Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

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)
(Missing: 1 timestamp • 0 reasons • 2 subpages) • 0 malformed
155 copyvios • 357 duplicates • 9 adverts • 70 selfies • 82 others
v • d • e

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
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

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:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • 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.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.


Current requests

Commons:Interwiki prefix titles and all associated redirects

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

 Info I do not think that this page needs to be undeleted: it may be recreated if it is in COM:SCOPE.  No opinion in this matter, however. Ankry (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interwiki prefix titles on Meta is an operational page, and "Allowable page/gallery/category content" includes "Operational pages, such as templates and the like, including Commons-operational program listings." The Commons page got deleted with the reason, "That's not the way it works," and redirects to that page were deleted as cross-namespace redirects. Faster than Thunder (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no issues with having such a page, it is a net-positive and not disruptive to help those accessing our sites.  Support. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Popeye-floor-flusher.jpg

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

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

Files uploaded by 917ph

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

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

File:Minecraft Marketplace logo.png

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

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

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

File:Ric Flair Big Gold NWA 1988 colored.png

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

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

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

File:Hasan md shahriare profile pic.jpg

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

 Support Automatically in scope per COM:INUSE on Wikidata: d:Q135092463. The page is currently nominated for deletion with one keep !vote stating that it fulfills d:Wikidata:Notability#3 (fulfills a structural need), and I tend to agree; he is the author of d:Q135179996, which is inherently notable per d:Wikidata:Notability#2 as a publicly available scholarly work. Therefore, I expect the WD entry to be kept, and this image can be readded to that page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait here for a decision in Wikidata. Ankry (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral Just wonder, that who captured your profile picture? If that's just yourself then there's a concern called COM:SELFIE on restoration. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, copyright is another issue to be resolved if the Wikidata item is kept. On-wiki licensing per the "Own work" declaraion does not apply: (1) to photos that are not in the original camera resolution, (2) to photos without EXIF metadata, (3) to photos published elsewhere prior to upload to Commons, (4) to photos of identifiable (non-anonymous) authorship. At least few of the requirements are violated here. In any of the mentioned cases, a free license permission from the photo copyright holder through VRT may be needed unless the licensing can be proven basing on earlier publication. So even if it is undeleted, I will nominate if as {{No permission}}. Ankry (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: I don't think this is a universal requirement. The lighting and framing are obviously non-professional, making it very plausible for it to have been taken with a webcam or mobile phone on a stand. In these cases, it is reasonable to take the uploader at their word. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Front Nationale Logo.svg

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

 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Old Front Nationale Logo.svg. Thuresson (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this logo is considered to meet the threshold of originality, why are similar, unlicensed logos (kept under the PD‑textlogo rationale) treated differently? Commons policy (e.g. COM:TOO, COM:L, COM:LOGO) requires files to be free in both the source country and the U.S. If this file is copyrightable under that standard, shouldn’t the same reasoning apply to comparable cases? I’d appreciate clarification on which specific elements here are deemed original and how that differs from other retained logos. Ryegun (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not simply geometric shapes. Sources are: [1] [2]
SVG derived from: Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg. France has a lower ToO than Italy. Abzeronow (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a few aspects that seem somewhat nebulous in that deletion request. I can't view the deleted file as such, so please tell me if I'm missing something. From what the uploader says, their file File:Old Front Nationale Logo.svg is essentially a copy of the file File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg, with only the colour green changed to blue and the letters MSI at the bottom changed to FN (the result looking something like this). Whatever the copyright status of the basic design of the original file (File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg) might be, most people would probably say that the small changes (colour and letters), are not copyrightable as such, in Italy nor in France. One argument of the nominator of the DR seems to imply that the basic design, which is essentially identical in the two files (excepted for the small uncopyrightable changes mentioned), would be below the threshold of originality in Italy but would be above the threshold of originality in France. I'm not sure that we can really make such a distinction between those two countries. It would seem more consistent to treat those two quasi identical files in the same manner. If File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg is PD-textlogo, then so should the other file. Anyway, another question is why France would enter into consideration in relation with this design and Commons policy. The design being of Italian origin, and the changes being uncopyrightable, then logically the country of reference for the possibly copyrighted work, i.e. the design, is therefore still Italy. A third question is, in the hypothesis that the design would be copyrightable, what would be the year of expiration of the copyright? Probably not the years mentioned in the DR. According to File:Movimento Sociale Italiano Logo.svg, the author of the design would be Giorgio Almirante, a MSI founder whose life years are 1914-1988. So, if that attribution is correct, and if the design is even copyrightable anywhere, be it in Italy or in France, then the year of expiration of the copyright would be 2059. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak  Oppose. I have no idea why the Italian version is accepted on Commons, but this is certainly complex enough to have a copyright in France. Now if it was created before 1955, it may be in the public domain in France, but that remains to be proved. Yann (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of Movimento Sociale Italiano. Yann (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's not an obvious case, maybe an admin can make an attempt at closing that DR, so this UDR could then be closed accordingly. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But for the policy of Commons, the only two relevant countries for a work of Italian origin are the United States and Italy. So, the only question is if it is freely usable or not in the United States and in Italy. That it (and any minor variation of it) might be freely usable or not in China, France, Egypt or other countries does not enter into consideration for Commons. It seems that the original was created circa 1947 (it:Fiamma tricolore). Contributors of Commons have made various slightly different redrawings. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree. So PD-France may be OK, but PD-textlogo is certainly not. Idem for the Italian version. Yann (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeff and Isaac at their wedding reception.jpg

why was this F5'd? seems to be licensed here. ltbdl (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Support for restore the file. Someone added the template "No license since." There's nothing in the last saved version that would prevent a restore. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 06:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak oppose While it is declared in the description to be a selfie made by one of the subjects, this seems to be a studio photo. Also no original camera EXIF that could contain information about a self-timer. We generally do not accept the "Own work" declaration for such photos requiring a free license evidence or VRT permission for such photos. However, as this is an old upload, receiving such a permission is unlikely. Personally, I think that the photo was made by a professional photographer and not by one of the subjects as declared. Of course, I refer here to the photo of two men, not to the photo of a women used for vandalizing that should not be undeleted anyway. Ankry (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: since when is a self-timer required to take a photo by yourself? ltbdl (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. But its lack may constitute a reasonable doubt about self authorship. Especially for a professional photo that is declared as a selfie and does not look like a selfie. Lack of EXIF is another doubt itself. Ankry (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: However, missing EXIF data should not be a problem, as it is often missing from older uploads. An online search for the picture leads one to a memorial page. Jeffpw died in 2009. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
eh? you can take a photo without a timer easily, just get a remote. ltbdl (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:תערוכת תלמידי מגמת עיצוב חזותי בכפר הנוער יוענה ז'בוטינסקי.jpg

Requesting undeletion based on the concept of Commons:De minimis. The photo depicts an art exhibition. Each (potentially copyrighted) painting is therefore a small portion of the image. —Green Montanan (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose (As the deleting admin) - That's not how de minimis works. The focus of the photo is on the copyrighted works. That there is more than one of them in the photo does not change that. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The focus of the photo is on the existence of a student art exhibition inspired by an event in the news, not the individual art pieces displayed in the exhibition. —Green Montanan (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose DM requires that an average viewer might not notice if the copyrighted work were blanked. That is obviously not the case here for at least the first three paintings. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with this "average viewer might not notice if the copyrighted work were blanked" test. But my reading of COM:DM Israel is that use of the artwork that is "incidentally contained" in the photograph is explicitly permitted. In my opinion, since the focus of the photograph is the art exhibition, each individual painting is "incidentally contained" in the photograph, as replacement of each individual painting with a different individual painting would not change the focus of the photograph. Green Montanan (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a far stretch -- if you took all the paintings out, then you would no longer have an art exhibition. The principle is well established here -- an image in which the only interesting objects are copyrighted is not acceptable. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"if you took all the paintings out, then you would no longer have an art exhibition." — I agree.
That's exactly why I believe each individual painting is incidental to the photo, as the photo is not about any individual painting, it's about the exhibition as a whole. Green Montanan (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cite COM:DM in your first sentence. It says, among other things:

"In determining whether the copying was sufficiently trivial, the court will consider all the circumstances. So, for example, if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. If the existence of the poster was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area."
  • "the photograph was taken deliberately to include the [paintings]" -- obviously it was
  • "If the existence of the [paintings] was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place" -- again obviously it was

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Φωτογραφίες από τα Σέρβια.jpg

Hello,

The collage picture File:Φωτογραφίες από τα Σέρβια.jpg was deleted on 10 March 2025. As I do not login and check my messages regularly, I was unaware of the request to delete my picture, and therefore unable to respond in time. I understand that C messier, who submitted the request, was concerned that the collage might not have been my own work. However, I can confirm that all photos within this collage are my own, and I am happy to provide evidence, i.e. the original photos.

Could you please undelete File:Φωτογραφίες από τα Σέρβια.jpg?

Many thanks, Wikiphysicsgr (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiphysicsgr: If they are free, please provide the source of the images used for this montage. Otherwise, we need a permission from the copyright holder for each of them via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiphysicsgr: IMHO, you should upload the individual photos too and then link them at the collage description page. C messier (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kind of Bloop album cover.png

This file (the original Kind of Bloop album art, which is derived from the Kind of Blue album cover) has been previously discussed on the VRT noticeboard and VPC, so I apologize for talking about this so much. If no new evidence comes up, then I promise that this will be my last time discussing this. I am filing this undeletion request to dispute VRT's conclusion that more information besides that contained in ticket:2025052010011304 is needed. The ticket should contain my initial email to the artwork's creator and their response, though if it does not or any of what I say about the ticket below is incorrect, then please oppose this request.

With that said, this file should be undeleted for two reasons, both of which must be true.

1. From the available evidence, the artwork's creator knew that they were releasing the work as depicted in the file under the CC BY 4.0 license. That is, they do not need to provide the work's filename or URL on Commons. First, in my initial email, I called the work the "Kind of Bloop album cover" and provided a link to http://web.archive.org/web/20090927125216/http://kindofbloop.com/images/background.png. The term "Kind of Bloop album cover" can only refer to two things: the original cover or that of the 15th anniversary edition. The addition of the link makes it clear that I am referring to the former. Second, only the original cover art was subject to a fair use controversy. Third, only the original cover art has an accompanying set of comparison images, which can be seen at the bottom of the page I just linked.

2. Under current community standards, it is not necessary to prove that the artwork's creator did not sign away their copyright to the person who commissioned the work. Andy Baio, the commissioner, says in four different places (Kickstarter page, Kickstarter comment, "Kind of Screwed", and GameSetWatch interview) that SnackAdmiral created the work. In my initial email, I asked if they had signed away their copyright, but they did not answer that question. They, however, did claim to release their contribution under a free license, and the very fact that they did so (as opposed to telling me that they signed over their rights to Baio and thus I should seek permission from him instead) arguably suggests that they retained copyright ownership over the work.

Second, there is no evidence that SnackAdmiral was ever hired to make the cover art. Although Baio says in "Turning Patrons into Producers: Fan-Commissioned Art on Kickstarter" that (my bold)

With Kind of Bloop, it was effectively work-for-hire. I paid the artists the complete proceeds of the Kickstarter fundraiser and I owned the finished album, with the ability to sell it in the future without hassle.

his use of the word album arguably only refers, in context, to the five songs in Kind of Bloop. This is because in the Kickstarter page, "Kind of Screwed", and his CreativeMornings HQ talk, he only mentions giving the Kickstarter money to the five musicians, and we should take him at his word. Two more things, though I don't know how convincing these are. One, notice that Baio uses the word effectively; if we follow the definition given by Google, "actually but not officially or explicitly", then this can imply the absence of a work-for-hire agreement. Two, given the legal settlement with Maisel, Baio likely wouldn't be able to "sell [the album] in the future without hassle" if he was also referring to the cover art.

Third, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have not seen, for example, a commissioned photograph of a subject deleted because the photographer cannot prove that they did not transfer their copyright to them. If my second point is convincing, then this case is roughly analogous to that of File:Lucy Beall Lott outside St. Salvator's Chapel, sitting knees up.jpg: the photograph was probably commissioned, and the only evidence that the photographer owns the copyright is the subject's indication that they took the picture. There is no explicit statement that proves a negative. prospectprospekt (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC) edited 15:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Allow me to go to the basic issue that is the copyright claim by Maisel. If I understand the rationale that you presented on VP/C, it is that the album cover would be in the public domain because it did not have a copyright notice. Is that it? Interesting as that rationale may be, the hard reality is that Maisel did claim that his copyright applies in relation with the album cover and with the derivative of the album cover and he demanded from Baio hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for copyright infringements. The counter-argument by Baio's lawyers was based on the claim that Baio's uses were "fair uses", thus apparently admitting that Maisel does have a copyright in relation to the album cover. Instead of going to court, Baio settled by paying $32,500 to Maisel and agreed to not use the work. If the public domain argument is correct, how do you explain that Baio's lawyers did not use it? Anyway, the incident shows that Maisel claims a copyright and hosting the image on Commons would cause a very real risk for Commons and for the reusers of being sued. Now, about the (possibly additional) copyright on the derivative image by SnackAdmiral, most users here are not members of the VRT. The file was undeleted temporarily from 11 July to 11 August to allow the correspondent, if necessary, to see the file. As discussed on the VRT/Noticeboard, if members of the VRT say that they did not obtain sufficient information to validate the status of the file, I doubt that users here would contradict them. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your first point, two things: one, the case settled out of court, so Baio's lawyers never got the chance to reveal their arguments; two, "they will sue us" is not a valid rationale for deleting a file when you can clearly prove that it is in the public domain, which I believe I have done with the Kind of Blue cover. We host scans of artworks that museums claim copyright to all the time, and we even host files that have resulted in expensive out of court settlements.
Regarding your second point, the VRT explicitly indicated that the permission ticket was rejected on the grounds that the sender failed to indicate the filename on Commons. If my view of the ticket is correct, then I believe that this decision is clearly erroneous, as the ticket obviously makes clear that what is released is what is depicted in the file. prospectprospekt (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The whole argumentation of Baio on his website is about fair use. There's nothing about public domain. When he says "My lawyers and I firmly believe that the pixel art is 'fair use'", such a firm belief if incompatible with a belief that the album cover is in the public domain. Not saying that your argument is wrong, but we can observe that both sides who actually faced the issue together with their respective lawyer firms did not agree with it. That should make anyone cautious. We know that Maisel takes measures to enforce his alleged copyright and Baio did not dispute that copyright. It's not only about "us", but there would be a serious risk to mislead reusers and place them in trouble. It is a valid rationale for deleting a file. Commons should not host the file if it means to sacrifice people who might suffer the consequences. A recourse may be to contact the Wikimedia Foundation and ask if they are willing to host the file and to spend $500,000 in possible damages, lawyers fees and to compensate reusers. There is nothing in common with Philpot. As for SnackAdmiral, the file was undeleted and available during one month to leave him a chance to respond. Apparently, nothing new happened. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What Maisel has in common with Philpot is that both have used their images to extract settlements for purported copyright infringement. The case for keeping Maisel's cover is stronger because unlike Maisel, Philpot sometimes has valid reasons to sue, as shown by the fact that he has won some of his lawsuits. Regardless of his litigiousness, however, Philpot's files are, in the words of Carl Lindberg, still "perfectly legal to use", provided that the attribution is correct; they are still free cultural works. Likewise here, because the cover is in the public domain. Just as Philpot releasing his images under a CC license was enough to keep his files, Maisel/Columbia failing to renew the album cover should be the end of story, unless you can explain why the cover is still copyrighted. It is impossible to argue for keeping Philpot's files while deleting Maisel's under the "they will sue us" rationale.
Even if we were to accept that rationale, it would be unworkable. Copyfraud is commonplace; how would you distinguish between bogus claims and actual threats? What actions would rise to the supposed level of concern? We have rejected DMCA requests, kept the Monkey Selfie against the wishes of its progenitor, and, again, uploaded scans against the wishes of the GLAM institutions that produced them. What common principle, other than copyright status, would you use to guide these decisions? prospectprospekt (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC) edited 20:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add: what VRT says is not final; a user should be able to request the second opinion of other VRT members, which is what I'm asking for here, even though this might be the wrong place for it. prospectprospekt (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are comments by two VRT members in the Noticeboard discussion. If you want to request more, you can leave it open instead of marking it resolved or start a new section there if it can make it more obvious. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: I leave open the possibility to starting a new section on the VRT noticeboard if this discussion is closed without receiving a second opinion, contrary to the promise I made earlier. However, I will probably not because I have spent way too much effort on this and need to focus on something else. prospectprospekt (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I have claimed to know things that actually I don't know. As such,  I withdraw my nomination and will be nominating File:Kind of Blue (1959, CL 1355) album cover.jpg for deletion. prospectprospekt (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wise move. The cover would probably have been nominated for discussion sooner or later. Thank you for making me learn about that story. There has been a lot of comments on it on the internet, including by legal professionals. I read several. What continues to be concerning is that none of them mentions a possibility that the cover image might be in the public domain. Either they all missed it or they know more than we do. It would be more comfortable for Commons if there were at least one or two sources that mentioned the public domain hypothesis. Commons would be on very thin ice by hosting the pixel art image. It would imply denying the copyright claim of Maisel on the cover copy, and denying the distinct copyright claim of Baio on the pixel image, and relying on the artist's correspondence judged unsatisfactory by the VRT. The cases of the monkey and of the scans implied the knowledge of the precise rationales of the other parties and the backing of the WMF. Questioning Maisel's copyright would require preparation and contacting him to know what he has to say about the public domain hypothesis. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done withdrawn. Ankry (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:No Alternative movie poster.jpg‬

I am the photographer of this image, and copyright holder of the poster image. I am a part of the No Alternative production team...I made the poster, I don't know how else to tell you this is my image. I appreciate your help. Oniongod (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only original unpublished works can be licensed on-wiki. As you cannot upload the original poster here and as it was already published, we need a free license from the poster exclusive copyright holder(s) using VRT. Ankry (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:RaphaëlGraven-JeanPormanove.jpg

L’image n’est pas tirée du lien donné. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haperz (talk • contribs) 20:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter. The instagram page declared as a source also does not contain a free license granted by the photographer. If an image was published anywhere without a free license, we need a free license permission from the actual copyright holder using VRT. Ankry (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maurício cantor simplesmente diferente.jpg

Solicito a restauração deste arquivo. Sou o próprio autor da imagem e também a pessoa retratada. Sou cantor e figura pública em atividade (Maurício José LP), com atuação reconhecida no meio artístico.

A foto foi tirada por mim mesmo, com celular, no estúdio residencial, como parte do projeto artístico "Maurício cantor simplesmente diferente", de 2025. A imagem será usada no painel artístico da Wikipédia, o que está dentro do escopo educacional do Wikimedia Commons.

Licenciei a imagem corretamente com a licença Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-4.0.

Agradeço pela consideração.

Maurício José LP (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Ankry (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:LondonLordsTeam.png

File that was deleted is the logo of a former professional-amateur Canadian football team that existed in London, Ontario, Canada from 1955 to 1974. I have verified that neither the logo, nor the wordmark, have been copyrighted in Canada. This version of the logo that was deleted was digitally restored by myself from old team memorabilia and historical imagery (one of which was sourced from a YouTube video from a local sports hall of fame), with the intention of improving the quality of historical information available for this defunct football team.

--HuronErie (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have verified they have not been copyrighted in Canada? What does that mean? Berne Convention countries automatically provide copyright, and Canada has been a Berne Convention country since 1886.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This file contains an old logo and several old photographs. As Prosfilaes says, Canada is a Berne Convention country so copyright is automatic. 1950s to 1970s photos are very likely still under copyright (Canada recently expanded copyright term nonretroactively to Life of the author plus 70 years. 1950s photos are also subject to URAA). Abzeronow (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela February 2019

Per COM:PDM. The files were uploaded in the NGO Provea's Flickr account under a PDM license and deleted for the same reason, but the images are of Provea's authorship. The account is used for Provea's own pictures, which is evident from images of events organized by the NGO, such as these two film screenings: 11.10.19 cine-foro DESIGUALES and 2018.07.13 cineforo PERSEPOLIS.

Provea seems to take care with the licenses used to publish the images. In this album: 15.01.19 Educadores reclaman sus derechos, for instance, there are a few images taken with a Xiaomi camera, possibly from a different photographer, and it was uploaded with all rights reserved. Provea stopped using the PDM after November 2020. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maurício cantor simplesmente diferente.jpg

Solicito a restauração deste arquivo. Sou o próprio autor da imagem e também a pessoa retratada. Sou cantor e figura pública em atividade (Maurício José LP), com atuação reconhecida no meio artístico. A imagem será usada no painel artístico da Wikipédia como parte de um verbete enciclopédico sobre minha carreira, o que está de acordo com o escopo educacional do Wikimedia Commons.

A imagem foi tirada por mim mesmo em meu estúdio, como parte do projeto artístico "Maurício cantor simplesmente diferente", com propósito cultural e documental.

Agradeço pela atenção e peço gentilmente a reconsideração da exclusão.

Maurício José LP (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maurício José LP: First, reuploading of deleted photos is a serious violation of Wikimedia Commons policy. You will be blocked if you do so again. Also a copyright issue: you declared that you are the photographer who made this photo; how did you do so while keeping the microphone? Providing false or incorrect information makes any further declaration of the user unreliable. And finally, the photo seems to be out of Wikimedia Commons scope: neither educationally useful, nor needed for a Wikipedia article. Users who are not Wikimedia contributors should not create userpages: Wikimedia is not Facebook. Ankry (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:A_person_wearing_a_humorous_novelty_hat.jpg

This was deleted as not original work. However it is my original work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister1000k (talk • contribs)

File:Please Hold Short Film 2020.jpg

The image of the Please Hold movie poster was deleted on the grounds of a copyright violation. However, I can provide written confirmation from the copyright owners that they fully consent to their movie poster existing on Wikipedia. What is the proper way to submit written proof? Thank you.

EDIT: Apologies, I've found the instructions and am not sure how to delete this. Please disregard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankledsuavities (talk • contribs) 09:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Rankledsuavities (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doldiefshuis kelder.jpg and Doldiefshuis beschildering

Dear volunteer,

Both files are concerning pictures of another maker than me. The maker has informed me that I may use the pictures for wikimedia, knowing all the copyrightsconsequences: a format of wiki copyrights permission has been used and signed by the maker.

I received a reaction of Alfred Neumann from wiki-permissions, in which he stated:

"For us to process your contribution(s), we need to know the specific name or link to the page(s) on Wikimedia Commons to which you have uploaded them."

Both pictures have to be placed onder the specific name of the page 'Doldiefshuis'. However, I cannot upload again. Please, can you help me to place the pictures where they belong, so that I can use them for the lemma 'Doldiefshuis' on Wikipedia.

Kind regards,

Joop Wammes wammes.joop@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoopWammes (talk • contribs) 10:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheBurlingtonMagazineHistoricalIssues.jpg

I am employed by The Burlington Magazine. I have emailed permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with proof of my license to publish the content in question. I am hoping that the image will be restored once this can be verified. Many thanks,

Best, Sylvie

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=969879230"