I can't see the deleted images, but one of the other's up for deletion was taken by a photographer who died more than 70 years ago. The question appears to be whether the images were taken by the local photographer Ward Jaycox (1869-1944). Unless stamped like File:1918 Pearl St Shop.jpg, the image is anonymous, and would be "PD-US-not renewed". US case law, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg, sides with publication (made available to the public), occuring when an image leaves the custody of the photographer.

The DR says that File:Ray Byars Harley Davidson Shop was most likely published in 1928, which is less the the -expired threshold. Whose name did we search for renewals under? Seems fine to undelete in 2024, but before then was there a name associated with the photo that renewal searches could be done under? Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The images need to be temporarily made visible. Images had to display a copyright notice, and be renewed up until 1964. If there is no name attached to the image it was made public, and is anonymous. There in nothing in the renewal database for "Harley Davidson" and "Texas" or "Ray Byar" at 1928+28 +/- 5 years. I have yet to see a local Texas photographer appear in the renewal database. You can find news agencies and big city photographers. --RAN (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. Having a paper photograph without a copyright notice does not affect the copyright status of the image. In order to use PD No Notice, one must prove that the photo was published without notice. A single notice suffices for all photos in a book or periodical. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The images need to be temporarily made visible. Wouldn't the burden be on the deleter to present evidence that the image appeared in a book? The uploader has scanned a paper print image, so we know it existed as a physical print, not appearing in a book or a newspaper. They have made no claim that it ever appeared in a book. The argument that any image could have appeared in a book, and it is up to the person scanning it to prove that it has never appeared in a book goes against Commons:Precautionary principle. United States case law has ruled that when a physical print leaves the custody of the photographer it has been made available to the public. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg. Also the copyright for images in books are not held by the author or publisher, they are owned by the photographer and have to be renewed by them. Publishers license the images for use in the book, they do not buy the copyright outright. Google Books was sued over that very issue. If the author takes all the images in a book, then the renewal would cover those images. --RAN (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright owner of a periodical, or other composite work, can file a renewal as the "proprietor of copyright in a composite work". A book does not always rise to that level, but I believe that type of renewal can preserve the copyright of the contained works, even if the owners are different. The DR asks for some evidence of publication without notice. If it was scanned from a paper print, fine, where did that paper print come from? A modern paper print would not be evidence. The related file File:Ray Byars Harley Davidson Shop.jpg, also deleted, seems (in Google cache) to show a caption underneath, so it came from some publication. If scanned from that publication, not sure that is evidence either way (even if the book was renewed, could be a long-existing photo). The "own work" claim is false, and no provenance information is given, which is required to claim PD-US-no_notice. Odds are high that it is, but we need something to rest the PD declaration on, at least until 2024. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The images need to be temporarily made visible. The images if published, would have to renewed by the copyright holders, not the publisher, just like as required for advertisements in newspapers. Any renewals by the publisher would only cover images produced by the author/publisher and not third parties, just like advertisements. --RAN (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advertisements in newspapers/magazines are a particular exception to the usual periodical copyright covering the contained works. They are treated different than material the editors put in there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Google Books was sued over that very issue that the publisher of a book does not hold the copyrights to the licensed images contained within the books. Licensing allows the use of the image in the book, and does not transfer any copyrights. --RAN (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure -- each photo can have an independent copyright. For photos first published in a periodical, a renewal on the entire periodical can serve to renew the copyright on the contained items, even if the owner of a particular photo copyright is different. For re-used photos where the periodical proprietor merely had a non-exclusive license, which is often the case for books, they wouldn't be affected at all by a periodical renewal. That may not be the case here, just noting the possibilities, but if this was taken from a 1928 publication which was renewed, then it might. If it was from a newspaper of that era, then it's OK, as only a few NYC newspapers renewed their pre-WWII issues, and nothing outside of NYC did. However, would like to know which publication this was scanned from, so we at least know a date it was published on, and also any provenance information from that publication. There is a claim of PD-US-not renewed, which implies publication before 1964, so when was that exactly? Renewal searches using the subject information are not really enough; the title may be unrelated, and it's the photographer or copyright owner which usually need to be searched for. It was clearly published elsewhere, and I'm not comfortable assuming publication only after 2003 (especially given the tag that was applied, which claims publication before 1964). That may well not have been the first publication, either. There are many ways it could be PD, but also ways it might not. When we have basically no information on an image (especially knowing it was previously published), I'm not comfortable saying there is no significant doubt. If we are scanning from a book or magazine, name the source, and give all the provenance information for the photo given in that source, at the very least. We are left guessing on something the uploader could have easily done themselves (if they were the scanner, and if not we know even less). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Temporarily undeleted}}. Yann (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The font used in File:Ray Byars Harley Davidson Shop.jpg points to post-1978 publication and probably post-2003 publication. If it can be shown that Jaycox is the photographer, I'm inclined to support this staying undeleted. Otherwise, we may have to wait for 2049 since 1928 seems like the most plausible date of creation and I'm not seeing any evidence this was published before 1978. (EDIT: I'm read the other related stuff. If there is evidence that proves that the photograph was used as a carte de visite or publicly displayed at the dealership before 1978, I'd also support this staying undeleted. I don't think we have that as evidence yet though). Abzeronow (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Claudio Caniggia Boca Juniors.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

This was marked for deletion because it was a poorly sourced upload by a sockpuppet but because it was (likely) out of copyright in Argentina and potentially useful, I fleshed out the file description and licensing, and uploaded a higher-quality version before it was (understandably) deleted by EugeneZelenko. You can see the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Claudio Caniggia Boca Juniors.jpg. Please restore this image as it is a valuable photograph of his time at Boca Juniors playing alongside Diego Maradona. Thanks in advance. Adeletron 3030 (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Tokyo Skytree light up in US flag for Trump's visit.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: At section 5(6), the policy of Facebook page of the Japanese Kantei is complied with the GJSTU 2.0 license. A1Cafel (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t understand why this pic was removed, but I got the permission of the owner of this site to use it for Wikipedia: https://www.heimat-lohmar.de/exponate/bilder/prof-prill/ So please restore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasvonderDunk (talk • contribs) 22:15, 28 December 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion 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.

[confidential information removed]

 Oppose A 1934 German image was under copyright in Germany until at least 1/1/2005 and is therefore under copyright in the United States until 95 years after first publication, that is, until at least 1/1/2030. I doubt very much that the person giving permission actually has a written license from the photographer allowing them to freely license the image. Also note that "permission ... to use it for Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Both Commons and WP require that an image must be free for any use by anybody anywhere..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, photos of this type can be difficult. First, for photos first published elsewhere on the web, we need a free license directly from the copyright holder, via the process (using private emails) specified at COM:VRT. We have too many photos simply copied from the Internet, and accounts here are essentially anonymous.

If the copyright on the photos has lapsed, then it is OK, but that can be surprisingly difficult to determine (as copyright lasts a very long time). We need works to be public domain in both the country of origin, and the United States. This would appear to have been published in Germany, so that is the country of origin. Since this was definitely still under copyright in Germany in 1996, the U.S. restored any copyright for 95 years from publication, so it will not be public domain in the U.S. until 2030. The German copyright might be even more difficult -- the source states that a Hans Dieter Heimig is the author. If that was the photographer, we would need to find out how long they lived, and add 70 years to that (plus to the end of that year) to know when it will be public domain in Germany. If that name is a modern person, i.e. a contributor but the actual photographer is unknown, we'd need to see how it was credited at the further source. If it was published anonymously, it may have become public domain in Germany 70 years after publication (so, 2005), so then we'd just have to wait for the U.S. copyright to expire. However, for non-simple photographs like these (studio portraits were considered full works of art, not simple photos), they were always supposed to be 70 years from the death of the human author, and not sure the 70-year anonymous term common to the EU shortened that (though that is still a bit nebulous to me). If you subscribe to that theory, or Hans Dieter Heimig actually was the photographer but we can't find how long they lived, you'd have to wait until a reasonable amount of time passes (100 or 120 years) before using it.

If the site owner actually does own copyright somehow (that would need to be explained to the COM:VRT team), then they can license it, though as mentioned not for "Wikipedia only" -- it would have to be for anyone. But if they don't own the copyright, then they can't license it, and policy is to wait out the copyright term, as frustrating as that can be. I think the German Wikipedia has a rule of thumb that allows any work older than 100 years if the author's death date can be determined, though Commons uses 120. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Dieter Heimig seems to be the author of a chapter in the 2016 book in which this image was apparently published. It's unclear if the image had been published before. --Rosenzweig τ 23:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For anonymous works in German law, see the rather comprehensive COM:Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works. For anything created before July 1 1995, if the author's name became known in any (unspecified) "other way", that was enough for the work to not be an anonymous work anymore, even if originally published without a named author. Which might work somehow for complete books, but is rather crazy for single photographs. Nevertheless it was the law before that was changed in 1995. --Rosenzweig τ 23:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. For photographs then, the situation was similar to now -- if published without attribution to a human author, and the author did not become known in the next 70 years, the term expired then. We'd have to assume anonymous publication in this case, which we don't always do without having some evidence of that. (For simple photos, such as snapshots of everyday life, the anonymous aspect was irrelevant in Germany -- those were at most 50 years from publication, or 50 years from creation if not published, before the 1995 law changes, regardless of author. The 1995 law retroactively changed them to 70pma though, or the anonymous term.). But, the U.S. term seems fairly straightforward. We could undelete in 2030. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright situation in Germany of this photo (and also the US) is still unclear. It is said to be taken in 1934, and it was published in a book in 2016. We don't know if it was first published before 2016. Unlike the situation in the US, where the sale of a print by the photographer to the customer could (at least in some cases) already be publication, publication in Germany required the dissemination of copies to the general public. We also don't know if the 2016 publication (or any other publication) named a photographer or not. If that 1934 photo was first published in 2016 and we don't know the author, we can't tell if it is still protected by copyright in Germany or not. Under the "new" method explained at COM:Germany, the copyright of an anonymous work expires after 70 years, so it would have expired at the end of 2004 in this case. But under the old method, the term of protection would be 70 years pma even if the author is unknown. And the longer term of those two applies, even if we don't know which one is the longer term. Very unsatisfying, but that's what you get when laws don't really fit the subject matter they're meant to regulate, or at least not all aspects of it. Without further information about the first publication and the photographer, I can only see us hosting this with {{PD-old-assumed}} after 120 years, in 2055. Which would also be the US term for works of unknown authorship unpublished before 2003.

Btw, the terms for "simple" photographs in Germany have a rather convoluted history. In 1965, when the distinction between "Lichtbild" (= "simple" photograph) and "Lichtbildwerk" was first introduced in the then new Urheberrechtsgesetz (copyright law), they both had 25 year terms from publication (or creation if unpublished within 25 years after creation). In 1985, photographic works went to 70 years pma, while "simple" photographs stayed at 25 years from publication/creation, unless they were "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" (documents of contemporary history), which got a 50 year term from publication/creation. Then in 1995, that "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" category was eliminated, and all "Lichtbilder" got the 50 year term. Courts then whittled down what can be a "Lichtbild", and now, only images from automated photo booths, x-ray images, satellite imagery, surveillance images (from automated cameras) and similar stuff can be a "Lichtbild", but not a photo taken by a human being. Not by law (there is no clear definition there), but because of court decisions. --Rosenzweig τ 01:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as far as I understand it, the courts changed their interpretation what a "Lichtbild" is due to the EU regulations. So, before the EU regulations, the "documents of contemporary history" type photograph were a 50 year term from publication/creation, then after the EU regulations they were 70pma, or 70 years from creation/publication if anonymous. So there could be no "longer existing term" for those, unlike for anonymous sculptures, which are more nebulous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as this photo, it sure looks like something published in a school yearbook or something like that. The web page source does mention a further source, a "monography" by a Wilhelm Pape from 1993 or something like that. Unsure if that was just for the text, or the photo too. I do see there is some disagreement over whether the old 70 year term required the distribution of copies to the general public, or not. I typically dislike deletions based on extremely delayed publication possibilities, unless there is some evidence which points to that situation actually happening -- most works were made to be published, one way or another. I would not have a problem assuming that it became public domain in Germany in 2005, though there are some uncertainties, though the U.S. status seems clear (if published in 1934, which I am assuming). If it was truly unpublished until recently, it would get more "interesting". Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• File:SeminariTLB - Quina RTVV volem - 1.jpeg
• File:SeminariTLB - Quina RTVV volem - 2.jpeg
• File:SeminariTLB - Quina RTVV volem - 3.jpeg. Those were deleted without a consensus.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose A consensus is not required. Deletion is entirely up to the closing Administrator's judgement. That being said, note that two Admins -- the nominator and the closer -- thought that the images should be deleted and only TaronjaSatsuma thought otherwise. I also note that two of the three images infringe on the copyright for the poster on the wall behind the speakers. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Depicts notable people who have articles on cawiki which currently lack an image: ca:Josep Lluís Gómez Mompart and ca:Violeta Tena Barreda. The posters are pretty obviously COM:DM for me, and probably below COM:TOO as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per King of Hearts.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prayetietia.png

This file was deleted with this message: per nomination, not notable. But the only users to actually investigate the subject’s notability concluded that the subject is notable. The closing admin did not respond to my query. Brianjd (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I would ask for the original image with EXIF data. Not a small thumb in PNG format. Yann (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Emblem Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Alang Iskandar, Bagan Serai, Perak 2022.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: I am a student in the school and technically my teacher allows me to remake the emblem of the school. I hope that the page could be restored so people can take the logo for school design or maybe freelance also for the school staff usage. Thank you. Ashraf Syaamil (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File to restoration due to building's copyright expiration, so it's free to be on Commons. Michalg95 (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my own cellphone shot and I don't think there is a copyright problem. Blackman Jr. II (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment The article text (other than the title, which is probably below COM:TOO) is illegible, so I think it's fine from a copyright perspective. However, then it becomes a question of COM:SCOPE: what is the educational use of a newspaper article with a title followed by a bunch of unreadable gibberish? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose Agreed. It may be barely legible to an Indonesian reader, if it is, it's a copyvio and if it's not, it's out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete request. This photograph is published by the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution with the express intent for it to be republished elsewhere, as it is a publicity photograph. Thank you. https://blog.dar.org/rise-and-shine-america-and-dar WindingRoad (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The source page which you cite above has an explicit copyright notice:

"© National Society Daughters of the American Revolution (NSDAR) | All Rights Reserved"

and no evidence of any free license. I see no "express intent for it to be republished elsewhere", and publicity photographs are almost never published with a license that permits commercial use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is a request for files mentioned in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-07#1992 Iranian banknotes, we are in 2023 now and we can undelete them. Thank you. HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Copa FIFA Mundial.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: This picture is my own work and there are some pages that need it. Thank you Pedromariagutiarejano (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Your photo infringes on the copyright for the trophy, which is held by the heir(s) of sculptor Silvio Gazzaniga who died in 2016. It will be under copyright until 1/1/2087. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On this page I discovered some comments told there are some Latvian people used the flag with medium red in some anti-Soviet demonstrations, and such flags were disappeared after the Latvian flag is restored with correct shade of red. I think it's reasonable to restore this file. --Great Brightstar (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This image should add more descriptions after restoration. --Great Brightstar (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The copyright of the image Professor K. J. Ray Liu 2020.jpg is owned by K. J. Ray Liu from https://kjrayliu.org, instead of from the website "event.ntu.edu.tw/distinguishedalumni/2021%E5%B9%B4%E7%A4%BE%E6%9C%83%E6%9C%8D%E5%8B%99%E9%A1%9E%EF%BC%8D%E5%8A%89%E5%9C%8B%E7%91%9E%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F/". The copyright is released by the holder for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts), indicated at the footnote of website https://kjrayliu.org. Could you please undelete it so that we can put it back to the wikipage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._J._Ray_Liu? Thanks!

Best, --YYY66 (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As a general rule the copyright for images is owned by photographer. Any license which the subject may have is almost always for the subject's use and does not include the right to freely license the image as required here. In order to restore this image either the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or someone else may send a free license together with a copy of the license from the photographer allowing that person to freely license the image. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted because it was found on an autograph auction site and the reason for deletion was that it needed to be reviewed. That is a reason to go through the standard deletion process, not speedy deletion. I need to see it to find an approximate year. --RAN (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it is this photo: https://www.regisautographs.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/BLAINE-Vivian.jpg Ellywa (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably, I can't see the deleted one, more people should have access to deleted images. --RAN (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]