem. It is not very solid, but I would not object to that interpretation if there is a consensus for it. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asclepias here it's said that the entity which classified the object (and almost surely made also the photo) was the "Soprintendenza Archeologia delle Marche", which, although local, is part of the state administration. Here we can have more informations: we learn that the card was drafted by D. De Angelis for Consorzio Skeda under the supervision of G. Baldelli, likely an employee of the ministry.
    But I agree with you that the whole claim remains not very solid. Friniate (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that it is safe to assume that one organism (e.g. a regional Soprintendenza) of the Italian governement was the owner of the copyright on a work, then if another organism (the ministry of Culture) of the same government marks that work with a BCS statement, and if there is no contradictory evidence and no stated copyright restriction, it may not be unreasonable to consider the public domain aspect of that BCS statement as applicable worldwide and equivalent to a release in the public domain in countries where copyright might otherwise have subsisted. At least, they would be in a bad position to complain that readers interpreted it that way. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd like at least to know which was the contract between Consorzio Skeda (which is, as we can read here, a private company) and the Soprintendenza. The Soprintendenza probably supervised the process, but I think that we would need more informations in order to say that it's safe to assume that we can use the photo under US law. Friniate (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Friniate: There is no question about the free nature of the object. The question is indeed about the nature of the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asclepias Similar limitations as the BCS apply to all photos of objects classified as italian cultural heritage, also if you go to the museum and take one, for example. That is the reason why the Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer is embedded within all the photos taken within WLM Italy. Friniate (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such photos taken by Commons contributors are not a problem because contributors necessarily release them under free licenses. Such photos by Wikimedia Commons contributors are even mentioned in section 2.4.1 of the Linee guida per l’acquisizione, la circolazione e il riuso delle riproduzioni dei beni culturali in ambiente digitale. But the photo in discussion, File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg, is not a licensed photo by a Commons contributor, but an unlicensed photo from an external site. The problem for Commons is not the Italian BC directive. It is the absence of license and the U.S. copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make things clear, since if the BCS license is interpreted as a copyright restriction, that would mean the deletion of all the photos on almost every italian cultural object.I let other people more expert than me in the US copyright judge if according to the US law the image is ok or not. Friniate (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the very simple question: If the BCS is a copyright license then it is an NC license and not acceptable here. If it is not a copyright license, then we have no license for this photograph. I doubt very much that it is PD-Old, so on what basis can we keep it on Commons?

Also, statements such as "that would mean the deletion of all the photos on almost every italian cultural object." are not helpful. If we determine that this image is unlicensed then it cannot be kept. If we have many similar images that must also be deleted, so be it. We do not make decisions on copyright issues by talking about how many images will be deleted if we decide against keeping this one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not implying that we should keep the image for what you are saying, I only said that if commons deems as unacceptable hosting objects covered by non copyright restrictions as the BCS or the Codice Urbani, that means deleting the photos of almost all italian cultural objects. It's a fact, not an opinion, everyone can decide what to do with this fact. By the way, I was not even saying that in order to argue for undeleting this image. Friniate (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per COM:GVT Italy, According to article 52, paragraph 2 of the Digital Administration Code, data and documents published by Italian public administrations without any explicit license are considered "open by default" (with exception of personal data). In this case, data and documents without explicit license can be used for free, also for commercial purpose, like CC-BY license or with attribution. Since the photo is a work of the Soprintendenza Archeologia delle Marche, the COM:GVT Italy statement would seem to apply. If the BCS considered a copyright restriction, despite its language, then this does become a wider problem, as Friniate noted. Regardless of the decision around this specific image, I think there needs to be broader consideration of how the BCS limitation is considered/handled. Also, this discussion, once it's closed, should probably be attached to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg to update/expand the deletion rationale. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this matter we have finally a verdict on the lawsuit of the Italian Ministry against Ravensburger for the usage of images of the en:Vitruvian Man, which has clarified that restrictions as the Codice Urbani or the BCS are non-copyright restrictions which can not be applied outside Italy. Friniate (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again (third time) -- if the BCS is not a copyright license, then we have no license for the photograph. Apparently it is not a copyright license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you parse the COM:GVT Italy statement that such images can be used without an explicit license? —Tcr25 (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reference for that part of the page is a broken link. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a Wayback machine link for that reference: [3] I believe the pertinent part is on page 84: "In conclusione, ai sensi dell’art. 52 del CAD, la mancata indicazione di una licenza associata ai dati già pubblicati implica che gli stessi si ritengano di tipo aperto secondo le caratteristiche principali sancite dall’art. 68 del CAD, già richiamato nell’introduzione delle presenti linee guida (principio dell’Open Data by default)." The guidelines were updated in 2017 [4] and the executive summary seems to be stepping back from that broad statement, but I don't trust my Italian enough to understand the full thinking. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A brave administrator will have to decide this difficult case one way or another. For consistency, the case also has the potential to impact many other files. A possibility can be this: Unless there is reason to believe otherwise, when a photograph is tagged by an organism of the Italian government with the tag "Beni Culturali Standard" (BCS), it is assumed that the organism has the legal right to make the public domain statement included in the BCS tag and that the public domain statement is meant to apply worldwide (i.e. equivalent to a release in the public domain by the copyright owner, if necessary), while the non-copyright restriction also included in the BCS tag does not prevent the hosting on Commons. It could be expressed, as the case may be, by the use of existing templates, such as "PD-copyright holder" plus "Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer", (or PD-Italy when clearly applicable), or by the creation of a new template specific for the BCS tag. Another possibility can be to decide that such photos cannot be hosted on Commons because of the precautionary principle. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fortepan 213815.jpg

Please restore the file. There are many images on Fortepan that are legally unclear, Tamás Urbán's images are uploaded with a Cc-by-sa 3.0 license. On 2017031210011731 number ticket you can read his confirmation that his photos on Fortepan were provided by him under a Cc-by-sa free license. So the file is free to use. thank you! Translated with DeepL.com ) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hungarikusz Firkász: No, we can't. A VRT agent can. If a VRT agent confirms here that this permission covers the mentioned photo, we can go on. It is unclear to me if the permission covers (and even if it can legally cover) future uploads. Ankry (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Ankry. so hundreds of Fortepan images may be up because their site says they are available under a Cc-by-sa licence, when in many cases they have been found to be there in an infringing way.

But! The images cannot be up if the author has confirmed that he/she has licensed them to Fortepan under a Cc-by-sa license, and we have a letter to that effect in VRT.

So why don't you delete all the Tamás Urbán images that come from Fortepan? Why just this one? Where and from where does the ticket apply to the images? Since when does it not apply to them? Where and from when is it possible to upload a picture of Tamás Urbán from Fortepan and from when is it not?

You can sense the strong contradiction in this, can't you?

I know what the letter contains, when we received it I was still the operator. The content of the letter has not changed because I am no longer an operator. The letter confirms that the author, Tamás Urbán, is the one who gave Fortepan his images under a Cc-by-sa licence. ( Translated with DeepL.com ) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, does not seem like this should have been speedied. Agreed that a VRT agent would be the only one who could confirm, but seems like it should not be deleted until that question is answered. If VRT permission was supplied, then the uploader did enough. A regular user being unable to read a VRT ticket is not grounds for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) @Hungarikusz Firkász: The problem is that administrators are not able to verify what is inside the ticket. We rely in this matter on VRT volunteers who make UDR requests if they need and add the appropriate ticket numbers to the images if this is needed. In this case, no ticket was added and I see no verifiable information on your homepage that you are a VRT volunteer. Also, maybe, we need a specific Fortepan template containing the ticket number for this author? But this page is not a venue to discuss it.
We are not talking about any other image, just about this one.
BTW1, the link to the image is [5].
BTW2, pinging users involved in the deletion: @Didym and Krd: It is standard to do so.
BTW3, I do not oppose undeletion; just pointing out that referring to a VRT ticket requires to involve a VRT volunteer. Ankry (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Ankry, You don't seem to understand the situation.

In addition to this file, there are hundreds of Fortepan images and dozens of Fortepan images by Tamás Urbán uploaded.

For the hundreds or dozens of images, why are these conditions not expected? Why is this one?

Why is the ticket accepted for the templated images? Why not for this one? The same content of the letter applies in the same way to images of Tamás Urbán uploaded to Fortepan and taken from there.

For the hundreds or dozens of images that do not have a VRT template, but are Fortepan images and were taken by Tamás Urbán, neither VRT nor operators are required. Why? Why only for this one image?

Do you see why I see a very strong contradiction here?

Translated with DeepL.com Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I think all that happened was that the uploader accidentally put out a Cc-by-sa 4.0 license instead of Cc-by-sa 3.0. It would have been enough to put the correct template instead of the wrong one. Translated with DeepL.com Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hungarikusz Firkász: No. I understand. I do not think that any other image should be deleted and I do not know if this one should: that is why I think that the deleting users should be pinged and given time to answer (maybe thay made a mistake, maybe they have seen a reason that we do not see). The question why are these conditions not expected? Why is this one? should be directed to the deleting admins, not here. Here we do not know.
In my comments above I am referring strictly to your request and a VRT ticket reference in it: you suggested that a VRT ticket contains important information concerning licensing of this image - in such cases this ticket should be added to the description page (either by a VRT volunteer who verify that, or - as I suggested above - through creation of a specific template - if it is general permission ticket, referring to multiple files). If the ticket is irrelevant, just forget all my comments above. My intention was to point you, that referring to a VRT ticket as an undeletion argument by a non-VRT-member is pointless. Only that. Ankry (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: We could undelete until a VRT response is gotten, or at least convert to a regular DR. If there is a significant question like this, it probably was not an "obvious" deletion. Seems like somebody marked it "no permission" and an admin just processed it, but that initial tagging was maybe not appropriate given there was a stated license from Fortepan. The guidance at Category:Images from Fortepan does say that images do need to be checked, so agreed there should be a VRT or a specialized template on the images, or a specific category of them, eventually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{Temporarily undeleted}} per Carl request. Ankry (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have over 1400 photos of his in Category:Photographs by Tamás Urbán. If the VRT ticket seems to apply to all contributions to Fortepan, we should probably link 2017031210011731 in that category (and/or the parent, Category:Tamás Urbán). Would that need to be done by a VRT user? Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding VRTS ticket templates is currently restricted t VRT users by abusefilter. Ankry (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also over 1900 other photos are not categorized in that category. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 2017031210011731, it seems that Tamás Urbán's permission is accepted. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asclepias: Ah, thank you.   Keep then. Can we get a VRT agent to place that VRT template on the category? Maybe with that summary, to state that photographs of his specifically from Fortepan are fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm a bit puzzled by Ruthven's closing comment, "Kept: per Samat and Krd + discussion." But Krd was saying that the ticket was invalid. @Krd, do you remember why you thought that the ticket was invalid? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably why the images associated with the ticket were originally marked for deletion by Jcb: "It does e.g. not contain a specific license. It's not really clear to which files the ticket is supposed to apply, but it is stated that they are the author of only a part of the pictures."
Of course it doesn't contain a specific license, since it was just a request to have an answer from the author as to whether he really allowed Fortepan to publish his photos under the Cc-by-sa license. That is what happened in this correspondence. That correspondence is effectively a conviction as to whether Tamás Urbán's images are legally on Fortepan. So it is effectively not a license to the Commons or Wikipedia.
So it is strange that without any follow up we allow images to be posted from Fortepan (in more than one case it turned out that they are also illegal there, e.g. photos of József Hunyady), but for those images, there is a dispute going on for several days and several rounds, where we have received confirmation from the author that he gave his images under a free license to Fortepan, so their use is legitimate there, as well as here.
By the way, it's also strange that Tamás Urbán has the 2017031210011731 template exposed on many of his pictures and not on many of his pictures. Nevertheless, all of them are from Fortepan, but of all the uploads with no template and with templates, only this image caught the eye of the flag for deletion, and it was suddenly deleted.
Either we declare that the images from Fortepan are illegal and the confirmation letter is not valid, and then delete all the images from Fortepan, or we finally accept that there are images on Fortepan that are illegal and have been transferred to Commons, but that Tamás Urbán's images are not part of them, and leave them alone!
Translated with DeepL.com Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JDC 2024 ESL Pro League Season 19 by BIG CLAN.png

This file got uploaded with a screenshot based on the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJhuFF-tvQ&ab_channel=BIGCLAN with the licence "Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed)". I am not sure if I made a mistake, but previous uploads from the same source with the same license are still available. For example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xantares_in_2020.jpg WikJonah (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikJonah: You provided another video ([6]) as a source. It is not under the CC license. Ankry (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. I also recognized that not all videos from this channel have a CC license. I think I just copied the wrong link after uploading the picture, but the uploaded picture is definitely from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJhuFF-tvQ&ab_channel=BIGCLAN with the licence "Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed). WikJonah (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mana5280-GxoCbiR9C1w-unsplash-detail.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Uploaded with Upload Assistant under CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed (not CC-Zero), both the name of the author and the source have been added, along with many more infos. Rectilinium (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rectilinium: Please, provide the exact source of the files so that we can verify the CC BY-SA 4.0 license there. Ankry (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did Rectilinium (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Криворізький район 2020.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The information and materials presented in the atlas are free for copying, republishing, and distribution if they are carried out free of charge for the end user and if, during such copying, republishing, and distribution, there is a mandatory reference to the authors and subjects of property rights to this information and developments (the Atlas, p. 2). Rino ap Codkelden (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anatoly Berezin with his son, 1976.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I request to restore this file, because here on the website of the museum: https://mrkm.ru/novosti/k-90-letiyu-anatoliya-ivanovicha-berezina/?sphrase_id=8151. It says that all materials of the website are covered by Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. FlorianH76 (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photos by Lucian Wintrich

The following files are photographs taken by and uploaded to Commons by Lucian Wintrich. It seems he also uploaded some photos of himself, of which he wasn't the photographer, probably misunderstanding Commons' copyright rules. This led to some confusion at the deletion request, in which the nominator seemed either to believe that every photo depicted Wintrich, or just did not notice that several of the photos are photographs by Wintrich of others, since they wrote a permission from the photographer is needed. Maybe VRT is desirable, but in the meantime, these files should be restored:

Zanahary (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although what you say may have been the case in the first DR, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jvander22, the subsequent DR, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jvander22 (2), seems to conclude that VRT verification is needed. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Oppose Regardless of the copyright concerns, this appears to be out of scope. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Maybe VRT is desirable, but in the meantime, these files should be restored”. Doesn’t work like that! VRT is needed and once that has been approved, the files be restored. Bidgee (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The files may be restored. VRT isn't an end run around scope. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Могила Олега Кухленка.jpg

WP:TOO: this is a common type of grave in Ukraine, isn't creative (there are no decorations, portraits, and other visual designs to have some creative basis) --『Shiro Neko』Обг. 11:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Langfeld Family.pdf

I am looking for this to be undeleted in order for me to continue my work on this project. I have come across new information and new sources that are of better quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natascha.Stone (talk • contribs) 13:25, May 21, 2024‎ UTC (UTC)

This is in response to Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Langfeld Family.pdf. I can't see the file. If the .pdf is pure text of your own creation, then Wikimedia Commons is not the project for it -- it could be either a Wikipedia article, or on b:Wikibooks, or if raw material written by someone else, it could go on s:Wikisource. If the .pdf is a scan of source material, it can be OK here to serve as the basis for a Wikisource text -- but the copyright needs to have expired, which is the life of the author plus 70 years in many places. The DR claims it's an excerpt of a book, so how long did that author live, and in which country can the book be found? The book you link in the DR was published in the 1870s and the author died in 1883, so a scan of that book would be fine here, but it doesn't sound like that is the same one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:رضا حمیدی.jpg

File:رضا حمیدی.jpg این تصویر توسط خبرگزاری مهر تولید و منتشر شده است. اسم عکاس هم موجود است. میتوانید به لینک زیر مراجعه کنید: [7]

[8] در انتهای صفحات این وبسایت نیز چنین نوشته شده است: All Content by Mehr News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License تصویر باید undelete شود. --Boffin 2024 (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:رضا حمیدی.jpg This image was produced and published by Mehr news agency. The name of the photographer is also available. You can refer to the following link:

[9]

[10]

At the end of the pages of this website, it is written as below:

All Content by Mehr News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

The image must be undeleted. --Boffin 2024 (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Armadamusic-logo-black.png

This is our own logo, we want to use it on our Armada Music Wiki page

Stefan van den Hurk IT Manager Armada Music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanvandenhurk (talk • contribs) 12:56, 22 May 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Stefanvendenhurk: please contact COM:VRT if you want to verify permissions. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done: Per Matrix. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

It’s a official with permission from owner and event organiser

Why is the picture deleted, it’s a legal and official picture taken with permission at at public event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyfruit288 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

@Happyfruit288: Please provide a file name, and a valid reason for undeletion. "legal and official picture" is not one. Yann (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done: No response. Presumably they're talking about File:「馬來西亞賽區」中華小姐2024發佈會.jpg, which was found on Facebook and has a corporate watermark in the file. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Princess Aiko

This file was wrongfully deleted. These could be classified as government photos but I copyrighted them wrong, I take fault for that. But nobody claimed copyright over this because, well they aren't. They were taken by outer sources but belong to the Japanese government. Also the person who requested deletion never even responded to my first comment. (I am requesting more files undeleted so will copy this reasoning) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camillz (talk • contribs) 21:57, 22 May 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/Japanese Imperial Family uploaded by User:Camillz. Thuresson (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly there English is hardly comprehensible. They also bring up points more than once. Also the reason the author is unknown is because nobody claimed copyright. As I said these could be classified as government licenced photos. Yes, it is my fault for getting copyrighting wrong, I will say that. But these photos were viewed by many and nobody has ever taken a problem with them. Many people have also used these photographs. News websites ect. Camillz (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also with the hardly comprehensible English bit. Yeah my spelling isn't the best, but the English used by them doesn't make sense at times. Camillz (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the claim is that the media companies were using the images sourced from an official royal/state image that was available as public domain or under an open license, then simply provide a copy of the source image or other demonstration of the images' copyright (or lack there of) status. Without that, the images need to remain deleted. —Tcr25 (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose - Nonsense request. Per COM:EVID: "In all cases the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate either that the file is in the public domain or that the copyright owner has released it under a suitable license." (underline added) This has not been done at upload, at the DR, or here. Acknowledgement that the author is unknown ("reason the author is unknown is because nobody claimed copyright") is acknowledgement that there is no basis to claim these are government photos. Copyright subsists upon creation, and does not need to be "claimed". That the author is not known to the uploader personally, or was not indicated on the site from which these images were taken, is without meaning. Эlcobbola talk 15:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done: per Elcobbola. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:علیرضا در سال ۲۰۲۴.jpg

--Minated (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose This selfie is their only contribution on any project. Clear F10. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sharissa 2024.jpg

The photo is my property. There is zero possibility of copyright infringement. The current image has been set as a form of bullying.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaterSlayer357 (talk • contribs)

Hi, I was the one who nominated the file for deletion. It was my perception that you found the picture on Sharissa's Twitter account. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Oppose Previously published at https://twitter.com/SharissaSings/status/1789263212300419128. COM:VRT is required. I also deleted your second upload of the same image. Do not upload it again; if the determination is made that you own the copyright and the image is in COM:SCOPE, the original upload will be undeleted. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=840982298"