Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Current requests[edit]

Logos for Kosovo ethnic Serb municipalities[edit]

Please permanently undelete these files:

The deletion requests were:

The nominator User:AceDouble gave the rationale "Fictional emblem used by serbian parallel structures and not in official use by kosovan authorities see here: [...]". Similar files have since been kept following deletion requests, on the basis that these emblems are probably not fictional but are emblems of towns or regions in Kosovo that have ethnic Serb majorities, so these files are in COM:SCOPE. The deleting admin has no objection to undeletion, see User talk:Infrogmation#Deleted requests for Kosovo Serb files.

Several similar deletion requests have since been issued with the same rationale, as follows:

Verbcatcher (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbcatcher: Are you able to provide evidence that the logos are really used in public space if the abovementioned DRs are reopened? Ankry (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some or all of them are linked in the newer batch of deletion requests. I will try to add some here. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Verbcatcher: These "logos" were never adopted officially as required per law on local self-government in Kosovo => https://mapl.rks-gov.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Law-On-Local-Self-Government.pdf Article 7 Symbols 7.3 "The symbols of a Municipality shall be approved and changed by the municipal assembly pursuant to the constitutional and legal provisions of Republic of Kosova and shall not resemble to symbols of other states or municipalities within or outside Republic of Kosova". For example: the Municipality of Graçanica which has a serb majority population, did approve its own symbols according to the law and they are included in the official site: https://kk.rks-gov.net/gracanice/
The forementioned files should be removed as well (Leposavic, Zvecan, North Mitrovica, Zubin potok) .png .gif .svg AceDouble (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AceDouble: we do not require that images are approved or adopted by any government. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being official / adopted by any government is not required to host an image in Commons. Being actually used is enough. However, if the image is not official, we cannot apply any copyright exception related to government and official works and so we need an evidence that the image is too simple for copyright protection or a free license from the author. Ankry (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: Verbcatcher has no evidence for the use of these nonexisting symbols in public spaces whatsoever.

Sources:

    • [[1]] - North Mitrovica
    • [[2]] - Zvecan
    • [[3]] - Zubin Potok
    • [[4]] - Leposavic

AceDouble (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AceDouble: , I do have evidence. As I said above "Some or all of them are linked in the newer batch of deletion requests. I will try to add some here." I will add some links soon. Your new links only identify the symbols used by the Kosovo Government. They do not relate to the symbols discussed here. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links that confirm that the symbols are used. I do not have access to the deleted files, but the placenames indicated in the file names match our current files and it is probable that they have the same symbols. I don't understand these languages and I cannot confirm the reliability of these sources.

@Vanjagenije: you commented on some of the recent deletion requests, can you comment here? Verbcatcher (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are Google Maps photos that show the symbols displayed in two of these places.
Verbcatcher (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These Municipalities are located in the Republic of Kosovo full stop. By quoting unofficial links and trying to make them "legal" is not the proper way to enrich wikipedian articles.
Official sites:
AceDouble (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion and reopening the DRs as they may need wider discussion about their status. While they are not "official", the declaraion that they are "fictional" is a lie if they are actually in use. However, the {{PD-Kosovo-exempt}} cannot be applied to unofficial emblems and so we need a valid copyright tag (probably a free licese declaration by their human authors). Ankry (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AceDouble: we are not trying to make these 'legal'. There are other symbols on Commons that are probably illegal in their recognised nation state, such as the flag of Islamic State. If these files should not be used in specific Wikipedia articles then please discuss in on their talk pages, or in a Wikiproject such as w:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kosovo. If it is reliably established that these symbols are illegal under the law of Kosovo then we could indicate this in the description on the file page, or a template could be created.Verbcatcher (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose They are not in use, per given source.
AceDouble (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Hi. I declined a few deletion requests on the basis the rationale was not a valid reason for deletion, but I pointed out copyright status was a more sensible reason for deleting them (for example here), since I took a look on the template used there ({{PD-SerbiaGov}}) and I was not entirely convinced on its applicability. Strakhov (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I accept that these files may have a risk of copyright violation because both {{PD-Kosovo-exempt}} and {{PD-SerbiaGov}} look invalid. The four deleted files should be undeleted (they might have a valid license), and a mass deletion request should be raised for all these files. There are various reasons by which they could be 'free': these could be old public domain symbols, possibly dating from the Yugoslav period. Alternatively, someone with local contacts might identify the authors or copyright holders, and establish free licenses. The municipal authorities might be able to issue valid licenses even if the Kosovo national government did not recognise these authorities. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can assure you that these don't have valid licenses neither they date back from the yugoslav period. And something i almost forgot.. The UN Habitat programme in Kosovo which has partnership with the municipalities of Kosovo, check out these symbols they have for Zvecan, Zubin potok and Leposavic on their site:
    • [[25]] Zvecan
    • [[26]] Zubin Potok
    • [[27]] Leposavic
    AceDouble (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:EdaEce1990.png[edit]

I noticed this image was deleted, but I think it should be undeleted. It was taken from an official distributor channel (FOX) as you can see here: [28] I see the nomination says "The director of this TV serie until March 2020 was Neslihan Yeşilyurt. Since this director didn't publish it on Youtube with CC, we don't use screenshot here with CC" but we can safely assume the official TV channel of the show has the necessary permissions from production crew/director before "distributing" it. I mean, when do you see a show or film release from director's own channels? The director works on the production and the production company/distributor/TV channel handles the release and the distributing part. So for this reason, "because it's not from director's youtube channel" is not really a good argument to delete, it's from official TV channel page after all.Tehonk (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

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

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

@Ruthven: @Friniate: for their Italian language skills and Italian copyright expertise. Abzeronow (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, in 5.2 they state that BCS is not a license : "Beni Culturali Standard (BCS) : Questa etichetta non è una “licenza” bensì si limita a sintetizzare il contenuto delle norme vigenti in materia di riproduzione di beni culturali pubblici, definendone i termini d’uso legittimo." -- Asclepias (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asclepias, OK, but if isn't a license, then how do we keep the photograph? It's clearly a modern photograph of a 3D object, so we need a license in order to keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the file deleted, it's hard to know what other info was provided by the uploader. Is it a picture taken by the uploader? Is it from a museum? {{PD-art}} wouldn't apply since it isn't a 2D object, but does another valid license cover a photo of an ancient 3D object? —Tcr25 (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tcr25: source is https://catalogo.beniculturali.it/detail/ArchaeologicalProperty/1100094920#lg=1&slide=1 Abzeronow (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I keep coming back to the BCS algins with NoC-OKLR 1.0 (No Copyright - Other Known Legal Restrictions). It doesn't appear that there is any assertion of copyright over the photo itself; the Catalogo generaledei Beni Culturali's terms and conditions mentions CC by 4.0 and the need to comply with BCS. (There is a mention of Law No. 633, but there's no indication of who the photographer is, implying that it is the property of the stated museum. If the "Data di Compilazione" (1999) is the date the image was created, then the museum's 20-year copyright would have expired, leaving just the non-copyright restriction in play. —Tcr25 (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: Your conclusion seems correct. But I am not an Italian speaker either. The whole long document should be read in its entirety. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tcr25 on the reading of the BCS license. The link to the NoC-OLKR statement contained in the BCS license is broken, but we can read it here (english version here), and it begins with Use of this item is not restricted by copyright and/or related rights. So it seems to me that the BCS license is a non-copyright restriction, since in the text of the BCS license is said that it complies to the NoC-OLKR. Adding the {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} should be sufficient for what regards the copyright on the object.
I'm much less sure about the copyright on the photo though. The terms and conditions mention indeed CC-BY-SA 4.0 (actually that is something that is valid for the entirety of the Italian Public Administration) but they also contain a specific exception for the photos, for which is clearly said that is necessary to obtain an authorization from the owner of the object (in this case the Soprintendenza Archeologica delle Marche), which will concede it with the same conditions that are applied for the photos of the object taken by other people (these). You can try to obtain an authorization from the Soprintendenza, asking if you can use these images with the Mibac-disclaimer, they may agree. Friniate (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot to address the issue of the date of compilation. Yeah, it seems likely also to me that the photo was taken in the same occasion, but it's not clearly stated either... Friniate (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I actually nominated the file for deletion because of the NoC-OLKR statement (something close to {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}). But, if it is just a request, and not a copyright statement (in fact, in the very same page it is written that BCS applies to public domain artworks), we should consider the file/photograph as published under CC BY 4.0 license, like the whole website [29]. --Ruthven (msg) 12:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The general terms of use (which mention the CC license) begin right at the start with the familiar statement that it applies only "Dove non diversamente specificato", i.e. "Where not otherwise specified". The specific terms of use of this photograph clearly do specifiy otherwise with the BCS. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that's the Catch-22, the BCS says it's not a license, but if it isn't a license then the default license seems to be CC by 4.0 albeit with BCS as a non-copyright limitation on use. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CC license is excluded by the specific terms of use statement. Not every work is under a license or another. (And if a work was not copyrighted anywhere, it could not be licensed.) If the BCS tag means that the image is not copyrighted in Italy, either because this type of image is uncopyrightable under Italian law or because a 20-year copyright has expired in Italy, the question for Commons is if and how could that unlicensed image be used in the United States? A photo published after February 1989 is directly copyrighted in the U.S. (If the URAA is added, the photo would need to be from before 1976.) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"And if a work was not copyrighted anywhere, it could not be licensed" but that's part of the issue. The Italian cultural law, as I understand it, specifically looks to allow monetization through licensing of cultural artifacts that are no longer covered by copyright. It's not that a specific photograph requires a license, but any photograph of a cultural artifact would require a license. There is a current court case regarding the validity of this rule involving a German puzzle maker and Da Vinci's Uomo Vitruviano. Under Commons:NCR, "non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia." I'm not sure where the right line is here, but I don't think that we can say there is a clear copyright-based reason to exclude the image. If the image, like other parts of the website is CC-by-4.0 with the BCS limitation, wouldn't that be the baseline for the copyright status, not an unasserted U.S. copyright? —Tcr25 (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Friniate: There is no question about the free nature of the object. The question is indeed about the nature of the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asclepias Similar limitations as the BCS apply to all photos of objects classified as italian cultural heritage, also if you go to the museum and take one, for example. That is the reason why the Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer is embedded within all the photos taken within WLM Italy. Friniate (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such photos taken by Commons contributors are not a problem because contributors necessarily release them under free licenses. Such photos by Wikimedia Commons contributors are even mentioned in section 2.4.1 of the Linee guida per l’acquisizione, la circolazione e il riuso delle riproduzioni dei beni culturali in ambiente digitale. But the photo in discussion, File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg, is not a licensed photo by a Commons contributor, but an unlicensed photo from an external site. The problem for Commons is not the Italian BC directive. It is the absence of license and the U.S. copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make things clear, since if the BCS license is interpreted as a copyright restriction, that would mean the deletion of all the photos on almost every italian cultural object.I let other people more expert than me in the US copyright judge if according to the US law the image is ok or not. Friniate (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I was not implying that we should keep the image for what you are saying, I only said that if commons deems as unacceptable hosting objects covered by non copyright restrictions as the BCS or the Codice Urbani, that means deleting the photos of almost all italian cultural objects. It's a fact, not an opinion, everyone can decide what to do with this fact. By the way, I was not even saying that in order to argue for undeleting this image. Friniate (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per COM:GVT Italy, According to article 52, paragraph 2 of the Digital Administration Code, data and documents published by Italian public administrations without any explicit license are considered "open by default" (with exception of personal data). In this case, data and documents without explicit license can be used for free, also for commercial purpose, like CC-BY license or with attribution. Since the photo is a work of the Soprintendenza Archeologia delle Marche, the COM:GVT Italy statement would seem to apply. If the BCS considered a copyright restriction, despite its language, then this does become a wider problem, as Friniate noted. Regardless of the decision around this specific image, I think there needs to be broader consideration of how the BCS limitation is considered/handled. Also, this discussion, once it's closed, should probably be attached to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg to update/expand the deletion rationale. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this matter we have finally a verdict on the lawsuit of the Italian Ministry against Ravensburger for the usage of images of the en:Vitruvian Man, which has clarified that restrictions as the Codice Urbani or the BCS are non-copyright restrictions which can not be applied outside Italy. Friniate (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again (third time) -- if the BCS is not a copyright license, then we have no license for the photograph. Apparently it is not a copyright license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you parse the COM:GVT Italy statement that such images can be used without an explicit license? —Tcr25 (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Testxss.gif[edit]

I believe that File:Testxss.gif is not out of scope because it shows that generating a high-resolution GIF file with only 30 bytes is technically possible. It can be used to examine the capabilities of the GIF file format.

That file is listed on the Wikipedia records (revision as of writing) as "Highest size-to-resolution ratio: Testxss.gif, which is 24,891 x 25,964 (646,269,924 pixels) despite being only 30 bytes". The file is potentially interesting to anyone researching properties of the GIF file format.

After undeleting this file, please also rename it to something descriptive like File:High-resolution GIF with only 30 bytes.gif .

Regards, Elominius (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Random demonstrations of tech stuff is not in Commons' scope. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed it falls under "educational purpose", but otherwise, would someone send it to me using catbox or some other file sharer? Elominius (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC) - last modified 06:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fortepan 213815.jpg[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

At the very least, does not seem like this should have been speedied. Agreed that a VRT agent would be the only one who could confirm, but seems like it should not be deleted until that question is answered. If VRT permission was supplied, then the uploader did enough. A regular user being unable to read a VRT ticket is not grounds for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) @Hungarikusz Firkász: The problem is that administrators are not able to verify what is inside the ticket. We rely in this matter on VRT volunteers who make UDR requests if they need and add the appropriate ticket numbers to the images if this is needed. In this case, no ticket was added and I see no verifiable information on your homepage that you are a VRT volunteer. Also, maybe, we need a specific Fortepan template containing the ticket number for this author? But this page is not a venue to discuss it.
We are not talking about any other image, just about this one.
BTW1, the link to the image is [30].
BTW2, pinging users involved in the deletion: @Didym and Krd: It is standard to do so.
BTW3, I do not oppose undeletion; just pointing out that referring to a VRT ticket requires to involve a VRT volunteer. Ankry (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request by Mitumial[edit]

Ich bitte darum, genannte Dateien wiederherzustellen, da diese Teil diverser Wikipediaprojekte sind, an denen ich teils auch als Autor mitgearbeitet habe.

Mitumial (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I have looked at half a dozen of these and they all were deleted by Yann as personal images from a non-contributor. I see no reason to disagree with that. Commons is not Facebook. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the pictures have been part of different projects showing different models for illustration not for private use Mitumial (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote Yann, he understood my issue and he told me to ask here Mitumial (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:大小姐.JPG[edit]

This photo was really taken in 2010 when the celebrity "Da Xiaojie" visited Fahrenheit's "Too Hot" album signing event at Guangsan SOGO in Taichung, using a digital camera. It contains EXIF data. This is because the image on the Wikipedia page was removed at the time. So in the end, the image was nominated for deletion under the reason "Unused personal image". But in 2010, "Da Xiaojie" was already a celebrity, so how could it be nominated for deletion under this reason? --Czechtaxes (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quality is not good and there are other photos here of Frances & Aiko. Thuresson (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Omotenashi-jaxa.jpg[edit]

Prof Hashimoto from JAXA and ISAS who oversaw the project sent a VRT for the file as far as I am aware. Also, as stated before, there is a notice on JAXA website regarding free use of their images and its verified that it applies to Commons.--VectorVoyager (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VectorVoyager:
  1. If an image requires a VRT perimission, you do not need to make a request here; the image will be undeleted after the permission is verified and accepted.
  2. You declared at upload that the photo is {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} licensed; I see no mention of this license on the abovementioned JAXA page.
  3. This page is not the right venue to discuss non-standard license compatibility with Wikimedia Commons requirements; if there was a discussion in this matter with a clear consensus and the appropriate template was created, please point them out. I cannot find any JAXA-related copyright template.
Ankry (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files of Sainte Marie de la Tourette[edit]

Both photos were taken of my group of graduate students (FH Cologne, architectural department), as incidental images, on which almost nothing is shown of the monastery. Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The roof's architecture is a main subject in the first, and the building is the subject of the second. Abzeronow (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First picture: the main motive is the group of my students and the "roofs architecture" consists of the concrete walls (students standing) and of the steps (students sitting), both of which can`t be seen and can´t be visoned as bridge-construction between the church and the housing part of the former monastery. The cube in the foreground is the top of a banal staircase exit, and in the back one can see only the last part of the chimney. All elements are mere functional as one can see on this pic: https://www.german-architects.com/images/Projects/03/90/19/33a05007fe63472b8314379afd0d6855/33a05007fe63472b8314379afd0d6855.8945f03a.jpg (church is on the right of the slot between buildings, housing on the left) and not the "architectural roofgarden" which is typical for Corbusier`s "Unité s`habitation"-buildlings i.e. in Marseille: https://www.designweek.co.uk/issues/march-2014/living-laboratory-richard-pare-on-le-corbusier-and-konstantin-melnikov/ (first picture). Please undelete under: CC BY-SA 4.0 Legal Code, Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
Second picture I agree that there is too much to be seen of the whole building. should be deleted. Thanks Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Christian Riemann: Yes, we could keep the first picture after cropping the building, but the quality is poor, so what is the educational use of this picture without the building? Yann (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yann: My intention was to visualize in the article the "pilgrimage" of architectural students. But without the banal rest of the building, this would make no sense, thanks though. Peter Christian Riemann (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This can be considered as withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yoko Alender.jpg[edit]

Hi there!

I am wondering to know, why my uploaded file was deleted, since I mentioned references.

Reference: https://reform.ee/euroopa-parlamendi-valimised-2024/yoko-alender

Person on the picture gave a permission for publishing as well as every picture on reform.ee is for free use all across the globe.

Maybe I wrote Authors rights form incorrect, but I will wait for your answer and will stay on that this picture IS NOT violate the authors rights.

Thank you in advice, Roccki69 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roccki69 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 April 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Roccki69: I don't see any kind of explicit free license there. Estonia is a signatory of the Berne Convention and all photographs are automatically considered copyrighted unless explicitly said otherwise. Abzeronow (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Roccki69: "Free use" is not a free license; see COM:L for minimal requirements. Also, any license has to be granted in a written form. Ankry (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dixie - Unofficial anthem of the Confederate States.ogg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have found out that this rendition of Dixie was written and conducted by Richard Bales. It was released in an album called The Confederacy in 1958. The file was deleted due to it not being known weather it violated copyright or not, since Richard Bales passed away in 1998 this version of Dixie might be in public domain. https://archive.org/details/lp_the-confederacy_richard-bales_0/page/n6/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/lp_the-confederacy_richard-bales_1/disc1/02.05.+Dixie's+Land+With+Quckstep+And+Interlude%3A+Year+Of+Jubilo.mp3 Andrew Adams fan (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose 1958 sound recording is protected until 2068. Also even if the life of the author figured into this, 1998 is not 70 years ago. Abzeronow (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Abzeronow. Ankry (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Die Verboten (Press picture).jpg[edit]

Hello,

The picture that has been uploaded can be used for Wikipedia, but I have indicated the wrong copyright type in the uploading process. Is it possible to undelete it?

Have a nice day, Pieter PieterDS (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is an explicitly free license at the source, we'd need VRT permission from the photographer to host it here. Abzeronow (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PieterDS: Which license is correct in your opinion and where has it been granted? Ankry (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ThirumaLi.jpg[edit]

The image was captured by my one of the friend and I have acquired full permission and rights to use it as my own work and upload it to Thirumali's page. Please remove the copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rydex64 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

@Rydex64: Then please ask your friend to confirm the permission for a free license via COM:VRT. The file will be undeleted when the permission is validated. Yann (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Thank you, will ask him to do so. Rydex64 (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done waiting for VRT action. Ankry (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Peter Jordan em 2022.png[edit]

It isn't a copyright violation. I linked the YouTube video source, which is under a Creative Commons license, as can be read in the description. I specifically put in the license which the image was under, both in English and in Brazilian Portuguese. Pato ilógico (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support CC-BY-3.0 at youtube.com. Thuresson (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could we expedite the image undeletion? The Wikipedia page is currently without an image due to this issue. Thanks! Pato ilógico (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I usually wait for 24 hours after the request, or after the last comment. Yann (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adi Nes 004.jpg[edit]

Just a piece of artwork, but it is licensed under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebiguglyferret (talk • contribs) 09:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyferret: Per policy, the uploader is required to provide a verifiable evidence of free license permission or ensure that the copyright holder did sent the permission via email following VRT instructions. There is no evidence of the permission on this page. The image may be undeleted when the evidence is provided. Ankry (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:윤운영배우1.jpg[edit]

File:윤운영배우1.jpg I directly recieved this photo from 윤운영. 윤운영 is the man of the photo. There is no reason you should delete this file. Please do not delete this photo file.

--K-wiki-editor (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose You said you are the owner of this file, which is wrong. The copyright holder is usually the photographer, not the subject. So we need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. The file will be undeleted if and when the permission is validated. Yann (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 7 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toho cinemas.svg[edit]

This file is a vectorized version of File:Toho Cinemas.png. File:Toho Cinemas.png has been posted for two years and has not been deleted for copyright infringement, so I believe the license is appropriate. I believe the decision to delete is inappropriate and I request the withdrawal of the deletion.
Thank you.
Amaterasu 1-1 (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Much too complex. PNG version nominated for deletion. Yann (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graniph logo.svg[edit]

After I got warning, I changed the source URL to proper one. Luke atlas (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some files[edit]

File:Pasar logo.svg
File:Expasa logo.svg
File:Pavarie logo.svg
File:Neopasa logo.svg
I believe these logos are not logos with complex shapes that exceed the threshold of originality, but are logos composed of simple shapes.
Your incerely,
Luke atlas (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Javier Mercado.jpg[edit]

Hello, I believe that deleting the image is not correct because it is licensed under Creative Commons 3.0, as you can see in the footer of the website that it has been published there.

Thank you.

https://www.coleccionistasdemonedas.com/author/javier/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coleccionistasdemonedas (talk • contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Personal image for advertising purpose. Yann (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Captura coleccionistas de monedas 2022.jpg[edit]

Hello, I believe that deleting the image is not correct because it is licensed under Creative Commons 3.0, as you can see in the footer of the website that it has been published there.

https://www.coleccionistasdemonedas.com/graduacion-estado-de-conservacion-de-monedas-antiguas/

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coleccionistasdemonedas (talk • contribs) 11:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The license is only CC-BY-ND-3.0 which is not OK for Commons. This doesn't allow for derivative works. We need a license for any use for any purpose, including commercial ones. Also what is the educational use of this screenshot? Yann (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clubgebouw Oosterkwartier Haarlem na vernielingen in 1965.jpg[edit]

url of source is available, license info is present - all files are {{Noord-Hollands Archief-de Boer}}. These were probably auto-deleted before I could remove the issue tag.

same is true for:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tertius3 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

@Krd and Didym: as involved admins. Yann (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=873070339"