Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UNDEL)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Commons deletion (policy)
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:ROC Ministry of National Defense Seal.svg

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:Portrait_de_Nicolas_&_Bruno.jpg

Bonjour, désolé je ne suis pas un spécialiste de wikipedia mais je ne comprends pas pourquoi la photo dont je suis l'auteur a été refusée sur la page de "Nicolas et Bruno" que j'actualise régulièrement.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_et_Bruno

Je me suis sans doute trompé dans la définition de la licence. Je souhaite que cette photo soit libre de droit, dans le domaine public, sans restriction d'un quelconque copyright.

Parallèlement on m'a informé que ma photo a été utilisée sur le site Focus-cinema, mais à l'époque avec mon autorisation. >>>> Reason for the nomination: file under copyright (See https://www.focus-cinema.com/7741868/what-we-do-in-the-shadows-vampires-entre-toute-intimite-sortira-fin-octobre-en-france/)

Pouvez-vous m'aider et me donner la procédure pour que ma modification soit possible? Ou pouvez-vous le faire vous-même?

Merci d'avance pour votre aide! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmsChecker (talk • contribs) 15:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FilmsChecker: Bonjour,
Avez-vous l'image originale ? Si oui, vous pourriez l'importer pour prouver que vous êtes bien le photographe. Si non, il faudra confirmer la licence par email en suivant la procédure à COM:VRT/fr. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merci Yann pour votre réponse! Ça y est, je crois que ça a fonctionné!! Merci beaucoup. FilmsChecker (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The image as uploaded has a black border and appears in a number of places on the web. It is only 640px square. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Question Isn't this resolution a standard for this camera model? Ankry (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aha -- I think you are probably right, but it does appear in a number of places without a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do any of those other places include the EXIF? The one I found does not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support undeletion of the deleted version as the uploader was able to upload the version with EXIF. However, this is probably not meaningfull at the momen as the original version is not deleted~and I see no reason to do so. Ankry (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ankry has a valid point. Unless there is an indication from any uploaders site, appearances on other places doesn't matter. The higher version is here and the uploader is of course not spamming (or wrongly regarding others work as own). ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Afghanistan-Spange.jpg

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:Orussus coronatus.jpg

Both the earlier, higher quality image (this one) and the later lossier image were erroneously deleted in response to a deletion request that was only supposed to encompass the latter as a redundant file. This former file wasn't requested for deletion. This has also resulted in numerous delinkings across language Wikipedias after pages were updated to use the better image. Lhikan634 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment It seems @Krd: deleted it 2 hours after Materialscientist closed the DR. I assume it was by mistake, as sometimes deletion jobs fail and need to restarted again. Günther Frager (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (137).JPG

I cannot see the picture, so cannot be sure which one it is, but there have been a number of requests for deletion, referencing images from my photoshoot at a village called Minskip, which was holding a scarecrow festival. The theme for the festival was Disney. Because the reason for deletion was given as "toys" in this case, I think this picture may be the one of two stuffed animals, made to look like dalmatian dogs, that is, dogs with black spots on a white background.

The two dogs were slightly different from each others, therefore almost certainly hand-made, like the rest of the festival exhibits. The dalmatians looked as if they were just representatives of dalmatians, that is, they did not imitate in any way the cartoon-designs by Disney in their film of the book. In the UK we often see the real dogs on the street, and it is common to see dalmatian-shaped objects which have nothing to do with Disney. There is no reason to suppose that the householder who made those dogs were interested in copyright, because they had displayed the dogs on the street, where we in the UK have panoramafreiheit, and in scarecrow festivals, all the passers-by are photographing the exhibits. So please confirm which picture this is, because if it's the dalmatians, I do not believe they are commerical orbjects or copyrighted, and they are certainly nothing to do with Disney's own designs. Disney cannot copyright images of the real dogs. Also the book, 101 Dalmatians, is popular here - it is read in schools - so it is highly likely that the objects refer to that story, i.e. the idea of real dalmatians. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support This is a (very) stylized bee, and I can't see any copyrighted element here. Yann (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Info Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (137).JPG. Thuresson (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The sculpture of the bee certainly has a copyright, so don't we need a free license from the bee's creator? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is one of the scarecrows, then would be possible this 3D artwork, which would definitely be copyrightable in the UK, was permanently displayed (since they are destroyed a few days afterwards)? Abzeronow (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jim, this is not a sculpture, it is very simple plush. Yann (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nonetheless, it has a copyright as a sculpture. It is nowhere near simple enough to not have a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess from the above comments that the photograph concerned is the one of the bee, not the dogs?
This and this should answer your question on UK copyright laws regarding toys.
A photograph of a toy is not an infringement of copyright in the UK. Panoramafreiheit in the UK covers anything photographed from the public highway. The "permanent exhibition" element is about panoramafreiheit in museums, but a scarecrow exhibition photographed from the public highway is not a museum.
The one-off, handcrafted example in my above links is about a registered and patented original design example made by an artist for potential factory manufacture and sale. But manufactured toys are not copyrighted against photography in the UK, and neither are stuffies (as I believe you call them in the US) handmade by mothers and kids at home.
It also looks as if there are some misunderstandings in the above comments, about what we are doing on Commons (regarding the UK). We are licensing free use of our 2D images, including for commercial use. That is to say, the public can use our 2D photographs. We cannot be held responsible for what the public does about what they can see in the picture. For example, suppose that a criminal decides to copy that bee, handmade by the mother and child residents and not copyrighted (after all, who copyrights a stuffie?) Even if the criminal is a stuffie-design expert, they cannot know the shape of the base-piece, or how many darts and spacer pieces are used, or where they are used, if at all, or the exact size of the thing, or how exactly the face is created. This is because they can only see one aspect of the 3D object.
I have made stuffies all my life (called stuffed animals in the UK) - it is part of my background culture - but I could not expect to copy that item well enough so that an observer of both objects in real life could not tell the difference between my work and the original. This is one of the reasons why the law makes a differentiation between photographs of 2D objects and 3D objects for copyright purposes in the UK. So I think what is happening here is a US-oriented reaction to UK photographs, while referencing only US law. This platform respects the existence of international laws regarding copyright, e.g. panaoramafreiheit. Storye book (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure whether FOP-related questions can be accounted for toys. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, the bee certainly has a copyright. In both the UK and the US toys are copyrighted as if they were sculptures and in both countries copyright attaches automatically upon creation. Second, as clearly noted at the top of this discussion, the sculpture was displayed as part of a scarecrow festival. In the UK, FoP requires that the work be displayed permanently. That is clearly not the case here.
As for CDPA section 51, cited above, it allows people to make 3D copies of the design, but is absolutely silent on making photographs of the design. Note also, that even if the UK law allowed the photograph, US law does not. The note above assumes that only UK law applies here. That is not the case. Photographs on Commons must be free in both the USA and the country of origin. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to Storye book above, it is clear than industrial produced items like this do not have a copyright. If such a simple toy would have a copyright, it would be similar to having a copyright on an idea, and ideas do not have a copyright. No toy like this could ever be made, because they would be derivative works of each others. This is obviously not the case, therefore there is no copyright on these. Yann (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Infinity Train HBO Max logo.webp

The image was deleted by User:MGA73 together with some copyvios, however, in my opinion it qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}} as well as File:Infinity Train series logo.png. The image was used in plwiki. Ankry (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support This isn't probably a complex logo. Michalg95 (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Jebi Aug 3 2013 0605Z.jpg

Reason: The original reason of the delete was it's an "exact or scaled-down duplicate of File:Jebi Aug 03 2013 0605Z.jpg." However, the image in question was a scaled-up version I made in MS Paint, and did not have good quality. Therefore, I request for the original image to be brought back. 👦 14:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, How a scaled-up version made in MS Paint in in scope for Commons? Yann (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I got confused by my wording there. The deleted image was the original file, while this file was the scaled-up one, although I reverted it. It should be within COM:EDUSE. 👦 03:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Request by Vuvueffino

File:04 2022 Roma (Via Fori imperiali- Mercati traianei-Casa dei Cavalieri di Rodi-Pini Marittimi) FO228704 bis Photo by Paolo Villa.jpg Is not a duplicate, see very well buildings, there are more details, because it was retouch only this area (for see this, zoom only light area with buildings, if you use good and big screen you could see difference very well), with gimp is easy to change some photo things (Vuvueffino (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)).Reply[reply]



Files from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mrmw

The rationale of the DR was inaccurate. Two of the files are {{PD-shape}} as derivative works of File:Amtrak logo.svg:

Four of the files were created by the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, which is a California government entity and thus PD as {{PD-CAGov}}, rather than by Amtrak:

One file is {{PD-US-no notice}} because it was published in the 1940s with no notice:

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to capitalcorridor.org CCJPA is a partnership between six local transit agencies in the San Francisco area. Which is the state government's part in this? Thuresson (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The CA-Gov license extends to county and municipal agencies so if they're government agencies, that applies to them. Abzeronow (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Geographic place names changed as part of Black History Compilation Project (33044619471).jpg

I'm wondering about this image, is it able to be reinstated? It was deleted for no license, but the Flickr upload (by the Government of New Brunswick) is categorized as Public Domain. If it's able to be reinstated, I'd like to use it for a future BLP of somebody in the image. Thanks. B3251 (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Flickr metadata shows the photographer is Michael Hawkins at https://wordphoto.ca/ and thus is not actually a work of New Brunswick's government. Metadata also shows "all rights reserved". We'd need VRT permission from Hawkins to restore. Abzeronow (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for letting me know! B3251 (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since New Brunswick always uploads images to Flickr as PD, is it pretty much hit or miss on whether it's available for use or not? (whether it has an original photographer or not) @Abzeronow B3251 (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This sort of organizational flickr account is often poorly managed. They may have a mix of courtesy photos, some presumably political staff photos, unsourced photos. This flickr account seems to have its copyright settings stuck on an unexplained "public domain mark" regardless of the provenance of each file. I would not automatically trust the copyright info from this account. You can evaluate and research on a case by case basis. Most photos may be legitimately owned and released by the NB gov, but it's difficult to know for sure which are and which are not. With substantial exif data, at least you can contact the photographer, as with the Hawkins photo, to check the copyright status and maybe obtain a free license. Photos without substantial exif data cannot be automatically trusted. You can try to find the origin. For example, this photo, posted to the flickr account on 6 November 2023, is a photo published on 3 October 2023 by NBMEF inc. on their all rights reserved website. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Carlos-Meyer-Baldo.jpg

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 Peer NoonIcarus --Wilfredor (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bibel im Grundstein des Gemeindehauses der Auferstehungskirche Herne-Wanne.jpg

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

das Foto "Bibel im Grundstein des Gemeindehauses der Auferstehungskirche Herne-Wanne" ist mein Eigentum und ich erteile hiermit folgende Lizenz auf Wikimedia Commonsː „Eigenes Werk, Namensnennung erforderlich, Copyleft“ ({{CC BY-SA 4.0}}). Bitte machen Sie die Löschung der Datei rückgängig.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Jessica Kirstein User:Jessica Kirstein/sig 29.12.2023 —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2003:d1:2745:c700:1d83:95e8:ed2b:c533 (talk) 29. December 2023 (UTC20:40)

@Jessica Kirstein: , bitte denken Sie daran, sich einzuloggen, und ihre Diskussionsbeiträge mit ~~~~ zu unterschreiben. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment This is apparently a 2023 photograph of an older photograph from the 1980s. We'd need a permission from the 1980s photographer. @Jessica Kirstein: Das sieht ganz danach aus, als sei das ein 2023 abfotografiertes älteres Foto aus den 1980er-Jahren. Wer hat dieses ursprüngliche Foto von 1980 gemacht? Von dieser Person müsste die Lizenz erteilt werden. Und das üblicherweise per E-Mail, siehe COM:VRT/de. --Rosenzweig τ 23:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wenn ich denjenigen gefunden habe, der das Foto gemacht hat und derjenige die Einwilligungserklärung per Mail an permissions wikimedia commons geschickt hat, wird das Foto dann von Ihnen automatisch wieder auf Wikimedia veröffentlicht oder muss ich weitete Schritte hierzu veranlassen? Jessica Kirstein (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wenn die Erklärung eingeht und ok ist, also akzeptiert wird, wird der Bearbeiter dieser E-Mail (aus dem "Support-Team") die Datei wiederherstellen lassen. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 22:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Hotel Athenee Palace - Calea Victoriei (25403752402).jpg

... as well as the entire batch of photos that was deleted with it on December 24th. Please consult Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Athenee_Palace_Hilton.JPG --Bukarester (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bukarester: Probably support, but could you find Théophile Bradeau's death date? Yann (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:A name in 3D.jpg

The name used in the logo is actually my real name. I created it personally. --AX3M (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose as per P199 in Commons:Deletion requests/File:A name in 3D.jpg. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Natalija-seruga-golob-2023.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Predlagam (PROSIM ZA OBNOVITEV) preklic izbrisa fotografije - File:Natalija-seruga-golob-2023.jpg – ki je bila del Wikipedijine strani o slikarki (Natalija Šeruga Golob) Fotografijo sem posnel sam osebno. Na fotografiji je Natalija Šeruga Golob (moja žena - ki soglaša z objavo fotografije) pred svojimi slikami na njeni razstavi v MMC KIBLA/KiBela, Maribor 2023. Fotografijo sem posnel 19. septembra 2023 s fotoaparatom FUJIFILM x20 in jo malo obrezal s Photoshopom. PROSIM za preklic izbrisa fotografije. Milangolob (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Razstava-natalije-seruga-golob-kibla-2023.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Predlagam (PROSIM ZA OBNOVITEV) preklic izbrisa fotografije - File:Razstava-natalije-seruga-golob-kibla-2023.jpg – ki je bila del Wikipedijine strani o slikarki (Natalija Šeruga Golob). Fotografijo sem posnel sam osebno. Na fotografiji je del (detajl) razstave Natalija Šeruga Golob (moja žena - ki soglaša z objavo fotografije) v MMC KIBLA/KiBela, Maribor 2023. Fotografijo sem posnel 18. septembra 2023 s fotoaparatom FUJIFILM x20 in jo malo obrezal s Photoshopom. PROSIM za preklic izbrisa fotografije. Milangolob (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ShipluChowdhury.jpg

Please undelete my photo on Wikimedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiplu chowdhury (talk • contribs) 15:29:17, 1. Jan. 2024 (UTC) (UTC)

Deleted under F10. Wikimedia Commons isn't Facebook. Where do you intend to use this? Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Dr Death 2002.jpg

Hello Team, Regarding the next uploads from the user IchibanNOAH, I propose undeleting his first upload of Dr Death Steve Williams. --CoffeeEngineer (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Nationa Anthem of Bosnia and Herzegovina.oga

Reason: You are misinterpreting the Constitution and laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  • As I stated in the file under "Permission": "The National Anthem of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as the official national anthem of the country, does not claim copyright in the sense that it would be available for commercial use or reproduction without permission. It can be considered a public good and can be used in certain situations as free use." and "Typically, national anthems are used solely for official purposes and are not subject to the same copyright rules as commercial or artistic content. However, its use for commercial purposes, such as sale or commercial reproduction, usually requires appropriate permission or approval from the relevant authorities or authors." are the correct interpretation of the Constitution and Laws of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  • Dušan Šestić is the author (composer) of the work, but he has no copyright over that work. As stated in THIS DECISION of the Office of the High Representative (OHR) dated June 25, 1999, Article 4: "The copyright of the national anthem is retained by Bosnia and Herzegovina." So, he is the person who made the national anthem, but the owner of the work is Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  • Also in the same OHR decision, Article 1 clearly states "This law establishes the National Anthem of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter: the anthem) and determines its use as a symbol of the State." This means that this is considered a symbol of Bosnia and Herzegovina, just like the FLAG, COAT OF ARMS and any other symbols, which are free to use by Wikipedia rules and laws of the country. If this file remains deleted for the same reason, you have to delete the flag, coat of arms and other symbols of the country because they fall under the same category BY LAW.

Note that, although the author is alive, he has no copyright over the work. His name is only mentioned as the composer of the piece and nothing more. The Country, Bosnia and Herzegovina, has full rights over the work, and it is not subject to copyright law because it is a symbol of that country. All participants of the public competition for the Selection of the National Anthem of Bosnia and Herzegovina were told that if their work is selected, the copyright is transferred from them to the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Please educate yourselfs about these things before making any decisions. USA is not Bosnia and Herzegovina. Z1KA (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This appears to be in response to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nationa Anthem of Bosnia and Herzegovina.oga (further, older DRs linked from there).
So, OK, you state: The copyright of the national anthem is retained by Bosnia and Herzegovina. The term will be the author's lifetime plus 70 more years, so given that statement it would seem that copyright exists, and is not public domain, even if it is owned by the government. You also state, However, its use for commercial purposes, such as sale or commercial reproduction, usually requires appropriate permission or approval from the relevant authorities or authors. Works uploaded here must be free to use for commercial purposes as well. Where was that permission given or licensed? While true that we have flag images, they are typically ones drawn by contributors -- see Commons:Coats of arms, where each particular drawing of a flag/seal can each have independent copyrights. We typically do not copy graphics from copyrighted government websites, but a new original drawing can be uploaded. When it comes to sound recordings, it gets a bit more difficult -- there is a copyright on the lyrics and music, and also a sound recording copyright for the particular recording. Even if the lyrics and music are licensed by the government, there can be a separate copyright on the particular recording, and someone would own that (not necessarily the government, unless it was a government-made recording). I don't see anything in {{PD-BH-exempt}} which would help. If the lyrics were printed as part of a law, maybe that makes those exempt, but less sure about the music, and definitely not the recording (can't see the deleted files, so not sure where the recordings were sourced from). National anthems have definitely been a sticky topic, since while true that non-commercial uses would often fall under fair use, it's the commercial uses which we have to have licenses for on Commons. While quite explicit that the author cannot give authorization, the government explicitly claims copyright ownership, so we have to have a way to show that general authorization was given for commercial use (and of the uploaded recording in particular). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Carl, the source for the performance links to nationalanthems.info Abzeronow (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, so no lyrics, and that would be a free license for the recording. That site does not feel the music is copyrighted, though the Bosnian government claims copyright. So it comes down to that, and if people feel the government copyright should be used without a license for commercial use being given (as far as I can see). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg

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]

File:École élémentaire publique Pierre Lefebvre à Wasquehal(3).jpg

Deleted because the publisher died less than 70 years ago, but the publisher is not the creator. The deleter wrote "Combier could be the author". We long ago made the decision for postcards published by CIM, that they were made by one of his many anonymous employees or came from one of the anonymous collections he purchased and republished. We have 220 images under the same license, yet the 221st image was deleted. The image was also released by the Brest Municipal Archive under a CC license, we generally honor the right of institutions to release under CC or "no known copyright restrictions" unless we have overwhelming evidence that their license is not legally binding. The cutoff for the license is 1954 and we have always ruled that postcards have been "made public" at creation. See: Category:Postcards published by CIM. --RAN (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The cutoff is actually 1938 in France because of URAA. I could support a reversal in my decision if you present evidence it was published before 1938. Also Holly also brought up URAA in the DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:École élémentaire publique Pierre Lefebvre à Wasquehal(3).jpg Abzeronow (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I go by the assessment of the Brest Municipal Archive, do you have any information that contradicts their assessment that the image has been properly released under a CC license? --RAN (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Free license at source, and by the watermark, this was published as postcard. 21:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

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

File:ap_hightime_cover.jpg

The cover image was downloaded from open source wbesite (apple music) and should not be banned for non-commerical usage. The image is open to public without limitation for wiki publication. Please show me how other similar posting being approved with any documentation you need. Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siuwhite1777 (talk • contribs) 07:31:42, 2. Jan. 2024 (UTC+1)

Note: OP recreated the file description page. Deleted under F1. "open to the public" is irrelevant, images can be publicitely available and still copyrighted. The file description page currently asserts fair use, but fair use is not permitted here. The file appears to have been in use on zhwiki, if zhwiki permits fair use, the file can be uploaded there. Here it can only stay with VRT permission. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Apple Music is obviously not a public domain website. --Yann (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Escadrila 53.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: As pointed out in the deletion request here, the copyright of the character expires next year (as in now). Also requesting the undeletion of the File:349th Bombardment Squadron - Emblem.png and File:Legion-Condor-Badge-3rd-Squadron-Fighter-Group-88.jpg which were deleted in the same request. Thank you! Alin2808 (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pickeringtonmethodisthospital.jpg

--Jokerpower71 (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose "© 2024 All rights Reserved" at ohiohealth.com. Thuresson (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Files uploaded by Pavel Bednařík (WMCZ)

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please restore these files, the permission has been accepted via ticket 2024010310006594. Thank you! janbery (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Janbery: FYI. --Yann (talk) 16:19, 3 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:Portrét Petra Minaříka.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please restore this file, permission from the author (David Konečný) has been accepted via ticket 2023080310005959. janbery (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Janbery: FYI. --Yann (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Iris Browser.png

File: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iris_Browser.png

The logo does not appear to go over the threshold of originality. It is just a simple circle of shapes in a nondescript color of red with no other identifying features. Looking at the TOO page, a similar example logo that was allowed to be uploaded was the Car Credit City logo which is also just a series of shapes in the color red. The original deletion request also seems noncommittal about whether it, or the other logos included in the request, went over the threshold. I wish for this logo to be reinstated so I can put it on its article again for archival purposes. It's a defunct web browser for a defunct operating system made by a defunct company. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:•Happy Sugar Life•.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The copyright information was filled out incorrectly - I'd like to rework it to restore the media. SekisounoAestivum (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

削除の異議申し立て

削除された記事のARTBEAT(ダンスカバーチーム） 2024年1月4日 (木) 02:04 (UTC)に出された削除依頼　”露骨な宣伝・広告のみが目的: 外部サイトへ誘導しているように見えるため。” にあてはまりません。外部サイトのURLはメンバーのSNS、ARTBEATの公式 SNS、引用元のサイトです。また韓国語版のウィキペリアが存在しています。 また削除撤回できない場合どの部分が外部サイトへの誘導に見えるかを明確教えてください — Preceding unsigned comment added by AOKYK (talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Procedural close. This is about deleted page ja:ARTBEAT(ダンスカバーチーム）, recreated as ja:ARTBEAT(ダンスカバーチーム). Thuresson (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Radio Policía Nacional Colombia logo.png

File:Radio Policía Nacional Colombia logo.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTulioPT (talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:El Sol (emisora) logo.webp

agregar nuevamente el logo de la emisora El Sol de Colombia.

Gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTulioPT (talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=755577566"