This website does readability filtering of other pages. All styles, scripts, forms and ads are stripped. If you want your website excluded or have other feedback, use this form.

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests - Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository < Commons:Undeletion requests(Redirected from Commons:UDELC) Jump to navigation Jump to search

Current requests[edit]


Request undeletion

  Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget. This is the template page where entries are added. Jump back to Commons:Undeletion requests for information and instructions. See also: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive. Closed requests will be archived after 8 hours. Currently 88 requests (3 waiting for archival).


File:Lettera Boratto p2.JPG[edit]

Please compare to File:Lettera Boratto p1.JPG which still exists on the commons. Evrik (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  •  Comment You are right, there is a dissymetry of treatment. I renominated File:Lettera Boratto p1.JPG for deletion to have a community discussion on the neighbouring rights. Should the file be deleted, we would have to also delete Lettera di Boratto per guasto Alfa di Mussolini. Should it be kept, we should IMO undelete this one. — Racconish💬 19:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment I lean towards supporting undeletion here. Abzeronow (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment The author died in 1970. So I suppose it is under a copyright until 2041. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Generałowie podczas Święta Wojska Polskiego 2007.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The license was valid. The photo was taken in 2007 and the licensor's license terms for photos from MON were changed in September 2013. There's more photos taken by MON on Commons. File:Gen. Marek Dukaczewski.JPG, and File:Jarosław Kraszewski.JPG were uploaded in January 2018. Both files were kept after starting the deletion request. User:Nemo5576/MON doesn't specify if the license is valid for files uploaded to Commons or MON before September 2013. Photos taken by MON before September 2013 don't mention their authors. ElCet (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @ElCet: I see two potential issues here:
    1. whether a permission issued in 2005 can be valid for photos taken in 2007
    2. as the service license has changed in 2013 it likely no longer allows to use their images that were not downloaded and reused elsewhere under the free license before this date.
IMO, we need at least some kind of confirmation of that permission, so  Oppose. Ankry (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Tontonyua[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable and extremely important part of Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020) announced by People's Government of Beijing Municipality. According to Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China, as well as Article 9 of Urban and Rural Planning Law of People's Republic of China ("All units and individuals shall abide by the urban and rural planning approved and announced in accordance with the law, ..."), these files are out of copyright protection. Where are copyright violations? WQL (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Shizhao, Jcb: Pinging sysops concerned. --WQL (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    •  Oppose - We do not work for the Chinese government. I see no valid reason why these files would be PD. None of the reasons for {{PD-PRC-exempt}} applies. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose How can urban planning law make something public domain? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jcb, Gone Postal: Because in China, all plans are enforced according to these texts and maps in the plan. Government shall enforce the plan in reference of these maps according to the planning law. And, in many time, maps are the ONLY legal reference. So, these maps have an obvious administrative nature, and are not subject to copyright, which meets the criterion of "resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs". --WQL (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Ok, that sounds reasonable, but I do not know enough about China's law to say more. There was that case where annotated legal documents were judged as public domain in the USA even though they were created by the private entity[1], so this is not unreasonable to believe that something that appears not to be "law" is still in public domain. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 10:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
        • In fact, all content created by government with administrative nature to all people are in public domain, and all these maps have this nature. In the letter Reply of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on the "Beijing Urban Master Plan (2016-2035)", the State Council said, "XIII. (The Beijing Municipal People's Government shall) [R]esolutely safeguard the seriousness and authority of the plan. The "Master Plan" is the basic basis for the development, construction and management of urban areas in Beijing. It must be strictly implemented. No department or individual may arbitrarily modify or violate regulations." Also, if there are any parts that are not covered in the planning text, planning maps shall be followed as the only reference. --WQL (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I disagree that these maps would be documents with an administrative nature. They are also derivative works of maps that are unsourced and probably not in the Public Domain. Jcb (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I have given sources in this request before (repeat them again:Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020)), and I affirm that my view is right. Also, in China there is no doubt that all government planning documents' copyrights held by the government. WQL (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
            •  Support This appears to be a benefit to us of China's system of government.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
            • copyrights held by the government ≠ public domain (in China). and see [1]: "以北京市城市规划设计研究院、中国城市规划设计研究院、清华大学三家研究单位牵头,30个国家级和市级权威机构、近200名专家学者参与了研究工作。",很难说这些文件与图表全部都属于PD(特别是政府完全可以以行政司法名义合理使用受著作权保护的作品)--shizhao (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
              • 或许我们也得看是相关机构做了这些工作是为了谁。您看,此类大型规划,政府必须向符合一级城乡规划资质的机构公开招标,同时也一定会拨给一定款项,所以我基于这一原因也相信政府拥有相关版权。--WQL (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Inclined to support restoration and keeping files that were reuploaded by a different user out of process. They appear to be "indispensable" to the proposed city planning Abzeronow (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


  1. []


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable part of The fact that the Indian border guards crossed the border into the Chinese territory in the Sikkim section of the Sino-Indian border and China’s position(《印度边防部队在中印边界锡金段越界 进入中国领土的事实和中国的立场》), a diplomatic statement announced by The Department of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China. According to Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China,, these files are out of copyright protection. Also, a part of vandalism of INeverCry. WQL (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  •  Support per nom.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Why there pics is "laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature"?--shizhao (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • It's an original (author: a part of PLA, affilated to Chinese Government) and indispensible part of a diplomatic statement, which clearly shows its administrative in nature. --WQL (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • It depends on the context, I think. My understanding is that if the pictures are merely illustrative - if the document is understandable without the pictures - then it wouldn't be "indispensable" and can be treated separately, copyright-wise. --whym (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support. Pictures are obviously captured *in* the official statement, which is a part of a PDF, instead of from a website that segments of "statement" and "non-statement" cannot be clearly devided. Statements are not text-only. --TechyanTalk) 12:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Teatro de Hierápolis, Pamukkale Theater 10216841227333395o.jpg 2[edit]

In Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2018-11#File:Teatro de Hierápolis, Pamukkale Theater 10216841227333395o.jpg, I asked DIEGO73 to overwrite the file in full size with EXIF metadata intact per COM:HR.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Type/Size/Px/Ppp DIEGO73 (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@DIEGO73: By "overwrite", I meant for you to use the link "Upload a new version of this file".   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I do not understand what is the problem here. I see no need to undelete as the version with EXIF can be just uploaded under the same name. Any hints? Ankry (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: A chronology follows:
  • 04:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC) DIEGO73 (talk | contribs) uploaded the file.
  • 21:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC) Didym (talk | contribs) tagged it as no permission.
  • 22:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC) DIEGO73 attempted to UDR it (creating the original UDR section), even though it wasn't deleted yet.
  • 02:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC) I closed the first UDR procedurally for that reason.
  • 11:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC) SteinsplitterBot archived the original UDR section to Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2018-11#File:Teatro de Hierápolis, Pamukkale Theater 10216841227333395o.jpg.
  • 13:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC) I opened this section, probably just to clarify what I wanted DIEGO73 to do in order to give us more confidence in his ownership of the file's copyright. I probably should have posted on his user talk page instead.
  • 00:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Jcb (talk | contribs) deleted the file as no permission because DIEGO73 evidently did not comply well enough. Certainly, I can find no log of another upload of this file.
Please do what you think is appropriate given the current state of the deleted file.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
IMO, let's wait a while. But if DIEGO73 does not intend to upload the version with EXIF under this or another name, this section could be closed. Ankry (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:461472 144118915720601 141251566007336 176409 1205232217 o.jpg[edit]

The file was deleted by User:JurgenNL for having no permission. However, it is found on English Wikipedia as en:File:Whangarei airport upgrade.jpg with sufficient author and permission information. Therefore the file can be considered to be undeleted. (But anyways, major cleanup and renaming process is needed.)廣九直通車 (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Info Uploaded to Commons on May 17, 2012, deleted on January 16, 2014, uploaded to en: on June 6, 2014. Thuresson (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@ThuressonThank you.Then how can I transfer the file to Commons without using Commons Helper? It just returned that the file was uploaded to Commons previously but was deleted here.(ERROR: Warning duplicate-archive : 461472_144118915720601_141251566007336_176409_1205232217_o.jpg)廣九直通車 (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
You have asked for the file to be undeleted. If the file is OK an administrator will undelete it. Thuresson (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The filename was identfied as a facebook photo ID and thefore tagged as missing permission. The upload to Wikipedia was most likely an evasion of the files previous deletion on Commons. I have doubt that any of Pilotjohn (talk · contribs)s uploads is realy own work (different sizes, no EXIF) and would keep the file deleted from Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

File:2018年台风玛利亚登陆前连江一户人家凉台花盆舞蹈.webm and so on[edit]

I request to undelete these files:

My reason: These files are uploaded to Commons first, so, I think, I do not need to do any claiming of copyright attribution. If these files can be found in other websites, they must be later then Commons.

Think about it. Other websites use files of Commons, then Commons delete its own files. It is ridiculous. - I am Davidzdh. 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

One year ago, a reply to Ticket#2017071410005022 has also pointed this out: If a photo is not appeared in other websites, you are no need to send the e-amil to OTRS. (It is also ironic that the photo mentioned in Ticket#2017071410005022 was requested to be deleted one year later because it has not been confirmed by OTRS volunteers.)- I am Davidzdh. 07:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

{{support}} nominated by B dash, deleted by Jcb → support. I know both these users for various careless edits and actions. If there are FoP cases they should be dealt with in a DR. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Go away with your clueless personal attacks! Jcb (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Factual observations are not personal attacks. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 Oppose - not own work by uploader, no permission from authors - Jcb (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: is this true? Are you not the author? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:Thank you for your attention. Please see my latest reply.- I am Davidzdh. 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: at least File:福州三中罗源校区走廊 01.jpg from the list was uploaded by Cyclohexane233. You converted a "no permission" from B dash to this DR. Any comment? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:, please see Special:diff/328083588. I checked half of the listed files (mostly those uploaded by User:Cyclohexane233). None of them can be restored without OTRS approval. Their source is WeChat or QQ. Some of them have been claimed to be own-work, but that claim is obviously questionable. I will check the other half later. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: thanks for this information. I have a question though: according to Davidzdh, some authors did send permission to OTRS, but were declined for using a free mail address. These are not professional photographers, so they can't be expected to have paid mail addresses. Does that mean it's now impossible to release the rights for these photos, even by the authors? That can't be how this was meant to work. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This depends on the circumstances. I have accepted many permissions from free mail addresses in the past 10 years. Permission from a free mail address is not a problem per se, sometimes the statement is credible anyway and sometimes we can verify a free address to belong to the author. Jcb (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I checked every single file listed above. At the moment, I can only  Support undeletion of File:华南优教研究所大门远摄.jpg, File:华南优教研究所大门及牌匾.jpg, File:华南优教研究所内.jpg, File:华南优教研究所大门.jpg, and File:高盖山公园大门.jpg per Ticket:2017043010001331 which has been processed by User:Taiwania Justo and partially by User:Wong128hk. I can confirm that the customer had been told that OTRS ticket was not required for their submitted files. This has also been reflected on the file history page with edit summaries written by User:Taiwania Justo (example).
Regrading your question, as I had already told you, OTRS agents do accept permission statements sent from free email addresses.
Each case should be evaluated separately, and there is no hard and fast rule. I may accept a permission statement which another OTRS agent does not accept. Such things are common at OTRS. I am not sure why these people send their works to User:Davidzdh and User:Cyclohexane233 rather than uploading them themselves, but if it has anything to do with Great Firewall, I would be happy to help them upload their works to Wikimedia Commons, as a user who himself suffered and suffers from Internet blockage. Maybe they can send their files to which is a different queue from permissions queue, or maybe we can arrange a custom license template similar to {{George Bergman permission}} for this special situation. However, these issues should be discussed and resolved at COM:OTRSN. Feel free to ping me there. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I know, but the messages from Davidzdh would seem to suggest the authors were turned down for using a free mail address. It's a special case and I hope a solution can be worked out. I doubt they can (or even: should) send anything to a address. Even if the firewall doesn't stop all communication: what if they take a photo of something the president doesn't like? This would result in passive censorship as they would hold back photos that may get them into trouble. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2:The OTRS numbers I have collected so far are:
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002114
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002098
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002892
  • Ticket#: 2018081310006494
  • Ticket#: 2018081210005988
  • Ticket#: 2017071410005022
If things are as you said, at least check these first, thank you.- I am Davidzdh. 04:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: I checked them. Some are still open. Some have been abandoned by the "customer" (i.e. copyright holder). That last one has been processed successfully: File:2017夏福州三中滨海校区址环境.jpg.
Nothing more can be done at this venue. Other enquiries should be raised at COM:OTRSN. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2:What does "Some have been abandoned by the customer" mean? “Abandoned” refers to giving up copyright or giving up authorization? - I am Davidzdh. 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: It means the correspondence has not been continued by the "customer". 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2:Hello, after checking, these users were told in the email "it was impossible to prove that the person who sent the email was able to represent the websites that originally posted the content", they were asked to post their own email address on the "original source website". However, the first time these files were uploaded was Commons. Does this mean that they should announce their email address at Commons? I am worried that this will damage their personal privacy. - I am Davidzdh. 07:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
No, they should tell the OTRS agent that there is no "original source website" and they have no "official email addresses". Please note that using boilerplate responses is common at OTRS system. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me explain in detail. These files were taken or recorded by who were able to do and sent to me. I went to their consent, filled in the author's name as they wished, and released it at Commons using designated copyright agreements.

Previously, after uploading the file, I would also ask them to send emails to OTRS. After I got the reply to Ticket#2017071410005022, I safely omitted the step to seek confirmation from OTRS volunteers. Because no website publishes these files before Commons.

In the summer of this year, these files were deleted (including the files which had sent emails to OTRS). I was told that I am not them (of course I am not them, I have already filled in the authors' names) and asked the real authors to send emails to OTRS. So I asked the authors to send emails. Some people (such as Ticket#2018081310006494) received replies from OTRS saying that "it was impossible to prove that the person who sent the email was able to represent the websites that originally posted the content". This is strange because the site that originally published these files is Commons. I think maybe OTRS volunteers think that these files were first published on other websites, and they want to declare copyright ownership on other websites. Other sites use Commons' files, but Commons wants to delete them, asks authors to request other websites that use Commons files post their names and copyright agreements, and then treat other sites as the sources of these files. This is not reasonable.

These files were not released on other websites first, then with the author's permission, the authors' names were clearly filled out and the specified copyright agreements were used. They had already satisfied the copyright regulations.

Many of these files have been used by the Mingdong Wikinews. This mass deletion has seriously damaged the confidence of the Mindong Wikinews volunteers. The enthusiasm of volunteers to post photos and videos on the news scenes is far less than before.

Please end this boring game of "deleting" as soon as possible.

P. S.: Some of the files were uploaded by Cyclohexane233. Since their problems are the same as the files I uploaded, they are presented together here. - I am Davidzdh. 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Skipping the OTRS process was not 'safely', it was a mistake. As you can read at Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS?, you should contact OTRS in cases where this applies: "I have received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons.". If the permission is valid, this case can be resolved by going to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb:Thank you for pointing this out. Does it means that I can use my own email to declare that I have obtained permission from the original authors? If so, I am willing to do so. This is not difficult. Because "I got the authorization of the original author" is a fact in itself.- I am Davidzdh. 04:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: You can, but we still need permission directly from copyright holders via OTRS. Have them carbon copy you on their messages.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 04:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb:Thank you for explaining. So what you mean is that, only I send emails stating that the original author is authorized is not enough, and I must have the original authors' email to participate in the authorization process, even though their email address will be treated as free emails and will be considered invalid, right?- I am Davidzdh. 05:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: Validity should be considered on a ticket by ticket basis, and I am not Jcb.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:I am sorry, but I don't understand the meaning of "ticket basis". Does it means that it depends on the specific circumstances and cannot give a unified rule? And, I am sorry to have pinged wrongly. 😂 - I am Davidzdh. 05:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: Yes.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 06:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A message from the copyright holder is necessary. It depends on the circumstances whether we sometimes may accept forwarded messages. Often the easiest way is to send a proper release text to the author with a CC to OTRS and ask them to 'reply to all' to say that they agree with the release. Jcb (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. - I am Davidzdh. 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Uploads by Accipite7[edit]


Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: this may be derived from file:Soviet_claims_to_Turkey_in_1945-1953.png. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately can’t see the deleted picture. If the map is essentially identical to the aforementioned work from 2011 (or 2010?), then further claims by Accipite7 dismissed, as coming from an untrustworthy source. But if the deleted map has no obvious third-party source, then the file should be undeleted. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually these two maps are very different in design and extensiveness of the depicted information. Also, the map by Accipite7 did not claim any third-party sources but only "own work". De728631 (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Accipite7. These files were deleted because there were doubts about your authorship, i.e. other editors did not believe you made these maps yourself. De728631 (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Overturn all this burst of paranoia, restore files and redirects. Look above – Steinsplitter may not be trusted with deletions when the pretext is own/not_own. Similar nominations by Christian Ferrer should be watched, too. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, i received a ping. There was doubt about the autorship of the maps, therefore the files has been deleted as per COM:PCP. As per COM:PS (COM:EVID) the user has to provide evidence, the user did not participated in the relevant DR such as confirming that the file has not been taken from a book. Especially the first one lookes like a COM:DW (scan) from a book (a professionaly drawn map). Please note that the user uploaded File:Холмская губ..jpg claiming own work, which has been taken from here. As far i can see the user just asked why the map has been deleted, if it is indeed his own work as claimed i am fine with having it restored and would thank him for those hig ql contribuations. Best--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    Convinced about Холмская_губ..jpg – the server date for [] is November, 2017, earlier than the Commons upload. Such things should be documented on deletion requests, not here. Yes, this episode damages Accipite7’s standing, I can’t now state that this user possesses a reputation any better than of these two sysops. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Добрый день! Да, я загрузил на страницу о Холмской губернии изображение с её картой (File:Холмская губ..jpg). Английским языком я не владею в совершенстве, поэтому не обратил внимание на то, что поставил галочку в том, что файл был создан мной. Прошу прощения - буду в дальнейшем более внимательным. Что касается двух других файлов - они были созданы мной. Прошу их восстановить.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream

List of files


Maybe the closing admin didn't read the deletion discussion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @BevinKacon, Gone Postal, Incnis Mrsi, Jcb, Slowking4 Pinging @Tm, Tuvalkin, Yann - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 Keep Comment This is totally unbelievable. Did Jcb even read the all DR and the undeniable proofs that this files were taken by the same photographer? Or again this is another speedy reading and speedy wrongfull closing. I´ve showned that the photographer was the one that took all this images and another 600/700 deleted before this DR by Yann. The quantity of images in use that were deleted. JCB sole reason to delete is "uploader has given convincing arguments why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted.". Well, i dont know about other uploaders, but i´ve shown that this images were correctly licensed, by the photographer and copyright holder. This is another example of someone not reading all arguments, as the ones pushing to deletion showed zero evidences of copyright violations, but i´ve shown irrefutable evidence that this files should be kept and the ones deleted by Yann should be also undeleted, after the closure of this DR. But it seems that evidences, proofs and links are of zero value, but only hearsay and unproven suspicious are of value. This is very, very sad. Tm (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC).

Some of the evidence, taken from JCB talkpage:

  • Now files are deleted without any proof? Yann didnt show a single image that was a copyright violation, only links with suspicions and nothing of evidence.
  • On the contrary i´ve shown that this photographer was the same. Need to read again some of the evidence? Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen, aka Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, is the same as the photographer "Lies thru a lens" or the Narratographer
  • This site [] was the website of Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen. The fact that this is the same photographer can be confirmed in the internet archive, where he says "Ive recently become a Getty Artist and have started licensing images through there".

Another proof that image File:WTF (8439080666).jpg, taken with a Nikon D3s, with metadata of authorship Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, is attributed to Dan Bowen Photography in [].

  • See all the archived pages in the Internet Archive and you will only see images taken by him, as he says several times.
  • Images, of the same person, in Getty Images and in Commons, with metadata
  • So as i´ve shown, by crossing this images with Getty Images is that Dan Mullan/Pinnacle is the same Dan Bowen Photography. As i´ve shown that the photographer in Getty is the same as in If you see the url "Portfolio" in [], you will see that it links to [].
  • Cameras
  • As i said before by Yann that said "have found at least a dozen different cameras, all high-end gears, and from different brands*Also why he used several cameras", dont you know that professional photographers change gear periodically, and as i said before he changed from cameras from time to time, always from medium ones to better ones.

Except for four images, one a family photo of 1914, three of Cameras (two where sourced from Sony with free licenses, and one from Nikon, albeit the three were without attribution), show in the first links of photographers sites were are the copyright violations. "Dan Bowen from Dalton, GA, USA (see also [2]" was an completly different style of shooting and models. [] and [] has zero images that were uploaded to Commons. The same with the websites of Daniel Rocha [] and [] that has zero images.

So, why in the hell did you deleted this images? Where are the "convincing arguments (...) why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted. Unlike Yann that links to sites of photographers that have nothing to do with this photographer, claiming that the images come from there, but shows zero proofs of any copyright violation on that sites, i´vw shown that this files are properly licensed and by the author of the images. Tm (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A link to the original source of all this clusterf*ck of happy triggers. Tm (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • So the "irrefutable evidence" that these licenses are valid hinges on the contention that Dan Rocha, Dan Bowen, and Dan Mullan are all the same person? That's a tough pill to swallow. Then again, [3] has someone named "Dan Bowen" claiming to own and [4] claims that the owner of is Dan Rocha. But I'm not seeing any evidence that Dan Mullan is these people. But his website has a contact page - has anyone considered just asking him if he is this other person or if they were stealing his photography? --B (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • But also, the file File:WTF (8439080666).jpg, before being deleted had metadata that said "Dan Mullan/Pinnacle". The same image, is attributed to Dan Bowen Photography. So "Dan Mullan is the same as Dan Bowen. The image File:WTF (8439080666).jpg is shown in [], as an interview to The Narratographer, where he says "Probably the images I used to take of my best friend, Anthony. He had this ability to make the stupidest faces I have ever seen and he was always the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with. The last time I saw him, he pulled this ridiculous face and I managed to get a photograph of it. I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it. It is now for sale across the world". Well this Anthony is the person depicted in File:WTF (8439080666).jpg.
    • But there is more images of this Anthony:
    • Also,before this DR the initial reason to delete the files, were given as two links. [] where an flickr user "colossal growth" complains of having its image stolen. If you click on the profile, it links to [], the same link that Yann claims was uploading copyright violations. So someone, on url [], complains in [] having its images stolen and Yann deletes the images linking that complain, but after says that [] is stealing said images.
      • And these two links were used to justify the deletion? You have the author, the same flickr user Dan Rocha, complaining of being stolen, and yet Commons deletes his images and accuses him of being the thieve?

      • The site [] was the website of Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen. The fact that this is the same photographer can be confirmed in the internet archive, where he says "Ive recently become a Getty Artist and have started licensing images through there". What images, the above

Dan". Tm (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

        • Obviously, Dan Rocha = "Lies Thru a Lens" = "colossal growth" and did not steal his own photos. This is Dan Mullan, formerly of Pinnacle, who now a staff sports photographer at Getty [5]. "The Narratographer" is unquestionably Dan Bowen. [] is named "Lies Thru a Lens Photography" and links to the Dan Rocha Flickr page. So I'm completely convinced that Dan Rocha = Dan Bowen. That seems completely indisputable. The EXIF data from the former File:WTF_(8439080666).jpg (viewable at [6]) does seem to link Dan Mullan with Dan Rocha/Bowen and I'm puzzled to think of another explanation since Dan Rocha/Bowen is so clearly and indisputably the author of this photo. That's the only evidence they are the same - because they otherwise seem to have completely separate histories. Dan Mullan is a professional sports photographer and Dan Rocha/Bowen seems to be more a hobbyist. I'd still say email Dan Mullan and ask. --B (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - there are so many questions here, that I see no other option than to delete all files from this stream per COM:PCP. Please note that in the five months this DR was open, not a single administrator has stated that these files could be kept. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jcb: That's a disturbing comment - I wasn't aware that only administrators' opinions mattered on Commons. --B (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • That's not what I said. But if one of the most experienced admins of this project nominates the files for deletion, actually an admin who keeps and undeletes files way easier than most of his colleagues, and then in 5 months not a single admin considers to keep-close the DR, then that is at least an indication that it's not evident that the file should be kept. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Or that it's TL/DR and so when there are a whole bunch of DRs in the backlogs, no admin looked at this lengthy one at all. But none of that is even relevant - what is relevant is that you aren't talking about the quality of the evidence, you're talking about the people who proposed or !voted. --B (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
          •  Comment JCB, first the administrators are not better or above the rules that others must follow. The fact that a single administrator did not said a thing about this files does not bear one thing and this is related to the second question, that you seem to forget, as to the fact that there is an backlog of DRs of almost 6 months and this DR is long as it is.
          • But much more important, what are the " so many questions here" to apply the  COM:PCP. Yann showed zero copyright violations. He merely found 4 images with problems, as 2 images had free licenses provided by Sony (not attributed originally but were kept and rectified), one was an family photo of unknown copyright status and only one was a copyright violation of Nikon. In 1231 images, 4 images with problems is not a proof of mass copyright violation. How many copyright violations did Yann found in the links he provided? Zero, that could prove is claim that the images "were collected from 3 or more photographers".
          • So an opinion of an Administrator is Golden Rule, but the opinions to the contrary of 8 regular users, as Alexis Jazz put it well, what me the uploader of a great part thinks, 3 other license reviewers besides me (Tuvalkin, Gone Postal, B) one file mover and GWToolset user (Slowking4) and extended uploaders+rollbackers (Alexis Jazz and Incnis Mrsi) also think.
          • My experience values zero, the original uploader of most of the material, and as someone that dealt with it for years and know it from the inside out, that has uploaded hundreds of thousands of files of hundreds of flcikr sources (museums, archives personal) and with a huge gamut of subjects, the experience and opinions of 3 other license reviewers, 2 uploaders+rollbackers and one file mover+GWToolset user values zero. Even the change of opinion of BevinKacon to keep this files, the one user that started this all deletion of files, values zero. But the opinion of 2 administrators, without any evidence of massive copyright violations, is the lsw, even if against the opinion of other 6 users and massive evidence provided to keep this files. 8 users with all the evidence to keep against 2 administrators with only their opinions to delete and than... i was delete because... because just yes, we can. Tm (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • comment i have just one question: how can i have any confidence that closing admins will reflect the broad consensus, rather than their own personal views in a summary way? i guess commons is not safe for good faith uploaders who are not prepared to run the gauntlet of endless questions. and it's great you appeal to an admin super-vote. it is unclear what it has to do with being an image repository. where is the standard of practice that might earn some trust: for rest assured, until you have one, you shall have none. at least the images here are at flickr, and not gone from public use, as the many previous personal collections, that have been deleted. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • As such a small percentage of images are copyvios, users should be given the chance to try and identify and list those for deletion. As meta data is all there, this shouldn't be too difficult. Yann accidentally began speedy deletion before the DR, so this was not possible. They should all be undeleted to allow this to happen. Otherwise, then a mass delete would be the next step. There is a chain of errors here started by yours truly.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that this makes the most sense - undelete all (including the 600 that were deleted before the DR) and then examine them separately. It's indisputable that Dan Rocha = liesthrualens = The Narratographer = Dan Bowen. So anything that we can source to one of them is a definite keep. Alexis Jazz had a very good point on the DR - that the ones with "Dan Mullan" EXIF data may have just been that they know each other and Dan Bocha borrowed a camera from Dan Mullan for the shoot. But Dan Bocha/Bown and Dan Mullan have completely different things they photograph - Dan Mullan is a sports photographer and none of the images in the DR were sports. --B (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Different names, different subjects, so how can you conclude to keep the images from that? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
        • @Yann: The same way you do with anyone else - if there is evidence of the image being published elsewhere by someone other than {Dan Rocha, Dan Bowen}, then consider it unlikely to be a valid license. If there is no evidence of the image being published elsewhere and it has EXIF data that matches multiple other photos he has uploaded, then we accept the license at face value. If you consider the assumption that Dan Rocha = Dan Bowen and that he borrowed a camera from Dan Mullen, are there any definite provable copyright violations? From looking at the DR, I don't see any - they are only copyright violations if Rocha and Bowen are different people ... and all of the evidence we have is that they are the same person. --B (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
          • As I have shown in the DR, from the available evidence, I arrived at a different conclusion. I find the reasoning that the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted, and much beyond what we usually accept here (not even talking about borrowing a camera from a professional photographer). Now, if you find an admin willing to support this claim, great. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
            •  Comment@Yann: No, Yann, you started your deletion spree based on links provided in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/07#Mass_delete_help, that you latter desmised asthat you latter desmised, in the DR, as "the discussion on [2] and [3] is certainly not a proof of anything". If it proved nothing, why then you started the speedy deletion of 630 images? You´ve shown zero copyright violations in the links that you provided (except in 4 images). In 1231 images, 4 images is not a proof of mass copyright violation, as 2 images had free licenses provided by Sony (and were kept and rectified), one was an family photo of unknown copuright status and only one was a copyright violation of Nikon
            • You now say that you "find the reasoning that the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted". Funny, but it seems that this has to be brought again. As you said in the DR, you used File:Shelby (8917502965).jpg and its metadata (EXIF: Author: Dan Mullan/Pinnacle; Copyright holder: PPAUK) as "proof" of massive copyright violations.
            • Aside that this is the first time that i see a mass copyright violator using always the same first name (and mind you i´ve uploaded hundreds of thousands of files from Flickr), interestingly you have forgotten to use the same criteria to show that all Dans are the same Dan.

            • Besides the fact that this three images were in Flickr in Dan Rocha stream, that they had full metadata, full resolution, you have the same person depicted in 3 cameras, in three different times almost three years apart.
            • But the nail in the coffin is the fact that Dan Rocha as The Narratographer gave an interview were he says the following " I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it". Of what images is he talking? He is talking of the images of his friend Anthony, the person depicted in the five photos above. He has to say about it "Probably the images I used to take of my best friend, Anthony. He had this ability to make the stupidest faces I have ever seen and he was always the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with. The last time I saw him, he pulled this ridiculous face and I managed to get a photograph of it. I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it. It is now for sale across the world.". What image is he talking? He is talking of File:WTF (8439080666).jpg, as the text is right below this image. You have the same person (Anthony), "the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with" (3 cameras), in 3 dates, 3 years apart. And remember that The Narratographer is the same as Lies Thru a Lens, as from at least January 10, 2016 redirected to
            • So will you continue to say that "the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted"? Tm (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: How is it convoluted? It seems pretty straight forward and indisputable that "Dan Bocha" and "Dan Bowen" are the same person. I'll try to lay it out very carefully and clearly:
  1. At [], "The Narratographer" is interviewed about images that Getty identifies as being Dan Bowen's images, such as [7]
  2. This interview, which was on February 2, 2016, links to ... a link to the site as it existed at the time is available at - [] - and if you scroll down to the bottom, all of the flickr links go to the "danrocha" user, aka "Lies Thru a Lens".
So either this was all a really big elaborate hoax - "Lies Thru a Lens" made up several websites solely to falsely take credit for Dan Bowen's work - or the more likely explanation is the simpler one - Dan Bowen was an amateur photographer who used an alias (Dan Rocha) for anonymity, then once he was discovered by Getty he decided to pull down all of the "free" copies of his work so that he could monetize it. --B (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

 Support undeletion per comments from BevinKacon & B. This should have been closed as Keep and any particular problematic files should have been dealt with in a separate DR. Abzeronow (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 Support I see a lot of deletion closures on that day by Jcb, all of them appear to completely ignore the arguments (note: I am not talking about the votes, I do know that it is not a job of the admin to tally them up, but rather to look at the points raised). I do not have a desire to go through and look at all of those deletion requests, but I think that somebody should, there're more than just this one that should probably be reverted. This is not a good way to fight the backlog. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
{@Gone Postal: This page is not and ought not to be a referendum on Jcb or any other admin, all of whom have a very tough job to do with the huge backlog. --B (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Admins have a tough job with the current huge backlogs. They can err from time to time, as they are human after all. UDRs should not be construed as anything personal about a particular admin, just relevant facts to a particular discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@B: I agree, so this is not a referrendum on any admin, only on deletion requests. And those deletion requests were closed without careful consideration. It feels that some people attempt to turn this into internet drama, this is not a place for that. In this specific case Jcb has made an error. I do not care if such an error was done on other days, and I do not care if this was done by Jcb. In this undeletion request I only care about the fact that a damage was done to a project, and we can undo that damage pretty easily unless we as the community will decide to bring up other issues into it as well. Admins have huge backlogs, I am a reviewer, we also have huge backlogs. If I were to review tons of files incorrectly to clear those backlogs the community would revert those reviews, and it would be absolutely correct in doing so, it would not matter if it were a referrendum or whatever. Not any opposition to a specific action of an admin is somehow a personal attack, but I stand by my words, that on that day it appears to me that there was a serious lapse of judgement. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Laurent De Backer.jpg[edit]

dag beste , Deze foto is door mijn ma getrokken in 1992, ik heb het negatief en het positief in mijn bezit . Heb de originele op mijn wiki commons geplaatst . Was een openbare plaats op podium buiten . Heb hem verkleind omdat het een kleinere pagina is . Op wat baseert u zich dat deze foto niet ok zou zijn dan kan ik er in de toekomst meer info bijgeven .


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo Van Damme (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This picture was taken by my mother in 1992 ; it's made smaller because it fitted in better (small page) , I uploaded the whole picture on my common account , I thought it was ok because the picture came on the page ? Ivo Van Damme (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ivo Van Damme: leeft je moeder nog? Foto's verkleinen is niet nodig, dit doet de wikisoftware automatisch indien nodig. Upload altijd de hoogste kwaliteit. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Mijn ma leeft nog .

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo Van Damme (talk • contribs) 17:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ivo Van Damme: in dat geval zal je haar moeten vragen om een mailtje naar het OTRS team te sturen. Zij is de fotograaf en auteursrechthouder. Als zij toestemming geeft zal de foto teruggeplaatst worden. Het helpt als ze meteen een grotere (hogere resolutie) versie van de foto bij de mail doet. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Wel dat zal rond nieuwjaar zijn dan zie ik haar , de foto is oorspronkelijk groter van het ganse podium maar ik vond het mooier op het kleine artikel , deze 2 foto's staan ook op Wiki Commons ter goedkeuring . De resolutie is niet zo hoog want dat was nog niet met een smartphone of professioneel fotoapparaat genomen (wat de amateurherkomst bewijst) en hij is uitvergroot .

Kan u nog even wachten met definitieve verwijdering , ik woon ver van mijn moeder . groeten Ivo

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo Van Damme (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ivo Van Damme: Ik ben geen administrator, over het verwijderen van foto's heb ik geen zeggenschap. Als het OTRS team de toestemming heeft ontvangen zullen ze de foto('s) weer zichtbaar maken. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

File:“홍대거리가 마비” ... 유앤비, 성공적인 버스킹 -UNB (디패짤).webm[edit]

the user JuTa said at the DR :"The youtube video is deleted, the license here not confirmed yet. There is no chance ever to get it confirmed." However, it has archived page and license info html screenshot. so I open undeletion request here. Puramyun31 (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I was going to contact JuTa about this closure as well. The initial undeletion request, which was linked in the deletion request, addressed the license concern as it was archived and is visible in the page's source code. This discussion was ultimately about whether performer rights was a valid reason to delete this file, which was never properly addressed in any instance when this file was deleted. xplicit 04:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 Support undeletion and reopening the DR as I see no further deletion rationale besides "There is no chance ever to get it confirmed" that may be false. Especially, as no input from JuTa here. Ankry (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
My response you can see here. --JuTa 15:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@JuTa: Thanks. Ankry (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: Just deleting of the video on the specific website such as Youtube does not necessarily mean the cc license is invalid (There is archived page and license info html code screenshot). and there is a user at this discussion (user:Explicit) who seems to be aware of this. also CC license is irrevocable. Puramyun31 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Puramyun31: I do not oppose undeletion; I just do not support it. The deletion at the origilnal site constitutes a "reasonable doubt" (per COM:PCP) here: we do not know the deletion reason (maybe the original uploader realized that they have not rights to freely license the video?) nor I think we can reliably prove the free license in case of a third party claim (and one of our goals is to protect reusers against such claims). However, if another admin disagrees with me, I will not oppose undeletion. Ankry (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
When I uploaded the video, I removed the sound of the video. the youtube user's behavior does not blanketly affect here.Puramyun31 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Request by Carlos Héctor Bonfiglio[edit]

Estimados amigos, Nuevamente ruego a ustedes reconsideren el borrado de las imágenes del asunto que han sido borradas:

esto son trabajos propios, aunque Francisco Pesqueira las haya usado en sus redes sociales. Ruego a ustedes amablemente que respondasn a esta solicitud. Saludos cordialesCarlos Héctor Bonfiglio (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose @Carlos Héctor Bonfiglio: If the images were published elsewhere before uploaded to Commons we need either a clear free license declaration at the initial publication site or a written free license permission sent by the actual copyright owner following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Roland Tisljár psyhologist from Hungary.jpg[edit]

According to the Hungarian description the photo is taken from a 2009 book. And there's OTRS ticket ticket:2012013110010674 freely licensing this book for Wikisource. Are there any doubts here? @Regasterios: was yuor nomination related some way to this ticket? More photos from this book can be found, eg. File:Imre Sándor (1877-1945) pedagógus, államtitkár.jpg. I assume this one photo was just missing the OTRS ticket link. Ankry (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ankry: It's thinkable that this photo is from the book titled A lélektan 80 éves története a szegedi egyetemen 1929-2009. See similar photos here, some photos with OTRS template, some photos without this. --Regasterios (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

IMO, it is clearly stated by the uploader that the photo is from this book: "Saját könyvből való kép: A lélektan 80 éves története, szerk. Szokolszky Ágnes, Pataki Márta et al. Szeged, 2009. 255. p."

Picture from my own book: The 80 Year History of Psychology, ed. Ágnes Szokolszky, Márta Pataki et al. Szeged, 2009 255 p.translator: Google translate via Ankry

(however, the information is misplaced: it is in the Author field instead of the Source field; but I do not think it is a problem). I think, the only doubt here is whether the ticket covers the whole book (with all images), or some explicitely specified images only. Ankry (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ágnes Szokolszky explicitly gave us permission for the text and the pictures: “Hozzájárulok, hogy a szöveg [text] és a képek [pictures] a Wikimédia-projektek oldalain a "Creative Commons Nevezd meg! - Így add tovább! 3.0" szabad licenc alatt kerüljön közzétételre”. My problem is that 1) this is a forwarded permission 2) I do not find any evidence about that Ágnes (who truly is the editor [szerk. in Hungarian] of this book) took these photos (or she is the copyright holder). Bencemac (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bencemac: restored. Could you, please add the ticket info to the file as you are the authorized OTRS agent? Ankry (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: As I wrote, I am not sure about that we can accept the permission (“we are unable to accept forwarded permission statements or proxy statements for legal reasons. Please ask the copyright holder to e-mail us directly”). Bencemac (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Bencemac: Feel free to renominate/speedy if you think the permission should be considered invalid. I cannot help you to take the decision. AFAIR, we in some rare cases accepted forwarded permission. Unsure if this is the case. Ankry (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Multiple images to be undeleted[edit]

 Support A few of my images have been deleted. All were sourced and the correct licence was used for all. The administrator who deleted the images said that they were deleted for 'Copyright violation' as I had used the PD-UK-unknown licence, without giving a reason that the administrator found acceptable.

However, I explained that the majority of these images came from a company called Bassano Ltd, or companies that were affiliated with Bassano, and that Bassano had closed in the 1960's. Therefore it is near enough impossible to find the photographer for these images, as if the National Portrait Galley, which has one of the largest collections in the world, does not know the name of the original author then unfortunately it has been lost to time.[8]

I showed the deleting administrator (Jcb) evidence, that supported my using of the PD-UK-unknown licence, including these previously unsuccessful deletion requests surrounding Bassano Ltd photos: [[9]] & [[10]], which had been kept by the administrators @Yann & @Magog the Ogre, as the original uploaders of those images had demonstrated that is one of the most accurate and detailed image databases and if they don't know the author, of the Bassano work, then it is not known.

The images that I was hoping could be undeleted and re-added are:

PicMonkies (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  •  Support as PicMonkies. Yann (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I really doubt that the authors of all these works would be unknown, that would be extraordinary. The bare fact that an organization did not document is does not make them unknown. These works are way too recent to assume PD. Jcb (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • That may seem extraordinary to you, but it is a fact, well documented by a notable institution. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with Yann, if the National Portrait Galley does not know who the photographer is, even though they would have looked through countless archives and done a huge amount of research, then no one will. PicMonkies (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support A very clear case this time. PRP means that if a reasonable doubt exists we delete, not that we delete when no reasonable person would doubt the public domain claim. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 15:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Question do we no longer care for US copyright status that would be 95 years since initial publication or 120 years from creation for works of unknown authors? (see Hirtle chart) Ankry (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support These apparently would fall under PD-UK-unknown. Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Question What about the URAA and US copyright? Should it be more enforced? Shall we need another DR discussion? George Ho (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • We don't need another DR discussion as there is a clear consensus, from multiple administrators and editors, for supporting my stance at having the images re-added. PicMonkies (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Please explain why you think US copyright is either expired or not relevant. Wikimedia Commons expects content to be free to use in both the US and its source country. George Ho (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support These images fall under PD-UK-unknown. 15:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for any photographs not older than 95 years created after 1925, as these are still under copyright in the US. --Rrburke (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@PicMonkies: Please see the United Kingdom in the table at w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. --Rrburke (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
@Rrburke PD-1996 states:
  • It was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) - All of these image were
  • It was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States - All of these images were published before the UK established copyright relations with the United States.
  • It was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries). - All of these images, as far as we can tell due to lack of information regarding Bassano Ltd, were in the public domain before 1996.

PicMonkies (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@PicMonkies: The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995 revived the copyright of works whose copyright had previously expired and which were less than 70 years old (in the case of works of unknown authorship). That revival took place on January 1, 1996. PD-1996 requires the work "was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996)." On January 1, 1996, works of unknown authorship by Bassano Ltd that were less than 70 years old were copyrighted in the UK, their copyright having been revived on that day. If you have a look at the Hirtle chart under the heading Works First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad, and under the subheading Works Published Abroad Before 1978, you'll see for works published 1924 through 1977 that were "[s]olely published abroad, without compliance with US formalities or republication in the US, and not in the public domain in its home country as of URAA date", the US copyright term is "95 years after publication date". Therefore, any Bassano Ltd file from 1926 or later is copyrighted in the US for 95 years after its publication date. --Rrburke (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rrburke: pre-1926 photographs with unknown photographers in the UK are {{PD-1996}}. But a mere allegation that URAA applies cannot be the only reason to delete. Abzeronow (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the pre-1926 files are probably fine. But it's not clear to me what's being distinguished here from a "mere allegation". At any rate, my overarching point would be that I've yet to hear an argument for why the later files should be considered PD in the US. COM:EVID is pretty clear that "the uploader must provide appropriate evidence to demonstrate ... that the file is in the public domain". I haven't seen any convincing evidence of that. --Rrburke (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
But then you haven't shown any evidence that they were not in the public domain. The photos were taken over 70 years ago and as far as we are aware have been in the public domain, since we have no evidence to say otherwise. PicMonkies (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@PicMonkies: You have the onus precisely backwards: we need evidence that they are in the public domain. If you have any, please bring it forward. --Rrburke (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Since all of these images are in the public domain in the UK, we have no reason to believe that they wouldn't be in the public domain in the US aswell. The photos are more than 70 years old and as I have shown with my licence are out of copyright. PicMonkies (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
If they were copyrighted in the UK in 1996, and were published 1924 or later, they are 100% copyrighted in the U.S. It's more than "reason to believe", it is a virtual certainty. Being expired in one country often means nothing when it comes to another country. Any of these Bassano prints from 1926 or later would still be copyrighted in the U.S. one way or another, almost certainly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
No, there is no certainty here. There may be several reasons for which they could be in the public domain in USA, all quite difficult to prove. The most obvious one is that if the images were published in USA at the time without a copyright notice (quite possible), they are in the public domain in USA. Then if they were published with a copyright notice, but the copyright was not renewed, they are in the public domain. Please do not present anything regarding URAA as certain. Nothing like this exists. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Being simultaneously published (within 30 days) in the U.S. is pretty much the only way it is OK. If it was published just in the UK with a copyright notice (or in the US only more than 30 days later), but then never renewed, then yes it got restored by the URAA -- not sure why you say it would not. It is true there is some uncertainty with just about anything, but the standard is to delete if there is significant doubt. If there is no evidence that something was simultaneously published, then it doesn't mean we *keep* -- quite the opposite. The policy:
Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle.
The part of policy regarding the URAA is mainly if the copyright history of the source country was not well enough known -- we need to do a careful evaluation based on the law at the time. France, for example, is more complicated. The UK however is known, being that they applied the EU restorations on the URAA date itself -- the current terms were the terms then. There is no way for anything created in the UK 1926 or later (and first published there) to avoid being restored, except if it was also simultaneously published in the U.S. If you can find evidence of such U.S. publication, fine, but absent of that there is significant doubt. Much like we should not delete when there is only a theoretical doubt of a work being in copyright, we should not keep when there is only a theoretical chance it is OK -- there is indeed a significant doubt that it is PD in the U.S. If anyone gets sued over such works, they would need to prove that simultaneous publication in court, and we aren't giving any help to them. Can we find evidence of any Bassano image being simultaneously published in the 1920s? Is there at least a pattern of it happening? It's the same for any work where we want to keep it -- we need to supply evidence. Many of the works may be PD-UK-unknown (though for the ones which come from the original negatives donated to the NPG in the 1970s, with no evidence of earlier publication, we don't even know that), but they also need to conform to a U.S. copyright tag. You seem to be arguing that since there is a theoretical chance it could be {{PD-URAA-Simul}}, we should essentially apply that tag with no evidence for it. Given the 30-day requirement, it seems to be we should be able to point to a dated U.S. publication of the photo at the time in order to use it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 Comment This interpretation makes a mockery of Commons:Public Domain Day‎, as we could undelete almost nothing. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
No, not true -- anything published before 1924, and now PD in their country of origin, can be undeleted. If there was a UK author who died in 1948 but had a work published in 1922, that is now eligible for undeletion -- basically any such work where the author died more than 25 years after publication. That will probably be roughly 50-50. And obviously, works previously PD in their country of origin published in 1923 itself are now eligible for undeletion as of two days ago, as the U.S. copyright has now expired. It does mean that day is largely meaningless for the anon-70 types of works since the U.S. is effectively anon-95. While restored copyrights suck all around for us, they are the law, no matter how inconvenient it is. I wish we could have kept with the 50-years-from-creation term that the UK had for pre-1957 photographs through December 31, 1995, but we can't. It would have been nice if the U.S. had been allowed to get away without fully complying with Berne, but other countries would understandably not allow that (and the URAA was the result). If we want to change policy to be only be PD in the country of origin, and rely on DMCA takedowns (or explicit deletion requests) from authors who want them removed given that they are not PD in the US (given the possible WMF willingness for that), it would be different. But following the PD-in-the-US policy, which is current policy, they need to be PD there beyond a significant doubt. The policy line you keep repeating (and linking to the mass deletion) was quickly followed by Commons:Review of Precautionary principle, where (per the summary) the consensus was to delete URAA-restored works where a careful review showed there was a significant doubt they are no longer PD in the US. Accordingly, the wording in Commons:Licensing was then changed to what I pasted above. The same is stated in Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/URAA review. So, deleting URAA-restored works (published 1924 or later) is current policy. There are certainly times where a review needs careful investigation of the copyright law in place in 1996, as they were often quite different than terms introduced later (thus precluding speedy deletion), but the end result still needs to be PD beyond a significant doubt in the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

In contrast, the recently closed DR discussion says, "Failure to enforce this policy globally is not grounds to continue to upload said content." Even when a mere allegation wasn't the sufficient ground for mass deletion, unwillingness to enforce URAA isn't sufficient to keep an individual content. If anyone here disagrees, he or she should request undeletion of that image. George Ho (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

That deletion request has absolutely nothing to do with this undeletion request. PicMonkies (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- I do not see any effort on the part of the uploader to contact the National Portrait Gallery to ascertain that the authors are indeed anonymous, or conduct any other inquiries. There are also concerns about the status of these images in the US. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @K.e.coffman: I don't see how contacting the NPG would make any difference. They already gave all the information they have. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @K.e.coffman, Yann: For anything made available to the public more than 70 years ago, figuring out the author *now* would not matter -- they would still be PD. The author had to become known within 70 years. If the NPG has no author information, then presumably there was no author information with the material -- they would supply that if known. (By EU rules, since these were works for hire, the author should have been required on the initial publication, with no 70-year grace period -- but the UK missed implementing that part of the EU directive.) So I have no problem assuming "unknown" status on them, if the NPG page lists no human author. However, I am wary of images based on the original negatives donated in 1974, as opposed to prints distributed by Bassano at the time of making -- that could mean that the 70-year clock started in 1974, if they were never previously made available, and that a valid UK copyright still exists. For anything based on 1920s prints, they would be PD in the UK today. However, any of the prints from 1926 or after would have had their U.S. copyright restored, and would still be under U.S. copyright for 95 years from their publication. The only way out of that would be to show simultaneous publication in the U.S., but that would need some explicit evidence. So if any of the above are based on *prints*, and are from before 1926, I think they are OK. Otherwise though, I have doubts. The NPG has in the past sued a Commons contributor (granted over a large number of images), so I would prefer to not give them a valid copyright argument. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I contacted NPG @ and here's what they said:
It is up to Wikimedia if they can accept the CC BY-NC-ND licence or not. As I say, we are happy for them to use this, but if they feel they cannot, then this is a matter for them. With Bassano images, even if the underlying photograph is out of copyright, we (NPG) will hold the copyright to the digitised copies we have made, and which are available on our site under the CC licence.
What this apparently means that (1) NPG's BY-NC-ND licence is not compatible with Wikimedia's licence; (2) To claim that an image is out of copyright in the UK, the uploader would need to find a different source other than NPG. Separately, US copyright is still an issue. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Show me where it is incompatible, as some editors and administrators have been saying that it is fine. You do realise that a CC licence means the work is free right? Wikipedia states 'A Creative Commons (CC) license is one of several public copyright licenses that enable the free distribution of an otherwise copyrighted "work"'. So I fail to see what point you were making here as the NPG has basically said we can use the images. PicMonkies (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Not all Creative Commons licenses are considered "free" for the purposes of Wikimedia Commons. This one forbids commercial use and derivatives, but licenses on Commons must allow both. For Creative Commons licenses, the means only CC BY, CC BY-SA, and CC0 are acceptable. See COM:L for more. clpo13(talk) 17:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Commons ignores NPG's claim of copyright on digitised copies as policy has us follow the Bridgeman case. Obviously, under current policy, a BY-NC-ND license is not acceptable for Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: The NPG is claiming copyright on the digitization. Commons (following the Bridgman decision) does not recognize those claims -- we follow just the copyright of the original in this case. The UK government said this as well: However, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright has expired. Some people argue that a new copyright may arise in such copies if specialist skills have been used to optimise detail, and/or the original image has been touched up to remove blemishes, stains or creases. However, according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. So, even by EU law, their claim is probably invalid as well. If Brexit happens, it may allow their old precedents to take over again, and it would become a more gray area in the UK -- but probably just the UK, and places like Australia which have the same law. But I don't believe it has been tested in court there. But, policy is Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, so any NPG claim of copyright / license on digitization is not grounds for deletion. If any of the above are from before 1926, and have no named author, they are probably OK. For ones since 1926, NPG may however have a valid copyright claim on the original in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: what I was trying to say was that the uploader would need to demonstrate that the image had been published elsewhere. Meaning that if NPG was the first to publish the image on its website, then we can't really say that the UK copyright has lapsed simply because the image was taken prior to 1926. Does this make sense? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Possibly, yeah. A number of the NPG images from Bassano were taken from prints, i.e. copies that Bassano made decades ago. For those, that shows publication at the time, which means any NPG digitizations should be OK if they are more than 70 years old and no author is named. For the ones which came from the original negatives, where we have no evidence of publication, yes the answer could be different. I can't see which is which for the ones here. Most of the time, I'm sure Bassano published them, so it would be a question if the lack of publication evidence amounts to a theoretical doubt or significant doubt in the minds of the admins. For me, I'd tend to be careful with NPG stuff. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 Comment - what was clear from day 1 has been confirmed in the meantime, involved uploader is a sock of a LTA, see en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron - Jcb (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
It only shows that I have an IP address in an area that is nearby to a sock, so nothing is 'clear' so don't make stuff up. I mean your reasoning for deleting my images on wikimedia, because you doubted 'that the authors of all these works would be unknown', turned out to be wrong. Indeed if you look at my edits on wikipedia they are only to add the images that I uploaded here to their respective articles, nothing more. @Jcb. PicMonkies (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Elisabeth Maria of Bavaria.jpg[edit]

Please restore this file by Franz Grainer (1871-1948). Thanks. Mutter Erde (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose The photo is apparently from 1939 (when the woman depicted, en:Princess Elisabeth Maria of Bavaria, shown as a bride, was married), so there is a URAA problem. 1939 photos are still protected until the end of 2034 in the US. -- Rosenzweig τ 20:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 Support Also please restore File:Adalbertprinceofbavaria.jpg by Grainer. Abzeronow (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • No, that is not the WMF point of view. They have said, when pressed, that we should not keep stuff that we know is copyrighted in the U.S. The original mass deletion was stopped because we did not have a lot of copyright history for individual countries correct -- i.e. many EU countries were still 50pma on the URAA date, and we were deleting stuff from those countries assuming the terms had been 70pma, etc. But whether something was restored by the URAA or always had its U.S. copyright, it's really no different copyright-wise, or free-wise. "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion" was the wrong interpretation to come out of that. I suppose that could be a community decision from their standpoint, but our policy is explicitly that we don't host stuff which is not PD in both the U.S. and the country of origin, and in ignoring the URAA we are knowingly ignoring that policy and hosting such files under a fair-use basis in the U.S., which they also forbade us from doing. If ignoring the URAA was an actual community policy we would mention that fact on Commons:Licensing. It can be frustrating since most restored works the author will not care about once they become PD in their country of origin,but in this particular case it could very well be a copyright owner which has sued a Commons contributor in the past.(the deleted comment was in regards to some other NPG works currently under discussion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In m:Legal/URAA Statement, the WMF has emitted a statement saying: if a work’s status remains ambiguous after evaluation under the guidelines, it may be premature to delete the work prior to receiving a formal take-down notice. My point is that the copyright of nearly all URAA affected files is ambiguous, as we need to prove a negative to be sure of the copyright status of these works. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In that WMF statement, the sentence just before the one you quote says that “[t]he community should evaluate each potentially affected work [...] and remove works that are clearly infringing.” (Full quote: “The community should evaluate each potentially affected work using the guidelines issued by the Legal and Community Advocacy Department, as well as the language of the statute itself, and remove works that are clearly infringing.”) And I don't see the US copyright status of a 1939 German photograph as ambiguous: it's still protected until the end of 2034. What is not entirely clear is the year 1939, because the upload stated no year at all. I assumed 1939 because the woman is shown as a bride and she apparently married in 1939. If we don't assume that, we'd probably have to assume 1948 as the last year in which the photographer was alive, and that would mean protection in the US until the end of 2043. --Rosenzweig τ 17:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that we may decide to host non-US works PD in home country and copyrighted in US under URAA-restored copyright, but we need a clear community decision to do so and, as Carl has said above, to mention this in our licensing policy. I also think, that WMF would accept such community decision; they always have a chance to delete content on DMCA. This would just potentially create more work for their legal staff. Ankry (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Deciding about a copyright issue today is already quite difficult. With URAA, we need to find if a work was under a copyright some time in the past. IMHO very difficult at the minimum. So was been any case in court about URAA affected works? Because so far all this remains a theoritical discussion. I would rather that we follow actual practice. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I hope that by “actual practice” you don't mean any of the variations of “we can get away with it” as listed at Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle? --Rosenzweig τ 18:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
No. I mean that if URAA is enforced at all IRL, who are we to do so on Commons? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the URAA has been enforced in court. A few examples from some searching:
  • Toho v. Priority Records: This was on some Godzilla stuff. There was some infringement of some sound recordings which did not need to be restored in the first place, but there was additional infringement of a restored musical composition copyright as well.
  • Toho v. William Morrow: More Godzilla; the films never lost copyright (and the character was infringed), additionally some publicity stuff was ruled to be restored, and also infringed.
  • Troll Co. v Uneeda Doll Co.: This was on some troll dolls which lost their U.S. copyright due to lack of notice (1965 case ruling), but then got restored. The restoration was not being contested, but was more about if the defendant was a "reliance party" (they were not).
  • Dam Things from Denmark v Russ Berrie Co.: This is on the same troll dolls; the dolls were restored but the case was remanded to a lower court because they did not properly evaluate the derivative works status in regards to being a "reliance party".
  • Peliculas Y Videos Internacionales v. Harriscope of L.A.: This was on some Mexican films which got restored. The ruling was again more based on whether the defendant was a reliance party (they were for 22 of the 29 films).
  • Alameda et al v. Authors Rights Restoration Corporation et al: More Mexican films; the District Court ruled infringement on 81 of 88 films. The appeal addressed the remaining seven; they were ruled PD in Mexico in 1996 (by virtue of being produced before January 1948 and thus PD in Mexico due to failure to comply with Mexico's own registration requirements at the time), and thus ineligible for restoration. The infringement of the 81 others was upheld.
  • Elkan v. Hasbro: This was on the Stratego board game. It was ruled simultaneously published in the U.S. and Canada, and thus not eligible for restoration.
I'm sure there are more. Some others are mentioned by reference. The URAA restorations have plenty of court case precedence now to be valid, if restored according to all the clauses in the law. They will use foreign law on the URAA date to determine URAA eligibility, and also foreign law to determine who the authors / copyright owners are. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, these are quite interesting and convincing, specially the Mexican films case, so I won't support any restoration here. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: @Clindberg: @Clpo13: @Mutter Erde: @Yann: Just FYI: @Jcb: apparently thinks that "the hypothetical copyright in US is only imaginary". --Rosenzweig τ 15:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

My personal URAA policy preference is more in line with Jcb, but I also can see the need for consistency on how Commons approaches it (either delete all the URAA-affected files or delete none). I also notice that Commons routinely ignores U.S. copyright in for example outdoor photographs of German sculpture in public places, so ignoring a nonsense law especially for art so we can actually have a useful archive is somewhat better than making Commons U.S.-centric in how we apply copyright law to works that are out of copyright in their source countries. But doing this by proposal is better than ad hoc deletion & undeletion decisions. Abzeronow (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The URAA is frustrating, but it is the law (and is not imaginary or nonsense -- it is the law that courts follow). The EU restorations are similarly frustrating, and result in many deletions of pre-1924 works even though they are just fine in the U.S. The policy User:Jcb linked to (COM:DIU) was quickly superseded by Commons:Review of Precautionary principle. Yes, if we want to change policy that is one thing, but current policy is to delete when a careful review shows a significant doubt. Granted it should be a significant doubt -- unless there is documentation which indicates otherwise, we typically assume publication around the time of creation for example, for U.S. term purposes -- but if it is likely still under copyright, then it is a problem. Any DMCA takedown or deletion request by copyright owners would be promptly followed, as we wouldn't have much of an argument against them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Files by Mostafa Azizi[edit]

It was my mistake. We could keep these photos with some help from com:Graphic lab (by blurring the background):

And I don't remember why I voted delete to File:Bahareh Rahnama.jpg. We could have it too. Hanooz 12:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

  •  Support Some can be easily fixed by blurring/cropping, and some are indeed covered by COM:DM policy.  Neutral about File:Bahareh Rahnama.jpg as its author is Mehdi Delkhasteh, although Mostafa Azizi claims to be the rights holder as the producer. Work-for-hire is probable, but I think it is prudent to directly hear from Mehdi Delkhasteh through OTRS system. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Due to the provisions on the use of the Swiss cross and the Swiss coat of arms listed here ([]), there is no copyright infringement for the FC EDA coat of arms. The referenced coat of arms protection law regulates among other things the commercial use (Swissnes protection) of the Swiss coat of arms. The FC EDA has no commercial background. In addition, the use of the Swiss coat of arms is reserved for the community only. FC EDA is de facto the official football representation of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA). In addition, private individuals may not use the Swiss coat of arms for goods or services. The FC EDA uses it neither for the marking of goods nor services. Tillaffolter (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tillaffolter: The main problem here is that you declared that you are the author, the copyright to the coat of arms belongs to you and that you are authorized to freely license it. This is doubtful. And unless this information is corrected here or you prove that it is correct, the image cannot be undeleted. Ankry (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Maureen Wroblewitz 2016.jpg[edit]

Three files were deleted on 30 December 2018 by jcb. The discussion was initiated on the grounds that the images (1) "don't seem legitimate" and (2) are "inconsistent with the other files of this user". Obviously, the first is no reason at all and the second surely is a reason which could not ever be ground for deletion of anything, i.e. the matter was raised without any reasonable or proper justification at the outset (by Senator2029). I responded to these non-grounds in a brief message. Someone followed up by asking for EXIF data and, due to my not at that time having a user page, I was unaware of the question or, indeed, any of the ensuing comments there. The rest of what was written discloses what then took over as the substantive basis for the challenge which was the absence of EXIF data on two of the three images. This I have subsequently explained to jcb who has chosen not to deal with the matter but asked that I pursue it here. I note that the policy requires editors to make that approach to the deleting admin before coming here and I have complied with that but the admin was just simply disinterested. I have the original files, of course, with the EXIF data and they are entirely my copyright. Due to my inexperience, I did not know of the significance of the EXIF data, nor did I know that the software I used to crop the original images was stripping the data out of the files. I can provide the originals with EXIFs if required but they are not suitable for publication as they are not cropped appropriately. sirlanz 07:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose @Sirlanz: The images were deleted per COM:PCP as missing EXIF and refusal to provide it is considered reasonable doubt about uploader authorship. Also, for any image that has been used elsewhere without a free license evidence prior to upload to Commons a formal COM:OTRS permission is strictly required. And, note, this is a community managed project, so community may decide to delete any image here. Ankry (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry:The misinformation bandied about here is astonishing. I offered, immediately upon becoming aware of the challenge, to provide images with the EXIFs. I have never "refused". My offer remains. I repeat my plea to be told how or where to provide them if they are required. Indeed, no one has explicitly even said I MUST upload files with EXIFs but merely indicated that the lack of them was cause for suspicion. I repeat that the grounds stated for deletion were that (1) someone thought they were inconsistent with my past activities (the most tenuous of reasons imaginable and certainly not derived from any policy meant to be enforced here) and (2) that they looked too professional (again, there is such a policy?). The second ground (of the only 2) cited now by Ankry is also entirely false. His is the very first suggestion in this debate that the images existed previously somewhere. They did not. Indeed, the challengers to them explicitly stated they could not find them anywhere. I ask Ankry to review his opposition unless he has some valid ground for continuing it. This is really quite an Alice in Wonderland situation now, completely out of control if people can spin flat-out fabrications like these. sirlanz 00:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sirlanz: What do you mean by "offerred"? Did you upload the photo version with EXIF? If you wish to offer it in a non-public way, OTRS is the only solution. Ankry (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry:So how do I go about that? If the images have been deleted, would it not be an affront for me to just go uploading them again (same images, just with the EXIFs this time)? Surely I have to get someone to permit that step, do I not? I have made it clear that I do not live in the Commons side of things and have no idea of your procedures here. How about a little positive assistance to make up for all the blatant misinformation that has led to this completely wrongful deletion? sirlanz
@Sirlanz: Community deletion should be resolved in a community-driven process. As lack of EXIF data was the main reason to doubt your authorship, providing images with EXIF is new data that allows image image restoration, reopening the deletion request for further discussion and gives you a chance to convince those who opposed. Nobody here can simply override a community decision as we are unable to verify your authorship on-wiki. This can also be done via OTRS; your choice. Ankry (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry:You have my thanks for taking time to set me on the right course here. But I do not have a clue how to act on "allows image restoration, reopening the deletion request for further discussion" because I thought that was precisely what we are doing here. Can I repeat, these are my original images and I have them with EXIFs and want to upload them to end this problem. If they have been banned, how do I upload them again with the same names or are you saying I should do new uploads with different file names ... or what? Or am I obliged to carry this discussion forward somewhere else? sirlanz 11:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Sirlanz: If the lack of EXIF was the only reason to delete the image, the next, reopened DR is likely to be closed as  Keep. If there are/were other COM:PCP issues there, COM:OTRS permission may be needed (that is a long way: 190 days now). Ankry (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry:Look, I can see that this is going to just look silly to you (and others) but do you know how non-plussed "the next, reopened DR" and "other COM:PCP issues there" leave me? I am a WP believer; it has such a central role in information dissemination for humans, that's why I'm here. But the arcane processes, ugggh. I guess I will just have to bone up on these two hifalutin expressions and try to work my way through this maze. I'm not criticising; everyone wants to get on with things efficiently and not get snagged on inexpert editors, but there it is. I may or may not be heard on this issue again. Cheers. sirlanz16:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Buenos días. Hace unos minutos este archivo en formato imagen me ha sido borrada por "motivos de violación de derechos de autor". Me gustaría aclarar que la imagen es propia y otorgada por el autor Al Dual para la creación de la página. Me gustaría que esta imagen siguiese figurando en la página creada para el guitarrista y que se me de motivos del incumplimiento de las normas de las licencias creative commons, pues como he aclarado antes, la imagen nos es dada por el propio artista. Un saludo --AgenciaG (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@AgenciaG: In order to restore the image either a clear free license evidence at the source site or a written permission from the actual copyright owner following COM:OTRS instructions is needed. Ankry (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


I first uploaded the file in December 18 with linking the source The wikimedia commons admin said that he deletes the photo because the license was not given at the website I referred and that I should talk to the admin of I just contacted her and she changed the website now and you can see that it is really a cc-by-sa license. So please undelete the file. --JD SD19 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Info The photo is declared now "© Kristoffer Schwetje Fotografie / cc-by-sa". I cannot identify license version, however. May it be interpreted as 1.0 or newer? No link to the license text either. Ankry (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

That is what I was asked for. I thought this would be enough to clarify, that it is really a photo which is free to use. I mean it is a photo of some official German youth delegates and we need it for our wikipedia article. What must be done that the photo can be undeleted? --JD SD19 (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@JD SD19: See {{Cc-by-sa}}. And AFAIK, CC-BY-SA licenses require providing URI to the license text (which I could not find). So I am waiting for others to comment on this. Ankry (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Escudo de Santa Cruz (Murcia).png [edit]

This is the official coat of arms of Santa Cruz in Murcia, Spain

text of the plenary where the official shield was approved. []Official coat of arms Santa Cruz (Murcia), Spain

--Jjaviert (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

From Commons:Deletion requests/File:Escudo de Santa Cruz (Murcia).png: "Proper license tag should be used if it's in public domain"
@Jjaviert: Which license tag should be used? CC0 is valid only if declared by the actual copyright owner, who you are not. Ankry (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Beryl Al2Be3(SiO3)6.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I took these photographs. I built the models that it they are photographs of and I set up the studio that the image was taken in. I own the copyright to these images. They are freely available across the web because I made them freely available. I have made ALL my photographs of molecular and crystal structure models freely avalable for anyone to use and download for non-profit purposes, as can be seen on my page at, where I include a statement on their free use. It would be useful if, instead of simply deleting images with no regard for the effects of those deletions, your administrators would ASK the contributors before deleting for more definitive evidence of ownership. We all check boxes to confirm that we own the copyright before uploading, yet your admin people appear to be able to delete images based on no evidence. Thesnark (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: Have you read []? Please share your interpretation of the conditions stated with us. --Leyo 20:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Leyo: Yes I did. It doesn't quite fit with CC or attribution. The way one would have to present the link is too narrow, doesn't work like that on all publications. We had those discussions before, where an author wanted to decide where exactly to put the credit, license, link. IMHO not suitable for Commons. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Photographs by Antal Kotnyek[edit]

Category:Photographs by Antal Kotnyek, Special:Search/insource:Antal Kotnyek

These files were deleted based on Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Photographs by Antal Kotnyek and Commons:Deletion requests/File:József Attila színház előcsarnoka, a Szókimondó asszonyság c. színmű szereplőgárdájának egy része, b-j- Szemes Mari, Náray Teri, Eöry Kató, Gobbi Hilda, -, Egri István, Komlós Juci, Báró Anna, Fortepan 10571.jpg based on charge, that Fortepan, who published them under CC-BY-SA-3.0, has no rights to publish these photos. However according tothis article the rights were acquired directly by Miklós Tamási from Antal Kotnyek during his life (and the collection itself than sold to museum), while Támasi is the founder of Fortepan, so he can publish them there using cc-by-sa-3.0. I cannot raise that during Deletion request, as "my" files were from these 296, that were deleted without further notice.--Jklamo (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Pancakes and Powerslams Logo.jpg UNDELETE[edit]


I am sending a request to undelete the Pancakes and Powerslams logo. I, the owner of the file, posted it on the Pancakes and Powerslams wikipedia page, after someone else started the page a few years ago. I wanted to make the page look more professional and business-centric after seeing that it needed to be updated after the person who started the page did not resume working on it, neither did anyone else.


--Cravewrestling (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

While the logo seems to be {{PD-textlogo}}, the Wikipedia article is likely to be deleted. And then the logo would become out of scope. So I suggest to delay any action here till English Wikipedia decision. Ankry (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Rep Scott Stone.jpg is owned by Scott Stone[edit]

File:Rep Scott Stone.jpg is owned by the subject person of the page and the website that was referenced is also maintained and owned by Scott Stone. Edit / upload was made directly by Scott Stone.

Website was referenced - probably should not have - only to show image is same person.

--Scottstone1775 (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Painting by Aristarkh Lentulov[edit]

Aristarkh Lentulov died in 1943 so these are now public domain in Russia. Some are also {{PD-US-expired}} Abzeronow (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

pre-1924 ones undeleted; other need to be examined. Ankry (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


This file is allowed to share under {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}}Johnson.Xia (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Johnson.Xia: Where is evidence for that on the source page? Ankry (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:ML author photo.jpg[edit]

ML author photo undelete request

This photo of Mark Landler was taken by my daughter, Caroline Landler, for the back cover of my book, "Alter Egos: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Twilight Struggle for American Power" (Random House, 2016). I paid Caroline for the rights to the photo and have used it widely to promote the book and other professional purposes.

--Mark Landler (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose @Mark Landler: For images already published outside Commons, we need that the actual copyright holder of the image (presuming the photographer) send a written free license permission following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:19860904 VOZ - Portada-PRIMEROS-MAGNICIDIOS-UP.jpg[edit]

El archivo es de dominio público es un periódico de 1986. lo que se puede es corregir los datos de la imagen para que los derechos digan que es de dominio público

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yurilizarazo (talk • contribs) 05:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Colombia states that copyright expires 80 years after publication (in 2067). And US copyright expire 95 years after publication (in 2082); unless one can prove that the magazine was published also in US. @Yurilizarazo: Am I missing something? Ankry (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Ankry eso es para obras literarias o similares, no para portadas de periódicos o de publicaciones de interés general por ejemplo esta iimagen "[]" que no solo toma una portada sino muchísimas portadas de revistas Yurilizarazo (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yurilizarazo: The mentioned page is probably based on de minimis rule. If there's a clear exception for such magazine covers in Columbian copyright law, it has to be described in this page prior to going further here. A Spanish speaking user with at least basing understanding of legal language is required for that. Any hints, which Columbian Act and in which part states so? And please, note: the images uploaded to Commons must be free for any use, including commercial and derivative work creation. Ankry (talk) 08:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ankry sin ánimo de ofender, me asalta una duda sino entienden el idioma, si no tienen los conocimientos ¿para qué editan, y peor aún para qué ejercen sanciones?, borrar una imagen sin tener la capacidad cognitiva para hacerlo es un sabotaje, es trollear, entiendo que para mantener un archivo, hay que organizarlo, etiquetarlo apropiadamente, pero esta labor no es necesariamente del que sube la imagen, sino por eso se supone que es una comunidad colaborativa, si alguien hace algo incompleto, otro que sabe, quiere, le gusta, tiene la disposición, lo termina o lo completa; pero lo que se ve es que no actúan con disposición de colaborar sino de censurar, de pedir borrar todo lo que no les guste, o de dar ordenes encubiertas, hablar de forma imperativa, de hagan, busquen, completen y que encima les agradezcan, es también una asunto ético que pidan el borrado sin siquiera intentar conservar la información que se pretende compartir, es decir sobre lo que trata la imagen, bien sea buscando una imagen similar o simplemente completando la información de los "formularios" que consideren ha quedado incompleta o mal diligenciada, y lo peor en búsqueda ladina de hacer acusaciones temerarias, violando la presunción de buena fe o de imponer sanciones contra los usuarios violando la presunción de inocencia donde la carga de la prueba se supone está en cabeza de quien acusa no del acusado (es decir el acusador debe primero investigar, buscar, tratar de conservar la imagen, la información, buscar las leyes que permitan hacerlo, y solo cuando encuentre que no es posible, que existe un acervo probatorio que puede llevar a la convicción que un usuario está infringiendo una norma, entonces si acusarlo pero haciéndole saber el porqué y todo el análisis que hizo, en lo que se basó, en las búsquedas que hizo, el historial de búsqueda de Google o Wikipedia o de su biblioteca, que actúan como una acusación que llevarían a la certeza que se violó la norma antijuridicidad y aún esto no es suficiente para acusar porque faltaría la culpabilidad y el dolo y la necesariedad de la sanción, sin que exista otra posibilidad que la de acusar para obtener una sanción a modo de recobrar la armonía perdida, de otra forma parecen matones, gatillos fáciles, carceleros, sicarios wikipedistas que asesinan la información) no digo que sea su caso, pero es evidente que hay un mal proceder de parte de las personas que piden borrados y amenazan con sanciones cuando ni siquiera se toman la molestia de colaborar y colaborar no es solicitarle al que sube la imagen que complete el formulario o hacerle caer en cuenta que lo llenó mal o de forma incompleta (como hacen los funcionarios de una empresa tradicional o de un Estado con una forma de gobierno burocrática y seudo-elitista) sino en como ya lo mencioné en completar por iniciativa propia lo que haga falta.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yurilizarazo (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"Any title, photograph, illustration and commentary on a current event, published by the press or broadcast by radio or television, may be reproduced in so far as this has not been expressly prohibited. Pueden ser reconocidas cualquier título, fotografía, ilustración y comentario relativo a acontecimiento de actualidad, publicados por la prensa o difundidos por la radio o la televisión, si ello no hubiere sido expresamente prohibido." "It shall be lawful to reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public news or other information on facts or events that have been publicly disseminated by the press or by broadcasting. Será lícita la reproducción, distribución y comunicación al público de noticias u otras informaciones relativas a hechos o sucesos que hayan sido públicamente difundidos por la prensa o por la radiodifusión." []Yurilizarazo (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Famicom diskcard.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The original source of ja.wikipedia said that the image was taken by ja:User:Gleam and can be relicensed to CC-by-sa 3.0. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 06:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

 Support undeletion. Ankry (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


Esta imagen es propiedad de Pedro Menchen, al que ayudo con la edicion. El Propio Antonio Beño se la regalo hace 30 años. Gracias

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmarpri (talk • contribs) 11:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Claiming that you are the photographer and own copyright to the photo (if you are not) is a serious violation of Commons rules. In order to undelete the photo the actual copyright owner (photographer or their heirs) needs to provide a written free license agreement or you need to prove that the photo is free of copyright in Spain and US. Unsure about Spanish law here, but in US unpublished photographs made by unknown photographers are copyrighted 120 years since they were taken. Ankry (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:BENZ OF1417中興號.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The original source is declared that the image is licensed by CC-by-sa 3.0 and GFDL. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 14:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hold: the original source is only indicated as "text", not "images." Therfore, I'm waiting for the author to change the declaration. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 14:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Update: the author changes the declaration from "text" to "image", so the permission is valid. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 12:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Wang Leehom - 2018 Golden Lotus Awards for Best Actor .jpg[edit]

The use of this photo was given permission by the website owner. It is also a photo released for publicity.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kievew (talk • contribs) 04:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Kievew (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  •  Oppose Please ask the website owner to send a permission by email as explained in COM:OTRS. Alternatively they can release the photo under a free licence directly at their website. That would actually the faster way to undelete it over here. De728631 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. Website copyright information has been updated. Photo copyright on IMDB has been updated Kievew (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kievew: Now it states: "© Free to use for publicity only". This is not a free license. Please, read COM:L for Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. Ankry (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Photo copyright info has been updated on IMDB. Please review and advise if more action needed. Photo copyright on IMDB has been updated Kievew (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kievew: Indeed, now [] states CC-BY-SA 4.0. However, I am not sure where to look for the photo author information in ImDB: the author atribution is required by this license while reusing (eg. uploading to Commons). Any hint? Ankry (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I personally own this image and willingly put it under public domain. When I spoke at WordCamp Lausanne in 2018, I sent them this picture to represent myself, that's why it's on their site. Since this picture was taken on my phone and I'm the owner, I would like to have it restored. Silvanhagen (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Contact COM:OTRS and convince them that you own copyright, also provideng a written free license permission which is needed for all photos published without evidence of free license on external sites prior to upload to Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

File:1959. Enero, 8. Inicio de la demolición de la Cárcel El Obispo, en Caracas, donde muchos políticos estuvieron prisioneros durante la Dictadura.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Image previously deleted, now on the public domain. Dates back to 8 January 1959, and images in Venezuela fall into public domain after 60 of their publication. Jamez42 (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

What is the copyright status of this image in the United States? If it wasn't in the public domain in Venezuela on 1 January 1996, it was most likely copyrighted retroactively in the US. De728631 (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: Hint: any evidence that it was published in US not later than 30 days after initial publication in Venezuela? Ankry (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: What do you mean it could have been copyrighted retroactively in the US? --Jamez42 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jamez42: Per URAA and "Venezuela" section in this table you need to prove that the photo was PD in Venezuela in 1996 (it does not seem to be) or that it is PD in US for another reason. Per general rule, photos published in 1959 are copyrighted in US till 2054 (95 years since publicaton); see COM:Hirtle chart for details. URAA introduced retroactive copyright protection for non-US publications that were not registered in US Copyright Office. Ankry (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Ehekulation (Ablinger, Hagendorfer).jpg[edit]

I own the copyright for this picture, I took it, how to undelete it? Jasmin Hagendorfer (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jasmin Hagendorfer: You need to contact COM:OTRS, convince them that you own copyright (likely for both: presented artworks and the photo) and send there a free license permission. Ankry (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Ukrainian coats of arms[edit]

Several coats of arms from Ukraine were deleted as "no source". Ukrainian coats of arms are {{PD-UA-exempt}}, and in most cases sources are easily identifiable from local government websites. Note that sources should normally depict the same coats of arms but might be slightly different renderings (e.g. jpg instead of png, non-white background etc.)

Thanks — NickK (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 Support per above. Ankry (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done: PD-UA-exempt. --Anatoliy (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


I attest that I own the copyright on this file, and agree to irrevocably release this file to Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kchanning93 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose On-wiki license declaration is acceptable here for unpublished images only. And unpublished logos are out of COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Comic Con Ukraine logo.png[edit]

Прошу восстановить файл так как он является верным изображением логотипа в отличии от того что в данный момент прикреплен к странице []

Так же прошу заметить что я имею 100% право распоряжатся данным изображением как его создатель и соорганизатор конвента.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcFossa (talk • contribs) 00:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose The source site declares "© 2019 Comic Con Ukraine. All rights reserve" which is not a free license. No fair use media can be stored in Wikimedia Commons. Ankry (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Red bollworm moth.jpg[edit]

I was asked to upload this and other files by Prof GA Matthews and I thought I had fully acknowledged his ownership. I haven't been able to work out how to upload photos on behalf of other authors (unfamiliar with the workings of WP) - could permission be granted by an email from him, for example? This is a significant pest sp. an I think that it would be beneficial for the photos to be included in WP. Can someone help please? Roy Bateman (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Roy Bateman: You provide no license information nor a verifiable source. Read COM:L about Wikimedia Commons license requirements. And note, that the license has to be declared by the photo author (the photographer). Ankry (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
And yes, COM:OTRS permission send directly by the author may be the right way in this case. However, this is very slow procedure: the mean response time is about 190 deays now. Ankry (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


I erroneously uploaded this photo under the auspices of me being the copyright owner, when I should have uploaded it as public domain or having permission to use it as the copyright owner in question has provided it both to me and on their website as free to use for any and all media outlets to use as it is from their Electronic Press Kit. This is why I am requesting the file be undeleted.

Thank you

The Wizard 666 (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose @The Wizard 666: "Free to use" is not a valid Wikimedia Commons license. Please read COM:L. Ankry (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Joseph Raphael - Still Life with Red Poppies (14711962119).jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Paintings of flowers

For the first file, please check it against File:Chrysanthemums 1912 sheeler.jpg. If it's the same painting, please keep deleted. If it's a different painting, then it's the 1923 painting that is in the Columbia Museum of Art. Which would now be public domain in the US (Sheeler was an American painter)

The other two paintings are by American painters. They are from 1916 and 1921 respectively. Abzeronow (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: The first painting is [11], unsure if the same. Two others restored. Ankry (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
It is the same painting but colored slightly differently. Abzeronow (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Veronica Alonso Montaño.jpg[edit]

Es la foto veraz de Verónica Alonso en Facebook, tengo los derechos de autor como parte de su equipo de trabajo

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfr555 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose @Mfr555: Copyright belings to the photographer, unless their contract states otherwise. For Images published elsewhere without evidence of free license prior to upload to Commons (and Facebook is not freely licensed) a written pormission from the actual copyright holder following COM:OTRS instructions is needed. Ankry (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)



I noticed the file to the wikipedia-article "Steven Bogaerts" was deleted because of missing metadata. The author itself however gave permission and mailed to (as asked) [email protected] the following statement:

"I hereby affirm that I, Steven Bogaerts, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work attached to this email. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Steven Bogaerts 2019-01-08

[generated using relgen]"

Please undelete the file, so I as editor here on Wikipedia can add the necessary metadata to the file to reflect this Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.

Sorry for the mishap!


--XanderDG (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  •  Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 190 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.

If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. Ankry (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


Buenas tardes.

Soy director de marketing digital de la senadora Verónica Alonso, en wikipedia registrado como Mfr555. Hace pocas horas subí en commons y vinculé a su perfil su foto y fué eliminada por el bot de Commons. La foto es real, fidedigna, tenemos todos los derechos sobre la misma, y la información relacionada a la misma es correcta.

Solicitamos su aprobación, Atentamente, Matías Rodríguez--Mfr555 (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Take note that the current backlog for OTRS is 190 days, OTRS depends completely on volunteers, who work as hard as they can. Ankry (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Newsletter image.jpg[edit]

Thunderrige High School Newsletter header

Please unblock our image for our school newsletter.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaharhigh (talk • contribs) 22:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose IMO Out of scope. Regardless of copyright issues. Ankry (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose per Ankry. This is a non-notable publication and the header itself is not educationally useful. De728631 (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Hagrid Dog.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Could be used to portray what hagrids dog looked like in the movies because there is not free equivalent other than this photo. Buckaroo bob 91 (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Not really useful. Ankry (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:NN Public Transport Smart Card.jpg[edit]

Reason: This is really a photograph of your own transport card, made at home. --AlexTref871 (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

    • I assume you mean that the photograph was made at home. Who has designed the Transport Card? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Музыкальная академия 2018№1.jpg[edit]

File:Музыкальная академия 2018№1.jpg

this cover belongs to The Music Academy magazine (i am aт executive Secretary of this journal [] ). Thank you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladim zh (talk • contribs) 09:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose @Vladim zh: COM:OTRS free license permission from authorised representative of the copyright owner is required in this case. On-wiki permissions are accepted in Wikimedia Commons only for unpublished personal works of the uploader. Ankry (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Face VVS-NUS ProfHoTeckHua-0192-Edit(HI).jpg[edit]

Hello, I would like to request an undeletion as I received permission from the National University of Singapore's communications office to use the image. The permission is shown in the attached e-mail chain, below. Please let me know if anything else is needed to undelete the image. Thank you.


Hi Rehan Thank you for your patience.

After examining the licenses that Wikipedia requires for uploading photos to WikiCommons, we have no issues with you uploading Provost’s photo onto Provost’s Wikipedia page.

So, I understand that uploading an image to WikiCommons requires a license such as one of the Creative Common (CC) licenses here, []

I used [] to view what each CC license entails in the list from Wikimedia above and it seems like “

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. CC BY-SA 4.0 Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 truetrue

— Attribution-Sharealike 4.0 license.“ (link) would work well for your uses as it has an Attribution requirement and users cannot distribute work (that is based on our photo, i.e. photo of Provost) under a different license.

Perhaps this is a license you might want to consider to use for the image upload?

Warm regards Daniel


From: Tan Yee Lee, Daniel <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 10 January 2019 5:53 PM To: Rehan Ali <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Wikicommons Image

Hi Rehan I’m sorry for the delay – I’ve been working on it and working thru multiple approaches.

There seems to be a requirement to allow images to be put on some sort of creative commons license – that might be the way to go.

I’ll get back to you by tomorrow.

Warm regards Daniel

Daniel TAN (Mr) :: Digital Content Lead, Digital Communications, Office of University Communications :: National University of Singapore :: University Hall, Tan Chin Tuan Wing, UHT #02-02, 21 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore 119077 :: +65 6516 1597 (DID) :: +65 6778 5281 (Fax) :: [email protected] (E) :: (W) :: Company Registration No: 200604346E


From: Rehan Ali Sent: Thursday, 10 January 2019 11:17 AM To: Tan Yee Lee, Daniel <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Wikicommons Image

Hi Daniel,

How are you? I just wanted to follow up on the discussion we’ve been having about adding images to WikiCommons. Have you had any luck in deciding or finding out how to proceed?

Please let me know if there is something I can help with so we can start to make NUS images available on the site.

Thank you!

Best, Rehan

Rehan ALI (Mr) :: +65 6516 6688 (DID) :: [email protected]

Dprrja (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


The reason for this request is because another user deleted this file incorrectly. USA Baseball created this logo and file so it is our own work and should be allowed to be restored to our page.

--Usabaseball (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose Deletion was correct. Copyrighted logos require written free license permission from the actual copyright owner following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Atzo Nicolai.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted. However, DSM has made this photo freely available (also credits- and royalty-free) to all press, explicitly including wikipedia and wikimedia. This was confirmed by DSM by e-mail (by Ms Fia Toonen, secretary to Mr Atzo Nicolai). Superhilly (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Superhilly

@Superhilly: Public Domain mark is not a license as requered by Wikimedia Commons, see Public Domain Mark. This is just information that uploader does not know of any (third-party) copyright restrictions. And any email-based permissions should be directed to OTRS, see COM:OTRS for details. Ankry (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Freedom of panorama: see also: [Ticket#2018033110001688] --Molgreen (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Please restore all images of the following categories:



--Molgreen (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Freedom of panorama: see also: [Ticket#2018033110001688] --Molgreen (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 Question @Molgreen: Why did you suggest that OTRS permission is needed for this file? Ankry (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I wanted to document the results of my research with the opening of the OTRS (see: [Ticket#2018033110001688]). (I had a lot of email traffic before uploading.) --Molgreen (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Freedom of panorama: see also: [Ticket#2018033110001688] --Molgreen (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Freedom of panorama: see also: [Ticket#2018033110001688] --Molgreen (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Freedom of panorama: see also: [Ticket#2018033110001688] --Molgreen (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Freedom of panorama: see also: [Ticket#2018033110001688] --Molgreen (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Freedom of panorama: see also: [Ticket#2018033110001688] --Molgreen (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:20170807 xl P1130844-ehrenmal-der-gebirgstruppe-am-hohe-brendten-bei-mittenwald.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Freedom of panorama: see also: [Ticket#2018033110001688] Molgreen (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:20170807 xl P1130847-ehrenmal-der-gebirgstruppe-am-hohe-brendten-bei-mittenwald.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Freedom of panorama: see also: [Ticket#2018033110001688] Molgreen (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Freedom of panorama: see also: [Ticket#2018033110001688] --Molgreen (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Freedom of panorama: see also: [Ticket#2018033110001688] --Molgreen (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


please undelete this file this image is realy photo of the film(simin)

Thank you

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Success2020 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I see no evidence that Wikimedia User Success2020 is the film copyright owner as you declared. Ankry (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Freedom of panorama: see also: [Ticket#2018033110001688] --Molgreen (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Freedom of panorama: see also: [Ticket#2018033110001688] --Molgreen (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Freedom of panorama: see also: [Ticket#2018033110001688] --Molgreen (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Freedom of panorama: see also: [Ticket#2018033110001688] --Molgreen (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Freedom of panorama: see also: [Ticket#2018033110001688] --Molgreen (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

CEO Robin Follman-Otta to undelete.jpg[edit]


Please undelete file CEO Robin Follman-Otta to undelete.jpg. I represent the person(s) who owns the copyright and have permission to upload it to their page. I even tagged the photo with a copyright status. Metallical (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Metallical

  •  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Take note that the current backlog for OTRS is 190 days, OTRS depends completely on volunteers, who work as hard as they can. Ankry (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plakat - Zur Abwehr! - Der Jude lügt.jpg[edit]

Public domain since 2016. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 18:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hassan Gouled Aptidon, 1987.jpg[edit]

Deletion request says that 2013 should have been the year to undelete this. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 19:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

If the work was copyrighted in Djibouti in 1996, it is unclear to me why it could be PD in US before 2083. Ankry (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I cannot really see the file, so it is difficult sometimes. Do I understand you correctly, you mean that due to URAA the copyright got exteded to 95 years from publication and that the date of creation is the year in the name, correct? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 19:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: This is a 1987 Djibouti poststamp. No authorship info provided. (There is author sighature in left-bottom corner, but unreadable in this resolution.) Ankry (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
If the author is identified, the poststamp should be copyrihted in US 70pma; unlikely before 2058. Ankry (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:4GTK 1944.jpg[edit]

This was deleted without any discussion after it was already restored. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 19:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Statue-Foch-Trocadéro-(Paris).JPG[edit]

Undeletion was marked as an article link rather than a category, therefore it seems to have been missed. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 19:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This article suggests copyright might also belong to another sculptor. Especially, after looking at the creation date. Ankry (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Karl Rickelt Blumenstileben 1924.JPG[edit]

Seems to have been forgotten. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 19:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

As a 1924 work it will be PD in US in 2020, or am I missing something? Ankry (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Sergio Marín.png[edit]

"Publication of a person’s portrait shall be free in so far as it is related to scientific, educational or cultural purposes in general or to facts or events of public interest or that may have occurred in public". "La publicación del retrato es libre cuando se relaciona con fines científicos, didácticos o culturales en general o con hechos o acontecimientos de interés público o que se hubieren desarrollado en público".

--Yurilizarazo (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose This does not allow me to print and sell T-shirts with this photograph. No evidence that the photographer licensed this photo with a Creative Commons license. Thuresson (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


"Publication of a person’s portrait shall be free in so far as it is related to scientific, educational or cultural purposes in general or to facts or events of public interest or that may have occurred in public". "La publicación del retrato es libre cuando se relaciona con fines científicos, didácticos o culturales en general o con hechos o acontecimientos de interés público o que se hubieren desarrollado en público".

--Yurilizarazo (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose This does not allow me to print and sell T-shirts with this photograph. No evidence that the photographer licensed this photo with a Creative Commons license. Thuresson (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


"Publication of a person’s portrait shall be free in so far as it is related to scientific, educational or cultural purposes in general or to facts or events of public interest or that may have occurred in public". "La publicación del retrato es libre cuando se relaciona con fines científicos, didácticos o culturales en general o con hechos o acontecimientos de interés público o que se hubieren desarrollado en público".

--Yurilizarazo (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose This does not allow me to print and sell T-shirts with this photograph. No evidence that the photographer licensed this photo with a Creative Commons license. Thuresson (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Byron Yepes.jpg[edit]

"Publication of a person’s portrait shall be free in so far as it is related to scientific, educational or cultural purposes in general or to facts or events of public interest or that may have occurred in public". "La publicación del retrato es libre cuando se relaciona con fines científicos, didácticos o culturales en general o con hechos o acontecimientos de interés público o que se hubieren desarrollado en público".

--Yurilizarazo (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Yurilizarazo. Thuresson (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


"Publication of a person’s portrait shall be free in so far as it is related to scientific, educational or cultural purposes in general or to facts or events of public interest or that may have occurred in public". "La publicación del retrato es libre cuando se relaciona con fines científicos, didácticos o culturales en general o con hechos o acontecimientos de interés público o que se hubieren desarrollado en público".

--Yurilizarazo (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose This does not allow me to print and sell T-shirts with this photograph. No evidence that the photographer licensed this photo with a Creative Commons license. Thuresson (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


"Publication of a person’s portrait shall be free in so far as it is related to scientific, educational or cultural purposes in general or to facts or events of public interest or that may have occurred in public". "La publicación del retrato es libre cuando se relaciona con fines científicos, didácticos o culturales en general o con hechos o acontecimientos de interés público o que se hubieren desarrollado en público".

--Yurilizarazo (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Procedural close, file is accessible. Any comments should be left at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marulandafirmaacuerdolauribe.png. Thuresson (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


"Publication of a person’s portrait shall be free in so far as it is related to scientific, educational or cultural purposes in general or to facts or events of public interest or that may have occurred in public". "La publicación del retrato es libre cuando se relaciona con fines científicos, didácticos o culturales en general o con hechos o acontecimientos de interés público o que se hubieren desarrollado en público". Además esta foto la tomé yo

Procedural close, file has not been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Rudolf Steiner 1889a.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rudolf Steiner 1889a.jpg

Seems old enough for PD-old-assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The "新黨" characters was done by Sun Yet-sen and has been into the PD. In addition, the yellow-oval background does not reach the threshold of originality. Therefore, all the logos can be in Commons. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 02:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "[]" Hidden category:

Navigation menu

Personal tools









      In Wikipedia

        Add links