Commons:Undeletion requests

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

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

Other languages:

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

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

Commons deletion (policy)
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

Projects that accept fair use

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

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

Files in Category:Foshan Metro

--Jacky Cheung (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wcam and Fitindia: as people involved in the DR. Yann (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as China's TOO is very low (c.f. the Gang Heng logo and LY logo examples which are even more simple than any of the logos mentioned above yet still are protected). China's TOO criteria is never about whether something can be made casually or not. There is no new information since the previous DR to change what we already know about China's TOO. --Wcam (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:FMetro logo icon.svg is indeed very simple just like a boomerang or deformations of the letter V. The example of the KON logo is more appropriate than the Gang Heng logo or LY logo to be referred to in this case. The participation in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Foshan Metro is extremely low, and the discussion should be reopened and refer to the discussion with high participation such as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of rail transport companies of China, Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-07#Guangzhou Metro logos.--Jacky Cheung (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FMetro, Anta and LiNing logos contain more irregular curves that KON, LY, or Gang Heng logos do not have. Also, given the examples of LY and Gang Heng, there is no guarantee that a court in China would rule logos similar to FMetro to not be protected by copyright. Per COM:PRP they should not be kept here on Commons. Wcam (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The SKECHERS case and the BIOU case obviously has more complexed curves than FMetro and Anta. TOO criteria is not about whether something contain more irregular curves, it should be determine something lacking originality or not. Also COM:PRP is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, there is no consensus on the so-called significant doubt of this file. Jacky Cheung (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: No consensus to restore. --Yann (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:彰化八卦山大佛.jpg

This buddha seems to be an architecture instead of a sculpture according to the Chinese Wikipedia introduction, which says, 由莲花座到佛顶共分六层，底层为小佛堂，二至五层设有塑像及文字解说关于佛陀一生事迹。拾级盘旋而上可达顶层。/There are six floors from the lotus seat to the top of the Buddha. The bottom floor is a small Buddha hall, and the second to fifth floors are equipped with statues and text explanations about the life of the Buddha. Go up the stairs and circle up to the top floor. (Translated by Google). COM:FOP Taiwan allows architecture. Teetrition (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Only one photo deleted. Here are more photos of Great Buddha Statue of Baguashan.--祥龍 (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually there were 2 images under that name. For the latest, it is quite a stretch to call this "not a statue", even if it is hollow. But the former is a general view, and it may be OK, depending of the wording of the law, and local court cases. Yann (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do you think that a statue or a building need a window on it? Reke (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is a statue with a window, but it is still a work of art, not a building. Yann (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a historical building. Reke (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A 3D artwork, not architecture. Not covered by FoP in Taiwan Abzeronow (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as Japan's FoP law, which Taiwan's is very closely related to, some buildings can be considered "artistic works" rather than architectural. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama/Archive_1#Hideyuki_Murata @JWilz12345: @Clindberg: Abzeronow (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: I won't comment on the matter as I am heavily involved on Taiwanese FOP ruckus made by the latest Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) reply of December 2022. I won't oppose this UNDEL request, but I won't support either. See also w:zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/其他#有关维基共享资源台湾全景自由问题一事. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. I think there is a fine line here. I would hesitate to call the Statue of Liberty "architecture", even though people can go inside and climb the staircase to the crown. However the description above sounds like this is a Buddha museum, with five floors and exhibits inside. I think the divider has to be the purpose to which it is put, not the exterior shape, so I think this is architecture. The US Copyright office would agree,

"The Copyright Office may register a claim to copyright in an architectural work if the work is a humanly habitable structure that is intended to be both permanent and stationary. Examples of works that satisfy this requirement include houses, office buildings, churches, and museums. By contrast, the Office will refuse to register bridges, cloverleaves, dams, walkways, tents, recreational vehicles, or boats...." [USCO Circular 41, emphasis added]

Note that other countries, notably France, include bridges as architecture. The subject work is not, of course, in the USA, but I doubt that other copyright offices would see it differently. Symbol support vote.svg Support .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Striked my oppose per comments by you and JWilz. Although as noted above, Japan (whose laws on this are similar to Taiwan) considered Tower of the Sun as an artistic work not a work of architecture but since our servers are in the US, we could go with The Copyright Office guidance in this case. Abzeronow (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am a bit surprised that this would qualify for architecture in USA, but I won't oppose undeletion. Yann (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By only this file, I Symbol support vote.svg Support, but by that batch? Then some files may involve public interiors, are Taiwanese FOP rules allowing em? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If those public interiors can be considered as artistic works, then Taiwanese FOP rules does not allow them because the rule requires "outdoor". See [1]. Teetrition (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:NosferatuShadow.jpg

Per Section 65 of the Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Urheberrechtsgesetz – UrhG) copyright in cinematographic works expires 70 years after the death of the last surviving of the following persons: the principle film director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogues, the composer of music specifically composed for use in the cinematographic work in question. This applies at the end of that calendar year per Section 69. The longest lived was Henrik Galeen who died in 1949, hence the movie and this screenshot are in the public domain in Germany, and they are also in the public domain in the US due to the publication date 1922. Hekerui (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perplexingly, though the movie as a whole is now indeed in the public domain in Germany, per this recent discussion (in German), individual stills (frames) taken from the movie are probably still not free until 2029, as German courts apparently consider the cinematographer (Kameramann) as the creator of individual frames, and Fritz Arno Wagner died only in 1958. This creates the slightly absurd situation that, in German-language Wikipedia, we can embed a video with the whole movie in the article, but not single images from the movie. So, I also think that this image shouldn't be restored before 2029. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The linked discussion references a documentary movie that has no director but only two camera people so those are counted as copyright holders, no? ("Ich habe mir das von Syrco zitierte Urteil angeschaut und dort ging es offenbar um dokumentarische Aufnahmen, bei denen als Urheber eh nur zwei Kameramänner und sonst niemand in Frage kam"). Hekerui (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per the contribution of Pajz in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greta-Garbo-and-Jaro-Furth-in-the-film-Joyless-Street-1925-142462321702.jpg, still frames from the film itself do not not share in the protection of the film work as such, but can be protected either as simple photographs, for 50 years from creation, or as photographic works with 70 years pma, depending on the level of originality ("Die Einzelbilder eines Filmwerks sind nicht nach Abs. 1 Nr. 6 schutzfähig, können aber als Lichtbildwerke nach Abs. 1 Nr. 5 oder als Lichtbilder nach § 72 geschützt sein"). The author would indeed be the cameraman. This seems original enough for 70 years pma to me, so I Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose undeletion before 2029. --Rosenzweig τ 16:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's also how I read Syrcro's reply to my question in the current German discussion ("ja, das meint es wohl"), i.e. that frames from a film can be considered individual works with the cameraman as the creator. As I said there, it's not very logical IMHO, especially if you have a video you can pause anytime and then view a single image, too... (but then, the law probably is from before the time of digital videos or widely available video at all). Gestumblindi (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copyright laws may be somewhat logical when they are new, but after several decades of changes and amendments they have these inconsistencies. --Rosenzweig τ 07:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. So we have Category:Nosferatu and especially File:Nosferatu (1922, English titles 1947).webm, but we can't have this file? This doesn't hold much water... Yann (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not logical, as both Gestumblindi and I pointed out. But laws and court decisions are not always logical. --Rosenzweig τ 08:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree. Also by the additional quotes by Syrcro in the German discussion, though it is not logical to us, it is the law as the courts apply it. So we can have the whole movie here, but not single frames, until 2029. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: Except for the movie itself, and File:Wismar Markt Nosferatu 01.jpg which was taken under freedom of panorama as a plaque in a public space, there are no images directly from the movie in Category:Nosferatu (rightly so). One that might at first glance look like it, File:Gerbic as Nosferatu 2013.JPG, is a modern re-enactment/cosplay image. File:Gustav von Wangenheim 1922.jpg looks like Gustav von Wangenheim as Hutter in the movie, but it's apparently from a postcard and a separately taken still image. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How long a film cut would make it acceptable? 5 minutes? 1 mn? 10 s? It is quite clear that applying such a rule would create complete absurd situations. Yann (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you misunderstand the legal argument. Any "film cut" that is still a film (moving images) would be acceptable, even if very short; the German courts just apply a different kind of protection to still frames taken from the film, the same as for photographs. It took some time to wrap my head around it, but ultimately, I think it's not even that illogical. And at least 2029 is not that far in the future ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand perfectly the argument, but it creates absurd situations. So we could have a two-frame film, but not one single still frame... Yann (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:LoewyPR.jpg

This photo is owned by the Raymond Loewy estate and was changed by Lewis Schucart, a board member of the estate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lschuc (talk • contribs) 16:32, 20 February 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting info.svg Info According to Getty this is a 1950 photo from Studio Harcourt. It may be possible that the photo is public domain and in that case it is not necessary to credit Lewis Schucart. Thuresson (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what "was changed by Lewis Schucart" means -- usually mere retouching of an image does not create a new copyright and in any event the old copyright (if any) remains in effect. The Loewy estate may own copies of the photograph, but owning a paper or digital copy of a photo does not give the owner the right to freely license it. That right is almost always held by the photographer. As Thuresson suggests, the image would be PD if it had been published before 1990 without notice, but that remains to be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Hossein saei.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the photographer of this person and I have the necessary permissions. Even if you look I wrote the source of the file and it was uploaded by me for the first time. Tinaabdollahi (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image source is here and was post by "Rina". We have no way of knowing whether Rina is User:Tinaabdollahi. There is no free license there. Policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked Ms. Reena to write down the name of the photographer, which is me Tinaabdollahi (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, we have no way here of knowing who you or Rina actually are, so the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:jan_jimmycarter.png

please note: this photo is in the public domain of flckr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/194776211@N03/52693742747/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penroduntethered (talk • contribs) 13:00, 21 February 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Probably about File:Jan Cox sits with Jimmy Carter.png. The Flickr file has the Public Domain Mark, which is not a free license. We accept it only when the Flickr user is the image creator, which is not at all clear in this case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jim. It's not apparent that the Flickr user who has a signed photograph is also the photographer. Abzeronow (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:1966-06 1966年刘少奇访问缅甸 奈温.jpg

The image was deleted for the URAA. However, a mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. The photograph has entered PD in China so this photograph should not have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 源義信 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 February 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You misunderstand the policy. While a "mere allegation" is not sufficient, if one is careful to be sure that all of the requirements of the URAA are met, then we must delete the image because of its USA copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw on the Copyright rules by territory/Japan page that images that are protected in the US while in the public domain in Japan are acceptable. The note said: "the current policy on Commons is to accept it. This policy may change in the future, depending on the outcome of community discussions. Also, it may be deleted if Commons receive a valid takedown notice". I don't know where to read the policy but I think that if such situation in Japan is acceptable, then the image which was taken in China are equally acceptable. If there is an error in the rule of Japanese copyright, someone should correct it. --源義信 (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That note apparently dates from before the US Supreme Court decision which validated the URAA. It has been obsolete for ten years. Thank you for catching it. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:1962-07 1962年4月30日 摩洛哥首任驻华大使阿卜杜勒·拉赫曼·兹尼贝尔向刘少奇递交国书.jpg

The image was deleted for the URAA. However, a mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. The photograph has entered PD in China so this photograph should not have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 源義信 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 February 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You misunderstand the policy. While a "mere allegation" is not sufficient, if one is careful to be sure that all of the requirements of the URAA are met, then we must delete the image because of its USA copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw on the Copyright rules by territory/Japan page that images that are protected in the US while in the public domain in Japan are acceptable. The note said: "the current policy on Commons is to accept it. This policy may change in the future, depending on the outcome of community discussions. Also, it may be deleted if Commons receive a valid takedown notice". I don't know where to read the policy but I think that if such situation in Japan is acceptable, then the image which was taken in China are equally acceptable. If there is an error in the rule of Japanese copyright, someone should correct it. --源義信 (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That note apparently dates from before the US Supreme Court decision which validated the URAA. It has been obsolete for ten years. Thank you for catching it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

CISSP Domain 1 security and Rusk Management.

Best Cyber Security Management Provider - Securium Solution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Securiumsolutions1 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 21 February 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Probably about File:CISSP Domain 1 security and Rusk Management.jpg It was deleted because it is a pure advertisement. It is also a copyvio as there is no free license on the stated source page. And, there is no reason given why it should be restored..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Five of UP 8444 in Colorado in July 1981 (34047714006).jpg

After further research on this file, I can confirm from other uploads by this author that this photo is part of the collection of Roger Puta. He has uploaded and taken multiple railway pictures before, which now lie in the collection of Mel Finzer. Once/If undeleted, I will add proper parameters. Davidng913 (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support I am familiar with Mel Finzer's holding of Roger Puta's work, see {{Roger Puta}}. Although we normally do not accept the PDM unless it is placed on Flickr by the actual photographer, in this case we have a VRT that tells us definitively that it's OK and we have 5,297 other images that came to us this way (see Category:Photographs by Roger Puta. Great image! .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: There are plenty of Roger's work that I think could be sharing on here, mostly consisting of the Union Pacific steam locomotives. If the undeletion here is successful, and once I get the hang of marking his photos, I may upload some more. Davidng913 (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't imagine that anyone will object -- we have an informal rule that UnDRs must remain open for 24 hours, but this is a done deal. There are, as I said above, thousands of examples of how to mark his images. You could start with the other images in this set -- the photos, not the text and map. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support I am also a little familiar with Roger Puta's work. He took some great photographs of trains. Abzeronow (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:My Phylasophical Thinking.tif

Dear Sir

I need to re open this document.

Best Regards

Chandima Gunasena — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandima810 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 22 February 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: This raw-text document is obviously out of Commons' project scope. --Achim55 (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Achim55. --Yann (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Davey Jones presenting on recent research findings

The photo has been provided by the Subject to use on the internet. The picture is not under copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afs080 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is probably about File:Prof Davey Jones.jpg.
There is a copyright on almost anything nowadays. We need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder (usually the photographer). Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Protoplanetary-Disc-Animation.gif

on the site, we can use it, no need of copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P1a9s9c9a9l (talk • contribs) 15:47, 22 February 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nonsense request. The source you provided says "COPYRIGHT © 1998 - 2023 SCITECHDAILY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" with terms of use that include "you may not: 1. modify or copy the materials; 2. republish material from this website (including republication on another website); 3. use the materials for any commercial purpose, or for any public display (commercial or non-commercial); ...". Эlcobbola talk 15:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Obviously not, as per Elcobbola. --Yann (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Blackburn Boulevard, (Lancashire), 1902.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blackburn Boulevard, (Lancashire), 1902.jpg A photograph taken in 1902 in the UK would now be old enough for PD-old-assumed. Abzeronow (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Example.jpg This image is mine and I made it and it is not the property of anyone else's rights

This image is made by me and is not copyrighted by anyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madiha khaled (talk • contribs) 22:36, 22 February 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

You know, we have approximately 100 million images on Commons and 25,000 Users, and yet people think they can come here and make claims like the one above without naming either the image or themselves. What are we supposed to be? Mindreaders? Fortunately we have tools which help, but not identifying yourself or the image wastes other editors' time.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You have uploaded three deleted images:

For two of them you claimed that you were the actual photographer:
and
  • File:EmanElassi.JPG for which you named author=ُEmanElassi. The image appears to be halftone (ie -- in Print) and appears on the Web.
All three are small, which suggest that they were taken from the web.
In order to have them restored, you must either load them again at full camera resolution with full EXIF or send a free license using VRT.
And, by the way, they are all copyrighted by someone -- maybe you, maybe not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=734616315"