Translate this page

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

Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎sicilianu • ‎svenska • ‎башҡортса • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎پښتو • ‎বাংলা • ‎中文 • ‎日本語

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)

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. 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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View

File:Alishan Taiwan Xiang-Lin-Elementary-School-03.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: COM:FOP Taiwan accepts 2-dimensional works A1Cafel (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose for files like File:COVID-19 Pandemic Prevention Notice of a Cram School in Hsinchu.jpg and File:COVID-19 Epidemic Prevention Information Board at Campus Bus Stop in National Tsing Hua University.jpg. By the file names these depict COVID-19 information boards which IMO may not fulfill the requirement at COM:FOP Taiwan ("Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, may be exploited by any means..."). Are COVID-19 information boards/announcements for long-term basis? I doubt they would. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Also File:Doraemon 2007 poster on CTS Kuang-fu Building.jpg seems to be an indoor photo. Few others may need to be verified by Chinese-speaking users as they may refer to some temporary events. Also content of bilboards unlikely can be considered permanent. I suggest temporary undeletion of the images for discussion. Ankry (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Support for temporary undeletions. Since I'm from the Philippines, I hope Wikipedians from Taiwan (and perhaps from PRC) to conduct thorough individual reviews on each of the files indicated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Pinging users like @Solomon203, KOKUYO, Taiwania Justo, Kai3952, Reke, 廣九直通車: for discussion.--A1Cafel (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
          • @A1Cafel: All images are deleted, then I can't see what the problem is in this situation. If you need to discuss further, please restore these images as they are vital to the discussion. By the way, I have patiently and calmly discussed this issue with Reke many times, but the result was 'no consensus'.--Kai3952 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
            • If you ping me about the FOP-Taiwan part, I hope you'll consider my situation seriously. Because I was told by reke that I'm an annoying person and accused me of doing a destroy user pictures using DR (see: special:diff/514139241). In fact, he previously said that you (Kai) have Asperger's syndrome, and he also stressed that any disputes between me and someone else could be a problem for the disease. My plight in talk or communication with is similar to that of most users at Commons. It's very difficult to avoid disputes with users, and everyone should understand. I think...don't let them (including me) go away from Commons by the stigma of being labeled “Asperger.” I know it is hard not to become frustrated and the frustration just made it worse, but can't bear the stigma of choosing such a notoriously mental illness or psychiatric disorde. I impacted by the stigma of being labeled “Asperger,”so please don't ping me about COM:FOP Taiwan.--Kai3952 (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Temporary undeletion per Kai3952, unless I can see what they were, I'm not sure if they are photographed indoorly or outdoorly. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Temporary undeletion. Per above. SCP-2000 13:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

For the "勞基法..." one, @Reke: is that TIPO article requires permanently placed, or temporary ones are also applied? The second one may fall under COM:CHARACTER so indeed shouldn't apply --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: as a nominator, do you agree me to "non-admin closure"-like remove the temporary undeletion tag here? That isn't even a 2D work, it's a 3D work. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: as it seems COM:FOP Taiwan now permits photos of exterior fixed 3D works, I support undeletion, but removal of temporary undeletion tags should wait for consensus here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I deleted most of images that doubts were raised about. The only remaining is File:勞工是我心中最軟的一塊 20191214.jpg where User:Liuxinyu970226 opposes basing on TOO, while we are discussing permanence. I do not understand how TOO is relevant here. I assume, all others can be considered kept already. Ankry (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Note also that natural destruction of medium is generally not considered an argument against permanence. Not permanent = intended to be removed or replaced after some period of time. Not because of natural destrution of medium (eg. paper) due to weather conditions. Ankry (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Ankry: For "勞工是..." one, that has an animation/a cartoon-like artwork, so the question should be answered by the author @Solomon203:: Is this artwork really "your own work"? See also COM:CHARACTER. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Solomon203, KOKUYO, Taiwania Justo, Kai3952, Reke, 廣九直通車: is the illustrated advertisement at File:Hsinchu City - panoramio.jpg still exists (or has it already been replaced by another ad)? If replaced (just like most billboard ads), I'm sorry - this should remain delsted until it falls public domain. Most billboard ads are temporal in nature. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    JWilz12345, I told you guys before that I'm not going to speak about the FOP-Taiwan part because Reke claims that he is more familiar with the policy than I am. You can look at his edits to see how 'claim' he is.--Kai3952 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
    "勞工是..." is an outdoor political sticker on Section 3, Xinsheng South Road, Da'an District, Taipei City. --Solomon203 (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    So we can assume it is intended to be shown during an election campain or another temporary action, not permanently. Am I right? Ankry (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry reply so late. In my opinion:
  1. File:多個單位善心捐助高市圖通閱、故事書車_05.jpg is a bookmobile and it may not meet "long-term basis" since it has visited to school sometimes per this article
  2. File:Hsinchu City - panoramio.jpg is a advertising board, which was placed temporary in common sense, thus we can presume it is not meet "long-term basis" FOP requirement.
  3. There is no evidence can demonstrate File:The Art decoration in Chung-Wen Elementary School 01.jpg is in public domain at present and that should be deleted per COM:EVID.
Thank you. SCP-2000 02:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @SCP-2000: Nothing is late while the case is open. However, I think that we need some clarification of your comments.
    (Ad. 1) Why visited to school sometimes is relevant? Do you mean that the car decoration is dedicated per visit (or per few visits) or that Taiwanese FOP does not apply to art placed on vehicles per general? While I doubt the first, I have no opinion about the latter.
    (Ad. 2) Being an advertisement does not contradict being permanent (cf. signboards); that is why I asked for help here: is there any element in the content of the advertisement qualifying it as temporary? The board does not seem to be a displayboard for rent. Note, that removal of an art due to its weather-related destruction or even vandalism, does not contradict permanence. BTW, the copyright notice may mean that COM:CHARACTER applies here.
    (Ad. 3) Why we need an evidence that the art is still present? Do you mean that FoP did not apply at the time when the photo was taken, or something else? Note that permanence is not based on measured time that something was displayed, but on the intention. Even if the wall was destroyed in an accident few minutes after creation, it still can be considered permanent. Ankry (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Then I think that these are very likely permanently "set": File:Mackaystatue.jpg, File:Public art at the junction of Provincial Highway 20 and Provincial Highway 21.jpg and File:The Art decoration in Chung-Wen Elementary School 01.jpg, while others may not, so we can only permanently restore these 3 files. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info and Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Ankry, SCP-2000: the description of File:The Art decoration in Chung-Wen Elementary School 01.jpg is "臺灣嘉義市崇文國小圍牆裝飾，磁磚上上繪有林玉山的畫作：高山晨暉." When using literal Google machine translation: "The wall decoration of Chongwen Elementary School in Chiayi City, Taiwan, with Lin Yushan’s paintings on the tiles: Gao Shan Chenhui." The artist seems to be w:Lin Yushan (d. 2004), who seems to mostly work for w:En plein air paintings (perhaps the art in the image is... semi-permanent/semi-temporary???) For me, Purple question mark.svg Unsure. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Pictogram voting comment.svg respond So it's not in public domain, but still FOP applies. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

File:大黑松小倆口元首館 Salico Foods King Garden - panoramio (2).jpg

—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 116.48.227.228 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

There is COM:FOP Taiwan for 2D works —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 116.48.227.228 (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@116.48.227.228: for any of the aforementioned images to be restored, the artwork must satisfy two conditions at COM:FOP Taiwan - these must be in "outdoor places open to the public" and their presence or display is "on a long-term basis" (in short permanence). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as 116.48.227.228 has provided no detailed per-image explanation. Ankry (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: if File:Mackay statue Tamsui.jpg is uploader's own photo, then I'm leaning towards Symbol support vote.svg Support for its restoration if it shows the sculpture at File:Mackaystatue.jpg. However, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose restorations of files from File:名人塑像區.jpg to File:Wang02.jpg as these were restored recently but were deleted again because: copyvio (grabbed from http://www.wang-art.com.tw). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Stdi.jpg

Прошу отменить удаление этого скриншота, поскольку он относится к программе, распространяемой по СВОБОДНОЙ ЛИЦЕНЗИИ - это указано в верхней строке скриншота Stdi.jpg. Та же ссылка на свободную лицензию указана на сайте скачивания этого ПО http://statsoft.msu.ru/Podr2~1.htm ("бесплатная версия для самообучения и работы по свободной лицензии" с уточнением: "данная лицензия позволяет пользователю свободно распространять данную версию и все полученные с ее помощью изображения"). Поэтому я могу свободно использовать любые скриншоты этого ПО везде безо всякого разрешения!

Please cancel the deletion of Stdi.jpg screenshot, since it refers to a program distributed under a FREE LICENSE - this is indicated in the top line of the screenshot Stdi.jpg (in Russian). The same link to the free license is listed on the download site of this software http://statsoft.msu.ru/Podr2~1.htm (in Russian: "free version for self-study and work under a free license" with the clarification: "this license allows the user to freely distribute this version and all images obtained with it"). Therefore, I can freely use any screenshots of this software everywhere without any permission! AKU-47 (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Screenshot was deleted corredctly, do not undelete it. Please note history of this file at nominators talk page. Permission to download and "freely distribute this version and all images obtained with it" does not allow to "Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially." as says free license cc-by-sa. This software is not truly free. --Drakosh (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
After discussion in ruwiki, author changed license on dowload page. Source code is still not available. --Drakosh (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Aside from the copyright issue, which is not clear and therefore requires deletion, there is also the fact that there is no useful description of this, so it is out of scope -- it can't be educational if we don't know what it is. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of the Republic of Cochinchina.svg

This image directly debunks the idea the cited West-German source "Neue und veränderte Staatswappen seit 1945 IIa, Die Wappen der Staaten Asiens" (1968), published in "Jahrbuch / Heraldischer Verein Zum Kleeblatt von 1888 zu Hannover" which states that French Cochinchina never had a coat of arms. Therefore overturning the original rationale that lead to the image's deletion.

I am currently doing research into this topic and can't find this file, I am quite sure that this is a fantasy, but I am not sure if this file is a contemporary misattribution or not. Anyhow if u deleted I would add "{{Disputed coat of arms}}" to it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Please specify what exactly do you request and why? Do you request for modifying the deleted description, reopening the DR or something else? Ankry (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry:, just general undeletion, I plan on altering the description and tagging it as "disputed", but the reason given for deletion was one that isn't really an acceptable reason anymore. But I am planning on requesting on renaming it to "Alleged" or "fantasy". But I can't make a judgement without seeing the file. I suspect that it's the insignia of the Republican Guard, but again, I can't judge if I can't see the file. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
In order to override a DR decision we need a rationale that I do not see here. Ankry (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry:, please always ping on this page, as I don't seem to get notifications for it in my e-mails. Regarding undeletion, the rationale for deletion was that the file was a fantasy, however, I suspect that it was merely misattributed, I am mostly requesting undeletion to see the file so I can work with it.
Furthermore, the claims by the original nominator merely States that heraldric source works claim that French Cochinchina never had a coat of arms, later discoveries could have been made and the file could as well have been the coat of arms of a body of the Cochinchinese Colonial Council, if I can't see the file I can't research it. Does the file look anything like this? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
So I am Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral whether the COA is in scope or not. However I may GA candidate.svg Weak support reopening the DR to take a decision there. Ankry (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Just curious, but what are the reservations for its undeletion? -- Always ping me on this page Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, regarding the original deletion, the cited source "Neue und veränderte Staatswappen seit 1945 IIa, Die Wappen der Staaten Asiens" (1968), published in "Jahrbuch / Heraldischer Verein Zum Kleeblatt von 1888 zu Hannover" is usually a reliable source for national coats of arms, but it's not infallible, the nominator at the time found a lot of coats of arms through this work and similar works, but they got the coat of arms of the Second (2nd) Republic of Vietnam wrong, recently a Vietnamese person made a YouTube presentation based on Vietnamese coats of arms on Wikipedia and the entire comment section was filled with users pointing out that the escutcheon of South Vietnam was missing 2 (two) dragons. Also that book didn't showcase the coat of arms of the French protectorate of Annam (something that was also uploaded by this very Sockmaster and later deleted upon request as being "likely a hoax" by the same person that started the DR), but a 1941 official government Vichy (German-Italian-Japanese collaboratist regime) French work showed these coats of arms to indeed be legitimate. I am not saying that the original image was legitimate, I am just saying that because I can't view it that I have no way if verifying it and misattributed coats of arms on Wikimedia Commons usually get tagged with "{{Disputed coat of arms}}" rather than outright deleted. Both the Sockmaster and the DR nominator have had a track record with mistakes in this field, both both the sockmaster and DR nominator are excellent intelligent people that know how to research these topics well. I just want the ability to conduct my own research into this file. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg I am an idiot, I just Ecosia searched (Ecosiad) in French rather than just in Vietnamese and I actually managed to find a contemporary French source showing a coat of arms of French Cochinchina among the first results. The internet is a very different place since the original Deletion Request was filed, but the whole reason the file was deleted was because the source consulted by the DR nominator stated that French Cochinchina never had any coat of arms. Now, the coat of arms I found in this image looks quite similar to the one the globally locked Sockmaster uploaded a few weeks ago with a more recent sockpuppet. I think that both the original DR nominator and globally locked Sockmaster in this care are very intelligent people with a strong dedication to research these things, and I am sure that either of them knows more about Vietnamese coats of arms than anyone here, but neither of them are infallible and the usually reliable West-German book on national coats of arms isn't infallible either. This image directly disproves the deletion rationale. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ankry:, out of curiosity (and because this is taking forever), could you please describe in words how this file looks like? What elements does it have like a large yellow stripe with three dark blue stripes in the middle. This way I can identify what it is and request it to be undeleted under its proper name if it's the insignia of another institution of the Autonomous Republic of Cochinchina that is simply misattributed. Please always ping me on this page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Donald Trung: I have expressed my neutral opinion above, and nothing has changed. I do not think, that scope cases can be investigated here in details; at least I am not interested in such investigations. Unless they are obvious (eg. needed for an article, widely used in real world). That is why I suggested reopenning the DR. But I refuse to take a decision without a suporting opinion of another admin. If there is a consensus that the flags are in scope, we can go on. Ankry (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
        • @Ankry:, also if I might add, the what I presumed was a fantasy flag from this very same Globally Locked Sockmaster that I requested undeletion for and was granted later turned out to be a legitimate flag. For years a lot of legitimate files have been deleted as "fantasies" because bad or incomplete sources. On this page (which also confirms what we all thought was a fantasy flag to be real) there is a badge, does the deleted file resemble this badge or an element of it? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Andres Bonifacio Monument.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File was deleted thru Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Guillermo Tolentino (FOP-related). However, as it was unveiled during the time of old copyright regime (Act of 1924, which only gave 30 years copyright protection and required registration), it can be said that it now falls as {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. See the latest input of Clindberg at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bonifacio National Monument (Caloocan City).

Note that for the first file (File:Andres Bonifacio Monument.jpg), the version to be restored is from 2012 and not the more recent file that is an outright/blatant copyright violation. Additionally, the third file (File:Bonifacio Monument.jpg) is more complicated as the first version shows the Caloocan monument (which is PD as per the current consensus here), while the latest version shows a clearly unfree monument like the file here, per the upload log. So I suggest a renaming of this file after undeletion and move to another title so that the road is clear for the unfree monument if FOP is introduced here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ping the participants of that DR, including the closing admin of that DR @Howhontanozaz, Clindberg, Rubin16: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Duomo di Milano, dettaglio di un portale 1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Duomo di Milano, dettaglio di un portale 1.jpg. However, its creators/authors are deceased (Franco Lombardi died in 1943, and Luciano Minguzzi in 2004), which means this image now passes the updated COM:FOP Italy (exception 1, a work by deceased authors, via a 2008 Italian parliamentary pronouncement). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Duomo Out S7.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Duomo Out S7.jpg. However, its creators/authors are deceased (Franco Lombardi died in 1943, and Luciano Minguzzi in 2004), which means this image now passes the updated COM:FOP Italy (exception 1, a work by deceased authors, via a 2008 Italian parliamentary pronouncement). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

More images of Lombardi/Minguzzi FOP-reliant work

These were deleted due to no FOP in Italy reason. However, its creators/authors are deceased (Franco Lombardi died in 1943, and Luciano Minguzzi in 2004), which means this image now passes the updated COM:FOP Italy (exception 1, a work by deceased authors, via a 2008 Italian parliamentary pronouncement). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Anjos Cantores.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anjos Cantores.jpg. However, now OK for Commons according to updated COM:FOP Italy (exception 1, a work by a deceased author). The artist has been dead since 1973. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Arezzo courthouse1.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arezzo courthouse1.JPG. But now, acceptable here via updated COM:FOP Italy (first exception to no FOP: work of a deceased author). As Howhontanozaz indicated on DR, the architect died in 2017. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Breda Tower.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Breda Tower.jpg. But now, acceptable here via updated COM:FOP Italy (first exception to no FOP: work of a deceased author). As Raoli indicated on DR, the architect died in 1961. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Note: the file to be restored is the one deleted by INeverCry on February 14, 2013, and not a more recent file that was deleted as an obvious copyvio. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Unicredit Tower images

Restoration of uncropped version

Said files, deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unicredit Tower (Milan), can now be acceptable here via updated COM:FOP Italy (first exception to no FOP: work of a deceased author). Architect w:César Pelli died in 2019. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL More files from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Porta Nuova (Milan)

Also the ff.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Parque Vila Germânica Blumenau SC (40175077724).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons now accepted PDM per {{PDMark-owner}}. @SCP-2000: who has voted in the DR A1Cafel (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Does FoP apply here? Is this a permanent instalation? (source image) Ankry (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Well I see another problem: MTur Destinos does not seem to be the photographer (and so the photo is not their own work), so the {{PDMark-owner}} does not apply. Ankry (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
      • If MTur Destinos owns the copyright, it is fine. The tag is about the copyright owner (usually the photographer, but not always). That can be a harder question, though the statement on the account seems fairly specific. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
        • @Clindberg: The template states: when a copyright holder applies the PDM to their own work (my highlighting). If somebody owns copyright, is does nit automatically mean that the work is their own work (I assume the template says about authorship here). Maybe the template needs to be modified? I did not follow the discussion whick led to this template creation, so I am not sure if this is justified by the consensus. Personally, I would also be very careful with declarations by companies, due to multiple cases when company staff think that their company owns copyright, while it actually does not... Ankry (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
          • In that context, "own work" means "works they own". As in, owning the copyright, be that by authorship or transfer. If someone declares their own work PD, that's when it falls under that tag, as they are waiving the copyrights they had owned. If the photos were works for hire for example, they would own the copyright and it would be fine (outside of derivative work issues, of course). If there are claims of ownership of the individual photographers in EXIF or something, indicating it's possible the organization merely licensed the images and have no right to relicense them, I'd be a bit more leery. I have not looked carefully. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment According to Flickr tags, this is Parque Vila Germânica, a tourist spot in Blumenau, Brazil. FoP can be apply per {{FoP-Brazil}}. Description said "Crédito obrigatório: Renato Soares/MTur" (English:Mandatory credit: Renato Soares/MTur), so Renato Soares is an employee of MTur Destinos, thus MTur is the copyright holder of this image. --A1Cafel (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Addio.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the uploader, @Scuraball:, has already found the underlying image. According to them, it is File:Seagull in capitol hill.jpg. The meme image can now be restored as the source of the ubderlying work (image) has been identified by the uploader of the deleted meme image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Benevento BN, Italy - panoramio - RobyP (17).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Benevento BN, Italy - panoramio - RobyP (17).jpg. However, this now passes the updated COM:FOP Italy, under the 1st no FOP exception (a work by a deceased author). As the closing admin indicated, the author died in 1987. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Out of process deletions by INeverCry (Uploads by 南文會館)

INeverCry has / had the nasty habit of nuking any socks they came across, often deleting valuable free images in doing so, not only is this against policy, it actively harms the scope of Wikimedia Commons as its scope is hosting free educational images, not just free educational images as long as they're uploaded by "the right users", while inspecting some Musée Annam socks I came across this:

  • https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/%E5%8D%97%E6%96%87%E6%9C%83%E9%A4%A8&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile

This user uploaded a number of Vietnamese flags of differing value, judging from the titles I can find a large number of fantasies ("Flags of the XXX Dynasty") and also a number of legitimate titles. The problem is that an INC sock nuked them, preferably I would like for all of these files to be undeleted, upon undeletion I would categorise all fantasy flags as being fantasy flags and request renaming of them as fantasy flags, for example "Flag of the X Dynasty" would become "Fantasy flag of the X Dynasty" (note that these circulate widely online and in nationalistic re-writes of Vietnamese history, so they do have an educational value, I just believe that they should be properly marked as hoaxes and then explain in the description their origins and perhaps note that flag culture as we know it today didn't exist). Note that in a number of cases such "dynastic flags" were actually based on Imperial Standards or Military Standards (such as the one of Quang Trung, also on Wikimedia Commons in the past uploaded by a Musée Annam sock, but I haven't been able to find it, this one actually has historical documentation, but wasn't a national flag like some Vietnamese nationalists like to claim). The other flags are those of political parties or small Vietnamese polities. The deletion rationale constantly seems to be "vi.wiki sockpuppet uploads" (for example here), which isn't one grounded in any actual policy, note that the deleting admin later bragged about their number of admin actions, so this might have been an ego trip to bloat those numbers. Note that upon undeletion I will immediately mark the fantasies and remove them from any categories that would falsely give them legitimacy. Please always ping me on this page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: This is not a venue to discuss user problems. If you need some images to be undeleted, please, list them here and provide a common reason for their undeletion that applies to all of them. If there are various reasons for deletion/undeletion among the images, then the image undeletion should be requested in separate sections. Ankry (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry:, they were all deleted with the same rationale, a nuke because of sockpuppetry, not any scope or licensing issues. I am requesting all images (redlinks) in the above link to be u deleted in case this isn't clear. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  1. If the uploader is a suckpuppet, the deletions were not out of process. Some actions of this admin were valid, some were abusive. If this one was abusive, an evidence is needed (the account is still marked as a sockpuppet), but this is not the right venue to discuss this.
  2. We generally do not want to support sockpuppets as Wikimedia contributors
  3. If the images are needed in Wikimedia and not the sockpuppet operator's own works, it is preferred to reupload them by a valid user
  4. If the undeletion is still needed, we need an explanation why the images are needed in Wikimedia on per image basis
  5. Massive undeletion tools require direct list of image links here. The permanent list is also needed for archiving purposes.
Ankry (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry: But then, some were deleted by that WMF banned user really based on unfair reason like "no FOP in Sweden" (true???) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
(Edit conflict because another section was edited, how is this page useful?) Wasn't pinged, please always ping on this page as this page notifies users about all changes not just the ones relevant to them (it seems almost by design that undeletions are difficult while deletions are easy), please point to the policy where sock uploads are prohibited? The community rejected this several times already. As for having to list every file individually, that just seems unnecessarily tedious for the sake of bureaucracy, there are deletion requests that are titled "All files uploaded by User:XXX", but somehow it is bad to file the exact same thing for undeletions. My argument is that these flags are in scope. As for fantasy flags, that should be decided on a case-by-case basis, some fantasy flags have been attributed or commonly mistaken in many (otherwise) trustworthy educational sources, being able to document which flags are real and fantasy is a part of a mission to educate, not spreading new fantasies. Also, the other non-fantasy flags are legitimate. "If the images are needed in Wikimedia and not the sockpuppet operator's own works, it is preferred to reupload them by a valid user" This makes no sense, how can I (re-)upload files I can't see? Also if the sockpuppeteer vectorised them or created them, wouldn't it be a copyright violation for another user to claim for it to be "their" works?
Regarding that discussion, I wasn't aware of that, I generally don't follow Administrators' Noticeboards as I am "too busy for such drama", I don't even get why policy issues are discussed there. But unless that discussion ends with claiming all fantasy flags to be out of scope I don't think that it would be bad to undelete the fantasy flags of this sock, but still, it contains plenty of non-fantasies. Filing an individual request for them would simply be too tedious. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, reading through that AN discussion, it isn't really relevant here, those are user generated fantasy flags, these are based on fantasies from Vietnamese nationalist revisionist history publications (often, and unfortunately, with scholarly and government backing to sell nationalism through history, but that's another discussion). Some of these sources were cited on Wikipedia before being removed, the sockmaster created free versions of the fantasy flags from those publications. Several others of his work haven't been deleted and are properly tagged as either fantasy or reliable. I don't see the value for people to delete free educational content. If "a valid user" is needed to stand behind these uploads then I am willing to do that. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I still maintain to this very day that sock images should under no circumstance be allowed here .... however unfortunately they are and as such INC's sock deletions aren't valid and should be overturned. If I can't have sock images deleted then I don't see why anyone else can, might seem petty but shouldn't be one rule for one and one rule for another. –Davey2010Talk 13:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the reason for deleting many sock images is that ordinarily we Assume Good Faith. With socks, that must not be the case, so the rule becomes "If there is any doubt, delete". In the case of INC's deletions, there may be good images among many not so good, so they must be dealt with on a case by case basis, not in bulk, as proposed here. There is nothing more to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward:, it would be horribly tedious to nominate every individual flag from this user for undeletion, in most cases I would have to re-use of one two arguments (1) this fantasy lag was seriously proposed by a number of Vietnamese historians and history scholars, and (2) it's an in scope free image of a historical Vietnamese organisation. All these images apply to either of these. I don't see why I should waste several hours filing undeletion requests for each one individually to wait a month for them to be u deleted. If deletion requests worked like this we would have a lot more copyright violations. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
User:Donald Trung, the title of this UnDR calls out all of INC's deletions of sock puppet uploads, hence my comment above. I have no problem at all if you want to request undeletion of a specified list of closely related items. Making that list may be tedious, but you are the only one who knows what you think belongs on it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

List

Real flags.
  • 23:38, 10 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Drapeaux des cinq elements - Feu.svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)
  • 23:38, 10 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Drapeaux des cinq elements - Terre.svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)
  • 23:38, 10 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Drapeaux des cinq elements - Métal.svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)
  • 23:38, 10 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Drapeaux des cinq elements - Eau.svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)
  • 23:38, 10 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Drapeaux des cinq elements - Bois.svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)
  • 18:22, 10 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Flag of National Social Democratic Front.svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)
  • 18:25, 9 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Flag of Bach Thai Company.svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)
  • 18:25, 9 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Drapeau de la Délégation Diplomatique de l'Annam 1863.svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)
  • 20:30, 8 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Standard of Nungz clan.svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)

21:42, 31 March 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded a new version of File:Flag of National Revolutionary Movement.svg (==Summary==

Description
Tiếng Việt: Hiệu kỳ Phong-trào Cách-mạng Quốc-gia.
Date
Source [][Sud Viêt-Nam]
Author 南文會館
Permission
(Reusing this file)
Insignia This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

=={{int:license...) (thank)

19:33, 31 March 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Flag of National Party of Vietnam.svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)

  • 18:33, 27 March 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Flag of National Revolutionary Movement.svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)
  • 18:33, 27 March 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Flag of Personalist Labor Revolutionary Party.svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)
  • 18:23, 27 March 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Flag of Daiviet National League.svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)
  • 18:06, 27 March 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Flag of Vietnamese Republic (proposal by VRL).svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)
  • 17:52, 27 March 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Flag of Vietnam Restoration Army.svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)
  • 17:52, 27 March 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Flag of Vietnam Restoration League.svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)
Fantasies mentioned by serious historians.
  • 16:27, 9 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded a new version of File:Flag of Tran dynasty.svg (==Summary== {{Information |description=
    Tiếng Việt: Quốc-triều đại-kỳ.
    中文：國朝大旗。
    |date=2017-03-22 |source=Bibliothèque nationale de France |author=南文會館 |permission=
Insignia This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

|other versio...) (thank)

  • 16:26, 9 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded a new version of File:Flag of Ly dynasty.svg (==Summary== {{Information |description=
    Tiếng Việt: Quốc-triều đại-kỳ.
    中文：國朝大旗。
    |date=2017-03-22 |source=Bibliothèque nationale de France |author=南文會館 |permission=
Insignia This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

|other version...) (thank)

  • 16:24, 9 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded a new version of File:Flag of Ho dynasty.svg (==Summary== {{Information |description=
    Tiếng Việt: Quốc-triều đại-kỳ.
    中文：國朝大旗。
    |date=2017-03-22 |source=Bibliothèque nationale de France |author=南文會館 |permission=
Insignia This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

|other versio...) (thank).

  • 16:23, 9 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded a new version of File:Flag of Dinh dynasty.svg (==Summary== {{Information |description=
    Tiếng Việt: Quốc-triều đại-kỳ.
    中文：國朝大旗。
    |date=2017-03-22 |source=Bibliothèque nationale de France |author=南文會館 |permission=
Insignia This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

|other versio...) (thank) .

  • 20:12, 8 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Standard of Vu clan.svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)
  • 20:10, 8 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded a new version of File:Flag of Trinh clan.svg (==Summary== {{Information |description=
    Tiếng Việt: Quốc-triều soái-kỳ.
    中文：國朝帥旗。
    |date=2017-03-22 |source=Bibliothèque nationale de France |author=南文會館 |permission=
Insignia This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

|other versions...) (thank)

  • 20:08, 8 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded a new version of File:Flag of Nguyen clan.svg (==Summary== {{Information |description=
    Tiếng Việt: Quảng-nam quốc Nguyễn-chủ đại-kỳ.
    中文：廣南國阮主大旗。
    |date=2017-03-22 |source=Bibliothèque nationale de France |author=南文會館 |permission...) (thank)
  • 19:50, 8 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded a new version of File:Flag of Revival Le dynasty.svg (==Summary== {{Information |description=
    Tiếng Việt: Quốc-triều đại-kỳ.
    中文：國朝大旗。
    |date=2017-03-22 |source=Bibliothèque nationale de France |author=南文會館 |permission=
Insignia This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

|other versio...) (thank)

  • 19:48, 8 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Flag of Ho dynasty.svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)
  • 19:47, 8 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded a new version of File:Flag of Later Le dynasty.svg (==Summary== {{Information |description=
    Tiếng Việt: Quốc-triều đại-kỳ.
    中文：國朝大旗。
    |date=2017-03-22 |source=Bibliothèque nationale de France |author=南文會館 |permission=
Insignia This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

|other versio...) (thank)

  • 19:45, 8 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded a new version of File:Flag of Mac dynasty.svg (==Summary== {{Information |description=
    Tiếng Việt: Quốc-triều đại-kỳ.
    中文：國朝大旗。
    |date=2017-03-22 |source=Bibliothèque nationale de France |author=南文會館 |permission=
Insignia This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

|other versio...) (thank)

  • 19:43, 8 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded a new version of File:Flag of Tran dynasty.svg (==Summary== {{Information |description=
    Tiếng Việt: Quốc-triều đại-kỳ.
    中文：國朝大旗。
    |date=2017-03-22 |source=Bibliothèque nationale de France |author=南文會館 |permission=
Insignia This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

|other versio...) (thank)

  • 19:41, 8 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded a new version of File:Flag of Ly dynasty.svg (==Summary== {{Information |description=
    Tiếng Việt: Quốc-triều đại-kỳ.
    中文：國朝大旗。
    |date=2017-03-22 |source=Bibliothèque nationale de France |author=南文會館 |permission=
Insignia This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

|other version...) (thank)

  • 19:40, 8 April 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded a new version of File:Flag of Early Le dynasty.svg (==Summary== {{Information |description=
    Tiếng Việt: Quốc-triều đại-kỳ.
    中文：國朝大旗。
    |date=2017-03-22 |source=Bibliothèque nationale de France |author=南文會館 |permission=
Insignia This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status.

|other version...) (thank)

Proposals.
  • 05:33, 28 March 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Flag of Vietnamese Republic (proposal by VNRL).svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)
  • 18:06, 27 March 2017 南文會館 talk contribs uploaded File:Flag of Vietnamese Republic (proposal by VRL).svg (User created page with UploadWizard) (thank)

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg For context, these fantasy Vietnamese flags are all (unfortunately) on display at the Military History Museum of Vietnam (Bảo tàng Lịch sử Quân sự Việt Nam), it is not as if I wish for some random proposals for historical flags to be restored by some random user(s), these flags are actually used by an educational institution to spread misinformation and not having them on Wikimedia Commons to explain their context actually prevents people from educating others about their historical inaccuracies. In some cases these were imperial standards misreported as "national flags" (something that only became a concept in Vietnam in the 19th (nineteenth) century). They are fully within scope, I just think that they should be properly labeled before we have another good faith contributor add them or find some educator doing research thinking that they have "a scoop Wikipedia doesn't have". Personally I prefer to add them in a list article and explain their context as misreported flags of Vietnamese dynasties and why they're illegitimate, that has more of an educational value than denying their existence altogether regardless of why they were deleted. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Кролики для БиоМолекулы.tif

This is my drawing that I did personally myself. I gave this image or similar images to a few publishers and it is used in a few publications that had my authorship. I never transferred any copyright to this drawing to any publisher. Please restore it Olgamatveeva (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ankry (talk), In my article https://biomolecula.ru/articles/problema-vybora-peptidov-dlia-epivakkorony the figure number 3 represents the file in question. It is written below the image that it is supplied by author (me). The only way to prove that the drawing belongs to me is to ask the publisher of the article related to the image to write to Wikipedia staff that I sent them this and other drawings but retained my copyrights when reusing the drawings. Therefore, the English versions of the drawings are mine as well. I wonder to whom these messages from the Editor should be addressed to? Thank you in advance for your attention to this issue. Sincerely Olgamatveeva (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Heralds of God.djvu and Hector Macpherson - Herschel (1919).djvu

Please restore the following pages:

  1. File:Heralds of God.djvu (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
  2. File:Hector Macpherson - Herschel (1919).djvu (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason:

File:Heralds of God.djvu was deleted by Billinghurst as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Heralds of God.djvu. The nominator's (ShakespeareFan00) rationale was that the work is still in copyright in the UK, due to the UK pma.+70 copyright term and the author still being alive as late as 1990. However, in a discussion of the same work at English Wikisource research indicated that the work was published in the US within 30 days of the UK publication (which is also the most likely based on the nature of the work).

Hector Macpherson - Herschel (1919).djvu was deleted by Billinghurst as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hector Macpherson - Herschel (1919).djvu. The nominator's (ShakespeareFan00) rationale was that the work is still in copyright in the UK, due to the UK pma.+70 copyright term and the author's death in 1956. However, my research indicates that this is the first edition (1919 is the first publication found for this work), and it lists both UK and US publication info on its title page. The primary publisher is the UK-based "SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE", whose stated goal was to push Christian books both at home and in the British colonies, primarily in America (and later on in Scotland and India). In other words, absent any actual evidence to the contrary the most reasonable assumption is that this was a pre-1923 simultaneous UK+US publication and thus within policy for Commons.

Billinghurst and I discussed this briefly last year, but were unable to come to a firm conclusion due to uncertainty about how simultaneous publication interacts with Commons licensing policy (and because I was lame about following up on it). However, I did raise the issue at VP/C and the summary of that discussion is that when a work is simultaneously published (within 30 days) in two Berne convention countries, the "country of origin" is the country with the shortest effective term. Thus, legally, due to the Berne convention, both these works are US works for copyright purposes. Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law, which is designed to align with the rules of the Berne convention, requires "both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work" and after saying that's generally the country where it was first published, it adds "In cases where a work is simultaneously published in multiple countries, the "country of origin" is the country which grants the shortest term of copyright protection, per the Berne Convention." (in the footnote on the first para).

As US works under Berne, they are also explicitly ineligible for restoration under the URAA.

Herschel was published in 1919 and so its pub.+95 term expired at the end of 2014 so it is {{PD-US-expired|country=US}}); and Heralds of God was published in 1946, with copyright notice (US edition owned by w:Charles Scribner's Sons, a US publisher) but the copyright was not renewed (verified with a search of both the Stanford database and the scans of the Catalog of Copyright Entries for the years 1973–1975), so it is {{PD-US-not-renewed}}.

In other words, both these files should be undeleted.

PS. I would appreciate pings on replies since COM:DRV has a lot of changes that are hard to catch on the watchlist, and both these files have been evacuated to English Wikisource (where the policy always considers only US status) so the shadow files will need to be deleted there once they are undeleted here. --Xover (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: The cases should be investigated separately, so rather need to be handled in separate sections.
  • Ad. 1. I tend to Symbol support vote.svg Support. But pinging @Billinghurst, ShakespeareFan00:. Ankry (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Ad. 2. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral as the colophon was sometimes not considered sufficient evidence. (This may be an evidence that the work was distributed in US, but why in 30 days?) Ankry (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Ankry: When the work itself lists both US and UK as place of publication (i.e. the same physical books are to be sold in both places) the reasonable assumption is simultaneous publication (the publishers themselves are asserting it). In addition, as mentioned, the primary publisher here was the "Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge", whose mission it was to promote Christianity through distributing books in Britain's current and former colonies, particularly in America. In other words, there is less reason to think the first publication was in the UK (the secondary market) than in the US (the primary market). I've been unable to track down any positive evidence of when it went on sale in the US, but the first mention of it in the UK is in a review in The Guardian for December 19, 1919 (p.14), so there is barely time for it to have been published more than 30 days later and still be published in 1919. Given the date it is most likely that US publication happened either in December or even earlier. The US publisher is Macmillian, with whom the SFPCK entered into a partnership in 1918 (New-York Tribune, October 19, 1918. p. 6), and who are still their distribution partner. In other words, there is a theoretical possibility that the publication was more than 30 days later in the US (just barely), but absent specific evidence to the contrary the most reasonable assumption is simultaneous publication. Xover (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    Ok, I still can't find a direct notice of publication in the US for Herschel. However, what I have eventually found is a capsule review in Popular Astronomy Vol. XXXVIII, No. 1 for January 1920 p. 136. It lists the work as being "Published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, and the Macmillan Company, New York." It also appears alongside a notice that Discovery, a new popular scientific journal, "… will be launched … in January 1920." (i.e. at the time of writing it is not yet January 1920. Given Popular Astronomy (which was published by the Goodsell Observatory at Carleton College in Minnesota) actually reviews it, it must have been in sale prior to that point. Given the lead time for publishing the journal issue (its headline article reports on events from May 1919) and writing the review, and the fact it was published in the UK on 19 December 1919, there is no way it could have been published in the US more than 30 days after the UK publication; and the highest likelihood is that it was published either actually simultaneously or before in the US. Xover (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Philamlife Building facade 2.JPG

To depict the main subject of Philam Life Theater. There is presumably no FOP in the Philippines but the photo could be reuploaded in the English Wikipedia. Building was also demolished. Also I am not sure if this is the best photo to depict the exterior of the building. If there's a better photo please temporarily undelete one of the photos at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Philamlife Building instead.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Hariboneagle927: the building was completed in 1961. This and all other images of Philamlife Building that were deleted might be eligible for restoration in accordance with newly-accepted consensus which now considers August 1951–December 1972 buildings as in public domain (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew). Though I might modify COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works if the entire section at COM:VFC is archived (as I will link that discussion section to the CRT/Philippines page). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
List of deleted files and eligibility for restoration as per recent discussion and consensus at VPC
  1. Per Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, Philippine buildings from 1951 to Dec. 14, 1972 are now OK.
  2. Philamlife Building was completed in 1961.
OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg OK - shows architecture. Tag: {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}} (updated to reflect on recent VFC discussion and consensus regarding 1951-72 buildings)
Purple question mark.svg Unsure combined architecture and 2D art. Is 2D art in both images COM:DM?
Purple question mark.svg Unsure as these mainly show artworks like 3D reliefs, engravings, or murals. But per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bonifacio National Monument (Caloocan City), in the absence of a proof of copyright registration (registration fornalities still prevailed for works until December 14, 1972), these may be OK

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Suman Ranganathan at 60th South Filmfare Awards 2013.jpg

Bollywood images are under cc-by license per Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama--219.78.190.8 02:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is this a photo from Bollywood event taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankry (talk • contribs) 05:05, 8 July 2021‎ (UTC)
Source. You can see that the watermark of Bollywood Hungama can be seen, so I believe this is a work taken by a BH photographer--219.78.190.8 03:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Tanghalang Pambansa images

All files deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tanghalang Pambansa
Other deleted files

Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this Leandro Locsin building, completed in 1969, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support per JWilz12345's rationale and the Village Pump discussion. Howhontanozaz (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

St. Andrew the Apostle Parish Church, Makati

  1. File:06575jfSaint Andrew the Apostle Church Bel-Air Kalayaan Nicanor Garcia Street Makati Cityfvf 18.jpg
  2. All files deleted by: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Saint Andrew the Apostle Church

Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this Leandro Locsin building, completed in 1968, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}.

However, some of the images may contain other works like stained glass windows and others. If so, please don't restore them if those stained glass or sculptural works are not de minimis (deleted files are invisible to non-admins like me). _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Antipolo Cathedral (1954 Philippine architecture)

  1. File:Antipolo Church Facade.JPG (DR)
  2. File:Antipolo - National Shrine.jpg (DR)
  3. Files deleted under Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with incategory:"Antipolo Cathedral"

Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, current architecture completed in 1954, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Center (1968 Philippine architecture)

  1. File:Imposing ABS-CBN HQ - Flickr.jpg (DR)
  2. Files deleted under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:ABS-CBN Broadcasting Center:

Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, completed in 1968, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

UP Carillon Tower (1952 architecture)

Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, completed in 1952, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Files deleted under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:University of the Philippines Carillon Tower

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Freelo Logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I do own this logo, would you please let me undelete it or guide me how to upload it again without breaking any rules? More information about the logo: https://isdv.upv.cz/webapp/!resdb.oza.frm. It is officially registered. Thank you very much. KarelDytrych (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @KarelDytrych: No free license has been granted for the logo. We cannot host logos without a free license. Also, an evidence of the license is needed for any copyrighted logo. Ankry (talk) 11:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Imho this is a text-logo and consequently in PD, although it contains a ® symbol. Elly (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO below COM:TOO Czech Republic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Philippine Research Reactor.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, completed in 1963 (source) is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Ramon Magsaysay Center.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: if this file shows w:Ramon Magsaysay Center, then the building is in PD, as it was completed before December 15, 1972. Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, completed in 1967, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Sacred Heart of Jesus Shrine - Roxas City 01.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: file was deleted because no FOP in the Philippines. However, the upload log reveals its uploader is actually the artwork's sculptor himself. See also both File:Sacred Heart of Jesus Shrine - Roxas City 02.JPG (another photo by the sculptor) and w:Sacred Heart of Jesus (Roxas, Capiz). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

File:UP Diliman Carilion - panoramio.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, completed in 1952, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Clubfiljf.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, completed in 1970 (source), is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Baclaran Church (1958)

Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, completed in 1958, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion per JWilz. Actually was going to refund these myself due to the update in consensus. Sennecaster (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Iglesia Filipina Independiente National Cathedral

Per recent consensus, copyright in the Philippines from August 1951 to December 14, 1972 is still subject to the old American colonial-era law — Act 3134 — which did not protect architecture, thanks to a 1964 Supreme Court decision Santos v. McCullough that negated the no-formality rule of the Berne despite the 1955 Presidential Proclamation that upheld the Berne Convention provisions (see the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works). Thus this building, completed in 1964 (w:Iglesia Filipina Independiente National Cathedral), is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Museo Iloilo (1971)

File at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Museo Iloilo.JPG
Files at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Museo Iloilo

Per recent consensus (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works), 1951-72 buildings are in public domain. Thus this building, completed in 1970, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Assimilation of Hungarians in Marosvasarhely.jpg

The file was nominated for deletion with the reason: Does not appear to be own work if other information in template is accurate. The actual author and source were not written in the description. On June 30, I added that information. It was eventually deleted for the original document isn't free per COM: ROMANIA. But on the mentioned page it says:

"Under Law No. 8 of March 14, 1996 on Copyright and Neighboring Rights, the following shall not benefit from the legal protection accorded to copyright: [...] (b) official texts of a political, legislative, administrative or judicial nature, and official translations thereof;"

The file is a scan of an official document made by the Mureș County Committee of the w:en:Romanian Communist Party in 1985. So the reason invoked by rubin16 is void ab initio.--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Undelete. Follows cited law by the letter. Here is the image online so that everyone understands what's the request about.
Two additional comments from me: 1) it seems there were two comments added on the original document after the scan; but those are simple texts, thus non-copyrightable; 2) there may arise a question of authenticity – @Kun Kipcsak: what is the source and is it safe to say the document is authentic? Gikü (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Kun Kipcsak, Gikü: While it seems to be PD in Romania ({{PD-RO-exempt}})under the present law, we need to know also its status on 1.1.1996 (under earlier law) in order to determine its US copyright status. Please, advice. Ankry (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Ankry, still PD in Romania, as the older law explicitly mentioned only "intellectual creations in the litterary, artistic or scientific domain" and even contained a list of protected work types (art. 9).--Strainu (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Aside from its status in the US, I am not even sure that it is {{PD-RO-exempt}}. While the Communist Party was the dominant force in Romania in 1985, it was not the government, so this is not "an official text". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, Jim, but this is about official texts. Likely, in modern Romania it is equivalent to "governemnt-issued documents". However, the constitution of the time mentioned PCR as "the leading political force in RSR". I don't think you can get any better official endorsement than the constitution.
De facto, in the counties the differentiation was also totally formal. The president of the party's county committee was also the president of the executive committee of the county council ([1], p. 115) and the two organizations held common meetings (same, p. 118 and [2]).--Strainu (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
My thought was the same as @Jameslwoodward posted above. The party is still different than the government, it can’t issue decrees or laws directly despite having an enormous influence on things going on. Otherwise we can start thinking of releasing of all works of Communist parties in ex-USSR with the same logic… rubin16 (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
My argument was not that the party was the government, but that the party had the same status and importance from a legal PoV as the government. I don't know enough to comment on the situation in USSR, but I would not be surprised if the same applies there.--Strainu (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support the undeletion per my arguments above.--Strainu (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, while the constitution may say the party is "the leading political force in RSR", the leading political force is not the government. If it were, there would have been no need to maintain two sets of organizations and titles. Also, I note that this isn't even on letterhead, so it is hard to say that it is an "official text". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Files in Category:Lion of Judah Monument (Maurice Calka)

Please restore these files:

Reason: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lion monument (24590950953).jpg. The monument was commissioned in 1955 (66 years ago) by emperor Hailé Selassié of Ethiopia, that means the economic rights belonged to the Kingdom/Republic of Ethiopia (not to sculptor Maurice Calka) for 50 years, and now it's in the Public Domain per PD-Ethiopia.--Holapaco77 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question @Holapaco77: I see no information about different copyright term in COM:Ethiopia about commissioned or government-owned works. This just means that the government is the copyright holder. And Maurice Calka is still the author. Why do you think that copyright term expires before 2050? Ankry (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. {{PD-Ethiopia}} consists of 5 points. Points 1, 2, 3 and 5 are not relevant. Point 4 says: "It is another kind of work, and 50 years have passed since the year of death of the author (or last-surviving author)". The work was commissioned by Haile Selassie and COM:Ethiopia says: "the original owner of the rights shall be the employer or the person who commissioned the work." That means: copyright belongs to Haile Selassie. He died in 1975 and copyright lasts until 2026 (50+1 years from death). Bytheway, as Ethiopia has not sighed Bern convention, URAA does not apply and 95 years from erection are not demanded. Taivo (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with above. There is no information that comissioner is the author. They are the initial copyright holder only. I know no case when copyright lenght depends on copyright holder's life. Haile Selassie death date is irrelevant. Ankry (talk) 10:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support It is a mistake to claim that the copyright belonged to Haile Selassie. If the work is administrated by the State, it belongs to the Ethiopian Government. Following the Civil Code (art. 1445 and 1446.c) the work shall be in the public domain. Thus I support the undeletion of those files (and we should amend {{PD-Ethiopia}} for works managed by the State). --Ruthven (msg) 07:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I thought about who is the copyright holder. Haile Selassie was not prime minister or president, but emperor, so for me makes sense, that he is copyright holder. Taivo (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ruthven's cite is tempting, but I read "public domain" there in the sense of "public ownership". I see nothing in the cited statute that says anything about copyright. I think the law is clear that the copyright is owned by the government, but it is still measured by the life of the creator, not the owner -- that is true in general, as otherwise you could make a copyright last forever by transferring ownership to ever younger people. Maurice Calka died in 1999, so the copyright runs until 1/1/2050. I see nothing to suggest that the fact that the government owns the copyright makes it PD. Only a limited set of government works are PD:

"any official text of a legislative, administrative or of legal nature, as well as official translations thereof". ({{PD-Ethiopia}})

The situation is similar to the copyrights on some US coins -- the US Mint owns the copyright but the works are not PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral While in some legal systems regulations concerning copyright may be distributed among various legal acts, we need some evidence whether the "Public Domain" term in Civil Code is related to copyright, or not. Ankry (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
A little Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, even though they are public domain in Ethiopia, they might still be copyrighted in the United States, we call it URAA-protection, @Holapaco77: you might need to read COM:Hirtle Chart to know when you can see they join US public domain, if you have evidences, however, that can explain why URAA can't apply here (NB: "Government works" don't automatically be an exempt of URAA, see an Ukrainian failed case Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2020-10#Files_deleted_under_Commons:Deletion_requests/File:FC_Arsenal-Kyivshchyna_Bila_Tserkva_Logo.png), please continue explaining below. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: URAA is irrelevant as per Taivo. The country has no copyright relations with US and is not a signatory to Berne. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lion monument (24590950953).jpg is still open, technically (as the older, October 2020 request is not yet closed accordingly). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Parish of the Holy Sacrifice (1955 architecture)

Per recent consensus (see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works), 1951-72 buildings are in public domain. Thus this building, completed in 1955, is in public domain as an unprotected Philippine architecture of the 1951–72 period (by virtue of Act 3134 that was still in effect until December 14, 1972) = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}.

Note that some images do not show the building itself, but as per Rubin16 at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Parish of the Holy Sacrifice, these images that do not show the building itself may fall out of scope (I suspect these are Ramon Fvelasquez files), hence do not restore them (I cannot tell which of them are OOS since deleted files are invisible to non-admins like me).

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 i think I have missed the discussion that resulted in changes to PD exemptitons, let me have a look and I will restore if it so. rubin16 (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rubin16: the discussion came after the said DR was closed. But at least it is better late than never, like one saying states. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 ✓ restored most of them rubin16 (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rubin16: I'm thinking of File:Church of the Holy Sacrifice 2007 historical marker vicinity.jpg and File:File:Church of the Holy Sacrifice 2015 historical marker vicinity.jpg, if both show commemorative markers, these may be public domain as literary works of those under Philippine government employment. If ever, like the cases of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paco Park - Gomburza Memorare NHCP historical marker.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:20161015 Titopao NHCP Marker.jpg. But if not, then these shall remain deleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
the first one is of not the best quality and you can't read the text even if you zoom it, so, I would have kept it deleted. The second is readable but I would let some other sysop decide on that, not sure. rubin16 (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

InterContinental Hotel Manila (1969)

Per recent consenus (Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/06#Philippine buildings from 1951–1972 - anew, and the updated COM:Philippines#Public domain exceptions for artistic works) for 1951-December 1972 buildings. Building was completed in 1969 = {{PD-Philippines-artistic work}}.

Files deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:InterContinental Manila. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Vietnamese symbols in the public domain uploaded by Fataobstant

First Republic of Vietnam files

These are all based on government works that ascended into the public domain before the last date based on 50 (fifty) years at "{{PD-Vietnam}}".

Grey area.

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, do not undelete any medals, medals are 3D objects and scans of them are eligible for copyright ©. I am working with the assumption that the above files are either drawings and/or paintings or other such works that qualify as PD-scans, any medal should be struck. Always ping me on this page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Note that images that were not PD in Vietnam 1n 1998 are likely copyrighted in US per URAA. I am not sure if the 75 pd term was valid in 1998, please advice. Ankry (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note 📝: "File:自力文團標章.svg" was made by the globally locked Sockmaster as a faithful reproduction of an old logo, in some cases he would get "sweat of the brow" copyright ©, but he didn't assert it. So they used their sources as basis for the copyright © claim, the authorship is in fact the globally locked 🔒 Sockmaster but the original design is in the public domain. Will find relevant information about Vietnamese copyright © laws in 1998. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Quoting Nội dung toàn văn Ordinance No. 38-L/CTN1 of December 02, 1994, on protection of copyright:

"Article 7.- The author or the owner of copyright, as prescribed in Article 24 of this Ordinance, must comply to all provisions of law when he uses his copyright.

The State does not protect the copyright of the works which:

1. Go against the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, damage the bloc of unity of the people; 2. Campaign for violence, aggressive wars, sow hatred among nations, diffuse reactionary ideologies and cultures, depraved and debauched life, criminal behaviors, social evils, superstitions, which sabotage the fine customs and habits; 3. Disclose secrets of the Party, State, military and security secrets related to the economy, foreign policies, private life of citizens, and other secrets which are protected by law; 4. Distort history, negate revolutionary achievements, offend great men and national heroes, slander and hurt the prestige of organizations, and the honor and dignity of citizens."

Any works from the Republic of Vietnam can be seen as #7 § 1, at least it States that such works are not eligible for copyright protections, not sure if this is the same as base copyright, but I am willing to open a village pump discussion. Further, that logo was created by the globally locked Sockmaster based on an old design, they are actually a very good graphic artist and the logo was used until 1944 meaning that it is a derivative work of a public domain file, meaning that the CC license holds up. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The French work is PD-France, at the latest it os from 1944. So it's a DW of a free work. No author is listed and the organisation in that form ceased to exist in 1944. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

First Republic of Vietnam files from Fataobstant

These are all based on government works that ascended into the public domain before the last date based on 50 (fifty) years at "{{PD-Vietnam}}".

I will have a reply later. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

File:2 Francs Jean Moulin 1993.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Currencies of France are allowed on Commons per {{Money-FR}} A1Cafel (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: 1) The artwork of the pictured object is not free in the United States. Therefore the image cannot be on Commons. Whatever copyright status the artwork on the pictured object may have in other countries does not change its status in the United States and on Commons. The copyright in the United States disposes of the question. 2) The template Money-FR is misleading. The point of the court decision was that the copyright of banknotes was temporarily suspended during the time when those banknotes were the actual legal currency in use (which was the case in 1998 for francs, at the time of the facts at the origin of the case), specifically because they were the currency in legal use then. The decision did not say nor imply that the copyright did not exist or that the copyright was suspended forever. The copyright holder still held the copyright. Only, that copyright was suspended, unenforceable, during the time the banknotes in question were the legal mode of payment. The logical corollary should be that the copyright became enforceable when francs definitely ceased to be the legal currency (francs ceased to be the legal currency in 2002, could be exchanged for euros for ten years and became definitely void in 2012). Logically, the suspension should not apply to francs anymore. It ended when the francs ceased to be the legal currency. The designs of francs are protected in France as any other works until their copyright expires normally. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hello. I'm by no way laws specialist so I won't argument about the point 1 comment from Asclepias above. About the point 2, for my understanding of the template {{Money-FR}} (which I discovered here - thx Ankry!) and the Court's decision, that last one was promulgated in February of 2002, so after the euro became the official currency. In that way I don't think the reasoning of point 2 above is correct and for me that decision is still in force. Again, no specialist, just a comment which may help decision. Sting (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Sting, The facts, the actions performed, which the courts had to decide if they constituted a copyright infringement or not in 1998 at the time when they were performed, were performed in 1998, when the francs were the legal currency. That's even the essential point of the decision. After the case was judged by the court of initial jurisdiction, it eventually went through the steps of appeal, something that can take many years. The final step at the Cour de cassation was in 2002, but that doesn't change the situation that the facts of 1998 that were judged were judged in relation to the context that applied to them in 1998. Courts must judge the legality of the actions posed in 1998 in relation to the legal situation that existed when those actions were posed. They can't apply retroactively a new legal context of 2002 to past actions that were not forbidden when the actions were posed in 1998. That would be irrelevant and unjust. If it interests you, there is a summary of the case that I wrote almost 10 years ago there, with links to the decisions of the Cour d'appel (1999) and the Cour de Cassation. My comment then was a bit lengthy. The short paragraph above does just as well, for the essential. Aussi un court commentaire en français là, avec des liens vers les articles de loi. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Asclepias: If you are right, the {{Money-FR}} template should be deleted. Ankry (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
And if you are right, there are many coins images that will have to be deleted, not only from Fifth's Republic but also up to the early 20's century. Sting (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Eiffel0Tower.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ordinary lighting cannot be copyrighted. The particular court ruling concerning Eiffel lights refers to a particular lighting in the 1990s. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK IMO but would like others to opine on the EU flag display. I feel that since the EU flag is not copyrighted, projecting it onto a relatively obvious place on the Eiffel Tower is not sufficiently original to garner copyright protection. Does anyone have a link to the actual nighttime photo that the court found to be infringing? This will be a useful hint as to where COM:TOO lies for France. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
    @King of Hearts: it is mentioned at w:Eiffel Tower#Illumination copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Commons has much more detailed information in the many past discussions than that Wikipedia text. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: According to the court, the magazine published several photos of sequences of that dynamic show copyrighted by the company La Mode en images. Commons never hosted an image of that show. We never found any image of it online. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • {{O}} Non-commercial license on the source page. Ankry (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC) Well, it was CC-BY in 2013. Ankry (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am inclined to think this is complex enough to be above the ToO -- but just barely, so I'll stay neutral in the discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Rwanda 3717 r11.1 sep18.jpg‬ Undelete this file. It is licensed for sharing by UN Geospatial

Hi, this file in question is a map of Rwanda. It is licensed for sharing on Wikimedia Commons, as are all UN Maps.

This pre-2006 map of Rwanda, also published by UN Geospatial, is under copyright and licensed for sharing. Note the discussion on that page, which reads: "This image is a map derived from a United Nations map. Unless stated otherwise, UN maps are to be considered in the public domain. This applies worldwide. Some UN maps have special copyrights, as indicated on the map itself."

Here is the source URL and publication information. Note the absence of a year and version number in the URL, indicating that this is the current political map of Rwanda.

Author: UN Geospatial Publication Date: Saturday, 01 September 2018 Location of Publication: Rwanda Document Topic/Theme: General Document Type: National & territory Copyright: United Nations

Please see also their discussion of licensing.

I recommend further that the outdated map be renamed with a year so that users do not mistake it for the current political map of Rwanda.

--Honest Egret (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Honest Egret: In order to undelete you need to provide info about a valid license template that can be applied to this map. Ankry (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

--That sounds like a great idea. Regrettably I don't know what that means, and the wizard forbids deleted files. There is a tutorial, but I'm not interested in completing a tutorial.

The issue as I see it is that Wikimedia Commons has an outdate political map of Rwanda. I'm doing my best to correct that. The terse and oblique references to provide a "valid license template" are effectively "read the fine manual" to newbies.

What exactly do I need to do in order to fix the metadata for the deleted image? None of the documentation provided succinctly answers that question.

Best,

Honest Egret (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

{{PD-UN-map}} is the right template to use, which I have done for you. That said, it seems like there is a technical issue with this image. The full-size original is fine, but every reduced version is blurry. I think it's because it's not a real raster JPEG. Can you please flatten and export the file as a real JPEG and re-upload? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Why did you re-delete the image? I believe it is inappropriate for you to be making judgment calls on the applicability of {{PD-UN-map}} when you are so heavily w:WP:INVOLVED on one side of the debate (which was ultimately closed against your position). Note that the UN copyright notice is meant to be for the general site, and states: "None of the materials provided on this web site may be used ... without permission in writing from the publisher." And https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/about.htm is precisely the written permission we need. It is clearly identified as a UN Geospatial work at the source.
Feel free to re-nominate the template for deletion, but do not take an action on an individual file contrary to consensus just because you happen to disagree with it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I had not seen the duplicate request when I deleted the image. I had forgotten the discussion of this template 5 years ago -- I simply read the copyright notice attached to the page the image came from. It is a very clear ARR. However, I have no interest in getting involved in another heated discussion.
I note, by the way, that you have been rather quick to close several requests here without any input from others. There was a time when we had an informal agreement among those who frequent this page that nothing except the very most obvious cases would be closed without at least two comments unless at least 24 hours had passed. I think that's a good rule to follow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, sorry if I came across as a bit brusque; I thought you were aware of my undeletion and knowingly re-deleted it without attempting to discuss. Sure, the 24-hour rule makes sense. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

File:JUSC Logo.jpg

The logo of that organization is updated. I have found the new one in various sources. Here are some sources provided below. - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=munna.jutecbd.juscwebsite&hl=en_US&gl=US - https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C560BAQHsWczC6ei_WA/company-logo_200_200/0/1585201400286?e=1635379200&v=beta&t=CvgofGQmi5k_Q-z01XGFZFWso3bOUfhtnBvnNlODztE - https://www.thedailystar.net/bangla/node/207717 (National Daily, The Daily Star, Logo in the upper right corner) 

So, the logo must be updated, the existing logo is also from YouTube. Thank you. It is the updated version of the existing (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_of_Jahangirnagar_University_science_club.jpg) logo.

--Tareq1619 (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Tareq1619

Time2wait.svg Waiting for a decission in this DR concerning File:Logo of Jahangirnagar University science club.jpg. IMO, they have the same copyright status. @Tareq1619: feel free to discuss this case there. None of the provided sources claim that the logo is published under free license. Ankry (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Princely coat of arms of the Gediminids.svg

National coat of arms of Lithuania in 1990-1991
1991 stamp

Please restore File:Princely coat of arms of the Gediminids.svg. The vector file was created by me. A similar file File:Princely coat of arms of the Gediminids.gif was uploaded by me from the Gerb.bel.ru site, which belongs to me. The file was deleted without specifying which rule was violated.

  1. The original image is taken from the Russian book “Noble family coats of arms” (Russian Empire). The drawing is not signed. If this is a pre-revolutionary image, then license {{PD-RusEmpire}}. is valid.
  2. This image was used on Lithuanian coins and postage stamps of 1991 as the coat of arms of Lithuania. Therefore, it is no longer subject to copyright. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@Лобачев Владимир: Could you, please, provide exact bibliografic information about the book you refer? (exact title, date, publisher; I do not think that it has an English title) so the information you are providing can be verified. Ankry (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Дворянские роды Российской империи = Families of the nobility of the Russian empire : Т. 1: Князья — Санкт-Петербург: ИПК "Вести", 1993 — 343 с. (djvu, Page 33). --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Лобачев Владимир: This is a 1993 book, {{PD-RusEmpire}} cannot be applied to its content. You need to provide a pre-1918 source. Ankry (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The book states: Families of the nobility of the Russian empire. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
If I made an image of a medieval COA, and claim it a medieval image, then it is still my modern, copyrighted work, not a medieval one. Same applies here: in order to claim it a PD-RusEmpire image, we need an evidence of pre-1917 publication, at least as a reference in the modern one. No soch evidence found. So we can consider this a modern drawing based on an old COA, not an old image. Ankry (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support This figure, the knight on the horse, is also called Vytis and the design on the deleted image is remarkably similar to the figure on the public domain Lithuanian stamps of 1991. Thuresson (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
This means that the image may be PD, but on other grounds than declared. Ankry (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion, but I reject the {{PD-RusEmpire}} claim. Likely just {{PD-anon-70}}. Ankry (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Piazza ognissanti, Ercole che lotta con il leone, romano romanelli 2.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: per recently-accepted exception to no FOP at COM:FOP Italy. The author of this artwork has been dead since 1969. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Velodromo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: both files were deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atrio Velodromo.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Velodromo.jpg, because no FOP in Italy. However, per w:Bocconi University#Campus it was designed by w:Ignazio Gardella, who has been dead since 1999 and as such it is now acceptable here under the newly-accepted exceptions at COM:FOP Italy, a building that is a work of a deceased author. {{FoP-Italy}} as a work of architect Ignazio Gardella (1905–1999). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Milano, Torre Galfa 02.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Torre Galfa is now acceptable under the recently-accepted exception at COM:FOP Italy. The architect, Melchiorre Bega, has been dead since 1976. So = de facto {{FoP-Italy}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Nardelli bass 20210410.jpg

This is my own work which refers to a moment of work of the Italian producer Federico Nardelli. Please don’t delete it. Lucia Carrino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucia Carrino (talk • contribs) 18:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lucia Carrino: If you are the photographer, who made this photo, plese contact VRT providing a free license permission. Ankry (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Files deleted by INeverCry

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: files deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Vanvitelli station (Naples metro). However, their architects are already deceased since 2003 and 2005, which means the building can be hosted here now as per recently-accepted exceptions to no Italian FOP: see COM:FOP Italy. This is the work of the deceased authors. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Milano Torre Parco Sempione.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: per the DR and Google searching, the architect has been dead since 1979, hence the building is now OK for Commons as per newly-accepted exceptions to no Italian FOP at COM:FOP Italy, as a work of a deceased author. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Grattacielo pirelli pirellone milano.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: should this file show w:Pirelli Tower, then this must be OK now here per newly-accepted exceptions at COM:FOP Italy. Both Ponti and Nerva died in 1979, and Danusso in 1968. Hence this is acceptable as a work of deceased authors. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

All files at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pirelli Tower, Milan

Building is now OK here in Commons through the newly-accepted exception at COM:FOP Italy. This is a work of deceased authors. Both architects Gio Ponti and Pier Luigi Nerva died in 1979 = de facto {{FoP-Italy}}.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Nomentano - Nostra Signora del Santissimo Sacramento e Santi Martiri Canadesi 2.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: per this DR, the architect died in 1989. Now OK per the exception at COM:FOP Italy as a work of a deceased author. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Arlecchino con mandolino (1920) Jacques Lipchitz.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: artwork was made by Jacques Lipchitz (who died in 1973 according to this DR). As a work of a deceased author, this must be OK now per the new exceptions at COM:FOP Italy. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Christ of Maratea.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cristo Redentore (Maratea) the author died in 1986. This must be OK now per new exception at COM:FOP Italy. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Files at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Siegesdenkmal Bozen

Per the DR the author is dead, which means the public work is now OK for Commons, under the new exception at COM:FOP Italy.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Pirellone2.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the architect died in 1979. Now OK for Commons as per the newly-accepted exception at COM:FOP Italy. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Diego Durán Solís I.jpg File:Diego Durán Solís II.jpg File:Diego Durán Solís III.jpg File:Diego Durán Solís IV.jpg

Hello, I request your restoration, I would like to reach an agreement, since I have the rights to the images, I am the author responsible for the content, I would like to keep it for a long time, I am a YouTuber.--User:Lomeno 24 Lomeno 24 User talk:Lomeno 24 (Contact me here) 02:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lomeno 24: Why the images are in COM:SCOPE? Ankry (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

File:AlphaGeekHost Logo.png

Hello good day, i notice now that my company logo uploaded by me has been deleted please i am pleading for undeletion request kindy grant me Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iambravolee (talk • contribs) 04:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
  • @Iambravolee: You forgot to provide info under which free license is the logo and to point out the location where this license has been granted by the logo copyright holder. We cannot host logos which are not under a free license. Ankry (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Melchiorre Cartoni Gianicolo 2011-03-27.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Works by deceased author are considered having de facto COM:FOP Italy (Sculptor Giuseppe Tonnini died in 1954) A1Cafel (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Ancona - statua a Pinocchio di Vittorio Morelli.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Works by deceased author are considered having de facto COM:FOP Italy (Sculptor Vittorio Morelli died in 1968) A1Cafel (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

File:2012-02-17 ex Cinema Teatro Corso Roma.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Works by deceased author are now considered having de facto COM:FOP Italy (Architect Marcello Piacentini died in 1960) A1Cafel (talk) 05:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Augmented Reality Foosball (3477405245).jpg

AFAICT this photo from flickr is fine. The user that has deleted is was banned and I don't see any reason to not include it in commons. It is (unfortunately) still one of the best free photos of an interactive augmented reality installation I could find. --StefanCFFT (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Administrator Russavia deleted the file but also had the file uploaded to Commons in the first place. The source is [3]. Thuresson (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@StefanCFFT: Do you need to use it in Wikimedia? Where? Ankry (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
GA candidate.svg Weak support if the reason is its potential usability. More related files can be found at Category:Augmented reality. Though I have some concerns this (and other files) about the potential COM:Derivative works issue, but that is another thing to be discussed in a separate forum and not here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Deletion of a self-uploaded photo can be interpreted that the uploader does not want the photo to be in Wikimedia Commons. Per policy, we override such decisions if the photo is intended to be used in Wikimedia. If someone wants to use it elsewhere, they can take it from Flickr. Ankry (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

File:M自拍照.jpg

File:M自拍照.jpg

這是我的個人自拍照，我並沒有違規，且這照片不屬於F10. Personal photos by non-contributors 我不了解為什麼會列入快速刪除標籤中．Marco56333 (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Marco56333: Please explain:
  1. why User:Adad01023 claims authorship on YOUR SELFIE?
  2. why should you be considered a significant contributor to Wikimedia projects? (Which your contribution and to which project you consider significant?)
  3. where do you want to use the photo?
Ankry (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry:
  1. sorry..第一點是我表達錯誤了，這張照片為Adad0123的自拍照，但是他有授權給我做為wiki的照片使用．
  2. 這句話透過翻譯我不太了解你的意思，這張照片用在林芙芙（維基百科）上，而Adad0123為林芙芙本人．
  3. 這張照片原本從instagram上傳的，我跟Adad0123確認過，他接受以CC3.0的方式共享，也知道會放在wiki上．至於你的問題，我只會用在wiki上．

--Marco56333 (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per policy, only significant Wikimedia contributors are authorized to upload a photo for use on their homepages. You are neither significant contributor at the moment, nor you have a homepage in any project. Out of COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry:
  1. 我是林芙芙(wiki)專頁的創建人兼主要內容貢獻人，這樣也沒有資格嗎？
  2. 還有你說的根據政策，是哪一條？你說的主頁是指哪裡？所謂的維基媒體貢獻者定義是什麼

我只是個維基人，Adad0123本人同意我把圖片放在林芙芙(wiki)專頁上，而且我並沒有在wikimedia commons"上傳"圖片，我是把連結放在wiki上． --Marco56333 (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Your contribution to Commons is none; your contribution to zhwiki is limitted to few edits in zh:林芙芙 and most ot them are reverted. I do not consider this significant contribution but this is, of course, an arbitrary opinion and I welcome opinions of other admins. Also, there is no page where you can use the image at the moment. Unused personal image of a non-notable person should be deleted. So, maybe in some time... Ankry (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ankry:

你好，Marco56333確實是我授權給他的，我的instagram上的這張圖片我也有給予共享． 另外，在zh:林芙芙中，確實他編輯的部分有被還原，但他也是該頁面的創建人，而且他盡力的去遵守wiki的"中立"政策，即使被還原次數有點多，但他也盡力改善zh:林芙芙，讓該頁面所表達的方向更加中立且符合規章．希望你不要因此刪掉File:M自拍照.jpg．--Adad01023 (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Fiann Paul portrait 2020.jpg

Author agreed on sharing this file with Wikimedia Commons. Isivensk1 (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Isivensk1: agreed on sharing is not the same as granted a free license. We need the latter, and a written form is required by law. Ankry (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The author emailed it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. He said he has been sending such statement previously. Could you please confirm if it worked. Isivensk1 (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Isivensk1: The sender should have received a ticket number in automatic response. If you know the ticket number, you can ask about its processing at COM:ON. Note, that if this is indeed a selfie, the permission sender may be asked to prove that they are indeed the photographer (the person holding the camera). We cannot host images made by bystanders unless we know who they are and receive permissions directly from them. Ankry (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
He said he had responded to the previous ticket that referred to a case like this, the number is 2018060310001191.
This picture is one of those mentioned in this series. This is his website, he is a professional photographer. Isivensk1 (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
A license is valid only to images specified in it. It cannot be granted in advance for legal reasons, so 2017 permission cannot be valid to a 2020 photo. Ankry (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I meant that he sent new permission but responding to the old ticket. Could you please take a look at it?Isivensk1 (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Cerissa A Brown.jpg

Someone deleted this without permission to smear my candidate.

--Bisquitedits (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Draft:Cerissa A Brown has been rejected. Ping @JuTa: who deleted the file. Thuresson (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bisquitedits: It seems we have two serious doubts here:
  1. COM:SCOPE: if the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article, you need to prove that the photo is educationally useful elsewhere
  2. Copyright: as this is small resolution (not original) photo, you were asked on the image description page to provide a free license permission to <permissions-commons-pl@wikimedia.org>; you would also need to provide an evidence of your authorship. I note that User:BottleOfChocolateMilk's no permission requests likely should be considered out-of-process; however, you are just notified about the request and its lack is not the only problem here.
Ankry (talk) 06:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC) Ankry (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Russell payne-oojr4cbzs3vopb5lrrbi058iz0ne4pl7g0o4anuhp4.jpg

== [[:File:Example.jpg]] Photo taken by me of Russell Payne at comic convention ==

I own copyright of this photo, but it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightmaster (talk • contribs) 11:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Rightmaster: See COM:EVID & VRT. Ankry (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Sankowski Pottery 1.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2021071910008566 regarding File:Sankowski Pottery 1.jpg. Please restore in order to verified veracity and finish the process. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done @Ganímedes: FYI. Ankry (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Patera Building Stoke-on-Trent 1982.jpg

Through [Ticket#2021080610006134] and e-mails exchanges with Alfred Neumann, the file File:Patera Building Stoke-on-Trent 1982.jpg should be undeleted under Template:Non-free promotional "The copyright for it is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide evidence of such ownership. Lack of such evidence is grounds for deletion." the company Longton Industrial Holdings Plc no longer exists. "where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it;" The building isn't in that location any more "This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media." Yes it was a part of a sales promotion packs issue in significant numbers by Longton Industrial Holdings Plc in 1982.Nigel PG Dale (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Nigel PG Dale (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose OP refers to a fair use template at English Wikipedia, en:Template:Non-free promotional. Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Nigel PG Dale. Thuresson (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Igor Mitoraj

Works by deceased author are considered having de facto COM:FOP Italy (Sculptor Igor Mitoraj died in 2014)--A1Cafel (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Torso alato by Igor Mitoraj Greve in Chianti

Works by deceased author are considered having de facto COM:FOP Italy (Sculptor Igor Mitoraj died in 2014)--A1Cafel (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Porta Nuova (Milan)

Works by deceased author are considered having de facto COM:FOP Italy (Architect César Pelli died in 2019)--A1Cafel (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Mahdi Elmandjra.jpg

I own the copyright of this photo. --Toufik68 (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Previously published at [4] without a free license and without crediting Toufik68. Thuresson (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

But I am the owner of this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toufik68 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I repeat that I am the owner of the website where the photo is now and I have all rights to use the photo but you have deleted it from wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toufik68 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Chau-Doc.jpg

Source of image was misinterpreted. The image was deleted due to a non-permissive Flickr license found in the URL found in the image description. Flickr was not the source. The image was uploaded by Noël Hanna, verifiably the original photographer. This was done on Wikipedia, and under a permissive license. It was later transferred to Commons by a different user, which caused this information to be lost. --Elephanthunter (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)