This buddha seems to be an architecture instead of a sculpture according to the Chinese Wikipedia introduction, which says, 由莲花座到佛顶共分六层，底层为小佛堂，二至五层设有塑像及文字解说关于佛陀一生事迹。拾级盘旋而上可达顶层。/There are six floors from the lotus seat to the top of the Buddha. The bottom floor is a small Buddha hall, and the second to fifth floors are equipped with statues and text explanations about the life of the Buddha. Go up the stairs and circle up to the top floor. (Translated by Google). COM:FOP Taiwan allows architecture. Teetrition (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Only one photo deleted. Here are more photos of Great Buddha Statue of Baguashan.--祥龍 (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there were 2 images under that name. For the latest, it is quite a stretch to call this "not a statue", even if it is hollow. But the former is a general view, and it may be OK, depending of the wording of the law, and local court cases. Yann (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think that a statue or a building need a window on it? Reke (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a statue with a window, but it is still a work of art, not a building. Yann (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a historical building. Reke (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose A 3D artwork, not architecture. Not covered by FoP in Taiwan Abzeronow (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Japan's FoP law, which Taiwan's is very closely related to, some buildings can be considered "artistic works" rather than architectural. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama/Archive_1#Hideyuki_Murata @JWilz12345: @Clindberg: Abzeronow (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: I won't comment on the matter as I am heavily involved on Taiwanese FOP ruckus made by the latest Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) reply of December 2022. I won't oppose this UNDEL request, but I won't support either. See also w:zh:Wikipedia:互助客栈/其他#有关维基共享资源台湾全景自由问题一事. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think there is a fine line here. I would hesitate to call the Statue of Liberty "architecture", even though people can go inside and climb the staircase to the crown. However the description above sounds like this is a Buddha museum, with five floors and exhibits inside. I think the divider has to be the purpose to which it is put, not the exterior shape, so I think this is architecture. The US Copyright office would agree,

"The Copyright Office may register a claim to copyright in an architectural work if the work is a humanly habitable structure that is intended to be both permanent and stationary. Examples of works that satisfy this requirement include houses, office buildings, churches, and museums. By contrast, the Office will refuse to register bridges, cloverleaves, dams, walkways, tents, recreational vehicles, or boats...." [USCO Circular 41, emphasis added]

Note that other countries, notably France, include bridges as architecture. The subject work is not, of course, in the USA, but I doubt that other copyright offices would see it differently.  Support .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Striked my oppose per comments by you and JWilz. Although as noted above, Japan (whose laws on this are similar to Taiwan) considered Tower of the Sun as an artistic work not a work of architecture but since our servers are in the US, we could go with The Copyright Office guidance in this case. Abzeronow (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit surprised that this would qualify for architecture in USA, but I won't oppose undeletion. Yann (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By only this file, I  Support, but by that batch? Then some files may involve public interiors, are Taiwanese FOP rules allowing em? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If those public interiors can be considered as artistic works, then Taiwanese FOP rules does not allow them because the rule requires "outdoor". See [1]. Teetrition (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Section 65 of the Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Urheberrechtsgesetz – UrhG) copyright in cinematographic works expires 70 years after the death of the last surviving of the following persons: the principle film director, the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogues, the composer of music specifically composed for use in the cinematographic work in question. This applies at the end of that calendar year per Section 69. The longest lived was Henrik Galeen who died in 1949, hence the movie and this screenshot are in the public domain in Germany, and they are also in the public domain in the US due to the publication date 1922. Hekerui (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perplexingly, though the movie as a whole is now indeed in the public domain in Germany, per this recent discussion (in German), individual stills (frames) taken from the movie are probably still not free until 2029, as German courts apparently consider the cinematographer (Kameramann) as the creator of individual frames, and Fritz Arno Wagner died only in 1958. This creates the slightly absurd situation that, in German-language Wikipedia, we can embed a video with the whole movie in the article, but not single images from the movie. So, I also think that this image shouldn't be restored before 2029. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The linked discussion references a documentary movie that has no director but only two camera people so those are counted as copyright holders, no? ("Ich habe mir das von Syrco zitierte Urteil angeschaut und dort ging es offenbar um dokumentarische Aufnahmen, bei denen als Urheber eh nur zwei Kameramänner und sonst niemand in Frage kam"). Hekerui (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the contribution of Pajz in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Greta-Garbo-and-Jaro-Furth-in-the-film-Joyless-Street-1925-142462321702.jpg, still frames from the film itself do not not share in the protection of the film work as such, but can be protected either as simple photographs, for 50 years from creation, or as photographic works with 70 years pma, depending on the level of originality ("Die Einzelbilder eines Filmwerks sind nicht nach Abs. 1 Nr. 6 schutzfähig, können aber als Lichtbildwerke nach Abs. 1 Nr. 5 oder als Lichtbilder nach § 72 geschützt sein"). The author would indeed be the cameraman. This seems original enough for 70 years pma to me, so I  oppose undeletion before 2029. --Rosenzweig τ 16:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's also how I read Syrcro's reply to my question in the current German discussion ("ja, das meint es wohl"), i.e. that frames from a film can be considered individual works with the cameraman as the creator. As I said there, it's not very logical IMHO, especially if you have a video you can pause anytime and then view a single image, too... (but then, the law probably is from before the time of digital videos or widely available video at all). Gestumblindi (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright laws may be somewhat logical when they are new, but after several decades of changes and amendments they have these inconsistencies. --Rosenzweig τ 07:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. So we have Category:Nosferatu and especially File:Nosferatu (1922, English titles 1947).webm, but we can't have this file? This doesn't hold much water... Yann (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not logical, as both Gestumblindi and I pointed out. But laws and court decisions are not always logical. --Rosenzweig τ 08:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. Also by the additional quotes by Syrcro in the German discussion, though it is not logical to us, it is the law as the courts apply it. So we can have the whole movie here, but not single frames, until 2029. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Except for the movie itself, and File:Wismar Markt Nosferatu 01.jpg which was taken under freedom of panorama as a plaque in a public space, there are no images directly from the movie in Category:Nosferatu (rightly so). One that might at first glance look like it, File:Gerbic as Nosferatu 2013.JPG, is a modern re-enactment/cosplay image. File:Gustav von Wangenheim 1922.jpg looks like Gustav von Wangenheim as Hutter in the movie, but it's apparently from a postcard and a separately taken still image. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How long a film cut would make it acceptable? 5 minutes? 1 mn? 10 s? It is quite clear that applying such a rule would create complete absurd situations. Yann (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the legal argument. Any "film cut" that is still a film (moving images) would be acceptable, even if very short; the German courts just apply a different kind of protection to still frames taken from the film, the same as for photographs. It took some time to wrap my head around it, but ultimately, I think it's not even that illogical. And at least 2029 is not that far in the future ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand perfectly the argument, but it creates absurd situations. So we could have a two-frame film, but not one single still frame... Yann (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted for the URAA. However, a mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. The photograph has entered PD in China so this photograph should not have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 源義信 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 February 2023‎ (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.

 Oppose You misunderstand the policy. While a "mere allegation" is not sufficient, if one is careful to be sure that all of the requirements of the URAA are met, then we must delete the image because of its USA copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on the Copyright rules by territory/Japan page that images that are protected in the US while in the public domain in Japan are acceptable. The note said: "the current policy on Commons is to accept it. This policy may change in the future, depending on the outcome of community discussions. Also, it may be deleted if Commons receive a valid takedown notice". I don't know where to read the policy but I think that if such situation in Japan is acceptable, then the image which was taken in China are equally acceptable. If there is an error in the rule of Japanese copyright, someone should correct it. --源義信 (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That note apparently dates from before the US Supreme Court decision which validated the URAA. It has been obsolete for ten years. Thank you for catching it. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted for the URAA. However, a mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. The photograph has entered PD in China so this photograph should not have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 源義信 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 February 2023‎ (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..

 Oppose You misunderstand the policy. While a "mere allegation" is not sufficient, if one is careful to be sure that all of the requirements of the URAA are met, then we must delete the image because of its USA copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on the Copyright rules by territory/Japan page that images that are protected in the US while in the public domain in Japan are acceptable. The note said: "the current policy on Commons is to accept it. This policy may change in the future, depending on the outcome of community discussions. Also, it may be deleted if Commons receive a valid takedown notice". I don't know where to read the policy but I think that if such situation in Japan is acceptable, then the image which was taken in China are equally acceptable. If there is an error in the rule of Japanese copyright, someone should correct it. --源義信 (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That note apparently dates from before the US Supreme Court decision which validated the URAA. It has been obsolete for ten years. Thank you for catching it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

• File:The Swineherd - Anne Anderson.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Gerda and the Ravens - Anne Anderson.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:Grimms Fairy Tales - Snow White - Anne Anderson.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason:

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Swineherd - Anne Anderson.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerda and the Ravens - Anne Anderson.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grimms Fairy Tales - Snow White - Anne Anderson.jpg

The author died in 1952 so it's now public domain in the UK. Snow White is from 1923 https://www.surlalunefairytales.com/oldsite/illustrations/sevendwarfs/andersondwarf.html

Gerda and the Ravens is from 1923: https://www.surlalunefairytales.com/oldsite/illustrations/sixswans/anderson7ravens.html

I cannot find a date yet for The Swineherd Abzeronow (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. The Swineherd is from Hans Christian Andersen’s Fairy Tales, Collins, London, 1924 per [3]. --Rosenzweig τ 18:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also

• File:IG Wiki-Commons Hub Description Translation Project.jpg
• File:WLA 2023 PNG Banner.png
• File:Test - WLA Newsletter page.png ==

The above files were originally tagged for incomplete licenses after which I provided all the appropriate and complete information. I think the deleting editor may have missed the added information. Kindly restore. Thanks Wilson (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OtuNwachinemere: You say "This image was created using elements freely provided and already uploaded to Canva", but we cannot verify the free license of those elements with a generic statement like that. You must provide a link to every element that you used, whether it comes from Wikimedia Commons or some other free-licensed website. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please share with me an example of what this particular license information should look like? Please thank you.

Also, in File:WLA 2023 PNG Banner.png, i did correct the license to reflect the source of the original elements (which is a file on Commons) using the {{Own - based on template. Wilson (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Also, unless you were the actual photographer and artist of all the graphic elements in the files, your claim of {{Own}} is incorrect and, unless all of those elements were PD, you are in violation of CC-BY licenses. Such violations can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Finally, I note a misspelling ("tern" should be "term") in the first one and the last one tells us, "Contest images have been viewed 1,044,490,672 million times (as at June 2022)". That's a little more than one quadrillion (10^15) views, over 100,000 views by every person on Earth, which seems a little unlikely. So, those two are useless except, possibly as illustrations of carelessness. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What two are you referring to? @Jameslwoodward

Also, the license was adjusted from Own to 'Own - based on' with links to the source file on Commons which i believe is the correct license for a derivative work. They were not deleted because of errors in spelling or text, kindly stick to the topic. Wilson (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my comment I referred to "the first" and "the last" which, I think, sufficiently identifies them. As for finding problems not mentioned in the DR, it is our job here to decide whether the images are appropriate for Commons, taking into account both copyright and other factors.

The first one has two photographs and four pieces of artwork, none of which have sources. It also has a spelling mistake.

The second one has a photograph and at least one (maybe more) pieces of art, none of which have sources.

The third has three or more photographs (the clouds are at least one, maybe more) and several pieces of art. One photographer is named but the file name and license are not not given.

The fourth has a photograph, one piece of art, and copyrighted text, none of which are sourced. It also has a ridiculous number, a spelling mistake and several grammar errors.

All of this can, of course, be corrected, but why are we even discussing the first and the last which obviously will never be used anywhere except, as I said above, as examples of carelessness? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "tern" issue refers to the left half of File:WLA 2023 Climate vs Weather.png. The slightly exaggerated viewer-number refers to File:Test - WLA Newsletter page.png. --Túrelio (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Túrelio, i will attempt to fix and re-upload the File:WLA 2023 Climate vs Weather.png as it is the most important of the set to me atm. The rest were created as test samples for pre-contest project pages. Can you please share an example of what the appropriate license should look like? I have taken note of the aforementioned by Jim and i'd like to avoid these errors going forward. Thanks Wilson (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:WLA 2023 Climate vs Weather.png has two photographs (possibly three if the tree is separate) and four pieces of art. The license for the image will need to be the most restrictive of the licenses on the underlying works. Thus if one of the photos is CC-BY-SA, you cannot license the whole image as CC-BY or CC-0. If one of the works has a permitted license other than CC, then life gets more complicated because some licenses are incompatible. Each of the six works except those that are your own work must be separately on Commons and must be listed separately in the file description, including any that are actually your own work. Each must be listed with its Commons file name, the Commons Username of the author, and the license under which you are using it. You may simply say "own work" for those that are. Thus:

Photo of baked clay: File:Baked clay.jpg User:Smith CC-BY

Photo of clouds : File Clouds User:Jones CC-BY-SA

Sun: File:Sun User:JaneDoe CC-BY-SA

Raincloud art: Own work

Africa outline - as above

Thermometer art - as above

License (in this case) must be CC-BY-SA

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a work of a governmental entity of Florida, which places it within the public domain. It was mistakenly tagged with CC0 license, but should have been PD-FLGov. It was erroneously speedy'd as copyvio, but is ineligible for copyright protection. --dsprc ^(talk) 11:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The file description is, "R. Kelly's June 5th, 2002 Chicago Mugshot". That tells me that the image was taken in Chicago, not Florida, and therefore is not PD. I also cannot find the image on the named site. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment - Most sources credit this to the Donaldson Collection at Getty, which is unhelpful. As Kelly was arrested in Florida on an Illinois warrant, however, and as sources that do not credit Getty instead generally credit Miami Dade Corrections (Time, the Sun, etc.), it seems likely this is the booking photo from the Florida arrest. Эlcobbola _talk 20:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

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

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Indian Army WWII.jpg This photograph is definitely public domain in India as it was created before 1958. Abzeronow (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Indeed, the deletion rationale was wrong (though it was in 2008). Created before 1941 would be the date to avoid URAA restoration, though. If it's a government image, then maybe less sure on that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the owner of the image and I uploaded it here. I uploaded it a while ago when I was less knowledgable about this site so it's fully possible that I made some mistake in the copyright templates or something like that, but yes, I'm okay with this file being on here under whichever CC licensed I put it under (I can't recall) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OmegaFallon (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 February 2023‎ (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.

 Oppose I could find only one hit for Scarlet Samas Family on Google. I doubt that it is sufficiently notable to be allowed here. There is also our policy to require confirmation of the license for logos, but even with that I would not restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright MBC 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CathyArcher (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 February 2023‎ (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.

 Oppose I find the image at IMDB but nowhere on the web with a free license. The file description doesn't tell us explicitly where it came from. There is no license. In order for it to be restored here, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted despite being INUSE on Hungarian Wikipedia --Trade (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose - Correct, because this was a copyright issue not a scope issue. The character has a copyright independent of this particular rendering, and this is thus derivative. If I were to draw a picture of Mario, it would be acceptable merely because I personally drew it, or indeed if it were in use on a sister project? Эlcobbola _talk 22:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is more complex than that. There are similarities between these characters (compare [4] and [5]), but they don't have the same appearance. And the idea is not new.Yann (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It is that simple. Do you believe a novel drawing of Santa Claus would not enjoy copyright protection because the "idea is not new"? (Copyright does not protect ideas.) Do you have a source or basis for the threshold being the same ("they don't have the same appearance")? Are you aware that, for example, despite being so similar to the actual Statue of Liberty so as famously to fool the United States Postal Service, the Las Vagas Liberty Statue nevertheless has its own copyright? Эlcobbola _talk 00:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to identify some copied expression. I know nothing about the character, and if they have different appearances in whatever show it comes from... but based on the two images above, I don't really see anything copied at all. I would expect to see some of the same ornaments, or at least *some* small details copied between the two (it's the smaller details which usually create character copyrights). The basic idea in the title of the image is just that, an idea, with many possible expressions -- they would not be derivative of each other. I could well be missing something important here. It may have been inspired by a TV show, but if that's all it was -- they took some basic ideas, but did not copy expression -- then it should be OK. There are some new lawsuits about AI-generated stuff in the first place, whether the engines were trained with copyrighted images and if the result could be considered derivative, or is it just de minimis, or is it fair use. It's hard to predict how those cases will turn out, and I'm sure there will be some years of them, so that could cloud some of the status of AI-generated images, possibly depending on engine. But what I see in Yann's two links does not look derivative of each other, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Whether something is a COM:DW or not is highly subjective, so I'm focusing on whether the close correctly summarized the arguments rather than rearguing the decision from first principles. There are 5 !votes to delete and 4 !votes to keep. Two of the keep !votes solely said "in use" (which did not address the reason for deletion), while one delete !vote said that it was out of scope despite being in use (completely wrong); these arguments should be given little weight. Overall, I think more of the DR participants felt that it was a DW.

As a side note, however, I don't think "either it's close enough to be DW, or it's far enough to be out of scope" is a good argument. The adaptation may have taken only the ideas and not the expression, as in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2021-10#Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Origin of Races, map 13 (IA B-001-001-289).jpg, making it an adequate substitute of the original work without being DW. Or, as in this case, the image could be used to illustrate something unrelated to the original work (more specifically, it was in use on the Hungarian DALL-E article), making it useful regardless of whether it is an adequate substitute of the original work.

That said, there is a reason I said "endorse" and not "oppose". This is not English Wikipedia DRV, so consensus on the merits is allowed to change at UDR and end up reversing a close that was done correctly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Surya Narte.jpg --Surya Narte (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose No reason provided for undeletion. Personal image by non contributor, out of scope. See COM:WEBHOST. Yann (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures show the poster for an exhibition of the artist Hans-Peter Klie - i can not see a reason why it can not be shown on his wikipedia entry? Furthermore Hans-Peter Klie designed the poster, so he is the copyright owner. Obviously he agreed to the publication and wants his work to be shown in wikipedia. Can you please put the pictures back into Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blau-7 (talk • contribs)

The pictures shows a screen shot of a videoart film of the artist Hans-Peter Klie. Of course he agreed to the publication and wants his work to be shown in wikipedia. Can you please put the pictures back into Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blau-7 (talk • contribs)

The pictures show the poster for an exhibition of the artist Hans-Peter Klie - i can not see a reason why it can not be shown on his wikipedia entry? Furthermore Hans-Peter Klie designed the poster, so he is the copyright owner. Obviously he agreed to the publication and wants his work to be shown in wikipedia. Can you please put the pictures back into Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blau-7 (talk • contribs)

And also:

• File:02 Gedankenfotografie, Rauminstallation 2018 ©Hans-Peter Klie.jpg
• File:01 WIE DIE BILDER NICHTS WÄREN, Objektassemblage 2017 ©Hans-Peter Klie.jpg
• File:08 Plakat Streetlounge.2005 klein.jpg
• File:09 Wittgensteintrilogie - 1.Version. 2003. Multimedia-Installation. klein.jpg
• File:06 DER KONGREß, Aktion Palast der Republik - Außenreinigung. 1992. klein.jpg
• File:07 Philosophie der Straße II. 2004. Multimedia-Installation. klein.jpg
• File:05 Amorphe Begriffe - os sepiae. 1998. Silbergelatineprints - 4 von 16 Teilen, je 35,5 x 35,5 cm klein.jpg
• File:02 Sience Fiction. 1979. Öl und Collage auf Nessel. 140 x 120 cm. klein.jpg
• File:04 Die Kunsttheorie. 1985. Öl und Acryl auf Nessel. 160 x 160 cm. klein.jpg

The pictures shows artworks of the artist Hans-Peter Klie. Of course he agreed to the publication and wants his work to be shown in wikipedia. Can you please put the pictures back into Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blau-7 (talk • contribs)

The file was deleted by User:Túrelio for alleged copyright violation. The AMU website explicitly states in the footer that "the usage of AMU flag, logo and maps is authorized for all Wikimedia projects with attribution to the AMU". Escargoten (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a free license as we define it. We host media that can be used by anyone, for any purpose, including modifications and commercial use, not just by Wikimedia projects. It should be no problem to upload the file to English language Wikipedia with a non-free use rationale, though. --rimshot^talk 22:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image was deleted for being out of scope despite being INUSE when it was deleted. --Trade (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Where exactly was this being used at the time of the DR? The DR mentions Wikiversity but I can't seem to find the article over there where this file was or is being used. De728631 (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my image? It is my own, I made it, and the website it is "dublicated" from is also mine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbitten (talk • contribs)

Hello Hobbitten, the file was deleted due to permission issues. Please contact VRT and send a release. The convenient way to send a release is COM:RELGEN ─ The Aafī (^talk) 11:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]