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: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)
  • As the photographer is unknown, how do you recognize that there was any custody? The photo could be just made by a family member with no intention of publication. Just for memory. Ankry (talk) 05:24, 26 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)

The file name is consistent with category name of the same place in Commons (literally called Category:Glico Man (Dotonbori)). Considering that there's literally a Google Maps marker. it is clear that this is the most notable item around the area and it would obviously make no sense to name a file "1 Chome-10-3 Dotonbori, Chuo Ward, Osaka, 542-0071, Japan." I don't really understand the point here. Takipoint123 (💬) 17:43, 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)

We have dozens of DRs with the same argument: "the entire cityscape/wall/rack/etc is copyrighted." I'd be inclined to agree with you if the consensus was consistent and we didn't have DRs which were thrown out with the same reasoning. Takipoint123 (💬) 17:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

De minimis and FoP should be considered. Commons:FoP says Japan has FoP for buildings. If ads are on buildings, well, that's still part of a building. I don't see a problem with such a photo. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 12:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Газета «Новотроїцьк» — статья про Миколу Кула о призах на чемпионство України.jpg

File:Газета «Новотроїцьк» — статья про Миколу Кула о призах на чемпионство України.jpg — request for undeletion

Hello! I kindly request the restoration of the file Газета «Новотроїцьк» — статья про Миколу Кула о призах на чемпионство України.jpg. This is a scanned image from a newspaper article, showing me and my coach. The photograph itself was taken by my mother, who is the author of the photo and agrees to its use.

I intend to use this image only in a Wikipedia article, for non-commercial, educational purposes, under the principles of fair use.

If needed, I can provide written permission from the author to the email address: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! Ded deid (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Probably about File:Газета «Новотроїцьк» — стаття про Миколу Кула про призество на чемпіонаті України.jpg. As you say, it is a newspaper article as well as the photograph. Both have a copyright and in order to restore it we would need both your mother and the newspaper publisher to send free license using VRT. Note that Commons cannot allow fair use and that we require images be free for any use, including commercial. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to clarify the situation regarding the uploaded image.

The person depicted in the photo is me, and the photo was taken by my mother. She agrees to release the rights to this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0) license via the VRT system. I will assist her in preparing and submitting the appropriate written permission.

As for the newspaper in which this photo was originally published, it no longer exists. I have not been able to identify any current copyright holders or legal successors. I can provide the name of the newspaper and a URL (if still available). I believe this may qualify as an orphan work.

I would also like to note that, initially, I was not fully aware of the Wikimedia upload rules and mistakenly believed that, since I am depicted in the image, I could upload it without permission from the photographer or the publisher. I apologize for this misunderstanding.

I now want to ensure everything is properly licensed and in compliance with the rules. I am ready to cooperate and provide any additional information if needed.

Best regards! Ded deid (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

If the newspaper is gone, then it is indeed an orphan work and cannot be kept on Commons. See Precautionary principle #4.

Also, I note that you have only a very few contributions to WP and Commons. We do not keep personal photos of people who have not made significant contributions unless they are notable, so your images are probably out of scope. .      Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to clarify the situation regarding the uploaded image.

The person depicted in the photo is me, and the photo was taken by my mother. She confirms that she is the author of the photo and agrees to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0) license via the VRT system. I will assist her in preparing and sending the proper permission email.

The photo was originally published in a newspaper that no longer exists. I could not find any legal successors or rights holders. However, if I manage to identify or contact the original author of the article (not the newspaper itself), I will try to get in touch and clarify the copyright status of the text.

I also want to note that I uploaded the photo at the request of a Wikipedia editor who is working on the article about me. Initially, I did not fully understand the licensing rules and mistakenly believed that, since I am in the photo, I could upload it without explicit permission from the photographer or the publisher. I apologize for that misunderstanding.

Now I want to do everything properly and in compliance with the rules. I am ready to cooperate and provide additional information as needed.

Best regards! Ded deid (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Газета «Новотроїцьк» — стаття про Миколу Кула.jpg

File:Газета «Новотроїцьк» — стаття про Миколу Кула.jpg — request for undeletion

Hello! I kindly request the restoration of the file Газета «Новотроїцьк» — стаття про Миколу Кула.jpg. This is a scanned image from a newspaper article, showing me and my coach. The photograph itself was taken by my mother, who is the author of the photo and agrees to its use.

I intend to use this image only in a Wikipedia article, for non-commercial, educational purposes, under the principles of fair use.

If needed, I can provide written permission from the author to the email address: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! Ded deid (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose As you say, it is a newspaper article as well as the photograph. Both have a copyright and in order to restore it we would need both your mother and the newspaper publisher to send free licenses using VRT. Note that Commons cannot allow fair use and that we require images be free for any use, including commercial. Note also that claiming {{Own}} when the file is in fact from a newspaper is a serious violation of Commons rules and can lead to your being blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to clarify the situation regarding the uploaded image.

The person depicted in the photo is me, and the photo was taken by my mother. She agrees to release the rights to this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0) license via the VRT system. I will assist her in preparing and submitting the appropriate written permission.

As for the newspaper in which this photo was originally published, it no longer exists. I have not been able to identify any current copyright holders or legal successors. I can provide the name of the newspaper and a URL (if still available). I believe this may qualify as an orphan work.

I would also like to note that, initially, I was not fully aware of the Wikimedia upload rules and mistakenly believed that, since I am depicted in the image, I could upload it without permission from the photographer or the publisher. I apologize for this misunderstanding.

I now want to ensure everything is properly licensed and in compliance with the rules. I am ready to cooperate and provide any additional information if needed.

Best regards! Ded deid (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

If the newspaper is gone, then it is indeed an orphan work and cannot be kept on Commons. See Precautionary principle #4.

Also, I note that you have only a very few contributions to WP and Commons. We do not keep personal photos of people who have not made significant contributions unless they are notable, so your images are probably out of scope. .      Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to clarify the situation regarding the uploaded image.

The person depicted in the photo is me, and the photo was taken by my mother. She confirms that she is the author of the photo and agrees to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0) license via the VRT system. I will assist her in preparing and sending the proper permission email.

The photo was originally published in a newspaper that no longer exists. I could not find any legal successors or rights holders. However, if I manage to identify or contact the original author of the article (not the newspaper itself), I will try to get in touch and clarify the copyright status of the text.

I also want to note that I uploaded the photo at the request of a Wikipedia editor who is working on the article about me. Initially, I did not fully understand the licensing rules and mistakenly believed that, since I am in the photo, I could upload it without explicit permission from the photographer or the publisher. I apologize for that misunderstanding.

Now I want to do everything properly and in compliance with the rules. I am ready to cooperate and provide additional information as needed.

Best regards! Ded deid (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Plaza 1º de Mayo.jpg

I request the restoration of this archive, which depicts a public square in Argentina, including a sculpture located there.

The sculpture is permanently installed in a public space and therefore falls under Argentina's freedom of panorama, as established in Article 3 of Law 11,723:

"Works of architecture, sculpture, and painting that are permanently located in public places may be reproduced by means of photography."

Furthermore, the removal of the image seems to ignore the consensus in the deletion debate, where two users (and I) explicitly supported preserving the archive and no one advocated for its removal.

The closing argument was based solely on an interpretation of the archive description. The criterion should be the nature and location of the work, not whether it is listed in the photo description.

In light of the above, I request, please the restoration of the archive.

Roberto Fiadone (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Article 3 says "The editor of an anonymous or pseudonymous work will have the rights and obligations of the author in relation to it, who may collect them for himself by justifying his personality. Authors who use pseudonyms may register them, acquiring ownership of them." (wipo.int] Please clarify which article you refer to. Thuresson (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Jim was correct in his close. This can be restored in 2040. No URAA issues. Abzeronow (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The closing argument is not interpretation of the description it refers to the De minimis policy which suggests to reject this concept if the copyrighted item is referenced in the description. Ankry (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose User:Roberto Fiadone quotes, "Works of architecture, sculpture, and painting that are permanently located in public places may be reproduced by means of photography." I can't find that quote anywhere. In fact, Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Argentina#Freedom_of_panorama is quite clear that there is no formal FoP in Argentina but it is accepted that de facto there is FoP, but only for architecture.

He also says, "Furthermore, the removal of the image seems to ignore the consensus in the deletion debate, where two users (and I) explicitly supported preserving the archive and no one advocated for its removal." This completely ignores the fact that both the nominator and I believe that the image cannot be kept on Commons and that DRs are not votes -- the closing Admin must consider comments, but must act in accordance with their judgement and the law. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Norman Tobar(2017).jpg

Esta fotografia es libre de uso con derechos propios de evento para ser usado como referencia a la biografia y al premio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4D99ED808749 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

You claimed that you are the photographer who made the photo. Previously published photos cannot be licensed on-wiki basing on the Own work declararion. If there is a free license for this photo, please point it out. See COM:L for the minimal licensing requirements. Ankry (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Papaspyropoulos D.jpg

• Also:File:Portrait of Dimitris Papaspyropoulos.jpg

I provided my photo to post-punk.com for the article they wrote for me.

--Zoo8494 (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC) jUNE 26,2015

 Oppose Policy requires that for media that have appeared elsewhere before Commons, the copyright holder (almost always the actual photographer) must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Example.jpg

12 Bingölspor'un logosu değişti ve bir kullanıcı bu logoyu sildi. lütfen geri yükletilmesini istiyorum. --LoqaT (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2025 (UTC)26.06.2025

 Oppose This is probably about File:KarakoçansporLogo.png. Policy requires that for copyrighted logos to be kept on Commons, an authorized representative of the copyright owner must must a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Зиновий Биртман.jpg

ticket:2025051210009387 was received; as far as I understood, the problem with the file was not an authorship, but a license template. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 21:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)