Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

Current requests

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was the source file.

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

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

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

 Oppose First please note that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Affiche La dernière communion.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2024121810009506. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: as requested, please add tags etc. --Rosenzweig τ 21:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

File:พลเอก อภิรัชต์ คงสมพงษ์.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: Even though the website is protected by copyright, as mentioned in the source, the sole picture is mentioned as "CC BY-SA," which is allowed to be in the Commons. Wutkh (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

There is "CC-BY-SA" on the image at https://kongsompong.or.th/news/, so the image should probably be restored. I note, however, that the uploader claimed "own work" which is plainly wrong and the source is not mentioned in the upload. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

File:黃晴雯 個人照.jpg

The original source of this photo is me, and it was provided by us for use on other websites. The previous complaint was unreasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sogo100111100 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose The image appears at https://magazine.feg.com.tw/magazine/cn/magazine_detail.aspx?id=14842 with an explicit copyright notice and no free license. In order for it to be restored here the actual photographer must provide a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

File:三谷晃一夫妻.DSC 0405.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

• File:福島県現代詩人会岩手の旅.DSC 0413.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:街こおりやま誌.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:三谷晃一夫妻.DSC 0405.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: temporary undeletion requested for processing ticket:2024111810004521. whym (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

---

 Done: @Whym. Ruthven (msg) 12:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Billy_Bragg_on_After_Dark.JPG

I have been editing sporadically since 2007. My user page gives details about the permission I have to upload certain images: User:AnOpenMedium

I followed the correct protocol at the time I uploaded the image, which was probably over ten years ago. It was stable until removed this year.

With apologies I am not clear as to the reason why this image was deleted. My understanding is that VRT stands for the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team but am unclear as to why their input is necessary in this case. I ask that the image be reverted or a more detailed explanation for deletion be given.

With thanks for your attention

AnOpenMedium (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support The image was deleted because there is nothing on the image file that indicates that you have permission to upload images from Open Media, so it appears to be a simple copyvio. However, as you note above, User:AnOpenMedium in fact shows such permission, so the image should be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support per Jim. @Abzeronow, @Krd, since you were involved with the deletion I'm leaving it up to you. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 16:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I won't oppose restoration but some kind of permission template should be with the file. Abzeronow (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

File:سلطان القنيدي.jpg سلطان القنيدي

تحية طيبة

لقد قمت برفع صورة سلطان القنيدي الشخصية بهدف ان أرفعها في السيرة الذاتية الخاصة بسلطان القنيدي

ولكنها حذفت من قبلكم

نأمل إلغاء حذف وإعادتها — Preceding unsigned comment added by عبدالله العزب (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@عبدالله العزب: The image was deleted because it is a professional photograph found elsewhere on the internet and we have no proof that you own the copyright. Please see Commons:Licensing/ar to understand more about licensing and read what you may do. Machine translation follows:

(ترجمة آلية) تم حذف الصورة لأنها صورة فوتوغرافية احترافية موجودة في مكان آخر على الإنترنت وليس لدينا دليل على أنك تمتلك حقوق الطبع والنشر.

يرجى الاطلاع على Commons:Licensing/ar لفهم المزيد حول الترخيص وقراءة ما يمكنك فعله. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 16:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Images of the Venezia Santa Lucia train station

Hi everyone, I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of the following images:

• File:VENEZIA fs.jpg
• File:Venezia Santa Lucia railway station.jpg
• File:Venezia Stazione di Venezia Santa Lucia 001.JPG
• File:Venezia Stazione di Venezia Santa Lucia 002.JPG
• File:VeneziaFS.jpg
• File:Venice Scene 78.jpg
• File:Venice station.jpg
• Image:Venice - Railway station.jpg

They were all deleted in 2013 after this DR, except for the last one, deleted in 2007 after Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Venice - Railway station.jpg. All the images depict the en:Venezia Santa Lucia railway station. The contemporary station was designed in two steps: A first project was made in 1936 by en:Angiolo Mazzoni (who, as we have already seen in many previous DRs, was an employee of the Ministry for Communications, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here) and Virgilio Vallot, who had won a public contest in 1934 (see here, here and here. The construction works though halted in 1943 because of the WWII. After the war the Ministry decided to modify the pre-war project and this task was given to it:Paolo Perilli, another employee of the Ministry for Communications (see here). The building was finally completed in 1952. As we have seen all the designers were either public employees or had won a public contest and received a public order, therefore the building fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1973. The station was built before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)