Commons:Undeletion requests

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

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.

Please read the instructions below, before requesting undeletion.

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

Commons deletion (policy)

• Regular deletion (candidates)
• Speedy deletion (candidates)
  24 copyvios • 2 duplicates • 3 adverts • 11 selfies • 24 others

---

• Media without a license
• Media without a source
• Media missing permission
• Orphaned talk pages

---

• Deletion log
• Undeletion requests

---

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 | +/− Wikinews: en | no | pl | +/− Wikibooks: en | it | +/− Wikisource: fa | fr | +/− Wikiversity: en | +/− Wikivoyage: en | fa | fr | ru | zh | +/− Wikiquote (regarding images): he | +/− 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.

Instructions for administrators

Use common sense. If, for example, a file was deleted for missing a source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the file can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user wishes to tag a file with a certain license, you can do that for them if you want to, or leave it to them to do it. However, it is important that you remove any speedy deletion templates from the file. In general, try to comply with the requests of well-intending users. Files can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at without the request itself having to be closed. The deleting administrator may undelete the file if compelled by the arguments or information provided. The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done." When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{Udelh}} above the header and the template {{Udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived. When undeleting a file, reference the discussion (for example "Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=nnnnnnnn#Heading"). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted|transfer=yes}}. This places them into Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Candidates for deletion, and automatically nominates them for speedy deletion after two days. Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion should be tagged with {{Temporarily undeleted}}. These are automatically nominated for speedy deletion after thirty days.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

File:WH40K Corvus Space Marine.png

Check the author's page, he has a note saying he has released it under Creative Commons.

http://www.coolminiornot.com/422889

•  Oppose It's still Games Workshop Space Marine figurine, even if the coloring is released under a free license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Games Workshop's lawyers have explicitly stated that they do not claim copyright over third-party photos of their minis. Kurzon (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Games Workshop has officially stated that it does not consider that photographs of their miniature models taken by members of the public, hobbyists and customers constitute intellectual property owned by Games Workshop. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Warhammer AoS Lind.jpg.

 Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:GamesWorkshop .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

 Info The DR is still open. Ankry (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Peace and Friendship stadium 2014.JPG

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Peace and Friendship Stadium; this had valid fair uses on various Wikipedia pages (as the depiction of an object which was directly discussed in the relevant articles); and the closer of that discussion did not react to my request to spare this bureaucracy, so there you have it. This should be restored and moved to relevant Wiki as appropriate; I assume that one can trace back from which pages on other encyclopedias than the English one this was removed (where it also was likely fair use), likely via the edits of the Commons bot. RandomCanadian (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose @RandomCanadian: Commons does not accept Fair Use, see COM:L. Ankry (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: This is not a request to undelete this for use on Commons. This is a request to restore it in a temporary fashion so it can be moved to Wikipedia where fair use is accepted. RandomCanadian (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Support temporary undeletion. But @RandomCanadian: , enwiki no longer applies fair use for images of unfree buildings from no FOP countries. Enwiki applies U.S. freedom of panorama for such buildings, thus w:Template:FoP-USonly. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Restored temporarily -- please advise when this has been moved. Please do not close this UnDR without deleting the file. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I see there are other Wikis where this image is also used. I've restored a copy on english WP under a slightly different title ("File:Peace and Friendship stadium 02 03 2014.JPG"). Noting the others for the record in case the other wikis also want to use it:

Extended content

Usage on az.wikipedia.org w:az:Basketbol üzrə Avropa çempionatı 1987 Usage on kk.wikipedia.org w:kk:Пирей Usage on mni.wikipedia.org w:mni:ꯑꯅꯧꯕ ꯒ꯭ꯔꯤꯛ ꯌꯨꯝꯁꯥꯂꯣꯟ Usage on ro.wikipedia.org w:ro:Campionatul European de Atletism în sală din 1985 Usage on sr.wikipedia.org w:sr:Дворана мира и пријатељства Usage on tr.wikipedia.org w:tr:Barış ve Dostluk Stadyumu Usage on uk.wikipedia.org w:uk:Чемпіонат Європи з баскетболу 1987

RandomCanadian (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Additional note: mind doing the same treatment for File:Faliro_Sport_Pavillion.jpg and File:OAKA_Olympic_Velodrome.jpg (found via the history of w:Venues of the 2004 Summer Olympics)? Same considerations apply. RandomCanadian (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: ensure that all of them must be used. The fact that enwiki has accepted original-resolution images of unfree international buildings from no-FOP countries does not mean enwiki is an indefinite host for all images of unfree buildings, as it is not a media repository. Thus there are only four Burj Khalifa images there and a single image of Burj Al Arab. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: These all seem to be related to buildings and venues from the 2004 Olympics ([1] shows the Faliro pavillion being removed from multiple pages, including the page about the venue itself; [2] idem for the velodrome). RandomCanadian (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: in such case, then I  Support undeletions of the two other files. Be sure to tag them with en:Template:FoP-USonly once they are transferred at enwiki. German Wikipedia also does seem to allow unfree buildings of no-FOP countries, but I cannot remember what is their relevant tag of it. Unsure about other Wikipedias though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Stefan Protopopescu.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Stefan Protopopescu.jpg
• File:Mr Stefan Protopopescu.jpg

Reasons:
First file - Photo was taken c. 1911 (110 years ago)
Second file - Photo was taken c. 1925 (96 years ago). It also did not/does not exist outside of wikipedia, I've checked on reverse image search for it. Alin2808 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Alin2808: This does not mean that the photographers died more than 70 years ago nor that they were published anonymously more than 70 years ago. Also, the {{PD-old-assumed}} does not apply to them, yet. So please, elaborate what is their counrty of origin and why they are PD there? And why they were PD there in 1996? Ankry (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: Both photographs are from Romania. As I understand it from here {{PD-Romania}} if the work "is a photographic work and 70 years have passed since the year of its publication" then it's copyright free. Both of these photos have been taken well over 70 years ago and the authors are unknown. Alin2808 (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

But photos are not necessarily published immediately on being taken. If they’re from contemporary journals or similar, then fine, but if they’re from an unpublished collection or archive the above provision may not apply. Also, the URAA date mentioned by Ankry pertains to the US copyright, which lengthened the term of any Romanian rights that had not already expired by the end of 1995, so the date of publication can be no later than the end of 1925.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479 and Alin2808: No later than the end of 1945: Romania had 50-year copyright protection on 1.1.1996 and later copyright extension is irrelevant for URAA. But we still need to know the publication place and date. Ankry (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479 and Ankry: Alright so, as said before, the authors of the photos are unknown and searching for them online leads to nowhere... But, I did manage to find one source for the two photos, don't know if it's the oldest one though. Both appeared in a book: "Romanian Aeronautical Constructions 1905-1974" (albeit, the first photo is part of a larger one and the second photo has a higher quality in the book). This book was published in 1974, and according to {{PD-RO-1956}} - "the encyclopedias, dictionaries and corpora achieved between 1956 and 1996 benefit from intellectual property protection during a limited term, as follows: 20 years since issuance for the author(s) of encyclopedias, dictionaries and corpora". Also the book was published online as well, here [3] and there it is mentioned that it is in the Public Domain. Alin2808 (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done undeleted and fixed source / license info. @Alin2808: Maybe, it is worth to replace the photos with better versions from the 1974 source that you mentioned? Ankry (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: Thank you! I will definitely replace them with the higher quality versions once I finish writing the article about Protopopescu. Alin2808 (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Alin2808: I have uploaded also the book so you can use it as a local source. Ankry (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: Thank you again! I will be sure to add links to it in the articles where I used the book as a source. Alin2808 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Illumination 2013.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Illumination 2013.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: if the lighting display is ordinary and fails French TOO, then this must be OK as per recent inputs by Yann et. al. on public light shows in France. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The recent restorations of night images of the Eiffel Tower, which I support, are all very plain lighting. This is quite elaborate lighting on a church. It is clear from the Eiffel Tower decision that French law (or at least one French judge) supports copyright for elaborate lighting. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

---

 Not done per above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Files uploaded by user:Diethard.Vlaeminck

File:Archiefdocument met samenstelling bestuur Waregem Vooruit 1969 (collectie KOERS. Museum van de Wielersport).jpg

File:Affiche met programma Dwars door België 1962 (collectie Stadsarchief Waregem).jpg

File:Affiche met programma Dwars door België 1959 (collectie Stadsarchief Waregem).jpg

File:Wieleruitrusting Belgisch Kampioen Johan Museeuw 1993 (collectie KOERS. Museum van de Wielersport).jpg

File:Trofee Yves Lampaert, Dwars door Vlaanderen 2017 (TRM0727 - collectie KOERS. Museum van de Wielersport).jpg

File:Trofee Walter Godefroot Dwars door België 1968 (collectie KOERS. Museum van de Wielersport).jpg

File:Zegevierende Albert Sercu poseert na Dwars Door België 1947, Waregem (collectie KOERS. Museum van de Wielersport).jpg

File:Wielrenners poseren voor aanvang tweede etappe Dwars Door België 1946, Sint-Truiden (collectie KOERS. Museum van de Wielersport).jpg

Aren't these covered by this OTRS ticket now? Tekstman (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

ping @Ciell: Elly (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

This user has send us several tickets, looking at the revision history of the deleted images these belong to ticket:2020031110007018. They have never confirmed the copyright questions raised, therefore deletion was justified imho. @Ellywa: Ciell (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Huddyhuddy

• File:Sugihara visa - image taken by me from my own private WW2 collection of documents.jpg (Deletion request).
  • "{{PD-Japan}}", According to articles 51, 52, 53 and 57 of the copyright laws of Japan, under the jurisdiction of the Government of Japan works enter the public domain 50 years after the death of the creator (there being multiple creators, the creator who dies last) or 50 years after publication for anonymous or pseudonymous authors or for works whose copyright holder is an organisation. Assuming that the image captured within this file was published in 1945 meant that it ascended into the public domain in 1995.
  •  Done undeleted. @Donald Trung: Please fix the authorship / licensing info. Ankry (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:1955 Kingdom of Libya visa & consular revenue stamps inside a British passport issued in Cairo.jpg. Need to investigate this one further.
  • Libya maintains a copyright © term of 50 (fifty) years so the Libyan copyright © expired in 2005. And regarding the British & Northern Irish passport, well "{{PD-UKGov}}" states "It was published prior to 1971", which this passy (passport) clearly was.
  •  Done per above. Ankry (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:1943 Italian visa - occupied Athens.jpg.
  • Both the Hellenic Republic and Italy maintain a seventy (70) year copyright © term after publication, so 1943 + 70 = 2013.
  • We need to discuss URAA protection here (or its lack). Ankry (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:The signature of Elpidio Quirino affixed on a passport he issued in 1947, acting as Secretary of State and the president of the 2nr Republic.jpg.
  • "{{PD-PhilippinesGov}}".

I would like to request undeletion for the files listed above originally uploaded by the amazing user "Huddyhuddy", I have listed a reason for why I think they should be undeleted below each entry. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much Donald Trung 『徵國單』 for the support. My aim was always to cherish the past and only load images from my private archive collection. All documents are over 50-100 years old and are obsolete. I find it very puzzling that others find these "offensive" enough and use all methods to remove them. It's only for public usage and enjoying them online. Thanks again Huddyhuddy (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Huddyhuddy: , excuse me for not requesting undeletion earlier as I didn't have the time. Anyhow, nobody is actively trying to censor them here (that basically only happens to pornographic images and self-portraits known as "selfies 🤳🏻"), these images were deleted on the suspicion of copyright ©. Copyright © laws in the modern era are very much against freely sharing and / or preserving historical things in a public archive in favour of the worst possible interpretation of "favouring the creator(s)", the Wikimedia Commons as a website promises that all files on it are freely re-usable by anyone for any purpose hence must be provable to be published under a free license (this doesn't mean free from copyright ©, but certain restrictions may not apply). Nobody that finds these images "offensive" has nominated them for deletion as far as I can tell. And judging by your newer edits you understand copyright © laws better now, most of your images are free, but in case of the Italian-Greek document above it may still be copyrighted in the United States of America 🇺🇸 (where the Wikimedia Commons' servers are located). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung and Huddyhuddy: (likely an unrelated input from me) though in the eyes of some users like @Patrickroque01: , copyright enforcement is a form of "censorship" from authors, architects etc. and restricts freedom of information and expression. I mentioned architects because there is also the copyright vis-à-vis freedom of panorama. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ankry: , Per "Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Government works"

"Works created by or on behalf of either the government, the former national Fascist Party, an academy, or private legal entities of a non-profit-making character of Italy, have 20 years of duration of the rights (Artt. 11, 29). Therefore, the theory that a 70 year rule applies to works of the Italian government is unproven and has been disputed."

So 1943 + 20 = 1963, so it has been in the public domain since 1964. The URAA was signed in 1996, so per "Commons:URAA-restored copyrights" which asks "Was the work still in copyright in the source country on the date of restoration?" to which the answer is "No". The country of publication is the Kingdom of Greece but most visas are simple texts ineligible for copyright © in the United States of America 🇺🇸. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Ankry, I think you were a little quick on these:

• File:Sugihara visa - image taken by me from my own private WW2 collection of documents.jpg was not "published" in 1945. Passport's contents are never routinely published. I think that publication -- in the copyright sense -- did not happen until the upload here. Since 1945+50 beats the URAA date by only a year, even publication in 1947 would be too late for us to keep it.
• File:1955 Kingdom of Libya visa & consular revenue stamps inside a British passport issued in Cairo.jpg. We have the same problem here, but even if we assume incorrectly that it was published when issued, the Libyan copyright extends nine years beyond the URAA date.

Huddyhuddy, you say "All documents are over 50-100 years old". In copyright terms, 50 years is young and 100 years is middle aged. At the very least, in most countries today, a copyright lasts at least 70 years after creation -- and that only if the creator died shortly after creation. For a work created when the author was young, if he or she lives a long time, the copyright could easily be in force for more than 150 years after creation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Per {{PD-Libya}} anonymous or pseudonymous works are copyrighted 25 years since the date of their publication. 1955+25+1=1981 < 1996 I relied on this. Concerning passport content, I do not think that individual passport pages with stamps have separate copyright: we have only passport booklet (published when issued fist time to the people) and passport visa stamps (published when started to be used in passports). We should not consider that each single stamp in each single passport has a separate copyright. Moreover, please note, that I did not close this case so the discussion is still open. Concerning "published": the visa stamps were available to anybody who took appropriate effort to cross the border. I do not see much difference between this and the effort needed to buy something (a book, a magazine or a product with written instructions) or visit a specific art gallery in a strictly defined period of time (when a painting or a sculpture was presented). Ankry (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

US Copyright law at 17USC101:

"“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.

To perform or display a work “publicly” means—

(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or..."

The Berne Convention, Article 3

"(3) The expression “published works” means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public citation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication." --- emphasis added

In the ordinary course of its use, a passport is not "published". The only persons to whom it is shown are government officials of one sort or another, or in some places, hotelkeepers, etc. And, yes, every page in a passport has a copyright, just as every page in a book has one as part of the book. If a passport stamp is above the ToO in the issuing country, it will have a copyright. Few of mine reach that level, but Isla Del Coco, Eritrea, and Gibraltar entry stamps and the Thai visa probably do. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I don't think any of the stamps here has a copyright. At best, there is only a date and a few words on each of them. The Japanese stamp has a symbol, but this is not original enough to have a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Before applying US copyright or Berne, we need an evidence that the passport pages were copyrighted in the country of origin in 1996. None of them is a US work. Ankry (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

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

File:6767Saint_Vincent_Ferrer_Prayer_Park_22.jpg

There is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. To be transferred to the English Wikipedia mainspace. Hopefully this file is indeed the St. Vincent Ferrer Statue facing in the front. I previously requested the wrong file to be temporarily restored (inferior photo, of the statue's back).Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: This is not front view of the statue; this is view from the right. It seems that we have no good photo of the from side of the statue as when the photos were made, the sun was operation from behind the statue and the fron photos like File:6792Saint Vincent Ferrer Prayer Park 09.jpg are very poor and overexposed. Ankry (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "very poor" -- it's a big image, very sharp and clear, but there is absolutely nothing but black on the front side of the statue -- a pure silhouette. Even so, I think it is probably the best image we have. The image requested above is from the left side and doesn't give any feeling for the look of the front side of the statue.

Anyway, judge for yourself -- I am restoring them both temporarily. Hariboneagle927, please post a note here when you are done with them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hariboneagle927: . (new ping to user). Elly (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done, I went with the original image displayed in the article (22) since the other front image's detail is too obscured by the shadow.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

---

 Done: Requested temporary restoration completed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Rope-Solomatkin.jpg

Painting by Russian artist Leonid Solomatkin (1837-1883), it's in public domain and not a subject of copyright restrictions. ~Fleur-de-farine 10:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fleur-de-farine: As noted in this DR proper source information is needed, which is missing. Ankry (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Arch-in-park by Quarenghi.jpg

Work by Giacomo Quarenghi (1744-1817), it's in public domain and not a subject of copyright restrictions. ~Fleur-de-farine 10:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fleur-de-farine: As noted in this DR proper source information is needed, which is missing. Ankry (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

To clarify this, source=internet as you wrote is insufficient. Please provide a link to the website where you found this so we can verify the attribution to Quarenghi. De728631 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Toselly-decor.jpg

Work by Angelo Toselli (1765 — c.1827), it's in public domain, there is no artist's rights violation. ~Fleur-de-farine 10:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Fleur-de-farine: As noted in this DR proper source information is needed, which is missing. Ankry (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Statue of Gurjar Samraat Mihir Bhoj Mahaan in Bharat Upvan ofAkshardham Mandir New Delhi.jpg

I didn't really understand on which rationale did User:Jameslwoodward delete the file. As per the deletion request, the nominator just wanted to rename the file and I have made the request to do it, but it got deleted. Request to undelete it and if possible rename it to Statue of Rajput Samrat Mihibhoj Mahan in Bharat Upvan of Akshardham Mandir New Delhi under the criterion three. Thanks, Contributers2020^{Talk to me here} 14:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't understand a lot of things here do you. It was deleted because the file was scanned from a printed source and it was believed it wasn't released under a CC licence. Not that hard to understand. –Davey2010^Talk 14:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

 Comment This file has a long upload and edit history. The first version is a 396 × 392 copy from Akshardhams magzine, and had a permission ticket:2010101810009091, validated by Jcb. It is not even clear if it is a painting or a picture. There is a copy available on FB. There are some political issues with this file. See [4], [5], [6], and also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sohitsingh678. I am not even sure this image is authentic. It could be a montage. I couldn't find ANY other picture of this statue at that place. See [7]. Yann (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Contributers2020, perhaps my closing comment was too much Commons shorthand for you. To repeat, the named source for the image whttp://ashokharsana.proboards.com/ has on Terms of Service page:

"The Website, or any portion of the Website, may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, modified, sold, resold, distributed, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without the express written consent of ProBoards."

That is an NC (non-commercial) license, which is not permitted on Commons. It is also certainly not the CC-BY-SA license which you put on the page without any justification whatever. If you continue incorrectly licensing non-free works, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose as per the information I wrote above. I wonder what permission is in the VRT ticket. I don't have access any more. Yann (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Davey2010 Was it needed to give it in a criticism style?

@Jameslwoodward The consent https://www.proboards.com/tos is talking about, was submitted in the form of OTRS to the VRT team, with the ticket no. 2010101810009091. So, maybe, a exception was made by the proboards thing to license it to CC-BY-SA-4.0? And why did you warn me? I neither upload it nor change any license nor the VRT ticket. I'm just asking here and there shouldn't be a problem. Contributers2020^{Talk to me here} 03:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pragolaktos BL smetana.jpg

This concerns several photos of packaged food and beverages. Instead of deleting the files because there may be a copyright issue, why don't we find out? I propose the following: I contact the companies and ask whether there is a copyright on these packages at all, and whether they would agree with the photos being posted on Commons. If the outcome is positive, they could send a permission to OTRS and the files can be kept. Otherwise, they would be deleted. Does it sound reasonable? Not having any experience with OTRS, I am not sure whether undeletion is necessary for the process. I was not allowed any discussion on the original page. --JiriMatejicek (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@JiriMatejicek: the burden of contacting companies lies in the uploaders and those arguing to retain the files, as per COM:EVIDENCE. Also, the OTRS, or now called COM:VRT, permission should be made first before requesting restoration (the VRT admins will be the ones to request undeletion if proper permission has been received, not the uploaders). So there is nothing to do here as the moment. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose I looked at several of the images, all of which certainly have copyrights. It is unlikely that the manufacturers will freely license them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Paul Bensussan - 2021.png

Dear all, Gyrostat [8] made a deletion request for my file on Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Paul_Bensussan_-_2021.png) arguing that I made a screenshot from TV. I am quite surprised because a screenshot (flipped image) didn't seem problematic to me. Have a look at Anne Sinclair's wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Sinclair), they also took a screenshot from a TV interview. There is no problem for me if that file is deleted, provided that P. Bensussan would prefer a page without any photos. Otherwise, I would like to keep it. --Giglio2 (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I just wrote an email to BFMTV and French National Assembly.--Giglio2 (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

---

 Not done: The file has not yet been deleted, although it probably will be -- TV programs are copyrighted, so this file infringes. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

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

File:Paul Bensussan à l'Assemblée Nationale - 5 avril 2006.jpg

Dear all, Gyrostat [9] made a deletion request for my second file on Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Paul Bensussan à l'Assemblée Nationale - 5 avril 2006.jpg) arguing that I made a screenshot from TV. I am quite surprised because a screenshot (flipped image) didn't seem problematic to me. Have a look at Anne Sinclair's wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Sinclair), they also took a screenshot from a TV interview. There is no problem for me if that file is deleted, provided that P. Bensussan would prefer a page without any photos. Otherwise, I would like to keep it. --Giglio2 (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Procedural close. This is not the place to request undeletion of files that have never been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose TV programs are not free. Yann (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Jack_Lindquist_Pumpkin.jpg

Undelete. I own this photo and took it myself.--Supermanfan1979 (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Supermanfan1979: Did you create the artwork on the pumpkin? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose The issue is not the copyright for the photo, but the copyright for the pumpkin sculpture. The sculpture appears to be plastic, which would mean that the copyright belongs to the manufacturer and that your image infringes on the copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Vinod Kandari.jpg

image will change because this image is old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanshusharma55 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Himanshusharma55: Who is the photographer? Yann (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Himanshusharma55: is it more than 120 years old? Ankry (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Globe and nude dance sequences.webm

This WEBM VIDEO file was deleted in my opinion without any reason; it merely shows a nude male subject dancing in a beautiful field, against a blue sky. THERE IS NO SEXUAL CONTENT WHATSOEVER ONLY A SUPPLE NUDE BODY! It therefore has some intrinsic artistic value as an art piece; it is not sexualised and not pornographic! This is a creative movement study of human form! The nude in art has been represented for generations, and in this way it allows people to study and view movement in an idealistic way and manner. PLEASE RESTORE THIS FILE ! BY DELETING THE WHOLE CASH OF FILES THERE WAS FAILUTRE TO CONSIDER EVERY SINGLE FILES contents. This video dance piece was not considered properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greymanby (talk • contribs) 11:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Internet provide plenty of other places for such "educational" content. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose We do not keep personal artworks by artists who are not themselves notable. That's true of stills and there is no reason why it should be different for movies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)