Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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)
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

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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

File:Alishan Taiwan Xiang-Lin-Elementary-School-03.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: COM:FOP Taiwan accepts 2-dimensional works A1Cafel (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[]

  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose for files like File:COVID-19 Pandemic Prevention Notice of a Cram School in Hsinchu.jpg and File:COVID-19 Epidemic Prevention Information Board at Campus Bus Stop in National Tsing Hua University.jpg. By the file names these depict COVID-19 information boards which IMO may not fulfill the requirement at COM:FOP Taiwan ("Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, may be exploited by any means..."). Are COVID-19 information boards/announcements for long-term basis? I doubt they would. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Agreed. Also File:Doraemon 2007 poster on CTS Kuang-fu Building.jpg seems to be an indoor photo. Few others may need to be verified by Chinese-speaking users as they may refer to some temporary events. Also content of bilboards unlikely can be considered permanent. I suggest temporary undeletion of the images for discussion. Ankry (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Support for temporary undeletions. Since I'm from the Philippines, I hope Wikipedians from Taiwan (and perhaps from PRC) to conduct thorough individual reviews on each of the files indicated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[]
        • Pinging users like @Solomon203, KOKUYO, Taiwania Justo, Kai3952, Reke, 廣九直通車: for discussion.--A1Cafel (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[]
          • @A1Cafel: All images are deleted, then I can't see what the problem is in this situation. If you need to discuss further, please restore these images as they are vital to the discussion. By the way, I have patiently and calmly discussed this issue with Reke many times, but the result was 'no consensus'.--Kai3952 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[]
            • If you ping me about the FOP-Taiwan part, I hope you'll consider my situation seriously. Because I was told by reke that I'm an annoying person and accused me of doing a destroy user pictures using DR (see: special:diff/514139241). In fact, he previously said that you (Kai) have Asperger's syndrome, and he also stressed that any disputes between me and someone else could be a problem for the disease. My plight in talk or communication with is similar to that of most users at Commons. It's very difficult to avoid disputes with users, and everyone should understand. I think...don't let them (including me) go away from Commons by the stigma of being labeled “Asperger.” I know it is hard not to become frustrated and the frustration just made it worse, but can't bear the stigma of choosing such a notoriously mental illness or psychiatric disorde. I impacted by the stigma of being labeled “Asperger,”so please don't ping me about COM:FOP Taiwan.--Kai3952 (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Temporary undeletion per Kai3952, unless I can see what they were, I'm not sure if they are photographed indoorly or outdoorly. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[]
Symbol support vote.svg Support Temporary undeletion. Per above. SCP-2000 13:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[]

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[]

For the "勞基法..." one, @Reke: is that TIPO article requires permanently placed, or temporary ones are also applied? The second one may fall under COM:CHARACTER so indeed shouldn't apply --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jeff G.: as a nominator, do you agree me to "non-admin closure"-like remove the temporary undeletion tag here? That isn't even a 2D work, it's a 3D work. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[]
@Liuxinyu970226: as it seems COM:FOP Taiwan now permits photos of exterior fixed 3D works, I support undeletion, but removal of temporary undeletion tags should wait for consensus here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I deleted most of images that doubts were raised about. The only remaining is File:勞工是我心中最軟的一塊 20191214.jpg where User:Liuxinyu970226 opposes basing on TOO, while we are discussing permanence. I do not understand how TOO is relevant here. I assume, all others can be considered kept already. Ankry (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Note also that natural destruction of medium is generally not considered an argument against permanence. Not permanent = intended to be removed or replaced after some period of time. Not because of natural destrution of medium (eg. paper) due to weather conditions. Ankry (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Ankry: For "勞工是..." one, that has an animation/a cartoon-like artwork, so the question should be answered by the author @Solomon203:: Is this artwork really "your own work"? See also COM:CHARACTER. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Solomon203, KOKUYO, Taiwania Justo, Kai3952, Reke, 廣九直通車: is the illustrated advertisement at File:Hsinchu City - panoramio.jpg still exists (or has it already been replaced by another ad)? If replaced (just like most billboard ads), I'm sorry - this should remain delsted until it falls public domain. Most billboard ads are temporal in nature. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[]
    JWilz12345, I told you guys before that I'm not going to speak about the FOP-Taiwan part because Reke claims that he is more familiar with the policy than I am. You can look at his edits to see how 'claim' he is.--Kai3952 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[]
    "勞工是..." is an outdoor political sticker on Section 3, Xinsheng South Road, Da'an District, Taipei City. --Solomon203 (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[]
    So we can assume it is intended to be shown during an election campain or another temporary action, not permanently. Am I right? Ankry (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Sorry reply so late. In my opinion:
  1. File:多個單位善心捐助高市圖通閱、故事書車_05.jpg is a bookmobile and it may not meet "long-term basis" since it has visited to school sometimes per this article
  2. File:Hsinchu City - panoramio.jpg is a advertising board, which was placed temporary in common sense, thus we can presume it is not meet "long-term basis" FOP requirement.
  3. There is no evidence can demonstrate File:The Art decoration in Chung-Wen Elementary School 01.jpg is in public domain at present and that should be deleted per COM:EVID.
Thank you. SCP-2000 02:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @SCP-2000: Nothing is late while the case is open. However, I think that we need some clarification of your comments.
    (Ad. 1) Why visited to school sometimes is relevant? Do you mean that the car decoration is dedicated per visit (or per few visits) or that Taiwanese FOP does not apply to art placed on vehicles per general? While I doubt the first, I have no opinion about the latter.
    (Ad. 2) Being an advertisement does not contradict being permanent (cf. signboards); that is why I asked for help here: is there any element in the content of the advertisement qualifying it as temporary? The board does not seem to be a displayboard for rent. Note, that removal of an art due to its weather-related destruction or even vandalism, does not contradict permanence. BTW, the copyright notice may mean that COM:CHARACTER applies here.
    (Ad. 3) Why we need an evidence that the art is still present? Do you mean that FoP did not apply at the time when the photo was taken, or something else? Note that permanence is not based on measured time that something was displayed, but on the intention. Even if the wall was destroyed in an accident few minutes after creation, it still can be considered permanent. Ankry (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Then I think that these are very likely permanently "set": File:Mackaystatue.jpg, File:Public art at the junction of Provincial Highway 20 and Provincial Highway 21.jpg and File:The Art decoration in Chung-Wen Elementary School 01.jpg, while others may not, so we can only permanently restore these 3 files. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[]
Pictogram voting info.svg Info and Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Ankry, SCP-2000: the description of File:The Art decoration in Chung-Wen Elementary School 01.jpg is "臺灣嘉義市崇文國小圍牆裝飾，磁磚上上繪有林玉山的畫作：高山晨暉." When using literal Google machine translation: "The wall decoration of Chongwen Elementary School in Chiayi City, Taiwan, with Lin Yushan’s paintings on the tiles: Gao Shan Chenhui." The artist seems to be w:Lin Yushan (d. 2004), who seems to mostly work for w:En plein air paintings (perhaps the art in the image is... semi-permanent/semi-temporary???) For me, Purple question mark.svg Unsure. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[]
@JWilz12345: Pictogram voting comment.svg respond So it's not in public domain, but still FOP applies. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[]

File:大黑松小倆口元首館 Salico Foods King Garden - panoramio (2).jpg

—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 116.48.227.228 (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[]

There is COM:FOP Taiwan for 2D works —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 116.48.227.228 (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[]

@116.48.227.228: for any of the aforementioned images to be restored, the artwork must satisfy two conditions at COM:FOP Taiwan - these must be in "outdoor places open to the public" and their presence or display is "on a long-term basis" (in short permanence). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as 116.48.227.228 has provided no detailed per-image explanation. Ankry (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[]
@Ankry: if File:Mackay statue Tamsui.jpg is uploader's own photo, then I'm leaning towards Symbol support vote.svg Support for its restoration if it shows the sculpture at File:Mackaystatue.jpg. However, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose restorations of files from File:名人塑像區.jpg to File:Wang02.jpg as these were restored recently but were deleted again because: copyvio (grabbed from http://www.wang-art.com.tw). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Out of process deletions by INeverCry (Uploads by 南文會館)

INeverCry has / had the nasty habit of nuking any socks they came across, often deleting valuable free images in doing so, not only is this against policy, it actively harms the scope of Wikimedia Commons as its scope is hosting free educational images, not just free educational images as long as they're uploaded by "the right users", while inspecting some Musée Annam socks I came across this:

This user uploaded a number of Vietnamese flags of differing value, judging from the titles I can find a large number of fantasies ("Flags of the XXX Dynasty") and also a number of legitimate titles. The problem is that an INC sock nuked them, preferably I would like for all of these files to be undeleted, upon undeletion I would categorise all fantasy flags as being fantasy flags and request renaming of them as fantasy flags, for example "Flag of the X Dynasty" would become "Fantasy flag of the X Dynasty" (note that these circulate widely online and in nationalistic re-writes of Vietnamese history, so they do have an educational value, I just believe that they should be properly marked as hoaxes and then explain in the description their origins and perhaps note that flag culture as we know it today didn't exist). Note that in a number of cases such "dynastic flags" were actually based on Imperial Standards or Military Standards (such as the one of Quang Trung, also on Wikimedia Commons in the past uploaded by a Musée Annam sock, but I haven't been able to find it, this one actually has historical documentation, but wasn't a national flag like some Vietnamese nationalists like to claim). The other flags are those of political parties or small Vietnamese polities. The deletion rationale constantly seems to be "vi.wiki sockpuppet uploads" (for example here), which isn't one grounded in any actual policy, note that the deleting admin later bragged about their number of admin actions, so this might have been an ego trip to bloat those numbers. Note that upon undeletion I will immediately mark the fantasies and remove them from any categories that would falsely give them legitimacy. Please always ping me on this page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]

@Donald Trung: This is not a venue to discuss user problems. If you need some images to be undeleted, please, list them here and provide a common reason for their undeletion that applies to all of them. If there are various reasons for deletion/undeletion among the images, then the image undeletion should be requested in separate sections. Ankry (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]
@Ankry:, they were all deleted with the same rationale, a nuke because of sockpuppetry, not any scope or licensing issues. I am requesting all images (redlinks) in the above link to be u deleted in case this isn't clear. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  1. If the uploader is a suckpuppet, the deletions were not out of process. Some actions of this admin were valid, some were abusive. If this one was abusive, an evidence is needed (the account is still marked as a sockpuppet), but this is not the right venue to discuss this.
  2. We generally do not want to support sockpuppets as Wikimedia contributors
  3. If the images are needed in Wikimedia and not the sockpuppet operator's own works, it is preferred to reupload them by a valid user
  4. If the undeletion is still needed, we need an explanation why the images are needed in Wikimedia on per image basis
  5. Massive undeletion tools require direct list of image links here. The permanent list is also needed for archiving purposes.
Ankry (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]
@Ankry: But then, some were deleted by that WMF banned user really based on unfair reason like "no FOP in Sweden" (true???) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[]
(Edit conflict because another section was edited, how is this page useful?) Wasn't pinged, please always ping on this page as this page notifies users about all changes not just the ones relevant to them (it seems almost by design that undeletions are difficult while deletions are easy), please point to the policy where sock uploads are prohibited? The community rejected this several times already. As for having to list every file individually, that just seems unnecessarily tedious for the sake of bureaucracy, there are deletion requests that are titled "All files uploaded by User:XXX", but somehow it is bad to file the exact same thing for undeletions. My argument is that these flags are in scope. As for fantasy flags, that should be decided on a case-by-case basis, some fantasy flags have been attributed or commonly mistaken in many (otherwise) trustworthy educational sources, being able to document which flags are real and fantasy is a part of a mission to educate, not spreading new fantasies. Also, the other non-fantasy flags are legitimate. "If the images are needed in Wikimedia and not the sockpuppet operator's own works, it is preferred to reupload them by a valid user" This makes no sense, how can I (re-)upload files I can't see? Also if the sockpuppeteer vectorised them or created them, wouldn't it be a copyright violation for another user to claim for it to be "their" works?
Regarding that discussion, I wasn't aware of that, I generally don't follow Administrators' Noticeboards as I am "too busy for such drama", I don't even get why policy issues are discussed there. But unless that discussion ends with claiming all fantasy flags to be out of scope I don't think that it would be bad to undelete the fantasy flags of this sock, but still, it contains plenty of non-fantasies. Filing an individual request for them would simply be too tedious. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, reading through that AN discussion, it isn't really relevant here, those are user generated fantasy flags, these are based on fantasies from Vietnamese nationalist revisionist history publications (often, and unfortunately, with scholarly and government backing to sell nationalism through history, but that's another discussion). Some of these sources were cited on Wikipedia before being removed, the sockmaster created free versions of the fantasy flags from those publications. Several others of his work haven't been deleted and are properly tagged as either fantasy or reliable. I don't see the value for people to delete free educational content. If "a valid user" is needed to stand behind these uploads then I am willing to do that. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I still maintain to this very day that sock images should under no circumstance be allowed here .... however unfortunately they are and as such INC's sock deletions aren't valid and should be overturned. If I can't have sock images deleted then I don't see why anyone else can, might seem petty but shouldn't be one rule for one and one rule for another. –Davey2010Talk 13:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[]

I think the reason for deleting many sock images is that ordinarily we Assume Good Faith. With socks, that must not be the case, so the rule becomes "If there is any doubt, delete". In the case of INC's deletions, there may be good images among many not so good, so they must be dealt with on a case by case basis, not in bulk, as proposed here. There is nothing more to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[]

@Jameslwoodward:, it would be horribly tedious to nominate every individual flag from this user for undeletion, in most cases I would have to re-use of one two arguments (1) this fantasy lag was seriously proposed by a number of Vietnamese historians and history scholars, and (2) it's an in scope free image of a historical Vietnamese organisation. All these images apply to either of these. I don't see why I should waste several hours filing undeletion requests for each one individually to wait a month for them to be u deleted. If deletion requests worked like this we would have a lot more copyright violations. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[]
User:Donald Trung, the title of this UnDR calls out all of INC's deletions of sock puppet uploads, hence my comment above. I have no problem at all if you want to request undeletion of a specified list of closely related items. Making that list may be tedious, but you are the only one who knows what you think belongs on it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[]

List

List of real flags files filed for undeletion
Real flags.
List of Fantasies mentioned by serious historians files filed for undeletion
List of flags which were proposed files filed for undeletion

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Pictogram voting comment.svg For context, these fantasy Vietnamese flags are all (unfortunately) on display at the Military History Museum of Vietnam (Bảo tàng Lịch sử Quân sự Việt Nam), it is not as if I wish for some random proposals for historical flags to be restored by some random user(s), these flags are actually used by an educational institution to spread misinformation and not having them on Wikimedia Commons to explain their context actually prevents people from educating others about their historical inaccuracies. In some cases these were imperial standards misreported as "national flags" (something that only became a concept in Vietnam in the 19th (nineteenth) century). They are fully within scope, I just think that they should be properly labeled before we have another good faith contributor add them or find some educator doing research thinking that they have "a scoop Wikipedia doesn't have". Personally I prefer to add them in a list article and explain their context as misreported flags of Vietnamese dynasties and why they're illegitimate, that has more of an educational value than denying their existence altogether regardless of why they were deleted. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg FYI, the article where I want to add those fantasy flags has a "misattributed flags" section and since those fantasy flags are widely circulating online it might be wise to point out that they're fake. The educational value of the fantasy flags is thus to warn people about the fact that such fantasies exist. Adding them to another Wikimedia website should automatically make them in scope, so I don't see why these files shouldn't be undeleted. Please always ping me on this page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Where the flags can / will be used

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, at "List of flags of Vietnam" I can add all of these flags (after additional research), the elemental flags are cultural flags and will be listed as such and were used during the Nguyễn Dynasty period and sources that mention them are already in the article, furthermore the flag proposals were some of the 50+ (fifty plus) proposals that all failed during the First Republic of Vietnam (as the yellow flag with three (3) red stripes was perceived as being a remnant of the old Monarchist order), as these are "large proposals" their exclusion is actively doing the readers a disservice. The fantasy flags already have a section at "Misattributed flags", I am planning on making a whole section on the supposed flags of the Đại Việt quốc (大越國) and how these fantasies came to be (as they are heavily circulated on the web as they are actually based on historical Chinese / Vietnamese flags). So none of these flags are actively "Out of scope". Another page where the proposals can be used is "List of national flag proposals". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The Drapeaux des cinq elements will be used in an article I an now writing about religious flags in Vietnam, these images are not out of scope and their current exclusion is doing the potential educational content that can be created with them a major disservice. One small note is that "Drapeaux" is plural --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @Jameslwoodward:, excuse me for calling you out specifically, but as you raised the biggest concerns to this UnDR two (2) months ago and I have actually found a use case for each of the above files, have your feelings changed towards this UnDR? The specific files have been listed above and they are all in scope as the discussion didn't call for a blanket ban on fantasy flags (in fact there was consensus against it) and I specifically wish to use these images to fight misinformation by explaining their contexts on Wikipedia. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I'm sorry if I wasn't clear above. My objection was solely that the UnDR calls out all of INC's sock deletions. I specifically said that if there was a specific list of UnDRs with good rationale, I would not oppose their restoration. That seems to have been satisfied with the lists above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Undeletion

It has been two and a half (2½) months now and there are neither scope nor copyright © issues with these images, the lists were collapsed to save space, but wouldn't actually undeleting these images just solve "the space problem"? having empty boxes like this are reader-unfriendly and the lists of fantasies and proposals at the English-language Wikipedia are incomplete without them. I would rather not appeal to an individual admin directly so I ask it here, what are the ongoing reasons for their continued lack of undeletion? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Luaswelcome20042021.jpg (F3 deletion)

ReasonL In my view the file contained no copyright elements from the source file; which was the original 2004 Luas Poster (See earlier versions of File:Luaswelcom.jpg). Additional discussion: Per what may considered inappropriate overwrite of per discussion of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luaswelcom.jpg the creation of File:Luaswelcome20042021.jpg was suggested by Ww2censor. However this was still deleted F3. Per the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Spencer Dock Luas stop.jpg (Which has a derived file with similar considerations), M.nelson has suggested I might consider an appeal if I felt no copyright elements remained visible in the image. I raised question on the deleting admin's talk page over 48h ago, I appreciate people have RL so have so I have raised to the next stage here. An intermediate censored/blurred may have helped, if that is so willing to know. To be clear I have become infatuated/involved this the Free LUAS campaign (doesnt mean I support it) so consider I have a COI. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have temporarily restored File:Luaswelcom.jpg. The new version no longer has any copyright issues (but note that the final product must be licensed CC-BY-SA 4.0 rather than PD). We might question whether a fake poster is within COM:SCOPE, but per COM:INUSE it is not our prerogative to judge. It may be re-nominated for deletion if stably removed from all Wikimedia projects. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thankyou for that temp restore which may help others. That image will re-appear on the Japanese and one (zh) Chinese Wikipedia and its unclear if it should be removed from there. To a degree I have conceded the use of the later versions of File:Luaswelcom.jpg are inappropriate and have offered G7 on those ... it is File:Luaswelcome20042021.jpg which is more the subject of the appeal, as much for general consideration as otherwise, but the difference is merely about one pixel column on the edge. The other file potentially influenced by this decision is File:Spencer Dock Luas stop Free Luas.jpg. Welcome consideration with regards to COM:SCOPE but also consider if a suitably licensed image for the campaign existed (I did check) I would not have transferred to commmons. Regardless of the outcome here I am minded similar images could potentially be published elsewhere as CC-BY-SA providing appropriate CC-BY-SA of the source files could be met. Please note I wish very much in the case of all images to get the licensing correct. unfortunately I may sometime fail, and in collages the risk of that is higher for everybody. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I note that with the (temp) undeletion Filedelinkerbot re-inserted the Luaswelcom.jpg thumb to the Luas Article on the English Wiki at 17:00, 9 September 2021‎ & Bungle reverted it at 17:20 with the comment "no longer relevant to this article". bungle did great anti-vandalism work on the Luas article on or about 7/8 August and 21 August. However with respect to King of Hearts's also I'd like to cover the relevance of the made up image, I'll call it as Luaswelcome20042021.jpg to be clearer. Luaswelcome20042021.jpg respects the basics original layout of the original poster when the Luas is introduced in 2004. It uses an adaptation of the original wording, a suitable image of a Luas tram train, and a Shamrock in place of the orginal map. These changes were prompted by the availability of suitable licensed images for the collage. The LUAS was actually free in 2004 for a few days when introduced (per associated text related to the article) and the modified image plays respect to that. It also links that free to the viral #FreeLUAS memes of 2021 by virtue of 2004-2021 under the Shamrock and use of the #FreeLUAS hashtab. And it is to a degree a "bit of craic" in the spirit of the campaign. It may be the only image of the campaign to link to the 2004 days of the free Luas. This the sort of stuff art students might I to right essays about I guess. Anyway I'd suggest "no longer relevant to this article" is a little overly dismissive without deep thought. It is possible the caption could do with a suitable update. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Djm-leighpark: The variant of the image is now untrue, a fictitious version of the real thing as it was in 2004. The caption read[s]: "Sign welcoming Luas to South Dublin in 2004". The variant you uploaded is not from 2004 - it's not from any date, as it isn't real. It's entirely not credible to promote a fictitious image as an actual one and i'd go a step further and question why either the original or the self-created variant enhance the article. I am also perplexed why you opted to include a hashtag "#freeluas" (the statement itself I won't get into, though surprised you opted for that, given our AV work recently), when twitter itself wasn't formed until 2006. There is so much wrong with this and pointless to the point that if the original image is a copyvio, then just delete it and pretend it never existed. The article is no worse off without it, but is misleading, at best, with it. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Bungle. Yes we did good AV work on the night of 7/8 August. During and since the clearing of the bareURLs related to the matter I began to become interested/involved in the campaign to the point I have needed to declare a COI on the matter. I disagree with your analysis and we are unlikely to agree; these are different viewpoints on the matter. If I had seen an image such as this one appropriately licensed I would likely have pulled it to commons. In the end it it reasonable, even for someone with a COI, to raise the matter whether the image should be placed on the Luas article, and the resultant decision would be via consensus. In practice I am waiting the result of the discussion and arguments here before determining any further publishing of a tweaked version, which on say en:WP for me would have to be via discussion or request edit. I am however very interested in rightful licensing and attribution matters. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Origin of Races, map 13 (IA B-001-001-289).jpg

I believe that the closing admin Jameslwoodward made a bit of a supervote here. Disregarding Joe Roe's non-policy-based !vote, there was unanimous consensus that File:The Origin of Races, map 13 (IA B-001-001-289).jpg (temporarily restored so non-admins can see the context) is still in copyright. However, while Fæ was the only one arguing that File:Carleton Coon races after Pleistocene.PNG and File:Carleton Coon races Pleistocene.png made substantial use of the copyrightable elements of the previous work, three of us (DarwIn, Dunkleosteus77, and me) argued that it used only the ideas, not expression, of the original work. Ultimately, it comes down to a COM:TOO case: do the two derived maps contain enough aspects from the original to be copyrightable? If the author drew a map and colored the Americas one color and the rest of the world another, the coloring scheme would obviously be below TOO. If the author drew up 100 countries not based on any existing borders on the world map, then that would obviously be above TOO even if redrawn. The present case is a tougher one; these tough cases are a matter of subjective opinion, and the closing admin should generally follow the consensus rather than elevating one viewpoint over another.

Jim's insistence that "if the derivative works are close enough to the original to be useful, then they are copyvios. If they are far enough away to be free of derivative status, then they are not useful" is simply not true. In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs2.svg, we saw that even though File:Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs2.svg was based on Maslow's original pyramid, but the amounts borrowed were not sufficient to be copyrightable. And yet it is very useful and widely used. For an example of a useful user-drawn fantasy map, see File:1984 fictous world map superstates and disputed areas.png. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Symbol support vote.svg Support King of Hearts' arguments make sense. The discussion in the cited DR is a good example. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

King of Hearts claims there was unanimous consent for keeping this -- that ignores the nominator, Fæ and me. In fact the discussion was three to two, with one of the three relatively inexperienced -- about 1,000 edits on Commons. Admins are expected to use their judgement and in this three to two case I did just that.

In both cases KoH cites above, the images were drawn from data, not other images. In this case, the subject image claims to be Coon's map. As I said, and KoH quoted correctly, one way or the other it can't be kept. Either it is a copyvio or it does not adequately represent the map that it supposed to represent. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I never claimed that "there was unanimous consent for keeping this" - please reread my comments. Also, as the closing admin you shouldn't be counting your own opinion as a !vote. Maslow's hierarchy was in fact based on an image from a book, which I distinctly remember seeing, though it is no longer available in the Amazon preview. Whether or not it adequately represents what it's supposed to represent is not the job of the DR participants to determine, so long as it is COM:INUSE. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

File:201209 에스파 Aespa at SBS Radio.jpg

Marked as copyvio by Paper9oll for the following reason: Thumbnails is not licensed under Creative Commons licensing. Only the video content is, of which this image doesn't appear anywhere inside the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igmqvuuXPpo - LX | Talk 16:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright of YouTube thumbnails
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I think the thumbnails are a-okay as long as the uploader also owns the rights to the work that appears in the thumbnails. A similar case where the result is kept:
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: Image is a reupload of the same image previous deleted by admin Explicit as seen in this request. Paper9oll (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    For context, YouTube Creative Commons page already explictly stated YouTube allows creators to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license. Custom thumbnails are not part of the videos hence they are licensed under YouTube Standard licensing rather than Creative Commons licensing even though auto-generated ones are as they are taken from the video itself which isn't in this instance. Paper9oll (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Thumbnails are the first thing you see after clicking a link where they appear on YouTube's video player. The CC BY license can be applied to originally created content, which is true in this case as the photo in the thumbnails is created by the uploader themself. I do realize, however, that the debate between us is about what really belongs to the video. In my opinion, however, video thumbnails are like book covers, they don't appear "anywhere inside", but they are still part of the book or video respectively. Of course this is just my personal opinion, and it does not apply to videos with thumbnails that are not originally created content. The admins have the final say, however. In any cases, I look forward to decisions, no matter what the final result is. LX | Talk 18:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Lệ Xuân Pretty sure, you didn't it correctly or decided not to or only read certain parts while ignoring every other part. Before originally created content, the preceding sentence is You can only mark your uploaded video with a Creative Commons license if it's all content that you can license under the CC BY license. Some examples of such licensable content are: As mentioned in earlier reply, custom thumbnails are licensed under YouTube Standard licensing as suppose to Creative Commons licensing even if you are able to mark your own video with Creative Commons licensing as the custom thumbnails are not compiled/embed/joined/combined/fused into the video. You as the content creator is able to change the custom thumbnails whenever you want to, and the video will still remain the same with all the comments, views counts, like/dislike counts, etc, all intact.
    If the custom thumbnails is compiled/embed/joined/combined/fused into the video, then it is considered as part of the video, in which auto-generated thumbnails are considered as part of the video because those are scene from the video itself, hence auto-generated thumbnails are licensed under Creative Commons licensing (of course stating the obvious is only true if the video itself is marked as licensed under Creative Commons. For clarity, this is referring to auto-generated thumbnails). However, this is clearly not the case for custom thumbnails which the now deleted image (100% replica of the same image deleted previously) is a custom thumbnails. — Paper9oll 01:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Adding on, the deleted image which has been deleted twice, is 100% exact copy of the radio show official instagram post. Missing blue tick = not official??? See Seoul Broadcasting System radio show website, scroll down to 인스타그램 section (the one with red background), click any image, it will open up Instagram, click the profile name (1077power). Repeat the same with the first link (this), click the profile name (1077power), and you will get the same profile with the same url. — Paper9oll 02:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I couldn't reach the video, so I've deleted the image. Now it's online. --Yuval Y § Chat § 17:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Rabaul Harbor And Tavurur From Volcano Observatory.jpeg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: speedily deleted because "Media missing permission as of 9 April 2011." But there is a Wikivoyage copy, wikivoyage:File:Rabaul Harbor.jpeg, which appears to be having verified license (claimed to come from Wikitravel). Thus the "Media missing permission as of 9 April 2011" claim is invalid. FOP issue is irrelevant because greeneries and volcanoes are not copyrighted (it is plain stupid to claim a volcano as a copyrighted object). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose WV and WT are not valid sources. We need to know where the image actually came from, not its movement within Wikis. The license review on WT is questioned there..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • I shouldn't have transferred this file back in 2012. I recall that it was a hectic time, as Wikivoyage was replete with broken images and there was a need to work under pressure, so inevitably mistakes were made. This, that and the other (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

File:111122-M-MM918-006 (6425584105).jpg and File:091205-N-4021H-004_(4161307030).jpg

Note: This discussion, originally opened by Awesome Aasim, has been copied from Túrelio's talk page, so we can come to an official consensus and not have just Túrelio being appealed to. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 16:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Can these files possibly be undeleted? I completely understand the user's concerns, but IMHO, it is not the job of admins to respond to threats of harm, rather the job of WMF office staff; there is the emergency@wikimedia.org email list if an image poses a threat to those depicted off-wiki, and WMFOffice may decide to delete files if they believe that it is in the interest of the public. I do see there is a line in the deletion policy that images that are used in a way that violate their personality rights (like by doxxing them) can be deleted by admins, but I do not know otherwise. If needed, the deletion discussions can be reopened so Commons users can address those concerns. Aasim 05:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi, I'm not simply going to restore these images in this case. I see my approach justified by my responsibility as an admin to avert potentially threatening damage if I come across it. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive_86#how to deal with DRs of identifiable Afghans feeling threatened by Taliban?. --Túrelio (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Symbol support vote.svg Support. Let's not erase Afghans from the Commons please. Ongoing discussion at COM:AN. The sky is not falling, even in Afghanistan. Awesome Aasim has the right idea. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Symbol support vote.svg Support Photos should not be deleted on such a pretext. There are established procedures for emergency situations. Thuresson (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: The above linked discussion on COM:AN, which I had started, did not yield a real consensus. Possibly for that, a new thread has been been started at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Continuing discussion: how to deal with DRs of identifiable Afghans feeling threatened by Taliban? by the original nominator.
WRT the undeletion-request: I will not object undeletion, but prefer not to perform it by myself per do not harm principle. --Túrelio (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Pinging the deletion nominator @Mclovinplasse: if they wish to comment. Ankry (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose:@Ankry: Thank you for the ping. Discussion on how to deal with DRs of identifiable Afghans threatened by Taliban rule is being continued here.--Mclovinplasse (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

File:ASC Leiden - van Achterberg Collection - 1 - 120 - Un griot touareg joue un instrument à cordes. Deux hommes et une femme avec enfant écoutent et sourient - Ganda Faou, Burkina Faso - 9-29 novembre 1996.tif

Also:

Please undelete these files from Category:A. A. van Achterberg Collection, which should have permission Template:AvanAchterberg. Thanks!, Hansmuller (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose According to this DR. the first of these was deleted at the request of the author.

Symbol support vote.svg SupportThe others were all deleted because they do not have a valid OTRS/VRT ticket which allows their use. The template cited above is usable only if we have explicit permission to use it. That may be by listing files that it should be applied to or by a declaration that it applies to all such files, but in these cases we have neither. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Commenting as the involved VRTS-agent: true for the image linked in the header, but for the other six this seems to be a mistake by the uploader. I created the mentioned template for the VTRS-permission 23 days after the upload date and gave a go to Hansmuller for all uploads from AvanAchterberg: these six files he seemed to have forgotten to change from the {{OTRS pending}} to the {{AvanAchterberg}}. I Symbol support vote.svg Support restoring these six files. Ciell (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Sorry, indeed i forgot that the first file was deleted at my own request, so i retract my UDR for File:ASC Leiden - van Achterberg Collection - 1 - 120 etc. above. Please undelete the remaining other six files, thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

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

Photographs by non-NASA astronauts on NASA missions

A great deal has been made on Undeletion requests over the copyright status of photographs taken by third parties working for NASA time, time, and time again. However, here's a unique case I want to bring to the table; photographs by non-NASA astronauts working aboard NASA vehicles during NASA missions. These two images (and one cropped version) were deleted on the basis that they were taken by Thomas Pesquet, a European Space Agency astronaut, and therefore aren't NASA images. For context, Pesquet is a crewmember of Expedition 65, a joint NASA–Roscosmos human spaceflight mission. As part of the mission, he lives and works NASA's United States Orbital Segment of the International Space Station.

The original source for the two photographs uploaded were the Flickr page for NASA's Johnson Space Center (Photo 1, Photo 2). There is no other original source for these images, and they do not even appear on the European Space Agency's website. NASA's media usage policy states that "NASA content generally are not subject to copyright in the United States." Curiously, it also states that "If copyright is indicated on any NASA materials, permission should be obtained from the indicated copyright owner prior to use." Johnson does in fact publish images on Flickr under a CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 license incompatible with COM:L, but as others have pointed out, 17 U.S.C. § 101 and § 105 outlines that copyright protection is "not available" for "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". Pesquet took these photographs using NASA's Nikon D5 cameras while assisting in upgrading NASA's Integrated Truss Structure during an EVA on 12 September 2021 managed by NASA from a control center at Johnson. A touched-up variant of the first photograph, published on Thomas Pesquet's Flickr page days afterward, is even credited as "ESA/NASA–T. Pesquet", explicitly recognizing NASA as a creator. The person(s) managing Johnson's Flickr page were performing work for NASA, and one could make an argument here that, for at the very least the duration of the EVA, Pesquet was performing work specifically for NASA, too. Thoughts? – The Unsinkable Molly Brown (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This might a case for @Clindberg (User:Clindberg). --Túrelio (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is well established that in order for {{PD-USGov}} to apply, the photographer must be an employee of the Federal government whose duties as an employee include photography. We regularly delete images made by people who are working for the Federal government in capacities other than employees, including consultants, contractors, and commissioned artists. Such people regularly retain copyright to their works. There is no evidence that Pesquet was ever an employee of the Federal government. In fact, there is no evidence that he was ever paid by by the Federal government -- he is an employee of and paid by ESA. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ESA is a partner, so the ISS is not only a NASA–Roscosmos program. Pesquet is not employed by NASA, but by the ESA. I don't see how these could be works by NASA, even if taken with NASA equipment. Maybe we could ask the license on Flickr to be changed, but otherwise I don't see how we could host them. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. This request may be based on a misunderstanding of the dynamics of the International Space Station. It is international, not merely a joint NASA-Roscosmos venture. It includes partner countries from all over the world, and individual astronauts are bound by the laws and rules of their home countries and agencies. Just like NASA cannot remove copyright from an image simply by posting it to their website (which is something far too many people assume), a non-NASA astronaut working with NASA equipment does not lose their rights. Like Hubble Telescope is a joint NASA/ESA venture, but photographs released by ESA are not released from copyright (and credits are in that ESA/NASA format), photographs by an ESA employee that have been touched by NASA personnel also do not lose their copyright. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]


Yikes. Hm. Obviously, any contracts between ESA and NASA regarding Pesquet's participation would rule, if they said anything about copyright. Without knowing that, we'd just have to guess. Photos taken on their own time with their own cameras would be the astronaut's own personal copyright, of course. I doubt that anything done on an EVA would qualify for that. If the U.S. government was simply using a run-of-the-mill contractor instead of an employee, then usually that would amount to a work for hire, and also be PD-USGov. But for specialized expertise that employees don't have, such as artists (and I presume astronauts), that does not hold. If NASA asked him to take photos at that time (i.e. that was part of his assigned duties), and it was under NASA's direction, and they were taken with NASA-owned equipment, there could be an argument of work for hire -- but it would rely on agency law definition of "employee", and that's probably a tenuous argument here. It's still much fuzzier than ESA Hubble stuff, where ESA provides the direction and the Hubble is just the tool, and ESA obviously owns copyright. If such images only show up on NASA sites with a NASA credit, I'd probably allow them. I'm not really as confident in these though, which showed up on Pesquet's own page, and do have a clear ESA credit (which is not the same thing as claiming ownership, as they are often just a list of the entities which contributed, sometimes including the equipment manufacturers, who would not own any part of a copyright).
In general, U.S. copyright law defines a work for hire as that of an employee in the course of their duties, and for contractors only if mutually agreed and only for certain types of work. So, the only automatic way is for an "employee". In Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, the Supreme Court said that general common law of agency must be used to decide on the difference between employee and contractor, and I think Restatement of the Law of Agency, Third is the current version of that. Under that law, the distinction is more about who is controlling the work and providing supplies -- there is a definition of an employee is an agent whose principal controls or has the right to control the manner and means of the agent's performance of work. (A bit more info at User talk:Clindberg/archives 7#Local_California_officials_and_copyright.) They note an independent contractor is harder to define, and thus best avoided in contract language, but one older definition was a person who contracts with another to do something for him but who is not controlled by the other nor subject to the other's right to control with respect to his physical conduct in the performance of the undertaking. It would probably be only via that logic arguing, for that EVA at least, Pesquet amounted to a NASA employee, and thus it was a work for hire. Not impossible, but not something I'd want to stand on either. Agency law in that area is more about who has liability if that person does some damage -- if you are controlling someone's work, and they do something which creates damage, then you are liable. In an abnormal situation like the ISS, that is far less certain to apply.
There is a NASA-ESA Agreement regarding the respective responsibilities regarding the ISS. I don't see anything in there specifically about copyright, but it does say that NASA will be financially responsible for all compensation, medical expenses, subsistence costs on Earth, and training for Space Station crew which it provides. ESA will be financially responsible for all compensation, medical expenses, subsistence costs on Earth, and training for Space Station crew which it provides. This is not on Earth, but presumably the ESA is still paying the salary. There is also a Public Information section, which says that Within the Public Affairs Plan guidelines, both NASA and ESA will retain the right to release public information on their respective portions of the program. I can't find the Public Affairs Plan, but it seems more likely that any work product done as part of the mission is cross-licensed such that both NASA and ESA has rights to publish it, but that falls short of actually placing things in the public domain or transferring copyright. I did run across a Space Act Agreements Guide, which is I guess is a general guide for agreements NASA makes with other parties. In general the focus is on as wide dissemination as possible, but it does note that The clauses do not alter the ability of the partner to assert copyright in its works of authorship created under the SAA, but the partner is required to grant NASA a license in the copyrighted material to reproduce, distribute, and prepare derivative works for any purpose. There are suggested contract clauses, but again they fall short of public domain -- NASA likely has the ability to do whatever it wants with the work, and authorize others to use it on NASA's behalf, which is wide-ranging license but not the same thing as PD-USGov. Most likely to me, it's an ESA work that NASA has pretty free reign over. Lots of gray area, and one of those that probably would not ever cause a problem. But not sure I would claim PD status without checking with ESA, so probably lean Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

 Not done per discussion. Ankry (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

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

File:AflagforIraq.svg

This image has been hosted on Commons for over a decade, and was deleted after a crusade of nominations based on "It's not a real proposal!", an argument that has been pointed out several times as faulty, and "It's a hoax", a similar logic that I have pointed out as incorrect within this context. Furthermore, the rationale used by the closing admin is faulty, in that whether or not an image is in use does not change whether a series of deletion nominations is considered "repetitive" or not. Nominating an image multiple times with the same or similar rationale is in and of itself repetitive. The image qualifies to be on Commons as a proposed flag of Iraq because there was a genuine period of time where the national flag of Iraq was debated and opened to proposals, it isn't something someone just pulled out of a hat for their own amusement with no "real world" context. That makes the image inherently in scope. Fry1989 eh? 15:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Scope is inherently subjective, and the closing admin should not arbitrarily decide against the consensus of the participants. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

✓ Done: as per above comments. --Yann (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Arch_Near_Louvre_Nathan_&_Miranda_Todd_(10582357403).jpg

Deleted per Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Arch_Near_Louvre_Nathan_&_Miranda_Todd_(10582357403).jpg. Two regular contributors (I am one of them) challenged the stated reason for deletion and voted keep. It was deleted. I would have thought it would have been at least no consensus to delete. Seems to me an example of visitor photo that illustrates time and place, in scope. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Scope is inherently subjective, and the closing admin should not arbitrarily decide against the consensus of the participants. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose
  1. It does not show either of the two structures particularly well.
  2. We have over 150 images of the Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel
  3. We also have many images of the various parts of the Louvre, see Category:Exterior of the Palais du Louvre
  4. Most important, the image is not at all sharp -- we might keep it if it were the only image we have of an important object, but that's clearly not the case here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see any educational use for this, and as per Jim's comments above. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

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

File:Suchinda Kraprayoon.jpg

Hello. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Suchinda Kraprayoon.jpg. This image is not copyrighted in any way and confirmed. Through the email last October 2020 >>> https://www.bloggang.com/m/viewdiary.php?id=bestsalt&month=02-2006&date=17&group=1&gblog=19 --Annop Nakabut (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The file is certainly copyrighted -- almost all creative works have a copyright from the moment of creation until it expires. There are exceptions, but none of them apply here. As discussed at length at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suchinda Kraprayoon.jpg the file was uploaded from a site that does not have a free license for its images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

 Not done As per Jim. VRT permission from the photographer (with an evidence that they are the photographer) is needed. Ankry (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

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

File:Sonkor D. Rudro.jpg

Undeletion request — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonkor D. Rudro (talk • contribs) 14:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Procedural close. Files that have never been deleted can not be undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Reopened -- the file was deleted as a personal photo at 16:00 September 29. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's also probably a copyvio. The names of the uploader, the author and the subject are the same, and it does not appear to be a selfie, so in order to restore it we will (1) need to be convinced that it is not out of scope as a peersonal photo and (2) have a free license from the actual photographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

 Not done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

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

File:Sound_of_Hope_Logo_3.png

Please keep the file as it is the logo file that my company owns and for updating the wiki page "Sound of Hope Radio Network". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangwei (talk • contribs) 21:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Symbol support vote.svg Support The logo is simply the name in Chinese and Latin characters. The company is based in San Francisco, so only US law applies. Simple three word logos have no copyright in the US. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

✓ Done as per Jim. Ankry (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Nazi_armenian_Njzdeh_propaganda_Brochure.jpg

https://avim.org.tr/en/Analiz/THE-NEJDEHISM-REMAINS-OFFICIAL-IN-ARMENIA There is no copyright owner and there is no copyright law for Nazi propaganda brochures. Garegin Njdeh is a Nazi sympathisan and this brochure is true you can find and download this brochure from everywhere I object your unrightful deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerçekler (talk • contribs) 00:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion 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.(Gerçekler (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC))[]
@Gerçekler: In order to consider some work not copyrighted, you need to provide the appropriate copyright law exception that applies to it (both: in local and US copyright law). Ankry (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

It is a nqzi propaganda brochure that comesfrom german archives you find it everywhere free to use. https://avim.org.tr/en/Analiz/THE-NEJDEHISM-REMAINS-OFFICIAL-IN-ARMENIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerçekler (talk • contribs) 00:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion 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.
  • @Gerçekler: Content of archives mey still be copyrighted. And being available is irrelevant for Commons as we do not accept Fair Use. In order to verify its public domain status you need to provide appropriate copyright law exception or an evidence of copyright expiration. Ankry (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • 1942 anonymous works may be indeed public domain, but we need some evidence of this as their status depends on publication country (eg. some 1942 anonymous publications from Germany may be copyrighted in US till 2038 per URAA). We need evidence of publication date, and evidence that the brochure is anonymous. Also, the AH image used copyright status needs to be resolved (it is unlikely that the image was not published earlier). Ankry (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed. There are three images on the brochure. In order to restore it, it will have to be proven that all three are PD. That would be true only if all three are anonymous or if their author died before 1951. None of that has been proven here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

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

File:Edirne'nin Kurtuluşu 1913- şehre giren devlet ricali.jpg

This picture comes from Turkish government archives and publication. In turkish wikipedia also I add citation from this publication. There is no copyright law for this picture also this picture was taken in 1913 so it is not in copyrights law.(Gerçekler (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC))[]


Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image has not yet been deleted, but it probably should be. 1913 is too recent to assume that the author has been dead for 70 years and there is no evidence that it was published before 1951. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Procedural close: File has not been deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

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

Files uploaded by Rebeccaswitch

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Images are all licensed under the Attribution Creative Commons 2.0 licensing, as per their original upload via Flickr. This is the link to the Flickr profile displaying each of the images: https://www.flickr.com/photos/193030246@N04/ Rebeccaswitch (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have looked only at the first three images, but they were not uploaded from Flickr, but from uswitch.com. That site shows "© 2000-2021 Uswitch Limited." I think it is 50/50 that the Flickr account is License Laundering and not actually authorized by Uswitch. I suggest that either Uswitch change its web page to a CC license or that Uswitch use VRT to confirm that it owns the Flickr account. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

 Not done as per Jim. VRT permission from the actual copyright holder is needed. Ankry (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

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

File:HIM PPG.svg

I wanted to know, because I converted this to be .svg, how copyrighted was that.--Kautr (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose HIM is a recurring character in Power Puff Girls and is, of course, copyrighted. This image infringes on the copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

 Not done per Jim. See COM:DW. Ankry (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:1632902275085 copy 750x750.jpg

It is my own picture. I uploaded. Why you deleted. You can search me google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaonahmedjoy (talk • contribs) 15:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Previously published online, eg. [3]. Thuresson (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Coat of Arms of the Republic of Cochinchina.svg (again)

System-search.svgSee also: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-09#File:Coat of Arms of the Republic of Cochinchina.svg.

In the original request I noted "In chief are the arms of the Republic: Or, a pale Azure charged with two pallets Argent." (while asking admins for a description), well, that is exactly how this file looks. Hubert de Vries is a trusted name in heraldry and on his website he shows a picture of this exact coat of arms in the insignia of the Republican Guard. This is literally what I argued in the first (1st) request and got ignored. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The claim "that is exactly how this file looks" is a misrepresentation of " the shape is quite the same, and the 2 central stripes are white instead of yellow" ([4]), which means nothing like "exactly how this file looks. The previous request ended with an admonishment to stop making this same request … GPinkerton (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
note requester uploaded on 27 september this file File:Alleged coat of arms of the Provisional Government of the Autonomous Republic of Cochinchina (Ethnia).png. Elly (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:HAIMER GmbH.jpg

Dear Wiki-Team, this image is free for download and use as says the owner webpage: https://www.haimer.de/aktuelles/presse/pressefotos/unternehmensbilder.html Please give it free so that I can add it in wiki articles.

Thank you and best regards,

Julia

(If you prefer to answer is German, feel free. I am a German native speaker) (Wenn Sie mir lieber auf Deutsch antworten möchten, sehr gerne.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariejuli (talk • contribs) 13:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages and Commons:Signatures policy to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, deletion 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.
  • @Mariejuli: For previously published images we need a free license permission from the image actual copyright holder; either at the initial publication, or via email as described in VRT. Note, that permission just "to use" does not satisfy Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements and if the copyright holder is not the photorapher, we also need an evidence of copyright transfer in order to accept a permission. Ankry (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=575313972"