commons.wikimedia.org

Commons:Undeletion requests - Wikimedia Commons

  • ️Invalid Date

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.

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

This file was just deleted because it doesn't fit in TOO Angola, but the symbol in the middle is the traditional lusona symbol for antelope footprint. [1] Other than that the graphic consists of just simple rectangles and circle. Therefore the deletion was incorrect. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, although COM:Angola also notes that "Traditional learning and use are treated the same as literary, artistic and scientific works." I will admit that my knowledge of African symbols like this is lacking so I won't oppose restoration here. Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about it before, but the pattern probably already existed in colonial times and Portuguese law, where folk patterns are not protected, may apply. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly. I might need to try to find someone who is an expert on Angola and then temporarily undelete to get their opinion. (if someone else thinks I should reverse my deletion, I'll also do so.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rui Gabriel Correia: to see if they can assist. Abzeronow (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

This file was deleted because the original uploader didn't provide sufficient evidence that the file was in the public domain or with a free licence. However, a user on zh-wp gave evidence that the logo was proposed by International Paralympic Committee (IPC) (per Paralympic document). We can assume that the IPC created the logo since there's no other information about the designer. We can, therefore, use pd-textlogo by COM:TOO Germany (since the IPC is based in Germany) to deal with the logo and the special emblem, per №.N at the deletion request.

Here's the original text:

这个标志最初由国际残奥委会推出[2]。原设计者不明的情况下可以认为是国际残奥委会的作品，技术上可依据国际残奥委会总部所在国德国的原创性门槛来处理。（以下信息皆仅用于本讨论作为参考）另外，合理推测俄罗斯残奥委会的标志中明显的俄罗斯国旗元素，是国际残奥委会推出这个special emblem的原因之一（俄罗斯在东京奥运可以直接使用俄罗斯奥委会标志，因为俄罗斯奥委会标志的俄罗斯国旗元素相对没那么明显），同时这个special emblem原设计者是俄罗斯籍的可能性也很低。

--Saimmx (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This image depicts a 76-year-old male (it used to be in the category Nude 76-year-old male humans per Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/05/Category:Nude 76-year-old male humans and the preceding CfD linked there). A 76-year-old male would be an ‘old man’ (per the de facto Commons categorization scheme).

The mere fact that this image depicts an erection of an old man seems to make the image notable.

It is not clear how many other images Commons has depicting this topic, but there is strong circumstantial evidence that Commons lacks such images. There is no category Nude old men with erect penis. There is a category Nude old men, which contains (directly or indirectly) a total of 5 files, none of which depict erections. There is one image that I am aware of, File:00000 An Erect human penis viewed from the front 190mm.jpg, and even that image narrowly escaped deletion after a dubious discussion. Brianjd (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And now that one image has been deleted too (despite having survived a deletion request). What the hell is going on here? Are erections of old men in scope on Commons or not? Brianjd (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it was caught up in a bulk deletion. Brianjd (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz

I'm asking for a deletion review of files that I had deleted in October 2023. I had essentially felt that the interplay of colors had pushed it to a level that would have been copyrightable. Recently a few similar files to ones I had deleted were kept by User:Infrogmation, and I was essentially asked to reexamine my decision. I want to see if I had missed some reason why these would be too simple for copyright as User:IronGargoyle says since I'd like stay on the same page as my colleagues. Abzeronow (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Why would this place not being covered by Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Freedom of panorama? Yann (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what that page says, many commentators consider that subway stations are interior spaces and do not meet the requirement for FoP of being public streets, ways, or open spaces. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that's weird. There is nothing more public than a subway station, in the common sense of the word. Yann (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but German law appears to treat them as indoor spaces @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Abzeronow (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no exact definition in the actual law, and apparently there are no court decisions if places like train station halls and subway stations are “public” as required by the law. About half of legal commentators are in favor of it, half are against it (de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80). --Rosenzweig τ 08:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I think that when there are several possible interpretations of the law, we should use the most favorable for Commons. Yann (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
COM:PCP says something else IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what PCP says. We should not use PCP to be more royal than the king. If several legal commentators say that a work is OK, we should use that. Yann (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you know about this, but there has been a big discussion in the past about artwork and creative designs in subway stations in Germany. As a result, as far as I understood at the time, the precautionary principle was invoked, among other things. The decision should be to delete if the design is creative enough to be worth protecting. And this is exactly the question that arises at this subway station. Different administrators have decided differently. I think there should be a unified decision. Kind regards Lukas Beck (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't go against the consensus, and I will let another admin decides, as if we can't use the FoP provision, I don't know if these are OK or not. But my opinion about interpretation of COM:PCP remains. Yann (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me, half of the commentators saying it's not allowed definitely meets the threshold for significant doubt but I'm not a lawyer. FoP would make this easier I'd agree. I also agree with Lukas that decisions like this should be unified if possible. (which is why I asked for a review). Abzeronow (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow@Asclepias@L. Beck@Rosenzweig@Yann reading about "legal commentators" reminds me of the situation of COM:FOP Japan. In fact, there are mixed insights from lawyers and other legal commentators there. Several Japanese lawyers contend that commercial use is allowed under the Japanese Article 46 rule, while few others argue that buildings must be subject to the non-commercial restriction, based on the analogy that buildings with sufficient architectural properties must be treated as artworks. The prevailing majority of the legal commentators there agree that use of Japanese buildings in commercial photos are legal, under the Japanese FoP.
Roughly how many of the German legal commentators agree that German FoP covers subway architecture, and how many do not? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: Of the ones named at de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80, 11 are against fop being applicable in such cases, and 7 are in favor if I counted correctly. So my initial quick estimate of half/half was apparently a bit off. --Rosenzweig τ 06:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the original question about originality: As I see it, there's nothing very original about both the architecture and the coloring in this subway station. I'd say they are below COM:TOO Germany, which is higher than in other countries like the UK. I also think the coloring is below COM:TOO US, so I  Support undeletion. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the subtleties of German FoP, but I think it likely that the architectural detailing around the pillars is sufficiently creative to have a copyright in both Germany and the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: But per COM:FOP US, photos cannot be derivatives of architectural works in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 12:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow@Asclepias@Jameslwoodward@L. Beck@Rosenzweig@Yann apparently, there is a legal advice Wikimedia Deutschland received from lawyer Philipp Hellwig, way back 2023. It might be of relevance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the applicability of FOP in subway stations in Germany. The conclusion (C. I.) is on page 5: Keine Geltung der Schrankenbestimmung, FOP is not applicable in such cases. C. II. also says photographers might violate house rules, though per Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum and interior photography, that is not the primary concern of Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 09:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remeber that some similar cases were kept, but I really don't know what the correct answer is here. I try to avoid these cases :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This logo was deleted because of the griffin in the flag. The griffin is copied from the coat of arms of the city of Rostock which is public domain by German law. Aleph Kaph (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleph Kaph: The griffins are dissimilar, please explain. Thuresson (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an exact copy of the outline of the city's griffin but it's very similar. Laying the two shapes over each other shows that there is some distortion but the shape of the tail, the head, the wing and each leg is copied, even the individual pointy ends of the tail, the fur at the lower front leg, or the placement of the pointy ends of the feathers in the wing. The biggest difference is that RFC's griffin is missing the three pointy protrusions to the front.
I don't know if that qualifies the RFC logo as public domain or eligible for Commons, I just wanted to provide a source for the griffin shape as that was named as the reason to delete the file. Aleph Kaph (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File was deleted primarily because of a claim that it was COM:OOS, however there are literally a page on Wikipedia that has been translated to multiple languages regarding Apple Intelligence.
While yes, there has been dispute over the copyright status of the file in question, I stand by the rationale that I laid out in the original deletion request that this is, in fact, a free file. TansoShoshen (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How, exactly, does the existence of articles on Apple Intelligence make a person's profile image in scope? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We currently do not have any file generated from the Image Playground in particular, it was highlighted by Apple as one of the big features. The main demonstration Apple used was, in fact, to generate images of people from an album. TansoShoshen (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photographical reproduction of this work is covered under the article 148, VII of the Mexican copyright law (Ley Federal de Derechos de Autor), which states that «Literary and artistic works already published may be used, provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected, without authorization from the copyright holder and without remuneration, invariably citing the source and without altering the work, only in the following cases: [...] VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». See COM:CRT/Mexico#Freedom of panorama for more information.

What are "public spaces" according to Mexican law?

- schools, universities, and every kind of building used for education; - clinics, hospitals, and every kind of building used for health care; - government offices of all types; - community centers; - places that are open to the public with free admission such as parks, green areas, and sports centers; - places that collaborate in public federal programs.

See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama

Portable works on paper or canvas by Orozco are in public & open display in Mexican collections of public museums run by the state & government. You can access the museums for free on Sundays of the whole year, which makes access universal for people of all ages for eight hours a day.

That's the case of Mexico City museums such as Museo Nacional de Arte, Museo Carrilo Gil, and Museo de Arte Moderno, as well as Museo Cabañas in the city of Guadalajara. The works by Orozco are guarded by INBAL (Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes y Literatura) within all those museums.

Wikimedia Commons has several images by Orozco (not uploaded by me) that are portable prints on paper in such techniques as lithography, etching, aquatint, and drypoint. I reckon there must be good reasons for those works to remain in Wikimedia, since those images have not been deleted.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inti Rosso (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

Also

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kloster Garnstock Gebetsecke.jpg. The nominator mistakenly gave the link to the German FoP template here, but Category:Kloster Garnstock is located in Belgium, which has slightly-lenient FoP rule than Germany.

It appears it shows some work inside the church. Likely it is eligible; as per Romaine at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/12#Mini-Europe, FoP-Belgium was "based on how it is in the Netherlands". Per Romaine again here (with respect to the Dutch FoP rules in churches as per a government opinion), "if a church has opening hours and anyone can freely access and walk inside, it is a public place, if a church is only open with services then it is not." Kloster Garnstock is a Catholic monastery, and Catholic churches typically have set opening and closing hours, unlike a few Protestant churches which are only open to their congregations during worship hours. Therefore, this image file likely falls under {{FoP-Belgium}} and needs to be undeleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:FOP Belgium, “the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public.” If a Catholic church has opening and closing hours just like a museum, it would appear to not be permanently open to the public, just like a public museum. --Rosenzweig τ 10:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. These days there are very few buildings that are open to the public 24/7/365. Surely "permanently open to the public' should be read as "open to the public daily except major holidays" or something similar. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Even subway stations are closed at night these days (i.e. German case discussed above). Yann (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"open to the public daily except major holidays" was obviously NOT what the Belgian FOP lawmakers intended if “the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums”. --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geertivp: who could grant us some insight into Belgian FoP. Abzeronow (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this is the same logo displayed in the top-left corner of the company website at the time, it's almost certainly ineligible for copyright protection as below the US threshold of originality. Looks like it had been tagged incorrectly at upload (based on talk message) but I can't see exactly how it was marked. Adding that it was in scope as it was used in an English Wikipedia article at the time. Ajpolino (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The black-and-white artwork is so strongly abstracted in comparison to the copyrighted original photo as a result of processing with a computer programme and/or manual drawing that there can be no legitimate claim to property rights. In German copyright law there is a corresponding passage in Section 23 (1) sentence 2 UrhG. --Kompetenter (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This argument was put forward in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hiba Kamal Abu Nada.jpg. The subject has no known relation to German legal jurisdiction. Thuresson (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, judging by the stated reason for deletion, this argument was not taken into account. The reference to the German paragraph was purely exemplary since the copyright situation in the not generally recognised State of Palestine is unclear. Kompetenter (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our policy for unclear copyright status is COM:PCP. Ankry (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reasonable “significant doubt about the freedom” of the file, as it is neither the original colour photo nor does it contain important copyrightable elements of it. A photographer does not own image rights to the face of a person portrayed. Kompetenter (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is over a threshold of originality (which one?), but we should not use COM:PCP over the slightest thing. Yann (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I don't think there can be any question here that the drawing is derived from the color photograph. The head angle, the expression, even the folds in the hijab are very close to the photo. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2024/11/22#File:Friedrich Erdmannsdorffer sen (cropped).jpg. --Kompetenter (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} requires an evidence that the image was published more than 70 years ago. I see no evidence for that and the decision in the abovementioned DR may be wrong. Ankry (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We usually assume that such images were published at the time of creation, but the description says "circa 1930", so we may have to wait one more year to undelete it. Yann (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is ultimately beside the point, as the rights holder (heir) has made the image available. Kompetenter (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The heir of the photographer? Copyright holder is the photographer, not the subject. Ownership of the photo print is irrelevant here. The publication date is crucial: per copyright law the photographer has 70 years since publication to reveal his/her authorship and make the copyright term for the work 70pma or decide to remain anonymous and leave the term 70 years post-publication. Ankry (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: You claim it multiple times, hewever I am unable to find any basis for this interpretation. Can you please, point out a community decision or a legal opinion that supports what you say? Per my knowledge, most private photos remain unpublished and this is the real reason for handling this grey area works in EU law in some way (that is in most cases not free however). Ankry (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a print to me, and so I think we could reasonably say that it was published around 1930. However, I disagree with the decision to keep the crop. A 1930 German photograph cannot be licensed under PD-EU-no author disclosure because pre-1995 German works cannot be anonymous, German law says if the creator was ever known, the work cannot be anonymous. Additionally, 1930 works from Germany are restored by URAA as Germany was PMA 70 on January 1, 1996. so I  Oppose restoration of this and think the crop should also be deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please name the paragraphs/court judgements you are referring to? Kompetenter (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: whom I learned this information from. (The URAA matter is simple math. Germany's URAA date was January 1, 1996 and Germany implemented retroactive 70 PMA copyright in 1995 and thusly works from authors who died before 1926 were exempt from URAA and 1930 is after 1926.) Abzeronow (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Cannot be anonymous" part actually refers to works of art like drawings, paintings, sculptures, architecture etc. from before July 1995 (Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works), it does not refer to photographs. The other bit though ("if the creator was ever known, the work cannot be anonymous") does refer to all works including photographs, meaning that publication without a credited author does not necessarily make a work anonymous. So while photographs from before July 1995 can be anonymous works per German law, in reality it's rather murky because you cannot really rule out that the author is known in some way. That is the main reason why the German wikipedia does not accept anonymous works 70 years after their first publication (there is a 100 year rule instead). --Rosenzweig τ 19:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kompetenter: If we had a more precise date, we could take a better decision. I would support undeletion if we had some evidence that this is from before 1930, so free of US copyright. Otherwise, we may have to wait... Yann (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the original uploader on his discussion page for further details. My assumption that he is the copyright holder is based on the fact that the poor quality photo was probably not taken by a professional photographer, but by an amateur from the closer family, as the photo was found in a family album. Kompetenter (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I agree that it is very unlikely that a professional photographer would have had the background change color behind his ear. However, knowing that it came from a family album does not help unless it can be proven who the actual photographer was and that they or their heir has given a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I’m requesting the restoration of the following file: File:Kevin Marx Noren Media Day, (2024).jpg

This image was previously accepted on Wikimedia Commons. I reached out to the author, Mikaela Engström, who confirmed permission for use via email. Both Mikaela and I (Rickard) would like to share this project on Wikimedia Commons, but the image was recently deleted. Could you please clarify the reason for the deletion, as we both confirmed that all necessary permissions were provided?

Thank you for reviewing this request.--Rickard Elofsson (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The file was deleted because it had an invalid VRT (see deletion log). Günther Frager (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly request the undeletion request for this particular file since i am the originator of the picture . it was mentioned that it was found else where on the web and the only place it was found was on the website of the office of the special prosecutor which is where it was and the only place to have been uploaded apart form this wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigilante eye 1 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info The photo is available here . Thuresson (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thuresson, the cited page is behind a wall that requires me to download software onto my machine. That looks a lot like a phish to me, so I haven't done it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Policy requires that we have a free license via VRT for all images that appear elsewhere on the web. Alternately you could upload the image at full camera resolution using the same file name. The very small image you uploaded is immediately suspicious. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a new undeletion request, as the previous request was closed before I was able to reply. Tadeusz Debski is flickr user cbaksik's grandfather. The photograph was scanned from an unpublished family album of photographs that Tadeusz Debski gave to cbaksik with explicit permission to distribute on the web. --Fernsebner (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll state that I did find that Debski did have a granddaughter named Corinna Baksik (I found that out after I wrote my statement). So Baksik could have been using her grandfather's photographs, but we still don't know if she is his legal heir and therefore able to license her grandfather's photographs. We could presume that she did have the permission of Debski's heir to do so or those wanting to use Baksik's uploads could ask her to contact COM:VRT so we could have more clarity in the situation. Abzeronow (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll ask her to contact COM:VRT. Fernsebner (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marta Velilla.jpg

Es una sesión de fotos que la actriz Marta Velilla contrató con el fotógrafo Asier Corera, por tanto le pertenece a ella. He puesto el nombre del autor de la fotografía para que se reconociese. Ruego que restauren la fotografía o qué quiten el nombre del fotógrafo del pie de foto. Por otro lado, si es necesario, borren la foto y subo otra, pero déjenme editar la página y no perder toda la información que ya guardé. Muchas gracias.

The license has been changed to CC-BY. https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/243515670 LinicMarino (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]