Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page

Shortcut: COM:UNDEL · COM:UR · COM:UD · COM:DRV

Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎svenska • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎پښتو • ‎中文 • ‎日本語

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Commons deletion (policy)

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

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.

Projects that accept fair use

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit


File: Georges Rutten, portret in olieverf op paneel. Peinture Bogaerts, ca. 1900-1902.jpg

The author of this painting is unknown, but not the art studio where it was made : Bogaerts Bruxelles (the Belgian branch of the Dutch parent company Peinture Bogaerts). The painting has been signed Bogaerts Bruxelles. So, the signature Bogaerts does not refer to an individual artist, but refers to the art studio/workshop where it was made. Therefore the painting is actually anonymous; the actual painter can not be traced. Anonymous works from 1900 - 1902 are in public domain because of their age. --Ronny MG (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ronny MG:, bedoel je dit schilderij? :-) Lotje (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Ja, het signatuur linksonderaan luidt Bogaerts Bruxelles, wat duidelijk verwijst naar een atelier, niet naar een individueel kunstschilder. Anders zou Bogaerts vooraf gegaan zijn door minstens de eerste letter (hoofdletter) van een voornaam.--Ronny MG (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Het komt wel goed. :-) Lotje (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Reluctant Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It's not anonymous, it's a painting by Hubert Bogaerts. Commons can accept works from named authors that we don't have the death date 120 years from creation, so I'd support restoration in 2023. Abzeronow (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


The name Hubert Bogaerts is not mentionned on the painting, on the contrary, the signature says Bogaerts Bruxelles, clearly referring to the art studio, not to an individual artist. --Ronny MG (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are two real possibilities here and one incorrect one:

First possibility, this is the work of Hubert Bogaerts. If that is the case, then, since we do not know his death date, PRP requires that we assume that he lived to a reasonable old age. He was born in 1869, so if he lived past age 80, this is still under copyright.
Second possibility, this is the work of his studio. If that is the case, then the work is under copyright until 70 years after the death of the last member of the studio to die. That is surely later than 1949.
Third, incorrect, possibility, this is an anonymous work. This is incorrect because the fact that we do not know the names of the studio members, does not make this "anonymous". In copyright law, the fact that a work's creator is unknown does not make it an anonymous work. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the work qualifies as "anonymous". In that case the work becomes PD 70 years after it was first lawfully communicated to the public. However, it is entirely possible that this work was not published until it appeared here. At the original DR, Ronny MG says,
"By the way, I published the image with permission of the recent owner, who I know personally."
That implies that the painting is now in private hands, which makes it very unlikely that it has ever been owned by an institution and unlikely that it has ever been published. If we consider this possibility (as Ronny MG asks above), then publication before 1949 must be proven.

Thus, whichever of the three possibilities we assume, the work cannot be kept on Commons for at least ten years (first possibility) or much longer in the second and third cases. The only way the image could be restored sooner is if it were proven to have been published before 1949 either in a book or magazine or by exhibition in a public place where copying was permitted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


If it's the work of the studio, then it's not "the last member of the studio to die" -- it's anonymous. The human author had to be named. Publication without attribution is anonymous publication, and it has apparently been signed explicitly with a corporate mark, not human author. The "latest to die" is only for a joint work, i.e. where multiple people are documented as having contributed expression. The fact of someone simply working at the company is irrelevant. If that is the case, then the EU term is 70 years from publication (or actually "communication to the public", which is a much easier standard to obtain), or if never published, then 70 years from creation. For the U.S., the earlier of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation. For an identified human author though, we do need to know the death date. I do find some references of Hubert Bogaerts living at Karlsruherstrasse 14, Berlin-Halensee, and filing a number of patents (usually relating to printing or oil painting, and noting he was a Dutch citizen). The last dates I see from there are 1933 or maybe 1934, so he lived at least that long. So if we are pretty sure he was the author (as opposed to say his brother Henri, who apparently owned the firm and died I think in 1933), perhaps waiting until 2023 would be best (120 years after creation, {{PD-old-assumed}}), unless we can find a death date. If we think it's anonymous though, that it could have been done by any employee of the studio (or even that the author was not identified within the anonymous copyright term), I think it's fine. Dutch law explicitly says the term is the anonymous term when the human author is not actually named on copies communicated to the public, unless the author identified themselves within the 70 year term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


Hubertus Aloisius Henricus Maria Bogaerts (Hubert Bogaerts) was one of four brothers who owned the Dutch company Peinture Bogaerts. In April 1900 he travelled to Brussels to establish a Belgian branch in that city, Bogaerts Bruxelles or Portretten Bogaerts in Dutch or Portraits Bogaerts in French. The names Portretten Bogaerts and Portraits Bogaerts were very frequently mentionned at the top of commercial advertisements in Belgian newspapers, e.g. in the city of Kortrijk between October 1902 and February 1903, where my own great-grandfather (Jan Tremmery) was a representative/salesman of Hubert Bogaerts. Commissionned by Hubert Bogaerts, Jan Tremmery in his store in Kortrijk held permanent exhibitions of oilpaintings made by Bogaerts Bruxelles in order to sell them to the public (beeldbank.kortrijk.be). As far as I know, Bogaerts Bruxelles was the only branch of Peinture Bogaerts in Belgium and my great-grandfather the only representative/salesman in Belgium. On each oilpainting made in Brussels, the signature Bogaerts Bruxelles of the art studio was mentionned, but never the name of an individual artist, making each painting anonymous. Bogaerts Bruxelles stopped its activities at the end of December 1902, when Hubert Bogaerts travelled back to the Netherlands (Boxtel), certainly due to the death of his father Henricus Adrianus Bogaerts (Henri Bogaerts sr.). In the Netherlands, Peinture Bogaerts stayed active until at least 1938. --Ronny MG (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ronny MG claims here: "The name Hubert Bogaerts is not mentionned on the painting, on the contrary, the signature says Bogaerts Bruxelles, clearly referring to the art studio, not to an individual artist", but elsewhere he claims the opposite, see here. He even changed the maker's name on September 24, 2019 and requested to change the name of the file with the name of the creator "Hubert Bogaerts". Gouwenaar (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hubert Bogaerts being the maker of the painting was just a hypothesis, simply because he was the only Bogaerts who was in Belgium between April 1900 and December 1902, the period wherein the painting was made ... Fact remains that the name 'Hubert Bogaerts' is not the signature on the painting, the signature is Bogaerts Bruxelles, clearly refering to the studio ... Whichever artist working for Bogaerts' studio could have made the painting, so, obviously, due to the absence of the name of an individual artist as signature on the painting, the painting is anonymous. Here Taivo (a Wikipedia administrator) maintains in Commons another painting made by the same studio, it has the same signature Bogaerts Bruxelles and it has the same age [1] :

'Behouden, as much as I understand, here 3 Bogaerts all worked in same workshop and signed their works as Bogaerts. Under such circumstances I have feeling, that signature "Bogaerts" does not mean artist, but workshop, and the painting is actually anonymous, because you cannot trace the actual painter. Anonymous works from 1902 are in public domain due to age. Taivo (Overleg) 11:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)'

--Ronny MG (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The assertion "Anonymous works from 1902 are in public domain due to age" is simply wrong. Under Dutch law, unpublished anonymous works are under copyright and remain under copyright until 70 years after publication. Under US law, works by unknown authors unpublished before 2003 remain under copyright until 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation, whichever comes first.

This work is apparently in private hands, which strongly suggests that it was unpublished until it was first uploaded here. It might have appeared in an auction catalog or a book before now, but that must be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Jim, Jim, paintings are usually published on year of creation. The opposite would be very unusual and such claim needs some evidence. I wanted to say "Anonymous works published in 1902 are in public domain due to age". Taivo (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
No, in the Netherlands (like all EU countries), if anonymous works are not communicated to to the public (or published) within 70 years after creation, copyright expires. There is no infinite copyright for unpublished works. In the Netherlands, it would have had to been first communicated to the public between 1950 and 1972 to still be under copyright as an anonymous work -- which is highly unlikely, and extremely theoretical. If it has never been communicated to the public, it is PD in the Netherlands (and the rest of the EU), though not the United States. "Communication to the public" includes public display, so if these were displayed in the store, that likely counted. Most likely, it was published at the time, which would make it PD in the US. The Netherlands does have a clause stating that copies without the naming the author are anonymous, unless the pseudonym leaves no doubt to the authorship (which may be the case here) or the author makes themselves known before the 70 year period is up, in which case it becomes 70pma. Although, it sounds like Belgium may be the country of origin, which doesn't have that explicit "copies with names on them" clause, but otherwise is the same. If "Bogaerts Bruxelles" can be taken as a pseudonym for Hubert Bogaerts though, it could be 70pma, which gets us into the question if we can take PD-old-assumed. If we know of works pre-1900 for him, we would technically allow those under PD-old-assumed, and then it becomes a little silly keeping some of his works based on assumed date of death but not others. On the other hand, living to 80 isn't all that unlikely either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
So, you simply dismiss the conclusion and the decision of another Wikipedia-administrator (Taivo) ? Do you realize, you being a Wikipedia administrator too, that this means Wikipedia contradicts itself ... ? The simple fact that a Wikipedia-administrator retained in Commons a painting with signature Bogaerts Bruxelles dated 1900 -1902 for reasons of anonymity, implies/demands that any other painting (e.g. the painting presenting Georges Rutten) with the same characteristics also has to be retained in Commons ... --Ronny MG (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I made some interwikilinks, to make it easier. :-) Lotje (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@ (Jameslwoodward) : I can proove that the workshop Bogaerts Bruxelles publicly exhibited the paintings that it made. I quote an article in the Belgian newspaper Gazette Van Kortrijk from 4th September 1902 : 'Wij lezen in "Le Patriote" : De zoo beklagensweerdige wed. van Lucas Meyer heeft deze dagen de tentoonstelling van geschilderde kunstportretten van M. Bogaerts, in de Bergstraat No 20, te Brussel, met een bezoek vereerd.' The translation Dutch into English from the words in bold : ' ... the exhibition of painted art portraits from Mister Bogaerts, Bergstraat No. 20, in Brussels, ...' Here [2] is a link to the article (click on the article to enlarge). --Ronny MG (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to believe that the painting was published/lawfully communicated to the public in 1902. I also think COM:PCP would have us treat Hubert Bogaerts as the author. And absent a death date for him, we should wait until 2023 when Commons policy would allow us to restore the painting. But I can also be convinced by Taivo's argument. Abzeronow (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not because Hubert Bogaerts was one of the owners of the workshop Bogaerts Bruxelles that he was the author of the painting. His full name is not mentionned on the painting. Wichever artpainter in service of Bogaerts' workshop could have been the actual maker. Apparantly, they were asked to sign their paintings with the name of the workshop Bogaerts Bruxelles. If the signature ‘’Bogaerts Bruxelles’’ on the painting presenting Guido Gezelle is compared with the signature ‘’Bogaerts Bruxelles’’ on the painting presenting Georges Rutten, we clearly see that the handwritings differ considerably from one another, indicating two different persons/artpainters. --Ronny MG (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The newspaper piece says only that two or more paintings were exhibited. It does not say that this painting was exhibited. That does not get us past "no significant doubt" which is our standard of proof. Also note that it does not speak of paintings from the workshop, but rather "art portraits from Mister Bogaerts" so, again, you are trying to have it both ways == the painting is a work of Bogaerts and the painting is by the workshop. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, Taivo passed "no significant doubt" by keeping the portrait of Guido Gezelle in Commons. This portrait has exactly the same characteristics as the portrait of Georges Rutten : it has exactly the same signature Bogaerts Bruxelles, so it was made by exactly the same workshop and it has exactly the same age. So, if Wikipedia is consistent, then it also has to undelete the portrait of Georges Rutten in Commons.--Ronny MG (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
1) You didn't read the whole article. I quote the last paragraph : 'N.B. Wij vernemen dat op het laatste van deze maand de portretten der Boerengeneraals en dit van president Krüger zullen tentoongesteld worden bij de vertegenwoordiger van het huis Bogaerts, ... The part in bold translated from Dutch into English : ... will be exhibited at the representative of the House Bogaerts. The House Bogaerts = the workshop, not Mister Bogaerts. With "art portraits from Mister Bogaerts" the newspaper of course meant art portraits made by the workshop owned by Mister Bogaerts ... The name The House Bogaerts is mentionned in a number of articles/advertisements in Belgian newspapers, 2) The company Peinture Bogaerts always exhibited every new painting at the shops of its representatives, mostly newspaper stores in the Netherlands, in Belgium in the store of my great-grandfather J. Tremmery-Jacqueloot in the city of Kortrijk (see below in the article), and in the workshop in Brussels, 3) I'm not trying to have it both ways. I said earlier that Hubert Bogaerts being the author is a hypothesis, simply because he was the only Bogaerts in Belgium at that time, 4) fact remains that the signature on the painting is Bogaerts Bruxelles representing the House Bogaerts. The House Bogaerts = the workshop, the signature is not Hubert Bogaerts, making the painting anonymous and while the work was published in 1902 it is in public domain due to age, as your colleague Wikipedia-administrator Taivo very correctly concluded. --Ronny MG (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Here : [3] an advertisement that also mentions the House Bogaerts from Brussels (hence the signature Bogaerts Bruxelles - in French - on the paintings presenting Guido Gezelle and Georges Rutten) and the repeated exhibition of the portraits the workshop made. I quote the advertisement published in the Belgian newspaper Gazette van Kortrijk (29th June 1902, amongst other dates), first paragraph : 'Ik heb de eer het publiek te melden dat ik, het huis Bogaerts van Brussel voor geschilderde kunstportretten vertegenwoordigende eene eerste tentoonstelling van portretten die alle maanden zal veranderd worden, zal openen op Zaterdag 5 Juli aanstaande, ...' Translated to English : 'I have the honor to inform the public that I, representing the House Bogaerts from Brussels for painted artportraits shall open a first exhibition of portraits that will be changed every month on Saturday the 5th of July upcoming, ...' I quote the third paragraph : Het Huis Bogaerts aanveerdt geene orders voor Kortrijk en geheel het arrondissement zonder tussenkomst van zijnen vertegenwoordiger. Translated to English : The House Bogaerts doesn't accept orders for Kortrijk and the whole district without intervention from its representative'. --Ronny MG (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.189.240.35 (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


I did find this document out there, a very in-depth researching of a Gezelle portrait, which had the same signature, and was definitively attributed to Hubert Boegarts. I assume that was written by Ronny MG ? Does sound like they did exhibit many of their paintings in the store, and also had another exhibition of many of them in Kortrijk in 1902. I don't see any reason to doubt that was communicated to the public at the time. Asking for full publication history is never realistic -- there is no indication it was kept private then, rather there are indications to the contrary. However, that would also make Belgium the country of origin. The copyright rules are very similar, except it does not have the Netherlands explicit clause where copies without a natural person actually named should have the anonymous term. Instead, the Belgian law says However, where the pseudonym adopted by the author leaves no doubt as to his identity or if the author discloses his identity during the period referred to in the foregoing subparagraph [70 years from making available to the public], the term of protection of the work shall be that laid down in paragraph (1) [70 pma]. If there is some doubt as to the author, then it seems like it had the anonymous term, and it expired long ago (as did US copyright), and it's fine. If there is "no doubt" that Hubert Boegarts is the author though, and that fact was known at the time (as possibly shown by the Gezelle research), then the term is 70pma and we only have a birth year of 1869, though the US copyright is still fine. Not sure we have come up with a guideline on that, though PD-old-assumed would want to wait for 120 years from creation, which is three years away.
Does seem as though Hubert moved around some. He was in Brussels in 1902, then I guess moved back to Boxtel. This 1905 patent for "Process of Producing Copies of Oil Paintings" was filed by "Hubert Bogaerts, a subject of the Queen of the Netherlands, residing at Burgakker, Boxtel" which I would have to assume is the same person. Found others from 1907 and 1908, also living at Boxtel. There is also a 1917 patent for "Processes of Manufacturing Reproductions of Paintings, Maps, Wall-Papers with Relievo-Patterns", credited to "Hubert Bogaerts, a subject of the Queen of the Netherlands, and residing at Berlin-Halensee, Germany", which would seem to be the same person again. They were still living there for this 1927 patent of "Method of Producing Oil Paintings" filed in 1927, and the last one I could find was this 1933 patent, also filed in Germany in 1932, so seems like he was still living there then. Did find mention of a patent assignment in Canada to "Sydney Hayden and David Hayden, both of London, England, assignees of Hubert Bogaerts, Berlin Halensee, Germany, 8th May, 1934". Very hard to say how long he lived, though there are indications the Dutch company was still going in 1938, per your paper.
I think the US copyright is fine, so this could at least be uploaded to en-wiki as PD-US-expired. The question is the Belgian copyright -- does it qualify for the "no doubt" clause of being authored by Hubert (and we would be better waiting for the PD-old-assumed tag to apply), or if there is some doubt that would leave it with the anonymous/pseudonymous term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Here the signature Bogaerts Bruxelles in the lower left corner of the painting of Georges Rutten. Here : [4] on page 16, the signature Bogaerts Bruxelles in the lower right corner of the painting of Guido Gezelle. These signatures, although referring to the very same workshop, clearly represent two different artists. The first artist had a finer handwriting and put the signature in the lower left corner, the second artist had a much more robust handwriting and put the signature in the lower right corner. The signature on the Georges Rutten painting runs diagonally, whereas the signature on the Guido Gezelle painting runs almost horizontal. This indicates at least two artists in the workshop and we don't know if one of the handwritings is that of Hubert Bogaerts. These facts, together with the absence of an individual name on the paintings, emphasize that the paintings are anonymous. And again, it's illogical/inconsistent to retain in commons the one painting, and to delete the other one, knowing that both paintings were made by the very same workshop and knowing that they have the same age. --Ronny MG (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ronny MG: Thanks for the links on the signatures. Hm. Placement of the signature and even angle doesn't always mean much -- have seen artists vary those in the past. I'm not a handwriting expert... I'm not sure I'm convinced either way. Not sure I see elements that definitely show a different hand, but also far from convinced they are the same person. Hm. Well, I guess the law says there needs to be "no doubt" as to the identity to qualify for 70pma, so if there was some possibility of another hand working there, that would make it the 70 year anonymous term, so I guess I'd lean Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Again, Symbol keep vote.svg Keep is only logical, because the Gezelle painting, made by the very same workshop as the Rutten painting in the very same period, has been kept in commons ... --Ronny MG (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Here, on page 32 below a picture of the Peinture Bogaerts workshop in Boxtel (Netherlands, where is was active from 1891 till 1938) with clearly several artists working. Peinture Bogaerts always worked with a team of artists, because the company's activity was production of art-reproductions, based on photographs and/or on existing paintings. So, the same (several artists in service) goes for the branch Bogaerts Bruxelles in Brussels as well, making the paintings anonymous. --Ronny MG (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
When eventually a decision is gonna be made on this topic ? --Ronny MG (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
No strict date. And I am not even sure that a decision will be taken. To take a decision you need and admin that is convinced and a consensus. I am not familiar enough with Dutch law to judge here, so I am Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. Also, I see no clear consensus whether this work should be considered anonymous or not. I will not act here. We must wait for a decision of another admin. Ankry (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
How can this be so difficult ? I said earlier that another painting (representing Guido Gezelle) made by exactly the same workshop as the painting representing Georges Rutten and having exactly the same age as the painting representing Georges Rutten, has been approved in Commons. So, again, if Wikipedia is consistent, then the painting representing Georges Rutten logically must be undeleted. --Ronny MG (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
What does Wikipedia have to do with this? And neither Commons nor Wikipedia are consistent. It is so difficult because it is hard, which is part of the reason it is inconsistent and anything making decisions about the real world will be inconsistent about marginal cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Approving one painting and deleting the other one while both paintings originate from the same workshop and have the same age has nothing to do with what you said above, it's called inconsistency, nothing more, nothing less. --Ronny MG (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and fixing that inconsistency would take O(n3) operations on n files, with verifying consistency not being a cheap operation. The US Copyright Office, the criminal justice system, pretty much all human system do not claim absolute consistency, because getting things done is more important, (the criminal justice system in the US literally promises a speedy trial and no double jeopardy, making this consistency impossible) and because no matter how you could have tried to ensure consistency, the unhappy side will argue you weren't consistent, because no two cases are exactly the same. Inconsistency is a reality, no matter how much it upsets you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
' ... no two cases are exactly the same.' Then tell me why two paintings from the same workshop, with the same workshop-signature and having the same age are 'not exactly the same', why the one of the two paintings with both the same characteristics is ok concerning 'copyright' and the other one isn't. --Ronny MG (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been open for three weeks since the last comment. If no one objects in 24 hours or so, I am going to close it as not done.

We are told above that the painting is in private hands now, which strongly suggests that it was never in a museum. While it seems clear that the artist(s) had a public exhibition of some paintings early enough to make them PD, there is no evidence that this particular painting was among them. The fact that we have kept another work with similar provenance is irrelevant -- it shows only that we should probably reexamine that decision. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I object. --Ronny MG (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@(Jameslwoodward) : proove that the painting was never in a museum. And, as said above, each new painting made by Peinture Bogaerts was first exhibited to the public by the representatives of the company before it was sold. The Georges Rutten-painting has a catalogue number on the backside by the way (number 22). --Ronny MG (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I think closing might be best. There is no consensus to undelete. Abzeronow (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
As Taivo correctly said 7 January 2020 : 'Paintings are usually published on year of creation. The opposite would be very unusual and such claim needs some evidence. I wanted to say "Anonymous works published in 1902 are in public domain due to age". --Ronny MG (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with 1902 being the date of publication. Hubert Bogaerts was the copyright holder and Bogaerts Bruxelles was widely understood as being a pseudonym for his works (and works of others under his name that he'd own the copyright to). And so I cannot agree with the assertation that this was an anonymous work as defined by Belgian law. So, as I said above, no consensus to undelete. Abzeronow (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Anonymous means by lack of a person's full name, so lack of a combination of first name and last name, which is the case in this particular painting. The firstname 'Hubert' or any other firstname, defining a particular individual, is not mentionned on the painting. On the contrary, it's a workshop representing a group of individuals that is defined by the signature. So, the painting is anonymous, and public domain, the latter also due to age. First, one has to be well informed : the modus operandi of the Dutch company Peinture Bogaerts was the public exhibition of each and every new painting in the establishments of an extended network of representatives before these paintings were sold. This is very well documented, not only in Dutch newspapers (e.g. commercial advertisements), but also in Belgian newspapers. My great-grandfather was the only representative of Peinture Bogaerts in Belgium. So, the Georges Rutten painting was first on public display in his establishment in the Belgian city of Kortrijk. Hence, it's not surprising that the painting emerged in the village Deerlijk, only 12 kilometers of distance from Kortrijk. As mentionned before, the painting has an exhibition/catalogue number on the backside (nummber 22). --Ronny MG (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
It comes down to a judgement call on being anonymous/pseudonymous. It's not marked with an author name, but rather corporate, so it was published anonymously. But at least one other work with that mark was confirmed as by that author. There were links to the two signatures earlier on in this discussion (and given again below); those could be interesting to compare to see if people think that was the same hand or not. The law says either the author needs to make himself known (no evidence of that), or there to be "no doubt" of the authors real identity (and there needed to be "no doubt" before 1973). Country of origin would seem to be Belgium. The author was also the holder of several patents for means of producing paintings from photographs or similar, so it's certainly feasible that he trained other workers in the company (if there were any) in these techniques. It's also possible works were made in the Netherlands, where there were definitely several employees, and sent to Brussels for sale.
It is PD-US-expired, so no issue for the U.S. either way, and it could be uploaded to en-wiki directly (since that uses U.S. law only). If anonymous, it's been PD for decades, and is fine to keep. If it is by Hubert Bogaerts, then we would either need to find a death date, or wait until 2023 when we can use {{PD-old-assumed}}.
I still lean keep, as I'm not sure it's worth deleting this for just three years when there are defensible reasons to assume that it was in fact anonymous (and given it's definitely fine for the U.S.). I would be interested though in others comparing the signatures -- the one known to be Hubert is this closeup image, while the one in question has a closeup photo on page 16 of this PDF. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
As I explained earlier in this discussion (23:20, 15 January 2020), the signature Bogaerts Bruxelles on the Georges Rutten and on the Guido Gezelle paintings are clearly very different, indicating at least two artists in the Bogaerts Bruxelles workshop. Hence, actually both paintings are anonymous. --Ronny MG (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Carl Lindberg Above you said : ' ... it could be uploaded to en-wiki directly ...'. Can it be used then in a Dutch Wikipedia-article ? --Ronny MG (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
No, it could only be used in English Wikipedia articles if uploaded there. I do not know if the Dutch Wikipedia allows local uploads, but I can't find anywhere they do -- they seem to rely on Commons alone. It appears they do not allow fair-use files the way en-wiki does, which is the usual reason to allow local uploads. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Fair-use files are not allowed on the Dutch wikipedia, see here for an explanation. Gouwenaar (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Fair use in American copyrightlaw comprises the possibility that, under certain conditions, allows the use of works of which one claims limited copyright. No one, I repeat, no one claims copyright nor will ever claim copyright in the case of the Bogaerts Bruxelles paintings. This is the very reason why this whole discussion is actually unnecessary.--Ronny MG (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Flag of Nantou County.svg

This image is designed and published by the official documents of Nantou County, a Taiwanese local government. It belongs to public domain according to Taiwanese Copyright Law, but it was deleted in last November without any discussion. I applied an undeletion request for it and people had discussed for one month. As discussion recorded in the archive, only one user keeps disagreeing with undeletion. So, this file should have been recovered based on the discussion. However, the admin closed last discussion without any reason for rejecting to undelete the file. Please kindly to recover the file of File:Flag of Nantou County.svg. Thank you.--Akira123 talk 15:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Akira123: As this is copyright related case, feel free to convince users with LR or admin permission (or other users who are known to work in copyright related fields in Commons) to give some feedback here. No such user supported the previous request, one opposed. And we need a consensus to undelete. Ankry (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: The discussion / argument of previous request finally focused on {{GWOIA}} a valid license or not. People even opened a DR to discuss it. We can see that as that DR discussion at least two people known to work in copyright related fields in Commons support to keep {{GWOIA}} a valid license. Thus, I think the previous UDR request should be pending and waiting for the final decision of DR for {{GWOIA}}. Logically, if {{GWOIA}} is judged a valid license at last, File:Flag of Nantou County.svg should be recovered because the reason to delete it is no longer existing.--Akira123 talk 11:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, Time2wait.svg On hold for a decision in this DR. Ankry (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

File:St Mary's Stadium.jpg

My mistake, I saw the Exif on the derative versions after--QTHCCAN (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Túrelio: Any objection? Ankry (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The original uploader just uploaded a new file with the same name, but different content.--QTHCCAN (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
While I intended to undelete the image today, this behaviour of User:User890899 prevents me to do so. Now, I would prefer te see an OTRS ticket from the photographer of any of these images. Ankry (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: What to do with the two cropped files?--QTHCCAN (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

These are not copyrighted images. Please do not remove.

@Ankry: Do you have any proof that the file has been published before? Otherwise the OTRS ticket would be useless. --Ruthven (msg) 19:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Current image seems to be published here. But uploader's behaviour makes me uncomfortable with believing their "own work" claim for their initial upload, or even with taking any action here. Ankry (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: Well, the issue is then clear. The file was posted by user "PES Stats Database", from the forum itself, in 2011. We then expect that a free license is shown at https://pesstatsdatabase.com/ or to receive an email at OTRS from @pesstatsdatabase.com. Am I wrong somewhere? --Ruthven (msg) 19:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ruthven: You have two different images here. Ankry (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The PES Stats Database image is a direct link to Commons -- so if the image changed here, it changed there too. In other words, they copied the image from us, so it's not an indication of a previous publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

File:贵州省遵义市防疫卡点.jpg

已经在规定时间内注明了作者为我自己，可为什么还是要被删除呢? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZWH2020ZY (talk • contribs) 10:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Google translate: "I have identified myself as the author within the stipulated time, but why should I still be deleted?" Translation added by Thuresson (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Ping @Ellin Beltz: Thuresson (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose@ZWH2020ZY: COM:OTRS needed. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support taken with the same cellphone which User:ZWH2020ZY used for the other two photos uploaded.--Roy17 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Saint Bride (1913).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

"Artist died in 1945" Been public domain in the UK since 2016. Abzeronow (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Once again, we have a URAA problem. While these may be free in the UK, they are still under copyright in the USA. I don't like the URAA any better most of us here on Commons, but it is the law and it is Commons policy to enforce it..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The second one has a 1913 date, Jim. Abzeronow (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
If the works are from before 1925, they should be fine in the US. Is 1913 the date of one of them? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Is the second one the same painting as File:Angusogduncan1908.jpg, which is dated 1908 ? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Clindberg: The first one is a bit higher resolution version of File:Angusogduncan1908.jpg with more intense colors (however also poor); the second one is a lower resolution version of File:John Duncan - 038.jpg. Both PD. Symbol support vote.svg Support the first one and Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the second one as lower resolution duplicate. Ankry (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I see no evidence of publication before 1925. If their first publication was later, then URAA does apply. If we can find evidence of pre-1925 publication, then I think we should keep both versions of the first file -- the existing one shows the whole work (or at least more of it) while the deleted one is more intense and larger, but has been cropped on both sides. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info National Galleries Scotland pages: https://www.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/17483/angus-og-god-love-and-courtesy-putting-spell-summer-calm-sea and https://www.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/17484/saint-bride note that they acquired them in 1946. (One says bequest of the artist and one says purchased). Publication around 1908 and 1913 seems the most likely. Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Paintings were generally not made to be kept private (like most works). Most works got published not long after creation. Unless there is some indication otherwise (like a painting being documented as previously unknown, or a photograph coming from negatives in an archive) I would usually assume publication around the time they were made. It's a theoretical doubt sure, but not really a significant doubt to me. We assume good faith on uploads; this is little different to me (and even less likely to be a problem). Additionally, the URAA guidance/policy is we should delete only when we *know* it was restored -- not just when there is a theoretical possibility. So, Symbol support vote.svg Support for me, other than any that are lower-or-equal-resolution duplicates. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Carl, I don't know what percentage of all painters' works begin their lives in public hands versus private ones. It is up to the uploader to show beyond a significant doubt that the work is free. We haven't ever put a number on significant doubt, but I assume that if there is a 20% chance, then there is a significant doubt. I would be surprised if 80% of the works of any artist, let alone one of the second or third tier such as Duncan, begin their lives publicly displayed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Most painters want to sell their works -- that doesn't happen by keeping them private. From the wikipedia article, Duncan was exhibiting works from 1889 on. If it was a painting done under commission, it's murkier, but it had 11 or 16 years (respectively for these paintings) to be published. It may be a judgement call, but the possibility it remained unpublished (to me) does not rise to a significant doubt. It's far less likely to be a real problem than regular uploads where we assume good faith, which is where I usually draw the line. There is also no evidence that it wasn't published -- meaning it seems more like an exercise to come up with ways it could theoretically be under copyright, and delete because of that -- it tends to make us look like deletionists, trying to find any reason we can to delete a work. Most works were made to be published, so I tend to put under-copyright reasons which depend on long periods of remaining unpublished into the "theoretical doubt" area, unless there is some concrete indication that they did indeed remain unpublished. I would guess for a painter who makes a practice of selling paintings, there is a (far) less than 20% chance it remained unpublished 12 or 17 years after creating it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, I tend to agree with Carl here. Especially as some other photos of these paintings are already present on Commons under PD status: let's not make copyright mess larger. We generally considered paintings as being published soon after creation, unless there is an evidence of otherwise. If there is a significant doubt about copyright, then all versions of this painting / these paintings should be nominated for deletion. Ankry (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Let me third Carl and Ankry here. Treating paintings as published short after their creation is really the only practical recourse we have.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
So, I think, we can close the ticket at its current state: undeletion of a lower resolution image originating from the same source as the higher res. one is not necessary. Ankry (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm OK with that. Abzeronow (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

One ✓ Done and one  Not done, per discussion. Ankry (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

File:中 Zhong - Nederlandse Vereniging voor Traditionele Chinese Geneeskunde logo (Big).jpg

To use at "w:en:Traditional Chinese medicine", recently I wrote this section:

copy of WP:EN article -- see link above
"The logo of the Dutch Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine (or 中 Zhong - Nederlandse Vereniging voor Traditionele Chinese Geneeskunde), one of the professional organisations that is recognised by private health insurance companies in the Netherlands."

"There are no specific regulations in the Netherlands on traditional Chinese medicine,[1] traditional Chinese medicine is neither prohibited nor recognised by the government of the Netherlands.[2] Chinese herbs as well as Chinese herbal products that are used in traditional Chinese medicine are classified as foods and food supplements and these Chinese "medicinal" herbs can be imported into the Netherlands as well as marketed as such without any type registration or notification to the government.[2] "

"Despite its status, some private health insurance companies reimburse a certain amount of annual costs for acupuncture treatments, this depends on one's insurance policy, as not all insurance policies cover it, and if the acupuncture practitioner is or isn't a member of one the professional organisations that are recognised by private health insurance companies.[2] The recognised professional organisations include the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Acupunctuur (NVA), Nederlandse Artsen Acupunctuur Vereniging (NAAV), ZHONG, (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Traditionele Chinese Geneeskunde), Nederlandse Beroepsvereniging Chinese Geneeswijzen Yi (NBCG Yi), and Wetenschappelijke Artsen Vereniging voor Acupunctuur in Nederland (WAVAN).[3]"

References

  1. ↑ CAM Regulation admin (31 December 2012). Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in the Netherlands. (in en). Norway's National Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Retrieved on 12 March 2020.
  2. ↑ a b c Nederlandse Vereniging voor Traditionele Chinese Geneeskunde (ZHONG) - Dutch Association of Chinese Traditional Medicine. (in en). European Traditional Chinese Medicine Association (ETCMA) (2020). Retrieved on 12 March 2020.
  3. ↑ Acupunctuur (2020). (in nl). Zorgwijzer (2020). Retrieved on 12 March 2020.

I prefer to use the "big" logo in this context as it includes the Dutch name of the organisation, it was deleted as being both "promotional" and "not educational" but if undeleted it would fall under "COM:INUSE". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


Symbol support vote.svg Support I doubt that there is a copyright issue and I understand that it actually falls in scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per COM:TOO China, China's Too rule is lower than UK's, ask @Wcam: for more reasons on this topic. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
??? Liuxinyu970226, the country of origin is not China, it is the Netherlands. The character is old (see Category:中) and the name of the organization (in Dutch) has no copyright anywhere. Therefore the file is PD everywhere, including China, the Netherlands, and the US. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Jim. --Wcam (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Copyright status seem to be clear (PD). Pinging @P199: deleting admin due to their scope related doubts. Ankry (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
File was deleted due to lack of educational value (not copyright issues). This company may be involved in a controversy, but that is not what this image actually shows. It is just a logo that is not representative of the issues involved, nor of traditional Chinese medicine (the article where Donald wants to use this image). I don't feel strong about it either way, but if it were to be added to Traditional Chinese medicine article, it would likely be removed anyway as irrelevant or w:en:WP:UNDUE. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
How is it undue? Most insurance companies only recognise this company, it is essentially the umbrella organisation of Dutch Traditional Chinese medicine practitioners and Alexis Jazz has also used the small logo of the organisation in a proof of concept page elsewhere to demonstrate its educational value. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support file can easily be used in an educational setting. Like Donald Trung did, like I did, on Wikidata or in a table with similar organizations. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Roadblock in Wuhan on January 29th, 2020 - 1.jpg

  • 照片拍摄者User:汮汐委托User:Techyan上传这张照片，然而有些版权清真主义者太注重表面形式，认为这么做不能证明作者同意授权。事实上，照片拍摄者在委托上传者的时候已经同意授权，他俩都是老熟人。我还是希望拍摄者能够出来表态一下。--Masdggg (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I have noticed the photographer on his user talk page, and I hope him can reply in time. --Masdggg (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • 我当时随手发在讨论群里，User:Techyan说要上传到Commons，我当时就已经同意了。--汮汐(talk) 18:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Due to legal reasons, the license needs to be granted by the copyright holder in a written form. If the copyright holder did not upload the image personally, then they did not grant the license at the upload. So we clearly need another written form of the license... Mutual relations between the author and the uploader are irrelevant here. Ankry (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @汮汐:所以，您还是发一份OTRS邮件吧，关于您授权Techyan上传的那几张照片。如果下次那够由您本人亲自上传，就可以省掉这些不必要的麻烦。--Masdggg (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. COM:OTRS permission from author needed. Ankry (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Song Joong Ki at Arthdal Chronicles Presscon 2019 (3).jpg

This video, screenshot or audio excerpt was originally uploaded on YouTube under a CC license. Their website states: "YouTube allows users to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license." This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. You are free:

  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza16 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
This video was NOT under a CC license at the date of the upload. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Pizza16: Please explain where on this page you see a Creative Commons license link? Ankry (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above: no free license. Ankry (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Famous Dex in Los Angeles,California.jpg

Hello, This photo File:Famous Dex in Los Angeles,California.jpg has license and credit. I just request to restore the file. Amirrezapl2r (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Amirrezapl2r: please explain where do you see CC-BY-SA-2.5 license on the getty source page? Ankry (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per above: no free license. Ankry (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Peter Deeg Hofjuden 03.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Deeg Hofjuden 03.jpg

I'm not going to be upset if URAA prevents restoration on this. This is an introduction to a 1939 edition of a book that was written by an author who died in 2005, the introduction itself appears written by Adolf Hitler (who died in 1945). Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I mainly want to find out if URAA is the only issue so I can tag the DR with the appropriate undeletion date. Abzeronow (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not 100% sure if URAA applies here at all (due to Alien Property Custodian being excluded). I have no opinion here. Ankry (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
It is certainly long enough to have a copyright in the US. I think the key question is the source of the quote. I don't read German, but I think the source is shown in the image with a 1938 date. If the source work was copyrighted in the US, then the Alien Property rule applies, but if it was not, then it does not. @JuTa, Krd, Elcobbola: could one of you take a quick look? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, the copyrightable text on this one page is completely by Adolf Hitler. I would go a a restore and change the license to {{PD-scan|PD-old-auto|deathyear=1945}}. --JuTa 22:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Yes, this is dated 6. September 1938 and is from Hofjuden by Peter Deeg (died 2005) and published 1938 by Verlag Der Stürmer/Julius Streicher. Эlcobbola talk 15:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Глинистый сланец

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the following files are scanned images from a book, relating to the presentation of images from the historical period prior to the twentieth century, so it should obviously be a PD license, I recently made an individual request for restoration to the Krd user, managing to obtain the result that not everything that uploaded this user is considered a kind of copyright infringement. therefore I want to rely on you also asking for your opinion, in my personal opinion despite the information in the book these files are of PD100 license despite the fact that the author is unknown, and deceased for well over a century, I say that I am perfectly in order with status, however I want to be careful with these files, Clindberg I would also like your opinion.--Bernhard Moltke (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no PD100 license; we have {{PD-old-assumed}}. But to be able to use it here, we need somebody to verify the creation dates provided by the abuser. It is hard as there is no public source. Ankry (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Ankry you must excuse me, but you were in a hurry to write with the keyboard, I meant (PD-art | PD-old-100), sorry for the typo--Bernhard Moltke (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
PD-old-100 means "The author died more than 100 years ago". And this is not obvious eg. for anonymous 1866 work (where author could have died even 80 years later). Ankry (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Request temporary undeletion of File:Mappa del Teatro Regio di Mantova.png so I can see if this is an 18th Century map. Abzeronow (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
It is a very poor quality reproduction, so it is hard to tell anything about it. It is a plan drawing of the theatre in Mantua. The file description says the author was Giuseppe Piermarini (1734-1808) who, among other things, designed La Scala. I'm inclined to believe that it is not a copyvio, but the quality is so poor I wonder if it has any value. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: {{Temporarily undeleted}} Ankry (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, Jim is correct here, it's zoomed in, and is clearly a reproduction. There is writing on it, but it's illegible at the resolution the file was scanned or taken in so it's not helpful. It probably is public domain but it's not very useful. Abzeronow (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I would recommend temporary undeleted for the whole list, pending additional information, however it must be said that few are from an era that precedes the nineteenth century, given that the age of the files on this small list was made around the nineteenth century. however the fact that they are of a PD nature leaves me no doubts, but as I said before pending probable additional information in the future, I would recommend temporary restoration, even if personally it would be right to remove the temporary one to replace it with the definitive one--Bernhard Moltke (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
That's a good idea -- there may be some of these that are useful. Those that do not seem useful here should be deleted again, including, i think, the one discussed above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

File:大中日报19470508.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Economic rights in a pseudonymous work or an anonymous work endure for fifty years from the time of public release.

Chinese users can tell every single article in the photos is anonymous.

Copyright hence expired before URAA date.--Roy17 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Roy17: How did you calculate the copyright expiration date? Uploader declared date=2019-08-27; 1947+50+1=1998 and is after the URAA date. Ankry (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: 1947+50+1=1998, before 1 January 2002 the URAA date for the Republic of China. This paper was published in the ROC between July 1946 and March 1949.--Roy17 (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although the point is moot because it comes out in the same place, these appear to be newspapers. Articles in newspapers may be printed without a byline, but that does not make them anonymous works as the newspaper holds the copyright. The rule that applies is:
"Where the copyright belongs to a legal entity or other organization or in respect of a work created in the course of employment where the legal entity or other organization enjoys the copyright (except the right of authorship), the term shall be fifty years..."
.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
May I ask which article from https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=J0070017 you cited?--Roy17 (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Anonymous is merely English translation of the Chinese term 不具名 https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawSearchContent.aspx?pcode=J0070017&norge=32 . The full text is 別名著作或不具名著作之著作財產權，存續至著作公開發表後五十年。但可證明其著作人死亡已逾五十年者，其著作財產權消滅。前項規定，於著作人之別名為眾所周知者，不適用之。 具名=signed. 不具名=not signed=anonymous.--Roy17 (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Corporate copyright term seems to be the same as for personal works and whether it is anonymous or not depends on its publication. The copyright expiration term for anonymous/pseudonymous works is calculated basing on publication date. So as the date is 1947, the country of origin seems to be ROC (Taiwan) and according to this table the URAA date for ROC (Taiwan) in 1.1.2002, I Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. Ankry (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Brett A Becker.jpg

Consensus is that such files are educational: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2020/02#Would photos of university faculty members be accepted.--Roy17 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Honda00: sorry I forgot to ping you.--Roy17 (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Our policy is that if a person's article has been declined on WP, then we do not keep an image here. The cited discussion is hardly a broad consensus and is certainly not enough to change well established policy.

I also note that this request was made previously, see Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-02#File:Brett A Becker.jpg. It is disruptive to make a second request without any new information. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It would be useful for a wikidata entry, and I'm convinced by Fæ's argument that Uni lecturers are in Commons scope. (Brett Becker is a Uni lecturer). Abzeronow (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per VP discussion. There is no consensus that supports the statement Our policy is that if a person's article has been declined on WP, then we do not keep an image here. There is no such policy. Our policy is COM:Scope, nothing else, and in particular there is no equivalent to WP:People. --Fæ (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't have a strong opinion on whether all faculty member photos should be kept, but I would really like to see a link to that policy. It's wrong; Wikisource, for one, would like photos for any author of any work it hosts, not all of whom may be WP notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have used the word "practice" rather than "policy" as the comments above are, strictly speaking, correct. As far as I can remember, we have never kept an image that was uploaded to illustrate a biography that did not pass muster on Wikipedia.

If the photo is used or intended to be used in any Wikimedia project, it is in COM:SCOPE. @Prosfilaes: Do you suggest that there is his author page on Wikisource? Or is there a reason to create it now? I cannot find it. Ankry (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
No; I was speaking in general, not in specific to this work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
My opinion is not to extend COM:SCOPE beyond the point "used in Wikimedia project. So I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion until a Wikisource author page or appropriate Wikidata item appears (eg. due to import of Google Scholar or a similar database). Or until community decides to change definition of COM:SCOPE. Ankry (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
That's a non-logical rationale, that is actually backwards reasoning. Being in use on Wikipedia is a logical reason to host a photo on Commons. A photo not being in use on Wikipedia is not by itself a rationale to delete a photograph. Specifically, should anyone have a rationale meeting it being of "reasonable educational value" then the photo by definition meets Wikimedia Commons Scope policy, regardless of any decisions about article notability on Wikipedia, or the existence of an entry on Wikidata. --Fæ (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Based on prior discussion, the general principle is raised at Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Photographs of established academics, writers, artists are in scope. --Fæ (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Pictogram voting info.svg Info What the matter with this file? I've put this file first on SD on the basis that the draft on English Wikipedia had been unambigously rejected on December 13. Strangely @Sebari: opened a standard DR on December 16 on the basis that the image was "used in draft currently under review on enwiki" (which was a false claim). This DR leads to a deletion of the image on January 29. Author of the draft @Honda00: requested an undeletion of the image which was turned down too February 2. The same day @Roy17: tried another approach on Village Pump (however omitting to name Becker). Saying there's a "consensus" (which was another false claim) among random users (no Administrator took part on this short discussion) Roy 17 opened this second UDR. Strangely again how explain the opening of a second Village Pump discussion by @Fæ: since, according to their promoters, the first one was succesful? IMO the wise way here is to have Honda00 resubmitting his improved draft until it qualifies for an Wikipedia article and that someone tells all these non-Administrators involved parties it's time to stop their 3-months+ continuous disruptive maneuver to get several Administrator's decisions invalidated. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Please avoid confusing a discussion on VP and a generic proposal on VPP. --Fæ (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
About confusion sure it must be a coincidence if the same users are obsessed with this specific file for more than 3 months, wasting kilos of octets, administrator's time and some patience too... --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Or good faith can be applied. Feel free to create a discussion section in the generic VPP, if there are generic points to raise beyond this file. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:AUTHOR-TONYCASTRO-BIO-PHOTO.jpg

This photograph was shot by Ryan LaSalle-Castro, a son of the proposed Wikipedia entry subject Tony Castro (Author) This photo you reference appeared in the subject's blog, clearly identified as having been taken byh Ryan LaSalle-Castro. The photograph belongs to the subject and has even been used by one of the subject's publishers for promotion on behalf of its author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleymchase (talk • contribs) 04:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Also uploaded locally to en:File:AUTHOR-TONYCASTRO-BIO-PHOTO.jpg with the caption "This is a photograph of American author Tony Castro that he has given me permission for use for publiicity and promotional purposes, including the creation of a Wikipedia page." Thuresson (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Ashleymchase: Firstly, the assumed and default copyright holder of a photograph is the person who took the photograph, rather than a person who appears in it, unless the copyright is transferred by operation of law or contract. Secondly, we cannot use content on the basis of statements such as "I allow Wikipedia to use my photos". We need a clear statement directly from the copyright holder via OTRS that tells us what free license they would like to release the work under. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 14:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Nat: OTRS needed. Ankry (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:LE GRAND MAG 32 December 2017.jpg

I found this on ISSUU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxury yogi (talk • contribs) 13:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Luxury yogi (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Nat: no free license. Ankry (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:LGM MAG&IPAD banner.jpg

I found this on https://www.facebook.com/LeGrandMag/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxury yogi (talk • contribs) 13:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Luxury yogi (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Luxury yogi: Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. Furthermore, Facebook's terms of use are not compatible with our licensing policies. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 14:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as per Nat: no free license. Ankry (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

user:Shliahov's files

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Shliahov In july, 2019 tens of images (many of them original history maps) was deleted without any evident violation of someone's rights. Out of them original cartographic works such as

and several other ones are archived, so you can easily see how well they were licensed. At least These maps that are surely deliberately removed must be restored if not all those files. Their illegality was never proven. --Ercwlff (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not illegality that has to be proven. A reasonable doubt about about authorship or copyright is enough per COM:PCP. However, pinging the nominator and the deleting admin @Sealle, Ellin Beltz: for comments. Ankry (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I reviewed these three and I still see no source of any of the base maps. I spot reviewed the remainder of the deletion requests and do not feel any portion of it was incorrect based on information available at the time of closure. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed. It is very unlikely that these were drawn completely from scratch. The base maps are probably copyrighted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I see nothing more than derivatives of unnamed base maps with unclear copyright status. And I'd be happy to see Julo here to elaborate their position on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Untifler, where I was blamed for the lack of evidence that files like this are not own works but derivatives. Sealle (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: By that logic noone should ever upload their maps without basing on existing PD maps. Blaming people plagiarists you have to at least cite works that you think got copyvioleted. This user like one whose files' deletion nomination page Sealle linked created material about one particular part of history/geography. It is most logical to think that the author is pretty much aware of the history to be able to create these maps. Moreover these maps are not too complicated at all.--Ercwlff (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: I hope there is no doubt about the authorship of the file. On the whole net the maps first appeared here. Your problem is the maps hypothetically being copied from some source but same can be applied to every single map not noting that they are based on something else than the author's ideas. Ercwlff (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It is very hard to believe that anyone would go to the trouble of creating a map from scratch -- plotting each of the points on the various borders, rivers, etc when PD base maps are available easily from Commons and other sources. In addition I note that this contributor has a difficult history -- 500 deleted contributions on almost 300 different pages. Some of these were blatant copyright violations -- claiming "own work" on photographs that were obviously not.

I also note that you have the rules here backwards. It is up to the uploader and others who want to keep a page to prove beyond a significant doubt that the work is freely licensed or PD. Those of us above who believe that a significant doubt exists need not prove anything. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


“ Affirmati Non Neganti Incumbit Probatio ”

--Ercwlff (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC) (however not by me)

File:Jan Löffler 2020 - Fotomotiv, kl.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

ich bin ein Mitarbeiter von Jan Löffler, MdL. Er hat mich beauftragt, dieses Foto hochzuladen.

Diese Datei hat er mir per E-Mail zugeschickt. Ich bitte deshalb um die Rückgängigmachung der Löschung.

Auf eine positive Rückmeldung würde ich mich freuen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkagha (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 March 2020‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons guideline 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.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, in the file description, you claimed that you were the photographer. It is obvious from your comment above that that is not correct. Your making an incorrect claim makes it more difficult to assume that anything you say is correct.

Second, Mr. Löffler may own a paper or digital copy of the photograph, but that does not give him the right to freely license it here. That right is held by the photographer. In order to restore the image, policy requires that either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS or (b) someone else must send such a license together with written evidence that the photographer has granted him the right to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: - you are half way right. The CDU fraction of the states parliament of Saxony already 2016 donated a bunch of free licensed images to the public, see for example here. Yes, there are probably things not gone absolutely correct, but this is more a cause to help those people, than ride an attack. The first quastion must be now to @Bkagha: - sind das wieder Bilder, die für die Fraktion unter einer Freien Lizenz veröffentlicht wurden? Wenn dem so ist, wäre es sicher sinnvoll das wie 2016 über eine Hinterlegung der Information in unserem System zu tun. Hier kennt sich beispielesweise @DCB: recht gut aus. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Mike_Kowalski_-_Alderney_2016.jpg

I believe this photo should be undeleted as it is a family member, and the photo was taken by a friend and has always been owned by us and was not officially published or copywritten elsewhere.

--Rossnewbs (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rossnewbs: What do you mean saying "owned by us"? A photo copyright belongs to a photographer unless transferred due to copyright transfer or employment contract. Who is "us"? Do you suggest that this is a joint work, not a personal work? This might contradict with your earlier claim that you are personally the photographer.
@Sealle: The deletion reason is also unclear to me: which non-free work is the photo based on? Google images says that the only external publication of the photo was in revolvy.com, and as the photo disappeared therefrom after deletion from Commons, I tend to assume that Commons was their source. Did you mean that it was based on another source? Ankry (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
This seems to be a scanned paper photo in possession of the uploader without clear evidence of the author's permission to release it. If further explanations will follow, I'm here to assess them. Sealle (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done no explanation - no undeletion. Ankry (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Marc Jenkins (jinx).jpg

Please undelete this.

Richard Blake provided image to Helen and Marc to use for personal reasons such as website and wikipedia

Please if in doubt contactrichard@rb-create.com who can validate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portfolio CSRB (talk • contribs) 12:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Portfolio CSRB: Wikipedia is not "personal use". Personal photos used in Wikipedia must be free for any use by anybody for any porpose, including commercial use and derivative works. Ane the permission must be irrevokable. Ankry (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In order for the image to be restored, Richard Blake must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

massimosestini.jpg la foto è copyright di Massimo Sestini, che autorizza l'uso

la foto che è stata cancellata è copyright Massimo Sestini, che ne autorizza l'uso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camilla baresani (talk • contribs) 14:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:19240218 Song Ji-woo's letter.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:19240218 Song Ji-woo's letter.jpg

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/South Korea, " If a work went out of copyright before the 1986 act extended copyright terms from 30 years to 50 years, it does not regain copyright. The act came into force in 1987, hence, works where all authors died before 1957 are out of copyright in both South Korea and the U.S" The author, w:Song Jin-woo (journalist) died in 1945. This seems to be public domain in both South Korea and the U.S. Abzeronow (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support That makes sense to me. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems the image was errorneously deleted due to wrong license template. Deletion per This DR should never happen. Ankry (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done per Abzeronow. Ankry (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Mare Nostrum 2015.jpg

la foto è copyright di Massimo Sestini che ne autorizza l'uso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camilla baresani (talk • contribs) 14:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Camilla baresani: Who did authorize you to claim that you as the author of the photo? As the photo is attributed to Gasperini Tommaso, we need a free license permission authorized by Gasperini Tommaso following COM:OTRS procedure. Ankry (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

File:帆船簡圖 01.jpg

  1. Please check it out clearly, this picture is drawn by myself in paper. At first I used pencil to draw, then use ball point pen to draw again.
  2. not copy or print from the pdf file, I just followed it.
  3. and the ship is not the same. Please check it out, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silversnowworld (talk • contribs) 14:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Kingsmill SS Logo.svg

This logo was actually re-created from one of the school’s yearbooks not the website itself. Hence the logo is a defunct school.

Reference: [5]


- 76.67.122.166 15:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Since there is no description and no categories, it is hard to see why we should keep this logo at all. If, as you say, it is a defunct school, why do we want its logo?

However, even if that question can be answered satisfactorily, the logo is still probably under copyright, even if the school is defunct. In order for it to be restored, you must prove that it is old enough to be PD in whatever country it comes from as well as in the USA.

Note to my colleagues -- although the border of this logo resembles that found at https://www.tcdsb.org/schools/bishopallen/Pages/default.aspx, the whole center is very different, so the deletion was for a wrong reason. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Objection: Perhaps a recolor would do?
It was a mistake that the file was deleted but the fonts and symbols are different in the emblem.
There are three choices: Reupload on the commons, keep it deleted forever or reupload on Wikipedia with fair use. Hence, the first option is feasible since there is no copyright on the logo. You may want to reconsider that option to undelete the file. - 76.67.122.166 16:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • 1963 work is too recent for copyright expiration. It may be PD in Canada, but not PD in USA due to URAA. Ankry (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Contingency

Instead, can you temporary undelete this file for 24 hours? My master file is still on the other PC. I like to debate whether its to be kept or not. ---76.67.122.166 20:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Recycle Document

This document was edited by me because it could be useful Please do not delete this page FOR MORE INFO ASK Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zj100 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zj100: You do not appear to have ever uploaded a file by this or any similar name. GMGtalk 16:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Utilization of solar spectrum of a PVT collector.svg

In addition to the earlier undeletion request (compare Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:PVT_collectors_and_applications.svg), this file was deleted for the same reasons. Reasons for the first file were rejected and file was undeleted.
For this file, source was specified as Own work in the same manner and I can also proof my authorship. I published a similar graph in my PhD thesis (DOI: 10.6094/UNIFR/16446, published under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), but slightly adapted the graph. Manuel Lämmle (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=398265718"