Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page

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

Other languages:

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

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

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 1 subpage) • 0 malformed
19 copyvios • 341 duplicates • 1 advert • 9 selfies • 30 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

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

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

Adding a request

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

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

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

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Antrag zur Wiederherstellung von File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Administratoren,

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

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

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

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

@Rosenzweig: I am the deleting admin. Jost, can you cite which statute or decree these patches are part of? (and I've discussed similar cases with Rosenzweig on my talk page.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: These patches were worne as an official part of the uniform. Each mountain division of the Wehrmacht have had their own patch. The patches were created by the staff of the division and were approved by the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH). I have read your dicussion with Rosenzweig. Jost (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JostGudelius: Ob die Bundeswehr oder ihre Untergliederungen wirklich Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, finde ich zumindest zweifelhaft. Müsste man evtl. mal bei de:WP:URF klären. Aber unabhängig davon sind auch Gemeindewappen usw. deshalb gemeinfreie amtliche Werke, weil sie mal in einer amtlichen Verlautbarung bekanntgemacht wurden. Die ZDv 37/10 hat bspw. diverse Verbandsabzeichen. Ist das hier auch so? Wenn ja, wann und wo? Oder hat das irgendjemand inoffiziell erstellt? --Rosenzweig τ 21:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Es handelt sich hier um die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht. Diese Abzeichen wurden wahrscheinlich von den Divisionen geschaffen und vom Kriegsministerium bzw. Oberkommando des Heeres genehmigt. Urheber und Genehmigungsprozess sind heute nicht mehr nachzuvollziehen. Ob Streitkräfte Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, kann ich nicht belegen - ich bin kein Jurist. Sie sind aber eine vom Staat beauftragte Organisation/Körperschaft mit einem Auftrag und klaren Rechtsrahmen, der mit der Verfassung / dem Grungesetz beginnt.Gruß --Jost (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Deine Frage bezüglich der ZDV 37/10, die diverse Verbandsabzeichen enthält, trifft den Nagel auf den Kopf. Diese Verbandsabzeichen werden bei allen Verbänden, die eines Artikels bei Wikipedia würdig sind, in der Info-Box ohne Probleme eingefügt. Das gleiche muss auch für die Verbandsabzeichen der Verbände der Wehrmacht gelten; sie haben von ihrer Entstehung und Genehmigung her das gleiche Procedere und den gleichen Status. Sie sind offizielle Abzeichen/Wappen einer deutschen Behörde/eines Verbandes der Wehrmacht und m.E. gemeinfrei. Ich bitte Dich, dies @Abzeronowzu erklären und darauf hinzuwirken, dass die Löschungen der Divisionsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht rückgängig gemacht bzw. unterlassen werden, damit wir uns in Zukunft diese Diskussionen ersparen. Dein Englisch ist weitaus besser als das meinige, bitte mach es. Ich werde inzwischen Quelle und Urheber in den Beschreibungen der Verbandsabzeichen bearbeiten/korrigieren. Gruß --Jost (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ich übersetze das mal: Du weißt demnach nicht, ob besagte Grafik mal in irgendeiner Vorschrift bekanntgemacht o. ä. wurde. Du vermutest es nur. --Rosenzweig τ 18:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig:zunächst mal herzlichen Dank, dass Ihr weiter mit mir kommuniziert und versucht, mir zu helfen. Inzwischen habe ich heute nach heftiger Recherche folgende Aussagen und Quellen gefunden, die belegen, dass meine Vermutung (Erfahrung aus langjähriger Tätigkeit in den Streitkräften bei der Truppe, in Stäben und im Ministerium) durchaus richtig ist und auch bei Wikipedia und Commons bearbeitet wurde. Siehe:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Verbandsabzeichen_1._Gebirgs-Division.png in: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Insignia_of_the_Wehrmacht?uselang=deDivision.png?uselang=de.
Mützenedelweiß, Ärmelabzeichen und Verbandsabzeichen (für Fahrzeuge und Gerät) der 1. GebDiv wurden vom Oberkommando des Heeres mit Verfügung vom 2.Mai 1939 eingeführt; siehe in: Thomas Müller, Verheizt - Vergöttert - Verführt, Die deutsche Gebirgstruppe 1915- 1939, Veröffentlichung des Bayerischen Armeemuseums Band 16, 1. Auflage 2017, S. 68. Die Divisionsabzeichen/Truppenkennzeichen der Wehrmacht wurden vom OKH endgültig legitimiert mit Befehl Nr. 21 vom 16.Februar 1944 (OKH GenSt d H Org Abt II/31 180/44); siehe in: W. Fleischer, Truppenkennzeichen des deutschen Heeres und der Luftwaffe, Dörfler-Verlag 2002, ISBN 3895554448.
Ich meine, das reicht Ich bitte Dich und @Abzeronow, die Verbandsabzeichen der 1.GebDiv (Edelweiß) und der 3.GebDiv (Narvikschild) wiederherzustellen. Gruß --Jost (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jost, Ich habe Ihre Aussagen über Google Translate gelesen. Da ich kein Deutsch spreche, habe ich mich auf Englisch verständigt. Aber ich werde bei Bedarf maschinelle Übersetzung verwenden. (via google translate) Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: I hope you can although translate my answer to @Rosenzweig. I think all doubts are now cleared up. Greetings --Jost (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are potentially many more cases like these, I think we should get to the bottom of the matter. I've started a thread at de.wp's equivalent of the copyright village pump (at. de.wp because I feel more people who know German law will particpate there): de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Militärische Verbandsabzeichen Deutschlands. Hopefully a consensus can be reached there. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Rosenzweig. I can use Firefox's beta translation feature on that page so I'll follow along as best I can (I won't post there since I know so very little German) Abzeronow (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reiterate something Rosenzweig said there here, there is no rush on this, if it is found by dewiki legal experts that these are lawfully in the public domain, I can restore them myself. These cannot be in the public domain as "anonymous works" because 1.) German copyright law for pre-1995 works and 2.) URAA if these were not seized by the Office of Alien Property Custodian. Abzeronow (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: @JostGudelius: It's been 3 weeks since any comment at dewiki and this request has been stale. Since I am the deleting admin I don't want to close this request. But I'm not seeing any consensus there or here for me to reverse my deletion. Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: I'd be fine with closing this request here for now and open a new undeletion request if there is a positive result at de.wp. But Jost will have to decide. We've had undeletion requests that were open for months. --Rosenzweig τ 19:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rosenzweig and Abzeronow, till now I don't get any answer by the Military Archive and I think they will not answer in future.
I don't understand why the divisional insignia of the mountain divisions are deleted, while hundreds, maybe thousands of insignia of troops around the world exist on Wikipedia.--Jost (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jost, different countries have different laws. In my country (the United States), works by the federal government are public domain. For Russia and Ukraine, army emblems would fall under state symbols that are exempt from copyright. Germany appears to be more complicated, and I have a mandate to respect Germany's copyright laws. I don't wish for this to be remain deleted either, but unless I have a legal leg to stand on for it, I just cannot restore it now. Abzeronow (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jost has opened a new request below so we may as well close this one. Abzeronow (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:VerbAbz3GebDivW.jpg

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

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

This information could have been shared in the still opened but stalled UDR of this file. The Federal Republic of Germany is the legal successor of the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Regardless if Bundesarchiv feels Wehrmacht insignia are public domain, they should contact COM:VRT so this information is on file. Abzeronow (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That actually says nothing about the copyright situation of the insignia. They're writing about "Schutzfristen", a kind of waiting period before archives can allow access to files to protect interests of people who might still be alive or died recently. So nothing to do with copyright. They probably didn't even understand the problem we have here. Which is understandable, because they are archivists, not jurists, and normally wouldn't bother with copyright at all. --Rosenzweig τ 18:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @Rosenzweig. From my perspective, the question is more about TOO. Gnom (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grubtheme sekiro.png File doesn't fulfil requirements for deletion

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

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

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

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

As you can see in this and this commit the final screenshot is composed of resources which automatically fulfill the commons rule of threshold of originality except this one (which is considered it to be not semimqmo's original work). I found this theory to be true but I couldn't find any license posted with this resource which leads me to think that John Devlin had given a permission to semimqmo to repost this resource under MIT license (otherwise semimqmo's repo on GitHub would've been taken down for copyright infringement). Thank you for your response Kakučan (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I say again -- there is no evidence that Devlin has given a free license. The fact that GitHub has not acted against this post proves nothing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

He is in https://github.com/orgs/js13kGames/people. He uploaded the logo on the website in a GitHub repository under CC0 in 2018  REAL 💬 ⬆   14:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yann I don't think so. Aside from the explicit copyright notice which I cited above, the legal section of the web site has
"As a condition of submission, Entrant grants the Competition Organizer, its subsidiaries, agents and partner companies, a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, publish, distribute, publicly perform, create a derivative work from, and publicly display the Submission."
That is a free license only in the sense that no money changes hands. It does not include the right to freely license anything. Also, please remember that even in the case where the software may be freely licensed, the logo for it is often not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an agreement for entrants who submit games to the competition, not anything to do with the website itself, which in fact has no license on GitHub at all. However, one of the staff of js13kGames uploaded this logo in a different repository under CC0. The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted, which has not been done so there  REAL 💬 ⬆   15:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted. Yes, I agree with that. Yann (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Sepahan Logo.png

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

 Oppose Complex logo, no permission. Yann (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the same logo https://www.instagram.com/wearesepahan/p/DHI2zQEIFnj, that post says it is from the 70s, is Template:PD-Iran 30 years after publication of a work by a "legal person" mean government only or business entities?  REAL 💬 ⬆   14:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same logo. The logo might be from the 1970s, but is the blazon from the 1970s or more recent? Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are talking about.. @Hanooz do you know anything about this?  REAL 💬 ⬆   20:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edited "from there" to "from the 1970s" to make my meaning more clear. (And I mean to ask if the interpretation of the logo is from the 1970s or more recent) Abzeronow (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see now (I didnt know what "the blazon" was referring to). Now that I look more closely, I can't find this logo by reverse image search anywhere else than the Instagram account, so we definitely need to learn more from someone who knows about Iranian football clubs back then  REAL 💬 ⬆   22:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muselk vs Ali-A (cropped).jpg

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

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

  • Pinging @Yann: as the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose without more information. Image included in a game video. Where does this image come from? Also what's the educational purpose of this? Yann (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that this was 2010-era YouTube, and that after scrolling across the videos of YouTube channel and checking with both Tineye and Google Reverse Image Search, this seems to be just a unique instance of Ali-A doing the "stereotypical clickbait face". The educational value is that the subject depicted, Ali-A is a notable subject with his own article on Wikipedia. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portret van een prostituee met een glas whiskey, RP-F-F00149.jpg

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

BTW, we already have a copy: File:StoryvilleRaleighRyeGal.JPG. Yann (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it was "certainly published" in 1912? Per the MOMA book, Bellocq took these photographs for himself (he apparently was friendly with the prostitutes, don't know if he was a customer there) and kept the glass negatives at home, where they were found in some piece of furniture after his death. His main occupation as a photographer was apparently working for a shipbuilding company, photographing ship parts and machinery. --Rosenzweig τ 10:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Nosferattus: as the nominator. --Rosenzweig τ 10:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Oversimplification - Many of the now best known Bellocq nudes are from the chest of glass negatives rediscovered in the 1960s but Bellocq also printed some at the time, both for the prostitutes themselves and their customers. As a professional photographer during his life he was better publicly known for his industrial photography, photographs of Mardi Gras floats (seasonal but extensive work, was official photographer for some krewes), photographer for the Archdiocese of New Orleans, and also did portrait photography. While the "Storyville" red-light district was quasi-legal, association with it was not something which would publicized by someone doing respectable work outside of the demi-monde (even if it was an open secret in some circles). IMO there may be a case that Bellocq images known only from prints produced by Lee Friedlander, may still be under copyright, this is not one, being one of the long better known Storyville portraits. Some Storyville historians have even questioned the attribution of this one to Bellocq. (This is mostly off the top of my head as a long-time researcher in early New Orleans jazz, which is an adjacent topic to Storyville history with some crossover, knowing and interacting with some working in the latter field, but some details are likely covered in the late Al Rose's "Storyville" book.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Infrogmation and Yann: Do you have any evidence that this specific photo was published before 1970? Nosferattus (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not much reason to doubt publication, as Infrogmation explains above. Speculations are not a valid reason deletion, and are much beyond significant doubt, which is required for deletion. Yann (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is definitely good reason to doubt publication. (1) I wasn't able to find any evidence that it was published prior to 1970 when I nominated the image for deletion. (2) The MOMA book about Bellocq's nudes doesn't mention any previous publications and seems to imply that Lee Friedlander was the first to publish them. But I don't know why I'm arguing with you anyway. You're just going to undelete it regardless of what I say. Nosferattus (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOMA book is not a holy publication. It is not surprising that it doesn't mention distribution of these portraits to the subjects and their customers, which counts as publication. Association with prostitutes was not something people publicized. Yann (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:حسن البيجو.jpg

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

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

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

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

 Comment This request probably concerns all files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bluto. Yann (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrogmation and Nosferattus: for deleting admin and nominator. Yann (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Signature (this is texted from a school computer): Zig-Zag. 63.81.59.162 13:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Record 2023.svg

Apparently, the result of discussion regarding the deletion of (File:Record 2023.svg) in November 2023 was flawed (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Record 2023 with wordmark.png which also nominated an SVG). Brazil has very high threshold of originality per COM:TOO Brazil, and i'm sure the logo falls below TOO in the country. The DR sadly didn't mentioned how higher TOO does in Brazil. So, I suggested that the SVG file to be undeleted and place COM:TOO Brazil notice in file description (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Record News 2023.svg for similar outcome). Please note that the SVG file mentioned is 2D version, not more complex 3D one (which is PNG). --Yayan550 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about ToO Brazil to comment about it. Someone familiar with it should add a variety of examples of acceptable works at COM:TOO Brazil, as the text description is not nearly as easy to use as examples. See COM:TOO US for good examples.

I note that it says there,

"Not OK .... Works from other countries which are above the threshold of originality of the United States but below the threshold of originality of the source country (Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc.)"

That seems to apply here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:1986 Beach Chair - Pixar Animation Studios.webm

This work was first published before March 1, 1989, and I can't find any mention of the Beach Chair short made by Pixar in the copyright office public records. The original nomination at Commons:Deletion requests/File:1986 Beach Chair - Pixar Animation Studios.webm requested deletion merely because it was republished in a 1991 Liquid Television episode (Season 1 Episode 3). However, Pixar did not create the Liquid Television TV series. VTSGsRock (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info deleted on uploader's request. Ankry (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Info There is no copyright notice, so without a registration the short movie is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 101. I believe this is the relevant definition for all post 1978 works.
So when was it published? Showing it at SIGGRAPH wouldn't count. The 1991 Liquid Television episode may have been the first publication, as it was distributed for purposes of further distribution. That would put it after 1989.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tienquanca.jpg - Sheet music file of Tien Quan Ca (Vietnamese national anthem)

Per two failed deletion nominations of the Vietnam anthem audio at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:National_Anthem_of_Vietnam.ogg, Law No. 07/2022/QH15, Amends to some articles of the law on intellectual property, Clause 2 of Article 7 was amended as follows: Organizations and individuals exercising intellectual property rights related to the National Flag, National Emblem, National Anthem of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam must not obstruct their use and dissemination, starting from 2023. Thus the Vietnamese anthem is now freely licensed. VTSGsRock (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How this is related to declaration that {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} by Văn Cao related to this file is on this page? Ankry (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Two issues here. First, this was under Vietnamese copyright on December 23, 1998, the URAA date. It is not clear that the 2023 law eliminates the US copyright. Second, this copy is messy and illegible in places. Surely, if we can keep a copy of the Vietnamese anthem, we can find a clean, sharp version and not this messy one -- it can be seen here .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose "Not obstruct their use and dissemination" can be achieved with a license that do not allow derivative work, eg. not a free license. Thuresson (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-35B Lightning II Completes First Land-based Ski Jump Launch 150619-D-AW822-318.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File was deleted because there were questions about whether Lockheed Martin had released the picture. Per previous deletion request on Commons:Deletion requests/File:An F-35 Lightning II completes a flyover of USS Zumwalt (DDG 1000). (29774535153).jpg, which is also an Andy Wolfe picture from Lockheed Martin, "All F-35 Lightning II photography and videography taken by contract photographers (Lockheed Martin, KBRwyle, etc.) in support of F-35 Lightning II flight test are official DoD imagery and in the public domain." VRT/OTRS ticket 2016101910017989 Elisfkc (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elisfkc: Can you ask that your request is confirmed by a VRT volunteer with access to the ticket in the permission queue? Anyway, we need a valid free license template that cannot be {{PD-USGov}} for DoD contractors. Ankry (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry Not sure how I get a VRT volunteer to confirm it, but ok. As for the template, whatever is decided also needs to be applied to all the images in Category:Photographs by Andy Wolfe & likely some of Category:Photographs by Lockheed Martin, as well as I'm sure others. Elisfkc (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me with a reminder, but I will try to look into this tomorrow regardless. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Telejurnal (2022).svg

Hello, please restore the Telejurnal logo. This logo is a wordmark and is ineligible due to copyright (below the too in Romania, the TOO in Romania is unknown but is below the too in the USA, meaning it is fine in the USA according to the COM:Copyright rules).According in YouTube minute 10:13 I see a logo wordmark (title:TVR Telejurnal Intro History since 1966) (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OJhiaHSaJO4&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD) (Google translator). AbchyZa22 10:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liberal Democrat Autumn Conference 2024 Rally, Ed Davey Speaking on Stage.jpg

The subject of the image is not four copyrighted screens, it is instead a stage with the Leader of the Liberal Democrats Ed Davey standing on it. The screen on the centre-left of the image is not a focus of the image, and as shown previously via images of people speaking with a screen behind them on the commons, is not a copyrighted screen. As I am the photographer of the file and I am the one who uploaded it, removal on the grounds of copyright under COM:DW is therefore not met, as the image is not a photograph of an original work, but is instead a photograph of a speech from the audience directly, not a replication or interpretation of the screens to the side of the stage. ~ CIN I&II (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The subject, center stage, is virtually unidentifiable. The screen to the left shows him much better. The test of de minimis is whether an ordinary observer would notice if the offending item were removed. This obviously does not pass that test. The image could be cropped to eliminate the four screens, but what remained would be a useless image of an unidentifiable person. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Best Bridal Makeup Services in Kokapet.jpg, File:Bridal Makeup Services in Kokapet.jpg

There are a whole 19 files in cat:Kokapet. Please undelete this files only if they show the culture of this village in India (I did not see them)  REAL 💬 ⬆   18:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Not with that huge watermark, these are out of scope. Yann (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination  REAL 💬 ⬆   18:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kid Soul.jpg

Dieses Bild kann gerne bestehen bleiben. Ich möchte darum bitten, den Löschantrag zu beenden. Ursprünglich hatte ich den Antrag gestellt, weil ich das Bild neu hochladen wollte – aber ich habe mich nun dagegen entschieden und lasse es so, wie es ist. Vielen Dank! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidsoulmusik 91 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"This image is welcome to remain. I would like to request that the deletion be terminated. I originally submitted the request because I wanted to reupload the image, but I've now decided against it and will leave it as it is. Thank you!" (Google translation)

 Oppose I'm not sure what is meant by this, but the image was deleted as a personal photo of a non-contributor and I see no reason to reverse that. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tommy and Chuckie in "A Rugrats Chanukah".png

@Yann You deleted this file, but it was extracted from the freely licensed file File:A Rugrats Chanukah (Condensed Episode).webm. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Per above. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=969879230"