File:Js13kgames.png Js13kGames Logo

This is a logo for JS13K games. I am writing on behalf of the creators Andrzej and Ewa Mazur who wishes it to not be deleted. This image was being used on the wikipedia page for js13k also. Thank you for fixing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slackluster (talk • contribs)

 Support If this is the logo shown at the top of https://js13kgames.com Andrzej Mazur uploaded this file under CC0 in 2018  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   21:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Although Ewa Mazur is mentioned on the web site, Andrzej is not. This logo was uploaded by USER:Mypoint13k in 2021. The web site has "©2024 js13kGames & authors". If the owners of the site actually want the logo freely licensed here, they must do it with a message to VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

He is in https://github.com/orgs/js13kGames/people. He uploaded the logo on the website in a GitHub repository under CC0 in 2018  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Yann I don't think so. Aside from the explicit copyright notice which I cited above, the legal section of the web site has

"As a condition of submission, Entrant grants the Competition Organizer, its subsidiaries, agents and partner companies, a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, publish, distribute, publicly perform, create a derivative work from, and publicly display the Submission."

That is a free license only in the sense that no money changes hands. It does not include the right to freely license anything. Also, please remember that even in the case where the software may be freely licensed, the logo for it is often not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

That is an agreement for entrants who submit games to the competition, not anything to do with the website itself, which in fact has no license on GitHub at all. However, one of the staff of js13kGames uploaded this logo in a different repository under CC0. The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted, which has not been done so there  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted. Yes, I agree with that. Yann (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Yann As Ankry suggested below, that free-licensed one isn't really "same as the deleted one here", probably just re-upload it, please? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@999real: This is not the same logo. Feel free to upload it under CC0 providing that source. Ankry (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Direct restoring, but  Support re-uploading a correctly licensed one, per Ankry, previous one might have differently designed shapes. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files in Category:Die Partei (Reutlingen)

About 30 files deleted as of arbitrary accusations, with no understandable comment Dulliman (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them arbitrary. And I understood the comments and close. Jim concluded these were out of scope posters. Abzeronow (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dulliman Das Argument out of scope verstehst Du? Die Löschung ist begründet. Wikipedia ist kein Ort für politische Kampagnen. – Do you understand the argument ‘out of scope’? The deletion is justified. Wikipedia is not a place for political campaigns. Mussklprozz (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Dulliman: What should be taken into account for artistic works by non notable authors: educational value of the works by themselves, whether they were used elsewhere, quality of the reproduction, etc. There is a difference between educational works (e.g. File:Jupiter diagram.svg), works used during some notable events (e.g. File:Mai 1968. (Sans texte) - maquette d'affiche ? - non identifié - btv1b9018450b.jpg), and vanity works without any educational use. Yann (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

In this case the whole category seems to be "out of scope" ? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Election_posters_in_Germany_by_party Dulliman (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This party doesn't have an article on Wikipedia? Yann (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose No answer. If the party had a page, this would be in scope. I am not 100% sure in this case, but even small parties with minor political impacts usually have a page. Yann (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harry Topham.jpg

These appear to be cropped images from an anonymous UK group shot from 1895 and the another group shot circa 1900 when these players were on the team. The consensus was to keep, they were deleted, then restored, then apparently deleted again. They should be restored. --RAN (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Hosting them here with false authorship / licensing is pointless. As nobody wanted to fix this information, their undeletion is also pointless. Following the recent restoration, neither the user requesting the restoration nor any of the users supporting the action did so for several months. Ankry (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I rather support keeping these files. However the license, the date, the source, and the author should have been fixed after undeletion, and they weren't. If neither the uploader or you are able to do it, why requesting undeletion again? Yann (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• You have to notify me if you want me to fix them. I only noticed them undeleted and then deleted again when I posted this. I will fix them if they are undeleted. But someone has to message me that they are available to edit again. --RAN (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• You were notified, i.e. . Yann (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  In this case, I'd love to inform @Krd: , many of those files were re-deleted by this one citing e.g. "No license since 9 October 2024", if they don't against above rationale, I would support restoration again. I'd suggest no conflicts between adminships on such trival questions of licensing tags. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• We need a way to automate the task, rather than cut and paste the same license template 118 times. --RAN (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

VFC will do cut and pastes across a list of files -- which can be a gallery or a category, among others. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Yuhan Logo (ENG).svg

Below TOO in South Korea--Trade (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The tree is not incidentally included. Per COM:DM South Korea. Thuresson (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment While the tree is not incidentally included per COM:DM South Korea, the object stated above may be fall with another PD-license, that is either {{PD-South Korea-anon}} (in case of creator of the work is unknown) or {{PD-South Korea-organization}} (in case of a work created on behalf of organization). As stated of two templates, According to Article 40, 41, and 42 of the Copyright Act of South Korea, a work that is anonymous or bears the pseudonym which is not widely known (unless the creator of the logo was publicly known) and works created on behalf of organization enter the public domain 70 years after publication when made public. (30 years before July 1987, 50 years before July 2013) In other words, organizational, anonymous and pseudonymous works made public in before 1 January 1963 are in the public domain in South Korea. In case of Yuhan willow tree logo, it was exist in various incarnations since the creation of the company in 1926, and the current incarnation of the logo, with circle included, was presumably created in 1956. 1959 advertisement and calendar of 1962 also included the current incarnation of the logo as well. I also believe that the actual creator of Yuhan Willow tree logo is unknown (apply {{PD-South Korea-anon}}), and if was publicly known, its copyright might be expired as well. Assuming that the current incarnation of the logo was created in 1956, it may be expired on 1 January 1987 (before its copyright term was extended to 50 years according to new law in July of next year, but is non-retroactive to works already expired). So, i suggest the file will be restored with licensing changed. Yayan550 (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:1986 Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:1986 Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation logo.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Uh oh, you deleted file after merge, see COM:TOO South Korea YehudaHubert (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Jerry henderson portrait.gif

This painting was made public when it left the custody of the artist circa 1965. {{PD-US-no notice}} applies. "For copyright purposes, artwork is published when the original work, or a copy of it, is distributed to the public by selling, renting, leasing, lending, or otherwise transferring ownership of that copy of the work." See: https://www.copyright.gov/engage/visual-artists --RAN (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Do we have evidence that there was a sale of the artwork or that the public had an oppertunity to make copies before 1977? Abzeronow (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• The legal requirement is "selling, renting, leasing, lending", there is no demand for a sale, and we have never asked anyone to produce a sales receipt before. It doesn't matter how the painting ended up in the home of the sitter's family, when it leaves the custody of the creator by "selling, renting, leasing, lending" it is "made public". If a copyright is intended then copyright formalities must be followed, including copyright registration and adding a copyright symbol next to the name of the copyright holder and the year. We house over 10,000 paintings that were created in the USA, and I have not seen a demand for a sales receipt for any of those images. --RAN (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Convair 580 turbo prop airplane.gif

While not appearing in a newspaper or magazine this image was made public when it was transferred from the photographer to the subject. See previous rulings discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg. {{PD-US-no notice}}. The rules applied up to 1977 for including a copyright symbol and up to 1989 for copyright registration. --RAN (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Convair 580 turbo prop airplane.gif, uploader says it was never published. A family photograph is more likely to be a limited publication anyway. Abzeronow (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• What he was saying was that it never appeared in a newspaper or a magazine, which is the non-legal understanding of published. USA case law has an image "made public" when it leaves the custody of the creator. Here the photographer is unknown but the image ended up in a family album. The copyright office explains: "For copyright purposes, artwork is published when the original work, or a copy of it, is distributed to the public by selling, renting, leasing, lending, or otherwise transferring ownership of that copy of the work." And if your argument is that it is a "family photo", taken by a family member then the uploader has the right to release it under creative commons, as the uploader pointed out, he is the legal heir to the family albums. See: https://www.copyright.gov/engage/visual-artists --RAN (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Прошу восстановить удаленные фотографии

1. Князь Алексей Борисович Лобанов-Ростовский принимает императора Иосифа в здании Посольства России в Вене и знакомит его с ходом строительства Храма Св. Нколая Чудотворца. 4 ноября 1894 г. Худ. Марина Воронцова-Русева. Варна. 2024. Дар Н. Д. Лобанова-Ростовского посольству РФ в Вене
   File:Князь Алексей Борисович Лобанов-Ростовский принимает императора Иосифа в здании Посольства России в Вене.jpg
2. Князь Алексей Борисович Лобанов-Ростовский объявляет архимандриту Иосифу Сокольскому о его удалении из Болгарии. 1861 г. Худ. Валентин Дончевский. 2023. Дар Н. Д. Лобанова-Ростовского музею-дворцу Врана в Софии
   File:Князь Алексей Борисович Лобанов-Ростовский объявляет архимандриту Иосифу Сокольскому о его удалении из Болгарии. 1861.jpg
3. Подписание Константинопольского мирного договора 1879 г. Справа налево: князь А. Б. Лобанов-Ростовский, Александр-паша Каратеодори и министр, председатель Государственного совета Али-паша. Худ. Никола Русев. 2019. Дар Н. Д. Лобанова-Ростовского МИД РФ и авторские копии — посольству РФ в Софии и Музею-панораме в Плевне
   File:Подписание Константинопольского мирного договора.jpg
4. Князь А. Б. Лобанов-Ростовский принимает болгарскую делегацию во главе с митрополитом Климентом (Друмевым) в Санкт-Петербурге. 1896 г. Худ. Никола Русев. 2020. Дар Н. Д. Лобанова-Ростовского МИД РФ и авторская копия — Институту востоковедения РАН
   File:Князь А. Б. Лобанов-Ростовский принимает болгарскую делегацию во главе с митрополитом Климентом в Санкт-Петербурге. 1896.jpg
5. Подписание российско-китайского секретного договора о союзе и постройке КВЖД. Сидят, слева направо: князь А. Б. Лобанов-Ростовский, С. Ю. Витте, посол Китая Ли Хунчжан. Худ. Марина Варенцова-Русева. 2021. Дар Н. Д. Лобанова-Ростовского МИД РФ и авторская копия — Институту востоковедения РАН
   File:Подписание российско-китайского секретного договора о союзе и постройке КВЖД.jpg
6. Переговоры министра иностранных дел А. Б. Лобанова-Ростовского с первым официальным послом Кореи в России Мин Ёнхваном. 1896 г. Худ. Марина Варенцова-Русева. 2022. Дар Н. Д. Лобанова-Ростовского МИД РФ и авторская копия — Институту востоковедения РАН
   File:Переговоры министра иностранных дел А. Б. Лобанова-Ростовского с первым официальным послом Кореи в России Мин Ёнхваном. 1896.jpg
7. Подписание Константинопольского мирного договора 1879 г. Османский министр иностранных дел Александр-паша Каратеодори (слева) и князь А. Б. Лобанов-Ростовский. Худ. Марина Русева. Варна. 2019. Дар Н. Д. Лобанова-Ростовского Историческому музею в Софии.
   File:Подписание Константинопольского мирного договора 1879 г.jpg

НинаГМ (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this correctly, we'd need VRT permission from Ruseva to host their artwork here. Abzeronow (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Эти фотографии передал князь Никита Дмитриевич Лобанов-Ростовский, я их размещаю по его просьбе. Но я загрузила их на его страницу, а надо на страницу его предка. Какую надо было выбрать лицензию я не знаю. НинаГМ (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Alex Spade: , a Russian speaker. We need COM:VRT/ru to sort out matter of copyright. Prince Nikita Dmitrievich Lobanov-Rostovsky may have commissioned the artworks, but typically copyrights vest with the artists (Valentin Donchevsky, Nikola Rusev and Marina Ruseva). I have been reading your replies through Google Translate. Abzeronow (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Никита Дмитриевич Лобанов-Ростовский заказал эти картины, оплатил и подарил их посольству РФ России в Вене, в Софии, МИД РФ. Он является их правообладателем. НинаГМ (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

так же добавлю, что эти фотографии есть в интернете НинаГМ (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose For modern paintings we need free license permissions from the artists as Abzeronow said above. Also "Own work" claims for works made by someone else are serious violations of Wikimedia Commons policy. Ankry (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Эти фотографии передал князь Никита Дмитриевич Лобанов-Ростовский, я их размещаю по его просьбе. Но я загрузила их на его страницу, а надо на страницу его предка. Какую надо было выбрать лицензию я не знаю. НинаГМ (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Никита Дмитриевич Лобанов-Ростовский заказал эти картины, оплатил их и подарил посольству РФ в Вене, в Софии, Министерству иностранных дел РФ. Он является их правообладателем. НинаГМ (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

акже добавлю, что эти фотографии есть в интернете НинаГМ (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@НинаГМ: This is irrelevant: most media in Internet are copyrighted. And we cannot host them without an explicit free license from their copyright holders. Ankry (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Ankry, I see you have RU-1, which is one more than I have. Could you sort out the file names from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:DeletedContributions/%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%93%D0%9C. I don't read Cyrillic, so they are just a blur for me. Thanks. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: I think, this will be as above. Ankry (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:S.C.H.A.L.E (Logomark version).png

Reason: The logomark of S.C.H.A.L.E from features a combination of geometric shapes and lines, including a circle, oval, Reticle/crosshair. Given the basic and common geometric elements used in this logomark, it not meet COM:TOO South Korea. --Hayase Desta 205146M62 (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• COM:TOO South Korea

Hayase Desta 205146M62 (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Dotonobori Glico Sign 2024.jpg

I do not agree that this file is a copyright violation. Consensus was also unclear, with Abzeronow also indicating that the file is likely DM. We need not be paranoid about every advertisement out there, or else we'll have to delete photos of Akihabara, Shinjuku, Myeongdong, Times Square... and so on. See also, this DR of Times Square, each individual element is copyrighted and clearly visible, but nonetheless the main object in question is the cityscape and each individual element is incidental to the main photograph.--Takipoint123 (💬) 20:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I was the deleting Admin. The image has two major elements -- a faceless and uninteresting crowd crossing the street, and a broad facade of buildings covered with copyrighted ads. If you blanked the ads, the image would be worthless, so I fail completely to understand how anyone can say that they are not essential to the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I am unconvinced by the argument that most of the image is copyrighted. It's been proven by countless DRs that something can be DM even if most of the image is copyrighted. The focus of the image is clearly on the cityscape, and nothing has been placed for effect; it's just there and there's nothing any photographer in Dotonbori can do about it. See also this discussion here; this case is pretty much identical in that each advertisement is clearly a minor portion of the image and the overall image shows a cityscape, and nothing has really been focused on intentionally. Something like this would be problematic, since it focuses on one copyrighted material for effect. In addition, considering the countless images of Dotonbori we have on Commons, i.e. Category:Glico Man (Dotonbori), there's no universe where this photo would be deleted over other images that are clearly not DM. Takipoint123 (💬) 20:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The filename suggests that the photo is focused on a specific image. Will the photo still be OK if you blur that image? If no, DM does not apply. Ankry (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

As I noted above, the dozen or so copyrighted ads constitute the whole cityscape called out by User:Takipoint123. If you blank them all, you have an image that is mostly black over an uninteresting crowd crossing the street. It is well established that calling out similar problem images is invalid -- Commons has over 100 million images and at least 1% of them -- a million images -- should be deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:RNW Vollwappen.png

Ich bitte die Datei wiederherzustellen. Ich bin der Obmann des Vereins kann das auch mit ZVR-Auszug bestätigen.

Danke!

Karneval2024 --Karneval2024 (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)-

@Karneval2024: If the COA is copyrighted, the copyright holder needs to follow instructions at VRT. If it is PD, you need to prove that answerring the questions asked in the Deletion Request. Ankry (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:50501 protest TrumpMusk kiss.jpg

This image was arbitrarily deleted without justification long after the original discussion and after evidence showed that it was not an image subject to copyright. This image needs to be restored, discussion with the editor was unproductive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmangan333 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion 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.

 Oppose @Mmangan333: This is not how Commons works: it is not the deletion requester to prove that a work is copyrighted - it is uploader's duty to prove that they are authorised to use the work. No evidence that the presented photo is under a CC0-compatible license was provided. After you do so, we can go on. Ankry (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose I was the deleting editor. Yes, I deleted it two months after the last comment -- we have a long backlog of DRs and silly requests such as this one don't help. Three other editors have agreed with me that this is a blatant copyvio. No proof to the contrary has been offered.

There has been no attempt at discussion with me. Mmangan333 put a comment on my talk page as part of a rant by a user who was shown to be completely off base.

Mmangan333 would like us to believe that the subject poster was AI generated, but that is completely unproven. They also object to the fact that A1Cafel , who made the original deletion request, called the subject item a "banner" when it appears to be a poster. The same rules apply in either case, so the point is irrelevant. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)