Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

Current requests

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  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  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  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/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)
    @Liuxinyu970226: Do you volunteer to fix them in 24h following the undeletion? It is not admin role to do so. It is the requester role (or someone who want to support them). Ankry (talk) 10:22, 20 July 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)
  • I have never used VFC, can you do it, once restored? It looks like I fixed File:RHurtley.jpg, and a few others, then could not figure out how to automate the process, back at the original nomination. --RAN (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
  • @Jameslwoodward: Will you use VFC to make the needed changes, at the last deletion I worked on a few by hand and it would be easier automated. I have never used VFC before. See above where they will restore if fixed within 24 hours. --RAN (talk) 00:00, 29 July 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)
 Support There are two stories about the origin of the logo.
  1. According to the company's official explanation, it was designed by Philip Jaisohn (1864–1951) in 1925 and adopted as the company’s logo in 1926. https://yuhan.co.kr/introduce/Promote/CI/ → {{PD-South Korea}}
  2. Another theory is that it was designed based on Ilhan New's surname (柳). https://yakup.com/news/index.html?mode=view&nid=248726 → {{PD-South Korea-anon}} or {{PD-South Korea-organization}} (the latter would be better, imo)
Regardless of which is correct, the current logo is in the public domain in both South Korea and the US.--Namoroka (talk) 05:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

File:1986 Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

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

File:Ethnic groups of Afghanistan by district, detailed.svg

Hallo @Hakaped, leider war ich die ganze Woche mit einem Umzug beschäftigt, daher bin ich nicht dazu gekommen, das zu kommentieren. Die Quellen meiner Informationen hatte ich ja bereits angegeben, das Zusammenstellen der Karte selbst habe ich erledigt. Das gilt im Übrigen auch für die anderen Dateien mit dem Titel "Ethnic groups of Afghanistan by district", die ich selbst erstellt habe. Daher bitte wiederherstellen.--SdHb (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. There is no credit or source given for the base map. It is hard to believe that the uploader drew this from scratch. The file was deleted as "no source", but the uploader references Districts of Afghanistan#List of districts, but enclosed the reference only in [[x]] so the reference shows up as a non-existent Commons Gallery page rather than a link to WP:EN.

If we can confirm that the base map is freely licensed, then this page took a lot of work and would be useful to those interested in Afghanistan. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Interwiki prefix titles and all associated redirects

I created this page in the past and redirected technical redirects from Wikipedia to this page, because Meta has the same. I changed the target of the previous redirect Real to Commons:Interwiki prefix titles because for technical reasons, "C:Real" on English Wikipedia redirects to this wiki, and I did the same for C: The Contra Adventure. For technical reasons, interwiki hard redirects aren't allowed. I don't see any other redirects from ENWP that could do this, but we could do this to pages on other wikis, too. Faster than Thunder (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

 Info I do not think that this page needs to be undeleted: it may be recreated if it is in COM:SCOPE.  No opinion in this matter, however. Ankry (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Interwiki prefix titles on Meta is an operational page, and "Allowable page/gallery/category content" includes "Operational pages, such as templates and the like, including Commons-operational program listings." The Commons page got deleted with the reason, "That's not the way it works," and redirects to that page were deleted as cross-namespace redirects. Faster than Thunder (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Popeye-floor-flusher.jpg

As said copyright on Bluto was not renewed  REAL 💬 ⬆   16:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Abzeronow and Krd: as the deletion nominator and the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
My information at the time said that Bluto's copyright was in fact renewed. Abzeronow (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: In Commons:Character copyrights, Bluto is mentioned as "not renewed". So? Yann (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Character copyrights can be difficult -- they don't expire all at once usually. Each time a new cartoon or episode or movie or whatever uses a character, and adds more details to their backstory or changes a drawing style or things like that, it sort of creates a new derivative work of the character. The copyright to the new details lasts 95 years from that date. So, characters don't expire all at once -- they expire bit by bit as each work that added detail or changed things expires. The original Mickey Mouse movie has expired, but lots of later details and appearance changes have not. I don't know how reliable it is, but https://pdsh.fandom.com/wiki/Bluto seems to say the original appearance comic was not renewed. But, it sounds like the character was altered in 1933, and those don't seem to be listed in the "public domain appearances". So if there are significant 1933 changes still under copyright, and this image incorporates those, there would be a problem. If this is the 1932 original, it would seem to be OK. I don't really know a lot about the history of that character. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Alejo Igoa 2024 Retrato.jpg

I kindly request the undeletion of the file File:Alejo Igoa 2024 Retrato.jpg.

This image is a portrait photograph that I **took myself**, and I am the copyright holder. At the time of upload, I released the image under the **Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)** license, allowing for free use, redistribution, and modification, including for commercial and educational purposes.

The image was intended for use on the Wikipedia page of Alejo Igoa as an infobox profile photo, which is a valid and educational use consistent with Commons policy.

I am willing to re-upload the image if needed, clearly marking the license and providing all required information.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Alexrod1 (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Alexrod1, the file was deleted as a personal photo from a non contributor. There is only one WP article on Alejo Igoa, Alejo Igoa, but the photo there shows black hair. The subject image shows a blond. However, I also note that the subject image was removed from that article when the image was deleted. Are the two images the same person? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, he has some blonde hair on newer images, see his instagram account. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 23:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Found the image. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 00:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Hello, yes, it is the same person. He uses black hair and also blond hair as someone commented above. Could you undelete the image please? Let me know if it is possible. Thank you so much in advance. Alexrod1 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Files uploaded by 917ph

"According to Articles 41 and 42 of the Copyright Act of South Korea, under the jurisdiction of the Government of the South Korea, a work made for hire or a cinematographic work enter the public domain 70 years after it has been made public. (30 years before July 1987, 50 years before July 2013)". So films published before 1957 should be in the public domain.  REAL 💬 ⬆   20:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@999real: According to COM:South Korea and {{PD-Korea}} non-retroativity of 2013 law applies if the author died before 1953. It is not clear if the same rule apples to works for hire. Does the law explicitly state that if copyright expired before 2013, it was not restored also in other cases? Ankry (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it sounds quite clear:
1987 - This Act shall not apply to those works or parts of such works in which copyright has been expired in whole or in part, and which have not been protected by the provisions of the former Act before the enforcement of this Act.
2013 - 제3조(적용 범위에 관한 경과조치) 이 법 시행 전에 종전의 규정에 따라 저작권, 그 밖에 이 법에 따라 보호되는 권리의 전부 또는 일부가 소멸하였거나 보호를 받지 못한 저작물등에 대하여는 그 부분에 대하여 이 법을 적용하지 아니한다. (This Act shall not apply to works, etc. for which all or part of the copyright or other rights protected by this Act were extinguished or were not protected pursuant to previous provisions prior to the enforcement of this Act.)  REAL 💬 ⬆   15:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of the Sancti Spiritus Province.svg

I wrongfully nominated this file for deletion. The coat of arms is also the CoA of the city of Sancti Spiritus.

The file got deleted for both "wrong authorship and license" and "Cuban government works are perpetually copyrighted". This specific CoA was created 21 Feb 1911 by the Sancti Spiritus City Council (), although the actually oval shield of the file was taken from File:Escudo de Sancti Spíritus (1823).jpg, made 3 March 1823 also by the city council, either way it falls under Template:PD-US, and for Cuba the Template:PD-Cuba in the Anonymous section, since the people that were apart of either council at the time are unidentified, so it would be +50+1. Once reuploaded I will fix the authorship and license.

For the "Cuban government works are perpetually copyrighted", the Cuban copyright law only states that works by the "Estado" (state), which is the central government of Cuba. The law doesn't mention any local government (including city council) works.

CubanoBoi (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Minecraft Marketplace logo.png

Deleted as clear violation (F1), despite clearly being a pd-textlogo.

The font is too simple to be copyrighted, the rectangular shape and gold gradient don't adhere to TOO either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabmasterars (talk • contribs) 10:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: as deleting admin. Yann (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
If Mojang Studios were US based, I would support that. By as they are Swedish, I have doubts. Ankry (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
 Info See COM:TOO Sweden where the text logo for en:Entombed (logo here) was considered by a court of law to be above TOO. Thuresson (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
I think, that the above example is not helpful here: the Minecraft logo is much simpler than the Entombed's one. However doubts remain. Ankry (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Ric Flair Big Gold NWA 1988 colored.png

@Abzeronow This was deleted because of the following copyright registrations made in 1992 ( Commons:Deletion requests/Professional wrestling magazines and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Sismarinho):

  1. V2833P041 for GC London Publishing, which covers the following titles:
    1. Inside wrestling
    2. Victory sports series
    3. World boxing
    4. Wrestling superstars
    5. The Wrestler
  2. V2833P043 for TV Sports Inc / GC London Publishing
    1. KO magazine
    2. Pro wrestling

but this was from "Wrestling's Main Event" which is not one of the listed magazines. I am also not sure that these were registrations at all, they are listed as "Recordation" not "Registration" and "Notes": "Assignment of copyright" between 2 parties. There would have been 4 years of valid copyrights to transfer since 1989, plus whatever issues were published with a valid notice.  REAL 💬 ⬆   23:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Hasan md shahriare profile pic.jpg

I am Hasan Md. Shahriare, a published researcher and CTO of Magnetism Tech Limited. My Wikidata item is Q135092463, which references my peer-reviewed IEEE publication (Q135179996).

I am both the subject and original photographer of the image. I re-uploaded the photo with a valid license (CC0 1.0) and added a neutral caption for Wikimedia-wide educational use, not self-promotion. The image is intended for use in my Wikidata item and possible future biographical content on Wikipedia and other projects.

I request that the deletion be reconsidered as the image supports an existing, notable Wikidata item with academic context and satisfies COM:SCOPE and licensing guidelines.

Thank you.

--Hasanshahriare (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support Automatically in scope per COM:INUSE on Wikidata: d:Q135092463. The page is currently nominated for deletion with one keep !vote stating that it fulfills d:Wikidata:Notability#3 (fulfills a structural need), and I tend to agree; he is the author of d:Q135179996, which is inherently notable per d:Wikidata:Notability#2 as a publicly available scholarly work. Therefore, I expect the WD entry to be kept, and this image can be readded to that page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Let's wait here for a decision in Wikidata. Ankry (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Old Front Nationale Logo.svg

This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain just like the current Rassemblement National logo on wikimedia. --Ryegun (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Old Front Nationale Logo.svg. Thuresson (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
If this logo is considered to meet the threshold of originality, why are similar, unlicensed logos (kept under the PD‑textlogo rationale) treated differently? Commons policy (e.g. COM:TOO, COM:L, COM:LOGO) requires files to be free in both the source country and the U.S. If this file is copyrightable under that standard, shouldn’t the same reasoning apply to comparable cases? I’d appreciate clarification on which specific elements here are deemed original and how that differs from other retained logos. Ryegun (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Not simply geometric shapes. Sources are:
SVG derived from: Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg. France has a lower ToO than Italy. Abzeronow (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Comment: There are a few aspects that seem somewhat nebulous in that deletion request. I can't view the deleted file as such, so please tell me if I'm missing something. From what the uploader says, their file File:Old Front Nationale Logo.svg is essentially a copy of the file File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg, with only the colour green changed to blue and the letters MSI at the bottom changed to FN (the result looking something like this). Whatever the copyright status of the basic design of the original file (File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg) might be, most people would probably say that the small changes (colour and letters), are not copyrightable as such, in Italy nor in France. One argument of the nominator of the DR seems to imply that the basic design, which is essentially identical in the two files (excepted for the small uncopyrightable changes mentioned), would be below the threshold of originality in Italy but would be above the threshold of originality in France. I'm not sure that we can really make such a distinction between those two countries. It would seem more consistent to treat those two quasi identical files in the same manner. If File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg is PD-textlogo, then so should the other file. Anyway, another question is why France would enter into consideration in relation with this design and Commons policy. The design being of Italian origin, and the changes being uncopyrightable, then logically the country of reference for the possibly copyrighted work, i.e. the design, is therefore still Italy. A third question is, in the hypothesis that the design would be copyrightable, what would be the year of expiration of the copyright? Probably not the years mentioned in the DR. According to File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg, the author of the design would be Giorgio Almirante, a MSI founder whose life years are 1914-1988. So, if that attribution is correct, and if the design is even copyrightable anywhere, be it in Italy or in France, then the year of expiration of the copyright would be 2059. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose. I have no idea why the Italian version is accepted on Commons, but this is certainly complex enough to have a copyright in France. Now if it was created before 1955, it may be in the public domain in France, but that remains to be proved. Yann (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
BTW Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of Movimento Sociale Italiano. Yann (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
But for the policy of Commons, the only two relevant countries for a work of Italian origin are the United States and Italy. So, the only question is if it is freely usable or not in the United States and in Italy. That it (and any minor variation of it) might be freely usable or not in China, France, Egypt or other countries does not enter into consideration for Commons. It seems that the original was created circa 1947 (it:Fiamma tricolore). Contributors of Commons have made various slightly different redrawings. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
I mostly agree. So PD-France may be OK, but PD-textlogo is certainly not. Idem for the Italian version. Yann (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

File:The Book of Börk.png

Originally posted at https://www.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/trfkr/join_with_your_ideas_for_rpolandballs/. The copyright holder of that image was the one who uploaded the image to Commons, so they are free to license the file under whatever they want.--Thegoofhere (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate how that image is in COM:SCOPE? I fail to see how it is. Bedivere (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
For one, "Bork Bork" is a common word used by Sweden in the comics, so this could be used for illustrating that. Plus, many other files are deriatives of this image Thegoofhere (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
 Info I'm Swedish and there is no such word in the Swedish language. Thuresson (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
I know Thegoofhere (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Meshki.jpg

I used a Song Cover to Reffer to the artist that made the song and i had permission for that because it was the song cover and i used it to edit the artist wiki page as i can't link out of the wiki site as a picture The Artist Name Is Meshki or Danial Tazad — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBF1390 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion. The current backlog at VRT is 5 days. . --Yann (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Waldemar rosenthal.jpg

I misundestood the authorship with ownership. This picture was taken in 1953 by an unknown person contracted to take pictures at his wedding. Once paid the fee, the ownership became his and he gave the picture to be scanned. I don't know how to label this the correct way but I did not take this picture, solely own it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axrosenthal (talk • contribs) 20:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Axrosenthal: Why would a couple getting married hire an unknown person to take their wedding photos? Or perhaps you meant that you don't know? Which name is in the contract? This looks like a professional photo made at a photo studio. Thuresson (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
This picture was taken at his house by a professional photographer whose name is unknown. Once paid the photography belongs to him who asked me to scan it for him. 47.187.180.114 16:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
 Oppose If the copyright was transferred, this must be proved via COM:VRT. It obviously can't be if you don't know the photographer. Yann (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
my sincere apologies but I do not know what else to say to prove the picture is mine and no one else has it. His wedding was in 1953 and both are now deceased so I cannot even inquiry what company was contracted to take pictures of their wedding. Normally one contracts a photographer from various sites and sign a contract to do a number of pictures for the event. Once the event is done and the pictures selected, we pay the photographer and he handes back the pictures. It was like that for my son's bar mitzvah and I do not even know who took the pictures. All I know is that we own the pictures both in print and in jpg and If I have to prove these are mine I have zero means to find out who took the pictures in 2017 let alone an event that happened in 1953. What else do I need to do? I am ok with what other old pictures describe as copyright such as "By Unknown author - Correio da Manhã/Arquivo Nacional., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12303324". Why is that my picture differs from this one fetched from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_in_World_War_II#/media/File:Vapor_Baependi.jpg ?
Please educate us in order for us to do the right thing. Yall are editors but I am a novice in this platform and for the life of me cannot comprehend why everything is so difficult to get done at wikipedia. Axrosenthal (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
@Axrosenthal: It doesn't matter that you have a copy, even if no one else has one. The copyright is owned by default by the photographer, and can only be transferred in writing. If the photographer is dead, the copyright is owned by the photographer's heirs. Please see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Brazil for more details on copyright in Brazil.
So this is probably an {{Orphan work}}. I have supported keeping such works, but others may disagree.
And there are some specific for pictures from Brazil. Let's see what others say. Yann (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
@Axrosenthal: Hello, The issue is not the ownership of the photo "in print and in jpg", it is the ownership of the copyright (direitos patrimoniais do autor) on the photo. The person who hired the photographer knew who he hired. Unfortunately he did not tell you who it was, but that is not the problem of the photographer. Each country has its own copyright law. The laws can differ as to the rules to determine who owns the copyright. Is that in Brasil? The current text of the law says "A aquisição do original de uma obra, ou de exemplar, não confere ao adquirente qualquer dos direitos patrimoniais do autor, salvo convenção em contrário entre as partes e os casos previstos nesta Lei." It is possible that the person who hired the photographer acquired the copyright by contract, but that is not automatic. That is why people request evidence of what the terms of the contract were. "somente se admitirá transmissão total e definitiva dos direitos mediante estipulação contratual escrita;" In some countries, older versions of the laws attributed by default the copyright to the person who hired the photographer. I don't know if that may have been the case in Brasil in 1953. But apparently not the present law. Other files on Commons may have "unknow authors" for various reasons related to the actual circumstances in each case and the laws of the countries. Sometimes it is with works that are in the public domain anyway, so it does not matter for patrimonial rights. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Orphan works may be hosted here if they are 120+ years old. So in 2074 for a 1953 photo. Ankry (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Rachel Medina.jpg

This is an official image of a public figure (Rachel Medina), used on her verified Wikidata entity for public verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelmedina (talk • contribs) 22:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

 Info Rachel Medina (Q135485238) has been nominated for deletion. Thuresson (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Let's wait for a decision in this DR. Ankry (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Jarnail-singh-2025.jpg

I am the original creator of this image and the copyright holder.

  • Source: {{Own}}
  • Author: User:YourUsername
  • Licensing: {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (or {{Cc-zero}} if you want to release all rights)

Please undelete the file as all required copyright and licensing details are now provided.

SManik (talk) 06:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@SManik: Small resolution images, images without EXIF camera metadata, or images published elsewhere cannot be uploaded as Own work. Ankry (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Huzenix.png

I request undeletion of this file. This image is my own original work and created by me (Mohd Huzaifa). It does not violate any copyright and I am the sole owner of the image. I am willing to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

If there was any issue in the previous upload, I am happy to fix it and provide verification if needed.

Thank you. --Mohdhuzaifa160 (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mohdhuzaifa160: The deletion wa unrelated to copyright. The logo was deleted as out of Wikimedia Commons scope. Ankry (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Nate Y. Sharp Headshot June 2025.jpg

Reason for being deleted states that there is not a license for the photo, but this is my own photo. Please let me know what I need to do to get this reposted! Thank you. --BrookeatMays (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose © 2025 All Rights Reserved Mays Business School Texas A&M University at tamu.edu. Thuresson (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

File:甘崇緯於民主行動隊在台中公園記者會發言.png

{{CC-BY-4.0}}

 Oppose This is not an original photo. Evidence of freely licensed source is needed, t\not a license declaration by the uploader. Ankry (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Flags

These files were originally uploaded by a user who did not provide a source, then deleted as fiction/vandalism in a mass deletion of unverified files. I will add the sources myself after they are restored. I want to restore some of them that are real and useful. I hope I do not have to write about each file individually.

TheFlagsFimer (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Flags

These files were originally uploaded by a user who did not provide a source, then deleted as fiction/vandalism in a mass deletion of unverified files. I will add the sources myself after they are restored. I want to restore some of them that are real and useful. I hope I do not have to write about each file individually.

TheFlagsFimer (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Seals

These files were originally uploaded by a user who did not provide a source, then deleted as fiction/vandalism in a mass deletion of unverified files. I will add the sources myself after they are restored. I want to restore some of them that are real and useful. I hope I do not have to write about each file individually.

TheFlagsFimer (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Undelete ao univ professores eleonora witoszynskyj.jpg [[:{{{1}}}]]

Hallo, bitte um Wiederherstellung von ao univ professores eleonora witoszynskyj.jpg Das Foto wurde von meinem Bruder Nikolaus Witoszynskyj gemacht. Er ist wie ich ein Sohn von https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleonore_Witoszynskyj und hat das Foto hier zur freien Verwendung für alle zur Verfügung gestellt. Welche Infos fehlen noch? Danke und liebe Grüße — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwito2 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Dracena guyanská.jpg

Also: File:Holoubek diamantový.jpg

VRT permission received --Gampe (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Commons pages with broken file links