Antrag zur Wiederherstellung von File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Administratoren,

im Frühjahr 2014 habe ich von einem Plakat des Kameradenkreises der Gebirgstruppe die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht kopiert und in die jeweiligen Artikel der Divisionen eingefügt. Dabei habe ich bei jedem Divisionsabzeichen fälschlicherweise (damals war ich Anfänger bei Wikipedia) als Urheber den Kameradenkreis angegeben.

In der Beschreibung aller Divisionsabzeichen muss es richtigerweise heißen: - Quelle: Archiv Kameradenkreis der Gebirgstruppe - Autor: unbekannt, da heute für alle Divisionen nicht mehr nachvollziehbar - Lizenz: Dieses Bild stellt das Wappen einer deutschen Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts dar. Nach § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG (Deutschland) sind amtliche Werke wie Wappen gemeinfrei. Zu beachten: Wappen sind allgemein unabhängig von ihrem urheberrechtlichen Status in ihrer Nutzung gesetzlich beschränkt. Ihre Verwendung unterliegt dem Namensrecht (§ 12 BGB), und den öffentlichen Körperschaften dienen sie darüber hinaus als Hoheitszeichen.

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung des File:VerbAbz1GebDivW.jpg und auch die der übrigen 12 Gebirgsdivisionen, falls die auch schon gelöscht worden sind.

Mit Dank im Voraus für Ihr Verständnis und Ihre Bereitschaft helfen zu wollen -- Jost (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: I am the deleting admin. Jost, can you cite which statute or decree these patches are part of? (and I've discussed similar cases with Rosenzweig on my talk page.) Abzeronow (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: These patches were worne as an official part of the uniform. Each mountain division of the Wehrmacht have had their own patch. The patches were created by the staff of the division and were approved by the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH). I have read your dicussion with Rosenzweig. Jost (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@JostGudelius: Ob die Bundeswehr oder ihre Untergliederungen wirklich Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, finde ich zumindest zweifelhaft. Müsste man evtl. mal bei de:WP:URF klären. Aber unabhängig davon sind auch Gemeindewappen usw. deshalb gemeinfreie amtliche Werke, weil sie mal in einer amtlichen Verlautbarung bekanntgemacht wurden. Die ZDv 37/10 hat bspw. diverse Verbandsabzeichen. Ist das hier auch so? Wenn ja, wann und wo? Oder hat das irgendjemand inoffiziell erstellt? --Rosenzweig τ 21:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: Es handelt sich hier um die Divisionsabzeichen der 12 Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht. Diese Abzeichen wurden wahrscheinlich von den Divisionen geschaffen und vom Kriegsministerium bzw. Oberkommando des Heeres genehmigt. Urheber und Genehmigungsprozess sind heute nicht mehr nachzuvollziehen. Ob Streitkräfte Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sind, kann ich nicht belegen - ich bin kein Jurist. Sie sind aber eine vom Staat beauftragte Organisation/Körperschaft mit einem Auftrag und klaren Rechtsrahmen, der mit der Verfassung / dem Grungesetz beginnt.Gruß --Jost (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: Deine Frage bezüglich der ZDV 37/10, die diverse Verbandsabzeichen enthält, trifft den Nagel auf den Kopf. Diese Verbandsabzeichen werden bei allen Verbänden, die eines Artikels bei Wikipedia würdig sind, in der Info-Box ohne Probleme eingefügt. Das gleiche muss auch für die Verbandsabzeichen der Verbände der Wehrmacht gelten; sie haben von ihrer Entstehung und Genehmigung her das gleiche Procedere und den gleichen Status. Sie sind offizielle Abzeichen/Wappen einer deutschen Behörde/eines Verbandes der Wehrmacht und m.E. gemeinfrei. Ich bitte Dich, dies @Abzeronowzu erklären und darauf hinzuwirken, dass die Löschungen der Divisionsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht rückgängig gemacht bzw. unterlassen werden, damit wir uns in Zukunft diese Diskussionen ersparen. Dein Englisch ist weitaus besser als das meinige, bitte mach es. Ich werde inzwischen Quelle und Urheber in den Beschreibungen der Verbandsabzeichen bearbeiten/korrigieren. Gruß --Jost (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Ich übersetze das mal: Du weißt demnach nicht, ob besagte Grafik mal in irgendeiner Vorschrift bekanntgemacht o. ä. wurde. Du vermutest es nur. --Rosenzweig τ 18:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig:zunächst mal herzlichen Dank, dass Ihr weiter mit mir kommuniziert und versucht, mir zu helfen. Inzwischen habe ich heute nach heftiger Recherche folgende Aussagen und Quellen gefunden, die belegen, dass meine Vermutung (Erfahrung aus langjähriger Tätigkeit in den Streitkräften bei der Truppe, in Stäben und im Ministerium) durchaus richtig ist und auch bei Wikipedia und Commons bearbeitet wurde. Siehe:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Verbandsabzeichen_1._Gebirgs-Division.png in: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Insignia_of_the_Wehrmacht?uselang=deDivision.png?uselang=de.

Mützenedelweiß, Ärmelabzeichen und Verbandsabzeichen (für Fahrzeuge und Gerät) der 1. GebDiv wurden vom Oberkommando des Heeres mit Verfügung vom 2.Mai 1939 eingeführt; siehe in: Thomas Müller, Verheizt - Vergöttert - Verführt, Die deutsche Gebirgstruppe 1915- 1939, Veröffentlichung des Bayerischen Armeemuseums Band 16, 1. Auflage 2017, S. 68. Die Divisionsabzeichen/Truppenkennzeichen der Wehrmacht wurden vom OKH endgültig legitimiert mit Befehl Nr. 21 vom 16.Februar 1944 (OKH GenSt d H Org Abt II/31 180/44); siehe in: W. Fleischer, Truppenkennzeichen des deutschen Heeres und der Luftwaffe, Dörfler-Verlag 2002, ISBN 3895554448.

Ich meine, das reicht Ich bitte Dich und @Abzeronow, die Verbandsabzeichen der 1.GebDiv (Edelweiß) und der 3.GebDiv (Narvikschild) wiederherzustellen. Gruß --Jost (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Jost, Ich habe Ihre Aussagen über Google Translate gelesen. Da ich kein Deutsch spreche, habe ich mich auf Englisch verständigt. Aber ich werde bei Bedarf maschinelle Übersetzung verwenden. (via google translate) Abzeronow (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: I hope you can although translate my answer to @Rosenzweig. I think all doubts are now cleared up. Greetings --Jost (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Because there are potentially many more cases like these, I think we should get to the bottom of the matter. I've started a thread at de.wp's equivalent of the copyright village pump (at. de.wp because I feel more people who know German law will particpate there): de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Militärische Verbandsabzeichen Deutschlands. Hopefully a consensus can be reached there. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosenzweig. I can use Firefox's beta translation feature on that page so I'll follow along as best I can (I won't post there since I know so very little German) Abzeronow (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll reiterate something Rosenzweig said there here, there is no rush on this, if it is found by dewiki legal experts that these are lawfully in the public domain, I can restore them myself. These cannot be in the public domain as "anonymous works" because 1.) German copyright law for pre-1995 works and 2.) URAA if these were not seized by the Office of Alien Property Custodian. Abzeronow (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: @JostGudelius: It's been 3 weeks since any comment at dewiki and this request has been stale. Since I am the deleting admin I don't want to close this request. But I'm not seeing any consensus there or here for me to reverse my deletion. Abzeronow (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: I'd be fine with closing this request here for now and open a new undeletion request if there is a positive result at de.wp. But Jost will have to decide. We've had undeletion requests that were open for months. --Rosenzweig τ 19:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Rosenzweig and Abzeronow, till now I don't get any answer by the Military Archive and I think they will not answer in future.

I don't understand why the divisional insignia of the mountain divisions are deleted, while hundreds, maybe thousands of insignia of troops around the world exist on Wikipedia.--Jost (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Jost, different countries have different laws. In my country (the United States), works by the federal government are public domain. For Russia and Ukraine, army emblems would fall under state symbols that are exempt from copyright. Germany appears to be more complicated, and I have a mandate to respect Germany's copyright laws. I don't wish for this to be remain deleted either, but unless I have a legal leg to stand on for it, I just cannot restore it now. Abzeronow (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Jost has opened a new request below so we may as well close this one. Abzeronow (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Candidplatz - Flickr - iEiEi.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Candidplatz Subway Station Munich.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Munich 5 Feb 2021 23 40 02 810000.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Munich 5 Feb 2021 23 40 10 378000.jpeg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Munich subway station Candidplatz.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:München - U-Bahn-Bahnhof Candidplatz (Bahnsteig).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:München - U-Bahn-Bahnhof Candidplatz (Farbgestaltung).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz5.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz6.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz9.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Candidplatz

I'm asking for a deletion review of files that I had deleted in October 2023. I had essentially felt that the interplay of colors had pushed it to a level that would have been copyrightable. Recently a few similar files to ones I had deleted were kept by User:Infrogmation, and I was essentially asked to reexamine my decision. I want to see if I had missed some reason why these would be too simple for copyright as User:IronGargoyle says since I'd like stay on the same page as my colleagues. Abzeronow (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

 Question Why would this place not being covered by Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Freedom of panorama? Yann (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

From what that page says, many commentators consider that subway stations are interior spaces and do not meet the requirement for FoP of being public streets, ways, or open spaces. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, but that's weird. There is nothing more public than a subway station, in the common sense of the word. Yann (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but German law appears to treat them as indoor spaces @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Abzeronow (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no exact definition in the actual law, and apparently there are no court decisions if places like train station halls and subway stations are “public” as required by the law. About half of legal commentators are in favor of it, half are against it (de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80). --Rosenzweig τ 08:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I think that when there are several possible interpretations of the law, we should use the most favorable for Commons. Yann (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

COM:PCP says something else IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not what PCP says. We should not use PCP to be more royal than the king. If several legal commentators say that a work is OK, we should use that. Yann (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know about this, but there has been a big discussion in the past about artwork and creative designs in subway stations in Germany. As a result, as far as I understood at the time, the precautionary principle was invoked, among other things. The decision should be to delete if the design is creative enough to be worth protecting. And this is exactly the question that arises at this subway station. Different administrators have decided differently. I think there should be a unified decision. Kind regards Lukas Beck (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I won't go against the consensus, and I will let another admin decides, as if we can't use the FoP provision, I don't know if these are OK or not. But my opinion about interpretation of COM:PCP remains. Yann (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

To me, half of the commentators saying it's not allowed definitely meets the threshold for significant doubt but I'm not a lawyer. FoP would make this easier I'd agree. I also agree with Lukas that decisions like this should be unified if possible. (which is why I asked for a review). Abzeronow (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow@Asclepias@L. Beck@Rosenzweig@Yann reading about "legal commentators" reminds me of the situation of COM:FOP Japan. In fact, there are mixed insights from lawyers and other legal commentators there. Several Japanese lawyers contend that commercial use is allowed under the Japanese Article 46 rule, while few others argue that buildings must be subject to the non-commercial restriction, based on the analogy that buildings with sufficient architectural properties must be treated as artworks. The prevailing majority of the legal commentators there agree that use of Japanese buildings in commercial photos are legal, under the Japanese FoP.

Roughly how many of the German legal commentators agree that German FoP covers subway architecture, and how many do not? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Of the ones named at de:Panoramafreiheit#cite_note-80, 11 are against fop being applicable in such cases, and 7 are in favor if I counted correctly. So my initial quick estimate of half/half was apparently a bit off. --Rosenzweig τ 06:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Back to the original question about originality: As I see it, there's nothing very original about both the architecture and the coloring in this subway station. I'd say they are below COM:TOO Germany, which is higher than in other countries like the UK. I also think the coloring is below COM:TOO US, so I  Support undeletion. --Rosenzweig τ 06:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the subtleties of German FoP, but I think it likely that the architectural detailing around the pillars is sufficiently creative to have a copyright in both Germany and the USA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: But per COM:FOP US, photos cannot be derivatives of architectural works in the US. --Rosenzweig τ 12:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow@Asclepias@Jameslwoodward@L. Beck@Rosenzweig@Yann apparently, there is a legal advice Wikimedia Deutschland received from lawyer Philipp Hellwig, way back 2023. It might be of relevance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

It's about the applicability of FOP in subway stations in Germany. The conclusion (C. I.) is on page 5: Keine Geltung der Schrankenbestimmung, FOP is not applicable in such cases. C. II. also says photographers might violate house rules, though per Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum and interior photography, that is not the primary concern of Wikimedia Commons. --Rosenzweig τ 09:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I remeber that some similar cases were kept, but I really don't know what the correct answer is here. I try to avoid these cases :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Kloster Garnstock Gebetsecke.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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

Also

• File:Kloster-Garnstock Seitenaltar.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) (Del Req)

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kloster Garnstock Gebetsecke.jpg. The nominator mistakenly gave the link to the German FoP template here, but Category:Kloster Garnstock is located in Belgium, which has slightly-lenient FoP rule than Germany.

It appears it shows some work inside the church. Likely it is eligible; as per Romaine at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/12#Mini-Europe, FoP-Belgium was "based on how it is in the Netherlands". Per Romaine again here (with respect to the Dutch FoP rules in churches as per a government opinion), "if a church has opening hours and anyone can freely access and walk inside, it is a public place, if a church is only open with services then it is not." Kloster Garnstock is a Catholic monastery, and Catholic churches typically have set opening and closing hours, unlike a few Protestant churches which are only open to their congregations during worship hours. Therefore, this image file likely falls under {{FoP-Belgium}} and needs to be undeleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Per COM:FOP Belgium, “the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums or other buildings that are not permanently open to the public.” If a Catholic church has opening and closing hours just like a museum, it would appear to not be permanently open to the public, just like a public museum. --Rosenzweig τ 10:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. These days there are very few buildings that are open to the public 24/7/365. Surely "permanently open to the public' should be read as "open to the public daily except major holidays" or something similar. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Even subway stations are closed at night these days (i.e. German case discussed above). Yann (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

"open to the public daily except major holidays" was obviously NOT what the Belgian FOP lawmakers intended if “the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums”. --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

@Geertivp: who could grant us some insight into Belgian FoP. Abzeronow (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

File:VerbAbz3GebDivW.jpg

Das Bundesarchiv Abteilung Deutsches Reich hat mir mit E-mail vom 27. März 2025 auf meine Frage, welche Urheberrechte im Zusammenhang mit Verbandsabzeichen der Wehrmacht - hier Verbandsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht - folgenden Text geschrieben: "Die ehemalige deutsche Wehrmacht hat unserer Kenntnis nach keinen Rechtsnachfolger. Die durch sie erlassenen Vorschriften, Erlasse und Befehle sind mittlerweile Schriftgut des Bundesarchivs und unterliegen dem Bundesarchivgesetz. Personenbezogene oder zeitliche Schutzfristen bestehen für die Art Schriftgut nicht."

Da die Verbandsabzeichen nicht willkürlich verwendet werden konnten, sondern auf Grundlage übergeordneter Stäbe genehmigt und angeordnet wurden, bitte ich um Wiederherstellung der gelöschten Verbandsabzeichen der Gebirgsdivisionen der Wehrmacht - 1.GD, 3.GD und 4. GD - unter der Lizenz "gemeinfrei". --Jost (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

This information could have been shared in the still opened but stalled UDR of this file. The Federal Republic of Germany is the legal successor of the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany. @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: Regardless if Bundesarchiv feels Wehrmacht insignia are public domain, they should contact COM:VRT so this information is on file. Abzeronow (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

That actually says nothing about the copyright situation of the insignia. They're writing about "Schutzfristen", a kind of waiting period before archives can allow access to files to protect interests of people who might still be alive or died recently. So nothing to do with copyright. They probably didn't even understand the problem we have here. Which is understandable, because they are archivists, not jurists, and normally wouldn't bother with copyright at all. --Rosenzweig τ 18:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree with @Rosenzweig. From my perspective, the question is more about TOO. Gnom (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Carlos Donoso y sus muñecos.png

I spoke with both the photographer and his son at the time (the image is part of a family photo). The puppets were crafted by the same person who appears in the image, and he personally granted the usage rights. The logistics were somewhat complex, as it required explaining to the son (who uploaded the image to Commons on behalf of the author) how to do it properly and guiding him through the site's policies. This is a well-known individual who has a Wikipedia article. I strongly recommend the restoration of this image. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Wilfredor, in the case of o photo of an artwork, we need permission from both the artist and the photographer. Can you ask them both to send a permission to the support team, via permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? They can use Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator to create their permission mail. – Having received the proper permissions, the support team can successfully demand restauration. Cheers, Mussklprozz (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in that time the person passed away Wilfredor (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Wilfredor, that is really sad. Are there heirs who can take over the baton? The son? Mussklprozz (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Es war derselbe Sohn, der das Foto gemacht und hochgeladen hat. Ich habe seit drei Jahren keinen Kontakt mehr zu ihm, da ich ihn nur speziell für dieses Foto kontaktiert habe. Es handelt sich um sehr bekannte Personen, die schwer erreichbar sind. Da er das Bild selbst unter der richtigen Lizenz hochgeladen hat, halte ich es für überflüssig und bürokratisch, ihn zusätzlich um eine schriftliche Bestätigung per E-Mail zu bitten Wilfredor (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

 Question en que año publicaron la fotografía?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Translation for English speaking admins: It was the same son who took the photo and uploaded it. I haven't had any contact with him for three years, as I only contacted him specifically for this photo. The people in question are very well known and difficult to reach. Since he uploaded the picture himself under the correct licence, I think it would be superfluous and bureaucratic to ask him for additional written confirmation by email. Mussklprozz (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Can some admin please temporarily undelete the image? I would like to check the file description and history. If I find it okay, i think we can accept Wilfredor's argument above. I would write an artwork template in connection with a heirs-license into the file description. --Mussklprozz (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mussklprozz: {{Temporarily undeleted}} Yann (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Mussklprozz/Yann, for taking on this case and I really appreciate it! 🙏 Just a quick heads-up, I noticed that the image had been deleted when I checked my restored version and saw that the source link was showing up in red. Wilfredor (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Support I think the arguments of User:Wilfredor are legit, but the VRT ticket granting the permission will be ideal --Ezarateesteban 21:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Ezarate for take a look Wilfredor (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: I think @Krd: didn't see this discussion and accidentally deleted it. --Wilfredor (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Supposed duplicates

• File:Советский проспект, 115, Ульяновка, ЛО 05.jpg (del) -> File:Советский проспект, 115, Ульяновка, ЛО 03.jpg
• File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 18.jpg (del) -> File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 17.jpg
• File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 13.jpg (del) -> File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 10.jpg
• File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 12.jpg (del) -> File:Саблинский водопад и около 1 апреля 2025, 09.jpg

Túrelio deleted them by suggestion of OptimusPrimeBot. I asked him to show me the files, because I check what I upload and so many duplicates seem like not my mistake. He says that bot can not be mistaken, but I also know that I regularly get mistakes during uploading; I didn't pay too much attention, but maybe it is related. So I suggest that something happens during uploading -> problems with metadata -> problems with OptimusPrimeBot (I am sorry for 'something', I will pay more attention and will use phabricator after the next uploading). Please, take a look. Анастасия Львова^ru/en 08:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I had the 1st file already undeleted, as an example. It is clearly a duplicate of the paired file. --Túrelio (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about the 1st. Did you recheck others? Анастасия Львова^ru/en 12:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

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:Speculative restoration of Siamosaurus suteethorni based on the tooth from Sao Khua Formation.png and File:Garudapfossil.jpg

Good to see User_talk:DinoThaiThai_Chatchy. The removal was unjustified. These images were deleted due to copyvio templates by User:shizhao. However, the website link provided as evidence of copyvio is invalid as it was added after the images were uploaded. First image was already used in 2022, but the link shizhao proposed was from 2023. Second image os uploaded in March 31st, website they proposed is from April 3rd. Therefore, I believe the removal of these images was unjustified and they can be reinstated. There is a testimony on the talk page from uploader DinoThaiThai Chatchy, but if more solid evidence is needed, should contact the uploader. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

•  Support evidence has been presented that the claims of prior upload were incorrect, and therefore the images should be reinstated unless proper evidence can be found that they are copyvios. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose restoration of the first image. There are two copyrights here -- one for the image and one for the sculpture/reconstruction. While we have a request which covers the first of these, there is no mention of the copyright for the sculpture. The file does not tell us where the sculpture is, so it is possible that Freedom of Panorama might apply, but that must be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Given that this was posted for a Thai competition and the site that was supposedly a copyvio was also Thai, FOP in Thailand would seem logical here. Abzeronow (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Thailand is probable, although not certain. Thai FoP requires that it was in public place when photographed, but permanent installation is not required. We need to know where this photograph was taken. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward permanence is required. According to @Paul 012 at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prince Dipangkorn Rasmijoti poster for mother's milk.jpg, the original Thai version included a Thai term which translates as "regularly", but "regularly" is missing from most unofficial translations like those held by WIPO. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'd rather support undeletion but opening up a regular deletion request on the basis of being suspected recent works of taxidermy/anthropological reconstructions, and DR history of Wikimedia Commons shows many of the more notable recent taxidermies are found in countries that either have no indoor FoP (e.g. Germany and Netherlands) or no FoP at all (whether complete or partial, like the United States or France); see this and this for the case of hominid reconstructions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Although most seems against first file, but what about second one? Siamosaurus have multiple images on Commons so hopefully fine without it, but fossil image of Garudapterus would be needed, so want to hear opinion. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ta-tea-two-te-to we need to review the existing images on a case-to-case basis, to be sure that the images show either very old reconstructions or newer reconstructions that aren't creative enough to meet the COM:Threshold of originality. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 Hmm, you're not mistaken? The first file was an illustration. It was probably a work licensed by the uploader themselves or someone related to them. It was same time uploaded with File:Life restoration of Thaisaurus chonglakmanii in Chaiburi Formation.png, which shows "Own work". But anyway, I meant there are freely usable Siamosaurus images on Commons, as they were created by the uploaders themselves. Examples by User:PaleoGeekSquared: However, File:Siamosaurus_suteethorni_sculpture_Phu_Wiang_Dinosaur_Museum.jpg and File:Siamosaurus_suteethorni_model.jpg may questionable as those are models in museum or somewhere. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

By the way, in what country is the reconstruction of the second file located? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

It was not reconstruction, it was the image of hand holding fossil holotype. According to talk page, this photograph is taken by Dr. Sita Manitkoom who described it, and uploader claims got permission. It is from a video that user related to uploader uploaded. (5:04) This user appears to have a Facebook account in addition to YouTube, but I managed to get in touch with them by commenting on YouTube. The website cited as evidence of copyright violation cites Commons link, yet evidence that the images were copied from this site is contradictory. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

After comment in this video, it is probably better to contact Facebook account to clarify about copyright of that photograph. Unfortunately I don't have Facebook account, so hope someone else better at Commons and have account can do. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can there is not actually any indication the Garudapterus image was a copyright violation, so I don't see why it shouldn't be restored unless anybody can bring anything else to the table. It'd be very appreciated to have back on the page. LittleLazyLass (talk) 23:26, 2 May 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:حسن البيجو.jpg

Photo rights have been added under my username (ARABXOOPS) at the same link, please take a look.

https://www.facebook.com/elbejoo/photos/%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%83-%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%83-%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%B4-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D9%88-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%83-%D8%A3%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%B6%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%B5%D9%8A%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B4-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%83-%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D9%84%D9%88-%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%83-%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%AC-%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D9%82/997644375136084/?_rdr — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARABXOOPS (talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

File:LulaLevy.jpg

I am the original author of File:LulaLevy.jpg. I uploaded it on April 12, 2025, but it was deleted on April 20 due to missing license. That was an omission on my part. I confirm that I took the photo myself and release it under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0). I kindly request undeletion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonterski (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Banfield: , who tagged this as not having a source. Thuresson (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Simonterski: The actual problem was not the license, by lack of camera metadata in EXIF. Can you upload the original photo version from your camera as an evidence of your authorship? We generall do not accept photos without EXIF metadata as Own work. Ankry (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I  Strong oppose the last statement because in some countries or for some people it is necessary to remove the EXIF data for privacy and security  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   00:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The deletion reason was for lack of license. I don't think we require EXIF, though it can help show that the uploader owns the copyright in case a file is previously published elsewhere on the internet (without EXIF). The real solution for that latter issue though is the COM:VRT process. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Blutowindow.png copyright was not renewed.

Bluto and many other Thimble Theatre characters are already in the public domain due to the strips from late 1930-1936 and maybe upward not renewing their copyright: Commons:Character copyrights

Bluto's debut strip was not renewed in 1959 and 1960 same for Wimpy's in 1958 and 1959. Swee'Pea, Poopdeck Pappy and Eugene The Jeep same for Alice the Goon's debut strips also never renewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:e00:83f0:3cf9:5606:3cbd:15a2 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

 Comment This request probably concerns all files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bluto. Yann (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Infrogmation and Nosferattus: for deleting admin and nominator. Yann (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Signature (this is texted from a school computer): Zig-Zag. 63.81.59.162 13:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Record 2023.svg

Apparently, the result of discussion regarding the deletion of (File:Record 2023.svg) in November 2023 was flawed (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Record 2023 with wordmark.png which also nominated an SVG). Brazil has very high threshold of originality per COM:TOO Brazil, and i'm sure the logo falls below TOO in the country. The DR sadly didn't mentioned how higher TOO does in Brazil. So, I suggested that the SVG file to be undeleted and place COM:TOO Brazil notice in file description (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Record News 2023.svg for similar outcome). Please note that the SVG file mentioned is 2D version, not more complex 3D one (which is PNG). --Yayan550 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know enough about ToO Brazil to comment about it. Someone familiar with it should add a variety of examples of acceptable works at COM:TOO Brazil, as the text description is not nearly as easy to use as examples. See COM:TOO US for good examples.

I note that it says there,

"Not OK .... Works from other countries which are above the threshold of originality of the United States but below the threshold of originality of the source country (Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc.)"

That seems to apply here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Peter_Hilton_Signature.png

Good morning,

I was just wondering if it might be possible to request an undeletion of this file. Admittedly, I am still quite new to Wikipedia in the grand-scheme of things and am almost figuring things out as I go. I reviewed a comment on my talk page by User:Yann which indicated to me at the time that the copyright status wasn't clear and that further clarification was needed.

In response to this I believe I did make a slight amendment to the file(s) (see also File:Richard_Hilton_ Signature.png). However, I apologize if this wasn't sufficient, with this in mind I was wondering if the file could be undeleted so that I can rectify any errors that still persist to hopefully resolve and clear up any concerns regarding the lack of license/ copyright information?

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance with this.

--MilsMoose (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

 Comment For copyright on signatures, please see Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. Yann (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay thank you for sharing this. I apologize again for not checking that before uploading. MilsMoose (talk) 06:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Arkarn2.jpg

This picture was wrongly nominated for deletion. It's a high-res one with full EXIF attached and was in no way copied from FB or Insta. 0x0a (talk) 05:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Weak oppose Due to unresolved issues in COM:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ผม เอง I do not think that we can rely on Own work declaration by this user. COM:AGF applies only to users who do not provide false or incorrect information. Ankry (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Rainforest-Wild-Asia.svg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Rainforest-Wild-Asia.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image. This image could be placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Rainforest Wild, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. KaiGoesMandai (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@KaiGoesMandai: This is unrelated to deletion reason. The reason is serious doubt whether you are the logo author as you claimed and whether you are its copyright holder who is authorized to grant a license. Providing false or incorrect information is serious violation of Commons policy. We cannot rely on any declaration by users who do so. Ankry (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

In that case, should the logos for the other parks in Mandai be deleted as well, namely Singapore Zoo logo 2021.svg, Night Safari logo 2021.svg, River Wonders logo 2021.svg, and Bird Paradise logo.svg? I am new, and apologize for being unfamiliar with how things work. KaiGoesMandai (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

First, note that pointing out that other problems may exist is never a reason to deal incorrectly with the problem at hand. Commons has more than 100 million images and my best guess is that at least a million of them should probably be deleted. As it happens, the four logos you mention are all kept on the English Wikipedia where they have Fair Use rationales. It would be good if both the subject logo and the four on WP:EN were all here on Commons. For that to happen an authorized representative of the copyright holder must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Σπύρος και Μιμή Κυπριανού 1981.jpg

https://athena.cut.ac.cy/files/original/965ec3cf77e2e2c70c1acd57bee4ef3d57762af5.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPalates2001 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

We need a reason for undeletion. Abzeronow (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Ahmed magdy 3295

Please restore the following pages:

• File:لما جبريل أثناء تقديم إحدى حلقات بودكاست حكايات مع لما.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:الإعلامية نهى درويش.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:لما جبريل.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:لما جبريل خلال عملها كمتحدثة رسمية لمهرجان العلمين الجديدة.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: per ticket:2025051010003163. They are probably duplicate files (reuploaded by author multiple times). See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:الإعلامية نهى درويش - العلمين الجديدة.jpg. Nemoralis (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done per VRT volunteer request. @Nemoralis: Please, add the permission template or request {{Speedy}}. Ankry (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Перец.png

Hello there! I have to write media file deletion appeal. It shows logo of one of the Russian's TV channels: «Pepper». I changed to better one, but it has been deleted on the next day by Yann. I don't know, why did he deleted that logo, because «Pepper» stopped broadcasting in 2015 and it has been replaced by «Che». Also, people used that logo many times and they didn't have any problems with copyright. Write back. Best wishes, KirillkaKrokodilkaGoida.

Здравствуйте! Я вынужден писать апелляцию, т.к. картинку с логотипом телеканала «Перец» удалил некий Yann. Я решил поменять логотип с статье про этот канал на вариант получше, но менее, чем через сутки картинка была удалена. Я без понятия, почему так произошло, ведь «Перец» прекратил вещание ещё в 2015 году, уступив частоту телеканалу «Че». Также я видел многих людей, использующих этот логотип в своих видео про телеканал. Я не помню, чтобы у них возникали проблемы с АП. Жду ответ. Всего наилучшего, КириллкаКрокодилкаГойда. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirillkaKrokodilkaGoida (talk • contribs) 07:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Uploaded without a license template. Please ask the copyright owner to follow the instructions at Commons:VRT to show that he or she allows anybody to use this logo for any purpose. Thuresson (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Leeds Knights Logo FINAL 300dpi RGB copy.png

I have permission from the team to use it on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8930Hockey (talk • contribs) 09:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Permission to use on Wikipedia only is not acceptable. Please ask a legal representative of the team to follow the instructions at Commons:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

File:蚌埠市司法局 关于规范出具律师事务所函的通知.jpg

As suggested in the title "Notice by Bengbu Municipal Bureau of Justice on Regulating the Issuance of Law Firm Letters", it is a {{PD-PRC-exempt}} work. I think I just forget to correct the template. 虹易 (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Tongjunyap99.jpg

This is a photo taken with my own mobile phone. It is the personal copyright of the photographer, so there is no need to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HadTis (talk • contribs) 12:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)