Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

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

File:Tokyo Skytree light up in US flag for Trump's visit.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: At section 5(6), the policy of Facebook page of the Japanese Kantei is complied with the GJSTU 2.0 license. A1Cafel (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Joseph Prill (1934).jpg

I don;t understand why this pic was removed, but I got the permission of the owner of this site to use it for Wikipedia: https://www.heimat-lohmar.de/exponate/bilder/prof-prill/ So please restore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasvonderDunk (talk • contribs) 22:15, 28 December 2022‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

[confidential information removed]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A 1934 German image was under copyright in Germany until at least 1/1/2005 and is therefore under copyright in the United States until 95 years after first publication, that is, until at least 1/1/2030. I doubt very much that the person giving permission actually has a written license from the photographer allowing them to freely license the image. Also note that "permission ... to use it for Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Both Commons and WP require that an image must be free for any use by anybody anywhere..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, photos of this type can be difficult. First, for photos first published elsewhere on the web, we need a free license directly from the copyright holder, via the process (using private emails) specified at COM:VRT. We have too many photos simply copied from the Internet, and accounts here are essentially anonymous.
If the copyright on the photos has lapsed, then it is OK, but that can be surprisingly difficult to determine (as copyright lasts a very long time). We need works to be public domain in both the country of origin, and the United States. This would appear to have been published in Germany, so that is the country of origin. Since this was definitely still under copyright in Germany in 1996, the U.S. restored any copyright for 95 years from publication, so it will not be public domain in the U.S. until 2030. The German copyright might be even more difficult -- the source states that a Hans Dieter Heimig is the author. If that was the photographer, we would need to find out how long they lived, and add 70 years to that (plus to the end of that year) to know when it will be public domain in Germany. If that name is a modern person, i.e. a contributor but the actual photographer is unknown, we'd need to see how it was credited at the further source. If it was published anonymously, it may have become public domain in Germany 70 years after publication (so, 2005), so then we'd just have to wait for the U.S. copyright to expire. However, for non-simple photographs like these (studio portraits were considered full works of art, not simple photos), they were always supposed to be 70 years from the death of the human author, and not sure the 70-year anonymous term common to the EU shortened that (though that is still a bit nebulous to me). If you subscribe to that theory, or Hans Dieter Heimig actually was the photographer but we can't find how long they lived, you'd have to wait until a reasonable amount of time passes (100 or 120 years) before using it.
If the site owner actually does own copyright somehow (that would need to be explained to the COM:VRT team), then they can license it, though as mentioned not for "Wikipedia only" -- it would have to be for anyone. But if they don't own the copyright, then they can't license it, and policy is to wait out the copyright term, as frustrating as that can be. I think the German Wikipedia has a rule of thumb that allows any work older than 100 years if the author's death date can be determined, though Commons uses 120. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hans Dieter Heimig seems to be the author of a chapter in the 2016 book in which this image was apparently published. It's unclear if the image had been published before. --Rosenzweig τ 23:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For anonymous works in German law, see the rather comprehensive COM:Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works. For anything created before July 1 1995, if the author's name became known in any (unspecified) "other way", that was enough for the work to not be an anonymous work anymore, even if originally published without a named author. Which might work somehow for complete books, but is rather crazy for single photographs. Nevertheless it was the law before that was changed in 1995. --Rosenzweig τ 23:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, OK. For photographs then, the situation was similar to now -- if published without attribution to a human author, and the author did not become known in the next 70 years, the term expired then. We'd have to assume anonymous publication in this case, which we don't always do without having some evidence of that. (For simple photos, such as snapshots of everyday life, the anonymous aspect was irrelevant in Germany -- those were at most 50 years from publication, or 50 years from creation if not published, before the 1995 law changes, regardless of author. The 1995 law retroactively changed them to 70pma though, or the anonymous term.). But, the U.S. term seems fairly straightforward. We could undelete in 2030. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The copyright situation in Germany of this photo (and also the US) is still unclear. It is said to be taken in 1934, and it was published in a book in 2016. We don't know if it was first published before 2016. Unlike the situation in the US, where the sale of a print by the photographer to the customer could (at least in some cases) already be publication, publication in Germany required the dissemination of copies to the general public. We also don't know if the 2016 publication (or any other publication) named a photographer or not. If that 1934 photo was first published in 2016 and we don't know the author, we can't tell if it is still protected by copyright in Germany or not. Under the "new" method explained at COM:Germany, the copyright of an anonymous work expires after 70 years, so it would have expired at the end of 2004 in this case. But under the old method, the term of protection would be 70 years pma even if the author is unknown. And the longer term of those two applies, even if we don't know which one is the longer term. Very unsatisfying, but that's what you get when laws don't really fit the subject matter they're meant to regulate, or at least not all aspects of it. Without further information about the first publication and the photographer, I can only see us hosting this with {{PD-old-assumed}} after 120 years, in 2055. Which would also be the US term for works of unknown authorship unpublished before 2003.
Btw, the terms for "simple" photographs in Germany have a rather convoluted history. In 1965, when the distinction between "Lichtbild" (= "simple" photograph) and "Lichtbildwerk" was first introduced in the then new Urheberrechtsgesetz (copyright law), they both had 25 year terms from publication (or creation if unpublished within 25 years after creation). In 1985, photographic works went to 70 years pma, while "simple" photographs stayed at 25 years from publication/creation, unless they were "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" (documents of contemporary history), which got a 50 year term from publication/creation. Then in 1995, that "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" category was eliminated, and all "Lichtbilder" got the 50 year term. Courts then whittled down what can be a "Lichtbild", and now, only images from automated photo booths, x-ray images, satellite imagery, surveillance images (from automated cameras) and similar stuff can be a "Lichtbild", but not a photo taken by a human being. Not by law (there is no clear definition there), but because of court decisions. --Rosenzweig τ 01:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, as far as I understand it, the courts changed their interpretation what a "Lichtbild" is due to the EU regulations. So, before the EU regulations, the "documents of contemporary history" type photograph were a 50 year term from publication/creation, then after the EU regulations they were 70pma, or 70 years from creation/publication if anonymous. So there could be no "longer existing term" for those, unlike for anonymous sculptures, which are more nebulous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as this photo, it sure looks like something published in a school yearbook or something like that. The web page source does mention a further source, a "monography" by a Wilhelm Pape from 1993 or something like that. Unsure if that was just for the text, or the photo too. I do see there is some disagreement over whether the old 70 year term required the distribution of copies to the general public, or not. I typically dislike deletions based on extremely delayed publication possibilities, unless there is some evidence which points to that situation actually happening -- most works were made to be published, one way or another. I would not have a problem assuming that it became public domain in Germany in 2005, though there are some uncertainties, though the U.S. status seems clear (if published in 1934, which I am assuming). If it was truly unpublished until recently, it would get more "interesting". Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Berliner Fernsehturm November 2013.jpg

Per precedent at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-12#File:Arena auf schalke veltins arena gelsenkirchen 1.jpg, works located in a public place are covered by COM:FOP Germany under a new court ruling. This overturns our previous understanding that the work must be photographed from a public place. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2022-12#File:Berlin_Hi-Flyer_Sept14_views04.jpg. The 2020 decision is a single decision by a minor court (Landgericht Frankfurt), while Germany's highest court (Bundesgerichtshof) has affirmed its contrary position in 2017. --Rosenzweig τ 10:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the 2017 case was one in which the Bundesgerichtshof ruled in favor of FoP. In fact, the definition of "public" was not even a point of contention (as opposed to the definition of "permanent"), but merely an offhand remark; of course it's not going to take a position that neither side's attorneys asked for. With 17 years having passed between 2003 (the last real time the Bundesgerichtshof was asked to rule on the definition of "public") and 2020, I think this is long enough to consider the decision of the Landgericht Frankfurt more relevant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The BGH ruled that in the AIDA case the images of the ship with the AIDA symbol were covered by freedom of panorama because they could just as well have been taken from the shore. But they also confirmed what they had written in their 2003 Hundertwasser-Haus decision, that was not just an “offhand remark”. That's also what Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Public says: “It is important to note that only the view from the public place is privileged: If, for instance, a statue is located next to a public street, photographs of the statue taken from that street enjoy freedom of panorama, but photographs of the very same statue taken from a non-public spot do not.” And no, I don't think the decision of a lower Landgericht openly contradicting the country's highest court will be more relevant any time soon. If we really care about the precautionary principle and our obligations to re-users, we'll have to wait for the BGH to overturn itself, or for an even higher court (like Germany's constitutional court or the European Court of Justice) to decide differently. --Rosenzweig τ 11:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Richard Baer and Karl Höcker.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

I cannot see if these are duplicates of other Höcker Album photographs that are on Commons. But according to the precedents of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Auschwitz Solahutte (34750).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg, these should be undeleted if they aren't duplicates that Commons already has. Abzeronow (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Lya de Putti.jpg

The image was taken in 1928 or 1929 by the photography studio Ross-Verlag. Consensus seems to be that photographs taken by photography studios are considered anonymous works. Except in cases where the photographer is clearly state on the photograph, which doesn't apply here. Also in this case, there are already plenty of images by Ross-Verlag being hosted on Commons for that reason. See their category which I have linked to for some examples. So this image would be public domain since copyright term in Germany expires 70 year after the date of publication for anonymous works. I will note that the deleting administrator said the problem is that the image is missing a scan of the opposite side of it. I don't find that a compelling reason to delete the image though since the same goes for most scanned photographs on here, including ones by Ross-Verlag. 99% of the time no one scans the backs of printed media since most of the time the backs of printed media don't say who the publisher or photographer is anyway. Therefore I'd appreciate it if the image was un-deleted. Thanks. BTW, I somehow accidently recreated the page for the file. Sorry if that causes issues. Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The assertion that studio photographs are anonymous works is incorrect, but it doesn't matter here. A 1928 or 1929 German image was under copyright for at least 70 years after publication and possibly for 70 years pma. In either case this image would have been under copyright in Germany on the URAA date and therefore will be under copyright in the USA until at least 1/1/2024. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't say that studio photographs are anonymous. What I said is that they are anonymous works "except in cases where the photographer is state on the work." I'm sure you get the difference. Of course that's baring cases where it's obviously known who the original photographer was. But in cases where it's not obviously known who the photographer is the consensus clearly is to treat the photograph as an anonymous work. Especially in cases of studio photography though, since the photographs could have been taken by any random employee who can't hold the copyright in most cases. So a studio photograph is "generally" treated as anonymous baring any obvious signs of who took it.
More to the topic at hand though, there's no photographer named on this postcard and it isn't clear who took the picture. So it's clearly anonymous. That said, you might be right about the URAA thing since that's not really my area of expertise. There's 195 images of postcards in Ross-Verlag though. Including ones from the same series as this postcard. From what I can tell most or all of them are tagged as PD-old-80. So is there a reason you don't think PD-old-80 is sufficient for this image in particular when it's clearly fine for photographs that were taken around the same time or do you think they are wrongly licensed? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies -- I read the one sentence and then didn't connect the next. Many studios had only one photographer so even if the photographer isn't specifically identified, the work is not anonymous. In this case there appear to have been at least two and their dates are not clear.
As for the images at Category:Ross-Verlag, many of them date from before 1/1/1928 so they do not fall under the URAA. Later ones do. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ross-Verlag.
If you are going to continue asking for undeletion of images from this period, I suggest you become thoroughly familiar with the URAA, as it will generally apply to any image made in a 70 years pma country after 12/31/1927. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, obviously if the studio only has one photographer and we know who it is then the work isn't anonymous. No really? In this case the work is anonymous though because like you said there was two photographers and we don't know when they worked or took which specific photographs. That's literally the definition of the author being anonymous. It doesn't matter if we know who worked for the studio. What matters is if we know who took the particular image, and we clearly don't have that information in this case. Otherwise, your free to point it out. But as far as I'm aware if a photograph is taken in a studio that has multiple employees and we don't know who the photographer the consensus is to treat it as an anonymous work. If you can tell me Who took the photograph be my guest though.
The reason I know that BTW is because I nominated an image for deletion a while back that had the same situation going for it and that's what multiple people, including an administrator, told me. So you can either figure out who the photographer was or the term is 70 after date of publication. As far as the URAA thing goes, I'm actually pretty familiar with it. I just disagree with your interpretation of it, and particularly in this case. You can be my guest and look through past DRs I've opened though. Many of them have to do with URAA. I just think your wrong here about if it's an anonymous work or not, just like you are clearly wrong about Deletion requests/File:R.M.S. Walmer Castle.png being taken in the UK. That's all. I think I should be able to disagree with you about the specifics of how the URAA should or shouldn't be applied in this specific case without you treating me like I'm just ignorant of the law or whatever. In the meantime I don't see any indication anywhere that the rule for anonymous works isn't 70 years after the date of publication, URAA or otherwise. Just like we still follow the standard term of life + 70 years regardless of the URAA. Nowhere does Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Austria say either term was nullified by the URAA though. Otherwise your free to point out where exactly it says as much. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW @Jameslwoodward: [[this]] is the DR I was talking about. In that case the photograph was taken by a studio that had only two or three employees at the time the photograph was taken. It was still determined to be an anonymous work though because we can't determine which of the two or three employees took the photograph. Maybe you can tell me what you think about it and why you think the same rule shouldn't apply in this case. As you can see from my comments in that DR I'm actually sort of in agreement with you that photographs taken by studios like this one aren't technically anonymous, but that's clearly not the consensus. So it is what it is. -Adamant1 (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, the URAA. The US law is never 70 years, so I'm not sure what you mean. The URAA is actually fairly simple. If a non-USA image is PD on the URAA date, then it is subject to the URAA is under copyright until 95 years after first publication. Therefore, with respect to this image, if we apply the German rule for anonymous images, it was PD in 1998 or 1999, after the URAA date, so it has a US copyright until at least 1/1/2024.

As for the studio and anonymity question. If there were a studio in a 70 years pma country with, say, three photographers, and we knew all their dates of death, I would be prepared to argue that all of the studio's works would have a copyright until at least 70 years after the earliest of them.

As for my comment about your knowledge of the URAA, you said above, "you might be right about the URAA thing since that's not really my area of expertise", so I suggested that since the URAA might apply to every post 1/1/1928 image, therefore you should be familiar with it. That seems to me a reasonable suggestion under the circumstances, so this seems a little out of line, "you treating me like I'm just ignorant of the [URAA] law or whatever". Anyway, I certainly did not mean to give offense and I'm sorry you feel that way. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I argued the same thing and it didn't go anywhere. Regardless, that's the situation we have here anyway. In this case the "postcard publisher" was a collective of random photographers from different countries and there's really no way to know who exactly went through there or took what photograph. Again, unless the postcard explicitly says who took it, which this one doesn't. So your opinion about what should or could be done with a studio that only has three photographers really doesn't matter. Outside of that, I said the URAA isn't my "area of expertise", not that I don't know anything about it or how it works. I'm sure you get the difference. Either way though, telling someone multiple times that they should learn more about an area if they are continue to be involved it instead of just stating what your position is and leaving it at that can come off as conceding. Even in cases where it's not, the point in this to address the topic of the DR. Not turn it into a personal back and forth about who has more credentials in the area then everyone else, obviously. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the human photographer is identifiable (or was identified within its anonymous copyright term), then the term is 70pma. A credit to just a photography studio (unless it's known to be a one-photographer studio) does not do that. However, if there is a photographer credit elsewhere, then it's not anonymous. For example, see this eBay auction postcard, where it appears there is photographer credit on the image itself. For many postcards, the photo takes the entire front, so we want to see the back as well. I can't see this image, but if it is the same one as this Flickr page, then there is plenty of room for some credits on the front, where the photographer credit would most likely be. This page seems to be another copy of the postcard, where the back did actually have publisher credits (not author). Germany did have some particular oddities with older anonymous works; see COM:Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works. But, this one was clearly published or released. Given all that, I certainly think this one is anonymous. However, if it was published in 1929 at the latest, it would not have become PD in Germany until 2000, meaning it was also restored by the URAA in the United States, and its term would not expire until 2025. So Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and undelete in 2025, for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I've seen most of the time they credit the photographer in the image like with your example. Then they have the name of the photography studio were the image was taken on the bottom left and the name of the movie studio associated with the actor/actress if there is any on the bottom left. Although it depends on how far into the series the postcard was. From my understanding the series started with another photography studio that Heinrich Ross worked for in like 1919. He took the idea and ran with it. Then it was eventually continued by another photography studio. I think the series ended around 1945, but all the postcards in the series apparently follow each other in the numbering system and have essentially the same format. So it's pretty likely the photographer would have been cited on the front of the image if they weren't anonymous since that's how the rest series is going back to the first version.
Although if it's the same image there is a listing for this postcard on eBay here that says something on the back of the postcard. Unfortunately the image is to blurry to make it out though. At least except for the word "Verlag." So I assume it's a text logo for Ross-Verlag. Also of note is that the photography studio was more like a collective of many different photographers and photography studios that worked together there at separate times, which Heinrich Ross had some involvement in organizing, sure. But a lot of Ross-Verlag postcards are taken by studios or photographers and he just published them. But the point is, if the photographer isn't explicitly named on the front of the postcard there's essentially no way to figure out who it was. For all we know it could have been someone who worked for one the other two studios that published the series. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good find. I'm willing to go with the postcard being published in 1928 or 1929 then. I guess the only question left is if the URAA thing applies or not. As said in another "A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion." I'll defer to administrator's on if it should be the sole reason not to keep the image deleted or not though, That said, I think it would be pretty reasonable to un-delete it based on the term of 70 years after the date of publication passing. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure any of us know what "mere allegation" means in this context. If we agree beyond the "significant doubt" required by PCP that the image was not PD on the URAA date, then the URAA applies and it has a US copyright until that expires. I don't see any circumstances where there could be a "mere allegation", as the law is clear and simple in almost all cases. I think "mere allegation" arose out of the fact that until the US Supreme Court decision of 18 January 2012 there was uncertainty about the law and we kept images that were subject to it. After that there was heated argument about whether we should obey the law or not. I myself have mixed feelings -- on the one hand, I see no reason why anything should have a US copyright longer than that in the original country but on the other hand it seems reasonable that a foreign work should have the same copyright term here as US works. Nonetheless it is the law of the land and we would be doing our users a disservice if we ignored it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There were times when the URAA restoration was claimed, but people were forgetting about the particular copyright history in the country of origin (for example, Italy was effectively 56pma on the URAA date, not 70). Thus, some images were getting deleted which did not need to be. So, the people arguing for URAA deletion need to show, based on the detailed legal history of the country or origin, and what we know of the facts of the work, that it was indeed restored (or at least significant doubt exists, given the facts). At that point, it's not a "mere allegation". Germany is known to be 70 years, as they retroactively restored everything to the current EU norms before the URAA date (and they had been 70pma previously anyways), so no doubt about that here. 1928 or 1929 are the given possible publication dates for this anonymous work, so if we use that it was definitely restored in the U.S., and won't be public domain there until 2025 (if 1929 was the date). So barring further publication info, I would undelete in 2025. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:RN-Riviera-Adriatica-1973-gozzi.jpg

The image was deleted because it was wrongly licensed as being the uploaders own work. I assume it would qualify for PD-Italy due to the 20 year term for simple photographs though. So I'd appreciate it if the image was un-deleted and I'll update the license. The same goes for following images:

--Adamant1 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Postcard RMS Walmer Castle.jpg

The image was deleted due to being tagged as the uploaders own work. It appears to be a postcard from the early 1900s though. So I assume it would qualify as PD-old. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While this may be PD-Old, that must be proven. The subject vessel was scrapped in 1932, so this could easily be recent enough to have been under copyright on the URAA date. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Rather Symbol support vote.svg Support, but @Adamant1: could you check the date? If it is from before 1903, then PD-old-assumed is OK, or if there no photographer mentioned (on the back?), then PD-UK-unknown would do. Yann (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: I assume it's the same postcard as File:R.M.S. Walmer Castle.png, which is clearly old enough to be hosted on Commons. That said, can you temporarily un-delete it so I can check? If I can see what postcard it is I'm pretty sure I can find a copy of it online and date it, or just date it based on the image. My guess is that it's old enough to be fine though since the uploader said it was from the early 1900s. If I were to guess I'd say "Anonymous Create/Publish + 70 years" would do it, but I'd have to see the image to be sure. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not the same photograph. RMS Walmer Castle was built in 1902 and scrapped in 1932. As I noted above, if the image were made after 1927, it would still be under copyright on the URAA Date and therefore still be under copyright in the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which photograph is it then? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support temporary undeletion to check if it is public domain in the U.S. Abzeronow (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks similar to File:StateLibQld 1 127151 Carnarvon Castle (ship).jpg. File description of the Walmer Castle postcard says 1917 but 1926-1932 seems more likely. Will keep looking. EDIT: https://www.bandcstaffregister.com/page4313.html says "She was replaced by the Winchester Castle in 1930, making her last sailing in the October before being laid up at Netley as a reserve steamer." so we can eliminate 1931 and 1932 so the range is now looking like 1926-1930) Abzeronow (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting info.svg Info You can see the back of the postcard here: https://oldthing.de/AK-Royal-Mail-Steamer-Walmer-Castle-Union-Castle-Line-to-South-and-East-Africa-0037563626 No photographer credited: PD-UK-unknown. Abzeronow (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I changed the license. Yann (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have agreed that the photograph is a UK photograph taken 1926-1930. If it were taken in three of the five years, the UK copyright expired after the URAA date and therefore it would under US copyright until at least 1/1/2024. 60% is far beyond our PCP requirement of "beyond a significant doubt", so I think we must delete it now and argue again several years from now. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where exactly does the 1926 date come from? The ship was built in 1901 and from the research I did the postcard could have been created anywhere between 1915 and 1930. Also your ignoring the fact that mere allegation that Commons:URAA-restored copyrights says "A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion", which I assume would also apply to un-deletion. In other words, you can't just give a mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file in order to keep it from being un-deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1926 date comes from when the ship featured on a similar looking postcard was built. Alamy also has a different ship postcard in a similar style from 1934 https://www.alamy.com/dampfer-athlone-castle-der-union-castle-line-usage-worldwide-image381714513.html?imageid=B9409252-4502-4652-924F-B79131BA02D5&p=1418175&pn=1&searchId=b76c99d683e7b9d9ff5042c27aff0903&searchtype=0 The evidence points to the postcard being from the late 1920s or the early 1930s. Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The evidence I found points to the fact that this is one postcard in a series of images of ships, which the publisher started printing around 1915 and continued doing so until around 1935. For instance there's multiple postcards in the same series where information says they were published between 1915 and 1920. There's also ones later then that. Just because there's ones in the series printed in 1932 doesn't mean they can't also have printed postcards of ships in 1917, obviously. Also,the image you linked to isn't even of the same ship. So, outside of an image of a different ship exactly what evidence do either of you have that 1. The publisher didn't publish postcards of ships prior to 1926 2. That this postcard was published later then that?
Also, how do you square your assertions that the postcard was published after 1925 with the fact that there's multiple images in the same series where the information says they were published earlier? Are the people who entered the dates just lying about it or what? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: You know I think I'm going to pass on this one since I'm going to be pretty busy for the next couple of weeks and I won't have the time or energy to waste repeatedly countering obviously ridiculous strawmen. So if you don't mind, can you just delete it again? Thanks for undeleting it and giving me a chance to research when it was published at least. I actually find some information about a couple of postcard publishers I had been looking for in the process. So at least it wasn't a complete waste of time. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ship in the File:StateLibQld 1 127151 Carnarvon Castle (ship).jpg postcard was not launched until 1926, so if this postcard indeed took the (almost certainly much earlier) photo here, and added the waves from that other ship photo, then the resulting combination couldn't have been until at least 1926 (so even if the ship portion is OK, there may be other elements which were added later and which are not). On the other hand, this postcard sure looks like the same basic view of the Carnarvon Castle (there are even some people standing in the same spots), but again with completely different wave graphics. That in turn may indicate that they may have had some stock wave graphics which they could place different ships onto, and therefore it's possible those aspects predated the 1926 ship, meaning this card could have been quite a bit earlier. I have not found other examples of those waves being used. Definitely odd, and definitely some retouching. Given the ship was taken out of service in 1930, that is the end possible date. And usually you would not put too much money into creating new advertising for ships in the last years of their career. I'm sure they needed postcards for passengers actually on the ship, but feels more likely it was published earlier. I would feel more comfortable if we had an actual postmark on a copy of this card, of course. I suppose it's possible that it was first published in 1928, 1929, or 1930, but... that feels not too likely. I think it's definitely anonymous, and therefore definitely PD in the country of origin. The only question is the URAA restoration, and that seems unlikely to me.
Furthermore, our policy does state that A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under U.S. or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle. That implies that there needs to be at least a significant doubt about the U.S. status; I'm not sure this rises to that, especially since there are doubts that 1926 is the lower bounds. The odds will decrease each year over the three years, as the U.S. copyright would re-expire even if the URAA had restored it. I can understand other coming to different conclusions, but I don't see this as a significant doubt at the moment, given the evidence we do have. So, leaning Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adamant, Carl's right that there is a possibility that the photograph was taken before 1926. I don't think the uploader was lying when they put in the 1917, I just think it was a guess. And I linked to a site earlier in the thread that has photographs of the Walmer Castle from 1917 which show it with the dazzle paint on it, so I think it's unlikely to have been taken in 1917. I've also found a few other instances of Alamy dating postcards of the same style to 1934. If you have evidence that the postcard publisher started doing this series in 1915, please present that evidence. Right now, we don't know when this was published, and under COM:PCP, that means it should not be restored until we are certain that URAA did not restore the copyright. I'd like to keep this permanently restored, but I don't think we have the evidence we need at the moment. Abzeronow (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Screenshoot from scratch.mit.edu

All screenshots from Scratch.mit.edu are licensed under CC-BY-SA as can be deduced from the FAQ, readable here: https://scratch.mit.edu/faq. Can I use screenshots of Scratch in a book or presentation? 

   Yes, you can use screenshots / images of the Scratch application and website in a book or presentation, and consider them to be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. We ask that you include a note somewhere in your materials saying: "Scratch is a project of the Scratch Foundation, in collaboration with the Lifelong Kindergarten Group at the MIT Media Lab. It is available for free at https://scratch.mit. edu".

I therefore ask that they be restored. --Mattruffoni (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please point us to particular screenshots?
Also there's a question for individual screenshots. Whilst that licence statement is releasing any claims from MIT as to any part of Scratch itself, there's still scope for Scratch coders to have produced a copyrightable work within that environment. We'd also have to be certain that they released that claim too. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Milazzo - chiesa della Trasfigurazione del Signore Gesù Cristo.jpg

La foto è mia e non è soggetta a copyright.
Picture is mine and is a free content, without copyright.
Please, undelete the page.
TrasfigMi (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Your photograph certainly has a copyright, but you have freely licensed it. However, the building shown in the photo also has a copyright and your photo infringes on it. The photo cannot be restored to Commons without a free license from the building's architect. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:San Siro3.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:San Siro3.JPG

If this is a photograph of w:San Siro, the architect Ulisse Stacchini had died in 1947. Abzeronow (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is and he did. The copyright in Italy shifted from 50 years pma to 70 years in 1996/7, but in either case the work was under copyright after the 1996 URAA date. However, while the original stadium was finished in 1927 and would therefore be free of US copyright, there were two major additions in the early 1950s and late 1980s which increased the seating by 60% and added a cover. The architects for that were Giancarlo Ragazzi (1937-2017) and Enrico Hoffer (1937- ). That addition included the red supports which show prominently in this image. The stadium will be under copyright until 70 years after Hoffer dies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: No comment on the rest of your arguments, but I believe URAA is never a factor to consider for buildings because US FoP (and lack of copyrightability pre-1990) applies worldwide. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, in the U.S. photos are not derivative works of architectural works -- the architectural copyright scope stops short of photos of buildings, basically. So if the photo itself is licensed, it's fine for the U.S., and if the photo is now OK in Italy due to when the architect died, it should be OK for Commons. But, the Italian copyright may be an issue for the additions. I guess the question there is if the photo is focusing on those additions, or if the photo is of a larger work and those additions are unavoidable. That dividing line is less clear-cut, but unless the photo is focusing on the additions, I would tend to support keeping it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The architecture copyright in the US is a close call, since the second addition was completed in 1990, but it was almost certainly a few months before the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act came into effect. However the question is moot, since the Italian copyright has at least 70 years to run.
The additions fundamentally add 50% to the height and 11 towers to support the new roof, so the additions are more than half of the structure that is visible in the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1990 date is not relevant. It's that U.S. law states that photos of buildings are not derivative works of architectural works. So no matter what the architectural copyright situation is in Italy, this photo would be fine now on en-wiki. This is solely a question about the copyright status in Italy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. I'll have to make sure to note in the original DR that the relevant architects are Ragazzi and Hoffer. Certainly in cases like this, Italian FOP would be very helpful but I suppose that is a matter for Italians to take up with their politicians. Abzeronow (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1990 date doesn't matter actually - I mentioned it only a technicality for why it's OK in the US, but either way it's OK in the US. If it's pre-1990, then it's OK because it's not copyrighted. If it's post-1990, then it's OK because of US FoP and lex loci protectionis. Just because Commons requires that a work to be free in its source country doesn't make lex loci protectionis itself disappear; rather, we accept that it means there's no US protection but insist that it's not enough. The ultimate consequence is that for architecture, we only need to check whether it's OK in the source country, because it is always OK in the US no matter what. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that the seven visible spiral towers, the outward slanted portion near the top, and the roof structure are all part of the additions. The only part of the original building visible is the structure behind the towers. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, this makes me uncomfortable, as they almost wrapped the old structure inside a new one. Could certainly be moved to en-wiki, if it was in use anywhere, but seems like the older portions of the building are almost the exception. Photos focusing on the old portion would be OK, but I can't quite convince myself that this is OK, given the FoP status. Since this is a living architect, even the relaxed standard of {{FoP-Italy}} can't be used. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Любезнов-старый-собор-алтарь.jpg

I have reviewed the situation after I was reached by the requestor. I agree that users here are usually suspicious about such old photos and usually the pictures are just found somewhere and declared to be free as they are owned by the uploader. Here the explanation seems sufficient for me, it can't be checked/confirmed via VRT (as works weren't published before), @PereslavlFoto is a long-term contributor and I trust him. I see no other way to confirm the license here, it is simply the first publication of own works. Symbol redirect vote.svg Restore rubin16 (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Biagiolli

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: authorization process ongoing, Ticket#2022111710012689 .avgas 15:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Filippo Biagioli doesn't seem to be notable, so I wonder why these would be in scope. In addition, File:Personal photo 1.jpg and File:Filippo Biagiolli.jpg are portraits of the artist himself, so the permission should come from the photographer(s). Yann (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have to disagree about notability -- he appears on many of the art auction and art pricing web sites. However, I agree about the two photographs of him -- they are not selfies so can't be {{Own work}}. Also, it is policy to require that editors using the name of notable artists must confirm that they are actually the artist using VRT, see Commons:Username policy. We get far too many imposters to allow anonymous users to upload copyrighted works without checking that they are actually the artist. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment One renamed to File:Filippo Biagioli 1.jpg. Yann (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:QMWDC.jpg (NSFW)

Maybe i'm missing something but i'm fairly certain this (arguable poor) image was used on a Wikipedia article when it got deleted--Trade (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it normal to end a deletion discussion after only 10 hours? --Trade (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have many more images of penises than we really need (over 1,000), so any image that is not of very high quality can be deleted immediately. See the header at Category:Human penis. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is that we are not supposed to delete pictures that are in use on Wikipedia--Trade (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless you can remember the site on which you found it, there's little we can do about that. Note that the user broke the rules by uploading the image three times. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there really no way for an admin to see which Wikipedia pages a (now) deleted picture was used on? @Jameslwoodward: --Trade (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wouldn't surprise me if there is a tool which will do that, but the project has hundreds of special tools and I don't know about that one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Москвич 3.jpg

This file was deleted for a wrong reason. It was listed as copyvio Commons:Deletion requests/File:Москвич 3.jpg, but if you go to the linked webpage: https://www.mk.ru/economics/2022/11/23/nazvana-cena-novogo-gorodskogo-krossovera-moskvich3.html It says "источник: википедия", meaning the source of image is Wikipedia. So the image got deleted because a news site used the image. --Mikko Paananen (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Also uploaded same day by the same contributor: File:Москвич 3 2.jpg and File:Салон москвич 3.jpg. Ping @Didym: . Thuresson (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have {{Speedy}} deleted both of these files because they appear in many places on the web before their upload here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It was uploaded here on 23 November 2022. It also appeared in hundreds of places on the Web on the same day. While this isn't as completely obvious a case as the two above, I doubt very much that was the result of its uploading here. Much more likely that the manufacturer, Moskvitch included it in a press release. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - here 22 November 2022, the day before Commons upload; available in higher resolution than Commons upload here, here, etc. Also no EXIF, lower resolution, all other user uploads of this subject copyvios. This is a blatant COM:NETCOPYVIO. Эlcobbola talk 16:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Belgian Museum Public Domain artwork batch 11

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the 11th batch of public domain artwork from MSK Gent that I intend to add appropriate licenses. Abzeronow (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Abzeronow: FYI. --Yann (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Marianna Arzumanová.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: permission received in VRTS as ticket:2022122810007949 Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Martin Urbanec: FYI. --Yann (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ward Hunt Island, Geomorphology, Map2, Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada.jpg

Reason for undeletion requestː The names mentioned below the deleted map with the copyright indication are the joint authors of the map: 

© S.Baumann, G.Hell, W. Zick, R.Lehmann, 1990; scientific expedition leader: L. King, Gießen.
Scientific geomorphological Field work was done by Rainer Lehmann ín summer 1988, The expedition was financed by Lorenz King, professor for physical geography at Giessen university, with funds of the German Science Foundation (DFG). The final cartography was done at the two universities in Karlsruhe, Günter Hell (University of Applied Science Karlsruhe) and Wolfgang Zick, Karlsruhe University (KIT), section cartography and geodesy, The persons mentioned form a team of scientists working together for more than 20 years, and we have several joint publications (e.g. Hell+King, Hell+Zick, King+Lehmann and many others. It is the strong wish of all of us to include this map in Wikipedia. The map earns to be known, as it is really unique, a large scale geomorphological map of the northernmost spots of the world, Ward Hunt Island. The expedition leader contributes to Wikipedia as [Matti&Keti], many details of our expeditions to several islands of the Canadian Arctic can be found in de.wikipedia, fr.wikipedia and en.wikipedia, together with our joint publications in the references. Please undeleted the map and make it available in Wikipedia.---- Matti&Keti (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Matti&Keti: In general, shared accounts are frowned upon, because every time a user uploads their own work to Commons they are asked to click on a button that affirms that they are the copyright holder and agree to publish their work under the stated license. If an account represents multiple people, then we don't know who is actually operating the account and whether they are actually the copyright holder as opposed to one of the other operators of the account. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for your prompt reply, and sorry for the confusion with my alias-name. [Matti&Keti] is not a shared account, it is my personal account, connected with my personal email address. All contributions of [MattiKeti] without any exception have been done by myself. I was the expedition leader of many expeditions, and now retired professor (also Hell and Zick are retired). I uploaded the geomorphological map to Wikimedia,commons with the strong wish approval of all contributors. I hope you can undelete the map. Matti&Keti (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:2022-12-08-Cell-Broadcast-Screenshot-iPhone13Pro.png

The file was proposed for deletion by Premeditated and deleted by Túrelio. It does not contain any copyright infringement because the work is also released in the public domain and is only an appendix in the actual work. The origin was correctly referenced and it was deleted directly instead of checking it. (By the way, all works of NASA are in the public domain ...) I therefore ask for restoration of the file.

Links: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pillars_of_Creation_(NIRCam_Image).jpg https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-webb-takes-star-filled-portrait-of-pillars-of-creation

FabianHorst (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done The icons may or may not be above COM:TOO (and/or qualify for COM:DM if the answer to the first question is yes), but certainly there is no obvious copyright violation and any issues would need to be raised in a DR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:IPhone 14 Pro - 2.jpg

Was speedy deleted because of the copyrighted wallpaper, but the image was used on w:Apple Inc., and I'd like to rescue it by blurring the wallpaper. Best, DFlhb (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Temporarily undeleted}} @DFlhb: Yann (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. But actually, does this even count as "obvious" copyvio? Not entirely sure the wallpaper would meet COM:TOO (purely geometric shapes), and the app icons seem de minimis enough. What are your thoughts? DFlhb (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=725734669"