Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page

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

Other languages:

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

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

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
19 copyvios • 1 duplicate • 1 selfie • 2 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

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

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

Adding a request

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

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

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

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Flag of Lunda Tchokwe.svg

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]
@Abzeronow and Swiãtopôłk: My apologies. Somehow I missed the notification. I will look at this tomorrow and get back to you. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've temporarily undeleted the file to help this discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abzeronow. The justification for the deletion was that it is "copyvio – found elsewhere", with a link to where it was found. The flag is going to be found/ seen elsewhere because it is widely used by the movement for independence of the Lunda-Cokwe (one of a number of spellings in Portuguese) Lunda-Chokwe (in English) people as one of their symbols. For background, they are considered a separatist movement by some, a term that the Lunda-Chokwe reject, as they do not see themselves as part of Angola, as they maintain that because at one point Portugal had conferred on their region/ Lunda Kingdom the status of protectorate (Protectorate of Lunda Chokwe), they should not have later been lumped together with the rest of Angola as a unitary country (the same argument is used by the Cabinda independence (separatist movements). Their leaders and activists are imprisoned or routinely arrested, cited here, under "Arbitrary arrests, torture and other ill-treatment" and more recent news here (in English). A number of court cases are ongoing (in Portuguese). Use of the flag can be seen here (in Portuguese) in an article by Voice of America (VoA) Portuguese Africa service, which is a fairly reliable source when it comes to matters Angolan. Here is another (in Portuguese), this time from the Portuguese Catholic Church broadcaster, Rádio Renascença. Hope this helps. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rui Gabriel Correia: Yes, but I need to know if Lunda-Chokwe has a copyright on this flag or if the lusona depicted is actually a public domain symbol or a copyrightable expression of traditional learning. I'd also appreciate it if we had a better idea of what the threshold of originality is in Angola. I agree with you that this is within scope, I need to know if the flag is public domain or not. Abzeronow (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antrag zur Wiederherstellung von File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Administratoren,

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

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

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

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

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

File:Russian Paralympic Committee flag (2021).svg

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。

— User:Liu116, in: 檔案存廢討論#File:Russian Paralympic Committee special emblem (Tokyo 2020, Beijing 2022).jpg

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

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

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]

File:Logo RFC.svg

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:Kloster Garnstock Gebetsecke.jpg

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]

File:Flag of Morocco animated.gif

I reupload a file because is violation of copyright and I edit to new summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikolaIlincic5 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Túrelio: as deleting admin. Yann (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 202354425@N02

On Yann's recommendation, I request the undeletion of all images I have uploaded, as the Flickr account is genuine, as evidenced by the email address.--Deva1995 (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deva1995, I don't understand what you mean "evidenced by the email address". What email address and where? Bastique ☎ let's talk! 01:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The email on the account matches the email on the website Deva1995 (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The web site has very clear and very restrictive copyright conditions at https://partidulaur.ro/termeni-si-conditii-de-confidentialitate. The Flickr page looks like license laundering. Also note that the copyrights to the individual images belong to the actual photographers and while the political party probably has a license to use them for its political purposes, it is very unlikely that it has the right to freely license them as required here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is what you're saying that they are breaking their own rules or that you belive the account to be fake? Deva1995 (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Flickr account may or may not be a fake. Its license contradicts the very restrictive license on the Web site. However, more important, is that it is very unlikely that the web site or anyone associated with it has the right to freely license the images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jim. The policy you cite states that "AUR and/or its licensors" own the copyright. There is nothing in that policy excluding them from owning the images. If they do own them, they also have the right to publish them on Flickr under a free license. The only question in that case would be whether or not the account is genuine. On 20 March, Simion posted an image with Meloni. That image is on Flickr with EXIF data, alongside other previously unpublished images with EXIF data, obviously taken immediately before and after. On 23 March, Simion posted this image from Jerusalem. On Flickr, there are again previously unpublished images taken moments before and after with EXIF. This, in addition to the email, proves that the account is genuine.
Now, back to the original question: As mentioned, the policy you cited explicitly states that content may be owned by them and not simply that they have "a license to use them for its political purposes". In that case, do we believe that the images are owned by them, an option their policy provides for? I see no reason not to. Deva1995 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Assuming the Email field on https://www.flickr.com/people/202354425@N02/ is tied to the account credentials and not user-editable, I think we have enough evidence to conclude that the Flickr account is owned by the party. The website terms mentioned by Jim are irrelevant since the copyright holder is free to distribute their photos on different platforms with different licenses. While it is true that they need to have secured copyright from the individual photographers, we have typically not demanded evidence of this from large organizations; we generally assume that the licensing on their website or official social media account is accurate unless we have evidence to the contrary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral but I will undelete the files if that is the consensus. Yann (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been more than 3 days. Can we move on, please? Deva1995 (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

重音テトのイラスト削除に対する異議申し立て [[3]]

はじめまして、Kaireyyと申します。よろしくお願いいたします。 先日アップロードした重音テトのイラストに関する削除依頼について、異議を申し立てます。

このイラストは、ユーザーページにも記載されている通り、このライセンスに基づき削除依頼が出されました。

しかし、重音テトのキャラクターは、該当ライセンスの第一条第2項（2）に記載されているキャラクターの一覧には含まれていません。

また、使用されたイラストは、重音テト公式サイトのキャラクター利用規約に基づくと、「個人の非営利における利用の範囲内であれば、無償・有償を問わず特に許諾は必要ない」と明記されています。

さらに、公式の趣旨として「テトを有名にし、皆から愛されるキャラクターにする」という目的が掲げられており、気兼ねなく使用できることが推奨されています。

加えて、英語版ウィキペディアのページを参照すると、2008年バージョンの同一のイラストがすでに同じサイトで使用されている事例が存在します。この事実を踏まえた上で、今回の削除依頼について再考していただければと思います。

以上の理由から、本イラストの削除に対し抗議いたします。

どうぞご検討のほど、よろしくお願いいたします。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaireyy (talk • contribs)

ウィキメディア・コモンズでは、営利利用を許されていることを条件に画像を収集しています。他にも条件がありますが、詳しくはCOM:Lに書かれています。 --whym (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Whym、ご返信ありがとうございます。
ウィキメディア・コモンズの営利利用を確認させていただきました。今回の件に関しては、営利利用が完全に禁止されているわけではないことを説明させていただきます。重音テト公式サイトのキャラクター利用規約には、「イラストを描いて自身でSNSなどに投稿すること」「それを使用したイラスト集や自作漫画、グッズなどを作り、同人イベントなどで頒布すること」と明記されています。また、「フィギュアやドールの販売も許可申請を行えば可能」 となっており、営利利用が部分的に許さていることもあげられます。またユーチューブやニコニコ動画では広告付きの動画が存在しています。事実上営利利用が一定範囲で許容されていると解釈できます。ユーチューブの収益化ポリシーと照らし合わせても、権利者が問題視していないことがあげられます。長期間にわたり問題視されていなかった事実を考慮すると、今回の削除は再検討の余地があるのではないでしょうか？
よろしくお願いいたします。 Kaireyy (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaireyyコモンズは予防原則を従っている。「権利者が問題視していない」、そういうの理由はコモンズで認めません。利用規約の「営利利用」の説明には、

クリプトン社ではピアプロリンクにより有償非営利利用に対する許諾を行っておりますが...許諾制とするのは些か現実的ではありません...ライセンスとして有償非営利に対する禁止規定を削除させて頂きました。重音テトのガイドラインを遵守する限り、個人の非営利におけるご利用の範囲内であれば、無償・有償問わず特に許諾等必要有りません。

ちょっと微妙ですが、おそらくファイルは削除されるの可能性があります。 Saimmx (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Translation) The Commons follows the precautionary principle. Reasons like "The copyright owner will not mind" is not acceptable on the Commons. According to their term of service,

ピアプロリンク by クリプトン company expects an agreement when it comes to profit even for non-commercial use, but... (we found that) grant agreement-first are unrealistic... we have removed the prohibition in the licence. As (users) follow the guideline (of 重音テト) and under personal non-commercial use, you don't need an agreements and we don't care if it has profit or not.

This is a bit subtle, but I am afraid the file will be deleted for a reason. --Saimmx (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:WMTV 15.svg

Definitely in use on air Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of this? Abzeronow (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:WBAY-TV logo.svg

PD-textlogo; may be in use Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that this is below US ToO. Abzeronow (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Support below too in usa,i see this logo on website (https://foxcitiesmarathon.org/sponsors/wbay-tv-logo/) (number,text and a circle is ineligible for copyright) (google translator). AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:McDonald's fast-food restaurant kitchen.png

The DR for this photo have yet to be closed by an admin

If Yann wants the photo gone he should allow the DR to be properly concluded. --Trade (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I closed the DR. The deletion rationale looks fine for me. Yann (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral I think the photograph could be in scope, but this is also essentially a creepshot so it's educational value is lessened by that. Abzeronow (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Exemple d'une tunisienne qui fait une pipe sans préservatif.png

The community have voted to keep this photo once and yet Yann decided to SD it without any community consensus

If Yann wants the photo gone it should be done through a proper DR---Trade (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Neutral I agree that the deletion was out of process, but I also can see Yann's viewpoint here. Abzeronow (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We also have to take into consideration of the viewpoint from people other than Yann. We cant do that with the file gone Trade (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should also be sensitive to the people depicted in our media. Given the uploader's apparent disregard of consent, I'm not sure if we can in good faith accept that the woman consented to this photograph being published. Abzeronow (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the DR were to discuss Trade (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas

These photos were SD by Yann on groundss of being personal pictures by non contributors. This is despite the uploader being an long time contributo on Commons

If Yann wants the photos gone it should be done through a proper DR after consensus have been created, not like this--Trade (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • That DR was closed by a non-admin after 5 hours. Unless there's a pattern of abusive DR filings, that's way too close for a speedy keep. The problem with speedy closing because of INUSE is that it's very common for someone to upload a photo of their bits and put them in an article immediately, only for other editors to remove said photo pretty shortly afterwards (usually in favor of putting back the perfectly fine images that were already there, and that the exhibitionist replaced). Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas has way too many edits for F10 to apply, so normally I would be fine with undeleting them and immediately putting them in a DR as a procedural matter, but from the admin noticeboard thread, apparently some of them are creep shots. I'd oppose undeleting the creep shots unless there's a reason to suspect they'd actually be kept after their DR. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I don't see any educational use of these low quality snapshots. Thuresson (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per above. Bedivere (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:대한황실가족사진19422024.jpg

This is my own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycamylee (talk • contribs) 10:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nycamylee: We need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Please ask them to send it to COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nycamylee: This is a collage of two photos. Can you prove that you are the photographer who made both of them? Ankry (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, the easiest way to prove that both images in a collage are free is to load them separately to Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:20230815의친왕기신제.jpg

Use Namoroka and user TansoShoshen doubts the following works are not created by myself because the same works are shwon in other platform such as namu.wiki. I am the one who uploaded the same works to the namu.wiki. This undeletion affects the information of the post. Please review them and, should there be anyone who claims that they are their own work, please let me know. I fully understand the copyright policy of Wikipedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycamylee (talk • contribs) 10:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nycamylee: We need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Please ask them to send it to COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:의친왕기념사업회창립총회.jpg

This is surely my own photo which I took myself. Why would you assume it is violated the copyright of the whoever took the photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycamylee (talk • contribs) 10:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nycamylee: We need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Please ask them to send it to COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nycamylee: This is photo of a photo, not the original photo. We need a free license permission from the photographer who made the original photo. The "original" photo if the photo version originating directly from a digital photo camera and containing metadata. Users who upload other photos as "own" are no longer allowed to use the "own" declaration without providung an evidence of their authorship. Ankry (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EGLWYS DWYRAN,.webm

WHY HAS THIS BEEN DELETED — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taffronaut1111 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to shout. It was speedy deleted under F10 (personal media from non-contributors). Abzeronow (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Info A correctly tilted version was uploaded as File:Eglwys Dwyran Graveyard.webm. Thuresson (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Duplicate. --Yann (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Steve Zafeiriou Portrait.png

I am the original photographer and copyright holder of this image. I've sent a permission email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org under the OTRS/VRT process, confirming I release this file under CC BY-SA 4.0. Please restore the file once the permission is confirmed. --Zafeirious (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose the image will be restored once a member of VRT reviews and approves it, not before. Günther Frager (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Permission now OK. --Yann (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Annalisa mentre canta Stelle in uno showcase di RDS.jpg

Subject: Request for File Restoration – File:Annalisa mentre canta Stelle in uno showcase di RDS.jpg

I am TheOrangeRevenge, the author of the file "File:Annalisa mentre canta Stelle in uno showcase di RDS.jpg", which I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons on November 18, 2023.

I would like to point out that the removal of the file due to an alleged copyright violation is a mistake. The image is a still frame extracted from a video that I personally recorded during that showcase. No website had published it before that date, and it is verifiable that the original source of its dissemination was Wikimedia Commons.

If the image is now found on thousands of websites, it is because it has been widely shared without proper CC BY-SA 4.0 attribution. If there had been a real copyright violation, the image would not have remained online for over a year and a half without dispute. If anything, I should be the one reporting the many websites that have republished it without credit.

I am reattaching the original file. Since this is a frame from a video rather than a photo taken with a camera, the EXIF data may not contain relevant details. If necessary, I can provide the original video as additional proof.

I therefore request the **immediate restoration** of the file on Wikimedia Commons, as the copyright claim is unfounded.

---

License Grant Declaration:

I hereby affirm that I am the author and/or the sole copyright holder of the work **"File:Annalisa mentre canta Stelle in uno showcase di RDS.jpg"**.

I agree to publish this work under the free license CC BY-SA 4.0.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work for commercial purposes and to modify it as needed, provided they comply with the terms of the license and all applicable laws.

I understand that the free license applies only to copyright, and I reserve the right to take legal action against anyone who uses the work in a defamatory manner or in violation of personality rights, trademarks, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement and that the work may be permanently retained in one of the Wikimedia projects.

Best regards, TheOrangeRevenge --TheOrangeRevenge (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:San-bernardino-kangaroo-rat.jpg

This image was uploaded as CC-BY, and thus should be eligible for upload to Wikimedia. It has been incorrectly flagged by a bot. Go to https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/180348330, scroll down the right sidebar to "Copyright info", where it lists the CC-BY 4.0 license.--Tokagelizard (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's conflicting licensing on that page. The image itself shows as all rights reserved. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sporthalle am Hallo während eines Basketballspiels.png

{{Own}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemia24 (talk • contribs)

@Wikidemia24: Could you please upload the original with EXIF data? And preferably in JPEG format. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Сурен Акобян на заседании Общественной палаты.jpg

Здравствуйте! Я Акобян Сурен Сахакович и сайт vestilipetsk.ru пренадлежит мне! Прошу восстановить файл, так, как претензии по авторским правам к Википедии не имею — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryano (talk • contribs) 13:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Copied from the Internet. No evidence of a free license. We need the formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Do not reupload deleted files. And please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Freddy_Moreira.jpg

I'm the owner of this photo and it is free for use. It's been deleted 2 times now and I (wrongly) get the warnings on my profile so please get the photo back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gersegast010 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gersegast010: Duplicate request on COM:Help Desk. This was copied from the Internet, so we need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images of the Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia (Florence)

Hi everyone. I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of the following images:

They were all deleted in 2013 after this DR and they all depict the faculty of literature and philosophy of the University of Florence. The modern part of the building of the faculty was designed by en:Raffaello Fagnoni, and it was built between 1959 and 1964 (see here). It was commissioned by the University (see here), which at that time was still considered part of the State administration (see here). Therefore, the building fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1985. It's a building built before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:VerbAbz3GebDivW.jpg

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

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

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

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

File:Shabbos_Kestenbaum.jpg

The owner of the photograph has sent an email to VRTS releasing the photo under CC BY 4.0. --Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: If the VRT ticket is accepted, the fire will be undeleted at that time. I believe the current processing time for tickets is around 3 days. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg

A foto é minha

 Not done: No file name or username. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gnarpy authen cat.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this is a allowable personal photo from a active wikipedia editor Authenyo (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Lighting (Berlanti Productions) logo.svg

Properly kept as below COM:TOO US in the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Black Lighting (Berlanti Productions) logo.svg thread, yet apparently unilaterally deleted today by User:Yuval CT as "not simple enough for pd-textlogo." I think that shows a lack of understanding of COM:TOO US, which some admins don't understand does not require a logo to be simple or a textlogo in order to be below the country's COM:TOO. And in any case, unilaterally overriding the results of a discussion with what's purely a judgment call is inappropriate. Shouldn't admins be required to look at previous deletion request discussions and results, so that individual users don't have to mistrust them so much that they feel impelled to keep tabs on their unilateral actions? I don't think this was an April Fools joke, but if it was, it's not funny and needs to be reverted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg

Не удалять данную фотографию. На ней нету авторских прав, а ее можно спокойно распространять в интернете. Это можно заметить во многих статьях. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakutska Kaya (talk • contribs)

 Not done: No file name given. All your deleted uploads are copyright violations. Please read COM:L. --Yann (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:2024 Winter.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These pictures are my property. I have given permission for each of the photos to be used publicly. That permission has been overlooked Zdutch16 (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zdutch16: We need a permission from the artist. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=969879230"