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.

File:Grubtheme sekiro.png File doesn't fulfil requirements for deletion

I believe that this file isn't eligible for deletion because it's author has released it on GitHub under a free license (MIT license) source and because this image doesn't contain any derivative work from the game Sekiro (also see: commons rule).

Thank you for participating in this discussion Kakučan (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose This is the only public repository of semimqmo on GitHub and they posted on Reddit that they just took this wallpaper from https://wallpapersden.com/sekiro-shadows-die-twice-art-wallpaper/2560x1440 where the author is not even credited. And maybe some people do not think of a software license applying to images  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, there is no evidence that the creator of the image is the person who posted it with the {{Mit}} license at github. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

As you can see in this and this commit the final screenshot is composed of resources which automatically fulfill the commons rule of threshold of originality except this one (which is considered it to be not semimqmo's original work). I found this theory to be true but I couldn't find any license posted with this resource which leads me to think that John Devlin had given a permission to semimqmo to repost this resource under MIT license (otherwise semimqmo's repo on GitHub would've been taken down for copyright infringement). Thank you for your response Kakučan (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I say again -- there is no evidence that Devlin has given a free license. The fact that GitHub has not acted against this post proves nothing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 10 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) 18:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

File:Old Sepahan Logo.png

با سلام لوگوی بارگذاری شده باز طراحی اینجانب میباشد و بنده لوگو را از روی یک ویدئو طراحی نمودم و کاملا اثر شخصی بنده میباشد.

 Oppose Complex logo, no permission. Yann (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

If this is the same logo https://www.instagram.com/wearesepahan/p/DHI2zQEIFnj, that post says it is from the 70s, is Template:PD-Iran 30 years after publication of a work by a "legal person" mean government only or business entities?  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It is the same logo. The logo might be from the 1970s, but is the blazon from the 1970s or more recent? Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about.. @Hanooz do you know anything about this?  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   20:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Edited "from there" to "from the 1970s" to make my meaning more clear. (And I mean to ask if the interpretation of the logo is from the 1970s or more recent) Abzeronow (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I see now (I didnt know what "the blazon" was referring to). Now that I look more closely, I can't find this logo by reverse image search anywhere else than the Instagram account, so we definitely need to learn more from someone who knows about Iranian football clubs back then  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   22:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• It is in the public domain if it was published before 1995 (1375 SH). I was also unable to find any information about the logo. Hanooz 20:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Muselk vs Ali-A (cropped).jpg

The file was speedily deleted for the reason "per COM:Speedy" without mentioning a specific reason as to why it was speedily deleted.

Presuming the reason being F1, the original source of the image was a thumbnail from a YouTube video that was listed under a CC license. The thumbnail does contain copyrighted Fortnite imagery, but was cropped to exclude any of it. There isn't a COM:NET issue as far as I'm aware because Ali-A does actually talk in that video. In other words, the subject of the file is affiliated with the uploader in that specific video. This isn't just some random upload of gameplay that put his face in the thumbnail for clickbait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TansoShoshen (talk • contribs) 08:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Pinging @Yann: as the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose without more information. Image included in a game video. Where does this image come from? Also what's the educational purpose of this? Yann (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  Given that this was 2010-era YouTube, and that after scrolling across the videos of YouTube channel and checking with both Tineye and Google Reverse Image Search, this seems to be just a unique instance of Ali-A doing the "stereotypical clickbait face". The educational value is that the subject depicted, Ali-A is a notable subject with his own article on Wikipedia. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Portret van een prostituee met een glas whiskey, RP-F-F00149.jpg

Hi, This was certainly published at the time, so the reason for deletion is not valid: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portret van een prostituee met een glas whiskey, RP-F-F00149.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

BTW, we already have a copy: File:StoryvilleRaleighRyeGal.JPG. Yann (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Why do you think it was "certainly published" in 1912? Per the MOMA book, Bellocq took these photographs for himself (he apparently was friendly with the prostitutes, don't know if he was a customer there) and kept the glass negatives at home, where they were found in some piece of furniture after his death. His main occupation as a photographer was apparently working for a shipbuilding company, photographing ship parts and machinery. --Rosenzweig τ 10:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Nosferattus: as the nominator. --Rosenzweig τ 10:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment Oversimplification - Many of the now best known Bellocq nudes are from the chest of glass negatives rediscovered in the 1960s but Bellocq also printed some at the time, both for the prostitutes themselves and their customers. As a professional photographer during his life he was better publicly known for his industrial photography, photographs of Mardi Gras floats (seasonal but extensive work, was official photographer for some krewes), photographer for the Archdiocese of New Orleans, and also did portrait photography. While the "Storyville" red-light district was quasi-legal, association with it was not something which would publicized by someone doing respectable work outside of the demi-monde (even if it was an open secret in some circles). IMO there may be a case that Bellocq images known only from prints produced by Lee Friedlander, may still be under copyright, this is not one, being one of the long better known Storyville portraits. Some Storyville historians have even questioned the attribution of this one to Bellocq. (This is mostly off the top of my head as a long-time researcher in early New Orleans jazz, which is an adjacent topic to Storyville history with some crossover, knowing and interacting with some working in the latter field, but some details are likely covered in the late Al Rose's "Storyville" book.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Infrogmation and Yann: Do you have any evidence that this specific photo was published before 1970? Nosferattus (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• There is not much reason to doubt publication, as Infrogmation explains above. Speculations are not a valid reason deletion, and are much beyond significant doubt, which is required for deletion. Yann (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• There is definitely good reason to doubt publication. (1) I wasn't able to find any evidence that it was published prior to 1970 when I nominated the image for deletion. (2) The MOMA book about Bellocq's nudes doesn't mention any previous publications and seems to imply that Lee Friedlander was the first to publish them. But I don't know why I'm arguing with you anyway. You're just going to undelete it regardless of what I say. Nosferattus (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• The MOMA book is not a holy publication. It is not surprising that it doesn't mention distribution of these portraits to the subjects and their customers, which counts as publication. Association with prostitutes was not something people publicized. Yann (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba.png

Hello!
This file was errantly deleted.
This file is public domain in Iraq, and public domain in America, as Iraq is a non-signatory to the Berne convention. The organization that this flag belongs to, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba is a militia that's apart of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), which is a branch of the Iraqi Armed Forces.
Article 6 of the Law No. 3 of 1971 on Copyright states that "official documents such as texts of laws and regulations, international agreements, judicial rulings and other official documents" are not protected by copyright law. The phrase "other official documents" is intentionally open-ended and follows a legal construction called ejusdem generis, meaning "of the same kind." Courts interpreting similar laws read the list not as exhaustive but as illustrative. If laws and regulations are included, so too are government-issued orders, decrees, and public symbols created by or for state institutions, such as logos and flags representing military units. Law No. 40 of 2016 formally incorporates the PMF into the Iraqi Armed Forces. Therefore, insignia and flags of PMF brigades are official symbols of a branch of the Iraqi state. These emblems are used in state functions, military ceremonies, recruitment efforts, and internal publications, which unambiguously makes them, by definition and function, "official documents." This is not speculative, the insignia is state-issued, used in a government capacity, and falls within the legal exemptions of Iraq’s copyright law. The emblems and flags of PMF brigades are official state imagery, created under the authority of Iraq’s armed forces, and publicly disseminated as part of their official identity. As such, they meet the definition of "official documents."
--Castroonthemoon (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2025-05#File:Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba.png dated May 26, 2025. Thuresson (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't able to respond to that comment, thus the re-list, but I believe that there is a linguistic issue and a function issue with that argument. Given that Arabic is a language with a Semetic origin, and English is a language with an Indo-European origin, it's much harder to find words that directly comport with one another. "collections" is a translation from either مجموعة (majmūʿa) or مجموعات (majmūʿāt), which does not necessarily imply plurality in the Western legal sense. Furthermore, "collections" as used in this sense is referring to the ملحق (mulḥaq), translated as "annex" or "appendix," for which symbols, graphics, etc. promogulated through law are included in, as is common in Arab legal systems. These annexes are legally inseparable from the main text. Therefore, even if the annex contains only one image (such as a flag or emblem), it still forms a "collection" with the main legal text under Iraqi publication practice. Annexes are not optional, they're part of the law or administrative order and carry full legal authority. it is the official visual identifier of a state institution and must be followed., which in turn, and in this context, makes emblems in an “official document.” The fact that it is compiled with the decree as part of an official state publication satisfies the definition of a “collection of official documents” in Article 6. Castroonthemoon (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Incorrect PD Netherlands (government works)

Reason: This deletion went through quite some time ago. I'd like to ask if:

• the files aren't duplicates of stuff we've got back in our collection
• the deleted file pages contain source statements
• and if the source is currently licensed under CC-by-SA 4.0 per https://english.defensie.nl/copyright (cf. {{Mindef}}).

If yes, we could have the images back, couldn't we? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose These are very old -- in fact, Google reports that the source server no longer exists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Steeve-Ruben-2021-photo-PaulZeppenfeld

Cette photo avait été attribuée par erreur à Jessica MARC sur la page https://www.ruben-associes.com/photos-presse/. Elle est désormais retirée de cette page.

Moi, Paul ZEPPENFELD (paulzep), suis bien l'auteur de cette image. C'est pourquoi je vous remercie de bien vouloir la restaurer. --Paulzep (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Bonjour @Paulzep. N'avez-vous pas lu ma dernière réponse à la première requête ? Veuillez lire COM:VRT. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 22:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the restoration of my original work (File:Masao Tachiki.png) and other images that were deleted without proper authorization.

Beginning with File:Masao Tachiki.png, multiple images that are clearly in the public domain under Japanese law have been unilaterally and unjustifiably deleted[1][2]. This particular file had a deletion template arbitrarily applied without my consent, and despite the fact that related discussions were still ongoing regarding other image files, it was summarily deleted—along with my original works—by users such as Krd and Yann. Regardless of the serious misconduct displayed by these administrators, the fact remains that these deletions were carried out without proper process, without consensus, and in blatant disregard of Japanese legal standards. I demand the immediate restoration of the following files, which include both my own original works and public domain materials under Japanese copyright law.

And also

• File:Masao Tachiki.png (my original work) -- Possibly OK, although its history says it is a DW
• File:Kanzaki Sanmasu.png (file from an Incorporated Administrative Agency) -- source is Japan Hospital Association 50 Year History
• File:Sato Iwao.jpg (my original work) -- but file page says "Unknown Author"
• File:加藤元一慶應義塾大学名誉教授.jpg (Japanese administrative agency) -- source page has explicit copyright notice and no free license "The copyrights of the text, photographs, illustrations, images, data, etc. used on the "Niimi City Homepage" belong to Niimi City and the content providers. This information may not be reproduced, reused, or quoted without permission, except in cases permitted by copyright law, such as "personal use" and "quotation.""
• File:Akagi Goro.jpg (file from an Incorporated Administrative Agency) -- source given is Hiroshima University -- unknown author
• File:Hayashi Dourin.jpg (file from an Incorporated Administrative Agency) --source given is "History of Okayama University Medical School and Hospital" unknown author
• File:Inoue Katashi.jpg (file from an Incorporated Administrative Agency) -- source Kyoto University, unknown author
• File:Mukai Masakata.jpg (file from an Incorporated Administrative Agency) -- source is Japan Student Services Organization "JASSO and content providers reserve copyright to all information in this website. You are not allowed to publish, post, upload, distribute or disseminate this information in any manner without express permission of JASSO or content providers."
• File:Moriwake Hisashi.png (Files more than 70 years old.) -- date given is 2024 -- Any file from after 1930 is still under USA copyright
• File:Murai Sukenaga.png (Files more than 70 years old.) -- date given is 2024 -- Any file from after 1930 is still under USA copyright
• File:Koide Renji.jpg (Japanese administrative agency) -- from Niimi City, see above

カトーポッポー (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The tone and indignation of your request is unfortunate as it appears that all but one (and perhaps that one also) are copyright violations as noted above. Several of them have very explicit restrictive copyright notices which should have been completely obvious to you.

It is possible that I have misunderstood Japanese law as it applies to a few of these, but as a general rule photographs are not a category that is free of government copyright and I think that none of the institutions are actually government agencies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

 Comment None of the above file seems acceptable, but "Any file from after 1930 is still under USA copyright" isn't exactly true. {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} says that pictures "published before 1 January 1957" or "photographed before 1 January 1947" are OK in Japan and in USA. Yann (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies -- I misread the Japanese law. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Jim is mistaken. Specifically, I would encourage you to read the discussion regarding government institutions (or government-equivalent independent administrative institutions)[1]. National university corporations such as Kyoto University are considered to fall within the public domain in Japan. If that were not the case, a clear copyright notice would be required — yet none is present.

Additionally, two of the files in question — "File:Masao Tachiki.png" and "File:Sato Iwao.jpg" (the "unknown" designation is incorrect) — are my own original works, and I request that they be restored first.

Other files that should also be restored include:

"File:Inoue Katashi.jpg", published by Kyoto University (a national university corporation),

"File:Kanzaki Sanmasu.png", published by the Japan Hospital Association,

"File:加藤元一慶應義塾大学名誉教授.jpg" and "File:Koide Renji.jpg", both from Niimi City (a public institution), and

"File:Moriwake Hisashi.png" and "File:Murai Sukenaga.png", both of which were taken over 70 years ago.

I would also like to add File:Mukai Masakata.jpg to the list. It originates from an independent administrative institution, which is a government-equivalent body under Japanese law. There is no copyright restriction stated in the publication, and under Japanese law, this image is in the public domain.

Please set aside assumptions and take the time to understand Japanese copyright law accurately. カトーポッポー (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

著作権法（昭和45年5月6日法律第48号。最終改正平成26年14月5日法律第72号）

"第六条 　著作物は、次の各号のいずれかに該当するものに限り、この法律による保護を受ける。

一 　日本国民（わが国の法令に基づいて設立された法人及び国内に主たる事務所を有する法人を含む。以下同じ。）の著作物"

That includes corporations or governments. They are all entitled to copyright. A copyright notice is not necessary for copyright to exist. RoyZuo (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not governed by Article 6. Instead, Article 13 of the Copyright Act of Japan applies. For more details, please first read through source [1] in its entirety.

This work is in the public domain under Article 13 of the Copyright Act of Japan.

That article lists the following types of works as not being subject to copyright under the provisions of Chapter II of the Act.

この著作物は、日本国著作権法第十三条により、パブリックドメインの状態にあります。同条は、同法第二章の規定による著作の権利の目的となることができない著作物として、次の著作物を列挙しています。

一　憲法その他の法令

二　国若しくは地方公共団体の機関、独立行政法人（独立行政法人通則法（平成十一年法律第百三号）第二条第一項に規定する独立行政法人をいう。以下同じ。）又は地方独立行政法人（地方独立行政法人法（平成十五年法律第百十八号）第二条第一項に規定する地方独立行政法人をいう。以下同じ。）が発する告示、訓令、通達その他これらに類するもの

三　裁判所の判決、決定、命令及び審判並びに行政庁の裁決及び決定で裁判に準ずる手続により行われるもの

四　前三号に掲げるものの翻訳物及び編集物で、国若しくは地方公共団体の機関、独立行政法人又は地方独立行政法人が作成するもの

This work falls into the public domain under Article 13 of the Copyright Act of Japan.

Article 13 of the Japanese Copyright Act provides that the following types of works are not subject to copyright protection under Chapter II of the Act. These works are considered to be in the public domain:

The Constitution and other laws and regulations.

Notifications, directives, circulars, and similar documents issued by national or local government bodies, incorporated administrative agencies (as defined in Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Act on General Rules for Incorporated Administrative Agencies), or local incorporated administrative agencies (as defined in Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Local Incorporated Administrative Agencies Act).

Court judgments, decisions, orders, and rulings, as well as decisions made by administrative agencies through procedures equivalent to judicial proceedings.

Translations and compilations of the items listed in the previous three categories, when created by national or local government bodies, incorporated administrative agencies, or local incorporated administrative agencies.

For more details, please refer to [1] (Japanese Copyright Act, Article 13).カトーポッポー (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

You say, "Additionally, two of the files in question — "File:Masao Tachiki.png" and "File:Sato Iwao.jpg" (the "unknown" designation is incorrect) — are my own original works, and I request that they be restored first." I said that the first of this might be OK. The second, however clearly shows:

|source=Sato_Iwao_Portrait

|author=Unknown author

You now claim that the photograph is your own work. This inconsistency makes it more difficult to believe anything you say. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no inconsistency. At first, I didn’t fully understand how to fill out information on Wikimedia Commons. As a native Japanese speaker, I mistakenly put “unknown” in the “author” field. I later tried to correct it, but I couldn’t figure out how to do so, and left it as it was. There’s nothing strange about this. I believe you also make mistakes when using something you’re not familiar with. For Japanese speakers, the English instructions on Commons are difficult to understand.

For example, it's just like how you might not fully understand the subtle nuances of the Japanese language. Not knowing how to make corrections or carry out detailed operations is something that naturally happens to speakers of other languages—especially since Japanese is not part of the Indo-European language family.カトーポッポー (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It is hard to believe that as an acceptable excuse given the long comments in perfect English we see above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

"I’m currently writing this using ChatGPT to translate. There’s no way I could understand without translating, right? You can’t even imagine something like that, can you?"カトーポッポー (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I also note your willingness to disregard Commons rules which resulted in your partial block for removing DRs from pages you had uploaded. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by カトーポッポー where you falsely assert, "Moreover, if the intent was to prohibit use of the images, the original documents would include copyright notices or warnings. But they do not." As noted in my closing of the DR, they have clear and explicit copyright notices. These are examples of institutions that you claim should be PD under Japanese law, but they clearly don't agree. The same is true of all of the institutions named above -- every one has a clear and explicit copyright notice. Surely you cannot think that you know the law better than all of these institutions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

That’s nothing more than your personal opinion. Regardless of what you may think, the matter is determined by Japanese law. And it’s simply a case of someone who doesn’t speak Japanese blindly believing—as if it were a religion—that the materials are not in the public domain. I’ve explained the situation logically, and because that puts you at a disadvantage, you’re now only able to respond with emotional reactions rather than arguments.

Let’s be clear: it was you who initially attempted to delete the content without consent. The deletion request (DR) was submitted by Netora, who, perhaps realizing he was in the wrong, fled from the discussion entirely. And then, you went so far as to delete my original work as well.

What authority do you think you have to delete my own creations without my permission? Nowhere in the Wikimedia Commons rules is such an action authorized.

You’re unable to refute me logically—and that’s simply because I’m well-versed in Japanese law.カトーポッポー (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

"That’s nothing more than your personal opinion." False. It is a fact that the university and hospital images all have clear and explicit copyright notices which you have completely ignored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. Your argument completely disregards Japanese law. First of all, your misunderstanding stems from conflating national/public universities with private universities, which are legally and administratively distinct entities in Japan. Similarly, the institution in question is not just a “hospital,” but a National Hospital Organization (NHO), a government-affiliated corporation — not a private hospital.

This distinction between public and private institutions is something that any Japanese person would naturally understand. Without grasping this fundamental difference, it is not meaningful to debate copyright issues, since your reasoning is based on a faulty premise.Furthermore, the photograph of Professor Fukai that I used did not originate from the university’s official website, which may contain a general copyright notice. Instead, it came from a public announcement brochure for a general public lecture issued by the Shizuoka University of Art and Culture. That is a significant difference.

As for the photo of Mr. Kanzaki, it came from a publication of the Japan Hospital Association, an independent administrative institution formerly under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare — again, not a private body.

Additionally, under Japanese copyright law as revised on December 30, 2018, the rules governing the copyright duration of photographs have evolved. According to the Copyright Law of 1970 (Act No. 48 of 1970), there was no special provision for photographic works distinct from other copyrighted materials. This means that photographic works follow the same general rule as other creative works: the copyright term is calculated based on the life of the author (Article 51, paragraph 2). In cases of anonymous, pseudonymous, or corporate authorship, the copyright lasts 70 years from publication (Articles 52 and 53).

According to this rule:(Japanese copyright law)

• For photos published by December 31, 1956, copyright expired by December 31, 1966, and these were not eligible for the provisional extensions enacted later.
• For photos created by December 31, 1946, if unpublished, copyright also expired by December 31, 1956;

if published by that date, it still expired by December 31, 1966.

In both cases, even if the author were still alive, copyright would have expired.

Under the old Copyright Law of 1899, the term for photographs was just 10 years from the date of publication (or creation, if unpublished). Subsequent legal changes extended the term as follows:

• July 27, 1967: Extended to 12 years (Act No. 87 of 1967)
• December 8, 1969: Extended to 13 years (Act No. 82 of 1969)
• January 1, 1971: Extended to 50 years from publication or creation

March 25, 1997: Changed to 50 years after the author’s death, in line with the WIPO Copyright Treaty

In the case of Mr. Kanzaki’s photo, it was taken and published when he became president of the Japan Hospital Association in 1970. More than 50 years have passed since its publication, so under Japanese law, the copyright has expired.

I’m being remarkably generous here. Frankly, someone well-versed in Japanese copyright law like myself has absolutely no obligation to spoon-feed the basics to someone who clearly hasn’t done even the minimal homework. But here we are.

In the case of Mr. Kanzaki, the photo was taken and published in 1970, when he became president of the Japan Hospital Association. And just so you’re aware — although I suspect this will come as news — this was before the 2018 revision of Japanese copyright law. Back then, the standard term for photographic works was 50 years from the date of publication. That means — brace yourself — the copyright expired in 2020.

Yes, that’s right. By the time you raised this objection, the copyright had already been dead for years. No amount of website disclaimers or blanket assumptions can change the legal facts.

But please, do continue lecturing others on copyright while ignoring actual legal timelines. It's... enlightening.カトーポッポー (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

COM:JAPAN says "The copyright period has been extended from 50 years to 70 years in 2018. Works whose copyright has expired before the effective date are not affected." So a photo taken in 1970 would not have expired in 2020.

COM:L also says that a work must be "in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." And if the work was created in 1970 and in copyright in Japan in 1996 COM:URAA, then it almost certainly is copyrighted in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

No, in the case of Kanzaki, he was mentioned merely as an example, but since the photo originates from a national institution, it falls under Article 13 of the Japanese Copyright Act, and is therefore in the public domain.

As for Mr. Goro Akagi, the photo was taken in 1947 during his time at Hiroshima University, and this clearly satisfies the conditions under Japanese copyright law.

Regarding U.S. law — it should be noted that Japan's copyright term extension in 2018 was not due to the Uruguay Round (URAA), but rather related to TPP negotiations, which led Japan to align its laws with other countries. However, this revision does not retroactively apply to works created before the change, and therefore does not affect their status under U.S. law either.カトーポッポー (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

No "therefore". Whether or not Japan extended their copyrights, Japanese works published before 1978 that were in copyright in Japan in 1996 get a full 95 years of copyright from publication in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto. RoyZuo (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• You're wrong. I don't need your arbitrary opinions. Show me a Japanese legal text that explains it the way you do. You won’t find one—because it doesn't exist. That’s because Japanese law and U.S. law are from different countries. Cross-border legal application doesn’t happen unless there is an international framework like the TPP.And honestly, it's clear you don’t even know what the TPP is. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement was originally intended to unify legal and trade rules under U.S. leadership.

-

• However, it was scrapped by President Trump, and the United States withdrew. The agreement was eventually formed with Japan at the center.So no, U.S. law and Japanese law are separate systems, and any claim that U.S. copyright law governs Japanese works is false. Anyone working in the legal field would consider this basic common knowledge.

That is all.カトーポッポー (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• You're very welcome. I completely understand your frustration. Many English-speaking Wikipedians seem to mistakenly believe that U.S. copyright law can be directly applied to works from other countries, including Japan. The claim that “Japanese works published before 1978 that were still under copyright in Japan in 1996 receive 95 years of protection in the U.S.” is not only misleading—it’s outright false.
• This misunderstanding often stems from a misinterpretation of Section 104A of the U.S. Copyright Act (Restoration of Copyright under the URAA). That provision applies only to foreign works that had entered the public domain in the United States but were later granted copyright protection again due to international agreements such as the Berne Convention.

To be clear:

• “If a work was still under copyright in Japan in 1996, it’s protected in the U.S.” → False
• “All Japanese works published before 1978 automatically receive 95 years of copyright protection in the U.S.” → Flatly incorrect
• “U.S. law overrides Japanese copyright law” → Legally nonsensical between sovereign nations

-

People making these claims fail to understand the limits of U.S. law and the legal realities of international copyright relations. These kinds of assertions ignore the fact that U.S. and Japanese copyright systems are entirely separate and based on different legal principles.

-

If necessary, I can also provide the original text of Section 104A of the U.S. Copyright Act, as well as summaries of copyright-related provisions under the TPP. Let me know if that would help.カトーポッポー (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:McLintock! (1963) by Andrew V. McLaglen.webm

This film (and its script) are in the public domain due to failure to renew the 1963 copyright, It was speedy deleted merely because it contains various pieces of music which were previously registered for copyright, and on which the copyright was renewed. I think COM:DM may apply because it focus on pictures more than music, and if does not qualify as COM:DM, remove the music should avoid the copyright problem. 6D (talk) 07:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose You may certainly upload the file with the music removed, but please don't expect anyone else to do it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2.jpg

i request undeletion of the above image Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2.jpg deleted 16:52, 27 November 2024. i request this undeletion now as I didn't know such provision was there back then. i must clarify that I own the copyright of the image which is not available anywhere on the internet. the highlight of my image is'8th week0' written in hindi language in black color on the poster. no such image is available online, hence I request the undeletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonadart (talk • contribs) 04:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose @Bonadart: This is clearly false: the poster is available in the net eg here. Also, "publishing" is not the same as "being available in the net". It may be published by displaying in a public space (eg. on a street) or distributing paper copies. But even, if it is not published, is not an original work: it is derivative of media used to design it and the creator and the poster copyright holder needs to have copyright to the photo(s) used there. Ankry (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

i am sorry to say but none of these are my pic, as i said the highlight of my image is'8th week' written in hindi language (8वां सप्ताह) in black color on the poster on the lower left side. This image is not available anywhere on internet, it was clicked by me using my mobile phone. i alone have the pic which is not available on internet, i repeat, as such i have copyright of the pic. unfortunately I lost the pic in my mobile. as such i once again request to reinstate the image Bonadart (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose While this image may be unique because of the writing on it, it is still almost entirely an image of a copyrighted poster which cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the poster's copyright owner. Also, please remember that it is settled law in the US and many other places that photographs of 2D works do not have a copyright, so you should not claim to have any rights in this image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

File:玉環新村.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:玉環新村.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: pd in taiwan (expired). pd in usa (calligraphy). RoyZuo (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support I am surprised that this was not discussed in the DR. The calligraphy cannot have a copyright in the US, so it is PD in both places. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward You may wanna read Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bank of Taiwan Logo.svg, another PD-Taiwan calligraphy case deleted due to URAA concern, for this particular one, wait for 2052 might be more fair per COM:PCP. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

If you read the abovementioned DR carefully, you will see that the deletion was due to Taiwanese copyright, not URAA. Abzeronow's comment may be misleading: URAA has nothing to do there as caligraphy is not copyrighted in US. Ankry (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

So @Taivo: 's USA demands 95 years from publication. is also misleading now? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Ankry: Do we have ideas who wrote those texts? I searched some sources that eventually I'm not sure whether these indicate the writter(s):

1. Suggests Li Liangmei, probably still alive;
2. vaguely said Sheng... Liao... Li/Lee... Z(J)hang... Wu(u)/Ng..., lack of idea who they a(we)re
3. referred it to be a Catholic missionary Elmar Bohmann, nothing else about him
4. mentioned two men Zheng Chuanshou and Zheng Jiashou built a Matsu palace

Somewhat confused,  Oppose at the moment unless actual author is disclosed. The relationships between requestor RoyZuo and another user Roy17 may be interested by me per this UCoC case. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: Please, do not introduce new topics here, especially being out of scope of this page. We are discussing about one file. Ankry (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah okay, I've partially striked. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

All these links are just throwing a bunch of random irrelevant things, preying on most sysops and users who frequent this page because they dont have knowledge of Chinese language.

If the user has native knowledge of Chinese, he knows full well that 3/4 links are not about the stone stela, and 4/4 make no mention about the creator, sculptor or calligrapher of the stone.

Therefore, he should know his comments are unhelpful and actually misleading. RoyZuo (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@RoyZuo And how that statue is calligraphy and without otherwise artworks? There might be other artistic develops which is just why PCP exists to hold up several DRV requestors. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

So now, you marked two of your sentences with underline, which strengthened me that you're likely still IDHTing as what you did on enwiki (2 years ago, when you were called RZuo). We all are discussing the matters around that deleted file, but you don't know How to Win Friends and Influence People, you just disagreed with a claim by another user, even though that claim is really reflecting the relevant policy, and I can see that everybody's efforts to help by commenting above might have been upsetting because whether the file is PD and/or elsewhere free-licensed. In the future, I plan to investigate more informations on authorships to avoid problems like above. I understand that such researches are more important for our works, together than for me, to get a way for best win-win environments right away. I tried to consider you as my influence friend, but opposite? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Récompenses obtenues par Ström aux Expositions.jpg

This file is of pubic domain. It was edited in 1906. Does it correspond to this licence PD-old-100 ? Mguenego.usparis (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support The upload had no license, but it is clearly PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mguenego.usparis: Maybe, you mean {{PD-anon-expired}}? {{PD-old-100}} means that the author died 100+ years ago; I doubt if it can be applied if the author is unknown. Ankry (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Neutral edited in 1906 doesn't mean author died in 1906 (where PD-old-100 is supposed for), who is the author? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I did'nt know about

This work was published before January 1, 1930 and it is anonymous or pseudonymous due to unknown authorship. It is in the public domain in the United States as well as countries and areas where the copyright terms of anonymous or pseudonymous works are 95 years or fewer since publication.

, in that case i think it's the best option because i don't know about the author. It's from Ström archives. Mguenego.usparis (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

So its first publication date is also in 1906 (or during 1906-1929)? We can only accept "edited in 1906" if it's never ever published since 1906 edit. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The user probably does mean that it was published in 1906. From the user name and the global contributions, I guess that the main language of the user is probably French. In particular in the context of book publishing, the French verb éditer can be an equivalent of the English verb publish, and the French noun éditeur has the meaning of the English noun publisher. So, probably just a problem of translation here. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, feel free to restore it with permission tag changed, I have no else matters. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Hiroyuki Shimatani (2022).png

"Despite there being no counterargument, Jameslwoodward went ahead and deleted it unilaterally. It was an extremely one-sided decision, made by someone who clearly has no understanding of Japan’s independent administrative institutions. Restore it immediately."It goes against Wikipedia’s principle of not resolving issues by force[1].

• File:Fukai Akiko.png

This user named Jim misinterpreted Japanese copyright law. Even though he admitted,

• “Apologies — I misread the Japanese law. Jim... (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:28, 3 June 2025 (UTC),”

he continues deleting numerous images as if it were a religion. He even deleted my own works... Is this person some kind of dictator? Is he the law on Wikimedia Commons? Unable to provide a valid, convincing, and law-based rebuttal, he unilaterally ends discussions and deletes images at will. Does this person have no respect for the law?[1][2]

カトーポッポー (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)-(修正)カトーポッポー (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by カトーポッポー. Thuresson (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

By the way, are you familiar with Japan’s Independent Administrative Institutions?That’s not logical at all, is it?カトーポッポー (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

These people are clearly in cahoots, never admitting fault and resorting to discrimination instead. The idea of engaging in a logical counterargument? Apparently too much to ask. Instead, these self-appointed dictators seem to think they have the authority to unilaterally delete works that are public domain under Japanese law—or even my own original creations. Astounding, isn’t it? Apparently, logic and legality don’t matter when you believe you are the law. What a joke.

So this is how you bully non-native speakers. Quite the lesson.カトーポッポー (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I applied the law as Commons sees it. As noted, both images have clear and explicit copyright notices at the source. The DR had been open for ten days, which is three days longer than required.

I also note that you continue to make false statements -- "Despite there being no counterargument, Jameslwoodward went ahead and deleted it unilaterally." -- there were, in fact two other editors who believe that the files are copyright violations and no one that believes that somehow they are PD. "He even deleted my own works" -- I did not delete any of your own works.

If you continue with the tone of your invalid arguments, breaking of Commons rules, and false accusations, you will probably be fully blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, it is Jim who continues to make false claims. He says that “two other editors” supported the deletion, but let’s be honest: one of them, Netora, is well-known for past disruptive behavior on Wikipedia talk pages and has even been warned for it. As for the rest — well, no matter how many friends or loyal followers agree with you, Japanese law doesn’t change to suit your convenience.

You say, “I did not delete any of your own works,” as if that somehow addresses the point. It doesn’t. That’s a red herring — it dodges the real issue. Your actions violate the principle of resolving disputes through discussion, not force, and there was no valid counterargument provided.

Moreover, the “copyright notice” you refer to did not exist in the original PDF files — a small but critical detail you seem to have missed. Jim appears to have confused the source documents with unrelated pages on the university's website. That’s a pretty serious mistake for someone making such definitive claims.

And of course, let’s not forget: none of you seem to understand how Independent Administrative Institutions function in Japan. It’s astonishing that people so uninformed about the legal and institutional systems of the country in question are even in positions of authority here. It only exposes your lack of knowledge.

Let’s be clear — you're not lawyers, and it’s painfully obvious that you don’t understand Japanese law. Perhaps, at the very least, you could try reading the actual Japanese copyright law as cited on Wikipedia — in its original form, not just vague summaries. And as homework, I strongly recommend you take a close look at Article 13 of the Japanese Copyright Act. It might be... illuminating.

静岡文化芸術大学は独立行政法人です。やはり、日本語が読めない時点で、削除依頼を出すのは荒らし行為なんですよね。

この著作物は、日本国著作権法第十三条により、パブリックドメインの状態にあります。同条は、同法第二章の規定による著作の権利の目的となることができない著作物として、次の著作物を列挙しています。

一　憲法その他の法令

二　国若しくは地方公共団体の機関、独立行政法人（独立行政法人通則法（平成十一年法律第百三号）第二条第一項に規定する独立行政法人をいう。以下同じ。）又は地方独立行政法人（地方独立行政法人法（平成十五年法律第百十八号）第二条第一項に規定する地方独立行政法人をいう。以下同じ。）が発する告示、訓令、通達その他これらに類するもの

三　裁判所の判決、決定、命令及び審判並びに行政庁の裁決及び決定で裁判に準ずる手続により行われるもの

四　前三号に掲げるものの翻訳物及び編集物で、国若しくは地方公共団体の機関、独立行政法人又は地方独立行政法人が作成するもの

カトーポッポー (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

If there's significant doubt of the copyright status, we delete. w:Independent Administrative Institution says that they were created in 1999, which suggests retroactively applying the rules could be problematic. ChatGPT says "Works created by employees of IAIs in the course of their duties are generally owned by the institution itself under Article 15 of the Japanese Copyright Act, which governs "works made in the course of duty." Article 13 of the Japanese Copyright Act states that certain official documents created by government officials (laws, regulations, notifications, etc.) are not protected by copyright (i.e., are in the public domain). However, this does not automatically apply to IAIs, because: IAIs are distinct from government ministries and agencies. Their works are not classified as “laws, ordinances, etc.” unless explicitly stated." I don't blindly trust ChatGPT, but that goes along with I'm familiar with; works of the Smithsonian, for example, are usually copyrighted.

ChatGPT also offers a translation of Article 13:

The following items shall not be protected as works under this Act:

The Constitution and other laws and regulations (法令 – hōrei)

Notices, instructions, circulars, and other similar documents issued by government agencies of the national or local governments

Judicial decisions, including judgments, rulings, orders, and their translations

Compilations of laws or regulations and other similar compilations edited by government agencies

Trying to interpret law straight from the law text is often problematic; legal language is often its own thing, and definitions don't always match what one might expect. But my reading of that is that random photographs aren't covered, that it covers law and law-like things (notices, instructions, circulars), not things without legal or regulatory effect.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• You are using ChatGPT in an arbitrary manner. In my case, I use it to faithfully translate after writing in Japanese. However, if you distort the questions you give to ChatGPT arbitrarily, you might end up with answers like the one you gave. Also, I don’t understand what you mean by “retroactively applying the rules” (I’d recommend studying Japanese first), but if you are familiar with the law, you would know that materials published before the establishment of Independent Administrative Institutions (such as notices for lectures, etc.) are in the public domain. The point is that, for works published in those earlier periods, current laws cannot be applied.

-

• Furthermore, regarding the claim that “the copyright belongs to the institution,” this only applies if the necessary conditions under Japanese law are met. Unlike the U.S. legal system, Japan’s legal system is not based on a positive list. It is based on a negative list, meaning that unless something is explicitly prohibited, it is generally allowed. (This legal principle is often confusing to people from outside Japan.) In fact, when interacting with English speakers in Japan, I’ve noticed that many of them do not realize that Japanese law operates on a negative list basis.

As for Article 13, as I’ve been saying for quite some time now, it seems that people here do not understand the meaning of “notices” (告示) or “circulars” (通達) in the Japanese context. How many times do I need to repeat the same explanation? Let’s start by reading this first [1].カトーポッポー (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Obinn Magic 2022.png

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Obinn Magic 2022.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: This photo is official image from Obinn's official website. I was created, anyway please guide me how to fill metadata correctly on Wiki file details? Lukyvcz (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The source of the image is Obinn's web site which is marked "© OBINN MAGIC • Všechna práva vyhrazena." (All Rights Reserved). The easiest way to have the image restored is to add "CC-BY" to the bottom of the site or under this image.

Images deleted on requests by User:Tore3att

User:Tore3att has been a newly registered account who mostly spent their times to request deletions of (seemingly random?) files; using very poorly worded DRs and never providing evidence of the CopyVio claims.
User:The Squirrel Conspiracy eventually blocked Tore3att, explicitly because of this DR. Given that this DR is still open, I suspect that there has not been a review of already deleted files? Hence, I would like to nominate them for Deletion review by an admin:

• File:Cartao cidadao 4.png, deleted by User:Yann per this DR, Yann has checked the image and said it was also out of scope (?)
• File:Lucas Tharin 1.jpg, deleted by User:Ruthven per this DR, together with File:Lucas Tharin 3.jpg and maybe others(?) apparently on the same reasoning.
• File:Letterobmb logo.jpg deleted by Yann per this DR
• File:Michael Pewny beim Golfen.jpeg deleted by Yann per this DR
• File:Shreya Dhar Chanda.jpg deleted by The Squirrel Conspiracy per this DR
• File:Flag of Sumenep Regency.png deleted by Yann per this DR

Please note that I have no personal interest in the restoration of these files. If the reviewing admin finds that they have been rightfully deleted on CopyVio or OoS issues, they should obviously remain deleted. Thanks a lot, and best regards. --Enyavar (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Husein_Kadimagomaev.jpg

Request to undelete File:Husein_Kadimagomaev.jpg

Hello, this image was deleted due to missing permission. However, the subject and original author of the image, Husein Kadimagomaev, has now sent a permission email to permissions-de@wikimedia.org confirming the release under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

Please undelete the file or mark it as pending OTRS confirmation.

Thank you in advance! Mrmyaa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmyaa (talk • contribs) 16:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)