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:UNDELC) 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 67 requests (0 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)
 Question which license template should be applicable if undeleted? Ankry (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2019 (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)
  •  Comment Looks like OTRS is starting to process some of these tickets. Abzeronow (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2019 (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)

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)

@Abzeronow: @Clindberg: @Clpo13: @Mutter Erde: @Yann: @Jcb:: At the request of Yann, I've now started a discussion about the URAA problem at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#URAA revisited in 2019. --Rosenzweig τ 14:39, 20 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)


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: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)

Seems reasonable to me. @Bencemac: any comments? And I suggest providing this info (with fill file list) to OTRS that a Hungarian speaking agent can verify this information and properly mark the images. after the files are undeleted. Ankry (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
[Insert sad face here.] I remember this article; I have contacted the so-called journalist and asked whether the statements in the article are actually, how to put it, true; she told me to leave her alone, she only "typed in the article" and what's been said by Mr. Tamasi wasn't either fact-checked or actually thought about, and she do not quite care whether it's been false or not. I had the impression that she wasn't quite happy that someone actually asking about facts backing up the article and I also had the feeling that she haven't spent a second more than was required to ask the questions and type in the answers. My opinion, based on the recurring communication between various people and Mr. Tamasi is that Mr. Tamasi does not always tell the truth, but omit details or add non-existing ones, and I do not think that what he says would stand at the courts. He is also smart enough never to say that he is actually responsible for his own statements and he never make a definitive answer to copyright related questions. He also stated that he does not, and he never will prove his statements by any documents or written material, and everything happens verbally or being assumed (or most of the case "who cares the legal f*ckery").
The general question is whether we delegate the responsibility, and say "Mr. Tamasi made a legally sound statement here and there in writing and we have to assume that he is telling the truth; would it turn out that he was lying he does have the financial and legal responsibilities", and hope that we (whoever "we" are?) can convince the courts that we are not responsible apart from asking a fitting statement. (I am pretty sure that Wikimedia Legal would not agree.) --grin 16:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose Before the DR, the Hungarian OTRS-team discussed the situation; Fortepan is a long-term issue and we are not doing this for “fun”. Please read User:Grin/ Bencemac (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose per above and precedent DRs and failure of this nomination to address the concerns. The lack of clarity, contradictions, and other issues noted in earlier discussions make this a clear COM:PRP issue. Эlcobbola talk 20:18, 22 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)
Thanks. Didn't notice that File:Lentulov Lady in Blue.jpg was a forgery so that obviously should stay deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 18:14, 19 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)

So  Neutral: I think I need a second opinion on this. Ankry (talk) 16:04, 20 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)
@Ankry: The image is provided by an IMDbPro member on IMDB, and was originally supplied by the artist's publicity team ([email protected]) for media press release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kievew (talk • contribs) 21 January 2019 02:29 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
We do not know if the artist who is not the author is allowed by their contract to make it freely licensed. And publishing an image as CC-BY-SA without correct attribution is likely a copyright violation (so this raise some doubts here, IMO). If no other information about required attribution is provided, we should attribute the author (photographer). Who are they? I do not oppose strongly, but it seems that nobody supports undeletion here. I suggest asking the copyright holder for a proper OTRS permission in this doubtful case. But, maybe somebody else has a different opinion; just let's wait. Ankry (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


The logotype for the FRnOG informal organisation has been deleted on grounds of copyright doubts.

The organisation's website states it holds no copyright whatsoever (last line on [], in french).

Please bring back this content, so it could be used in a new page about the organization.

Thanks !

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiwawa 42 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose (1) I found no information on the above page that the logo is available under the {{cc-zero}} license, and (2) the logo seems to be out of scope (eg. I found no evidence that the logo owner is notable for Wikipedia). Ankry (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 Comment I know nothing about the licence, thus I must assume that per COM:PRP we cannot undelete, however, it is important not to spread misinformation by suggesting that only images for Wikipedia can be hosted here. While it is true that every image that is in scope of Wikipedia is also in scope here, it is absolutely false to say that every image that is outside of scope of Wikipedia is also out of scope here. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 08:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia was an example in this case. We consider as in scope logos used in any Wikimedia project. However, we generally do not store logos (unlike some other images) for use only in external services. Ankry (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
There is CC-BY-ND license here but it seems to apply to videos only. And this license is not acceptable for Commons. Ankry (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Mohfouadeg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: these are not copy right as they are family heritage scanned photos since 1975 that is more than 40 years ago. Mohfouadeg (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mohfouadeg: Who is the photographer / who are the photographers? Were the photos published? where and when? (at least the last photo was - and it is unlikely that the English book the photo was scanned from was published in Egypt). AFAIK, copyright terms for such photos depend on publication date in Egypt. Ankry (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Capitan Francisco Perez-Perez and mechanic with the truck going across the desert.jpg[edit]

I think I finally found the right place to inquire about the deletion of the photos I uploaded. These are pictures I own. They are originals that I inherited from my grandfather, Francisco Perez-Perez. I have a few photos taken of this journey. He was in the Spanish military assigned to the Western Sahara - a village then called Rio de Oro - then La Aguera --- now a part of Mauritania. I am not sure why you claim the photos are derivatives? I scanned the original photos and uploaded to your site. I understand that the images scanned will be public domain.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Alice Campanella --- granddaughter of Capitan Francisco Perez-Perez

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Campanella (talk • contribs) 02:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alice Campanella: claiming that you are the author of this photo is false. You may be the author of the photo scan, which is a derivative (copy) of original photo. Why do you claim that the photos are PD? We need some evidence for that (eg. the photographer name, death date and nationality, information whether and where the photo was already published, etc.). Plase note, that anonymous unpublished photos are PD in US 120 years since creation. And this one is not pre-1899. Ankry (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I am beyond confused by your determination that I have lied about these photos. I have taken copies of the originals in my photo albums as a way to prove to you that they are original. What I have scanned the original photo several times and MAYBE when I crop the picture, you then assume it is fake. But I crop it only because the original is a 1x3 inch (old photos had odd sizes).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Campanella (talk • contribs) 02:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I have uploaded 3 pictures of my original photos in hope that you will see that they are ORIGINALS.Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Campanella (talk • contribs) 02:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Alice Campanella: Having a photo copy in your album does not give you copyright to it. "Original" photo in this case is likely the negative. And the author is the photographer who made the photo in 1932 using a photo-camera. I do not believe that you made the photo in 1932 perrsonally. And, as I noted above, the original author's copyright is unlikely to expire (can you prove that the photographer died before 1949?).
And, if you are not the original author (who made the photo in 1932) we need a written permission from the actual copyright owner (maybe you, if you are the heir of the photographer) sent following COM:OTRS instructions. You may be asked by the OTRS agent for some explanation, however. Ankry (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, I am the owner. My grandfather was the original owner as he had a friend take the picture with my grandfather's camera. My grandfather died, My mother inherited the pictures. She died, and now I own the pictures. Negatives do not exist for these photos today. Do you want me to contact the OTRS to pursue this further with them? or is your decision final? If you continue to claim I am not the owner and these are not original, my mind is blown. I hope that there is still an appeal process remaining as I am very truthful about this matter. Thank you


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice Campanella (talk • contribs) 00:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

--Alice Campanella (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


Die Löschung dieser Dateien mit der Begründung von Jcb: these drawings come from ICAO, not from the German government or the EU am 20. Januar 2019 war unrichtig. Bei jeder Datei war die Quelle deutlich vermerkt: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 of 26 September 2012. In dieser Verordnung, die auch in jedem Unionsmitgliedstaat der Europäischen Union unmittelbar und ohne jede Umsetzung gilt, sind diese Bilder enthalten. Diese dürfen von jedermann genutzt werden, da es sich um einen Gesetzestext handelt. ICAO hat ähnlich Bilder, jedoch sind dies nicht die selben. Die Wiederherstellung ist daher möglich und zulässig. SG, Asurnipal (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose - these standards are not set on a European base, they are worldwide and developed by ICAO. Jcb (talk) (a pilot) 19:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hallo Jcb. Gib bitte die Quelle an, nach welcher diese Bilder von ICAO stammen und diese darauf einen Uhrheberschutz begründen kann. Hier dies zu behaupten aber die Quelle für die Behauptung nicht zu nennen, ist wohl etwas sehr ungenügend. Ich habe meine Quelle klar und mehrfach genannt (= eine Verordnung der Europäischen Kommission = Gesetzestext), da wäre es doch ein Leichtes für Dich, auch deine Behauptung qualifiziert zu untermauern. SG, Asurnipal (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Asurnipal: In Wikimedia Commons we need to investigate copyright status in the country of initial publication and in US. Not the copyright status of any publication in a random country. Unless you can prove that the images were designed for the EU standard and never used by ICAO before 26 September 2012, the copyright status of these images in any EU country is irrelevant for Wikimedia Commons. ICAO is Canada based, so only copyright status in Canada & US is relevant here. Ankry (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Errrm. The ICAO is a UN body. While it is headquartered in Canada, its publications are likely simultaneously published in a large number of nations, making the "country of origin" a fair bit harder to determine -- it would technically be the country among those with the shortest terms, going by Berne rules. Although "rule of the shorter term" probably doesn't apply much, since most countries will protect stuff from international organizations like the ICAO specially. Secondly, this appears to be from Annex 2 (tenth edition) of the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The Convention itself is an international treaty, and is not protected by copyright. Unsure about the annexes though, which are regulations which are periodically updated. There is a version of the ninth edition here, which was published by the US Government noting it is legally binding in the U.S., and thus probably {{PD-EdictGov}} there. It could well fall under similar copyright prohibitions on legal documents in other countries. Some but not all of the graphics appear to be the same as the 10th edition. Any earlier edition was probably {{PD-US-no notice}} as well. I'm not sure if {{PD-UN-doc}} applies to the ICAO, but these do seem to be pretty much part of actual law in many countries, so any copyright protection is rather nebulous. I'd actually lean towards keeping these with {{PD-EdictGov}} or something similar. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 Support undeletion per Carl, then. Ankry (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Angelena Change The World.jpg[edit]

Hi there, I sent the email already to [email protected] with the files. I didn't have response yet.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ABonet (talk • contribs) 21:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


Please undelete the subject file. This morning (01/21/2019), permission request was generated with the Release Generator by the copyright holder, David F. Miller, and emailed to [email protected] In response to this permission request, The OTRS member in turn requested the URL for the upload of the image to the Commons. I just uploaded the image and emailed him the associated URL, but someone named Les deleted the image faster that I was able to send that email. As such, please undelete the subject file.

ThompsonScott (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Mon, 21-January-2019


Hello! I'm sending this request because this picture was taken by Ken Kerewi. He sent me the picture and asked me to put this at his wikipedia biography's page ([])

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadeu1997 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose @Amadeu1997: If you did not the photo yourself (and this one seems to be a selfie), we need a written free license permission from the copyright holder (author) send directly to our OTRS system, following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Ervaren lichaamsbeeld, naar geslacht en naar bmi, bevolking van 18 jaar en ouder, 2014 (in procenten).png[edit]

A chart. No valid reason for deletion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Also a complete waste of time by EugeneZelenko, as if the DR backlog isn't big enough as it is. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose - the valid reason for deletion is clearly visible in the DR - Jcb (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: unused chart of questionable notability. Should be in MediaWiki Graph or SVG if useful.
  • "Out of Commons:Project scope": not true.
  • "unused": no valid reason for deletion.
  • "chart": no valid reason for deletion.
  • "questionable notability": what does this even mean? It's not a person, it's just statistics. Commons is not Wikipedia.
  • "Should be in MediaWiki Graph or SVG if useful.": no valid reason for deletion. Might be a reason if EugeneZelenko would be so nice as to create those SVG files he wants so much, but he didn't. Deleting raster images doesn't magically cause SVG files to pop into existence. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 Support undeletion unless the deletion reason is made clear. IMO, may be out if scope but this was not discussed in the DR. Ankry (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Why Commons should host any possible chart? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Nobody said that. I am only pointing out that why this file is in scope or out of scope was never addressed. And if doubts, the right place to discuss this is a DR. I cannot read Dutch and judge here. Nor I want to make a final decision in this UDR. Ankry (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
File was unused and not in best possible format. It was clearly stated as reason in deletion request. Constructive arguments for fitting scope were not provided. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I do read Dutch and I think that this file is out of scope. Jcb (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: some articles are linking such image, I am the author 21:57, 21 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 169 days, OTRS depends completely on volunteers, who work as hard as they can. Ankry (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Adriana Barsotti.jpg[edit]

I hereby affirm that I represent Adriana Barsotti, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work []:miniaturadaimagem|Adriana_Barsotti. 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.

Ertsacnel Appointed representative of Adriana Barsotti 2019-01-21--Ertsacnel (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose not own photos cannot be licensed on-wiki. The actoal copyright holder needs to follow COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

File: Rodó por Álvaro Díaz Quiñones.pdf[edit]

File: Rodó por Álvaro Díaz Quiñones.pdf Was published in 1918 and is loaded for free acces in Hemeroteca Digital, Biblioteca Nacional de España [] with a link for free downlod (Descargar ejemplar)

Rodó por Álvaro Díaz Quiñones.pdf Was published in 1918 and is loaded for free acces in Hemeroteca Digital, Biblioteca Nacional de España [] with a link for free downlod (Descargar ejemplar) --Valensax (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose this seems to be a set of works by various authors. No evidence that they all died more than 80 years ago. For not identifiable ones (if any) we could probably apply {{PD-old-assumed}} (bur the term 120 yers post publication did not expire yet). And note that one of te authors, Álvaro Díaz Quiñones died in 1951 making his works copyrigted till 2032. Hewever, as pre-1924 publication, this work can be uploaded locally in some projects, eg. English Wikipedia or Multilingual Wikisource. Unsure about Spanish language projects here. And also, note that per above: {{tl|PD-anon-70} does not apply to pre-1987 publications from Spain; it should be {{PD-anon-80}} (which does not exist at the moment; but this is another case). Libraries are sometimes authorized to publish copyrighted works under some Fair Use like terms if copyright owners do not comply. But this does not make them PD. Ankry (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


I created it and i own all the rights to it, it is my album cover and i am Acer Tankz --Acer Tankz (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose For works already published elsewhere, COM:OTRS permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Cedar Knolls Squirrel.jpg[edit]

File:Cedar Knolls Squirrel.jpg

This is my original work

Ckc10708 (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Dave Miller (Singer-Songwriter), 30-July-2018.jpg[edit]

Please refrain from deleting the subject file. This morning (01/21/2019), permission request was generated with the Release Generator by the copyright holder, David F. Miller, and emailed to [email protected] In response to this permission request, Mr. Arthur Crombez from in turn requested the URL for the upload of the image to the Commons. I uploaded the image and emailed him the associated URL, but someone named Ronhjones deleted the file this evening. I have not heard back from Mr. Arthur Crombez. As such, please undelete the subject file.

ThompsonScott (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Naum Koen.jpg[edit]


Thank you for your deletion recommendation. You have noted this is a copyright violation as the image is also used at this url ([]). I provided this image to [] for use on their website, so the refractive alliance do not hold copyright on the image. I have all the copyrights of using this image under my user as "Angelina 770" to Wikipedia. I have direct permissions from the person itself and the photographer. I would like to request the undeletion of this picture please as i have all the Rights to Use this picture on the internet.

Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelina 770 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Reason: Greetings,

Thank you for your deletion recommendation. You have noted this is a copyright violation as the image is also used at this url ([]). I provided this image to [] for use on their website, so the refractive alliance do not hold copyright on the image. I have all the copyrights of using this image under my user as "Angelina 770" to Wikipedia. I have direct permissions from the person itself and the photographer. I would like to request the undeletion of this picture please as i have all the Rights to Use this picture on the internet.

Thank you. Angelina 770 (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose If the work was published elsewhere without clear evidence of free license, we need a free license permission from the copyright owner(s) send by them directly to our OTRS system, following COM:OTRS instructions or a clear evidence if free license on their official site. The neither declares that User:Angelina 770 is the author, nor is a freely licensed site ("© 2014 - 2019, ООО «ИЗДАТЕЛЬСКИЙ ДОМ «МЕДИА-ДК». Все права защищены.").
Everything published in Wikimedia Commons must be freely licensed, not only "Free to use". Ankry (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Naum early.jpg[edit]


Hi Patrick, thank you for your deletion recommendation. You have noted this is a copyright violation as the image is also used at this url ([]). This is my youtube account and I have all the copyrights of using this image under my user as "Angelina 770" to Wikipedia. I have direct permissions from the person itself and the photographer. I would like to request the undeletion of this picture please as i have all the Rights to Use this picture on the internet.

Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelina 770 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Reason: Greetings,

Hi Patrick, thank you for your deletion recommendation. You have noted this is a copyright violation as the image is also used at this url ([]). This is my youtube account and I have all the copyrights of using this image under my user as "Angelina 770" to Wikipedia. I have direct permissions from the person itself and the photographer. I would like to request the undeletion of this picture please as i have all the Rights to Use this picture on the internet.

Thank you. Angelina 770 (talk) Angelina 770 (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose If the uploader is not the author and the exclusive copyright owner of the work or the work was published elsewhere without clear evidence of free license, we need a free license permission from the copyright owner(s) send by them directly to our OTRS system, following COM:OTRS instructions or a clear evidence if free license on their official site. Your YT account is neither the official account of the copyright holder(s) not a free license for the work is declared there (both needed). Ankry (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Bardia Sadrenoori at his Solo Concert 2017.jpg[edit]

requesting for undeletion File:Bardia Sadrenoori at his Solo Concert 2017.jpg

reason; it was a work that I have done with my editor in our PR which has been done a year ago. we have all rights to publish this foto in our wikipedia common.

I would be glad if there would be a concerne from your help.

sincerely yours


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Bardia Sadrenoori (talk • contribs) 10:01, 22 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 169 days, OTRS depends completely on volunteers, who work as hard as they can. Ankry (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Phoenix contact sede spain.jpg[edit]

Solicito la recuperación de la foto File:Phoenix contact sede spain.jpg Estoy creando la ficha de la empresa Phoenix Contact Spain ( la foto la saque de la web de la empresa oficial)--Claudia Heras (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose per "Se prohíbe expresamente cualquier reproducción, divulgación, almacenamiento, transmisión, emisión y copia o entrega de los contenidos, sin contar con el consentimiento por escrito de Phoenix Contact.". We need written free license permission from them in order to restore the file. Please follow COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Geodomes Immersive Experiences Fulldome Projection México Promotion Tour in Berlin.jpg[edit]


I don´t know the reason of the deletion of the Fulldome spanish wikipedia page and the reason of the deletion of the "Geodomes Immersive Experiences Fulldome Projection México Promotion Tour in Berlin.jpg" picture. I was the Head of Production in the worldwide Tour México "Live it to Believe It" campaign and the picture I uploaded to wikipedia is a private picture on a private installation we did in Berlin, actually, I have more that 10.000 pictures of that event, all of them under my license.

Some freelance photografers sent to me their own pictures and I don´t know if the exactly picture I uploaded to wikipedia was one of the freelancers pictures, anyway, before delete the page, I could change the picture, instead delete the entire article.

As a event proffesional, with a lot of events did in geodesic domes, one of the few in Spain, I´m a person who can explain what a fulldome projection is in Spanish.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MappSpain (talk • contribs) 12:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose @MappSpain: The reason of deletion is contradicting information: EXIF info says that the author is not User:MappSpain but somebody else, and the photo is "All Rights reserved" not freely licensed. Copyright to the ceiling composition may be another problem. Ankry (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Since i am part of the organisation "BVDD e. V. and this is our company-logo I have no other idea how to upload our logo another way! BVDD is owner of all copyrights to that image! Kristin Rosenow (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

An authorized official of the BVDD can verify the proper license by following the instructions at COM:OTRS. Please note that you can not sublicense the stock photo that you have licensed from Thuresson (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Tehran Maps[edit]

Please undelete these photos temporarily so that I can check for the authors. These were old maps and could be in PD in Iran.

Hanooz 15:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hanooz: File:Tehran- Avakher Pahlavi Aval.jpg and File:Tehran-1308 Shamsi.jpg were undeleted temporarily.
File:جلد کتاب تهران نگاری.jpg may be simple enough not to be copyrightable, but I think it is out of project scope. You can see the book cover here.
File:اطلس تهران قدیم.jpg, the original picture is definitely within scope, but I have doubts about the book cover. Here or here you can see the book cover.
File:Jeld Naghsheh Tehran.jpg is also out of scope in my opinion. The original map maybe copyright clear and can be hosted on Commons, but the book cover as a derivative work is nearly useless. Here or here you can see the book cover.
4nn1l2 (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm trying to find the source. Hanooz 16:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Lettera di accompagnamento nomina Cavaliere di Malta (Fabio Amerighi).jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lettera di accompagnamento nomina Cavaliere di Malta (Fabio Amerighi).jpg

Author died in 1944. 1931 letter. Abzeronow (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

  •  Unfortunate opposition Unfortunately USA does not respect the rule of shorter term, so the problem comes because of how the US decied to follow URAA, they have restored the copyright in 1996 for all works still under copyright in their original country and extended that copyright to 95 years from publication. This means that if the letter was from 1931, then it will only become public domain in the USA in 2027. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Abzeronow, Gone Postal: Any evidence that {{PD-old-70}} applies to official documents of SMOM or that URAA applies to them? I found even no evidence that they signed the Berne Convention. IMO, lack of the latter makes it automatically PD in US; but the DR decission was "unclear copyright status and delete on COM:PCP. Ankry (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Ok, I guess I am confused regarding the URAA mess. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 12:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, the SMOM being a sovereign state does make things a bit complicated. Would love to hear @Clindberg: thoughts on this. Worst case scenario that we have to apply 120-year rule and wait until 2052 to undelete it. Abzeronow (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Errm. Is the SMOM really on par as a country, which implements its own copyright laws or something? Which other countries would recognize as a sovereign state like the Vatican? Seems like it would fall under Malta copyright law. If they don't have their own copyright law, seems reasonable to assume they follow Malta's. Malta's current copyright law dates from 2000, and is 70pma. However the 2000 law was not retroactive, something they probably fixed before they became an EU member in 2004, so it's probably 70pma there today. However I'm not sure we have adequate documentation on Malta's copyright terms in 1996, which were probably lower. It seems like they passed a 1967 law, which was only repealed in 2000. I'm not sure I have found the text, but I did find this which seems to be the text, and if accurate Malta had a 25pma term at the time. For anonymous works, it was 25 years from publication. Bit surprising, as they had come from 50pma UK law, but... certainly possible. It's entirely possible that Malta extended those terms later, but those would likely have not been retroactive, so something by an author who died in 1944 most likely became PD in Malta in 1970, and was likely not retroactively restored until the 2000s sometime. Malta was already a member of Berne, so 1996 should be their URAA date. As such it seems unlikely that this was under copyright in Malta in 1996, if the named person was the author (or just signed an anonymous work), or at the very least we don't have any information which indicates it was under copyright. So I'd probably  Keep with PD-old and PD-1996, unless someone can bring more specific copyright laws to light. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Hamid Naficy.jpg[edit]

I would like to request this file be undeleted. I am acting on behalf of the copyright holder, who sent an email with the Ticket #2018092110006986 to establish her ownership of the work and her desire to include it on Hamid Naficy's Wikipedia page. The moderator that replied to her is Kevin Wallem, and I believe we have followed his instructions to restore the file.

Please let me know what either I or the copyright holder must do in order to restore the image to Prof. Naficy's Wikipedia page.

Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nui6882 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose You have already been told at least two times that you should wait until an OTRS agent processes the ticket. The OTRS agent will restore the file himself/herself. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


This realistic portrait is among my celebrity series of Paintings. I painted Charlize Theron as a tribute to her contribution to Art, Entertainment and Media Industries. The Oil on Canvas portrait was adored in various places I displayed it, including Bloemfontein and Johannesburg South Africa. It is an inspiration to the young ones who are seeking to become great performers in future, as they look up to her as a National Hero and a global icon.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirsteve17 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Mehr News Agency[edit] is a CC website ({{Mehr}}).

+ Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ahmad Jannati.jpg

Hanooz 16:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hanooz: Why do you wish these particular files undeleted? At least one of them is poor quality; at least one sourced from a copyrighted mehrnews page; many of then sourced from outdated non-free licensed pages. And we cannot host them if they are not freely licensed now. IMO it is simple to just try reupload and request UDR only if a reuploading problem appears (provideng the URI). Ankry (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I just searched for deleted Mehr photos and I wanted to see what we have lost.  I withdraw my nomination if these are copyright-protected. Hanooz 09:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Michal Pavlik s cellem.jpg & File:Michal Pavlik.jpg[edit]

Dobrý den,

všerejší načtení udaných fotografií bylo nováčkovsky chybné, protože jsem je načetl jako vlastní díla, což nejsou, a já to také proto nerozporoval. Dnes jsem tyto soubory nahrál již správnou cestou s uvedením majitele i autora fotografie a jejich souhlasu s použitím ve Wikipedii. Ačkoliv mám na oba zmíněné kontakty, rozhodně nehodlám udávat ani pod fotografiemi, ani posílat žádné anonymní třetí osobě, kterou jsou na Wikipedii všichni. Samozřejmě mohu ještě obstarat prohlášení zmíněných, a to někam zaslat, ovšem to budu potřebovat vědět kam. Problém zůstává, že stejně takové prohlášení v elektronické podobě je těžko ověřitelné, tak jako prohlášení mé.

Chápu, že právní ochrana je složitá, avšak rozhodně rozporuji, že vkládám znovu stejný obsah se stejnými informacemi. Informace o autorovi a majiteli, které jsem podruhé uvedl, si lze ověřit.

--VelbloudJG (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@VelbloudJG: For any image that is not created and owned by the uploader, we need a written free license permission send by copyright owner, following COM:OTRS instructions. If an OTRS permission for these images has already been verified in Wikipedia, please refer to its number. Ankry (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Rob Jack Press (1).jpg[edit]


We OWN this picture. The blog you are referring to is a blog that we sent the picture to. We own all rights and we have the right to use this picture how ever we want.


Rob & JAck

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RobandJack (talk • contribs) 18:15, 22 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 169 days, OTRS depends completely on volunteers, who work as hard as they can. Ankry (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Against The Night Poster.pdf[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I do own the copyright to this image... it is a movie poster to a movie that I 100% control. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions! Ballfour04 (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Oppose PDF files not useful for Wikisource are out of scope.  Info The file is 650 MB. Thuresson (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

File:ANATG-Poster 1-21-19.jpg to Undelete - Movie Poster[edit]

Hello! I am requesting an undeletion of the file ANATG-Poster 1-21-19.jpg. I uploaded this image yesterday since it is the movie poster for the film A NIGHT AT THE GARDEN (I also created the Wikipedia page for this film yesterday). It is a movie poster that was created by the filmmaker - all images on the poster are from the film and properly licensed - and he has given free permission to upload the poster to Wikipedia. How can I go about getting this poster back up on Wikipedia so that it can be added to the Wikipedia page for the film itself? Is there any paperwork we would need to fill out?

My email is [email protected] if that is easier to reach me at.

Thanks so much! Best, Ben

--Bflgoldberg (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Ben Goldberg, 01/22/19

  • Please provide permission from the author to release under a free licence (licence must allow redistribution and modification for all purposes including commercial) to COM:OTRS. After that the file will be undeleted. Keep in mind that OTRS volunteers may take a long time due to their backlog, if you submit to English language OTRS you may receive a ticket number via email, you can chose to share that ticket number here, I have seen in the past admins temporarily undeleting the file in such a case, although it is becoming more and more rare. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Inside the Great Enlightenment Auditorium.jpg[edit]

Hi, I am requesting an undeletion of the picture as I am the creator of the page [11] and I was asked specifically by the Buddha Museum itself to create the page. The museum holds copyright over the picture and they provided me the picture to post online. The book that was cited also received their pictures from the same source as myself. --Yuan mdx (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Harsh Vardhan Shringla Submitting His Credentials to President Donald Trump.jpg[edit]

I would like to inform you that I am an Indian diplomat and currently working as Second Secretary in the Embassy of India in Washington. I took this picture after due approval from the Embassy and using this picture was not any breach of copyright violation. In case you have any doubt, you may contact the concerned person in the Embassy ([email protected]) for confirmation.

I request you to undo the deletion at the earliest.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufk iitk (talk • contribs) 05:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose We need either public evidence of free license or the copyriht holder needs to follow [[[COM:OTRS]]. "© Embassy of India, Washington D C, USA 20008. All Rights Reserved." is not a free license. Ankry (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Avalokitesvara flanked by Sudhana and the Naga girl.jpg[edit]

Hi, I am requesting an undeletion of the picture. I was asked specifically by the Buddha Museum itself to create the page. The museum holds copyright over the picture and they provided me the picture to post online. The book that was cited also received their pictures from the same source as myself. --Yuan mdx (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Why do you believe that the museum is the author and thus a copyright holder? Have you provided the permission via COM:OTRS? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Samuel Beckett, Pic, 1 bw.jpg[edit]

Hi, This was deleted by INC/DL dispite the consensus to keep it at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Roger Pic. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done restored and marked as kept. Deletion by LTA and indeed against consensus. Ankry (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Bannicov Alexandr Ivanovichr.jpg[edit]

Фотография находится в свободном доступе и не нарушает авторских прав. The photo is in the public domain and does not violate copyright. --Stoneglow (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Bannicov Alexandr Ivanovichr.jpg[edit]

Фотография находится в свободном доступе и не нарушает авторских прав. The photo is in the public domain and does not violate copyright. --Stoneglow (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Sousa Mendes Aide-Mémoire from the British Embassy.jpg[edit]

This image is no more than a simple scanned version of a old Portuguese public domain document, that can be scanned by anyone in the Arquivo do Ministerio dos Negócios Estrangeiros in Lisbon Portugal. IF the original document is in the public domain, all scans of it are in the public domain. No one will be able to claim copyright over this scanned image because work can only be original if it is the result of independent creative effort. It will not be original if it has been copied from something that already exists. Only original works are protected by copyright and the original is public domain.

According to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, and also Portuguese law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’.

In the United States, this issue was decided in the case of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., in which the court ruled that exact photographic copies of public-domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality

Under Portuguese Law Works Protected by Copyright have the following definition "Works shall mean intellectual creations in the literary, scientific and artistic fields, in whatever form, and as such they shall be protected under the present Code, as shall the rights of their authors." These type of government documents are not works and therefore are not protected by copyright. Therefore we are left with the law that regulates the public archives. The "Decreto-Lei n.º 16/93" is the one that regulates the use of public archives. According to article 17.2 or the Law 16/93 one cannot publish documents with personal data of individuals that have died less than 50 years ago. In this case the individual died in 1954. So the document can be published.

Last but not leas, Wikipedia's position on this matter seems to be quite clear. For more information see National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. I hope Wikipedia will maintain the position.JPratas (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Mohammad Reze Mohseni Sani.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Considering the recent consensus, please restore this image which is obviously taken at a Tasnim bureau. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


The file is for identification of a product and is allowed according to article 1.3 of the wikipedia "1.3: Images of products (CD, singles, LP, and other types of optical and magnetic media), phonographic (softwares, electronic games, DVD, VHS, Blu-ray and other types of optical and magnetic media) comics, magazines). Packaging in general - several, in their specific characteristics. "

The source link really contained as sources (Warner Bros. Records and iTunes) I'm already tired of the difficulty that wikipédia offers to upload a file! Everything was certainly filled in the form and I guarantee that not even you have taken the time to check it out!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyliex2008 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose This is not Wikipedia. Thuresson (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose As Thuresson says, this is not Wikipedia. Use their local upload option. Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:LTG Salvatore Camporeale.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Sir, good evening. I ask you to restore the photo [LTG Salvatore Camporeale.jpg] because I guarantee that there is no copyright violation. I am the owner of this photo. I am Major Gianfilippo Cambera, of the Italian Army, and I am currently deployed in Kabul in Resolute Support Operation. I am the Public Affairs Officer of the LTG Salvatore Camporeale, Deputy Commander of the Resolute Support mission, I work at the Public Affairs & Strategical Communications of the Head Quarters of RS, and I'm the webmaster of Resolute Support website. I personally took this picture and then I posted it on the Resolute Support website and I distributed it to the media. I can prove it. My email addresses are as follows: [email protected]; [email protected] Please restore the photo, I am running an order from the General Camporeale. Thank you in advance. RSMPAO (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:The front cover to Volcanica's first issue.jpg[edit]

I am setting up the wikipedia page for Volcanica, an academic journal. The image in question is the front cover of the first issue, which is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (see []). Given its license, can it be undeleted?--Jamie-farquharson (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Kabul, 10 Nov 2018. Ltg Camporeale and Ltg Cripwell, former Deputy Commander of Resolute Support Mission.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Sir, good evening. I ask you to restore the photo [File:Kabul, 10 Nov 2018. Ltg Camporeale and Ltg Cripwell, former Deputy Commander of Resolute Support Mission.jpg] because I guarantee that there is no copyright violation. I am the owner of this photo. I am Major Gianfilippo Cambera, of the Italian Army, and I am currently deployed in Kabul in Resolute Support Operation. I am the Public Affairs Officer of the LTG Salvatore Camporeale, Deputy Commander of the Resolute Support mission, I work at the Public Affairs & Strategical Communications of the Head Quarters of RS and I'm the webmaster of Resolute Support website. I personally took this picture and then I distributed it to the media. I can prove it. My email addresses are as follows: [email protected]; [email protected] Please restore the photo, I am running an order from the General Camporeale. Thank you in advance. RSMPAO (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Hjalmar Falk.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hjalmar Falk.jpg

The original file under this name was a reproduction of a painting by Norwegian artist Kristofer Sinding-Larsen (1873-1948). The source was a 1927 book published in Oslo. The current file name is a different depiction of the subject from a different author. Abzeronow (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:20170807 xl P1130852-blick-auf-den-hohen-brendten-vom-wildensee-bei-mittenwald.JPG and other[edit]


There were one to three image files in category: []

Can you please restore that.

The exact name (links) I do not know anymore.

The files should be something like this:

  • 20170807_xl_P1130852-blick-auf-den-hohen-brendten-vom-wildensee-bei-mittenwald.JPG
  • 20170807_xl_P1130862-blick-auf-den-hohen-brendten-vom-kranzberggebiet-bei-mittenwald.JPG
  • 20170807_xl_P1130859-blick-auf-den-hohen-brendten-vom-kranzberggebiet-bei-mittenwald.JPG

see: []

Freedom of panorama: see also: [Ticket#2018033110001688]

Please look at the following notes:

Thanks in advance. --Molgreen (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


The image is ok.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveCervin (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Retrieved from "[]" Hidden category:

Navigation menu

Personal tools









      In Wikipedia

        Add links