Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

Current requests

File:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg

There was no consensus in favour of deletion. The larger file from which it was cropped (and the series of which that file was part) remains in place unchallenged. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robin S. Taylor, It would be good of you to link the larger file which you indicate was uploaded while the license was valid, since I can't find that in the file history of the deleted file. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: There may be a basis for discussion, although not for the reason stated in the request. From its logs, it looks like the file "Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg" was uploaded to Commons on 22 June 2024 and was sourced directly from flickr. As such, it was under the CC NC-ND license on flickr. The only argument to keep that was made in the deletion discussion was that seven days before the upload to Commons, the flickr photo had, very briefly, a CC BY license. That could not be a valid argument to keep the file, based only on the facts presented in the DR. The deletion decision is correct based on those facts. However, you mention the larger image "File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg" (currently sourced from the wrong flickr page), uploaded to Commons on 15 June 2024, which brings an interesting aspect, because the chronology gets much more compressed and because it seems to have exif data that are apparently not displayed on the flickr page. The chronology goes like this. Everything happened on 15 June 2024. The photo was taken at 12:19 (UTC or UTC+1 assumed). The photo was uploaded to flickr at some unknown time apparently very briefly under CC BY, the license was almost immediately set to CC NC-ND at 13:40 UTC, and the file was uploaded to Commons at 21:14 UTC. Even with that compressed timeline, the upload to Commons still occurred after the license was already CC NC-ND at the flickr source used. (And the fact that the license was CC BY for only a few minutes suggests that it may not have been intentional.) However the exif data on Commons display these usage terms : "Usage terms: This image is for Editorial use purposes only. The Image can not be used for advertising or commercial use. The Image can not be altered in any form. All images are Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ Pictures marked as the copyright of a third party may only be re-used with permission from the rights holder." That sounds like the restrictions exclude the OGL. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

To closing admin: if the license on the original file was valid when it was uploaded, then this file should be restored, since that one is the source. If not, we should obviously delete that one as well. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 27).jpg

This was the source file.

The copyright on UK Government photographs is often confusing and contradictory, but the impression I've garnered over the past few months is that all the files copied to the Government Flickr Archive are automatically covered by that site's general licence even if the information for a specific image says otherwise, and indeed that the Number 10 Flickr account's general statement on image usage trumps whatever may be applied to individual pictures (hence Wikimedia having a dedicated licence tag for that). My general impression for a long time has also been that once a copyright-holder has released some intellectual property under any Creative Commons (or equivalent) declaration then they cannot revoke said declaration later, so if there are multiple contradictory official notices for the same photograph then we should take the most permissive one as correct.

I agree that it "may not have been intentional" for whichever government employees actually operate the Flickr accounts to initially release under one licence and then change after a few minutes, but then I'm not sure what those people's intentions have ever been because different images on those accounts are under a smorgasbord of different tags with no apparent rhyme or reason behind them. To take one example, a large number of coronation photographs from last year (and a smattering of other ones for many years before that) uploaded to Flickr under the Public Domain Mark rather than the Public Domain Dedication and eventually the community decided to treat them as the same, realising that in many cases the uploaders themselves didn't know the difference. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robin S. Taylor: 1. About the CC license, you may be confusing the notion of "cessation to offer a license at a source" with the notion of "revocation of a license already granted". Please see the Creative Commons FAQ for more details. 2. On principle, the specific conditions trump the general conditions. 3. The mention of a dedicated license tag for Number 10 relates to Template talk:Number-10-flickr, and the previous decisions might be worth exploring to see if you can find something there. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose First please note that

File:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg is not extracted from

File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg

While the two are similar, the pattern of rain drops is different and in the first, the hair is surrounded by white from the opposite window while in the larger image the hair is surrounded by black. On the other hand

File:Trooping_the_Colour_2024_(GovPM_27).jpg, is the source image. This has a CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 license so both the subject image and the larger one cannot be kept here.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You've just unilaterally deleted another image within fifteen minutes of seeing it and with no deletion discussion nor acknowledgement of anything I said about it. This is unacceptable. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robin S. Taylor I am willing to give the benefit fo the doubt, however, those two pictures, while uploaded under a CC-BY license, were changed within a day to the by-nc-nd license. What that tells me is that the license they were uploaded with was incorrect, and they corrected it within a reasonable amount of time. What we don't do here at Wikimedia Commons is play "gotcha" with people who have uploaded under erroneous licenses. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jim, the other one has the same license problems as the ones already deleted. I've put that one in a DR. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Reopened per request. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 21:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving it open for a little while. Although the part about the CC license is settled, it seems that the part about the OGL might need to be addressed, in light of Template talk:Number-10-flickr, listing some keep decisions for other cases. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, apparently the metadata states the OGL, but does that supersede the Flickr license? Does Number 10 know what they are doing? Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 21:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that, considering the metadata is the only actual per-file licensing statement that complies with the UK government licensing framework, it should be taken as an appropriate attribution statement. Some files explicitly change their statement to remove the OGLv3 notice, which shows that there is at least some awareness of the meaning.

A Freedom of Information request and/or a Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations request can always be made if further clarification is needed. It is worth noting that images uploaded recently have made the attribution statement just Crown copyright. Licensed under the Open Government Licence. For any of those images, a RPSI request can compel them to OGL it anyways. Isochrone (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per discussion. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 20:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely sounds like a complicated request. I deleted it since as I said in the closing message that the photograph had an unfree license at the time of upload. I agree with Jim that CC-BY was not the intended license. The OGL question is a tough one, since as mentioned above, it appears Number 10 licenses under OGL unless otherwise stated. CC-NC-ND is not a default on Flickr so it feels to me that it would fall under the otherwise stated. I almost feel like we should ask Number 10 about this. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Freedom of Information request filed. I also note that, as stated here, No 10 has not obtained a delegation of authority to exempt itself from the Cabinet Office licensing framework. Isochrone (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Bastique has now withdrawn his deletion nomination for picture No. 26 based on seeing the outcomes of similar discussions. Logically it follows that No. 27 and its derivatives shouldn't be deleted either. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I withdrew my nomination primarily because I didn't want to separate the point of discussion for what appears to be a larger discussion. Until we come to some consensus about this, this shall remain open. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 00:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Park Sung-jae.jpg

• Previous talk: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-12#File:Park Sung-jae.jpg

This photo was originally uploaded on the “Open Minister's Office”(열린장관실) homepage of the Ministry of Justice. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll notice three things.

1. “COPYRIGHTⓒ MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. REPUBLIC OF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.” — This claim is on every website of the South Korean government, even on the page of the KOGL. This is just a general disclaimer only.
2. Logo of WebWatch in green color — A web standardization certification that has nothing to do with copyright. (It's like W3C or HTML5 logo)
3. The KOGL Type 1 logo ({{KOGL}}, File:KOGL 1.svg) — It is clearly indicates that the entire content of the this subdomain of MoJ is released under KOGL Type 1. Please note “Open Minister's Office” homepage is separated from the original homepage of MoJ. It is only accesiable by click "법무부 소개" > "장관소개" from top menu and it will be open in new tab. You can obviously see that it's separated from the original site with diffrent logo, title and web design.

Average Pennsylvanian mentioned that he couldn't be sure because each photo didn't have the KOGL logo, which is not true. Here's an example of a misuse of the KOGL logo. This is the homepage of the Office of the President. It also displays the KOGL logo(File:KOGL wordmark (Korean).svg at the bottom of the page, but it doesn't say what kind of KOGL it is at all. In this case we cannot use the image unless there is KOGL logo and specified type on each page.--Namoroka (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Botswana Anthem Music Sheet.InstrumentalSimple.svg

It has been almost seven years since this file got deleted. This file went into public domain on this year's public domain day, and therefore I'm requesting the undeletion of this file. See this. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 11:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Since it was under Botswana copyright until yesterday and was written in 1962, Fatshe leno la rona will have a URAA copyright until at least 1/1/2058 and perhaps later, depending on its publication date. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Prasklina na okne auta 32.JPG

File in use at v:cs:Uživatel:Juandev/Problémy/Volkswagen Golf/III/Variant/Juandev/Nejde otevřít nádrž and might be moved to main ns in the following days. I wonder how the user could nominate this and other files for deletion if they were in use in the WMF project. How files are used in other projects might be out of scope.--Juandev (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Assuming that Google translate is doing a good job here:

1. The photograph has no explanation of what it is and its file name does not match the photo at all
2. The caption for the place where the photo was used calls out a "cotter pin" but there is no cotter pin in the photo, so it is actually irrelevant to the place where it was used.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

File:The_Familiar_By_Leigh_Bardugo.jpg

I want to use the cover art for an article related to this book. The Cover is done by Jim Tierney & Emma Pidsley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.akarman (talk • contribs) 07:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

 Oppose Probably about File:The Familiar leigh Bardugo USCOVER.jpg. This is a copyrighted book cover, it cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the publisher via VRT. Also please note that you claimed you were the actual creator of the cover. That's a serious violation of Commons rules. You may be blocked if you do it again. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Antigua.news.jpg File:Antigua.news small icon.jpg

File: antigua.news.jpg File: Antigua.news small icon.jpg

Hi,

I noticed that the above files have been deleted for copyright reasons. However the owner of the images authorizes the use of them with credit and link. Both requirement have been met on the wiki page where there are used.

Please note that on antigua.news website there is this copyright message on the bottom of the page, which confirms what I wrote above:

“All contents of this site including images, texts and other assets are copyrighted and owned by Antigua.news. No contents of this site may be reproduced, altered, or distributed except you give appropriate credit and provide a link to the copyright holder, and indicate if changes were made.”

Therefore, I kindly request to undelete the images.

Thanks and regards.

--Mediascriptor (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The requirement for a link cannot be met in print use, so the permission cited is not enough for Commons. These are fairly simply and probably don't have a USA copyright. We know nothing about the Threshold of Originality in Antigua, but as a former UK colony it is probably very low, so these probably have a copyright there. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Can the requirement for a link be met in print by simply including a URL in the printout? I'd hope so. In this case, that's probably moot (in the U.S. sense) because of your salient point about COM:TOO Antigua, but it's still worth a thought. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

File:R.E.M. - Green promo.jpg

No consensus at deletion discussion and the image is of a wood grain (as I recall), nothing that is copyright-able creative work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support It is actually an image of raised black letters applied to a textile. The textile is irregular, but I don't think the pattern comes anywhere near the ToO. R.E.M is an American band, so the letters have no copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Milano quartiere Mangiagalli II scorcio.JPG

Hi everyone. I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of File:Milano quartiere Mangiagalli II scorcio.JPG. This file was deleted in 2014 after this DR. It should depict a public housing project in Milan, built in 1950-1952 after a project by en:Ignazio Gardella and en:Franco Albini. It was commissioned and paid by the it:Istituto Autonomo Case Popolari of Milan, a local public entity used by the Municipality for public housing (see here). Therefore, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1973. These buildings were built before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I support Friniate's request. -- Blackcat 07:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Friniate: FYI. --Yann (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

File:Baden-92.jpg

File:Baden-92.jpg seems to have been wrongfully deleted, despite explaining to a reporting user, that the file is open for public use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatthepaperssay (talk • contribs) 01:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I stand by my deletion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Baden-92.jpg. Abzeronow (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose Whatever "for public use" is supposed to mean, it's not the same as "in the public domain". --Rosenzweig τ 10:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

---

 Not done: per Abzeronow. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 10:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Alice Prince SLATE.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: Kept per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alice Prince SLATE.jpg, which included specific web research about the subject by User:Nakonana, but part of a batch deletion as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dr. Alice Prince, which I just became aware of, and which gave only a generic reason for deletion. In fairness, User:TheImaCow, who started the second deletion request, should be pinged (the first was started by an IP user), as should those who closed both deletion requests: User:Sadads, User:Krd (yes, unusually, there were two closers for that thread) and User:P199. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

---

 Done: apparently, seems to be in-scope. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 07:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Reopened. I note that in one of the DRs there are a number of images which include Ms. Prince which are claimed to be {{Own}} but which are obviously not selfies -- for example: File:SLATE Alice Prince Podcast G.jpg. The subject image is also claimed to be her work, but it doesn't look like a selfie. If this were in isolation, I might be OK with it, but given the clear evidence that the uploader does not understand the meaning of {{Own}}, I think we must not restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a legitimate point that I did not consider. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Getting the best from my swimming pool.png

--Kitsonda (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Although the website https://www.titanpoolreels.com is subject to copyright protection, this image uploaded to Wiki Commons is not.

 Oppose I cannot find this image at the named site. Since the site's product, a pool cover reel, does not appear in the image, I think it is unlikely that the source is correct. In any event, there is nothing on the site to suggest that any of its images are CC-0 and there is an explicit statement "All Rights Reserved. Copyright Protected". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

thumb|Safonov in 2024

This is post instagram safonov https://www.instagram.com/p/DAE2IFvoL7D/?igsh=NnIxZjFzM3U2bXEx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelenisafonovgeroi1922 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose The image is File:Safonov in PSG 2024.jpg . As noted this is an Instagram image and there is no reason to believe it is free for any use. In order to restore it, we will need a free license from the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

File:BlueySteven.jpg

This file has been created and drawn by me, I checked that the image didn't contain anything suspiciously against the copyright law and nothing to do with Roblox itself. I created this image in question on the animating app FlipaClip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLordBluey (talk • contribs) 13:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It is actually File:BlueySteven.png. If this is close enough to a commercial character to be educationally useful here, then it is a derivative work and cannot be kept here. If it it not close to a commercial character then it is personal art, which we do not keep. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

File:FUE hair transplant before and after.jpg

He was sceptical and questioned his progress for some time, but between 6 and 8 months, he experienced a considerable change in density and is now delighted with the results. The size of his procedure made him a perfect candidate for our hair transplant centre in Harley Street London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaryKingP (talk • contribs) 15:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Tomio Otani.jpg

This photo is from a family photo album. It is not copyrighted--Finlay73 (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC) 8 January 2025

@Finlay73: How can it have a Creative Commons license if it is not copyrighted? Thuresson (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Flag of Lunda Tchokwe.svg

This file was just deleted because it doesn't fit in TOO Angola, but the symbol in the middle is the traditional lusona symbol for antelope footprint. [1] Other than that the graphic consists of just simple rectangles and circle. Therefore the deletion was incorrect. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)