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: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
81 copyvios • 3 duplicates • 16 adverts • 84 selfies • 27 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

File:Grubtheme sekiro.png File doesn't fulfil requirements for deletion

I believe that this file isn't eligible for deletion because it's author has released it on GitHub under a free license (MIT license) source and because this image doesn't contain any derivative work from the game Sekiro (also see: commons rule).

Thank you for participating in this discussion Kakučan (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is the only public repository of semimqmo on GitHub and they posted on Reddit that they just took this wallpaper from https://wallpapersden.com/sekiro-shadows-die-twice-art-wallpaper/2560x1440 where the author is not even credited. And maybe some people do not think of a software license applying to images  REAL 💬 ⬆   15:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, there is no evidence that the creator of the image is the person who posted it with the {{Mit}} license at github. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in this and this commit the final screenshot is composed of resources which automatically fulfill the commons rule of threshold of originality except this one (which is considered it to be not semimqmo's original work). I found this theory to be true but I couldn't find any license posted with this resource which leads me to think that John Devlin had given a permission to semimqmo to repost this resource under MIT license (otherwise semimqmo's repo on GitHub would've been taken down for copyright infringement). Thank you for your response Kakučan (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I say again -- there is no evidence that Devlin has given a free license. The fact that GitHub has not acted against this post proves nothing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a logo for JS13K games. I am writing on behalf of the creators Andrzej and Ewa Mazur who wishes it to not be deleted. This image was being used on the wikipedia page for js13k also. Thank you for fixing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slackluster (talk • contribs)

 Support If this is the logo shown at the top of https://js13kgames.com Andrzej Mazur uploaded this file under CC0 in 2018  REAL 💬 ⬆   21:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Although Ewa Mazur is mentioned on the web site, Andrzej is not. This logo was uploaded by USER:Mypoint13k in 2021. The web site has "©2024 js13kGames & authors". If the owners of the site actually want the logo freely licensed here, they must do it with a message to VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is in https://github.com/orgs/js13kGames/people. He uploaded the logo on the website in a GitHub repository under CC0 in 2018  REAL 💬 ⬆   14:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yann I don't think so. Aside from the explicit copyright notice which I cited above, the legal section of the web site has
"As a condition of submission, Entrant grants the Competition Organizer, its subsidiaries, agents and partner companies, a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, publish, distribute, publicly perform, create a derivative work from, and publicly display the Submission."
That is a free license only in the sense that no money changes hands. It does not include the right to freely license anything. Also, please remember that even in the case where the software may be freely licensed, the logo for it is often not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an agreement for entrants who submit games to the competition, not anything to do with the website itself, which in fact has no license on GitHub at all. However, one of the staff of js13kGames uploaded this logo in a different repository under CC0. The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted, which has not been done so there  REAL 💬 ⬆   15:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted. Yes, I agree with that. Yann (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Sepahan Logo.png

با سلام لوگوی بارگذاری شده باز طراحی اینجانب میباشد و بنده لوگو را از روی یک ویدئو طراحی نمودم و کاملا اثر شخصی بنده میباشد.

 Oppose Complex logo, no permission. Yann (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the same logo https://www.instagram.com/wearesepahan/p/DHI2zQEIFnj, that post says it is from the 70s, is Template:PD-Iran 30 years after publication of a work by a "legal person" mean government only or business entities?  REAL 💬 ⬆   14:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same logo. The logo might be from the 1970s, but is the blazon from the 1970s or more recent? Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are talking about.. @Hanooz do you know anything about this?  REAL 💬 ⬆   20:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edited "from there" to "from the 1970s" to make my meaning more clear. (And I mean to ask if the interpretation of the logo is from the 1970s or more recent) Abzeronow (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see now (I didnt know what "the blazon" was referring to). Now that I look more closely, I can't find this logo by reverse image search anywhere else than the Instagram account, so we definitely need to learn more from someone who knows about Iranian football clubs back then  REAL 💬 ⬆   22:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muselk vs Ali-A (cropped).jpg

The file was speedily deleted for the reason "per COM:Speedy" without mentioning a specific reason as to why it was speedily deleted.

Presuming the reason being F1, the original source of the image was a thumbnail from a YouTube video that was listed under a CC license. The thumbnail does contain copyrighted Fortnite imagery, but was cropped to exclude any of it. There isn't a COM:NET issue as far as I'm aware because Ali-A does actually talk in that video. In other words, the subject of the file is affiliated with the uploader in that specific video. This isn't just some random upload of gameplay that put his face in the thumbnail for clickbait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TansoShoshen (talk • contribs) 08:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging @Yann: as the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose without more information. Image included in a game video. Where does this image come from? Also what's the educational purpose of this? Yann (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that this was 2010-era YouTube, and that after scrolling across the videos of YouTube channel and checking with both Tineye and Google Reverse Image Search, this seems to be just a unique instance of Ali-A doing the "stereotypical clickbait face". The educational value is that the subject depicted, Ali-A is a notable subject with his own article on Wikipedia. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portret van een prostituee met een glas whiskey, RP-F-F00149.jpg

Hi, This was certainly published at the time, so the reason for deletion is not valid: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portret van een prostituee met een glas whiskey, RP-F-F00149.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, we already have a copy: File:StoryvilleRaleighRyeGal.JPG. Yann (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it was "certainly published" in 1912? Per the MOMA book, Bellocq took these photographs for himself (he apparently was friendly with the prostitutes, don't know if he was a customer there) and kept the glass negatives at home, where they were found in some piece of furniture after his death. His main occupation as a photographer was apparently working for a shipbuilding company, photographing ship parts and machinery. --Rosenzweig τ 10:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Nosferattus: as the nominator. --Rosenzweig τ 10:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Oversimplification - Many of the now best known Bellocq nudes are from the chest of glass negatives rediscovered in the 1960s but Bellocq also printed some at the time, both for the prostitutes themselves and their customers. As a professional photographer during his life he was better publicly known for his industrial photography, photographs of Mardi Gras floats (seasonal but extensive work, was official photographer for some krewes), photographer for the Archdiocese of New Orleans, and also did portrait photography. While the "Storyville" red-light district was quasi-legal, association with it was not something which would publicized by someone doing respectable work outside of the demi-monde (even if it was an open secret in some circles). IMO there may be a case that Bellocq images known only from prints produced by Lee Friedlander, may still be under copyright, this is not one, being one of the long better known Storyville portraits. Some Storyville historians have even questioned the attribution of this one to Bellocq. (This is mostly off the top of my head as a long-time researcher in early New Orleans jazz, which is an adjacent topic to Storyville history with some crossover, knowing and interacting with some working in the latter field, but some details are likely covered in the late Al Rose's "Storyville" book.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Infrogmation and Yann: Do you have any evidence that this specific photo was published before 1970? Nosferattus (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not much reason to doubt publication, as Infrogmation explains above. Speculations are not a valid reason deletion, and are much beyond significant doubt, which is required for deletion. Yann (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is definitely good reason to doubt publication. (1) I wasn't able to find any evidence that it was published prior to 1970 when I nominated the image for deletion. (2) The MOMA book about Bellocq's nudes doesn't mention any previous publications and seems to imply that Lee Friedlander was the first to publish them. But I don't know why I'm arguing with you anyway. You're just going to undelete it regardless of what I say. Nosferattus (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOMA book is not a holy publication. It is not surprising that it doesn't mention distribution of these portraits to the subjects and their customers, which counts as publication. Association with prostitutes was not something people publicized. Yann (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mario & Luigi - Superstar Saga logo.png

Per deletion discussion, logo was deleted by being above COM:TOO Japan, though I don't think that applies since that logo was the international one (for reference, mariowiki:File:MnL_Logo.jpg, while the Japanese release has a entirely different version (mariowiki:File:M&LSS_Japanese_Logo.png). --SergioFLS (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In order to claim it published in multiple countries, we would need the exact publication dates in order to prove that it was published in US within 30 days since its initial publication. Ankry (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Super Mario Wiki page of the game states that the game was first released in the US, following next the UK. It cites the "Chronicle" section in Super Smash Bros. Brawl for the US publication date, interestingly enough. SergioFLS (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is indeed a US publication, it should be {{PD-textlogo}} and COM:TOO Japan should be irrelevant. Ankry (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per IronGargoyle. --Yann (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jan Jamróz.jpg

I updated the source information, Please check if that is ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerzyJamroz (talk • contribs) 19:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose With a 1938 date and unknown author, it was under copyright in Poland or Germany until 2008, well past the URAA date, so it will be under copyright in the USA until 1/1/2034..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A 1938 publication without an explicit copyright notice, would make it PD in Poland and US. But we need to know the 1938 publication to verify it. Ankry (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tux Paint woman dancing.svg

Note: I am basing my request off a derivative of this file, which is hopefully representative of the original image.

This file was deleted without discussion in 2024 on the basis that it was a derivative of Disney's Cinderella. However, I fail to see how this is at all the case. The hair, facial structure, and dress all differ significantly from Disney's Cinderella. Based5290 (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment also based on File:Travelling matte.svg.) There's a likeness in a general sense, it likely drew inspiration from Cinderella, but it's far from a copy. The question is where is the line between "looks vaguely like" and "looks too much like". The DR nomination was made by a user now indefinitely blocked for making dubious deletion requests. Notifying IronGargoyle as closing admin, in case they might wish to reexamine the case. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC) No need to reexamine, given the information provided below. Sorry for the disturbance. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose

  1. The subject image is shown here.
  2. It was deleted without discussion after 13 days. Commons cannot manufacture discussion and generally those deletions that have little or no discussion are obviously problematic.
  3. The small images shown at the file cited above are very different from the subject image. The dress color and the gloves are very different.
  4. The dress is almost exactly the dress shown multiple times if you Google "disney cinderella", both style and color. The dark collar and the gloves are also the same. It is true that the hair color and face are different, but the image cries out "copy".
  5. It is not clear why art by an unknown artist is in scope here. Tux Paint is a capable program, but there is nothing to distinguish a image created by it from one created with Adobe, Corel, MS Paint, or others.
  6. It is also not clear that this image, lifted from the Web, has a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Just to clarify, can it be understood that the images, and in particular the dresses, in "File:Travelling matte.svg" and in "File:Tux Paint woman dancing.svg" are not the same? Meaning that "Travelling matte.svg" is different from Cinderella but "Tux Paint woman dancing.svg" is too similar to Cinderella? -- Asclepias (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC) Ok, you answered in adding a new paragraph above while I was typing my question. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:吳宇凡 藝人照片.jpg

此照片為公開形象照，並由我本人【吳宇凡】上傳檔案作為共享資源 因此要求取消刪除，若需要提供相關證件 請告訴我 謝謝 --Sharkofblack (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)吳宇凡[reply]

 Oppose "Public" does not mean "Copyright free". Almost everything on the Web is public, but very little is freely licensed or PD. Since the image has appeared elsewhere, restoration requires a free license from the actual photographer using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba.png

Hello!
This file was errantly deleted.
This file is public domain in Iraq, and public domain in America, as Iraq is a non-signatory to the Berne convention. The organization that this flag belongs to, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba is a militia that's apart of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), which is a branch of the Iraqi Armed Forces.
Article 6 of the Law No. 3 of 1971 on Copyright[1] states that "official documents such as texts of laws and regulations, international agreements, judicial rulings and other official documents" are not protected by copyright law. The phrase "other official documents" is intentionally open-ended and follows a legal construction called ejusdem generis, meaning "of the same kind." Courts interpreting similar laws read the list not as exhaustive but as illustrative. If laws and regulations are included, so too are government-issued orders, decrees, and public symbols created by or for state institutions, such as logos and flags representing military units. Law No. 40 of 2016 formally incorporates the PMF into the Iraqi Armed Forces. Therefore, insignia and flags of PMF brigades are official symbols of a branch of the Iraqi state. These emblems are used in state functions, military ceremonies, recruitment efforts, and internal publications, which unambiguously makes them, by definition and function, "official documents." This is not speculative, the insignia is state-issued, used in a government capacity, and falls within the legal exemptions of Iraq’s copyright law. The emblems and flags of PMF brigades are official state imagery, created under the authority of Iraq’s armed forces, and publicly disseminated as part of their official identity. As such, they meet the definition of "official documents."
--Castroonthemoon (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Untitled Perfect Lovers Stairs.jpg

Deletion rationale here is unclear; at one point there were two versions of this file, so one deletion made sense, but there doesn't seem to be a clear chain of why the second version was deleted. Image is freely licensed (Flickr upload), the content of the image is a contemporary artwork that's below the US threshold of originality where the work was first published (it's two store-bought clocks placed side by side). Each iteration of the work is different - the museum/gallery/exhibitor buys new clocks - so it seems to be in scope to have different pictures of this work from different exhibitions to show the range of ways it's looked.--19h00s (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaptain Kharisma.jpg

A bunch of annoying twitter trolls decided it was funny to claim that this file was stolen and didn’t belong to me. Not only the file exist on Wikimedia for months and got permission from the original author (and was the one who PAYED for the commission) for months with no problem, but I also have to take time out of my day to restore a file that I have copyright permission from. I also told the original author to submit a VRT if that’s fine to confirm the file is under CC by 2 TzarN64 (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this image within scope for a Wikimedia project? Thuresson (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said that you created this yourself. That isn’t the same as paying someone else to create it, which wouldn’t necessarily make you the copyright owner, even if the character belongs to you. 3df (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Incorrect PD Netherlands (government works)

Reason: This deletion went through quite some time ago. I'd like to ask if:

  • the files aren't duplicates of stuff we've got back in our collection
  • the deleted file pages contain source statements
  • and if the source is currently licensed under CC-by-SA 4.0 per https://english.defensie.nl/copyright (cf. {{Mindef}}).

If yes, we could have the images back, couldn't we? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose These are very old -- in fact, Google reports that the source server no longer exists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battle For Dream Island Firey.webp

The creators of Battle For Dream Island, Cary Huang and Michael Huang stated that Battle For Dream Island content is not copyrighted and images, audio and videos from the series are free to use, therefore I have permission to upload this file. --Splitpanama261 (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Hi, Please ask the copyright holder to send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:CFTC Santé Sociaux.png

Ceci est notre logo, il est librement utilisable dans le cas de communication ou identification de notre fédération syndicale "CFTC SANTÉ SOCIAUX" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffischbach (talk • contribs) 07:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ffischbach: Bonjour, Désolé, mais ceci n'est pas sufficient pour Wikimedia Commons. Pour être publié ici, il faut une autorisation pour une licence libre, qui inclut toute utilisation, y compris commerciale. Voyez COM:VRT/fr pour la procédure. Vous pouvez aussi l'importer localement sur Wikipédia en français ou en anglais. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:'Melanye Marlisa Maclin.jpg

Reason for undeletion: This image is of Dr. Melanye Marlisa Maclin, a notable American dermatologist, entrepreneur, and media personality. It is intended to be used in her Wikipedia article under fair use or with permission. The image is not a copyright violation and supports the encyclopedic content of her biography.

I am the uploader and I have permission from the copyright holder to use this image on Wikimedia Commons.

Kundan123K (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Fair use is not accepted on Wikimedia Commons. You may be able to upload it locally on the English Wikipedia after reading en:WP:FU. Yann (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment, copyright holder have to use COM:relgen and send the permission. More infos at COM:VRT. A VRT-Member then will check. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 20:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:V13 vg261 262.tif

The same as this image from Venus: File:USSR Venera 9 1975 Venus ground colorized by Don P. Mitchell.png

Both are photos by no person and seems to therefore according to Russian law be free (see license of above image). Nsae Comp (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsae Comp: At upload you claimed that it is made by a NASA employee, which is false. You also need to refer to arguments used File:USSR Venera 13 1982 - Venus ground recolorized.jpg, especially those related to postprocessing of the photo. Ankry (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I wouldnt know how to look at these old files. Nsae Comp (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gee, Judge Delbert C.jpg

My family owns this photo. It is also being used here at the URL if the URL is helpful to cite credit: https://www.lovethylawyer.com/hon-delbert-gee-acba-santa-clara/ Dhaneesi (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhaneesi:
  1. Fair Use photos are not accepted here, we need a free license or an evidence of Public Domain status.
  2. At upload you claimed to be the author of the photo; if this was a lie, how can we rely on any further statement for you? We need an evidence, not your declaration.
  3. Per our policy, Own work based licensing cannot be applied to previously published images; you need copy the license and authorship information from the source site or a free license needs to be provided using VRT in such cases.
  4. The copyright holder of the photo may be the photographer, his/her employer or someone having a copyright contract with them that explicitly transfers copyright or allows relicensing. If "your family" has any of them, ask them to provide it via VRT.
Ankry (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=969879230"