Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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)
(Missing: 2 timestamps • 1 reason • 3 subpages) • 0 malformed
81 copyvios • 197 duplicates • 1 advert • 2 selfies • 137 others
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:Aurich, Lambertikirche (19).jpg, File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (18).jpg, File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (16) 2.jpg

No protected 1960 interior as krd errorously tells. Photographer is the organ builder himself, iirc. Discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pipe organ of Lambertikirche Aurich --Subbass1 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pipe organ of Lambertikirche Aurich was closed on the statement that the pipe organ is protected. The architecture seemed to not be an issue. Abzeronow (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote: Photographer is the organ builder himself, iirc. Besides that on commons an organ case is never protected and is shown thousands of times. --Subbass1 (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted in the DR, the problem here is not the organ itself, but the church architecture, which is modern and likely copyrighted.  Oppose unless we have a free license permission from the architect also or an evidence that the church architect died more than 70 years ago.
If the images are cropped / altered to show the organ only and the church architecture in the background / surroundings is not shown at all or minimized, the photos may be OK. Ankry (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The church architecture is not "modern". Try reading the german Wikipedia article. --Subbass1 (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It is from 1830s, I withdraw my comment. Ankry (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I think Abzeronow has it right -- perhaps User:Ankry should read the DR again. The problem here is that the design of the organ case goes way beyond utilitarian and therefore has its own copyright. If, as claimed above, the organ builder actually took the pictures, then a note to VRT from an address at https://www.orgelbau-ahrend.de/ should be easy to get (The other named builder, Gerhard Brunzema, died in 1992). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The VRT team of course already has a permission from Hendrik AHrend for the pictures. For the organ case itself it's not necessary (but here included..), in common use on Commons. --Subbass1 (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the DR, we have the photographer's permission per ticket:2023120810006959. If that photographer and the organ builder is one and the same person (which I did not know until User:Subbass1 wrote it here, and which was not mentioned in either the previous undeletion request or the deletion request), that ticket should be re-evaluated to see if the permission also covers the organ itself. Else a new permission which explicitly covers both the photographs and the organ design should be sent. --Rosenzweig τ 14:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: it's NOT necessary to have a permission for organ cases on commons. Just keep doing so to scare away the last people who provide pictures. In this case, unfortunately, even the "superintendent" had to deal with the claim of a "modern church design". Ridiculous. --Subbass1 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly the situation, these photos of the organ are offered under a free license by the copyright owner of both the organ and the photos. Therefore, there is no problem of copyright violation with these photos. These photos of the organ are fine and free to use and have all the permissions necessary. The organ itself does not need to be offered under a free license. There is no need to force the organ builder to allow his competitors to build identical organs. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As discussed in the first round at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-04#Aurich, the only goal of sending these files to a deletion request was to clarify the status of the church architecture, and on that point the closing administrator of that DR agreed that the church architecture is not a problem. The VRT permission 2023120810006959 from Hendrik Ahrend for the photos of the organ was not disputed. The organ is attributed to the organ building business [1]. It was built when the father of Hendrik owned the business. Hendrik Ahrend is now the owner of the business. (Hendrik himself also worked on the organ in 2022/2023.) He free licenses his photos of the organ. That's sufficient. We don't need to require that he sends another email to spell out that as the owner of the business he's giving the permission to himself to show the organ in his own photos, nor that his 94 year old father send an email as former owner. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    never ever Ahrend has to prove anything further. I don't wish that he is contacted from hee again, ok? Instead some persons here should overthink their behaviour (and knowledge) and inform themsleves better before making others lots of unnecessary work. --Subbass1 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are several assertions here and in the DR that the organ builder's son has given permission for the free use of the copyright on the organ case, none of the people making those assertions are VRT agents and the cited note at Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/archive/2024#ticket:2023120810006959 does not tell us who sent the email. I think it very likely that we should restore these, but I think we need confirmation from a VRT agent that we do indeed have a free license from organ builder's son. Krd is familiar with the case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion is not that Hendrik Ahrend has given some additional permission, it is that there is no need for such additional permission. When he issues the free license on his photos that show the organ, that means necessarily that he agrees with himself that the organ can be shown in those free-licensed photos. A full license on the whole organ itself is not required. It is common practice on Commons that Commons does not require that an artist completely free-licenses an artwork shown on a free-licensed photo, but only that the artist agrees to the free-licensing of the view of the artwork as shown in the photo. As noted in the previous UDR, Krd validated the VRT ticket 2023120810006959 for the photos sent by Hendrik Ahrend, thus confirming that the permission is indeed from Hendrik Ahrend, because that cannot be anything else. Cf. photos numbered 20, 21 and 22. Krd explained that the reason he objected to Hendrik Ahrend's photos numbered 16, 18 and 19 was because of the church architecture, which is something unrelated to Hendrik Ahrend. That objection is now settled. What is missing? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asclepias , perhaps I am confused, but the images you cite and those above were uploaded by Subbass1. Krd verified that there is a VRT ticket covering some of them, but he does not say who wrote the message. As far as I know, we have no confirmation from KRD or any other VRT member that Ahrend has provided permission. As I said above, I think it likely that these are OK, but when I see insistent argumentative demands as we have above, I like to make sure. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
again: Hendrik Ahrend himself sent the photos and gave permission. Subbass1 (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who uploaded the files to Commons, be it Subbass1 or anybody else, is of no importance, just as it is of no importance for all the thoudands of other files uploaded to Commons by users who are not their authors or copyright owners. The important thing is that they were verified as having a permission by their copyright owners. Are you implying that you think that the stated author of the photos, Hendrik Ahrend, might not be their copyright owner, or that the VRT verification of the photos 20, 21 and 22 by Krd might be wrong, mistaken? If so, then we should nominate those files for deletion and maybe question Krd's VRT access. But if we start from the premise that the stated author of the photos is their copyright owner (as we should, and there is no indication to the contrary) and that the verification by Krd is correct (as we should, and there is no indication to the contrary), then it can only mean that their author and copyright owner Hendrik Ahrend provided permission, because a correct verification cannot mean anything else. Or if it can mean something else, other than exceptionally unlikely hypotheses, please explain what that might be. Also, previous discussions imply that all six files (the three currently online and the three currently deleted) are on the same ticket (which admins can view as "permission received" in the histories). Again, the only difference stated by Krd for three files was the church architecture, which is something unrelated to the permission from the photographer. If there had been any difference between the files in the permission itself, surely he would have told so. IMHO, nothing is missing in the rationale chain from the information publicly available already. Some undeletion requests stall because UDR regulars are not VRT members, and vice versa. It's nobody's fault, it just happens to be. But it's inconvenient. As noted by other people, Krd is usually unresponsive to notifications here. I guess the solution is to post on the VRT noticeboard and hope that a VRT member will be willing to come here and post a comment telling that yes the permission for the photos of Hendrik Ahrend in ticket 2023120810006959 is indeed from Hendrik Ahrend. (If VRT members can do that without violating confidentiality.) -- Asclepias (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nahashogyoseimon.png

こちらの写真は私が撮影・編集したものです。 最初にアップロードした際は著作者の記名を忘れおり、削除されてしまったので再アップロードしました。そのことにつきましては注意等を十分に確認しておらず大変申し訳ありませんでした。 今後はこういうことがないように十分注意します。 この写真は私が撮影・編集したものですので問題はありません。ですのでファイルの復元をお願いします。

This photo was taken and edited by me. When I first uploaded it, I forgot the author's name and it was deleted, so I re-uploaded it. I am very sorry that I did not fully check the instructions. I'll be very careful not to let this happen again. This picture was taken and edited by me, so there is no problem. So please restore the file.

（たいやき部屋 (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)）[reply]

@たいやき部屋: Hi, You were asked to upload the original image with EXIF data. Why can't you do that? Yann (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where should I upload my original images?
Can't I use the image edited for personal information protection? たいやき部屋 (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I understood what you were saying.
Upload it the appropriate way. たいやき部屋 (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Pavel Troshkin

Images were published after 2015, expiration of posthumous copyright protection of photographer after death, or before 1954. Overly hypothetical doubts by now-banned user who made many overzealous deletion requests. Kges1901 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia. In either case we cannot keep them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We usually assume that old works were published at the time of creation, unless evidence says otherwise. If I understood correctly, the author was a reporter for RIAN, so I see no reason to assume that these pictures were not published at the time. The first file in the list, File:Сессия Верховного Совета СССР первого созыва (2).jpg, is dated 1938. That may not be sufficient for all images, but it seems OK for this one. Yann (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Troshkin was a reporter for the newspaper Izvestiya, and his photographs were published at the time in Izvestiya, Krasnaya Zvezda, and other papers. --Kges1901 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg also made an interesting argument about the country of origin. If these newspapers were distributed in the Soviet Union, they were simultaneously published in all successor nations, and that under the Berne Convention, the shorter term applies. Yann (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These newspapers were distributed across the entire Soviet Union, not just on the territory of the RSFSR. In any case, the definition of publication under Russian copyright law is that the back of the photograph was marked by the artist in the appropriate way, which for war photographs implies that it passed through censorship processes and could be published. Since most of these photographs are not taken from the photographer's negatives, it is reasonable to assume that they were marked on the back, and recently digitized images appeared on the internet after 2014, when the posthumous publication copyright term expired. Kges1901 (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg is not sole in such assumption. But this is just assumption so far, it is not supported by court decisions (of 12-15 post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature (as I have known on today, I continue to seek it, to confirm or refute it). As I see such questions in court decisions (of several post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature - the concrete Soviet republic is place of publishing (because, the civil legislation was on republican level) or the RF is place of publishing, even if work was published outside of the RSFSR (as USSR-successor on union level). Alex Spade (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is any test case over the Berne definition of "country of origin". The question would not come up internally for Russian law or that of the old republics, most likely. It would only matter in a country outside those which implement the rule of the shorter term, and over a work which that question may be involved. Not sure I know of any, anywhere. But, the Berne Convention is pretty specific in its definition when it comes to works simultaneously published in multiple countries, and that is the definition that Commons follows. Of course, the Soviet Union was not a member, though most all subsequent countries are now. One complication is the U.S. status -- the definition of "source country" for the URAA would follow different logic than Berne, the country of "greatest contacts with the work", which would be Russia. Russia was 50pma on the URAA date, but I think had some wartime extensions, which I think push these over the line, such that only ones published before 1929 (or created before 1904, if unpublished) would be PD in the U.S., regardless of current status in Russia, or the country of origin (if different). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know such cases (on the Berne definition) too, but in the Russian copyright legislation there are 3 criterions of copyrightability - (1) the Russian territory (the territory of the Russian Federation (the RSFSR previously, not the USSR) since Nov.7, 1917 to today) in the borders on the date of publication, (2) the Russian citizenship on the date of publication, and (3) international treaties.
Moreover, there is similar situation with reports of telegraph agencies or press-releases- they are reported/released worldwide formally, but the country indicated in report/release is the country of origin (some reports/releases have two of more indicated countries). Alex Spade (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right -- the Berne country of origin pretty much never applies to internal works, or even most situations involving foreign works. The specific definition in Berne pretty much only matters if a country is applying the rule of the shorter term for a foreign work to have lesser protection than their own works normally do; the Berne definition would have to be used in that case to determine the country, since that is in the treaty. In pretty much any other situation, more sensical definitions can be used (which even the US did, with the URAA -- the "source country" there is pretty much the same thing, but differs quite a bit once it comes to simultaneous publication). But however nonsensical it seems, Commons uses the Berne definition, since that should control when works expire in many countries (even if that virtually never comes up in a court case to test it). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Binsudah.jpg

Hello.. Please return the image because it is a free image of a public figure and is allowed to be circulated and is not restricted by rights at all. The following link contains a copy of the image on the personal website of its owner, writer https://www.binsudah.ae/قصة-عجيبة-من-التاريخ/--JovaYas (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The footer on the link provided states: جميع الحقوق محفوظة لموقع حسين بن سوده - 2015 (All rights reserved to Hussein Bin Souda website). @-JovaYas: the term "free license" has a precise definition that you consult in COM:L. Günther Frager (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your response. I would like to explain the following: the purpose of uploading the image here is to use it on the individual's page in the encyclopedia, and the title is his name. His Wikipedia page includes a link to his personal website, in addition to the fact that the image has been circulating for years, like any image of a public figure. The management of the writer's website has been contacted for the purpose of licensing the image at the following link [2]https://www.binsudah.ae/binsudah-2/ JovaYas (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JovaYas: that is not a free license. Did you read the link provided?. It would be more productive if you ask the copyright holder to send an explicit permission to COM:VRT . Günther Frager (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guidance and cooperation, and we contacted the management of the writer's website to amend the formulation and the full waiver of the Wikipedia website - the following link [3]https://www.binsudah.ae/binsudah-2/ JovaYas (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The notice on the cited website now reads,

"This image is fully licensed for publication and use on the Wikipedia website - https://commons.wikimedia.org, and they have the right to use the image on any of their platforms, this is a waiver of rights - the management of the Hussein bin Sudah website 17-08-2024".
Since the permission is limited to Commons, it is not the free license for any use by anybody anywhere that is required here. In order for us to restore the image, the license must be changed to CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or another acceptable license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello sir.. It has been edited to be general and not specific.[4]https://www.binsudah.ae/binsudah-2/ JovaYas (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is not irrevocable and does not mention derivative works. Please follow my instructions above,
In order for us to restore the image, the license must be changed to CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or another acceptable license."
See COM:L. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We worked so hard to make this very ordinary image acceptable to you, that we asked the site to remove the copyright notice at the bottom of the site for JovaYas (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JovaYas: Removing the copyright notice doesn't remove the copyright on the image. As Jim writes above, we need a free license. Yann (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience and understanding. The wording of the image license has been amended by referencing the Creative Commons license - CC BY [5]https://www.binsudah.ae/binsudah-2/ JovaYas (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.. The owner of the photo personally contacted you via his official email, .. regarding the photo. Please check the email. JovaYas (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian department awards

Please, restore deleted Russian department awards and close (as keep) similar current DR. Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed DR discussions

Current DR discussions

Yes, they are not state awards, but they are state symbols ({{PD-RU-exempt}}) indeed - symbols, which are established by state authorities, which design (including both text description and visual representation) are established (which design are integral part of) in respective official documents of state government agencies (the Russian official documents are not just texts), which are subjects of the en:State Heraldic Register of the Russian Federation (point 3 subpoint 4). Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two ConventionExtension screenshots

These files was speedily deleted as copyright violations. I was originally going to request undeletion on the basis of them being screenshots of free software (i.e., {{MediaWiki screenshot}}); annoyingly, though, the Git repository of the MediaWiki extension that they're screenshots of doesn't appear to contain a license statement of any kind. However, I noticed that the account that uploaded these files (Chughakshay16) is the same account that developed the extension in the first place (see mw:User:Chughakshay16/ConventionExtension, git:mediawiki/extensions/ConventionExtension/+log) - therefore, even if this extension's code isn't freely licensed, Chughakshay16 would nevertheless have the ability and authority to release screenshots of the results of their own programming under a free license (as they did when they uploaded the files in question to Commons); and these freely-licensed screenshots are therefore not copyvios.

At User talk:Moheen#Screenshot of conference extension deleted?, the deleting admin mentioned that the files were tagged as likely belong[ing] to Cisco Webex; however, I didn't see anything that would indicate that Cisco holds a copyright over this extension's code (or that would prohibit the code's author from being able to freely license screenshots of its results).

All the best, --A smart kitten (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parliament.bg - all files as well

The text in the copyright information page was edited by the National Assembly for clarity and now states:

The National Assembly is the holder of the copyright of the software ensuring the functioning of the Internet portal and its design.

The content of the portal of the National Assembly can be used freely, unless it is explicitly stated that it is subject to protection under the current Law on copyright and related rights. Therefore, the use of textual content, photos, video materials and other visual elements found on the portal is public and requires only citation.

The content owned by the National Assembly on this internet portal is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, respectively Appendix No. 2 to Art. 16, paragraph 1 of the Ordinance on the standard conditions for using information from the public sector and for its publication in an open format.

All web portal content is accessible in real-time via a public REST API. View API documentation - click here.''

The deletion request is archived here.
Pelajanela (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text is now explicit about being CC-BY-4.0. @Ellywa: I'm willing to restore the template and associated files if others agree. Abzeronow (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Ellywa (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the template and the supporting files that I deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Associated deleted files: (put here for my convenance so I can use Restore-A-Lot)
I'll do more later (this might take me a few days to restore all files. Abzeronow (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(more for convenient undeletion)

I'll undelete more tomorrow. Abzeronow (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get more undeleted tomorrow (was so busy I could only manage this batch). Abzeronow (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:UG-GE Photowalk (March, 2018)

those files deleted as no FoP in Georgia but they are just graffiti. I think that COM:GRAFFITI applies. Template {{Non-free graffiti}} should be added as well. We have a lot's of them in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Documentation of Template:Non-free graffiti states: "Note that this template doesn't have enough help on the undeletion requests, deleted files are unlikely to be restored just because of the potential application of this tag.". Günther Frager (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's not just because the template. The template is only for information. The deletion rational was no FoP in Georgia. But it is not FoP issue. I linked COM:GRAFFITI and we have a lots of files in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose But Georgia does not have FOP anyway. Also, these are murals by unknown artists, not just text or tags. Thuresson (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So graffiti is a FoP case? If FoP in Georgia will be ok than the graffiti also ok? Aren't they in temporarily exhibition by definition. If they just a case of FoP it's not very clear in COM:GRAFFITI. -- Geagea (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monica Cavalcante.jpg

It was deleted by mistake.

That picture came from the Superior Electoral Court (Tribunal Superior Eleitoral - TSE) of Brazil, so it doesn't infringe any copyright rules on Wikimedia Commons.

The pictures licensed by the Superior Electoral Court of Brazil use the CC BY 4.0 license. You can find information about this license on the file page:

In that same link, you can find the file downloading the ZIP file in RN - Fotos de candidatos. The file name is FRN200001984816_div. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OkYui (talk • contribs) 14:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

 Agree And put the Template:TSE-Dados-Abertos in the file. Erick Soares3 (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Undeb Credyd Plaid Cymru Alan Jobbins a Dai Payne 1999.jpg

Hello, I fail to understand why a photo taken of myself of my father (Alan Jobbins) and another colleague, Dai Payne, in 1999 has been deleted. It's a photo of both of them working in the Plaid Cymru Credit Union (to accompany the article which is in Welsh https://cy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undeb_Credyd_Plaid_Cymru of which my father founded.

File:Undeb Credyd Plaid Cymru Alan Jobbins a Dai Payne 1999.jpg

--Stefanik (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefanik: Because you didn't answer to the deletion request. Yann (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Free Paths Maker Lopez-Aparicio.jpg

Aunque tengo los permisos para usar la imagen y además aclaré que circula en otras paginas porque es de uso libre (ya lo había explicado en otra discusión), sin embargo subí el archivo siguiendo las nuevas instrucciones y lo volvieron a borrar. En un apartado de Wikipedia dice que "Si el archivo fue borrado no haber evidencia de permiso del dueño de los derechos, por favor sigue el procedimiento para enviar evidencia del permiso. Si ya has hecho eso, no hay necesidad de solicitar la restauración aquí". La imagen también la usa esta pagina y aun así la cité: http://mail.iac.org.es/noticias/actividades-socios/isidro-lopez-aparicio-expone-free-paths-maker-en-el-patio-central-del-centre-pompidou-malaga.html , pero el problema persiste. Por ello, solicito ayuda para la restauración de la imagen.

Muchas gracias. Marlimecas (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marlimecas: Por favor tenga en cuenta que las imágenes tienen derecho de autor y que aparezcan en una página web no implica que posean una licencia libre (lo requerido en Commons).. Si esta en contacto con la persona que posee los derechos de autor pídale que envíe un permiso siguiendo las instrucciones de COM:VRT/es. Günther Frager (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 OpposeThe creator, Isidro López-Aparicio is a Spanish artist, so this work is probably in Spain. If so, the image infringes on the copyright for the indoor art. There are only 20 countries whose FoP covers indoor art and most of them are unlikely. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marlboro Advance Perforated Holes Filter (India).png

This file is a copyright violation because it comes from: https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/evmn66/til_that_light_cigarettes_are_designed_to_fool

The said reddit post has a URL of the Wiki page on which this image was placed, and reddit crawled wiki to read that image, not vice-versa.

Request @DaxServer: to please indulge in deletion with diligence so that to avoid deleting valid images and wasting time of editors in restoring them. Thank you, User4edits (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose - The reddit post is from 29. January 2020, well before the 2022 upload and addition to w:Ventilated cigarette. How do you explain that? Note also requestor/uploader has a significant copyvio history and file is low res and lacking camera EXIF. Эlcobbola talk 05:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Reddit post in question isn’t a photo submission. In 2020, only a link to Wikipedia was posted. As the requester said, the photo was only later automatically crawled by Reddit to illustrate the post. --Geohakkeri (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding copyvio history, there are no obvious or deliberate copyvios in my recent upload history, rather those are ones based on interpretations/deliberations on prima-facie valid uploads. Nevertheless, this is not the palce to discusss that. Regarding, upload/post dates, I have already shared my stance. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This image isn't from your recent upload history, and it is absolutely the place to discuss that; uploader history (credibility) go to assessment of self-claims. We apparently now require EXIF for small images from users with "bad history". Эlcobbola talk 12:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather  Oppose: The Reddit page is not archived on IA prior to 2023. This is a very small image in PNG format. So all evidence tends to think that it was copied from Reddit. If you are the photographer, it should be easy for you, either to upload the original image with EXIF, or to confirm the license via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shikei_Syokatu_Portrait_2024_01.jpg

--Asharujayne (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)2024.9.2[reply]

File:Capaplanetalama frente.jpg

This image was created by Damião Experiença, an artist that never registered copyright of his work and made clear during his career that his work was free to share. All of his work can be downloaded for free here: https://www.damiaoexperienca.com.br/home.htm. It makes no sense to delete one of his album covers from Wikimedia. Therefore, I request undeletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ticobrau (talk • contribs) 12:51, 2 September 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose That something is "free to download" doesn't mean it has a "free license". The latter has a precise definition in Commons, see COM:L. Also, he was a musician, not a photographer. Günther Frager (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Praveen Singh.png

I have the proper rights to use the image. The image was sourced from the social media accounts and is free to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshitij Vats 001 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose We need the formal written permission from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Do not upload files from social media. Yann (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pompeya members.jpg) is a pictere of my band - Pompeya. We made this photo last year.

Hi! My name is Vlad Marushchak, I am a keyboardist of Moscow based indie band Pompeya. All rights for the Pompeya members.jpg is reserved by us, we made this photo last year.

 Not done: File:Pompeya members.jpg exists / is not deleted. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vaillancourt Fountain, Justin Herman Plaza (San Francisco, California).jpg

Sculpture publicly installed in 1971 without required notice. PD art per COM:PACUSA#Before 1978, no FOP restrictions apply. --James(talk/contribs) 00:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Per SIRIS, there is no inscription on it. I am presuming the photo was licensed. I assume this is about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vaillancourt Fountain, Justin Herman Plaza (San Francisco, California).jpg. I also found Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vaillancourt Fountain, San Francisco - Justin Herman Plaza (no water).JPG when searching, which appears to be another file deleted due to similar rationale. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Possibly Hone 2024-09-01T00 00 00Z.jpg

is it ok if i change into a public domain thing? (I'm sry, I didn't know I chose the wrong license)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=840982298"