Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]

File:ROC Ministry of National Defense Seal.svg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file had been deleted per this DR due to "Logos are not covered under {{PD-ROC-exempt}} or {{GWOIA}}" and then it was re-uploaded by User:人人生來平等.

However, according to the email response by the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office "故政府機關之部徽、署徽或局徽，如其形式係依法所制訂者，依著作權法第9條，不得為著作權之標的。" (English Machine Translation: "Therefore, the emblems of ministries, departments or bureaus of government agencies, if their forms are made in accordance with the law, shall not be the subject of copyright in accordance with Article 9 of the Copyright Law." ) Since this logo is the Seal of Ministry of National Defense, in my opinion, it is not copyrighted and is covered under {{PD-ROC-exempt}} . The previous delete decision should be overturned and the previous page history also need to be recovered. cc @Wcam, Mdaniels5757, and Ericliu1912: Thanks. SCP-2000 18:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SCP-2000: If the emblem is made in accordance with the law, such law needs to be specified. In the email you quote, the national flag is defined in 中華民國國徽國旗法第4條, and the Taipei City's seal is defined in 臺北市市徽市旗設置自治條例第4條. A seal/emblem/logo is only in the PD if it is based on a law. Wcam (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, it is based on 《陸海空軍軍旗條例施行細則》第五條. Looks ok to keep. --Wcam (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support. (And should recover all revision history altogether) —— Eric Liu（Talk） 23:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The revision history of File:Seal of the Ministry of National Defense of the Republic of China.svg should be merged with this file if the latter get restored. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only this file (to request restoration of all deleted revisions) or for all deleted files of that DR? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only this file. Wcam (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Afghanistan-Spange.jpg[edit]

And also:

I created the picture myself. So please restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User85521 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Carlos-Meyer-Baldo.jpg[edit]

The image was taken during Baldó's military service during World War I, between 1914 and 1918, and Carlos Meyer Baldó died in 1933. The image's age means that it already is in the public domain per {{PD-old}}, and in the worst case scenario media enters in Venezuela's public domain after 60 years of its publication ({{PD-Venezuela}}). --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NoonIcarus: When was this photo first published in Venezuela? Thuresson (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NoonIcarus: Who is the photographer and has she or he been dead for 70 years? Thuresson (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment If the above questions remain unresponded, {{PD-old-assumed}} can be applied in 2039. Ankry (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The picture was first published in 1918, along with other pictures ([1]), during Baldó's service as an instructor (Fluglehrer) at the Fighter Squadron School Nr. II to train Jasta pilots. The copyright law in Venezuela does not consider the author's death for media such as photographs (unlike music, for instance), but rather its publication date. At any rate, {{PD-US-expired}} also applies given that the picture was published before 1928. Best wishes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The deleted file appears to have a modern colorization, which could have its own copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Was it already in its original version or was it added by an user? In the case of the former, I can withdraw my request and ask for undeletion to be applied in the respective years (like 2039). --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is only one version that we have (the colorized version). Abzeronow (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose The template "PD-Old" can not be used without knowing who the photographer is and when she or he died. "PD-Venezuela" can not be used without providing the authorship and publication details. If the photo was first published on Twitter, it may be undeleted in 2081. Thuresson (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image was not first published in Twitter (Twitter's version is black and white while the deleted one is colorized, for instance). It was simply provided for context about the other images it was first published with. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support Per NoonIcarus --Wilfredor (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support:Per NoonIcarus, Venezuela license it's OK. AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: Could you, please, elaborate which 60 years old publication you mean? Ankry (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ankry:Buenas según Wikipedia (https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Meyer_Bald%C3%B3) el murió en 1933, por eso es que según Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Venezuela son 60 años después de la publicación (osea después de la muerte del autor) por eso está OK. AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: But where is an evidence that the photo was published (available to the general public) during his life? Photo creation date is irrelevant for copyright (except US 120 year cut-off time). Ankry (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ankry:Look (https://www.meer.com/en/58066-carlos-meyer-baldo-a-venezuelan-fighter-pilot-of-the-wwi) in the photo number 5 (Carlos Meyer piloting his Fokker D.VII “Drooling boxer” in the summer of 1918 (photo Greg van Wyngarden)) (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: This page is dated 17 October 2019. This is not 60 years ago. Also the photo #5 is not the photo we are discussing here (the photo requested here is a colour portrait photo - or maybe a painting? - this one; claimed to be made personally by the uploader). Ankry (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We usually assume that old pictures were published at the time they were taken, but this is not photo #5 mentioned above. But that picture is available at File:Bóxer Babeante.jpg. Yann (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Greg vanWyngarden is a contemporary writer about fighter planes of WW1, he is not the photographer. Thuresson (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg[edit]

Buenas, necesito que algún administrador restaure la imagen por que la Bandera del Municipio Libertador de Caracas, Venezuela es una invención por eso está en el Dominio Público según el Articulo 325 de la Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, Trabajadores y Trabajadoras en Venezuela. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbchyZa22 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Commons:Coats of arms, each rendering can have its own copyright. Was this a user-drawn version or copied from a copyrighted source? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg:Buenas, pero en el artículo 325 dice:Invenciones, innovaciones y mejoras en el sector público
La producción intelectual generada bajo relación de trabajo en el sector público, o financiada a través de fondos públicos que origine derechos de propiedad intelectual, se considerará del dominio público, manteniéndose los derechos al reconocimiento público del autor o autora.
El {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} aplica directamente a los Logos, Banderas y escudos de Armas por que son invencionales (significa se basa en la imaginación de los autores osea personas.) AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As mentioned in the other discussions you started last week about art. 325 at HD and VP/C, that argument is not necessarily convincing without authoritative interpretation by courts or doctrine and without evidence that these artworks by independent artists meet the factual conditions. Even if hypothetically it applied, that would be for the Venezuelan copyright, not for the United States copyright. However, the concept of the flag designed in 2022 by María Jiménez and Víctor Rodríguez might be (or not) too simple for copyright, but even then, each particular artistic rendering of it can be copyrighted. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg:Aquí esta las fuentes https://elpais.com/internacional/2022-04-21/el-chavismo-entierra-el-legado-espanol-del-escudo-de-caracas-400-anos-despues.html AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is the source for the escudo at File:Coat of arms of Caracas (2022).png. The question by Clindberg was what is the source of the particular rendering of the bandera in File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Buenas aquí esta la fuente:https://eldiario.com/2023/10/12/nuevos-simbolos-de-caracas-concejo-municipal/amp/ AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of the particular svg rendering in File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The statement by the uploader in the original upload log was "own work". Pinging the uploader User:Salvadoroff. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Echando una mano: Buenas y Feliz Año, por favor una pregunta es posible restaurar la foto de la Bandera de Caracas (2022) con respecto a este tema??
AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: lo siento, no lo sé. Feliz año a usted también. Echando una mano 21:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's truly a vector version drawn by a contributor, I'd lean towards keeping it. If it was extracted from a PDF of a government source (or is an SVG wrapper around a bitmap taken from another unlicensed source), then I'd go the other way. I would treat each drawing as its own copyright (even the choice of vector points in an SVG can in theory have a copyright, if complex enough, beyond the rendered image). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg:Buenas, con respecto a la Bandera, aquí esta las fuentes:https://eldiario.com/2023/10/12/nuevos-simbolos-de-caracas-concejo-municipal/amp/ AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: Given that any drawing must be derived from the original 2022 design by Jiménez and Rodríguez, do you evaluate that their work is below or above the threshold for copyrightability? The composition with the triangles of colour, the star and the mountain is not as simple as bands of colour, but it's not very complex either. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Often the design is an idea, with each drawing a particular expression of that idea. That is more straightforward with seals with a written blazon -- a drawing cannot be derivative of the written description. But in general we seem to allow self-drawn images of flags too. Furthermore, as far as the design is part of law, that part would be {{PD-EdictGov}}. Any additions done by a private party (even particular vector points) may qualify for copyright though, so we often look at the history of the specific drawing. If it's the flag as seen here, the only part which may be copyrightable is the very specific outline of the mountain or hill or treetops or whatever that is, which likely differs a little between versions and so they may well not be derivative of each other. If that image was self-drawn without slavishly copying the outline, I would restore it. A lot of this gets into highly theoretical territory, as it would probably be near impossible for a country or city to sue over copyright infringement of a flag, where the scope of fair use and PD-edict is probably pretty wide. I think as such, we would respect any copyright of a privately-drawn version, but if self-drawn it's probably fine. (Individual government drawings may not be OK though; we tend to not copy those from websites.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Buenas ,por favor lee el Artículo 2 del Derechos de Autor en Venezuela,en que está sometidos los derechos del Autor?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: Hi, What about it? If it's still about its scope, I already commented in your thread last month at Commons:Help desk/Archive/2023/12#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Caracas (2022).png. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Buenas, una pregunta que pasaría si el Artículo 325 de la Ley Orgánica del Trabajo los Trabajadores y Trabajadoras en Venezuela es Constitucional, es posible restaurar la foto de la Bandera?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: A) Constitutionality is only one of several questions to which we do not have answers for now. Other questions, already mentioned above, are B) can the intended goal and scope of 325 include this type of artistic works and, if so, C) does the particular work meet its conditions of application? (Did the two authors get any money and, even then, would their flag proposal be considered "financiada" solely for winning the first prize in the contest?) Again, all that sounds like specialized matters of Venezuelan law. Getting reliable answers require research in court decisions and doctrinal texts or the help of jurists in Venezuelan law. However, and fortunately, we probably do not need to consider that at all here. From the above discussions, if the original flag is considered to be below the "Umbral de originalidad" ("threshold of originality"), both in Venezuela and in the United States, and if the subsequent svg drawing is considered to be the own work of the uploader, then this file with the flag could be undeleted under that rationale only. (It is different for the other file with the coat of arms, wich is above the threshold of originality and directly reproduced.) -- Asclepias (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elcobbola:Hi, please can you close the UDR (Undeletion Request),the flag its a invention in 325 Article in Venezuela law (its a Public Domain) and the SVG its a valid? (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:The sims 4 moon sofa set.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image represents a 3D sofa set modeled in the Blender program and its coverings adjusted. It is an example of 3D models created for video games in the Blender program.

It was reported that the reason for deleting the image was because the products sold on the website were spam.

The sofa set in the image is a mod made for The Sims 4. And these mods are offered for free on the website. The image uploaded here is not taken from the game. They were made in the open source blender program.

The purpose of the images here is not advertising. It is an example of 3D objects made by fans for games. Pentapixel (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The terms of service at the source site are far from our requirements. They are explicitly revocable and explicitly forbid commercial use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jameslwoodward There is a statement saying "Do not use without a license", but the necessary permissions have been given to Wikipedia in writing. Still, I informed the site that they should update that section to be more clear. You can check again. Pentapixel (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While they show a CC license for the images, the site explicitly states that they may change anything on the site at any time. Such a specific statement overrules the fact that CC licenses are ordinarily irrevocable. Specific always overrules general. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jameslwoodward Yes, I didn't realize that. I talked to the site management and they admitted that there was a discrepancy and said they would update it. Pentapixel (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Jameslwoodward You can check again. Pentapixel (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ToS still says, "Customcontent.net reserves the right to change or modify any of the terms and conditions contained in these Site Terms, or any policy or guideline of the Site, at any time and in its sole discretion." which, as I noted above, is unacceptable on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jameslwoodward Can you check again. I think it was showing you the old version because the site caches were not updated. I checked from different browsers and now that part seems to have been removed. Pentapixel (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Various professional wrestling logos[edit]

As with File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png, all of these files were marked as for speedy deletion instead of nominated for deletion, which allowed no room nor time for discussion. I object in particular to the deletion of File:World Woman Pro-Wrestling Diana logo.png (consisting strictly only of text and geometric shapes), File:Pure-J wrestling logo.png (a variety of colours does not mean this is anything more than text and geometric shapes, as was discussed in the recent undelete for File:PCW-Ultra.jpg), File:Wrestling Society X logo.png (the "complexity" is minimal, and still geometric. Certainly not more complex than anything featured in File:Cyberpunk 2077 logo.svg) and File:Association les Professionnels du Catch 2019 logo.png (this is text on a circle + stars which are also geometrical) and File:Insane Championship Wrestling logo.png, which is simply the lettering I C W with some minimal red outlining. File:House of Glory wrestling logo.png may be the most egregious deletion of the batch; it's lettering only.

If someone wants to make an argument that the crown featured in File:All Japan Women's Pro-Wrestling logo.png precludes that, I can at least understand that argument, but for the rest these are very simple text + shapes. File:Pro Wrestling NOAH 2021 logo.svg is simply text + straight lines; the "ring" featured on top is not a "complex" shape and is formed via straight, geometric lines.

To help this process; the majority of these logos are American, some are Japanese. If users need help differentiating which are American and which are Japanese because of a threshold discussion, please don't hesitate to ping me.

Thank you for your time, CeltBrowne (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upon doing further research, I believe that the spherical shape in File:World Woman Pro-Wrestling Diana logo.png is literally File:Globe icon.svg merely rotated a number of degrees. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't want to sound impatient, but almost all these files are the primary image/infobox image for different individual articles. 11 articles are without a primary image until they are (hopefully) restored, therefore I'm eager to see this matter resolved fairly quickly if possible. If you have the time to look into these files, I'd appreciate it. As with File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png, they were all marked as Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: as deleting admin. Yann (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with the undeletion of File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png and with your assessment of all of the logos you linked, with the possible exception of File:World Woman Pro-Wrestling Diana logo.png. That said, if another admin feels comfortable undeleting any of them, I'm fine with that as well. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also disagree with undeleting File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png. The text is OK, but the tear in the middle is not a simple geometric shape. We could make a similar image with our own tear, but the author has a copyright on his drawing of the tear. I cannot view the deleted files, so I will not comment on them. Glrx (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I renominated this file: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png. Yann (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruthven: @TheAafi: @Ankry: @Jameslwoodward:
Sorry to bother you, but as you were all involved in undeleting either File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png or File:PCW-Ultra.jpg, I'd really appreciate the insight of someone familiar with Template:PD-textlogo. I'd really like to get this resolved as it's been going on for many days now.
Even if you disagree with undeleting some of these files, your input will still be valued. I would find it difficult to believe all 11 of these files do not qualify as PD-textlogo. I feel very strongly, for example, that File:World Woman Pro-Wrestling Diana logo.png and File:House of Glory wrestling logo.png should be a very straight-forward cases of PD-textlogo.
Just to remind me people, the term "Geometric" covers w:Hypotrochoid and w:Epitrochoid shapes, so a logo containing a curve can still be geometric in nature. Also, as File:HypotrochoidOutThreeFifths.gif demonstrates, many stars (even "non-angular" one) are geometric in nature. So for example the 4 point star in File:Pure-J wrestling logo.png is still geometric in nature. In fact, File:Astroid2.gif in w:Hypocycloid literally demonstrates as much.
File:Wrestling Society X logo.png is clearly a vectorised image despite being in .png format. The point of "vectorising" shapes is (besides smoothing edges) to make them more angular, sharp and otherwise geometric. At least that's the case in this particular example. File:Wrestling Society X logo.png is an entirely text+geometric entity.

Can we restore the files in this batch that are clearly PD-textlogo, and any of them that are considered borderline cases, I'm happy to discuss any issues with those. Thanks, CeltBrowne (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm unsure why I have been pinged. I haven't undeleted either of the two files? ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was under the impression you supported the undelete for File:Women Superstars United logo, 2019.png? If I'm mistaken I apologise, there was a user who didn't sign their comment and an Template:unsigned was used to attribute the comment to you CeltBrowne (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hardly leave my comments unsigned. I'd be glad if you can show that diff, so that I can help fix. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, looking at [2] and [3] this, it was Ankry who forgot to sign their comment. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should I nominate each file individually instead?[edit]

It's been over a week and a half now, and no one besides the original uploader and original deleter has commented on these files. I'm taking it that by nominating all these files collectively, I've "scared off" the average person from commenting on them. This is based on the fact that other similar files I've recently nominated were processed almost immediately. Should I ask that this thread be deleted/archived and that I (re)nominate each file, one by one, instead? CeltBrowne (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Files deleted by Jameslwoodward[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the Template:PD-US-patent was changed recently after an argumented edit request at the talk page.
Between 2013 and this change, the template erroneously stated that US patents were not in the public domain if they were published after 1989 (without any source to support this claim). Now, the template has been revised to correctly state US patents are generally in public domain. Veverve (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As noted in the template, the applicant may claim copyright in the body of the patent application. In the second case, we have the whole patent and there is no such claim there, so I  Support restoration of File:Magpul Magazine Patent No20100212653A1.pdf. In all of the other cases we have only a part of the application, so until someone reads each of the patents to determine if there is a copyright claim, we should not restore them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: until someone reads each of the patents to determine if there is a copyright claim, we should not restore them: but most users are not admins, and thus they have no way to know the references needed to check the patent's contents. Indeed, most of the titles of those files do not contain the references needed to know what patent the file is taken from. Are you implying you are awaiting for another admin to check? Veverve (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support If the default is public domain, we should at least check the copyright status. Yann (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Veverve: I {{Temporarily undeleted}} them. Please check and report. Yann (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: thanks. I will put the bibliographic data needed, taken from the descriptions, and I will check (using Patent Public Search Basic) during the week end. Those data can also be used for people to check if the file gets deleted again.
Veverve (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Veverve: Does it mean that the files which are not a patent should be deleted? Yann (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: the USPTO states: "the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions". I believe this concerns patents and not patent applications. So, yes, I think files which are not a patent should be deleted.
However, I am no expert and others should feel free to challenge my claim and thought process. Veverve (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cleared the files above which are part of a patent. @Jameslwoodward: Should we delete the others? Yann (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

File:Jinan Safa Safira Last Show off air at Musical 12 March 2023.jpg[edit]

File:Jinan Safa Safira Last Show off air at Musical 12 March 2023.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernadettehartman (talk • contribs) 10:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Copied from Instagram, no evidence of a free license. Yann (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose This requires a permissions release through COM:VRT. The photographer/copyrights holder is required to send the release and until then it'd not be deleted because it is unfree, and uploading such content on Commons infringes copyright. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:"İstikrarın Yüzyılı" Pano, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.jpg[edit]

There is no explanation for the deletion by User:Wdwd. --Bjelica (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bjelica can you prove the billboard graphics is in public domain? Your claim here is not true; not everything found in public is free. The billboard, for it to be in public domain, must have been created by artists who already died more than 70 years ago, or 70 years after the artwork was first published. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for interest @JWilz12345.
These posters were produced by the Turkish Directorate of Communications. They are all related to the Turkey's Centennial campaign. It's all public property, it doesn't belong to anybody. It's more freely licensed than anything else here. Bjelica (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted photo ss.--Bjelica (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is the terms and condition or law that states that their content is in the public domain? The website you are point to has as a footer "© 2018 T.C. İletişim Başkanlığı" and in its English version: "© 2019 The Republic of Türkiye Directorate of Communications". Günther Frager (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:První obálka časopisu Ladění.jpg[edit]

File:První obálka časopisu Ladění.jpg

Reason of request - consent from owner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiskařka Zuzka (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Per Gunther -- This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Maria riva.jpg[edit]

Hello, I would like a previously removed photo of Maria Riva to be published again. Greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eros alatus (talk • contribs) 10:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Question You didn't provide a reason for undeletion. Why this wouldn't be under a copyright? For the record, it is this picture, taken from [4], credited to Getty. Original source at Getty is [5]. Yann (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maria riva.jpg and Getty page for the photo. --Rosenzweig τ 06:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg[edit]

Thank you for asking. The picture belongs to me and was taken by me and my team. I am also in the picture, but thank you for checking. Therefore, the copyright is with me because I am in it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangeltunesentertainment (talk • contribs) 11:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: No file name provided. All your files need a confirmation of the license via COM:VRT. --Yann (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Vouga-ponte-mf.jpg[edit]

Hello

the author of the image Vouga-ponte-mf.jpg has in the meantime granted permission for using the it.

His permission is as follows: "I, as author of the above image, authorize that the image can be used under the license CC-BY-4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). You are free to share and to to remix under the following conditions You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use."

You can find this permission in his response here: https://www.facebook.com/skyviewmf/photos/a.113469703519886/262372808629574?locale=pt_PT

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lslopes (talk • contribs) 11:53, 24 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support The CC BY 4.0 license is available to the public at the page linked above and the facebook account looks legitimate. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, what is the next step now? Lslopes (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undeleted. @Lslopes: please have some patience. We are all volunteers here. It has literally been about 9 hours from your original request to having the file restored. - Jmabel ! talk 21:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:T.Nelson Williams.jpg[edit]

Please do not delete. I will start working on this article ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex0770426071 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: as per The Aafī. --Yann (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Luisa Castellani Wiki.jpg[edit]

File:Luisa Castellani Wiki.jpg Avevo inserito la stessa foto il 08 08 2023 su commons e poi nella voce di Luisa Castellani ma è stata cancellata perché non avevo indicato il copyright corretto. Ho visto che la licenza giusta dovrebbe essere questa e quindi la riporto qui sotto. {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} Ribadisco che ho scattato io questa foto ed è di mia proprietà Per favore, io no sono esperto, se non va bene nemmeno così scrivetemi semplicemente come devo fare o a chi devo scrivere e come, possibilmente senza rimandarmi a tutorial complessi. Grazie --Acroche (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Support Tagged for no license. I think we can Assume Good Faith. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Boris and Ardyth.jpg[edit]

This picture was taken by me. Someone voiced concern that some photos on this page were of concern because they were new and why should a new account have new photos. Subject had just been awarded Canada's highest civilian honour -- the Order of Canada.--Tapyram (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)tapyramReply[reply]

 Oppose as MGA73 wrote on your talk page, if you are the genuine copyright holder, then you should send an explicit permission to COM:VRT. Günther Frager (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Eliza Lopes Elizabeth.jpg[edit]

This is not a copyright violation. It is initially from GettyImages which allows everyone to primarily use their pictures. I cropped this from the website ‘https://www.popsugar.co.uk/celebrity/photo-gallery/49140878/image/49140934/Eliza-Lopes’ willingly knowing the terms and conditions. I gave credits in the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyayhaqyyaha (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: apparently a copyright violation. If this is not, a permissions release from the photographer/copyrights holders to COM:VRT should help get this file undeleted. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Stephen A Unger.jpg[edit]

Please restore File:Stephen A Unger.jpg as we have ticket:2024012410012912 from the photographer for this file. Ww2censor (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Ww2censor: FYI. --Yann (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Hans Friessen.jpg[edit]

In Mexico law anonymous works are considered in the public domain until the author or the owner of the rights are identified and no author could be identified after a research The New Foxy (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose to determine that we need at least a copy of the publication where it first appeared. Showing a bunch of webpages that use the image without even citing the source only means the author is unknown to us. It is not the same as stating that the author is anonymous. Günther Frager (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. 2017 picture, the author can most probably be identified. --Yann (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Luigi's Mansion Arcade Interior.jpg[edit]

Simple logo The New Foxy (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose I see very little that is simple in this image, all of which is All Rights Reserved. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Oreo shake.jpg[edit]

Oreo logo is simple The New Foxy (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Yes, but the package also has a photograph of an Oreo, which is not free. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. Without the Oreo package, the image has little value. --Yann (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Luigivari.jpg[edit]

Il file Luigivari.jpeg è libero da ogni copyright in quanto è un opera da me creata.

Richiedo il ripristino del file Luigivari.jpeg--Albabiancazzurra (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose we need an explicit permission that the requester should send to the COM:VRT team. Once they review and approve it, the image will be undeleted. Günther Frager (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Netflix poster[edit]

This is a Netflix poster for the Ricky Gervias comedy special "Humanity". I didn't put the right copyright databse and I'm sorry for that. I'm commited to correct my mistake in order to reupload it. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvadrosss (talk • contribs) 13:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)~ (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Netflix posters are not free. Please read COM:L. --Yann (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Giordano Bruno Lattuada.jpg[edit]

We are looking at a 50 year old man, not a 75 year old man, so yes, the image was created prior to 1976. He died in 1978. We are also relying on case law where an image is "made public" when it leaves the custody of the photographer. --RAN (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not quite accurate for Italy. Under the Berne Convention https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/283698 "The expression “published works” means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication." I'd say that 1950s is more likely than the 1970s in the creation of this photograph, however I would say this is an artistic photograph with a term of PMA 70 rather than a simple photograph with a term of 20 years plus publication. Abzeronow (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Italy is a 20 years from creation copyright jurisdiction for photographs. "Artistic photographs" would be found in museums like this image: File:Salvador Dali A (Dali Atomicus) 09633u.jpg, a picture of an artist, does not make an image artistic. Art photography involves costuming and staging and props, not just clicking the shutter. For instance the photographs of Annie Leibovitz and Anne Geddes. Their images are in museums and they sell signed, numbered prints of their photographs as works of art. Just pressing the shutter is something a monkey can do: File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg. We also have no evidence that the image was made public without the "consent of their author". That argument that we need to prove that an image was distributed with the author's consent could used to denigrate any image, we have no proof for any historical image we host from Italy, and we have over 10,000. I would agree if we had evidence that the image was stolen like we had with the 2014 celebrity pictures hack. Those images did not have the "consent of their author". Non digital photograph is also not like a painting/performance, once the negative (the original creative work) is turned into a positive print, we now have a perceivable copy made, and the copyright clock starts. --RAN (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Lieutenant Governor Tammy Miller.jpg[edit]

This is an official portrait taken by a State of North Dakota employee. Everything produced by the State of North Dakota is in the Public domain- Therefore, it is not copyrighted — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReitenJohn (talk • contribs) 16:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:AI Jenny Everywhere fanart.jpg[edit]

A case of anti AI images crackdown where lots of far less useful images are kept and the deletion is not justified by the deletion discussion. Per the debate the closing conclusion was Deleted: with exception of File:AI Jenny Everywhere fanart.jpg per nomination & discussion Of the people participating in the debate, two briefly called for deletion of all while three asked for this one to be kept. It is useful for being one of very few (maybe just two) illustrating Dieselpunk as well as for Category:Jenny Everywhere. If the file remains deleted despite all of this, at the very least an explanation is needed. See the DR for info/context. --Prototyperspective (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Support undeletion; earlier in the day I closed a batch discussion that started in December, deleting most but specifically keeping this one per discussion. Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Hyju I'm not sure why it was deleted; perhaps the admin didn't notice it was kept and thought it was just a file that didn't successfully delete in a batch deletion (which happens sometimes). @Krd:  ? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mynampallyrohit.png[edit]

Hi It is an original picture, it was also used in election campagining that is why it is seen somewhere else. Please process the undeletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishikanthprabhu (talk • contribs) 09:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose File copied from the Internet. The copyright holder must send a permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Носов, Сергей Константинович.jpg[edit]

Фото не нарушает авторских прав. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkrylov (talk • contribs) 09:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The EXIF data says you are not the author. Please request the copyright holder to send a permission via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:koovode.jpg[edit]

It's me, and it is 100% valid files, so I request for Un deletion of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N Adarsh N P V (talk • contribs) 09:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: No file by that name. All your files are out of scope. Please read COM:SCOPE. Blocked on the English Wikipedia for self-promotion. --Yann (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Danielle Dunsmore Official Campaign Photo 2024.jpg undeletion[edit]

I am the owner of this photo, and the copy write owner. The photo was created for the use of all candidate material including Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielledunsmore (talk • contribs) 11:00, January 26, 2024‎ (UTC)

The deletion reason says there is a copyright notice of (C) Rix Ryan Photography Qld. Normally, the photographer owns the copyright, and is the only one who can license it the way we need, even if you have a wide license to use it to promote a campaign. It would be legal to host here, but per site policy we need the photo licensed per the definitions at Commons:Licensing, which require it to be allowed anywhere. The photographer (or copyright owner, if there was a transfer) would need to follow the steps in COM:VRT, sending a private email, and the photo would be undeleted at the end of that process.
Current Australian law does say (article 35(5)):
where:
(a) a person makes, for valuable consideration, an agreement with another person for the taking of a photograph for a private or domestic purpose, the painting or drawing of a portrait or the making of an engraving by the other person; and
(b) the work is made in pursuance of the agreement;
the first-mentioned person is the owner of any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of this Part, but, if at the time the agreement was made that person made known, expressly or by implication, to the author of the work the purpose for which the work was required, the author is entitled to restrain the doing, otherwise than for that purpose, of any act comprised in the copyright in the work.
It does not seem as though this was for a "private or domestic purpose". Earlier versions of Australian law did not have the "private or domestic purpose" qualifier, nor the long clause after the "but" at the end -- so the copyright to such photos were for a long time owned by the commissioning party. But, it would appear, that is no longer the case unless there was an express agreement to transfer the copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose I, agree with Carl. In addition to the fact that this is not a "private or domestic purpose", the requester tells us, "The photo was created for the use of all candidate material including Wikipedia". That does not include freely licensing it here. Since that was not the purpose for which the image was created, "the author is entitled to restrain the doing, otherwise than for that purpose, of any act comprised in the copyright in the work.
In order to restore it, we will need a free license from the phtographer via VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:K-On anime logo (US).svg[edit]

The file was deleted in October 2023 and has never been used since.

However if this restoration is denied on the Commons, I request this file to be transferred for the English Wikipedia article: K-On! (TV series) in accordance with fair use.

Request temporary undeletion

-Imperial meter (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harry Topham.jpg[edit]

Consensus was to keep the images because they are in the public domain because of their age and because they are anonymous, all circa 1900. The argument for closing as delete was that the images could be from as late as 1909, and are past the 1996 URAA date, but it is not, 1954 is the correct cutoff date for creation. If we assume they were never made public, the license reads: "A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1954)". --RAN (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The math is wrong in the deletion reason, but the above also is not quite correct. PD-UK-unknown is 70 years from the "making available to the public", not creation. That does include public display and broadcast, so is less strict than the term "publication". To avoid the URAA, they would have needed to be made available before 1926. Of course, if these were "published" (in the U.S. sense) before 1929 then the URAA is irrelevant as they are PD-US-expired regardless. 1909+70 is 1979, not 1999, which is the year stated in the DR. It is true that these may not be old enough for PD-old-assumed, which is 120 years from creation. The only chance these have to still be under copyright is if the photographer was named at the time (and just not mentioned in the online copy), and lived to 1954 or later. For the U.S., if the photo was unpublished until 1989 it could still be under copyright, but that seems rather unlikely. Some of the images at the source were clearly published at the time. In most of the EU, determining "anonymous" often needs some idea of the original publication. So if no source was given, the DR seems justified. The UK with it's "unknown" may not need that, though some effort to find the publication probably needs to be done. I was not able to find anything further on the Topham photo with a quick search. I can't see the deleted photos to see if they are from the stated source, and look like crops from published team photos, or other obvious publications, or if look like they may be a private photo (more of a potential problem). But if they look like team photos which would have almost certainly been published, PD-UK-unknown and PD-US-expired seem like reasonable assumptions. So lean  Keep, probably. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pure-J wrestling logo.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and should be reinstated. The entire logo is either text or simple geometric shapes. The logo consists simply of the white text "Pure J" and "Women's Pro Wrestling" over 7 straight coloured horizontal bars, going in a rainbow scale. All of that is undisputedly covered under PD-textlogo.

The only other shape in this logo is a four-point star. This is literally a geometric shape: The article w:Hypocycloid uses File:Astroid2.gif to demonstrate as much. The star does not place this logo over the threshold of originality, and in fact we have an entire category here on the Commons dedicated to such instances: Category:Stars in logos, and more specifically Category:Four-pointed stars in logos.

Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files: [6]

This file should be undeleted post-haste. Thank you, CeltBrowne (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:World Woman Pro-Wrestling Diana logo.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and should be reinstated. The entire logo is either text or simple geometric shapes.

The logo simply consists of the text "DIANA" and "World Woman Pro-Wrestling Diana" over a spherical globe shape. I believe this spherical globe shape to literally be File:Globe icon.svg merely rotated a number of degrees. File:Globe icon.svg is, of course, a simple geometric shape.


Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files:[7]

Given that this logo is very simply an instance of text + a geometric shape, it should be undeleted post haste. Thank you CeltBrowne (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:House of Glory wrestling logo.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and should be reinstated. The entire "logo" (actually a wordmark) is simple text and nothing more. It was speedily deleted via Template:copyvio instead of being nominated for deletion, and I believe if more time had been taken to examine it properly, it never would have been deleted in the first place.

The logo is as simple as simple gets: It is the text "HOG" and "House of Glory" written in orange with black and white bordering. The text itself is highly angular, with the "O" in "HOG" being, in fact, a rectangle.

Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files: [8]

I find it incredible this file was nominated, much less approved for deletion, in the first place and believe it should be undeleted post haste. Thank you. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Insane Championship Wrestling logo.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and should be reinstated. The entire "logo" (actually a wordmark) is simply the white text "I C W" with some red and black bordering. The entire wordmark is 2D. There is no complexity of any kind to this wordmark and it is entirely within the bounds of Template:PD-textlogo.


Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files: [9]


This file should be undeleted post-haste. Thank you, CeltBrowne (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My own pms from Steam, my own messages from forums[edit]

Were deleted as speedy without specifying exact paragraph (which is unacceptable for me). Not all were deleted, File:Почему нет 2.png was not deleted, but it has the same content.

Were deleted:

So you're either

  1. Clarify the speedy paragraph under which they were deleted and delete File:Почему нет 2.png as well.
  2. Restore the rest of the files. You don't have to apologize to me, although you can.
  3. Leave everything as it is, admitting to the lack of basic intelligence.

In case the demons don't try to eat my soul, I'm leaving some holy symbols.

🄯🄯🄯

UnWikipedian (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pro Wrestling NOAH 2021 logo.svg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and should be reinstated. The entire logo is either text or simple geometric shapes.

The logo consists of the stylised green text "NOAH" on a simple black geometric shape. At the top of the logo is a very simple, abstract representation of a wrestling ring consisting only and simply of 2 horizontal lines, and 2 vertical lines. This is as simplistically as a wrestling ring can be possibly represented, and it is done so entirely geometrically. It does not breach the threshold of originality, even a child could construct this shape with a ruler.

Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files: [10]

This file should be undeleted. Thank you, CeltBrowne (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Shimmer wrestling logo.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and should be reinstated. The entire logo is either text or simple geometric shapes. The logo consists simply of the black text "SHIMMER" with purple bordering, and three instances of a 5-point star. Stars are simple geometric shapes and their inclusion on the Commons is exceedingly common, to the point where we have the specific Category:Five-pointed stars in logos.

Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files: [11]

This file should be undeleted post-haste. Thank you, CeltBrowne (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:World Championship Wrestling (1999-2001) Logo (Alternate).svg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files were uploaded under Template:PD-textlogo and Template:Trademark, and should be reinstated.

Both files are the text "World Championship Wrestling" on a geometric six-pointed star shape. Above the text "World Championship Wrestling is the text "W W", and both above and below is a stylised "C".

I want to be very clear about this: This logo is entirely geometric, and in fact, I believe it could be easily constructed by a graphing calculator, or on paper simply using a ruler and a geometry compass. In fact, I believe the entire intention of the logo is to be as geometric as possible.

Here is the appearance of the logo for anyone who does not have access to deleted files: [12] (The second file is the exact same logo, but in alternating colours)

Because both of these are simple text + geometric shapes, which are covered by Template:PD-textlogo, I believe they should be undeleted. Thank you, CeltBrowne (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=845728149"