If your question is why a specific file has been deleted or how it can be restored, please advise on initial contact that you have read COM:L and COM:VRT and why this doesn't answer your questions.
Questions from users who appear to have not read the mentioned two pages will be ignored.
I don't think it's possible for this very image, but just assumed it is, what if the depicted subject contacted VRT and requested deletion also for personality rights violation? Do you have consent from the depicted person to publish the image, or any other reason? Krd18:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i remember the image and I'm kinda saure is croppable cutting out any artworks affixed to the background.
As far as I read the link you provided: "Publishing pictures of a person in a public space: … portraits used for commercial use require consent …". Am I mistaken? Krd19:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ofc no you are not mistaken but in contrast with that "Publication/reproduction of the image does not require consent:
for celebrities and politically exposed persons (public figures)"
for public events or celebrations
for scientific, educational or cultural purposes
moreover 1 that's not a "portrait", 2 I'm not doing any commercial use: i know that the license allows that usage, but there was the Template:Personality rights (so eventually is needed just to use the photos for commercial use from the ones that are).
the image should be restored, cropped and (if some copyrighted material is still in) blurred since there are no problem with the depicted person. GioviPenGP msg19:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. I have asked a colleague regarding Italian law details and await a response in the next few days. Thank you for your patience. Krd15:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked Alessio's edit and the legal measures cited (that do not apply/talk directly about this). but... (imho the gist of the matter doesn't change at all)
I publish the photo with a license that authorizes commercial use, not personally making commercial use of it.
It is therefore the responsibility of those who want to use the photo for commercial purposes to request authorization (according aswell with the personality rights template: "Although this work is freely licensed [...], the person shown may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses unless those depicted consent to such uses.") GioviPenGP msg13:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified the situation with GiovanniPen on Telegram this afternoon. His publication with a free license is correct, but, given the information arrived to VRT, we have to tag this photo as "non commercial use". Best! Ruthven(msg)15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruthven: Please help me think this through: This image is impossible to use in a commercial context. Like many others we delete for missing commercial FoP. Why can we keep an image on Commons that is impossible to be used in commercial context? --Krd05:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ruthven explained me that seams to be impossibile the commercial use according to what he (the person depicted) said to VRT (but I don't have access so idk).
however, I'm the author of the photos and according to the rules (and since is not against italian law), also if the authorization for the commercial use is missing (or denied) I can publish it in cc-by-sa (as I did) according to commons requirements.
Whenever someone wants to use that photo for commercial use, it's his responsibility (as also well explained from the two warning templates) to request permission from the person depicted. GioviPenGP msg09:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood.
We also have the same story for images where only noncommercial FoP exists. The photo is free, the depicted work is not. You could raise the same argument, NC reuse is possible, commercial use is not, one can ask the artist. Our policy is not to accept such images. Krd09:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(considering also that he denied just to vrt and not publicly) the "problem" will eventually arise just when someone wants to make commercial use of it (and JUST for that one who want to do so). moreover we don't know if in "a tomorrow" and to someone else the permission will be given. what he said is not once and for all (or for everyone) I presume.
All files on Commons have to be free for commercial re-use by anybody without asking anybody. This is the intention of free knowledge. Krd09:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as you said, NC use is clearly possible; commercial use is subject to authorization (permission from the depicted person) not totally impossible a priori (?)
why those warninig template then? seem to allow having something that may depend/vary in certain jurisdiction: "may have rights that legally restrict certain re-uses unless those depicted consent to such uses"
I cannot follow. My point is that the file is not free for commercial use by anybody and therefore cannot be kept on Commons. Krd10:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry but why by anybody. is just missing explicit consent that is not expressly needed (except for certain usage).
we have thousand of files like this, I don't understand why (just) THIS file is not acceptable/cannot be kept.
the beginning of this category aswell has italian people in pubblic spaces (and commercial explicit authorization is missing). is not Commons problem, it's a third part problem for certain use cases... GioviPenGP msg10:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I need your help with a discussion on the template talk page. The changes I made to the template were as per your request, but they were deleted by another editor. thanks Hanay (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Krd, thank you for bringing to my attention the license for my uploaded video. I would like to request that you kindly unarchive the video as I will update the license.
The video was uploaded using commons video converter tool and I may have skipped the license part which I thought I already updated.
As you can see from my recent contributions that video is part of a documentary on ETA which I carried out.
Dear Krd. Thank you for fixing the licenses on the photos I have uploaded. Do I understand it right that placing {Universal Peace Federation} cc template on the files which I have uploaded as cc-zero will be incorrect? UPF official (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I think the best choice for these few files is to add the new template and also leave the CC-0 template in the file pages. Krd10:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Krd. Has your bot finished processing? Or shall I better wait on doing anything? Or, will your bot process all the "UPF official" 1115 files including cc-zero? UPF official (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Шоссе мира, Федерация за всеобщий мир, Армения, 19-20 августа 2023 года Thank you very much, Krd. Then, I edited CC0 photos according to the pattern in this sample file (by adding my template to CC0). It will be relatively easy to undo it on 140 files if it is found improper. UPF official (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Krd 15:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC) 
Done --Krd 06:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
