Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

< Commons:Undeletion requests
Revision as of 02:42, 29 June 2018 by Fanghong (talk | contribs) (→Category:Grain coupons of China)

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Fanghong in topic Category:Grain coupons of China

Current requests

Shortcuts: COM:UDR • COM:UDELC • COM:UNDELC

Request undeletion

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

Files uploaded by Fabriciofffs

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

These files were created and uploaded by Fabriciofffs (talk · contribs), who submitted them for an unspecified contest. When he repented, way past the 7 days grace, he started to falsify the licensing metadata of his own files, which eventually led to the deletion of some. Please restore all of his files with their original licensing terms.

Some shall also be marked with {{Published|small=yes|legal=no|url=https://www.viajali.com.br/motivos-para-conhecer-caverna-do-maroaga-e-gruta-da-judeia/|accessdate=3 May 2018}}

Kind regards, --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 16:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've found some more: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fernando de Noronha 1.jpg, …2.jpg, …3.jpg, …5.jpg, …6.jpg, …9.jpg, …10.jpg, and …11.jpg. Att --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 16:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  Support. I agree with @Usien6: . Apparently the user did not read properly the rules of contest, not won the prize and now wants to delete the photos. But, our licenses are very clear: "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.". EVinente (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Usien6: Most, maybe all, of them contain copyright information that according to our rules should be explained via OTRS permission; see Commons:Deletion requests/Files_ uploaded by Fabriciofffs.   Oppose unless we get such a permission, which is unlikely. Ankry (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Ankry: "BELO HORIZONTE" is actually a Brazilian city. The sixth largest one, in fact. There was, more than obviously, a technical mishandling of metadata. All of his uploads were created by a single person: himself. Att --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 14:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I said the same about BELO HORIZONTE here, but Yann ignored me. @Usien6: please, link to Commons resources wherever possible. Wikipedia has too much publicity nowadays. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, there was some uncertainty, that's why I created a DR, and Jcb seems to agree, as he deleted the files. There were not many comments in the DR. More opinions would be useful. Now if there is a (near) consensus that this was a technical mishandling of metadata, as Usien6 suggests above, I am fine with restoration. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Yann: I see you have administrator rights and should therefore be able to inspect deleted files. Would you mind checking if any of the aforementioned photos were taken by either a Canon/Canon PowerShot SX50 HS or a SONY/DSC-H55 ?? Thank you so much, --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 13:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Usien6: I checked 2 of them. There is no mention of a camera in EXIF data. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Incnis Mrsi: Thank you for your support !! I could not understand your last two sentences, though, as English is not my mother tongue … Kind regards, --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 13:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Mbazri

Latest comment: 6 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Please temporarily undelete all so I can take a look at them. I'm familiar with some of the complexities of Tasnim. At least File:Hadi Hajatmand & Ali Soleimani at the Eighth Ammar Film Festival.jpg appears to have been wrongly deleted. It's https://newsmedia.tasnimnews.com/Tasnim/Uploaded/Image/1396/10/15/139610152329007612973144.jpg and any derivative work that may be seen on that image would obviously be DM, so now I want to look at everything that was nominated. - Alexis Jazz 16:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please ping me if this request is honored as I don't check this page on a regular basis. - Alexis Jazz 23:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Alexis Jazz: I revised the files, and undeleted the ones that imho do not provide enough copyright works inside or that deserve to be discussed further. For instance, the "Camp Speicher massacre Location after Fall of ISIS" series show mainly derived works and thus I haven't restored them. Here's the list of the undeleted files, to which I added {{Temporarily undeleted}}. Please revise them and/or remove the template + nominate them again for deletion in order to have a more specific discussion:

Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 07:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I will check them all. (only taken a quick look now) Although I personally don't think it will be needed for any of these, I'll upload new versions for some to remove all doubt. I've already uploaded a new version for the first two. For some I'm somewhat puzzled why they were nominated in the first place, like File:Commemoration of 30th of December in Mosalla of Gorgan 08.jpg. My best guess is because Commons FoP rules say there is no FoP in Iran, even for architecture, and some bits of the building can be seen. Seems like DM to me. Should we really want to delete all photos of events that take place in copyrighted buildings? I have yet to take a closer look at the copyright law (glanced over it a few days ago), but I suspect our interpretation of "no FoP in Iran" is not in the spirit of the law and I would also doubt that anyone in Iran would share our interpretation. I know this is not the place for a discussion about it, but for the sake of my blood pressure I don't actually want to discuss it now anyway. Just making a note, consider it an opinion - I'm sure several people will strongly disagree and I haven't taken a closer look yet. (a relevant link to the discussion(s) that resulted in our FoP policy for Iran are welcome though)
I normally wouldn't say this, but because I'm not trusted I will state it literally: I will judge (and alter/nominate if needed) these images using our existing FoP (and DM) rules. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
I've been surprised myself that certain files were deleted. Anyways, @Alexis Jazz: feel free to open a DR for more discussion on those that are borderline. Others can be directly kept, and I've left deleted the ones that whouldn't stand a chance under current rules (unless some serious blurring/cropping is done). --Ruthven (msg) 13:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Ruthven: I checked them all. Blurred some, cropped some, added {{De minimis}} to many just to be sure.
If among the files that you said would stand no chance in a DR without blurring/cropping there are some that include something else that can be used (like a person), you can undelete them and I'll crop/blur them. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Tahrir Square - February 10, 2011.png (deleted revisions)

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

What are our stance on a person releasing a low-res file under a free license on Commons, but high-res on Flickr? We have gone forth and back on that issue over a long-time on noticeboards and specific images in the past, and yet we don't have a written policy about it yet.

Creative Commons has stated the following on this issue:

[I]f the low-resolution and high-resolution copies are the same work under applicable copyright law, permission under a CC license is not limited to a particular copy, and someone who receives a copy in high resolution may use it under the terms of the CC license applied to the low-resolution copy.

I believe we need a set precedence and written a policy about "low-res versions of files being free while claiming the high-res is a different work". But until then, we should side with Creative Commons, it is them that wrote the licenses in question. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think we should allow it -- the situation could differ by country. Creative Commons is just restating copyright law, in that in some countries it may not be legally possible to separate, copyright-wise, a low-res versus high-res photo. That aspect is not part of their license. In countries where that is possible, the license would only cover the low-res version and any use of the high-res version would be a copyright violation. I do think we should allow and respect that situation here, even if the U.S. is one of those countries where it may not be possible. (The difficulty comes in the nature of the copyrighted expression for a photograph -- quite often the subject itself is not copyrightable, so the copyright rests on the angle, framing, and other aspects which would exist in full in even the low-resolution photo, and that would be the expression the photographer would be licensing. But it's just as possible that a judge could find some aspect which exists more in only the high-res, and uphold the licensing based on that.)
The problem comes from the national definition of "work". For example, under Swedish copyright law, a photo is usually not a "work" so there are maybe situations where application of a Creative Commons licence can be unpredictable. I don't know how Egyptian law defines a "work". However, other than just looking at the national definition of a "work", I think that we also need to look at what the licensor has stated. In this case, the uploader licensed content by using Commons templates which use a mixture of "file" and "work":
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work
attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
If you talk about licensing a "file" rather than a "work", then maybe this has the effect that you unintentionally don't license the file under the real CC licence but under a modified licence which licenses "files" instead of "works". It gets more confusing when the templates mix the words "file" and "work". Technically, the legally binding wording is the one used when the user uploaded the file, but I have not checked if the wording in the templates has changed since the file was uploaded. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Not sure the issue the definition of a "work" in that sense -- you are using the license for whatever rights you do have, be they a "work" per a country's law or a "simple photo" or whatever. As long as you have copyrights (or effectively the same thing) over a portion of material, which you can define, you can license that material, which is the "work" from the license's perspective. To my mind, the issue that Creative Commons is pointing out is that all the material that a photographer has rights over may be just as much present in the low-resolution version of a photo as a larger version -- thus that by licensing the lower-resolution file, there is no additional expression in the higher-resolution version they can protect with a more restrictive license. If it's an image of a painting, there likely would be more expression present in the higher-resolution photo than the low-res, and that expression would not be licensed, so a painter could use this approach most likely. But for a snapshot, that may well not be the case (though that has not been tested in a court of law). It is possible that by licensing a low-resolution photo, they have licensed the entirety of their own expression, so they can no longer prevent usage of a higher-resolution version. The question comes down to if a country's copyright law can identify protectable expression in a higher-resolution version that is not present in a lower-resolution version. If there is such expression, then that expression is not licensed by just the low-res version, and the practice is legally valid as the author can claim infringement of that additional expression. But if the law cannot find such expression, then all of the expression is licensed, and the author cannot prevent usage of the high-res version in accordance with the license.
While that is a distinct possibility, we have no court case guidance over something like that, and even if true in one country in may not be in another, so I would allow the practice -- if someone wants to use a higher-resolution version and risk the consequences, that is up to them, but I think we should not provide the higher-resolution versions here when that has not been explicitly licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Since this whole problem with higher resolution versions is untested and based on legal theory, I think that we should provide a warning template if we ever host a higher resolution version so that reusers are made aware of the problem. That said, per COM:PRP I'm not sure if we should host higher resolution versions in the first place. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm in complete agreement with you there. I don't think we should even host them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
  Oppose Policy as recorded in COM:L is clear: Sometimes, authors wish to release a lower quality or lower resolution version of an image or video under a free license, while applying stricter terms to higher quality versions. It is unclear whether such a distinction is legally enforceable, but Commons's policy is to respect the copyright holder's intentions by hosting only the lower quality version. This has been policy since 2014.

File:“홍대거리가 마비” ... 유앤비, 성공적인 버스킹 -UNB (디패짤).webm

Latest comment: 6 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

despite I was talking about this issue on this page and the file is clearly from the official dispatch youtube account (also it has a confirmed facebook account (with check symbol) ), the file is deleted, so I appeal it here. Puramyun31 (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • I see CC-BY mentioned in the HTML source code of the archive.li page. The "show more" link doesn't work in Firefox (no additional information is displayed), but I don't see why that would matter given that the info is present in the source code. I note that the licence since has changed on the Youtube page. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
As background information see, User_talk:Puramyun31#File:“홍대거리가_마비”_..._유앤비,_성공적인_버스킹_-UNB_(디패짤).webm and File talk:“홍대거리가 마비” ... 유앤비, 성공적인 버스킹 -UNB (디패짤).webm, I deleted this file as I was not personally able to verify the previous copyright status, if others can, then I concede on the issue of the copyright of the actual video. I undeleted the file to review it and was happy to delete it again for other reasons. The video is of a music and song performance (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoM6JmhOLak ) the sound has been removed (my bad for not originally noticing this), so it is less of a clearcut case of a violation of a performer's right then it would be otherwise. However it is now to all extents and purposes a mimed dance (note we have very few files of mime artists actually performing).--KTo288 (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
This is not a mime art. Puramyun31 (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
It wasn't originally, but the video is now of people dancing to music no one else can hear.--KTo288 (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
It's not intended as mime purpose (such as storytelling by actors), so with no sounds, and the moves substantially loss its meaning. Puramyun31 (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Dance is a performance.--15:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
performer's copyright? — regards, Revi 14:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm no lawyer reading actual legal stuff online makes my head hurt, but see en:Related_rights#Performers
  • If the uploaded copy is without sound, then there is no violation of any music copyright. Was the performance created by these people, or are they copying someone else's performance? There is also the question of the changed copyright tag: maybe the uploader realised that he wasn't allowed to license the performance or the music or some other part of it (because someone else holds the copyright to it) and therefore corrected the copyright tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
    @Stefan2: In changing the license, Dispatch now makes the claim that everything in the video, from song to dance, is its own work and is not infringing on any other rights—this is specified when uploading a video onto YouTube—which is definitely not the case. Ultimately, it does not make a difference whether the Standard YouTube License or the Creative Commons License is utilized, at least in regards to the recorded content specifically, so asserting that Dispatch "corrected the copyright tag" is not an accurate claim; the claim is "this is entirely my work", and the claim will be wrong regardless of the license it chooses. ℯxplicit 01:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
    Please disregard my previous comment - it is difficult for me to decipher Korean text, so I misunderstood. The file talk page links to this, so I assume that this was the film uploaded. The video was created by Dispatch, a news website. The people perform a song called Kamgak by Korean music group UNB. Dispatch can license the contributions by Kim Su-in, the journalist credited for recording and editing the video at 3 minutes and 40 seconds into the video.
It is fine to extract screenshots from a film as the screenshot does not contain any parts of the song, and performances aren't protected in the form of single photographs. For example, File:180303 UNB 03.png has been extracted from a different Dispatch video which also contains unlicensed music, but since it's just a screenshot, the file should be fine. The problem with this file is that it is a video. Performances are protected as sound and video recordings, and I'd imagine that you infringe the performer right even if you only use the video track but not the sound track. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

"en:Related_rights#Performers", According to this South Korean copyright law page (Article 64)(in english), it is defined in a separate manner to "copyright", so it seems to be Non-copyright restriction as Commons defines (Article 65: 이 장 각 조의 규정은 저작권에 영향을 미치는 것으로 해석되어서는 아니 된다. The provisions of each Article in this Chapter shall not be construed as affecting copyright. ), though it is mentioned in "coryright law" (South Korean copyright law also define "database rights (Article 91-98)" which is considered a non-copyright restriction on Commons). The rights relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons ("author's economic right") only refers to something that is defined Article 16-22. (Author’s Moral Right (article 11-15) is considered a non-copyright restriction on Commons) According to the COM:NCR page, "non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia, and the licensing policies are accordingly limited to regulating copyright related obligations." Puramyun31 (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Commons has copyright tags for sound recordings (see Category:License tags for audio files) which are also neighbouring rights and therefore no different from performers' rights. If you are arguing that we should not honour neighbouring rights, then all copyright tags for sound recordings also need to be deleted, and some copyright tags for photographs need to go. The section about database rights on COM:NCR is obviously an error; the database right work in the same way as normal copyright in that you can't distribute a database without permission from the rights holder. The most common databases on Commons are probably maps - the database right prevents you from distributing other maps derived from the same map data. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sound recordings are irrevent for this discussion, since the flie did not include any sounds. Puramyun31 (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sound recordings are relevant in the discussion about neighbouring rights. If we are supposed to ignore all neighbouring rights, as you suggested, then we are supposed to ignore all protection of sound recordings and thus delete all. Obviously, we do not ignore copyright of sound recordings (since we have lots of copyright tags for those), so therefore we don't ignore copyright of performances either. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is there a precedent set for cases like this? From the looks of this discussion, the main argument for speedy deletion lays its foundation in COM:PCP, but that itself is not a speedy deletion criterion. In regards to the lack of miming videos, is that a result of previous deletion discussions, or is there simply a lack of contributed videos? Regardless, miming and dancing are quite difference scenarios here, so I'm not sure a sweeping generalization can be applied to these two separate art forms. At the very least, a full deletion discussion should take place to help determine what should be done for these type of media, as Puramyun31 has uploaded several videos like this. ℯxplicit 01:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Upperhill.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Permission for free license has been granted by photographer , view page and email Free license for use on wikipedia provided by original photographer rex maina , email from the photographer rex.maina1@gmail.com confirms this (Cyclops25 (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC))Reply

  •   Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 24 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. @Cyclops25: Did you tag the file {{subst:OP}} as instructed at OTRS and COM:CONSENT?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Cyclops25: Which of the many photos on http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=146232991 was this, and which username there was used to upload it?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
en:File:Upperhill.jpg / http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=145819737&postcount=809 – Photographer: Rex Maina, poster: zacmwanzia — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
@JJMC89: Thank you, I have updated the ticket. The actual source https://www.flickr.com/photos/123695371@N08/40509384112/ is "All rights reserved". The post on skyscrapercity uses image address https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4656/40509384112_f926115e3c_b.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:My father and me.jpg - wrong file deleted?

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

[Moving discussion here, as Jameslwoodward is on a break. Two files have been using the same (too generic) file name. It seems one was mistakenly deleted (the other was moved and is discussed), but the admin thinks it was a copyvio, although the evidence was deemed sufficient in a DR. --LPfi (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)]Reply


I am confused about the history of File:My father and me.jpg. I wonder if it was deleted by accident. For me as non-admin it seems the file discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mandoji.Dawood khan was moved to a new name 22 December 2017 at 19:59 (and now requested for deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Memories of my life - being my personal, professional, and social recollections as woman and artist (1907)) while the one you deleted seems to be the one discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sandlapper1709, where it was decided to be kept.

I have not been following my watchlist lately, so did not get any notice at the time of deletion. It is very frustrating to try to reconstruct what has happened without access to the history of deleted file. It is also very frustrating to notice a file I probably found worth keeping having been deleted as "personal files", with little possibility to see what file this is about.

I think those who argued for not deleting a file should be notified when it is nominated for deletion a second time, or about to be deleted without a new nomination.

(Please ping me, as I do not follow my Commons watchlist regularly for the time being.)

--LPfi (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The file is both an unused personal file and a probable copyvio, as the uploader is the subject of the image and there is no evidence of a license from the photographer. The file description says that the author was the uploader's father, but since the father is also in the image, that is unlikely. Even if the father is the author (self-timer?), we still require a license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
The uploader states (in a diff linked from the short DR) "All three photos are in my possession, were photographed by my late father, and any identifiable people in one photo are [...] me as an infant and my late father, taken with a timer beside the family garage." Why does it "seem unlikely" that the author was the father as stated? We usually believe uploaders, why would we need an OTRS in this case? For the "personal file" thing, that needs a DR, and the file already survived one. These are historical photos, which are not easily replaced. --LPfi (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
The question to answer here is why are they relevant historical photos. Are they educational useful? Ruthven (msg) 21:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
That is hard to discuss while the photo is deleted. It survived a DR and was later deleted without notice. If it is to be deleted as not in scope we need a new DR (with a pointer to the category with better similar photos).
As to the relevance, I think we need samples of "personal photos" as historic documents on that genre, and on everyday situations and milieus of the time. We do not need any and all personal photos people are uploading, but I suppose we do not have an abundance of personal photos from the 1950s, so we should be careful to check that any such photo we delete is such that we have better ones (in quality and documentation) of the specific type. This applies partly also for modern photos, but for those replacements will usually appear, and with modern ones flooding the site can be a real problem.
--LPfi (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
To aid the discussion about the usefulness of this particular image I have temporarily undeleted the file pending the outcome of this undeletion request. De728631 (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Pinging @LPfi: In case you missed my previous comment, now that the image is visible again, would you like to weigh in on its educational usefulness? Apparently nobody else is interested in this discussion any more. De728631 (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
@De728631, LPfi, and Sandlapper1709: Having now seen the photo, I have doubts about the educational usefulness. The file does not appear to have been used, so it appears to be OOS.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

[indent]
This photo will hardly be used in Wikipedia, but I insist a collection of family photos from different times and cultures is of significant educational value. I note that Category:Fathers and children in the United States and Category:Fathers and sons have no similar photos. I do not know where else to search. I understand this is an area where categorisation is less than complete, but nevertheless.

About nobody being interested, this is not a DR (the image survived when nominated for deletion) and not even the uploader had been notified, so I suppose some people who would otherwise take part are missing.

--LPfi (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Keep I concur that this is a piece of historical documentation. At least it could be used as a reference for children's fashion of the era, so it is realistically useful for an educational purpose. So it is in scope even if it wasn't actively being used before. De728631 (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Robert Corbett 2012.jpg and File:GSU-Ehrentafel 2014.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

These were uploaded by User:Smutsmaker, because those were reuploads of files previously deleted part of a mass DR for files of that user. I am currently discussing the user's upload on their talk page (in German) and they assured me that those two photos were self-shot. I believe that Smutsmaker acted in good faith uploading the previous photos, but did not understand our licensing rules, but I believe that these two photos are indeed their own work. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Support per above. Ankry (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:LogoCIM.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Il logo in oggetto non ha copyright ed è il logo ufficiale della Confederazione di cui io sono anche membro del Comitato Esecutivo. Il logo può essere scricato sia sul sito ufficiale http://www.cim-confederazione.it/ Sia Sugli altri Social Media. La CIM è una confederazione di Associazioni no-profit Sono a disposizione per latri chirimenti

Giorgio Leonardi 25/06/2018 --Leopard2000 (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Leopard2000: please explain precisely: why this logo might fit to an exception in Italian copyright law (and which exception)? I do not see any reason for {{PD-Italy-EdictGov}} or {{PD-Italy}} to be applied here. Ankry (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Uploader who requested deletion... now requests undeletion

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"Uploader requested deletion of a recently uploaded unused file". Well, they are going to be used now. Please restore! Thanks --küñall (nütramyen) 06:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Küñall: where do you intend to use them? I doubt if they are in scope. Also, as low-res and declared as Own work and with "Creator Picasa" in metadata I doubt if they survive a PCP-based DR. If in scope, I suggest to upload the original images from camera before restoring these. Ankry (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Ankry: I intend to use them at es:Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre. I have no problem uploading another version of the files, since (IIRC) I still have the original versions. But still, I would need to see the uploaded images. Thanks and kind regards! küñall (nütramyen) 15:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:折居社・由来の説明看板.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

上記ファイルの削除撤回を依頼します。

上記ファイルはこれまでも2回削除の憂き目に遭っていますが、管理所有者の許諾が得られていないという理由で削除されていた物であったため、3度目のアップロードに際し、事前に上記ファイル画像に写っている説明看板の所有管理者である姥神大神宮の責任者（宮司）の方と話し合いの上で許諾を頂き、姥神大神宮と自分の間で署名捺印を行った許諾書類を3通作成しまして、1通は姥神大神宮側が所有し、残る2通は自分が所有して、そのうちの1通をPDF化した上でWikipedia及びWikipediaコモンズにPDFをメールに添付して許諾メールを送信しました。

ところが、そういう正式な手続きを踏んで許諾を得たにもかかわらず、今回該当画像が消去されると言った暴挙が行われました。また、前述の許諾書類はFile:折居社・由来の説明看板.jpgの他に「File:現在の折居社・由来の説明看板.jpg」File:現在の折居社・由来の説明看板.jpgの画像についても合わせて作成したものですが、そちらの画像については現在のところ削除されていません。

同じ条件で行った許諾であるにもかかわらず、一方は削除されないのに、もう一方は削除されてしまったという状況は不公平極まりない物であり、かつ、きちんとした許諾を頂いた物なのに削除されてしまったという暴挙は、どう考えても納得出来る物ではありません。もちろん、「File:現在の折居社・由来の説明看板.jpg」まで削除されてしまうと言う状況は断じてあってはならない物と考えています。

以上の点をふまえ、File:折居社・由来の説明看板.jpgに関しては速やかに削除撤回を行うべきと考えておりますので、即刻実行して頂きたいと思います。

なお、許諾書類のPDFの掲載が必要であれば、プライバシーを配慮した上での掲載は行う方向で考えています。

--BATACHAN (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Miya, Whym, Yasu, and Y.haruo: can you help us here responding this request? Ankry (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
@BATACHAN: , please read our reply to your OTRS mail (Ticket:2017121010003791), and follow its advice.
@BATACHAN: さん、COM:OTRSへのメールを拝見しました。2017年12月17日に こちらの担当者から 返信（確認質問）が届いているはずですので、どうぞ お読みいただき、ご対応ください。--miya (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Stars of our future - summer 1998.pdf

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Starsofourfuture_summer 1998.pdf. This is a scanned copy of a local magazine published by Connectiv and Morning star publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoachMHall (talk • contribs) 16:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is no mention of a Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-4.0 license on any page in the pdf file. How can other's verify that the publisher has licensed this 1998 magazine under a Creative Commons license? Thuresson (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Money of India

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Can we now undelete Commons:Deletion requests/Money of India2 and Commons:Deletion requests/Money of India. If {{GODL-India}} applies to all works made by the Indian government, it also should apply to banknotes, isn't? The Indian Penal Code 489E prohibits "making or using documents resembling currency-notes or bank-notes". I would interpret that as "printed documents". What do you think? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The prohibition of counterfeiting seems a Non-copyright restriction to me. On the other hand, the exemptions mentioned in the GODL template may play a role here: "The license does not cover the following kinds of data: a. personal information; b. data that is non-shareable and/or sensitive; c. names, crests, logos and other official symbols of the data provider(s); d. data subject to other intellectual property rights, including patents, trade-marks and official marks; e. military insignia; f. identity documents; and g. any data that should not have been publicly disclosed for the grounds provided under section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005." - Jcb (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
I agree that this is problematic. The portrait of Gandhi that is shown on all recent banknotes may be out of copyright, but the lion crest and other logos don't seem to be covered by the GODL. De728631 (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Do you mean Category:Lion Capital of Ashoka? There is no copyright issue with that. The only copyright issue would be the modern rendering of the banknote design, but that's obviously either made by Indian government employees, or a work of hire. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Presentador en Quién quiere ser millonario (2001) 2.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

La foto fue tomada para el autor, cuando estaba presentando el programa y no es parte del trabajo de otra persona.

--Atulipano (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)AtulipanoReply

The photo was taken for the author, when he was presenting the program and it is not part of another person's work.
 
translator: Google via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Taller de Escritura Creativa en Bachillerato Artístico, Rivera, Uruguay (2015).jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Buenas tardes.

La foto fue tomada para Andres Tulipano con su dispositivo, al terminar el taller.

Será utilizada en publicaciones relativas a su persona.

Muchas gracias

--Atulipano (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)AtulipanoReply

  •   Oppose Media at Commons need to be free for anyone to use for any purpose. So a permission that is limited to use for publications referring to Andres Tulipano is insufficient. We need a free permission from the copyright holder sent by email via COM:OTRS. The copyright holder in most cases is also the photographer and not the subject depicted in the photo. In this case, the image is credited to a certain Riveiro, Javier in the file's metadata. De728631 (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Undelete: Urdu poetry translation is not violating copy right

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Nasir Kazmi Poetry Examples Translation in Urdu Edit has translated poetry listed in the article which has already had appropriate referencing attached. Example of Urdu poetry is best displayed in Urdu language as is the case for so many thousands of other articles referring to other languages. Deleting a translation of appropriately sourced material is wrong and unjust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukhsanachoudhry (talk • contribs) 23:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Oppose I suppose this request is about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Najm us saqib wikipedia.pdf. The original text of the document can apparently be found here. First of all, at Commons we do not keep PDF copies or derivatives of Wiki-style articles even if the text is freely licensed. Commons is a media repository and not meant to host your own writings or other online texts. This document is not in the project scope of Commons. Moreover, the PDF contains at least one non-free portrait photo (top left), and also the extracted lyrics and texts are copyrighted and non-free and cannot be kept at Commons without permission from the original author and translator. This is not about missing sources but copyright infringement. De728631 (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Vidikasa.JPEG

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My personal photo. Бандурист (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Björn Hagström with Wikimedia Sverige.png and File:Banafshe Hejazi with Wikimedia Sverige.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Please undelete the above mentioned images. OTRS permissions (in Swedish) sent to permissions-sv wikimedia.org for the photos the derivatives are based on. I'll make sure proper attribution is added when they are undeleted. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done and OTRS-pending added; seems credible. --Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Opps, sorry Josve05a, seems we have answered at the same time. --Túrelio (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
I would have prefered to keep them deleted until an OTRS agent handles the ticket. There is no reason to handle the situation differently because a Wikimedia chapter is involved. To the contrary, it's disappointing that a Wikimedia chapter is giving the bad example in the first place. Axel Pettersson, please refrain from uploading files without permission from the author in the future. Jcb (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Have it your way Jcb, but please assume some good faith. Of course we had permission from both the authors and the people in the photos to use the images, as they were used in a campaign. Of course we should also have provided an OTRS ticket at the time of upload, and I'm sorry that we didn't do that. No extra handling is asked for, and now we've taken the steps to ensure everything is in order. As soon as an agent gets around to the permissions (sent in on the 25th and 26nd), I'm sure the tickets will be updated. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:David Six - Solo - Sofiensäle to undelete.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Dear colleagues,

I'd like to request undeletion of the file File:David Six - Solo - Sofiensäle.jpg.

an email to PERMISSIONS - WIKI COMMONS with the ticket:2018061410002991 has been sent on 14th of July.

please find the email below!

Best regards!

David Six Copyright holder 14th of June 2018

File:David Six - Solo - Sofiensäle.jpg

Piano Solo Sofiensäle – 1939.jpeg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderlust7315 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Wanderlust7315: The file will be undeleted when the permission is validated. Please be patient, there is a backlog. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
  •   Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 24 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. @Wanderlust7315: Did you tag the file {{subst:OP}} as instructed at OTRS and COM:CONSENT?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is MY CAR.. why am I being accused of copyrigh when this is MY OWN CAR!? File:1105863-1920x1080--DesktopNexus.com-.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

1105863-1920x1080--DesktopNexus.com-.jpg IS MY OWN CAR.. why are you accusing me of copyright! and why did my page get deleted?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camarosource (talk • contribs) 11:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The filename implies that the image was taken from DesktopNexus.com, and it can also be found at Pinterest without a free licence. The one at DesktopNexus was also uploaded by a user named Camarosource, but we get lots of impostors every day who claim to be the authors of images when they are not. Therefore we have a policy that "new" free licences for images that have been published elsewhere before need to be verified by the copyright holder. The easiest way to undelete your image over here, would be a post by you at DesktopNexus where you grant a Creative Commons share-alike 4.0 licence for this photo like you did here. Alternatively, you may send an email to permissions-commons(at)wikimedia.org, but this will take several weeks to be processed. De728631 (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:20424297 979538542187643 1384011689651761332 o-760x1139.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This image is made by me. I'm working for Touch Magazine. I am a photographer and photo/video editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0rangeq (talk • contribs) 14:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This file has not yet been deleted, but please send a permission by email from your professional email account to verify the licence. This should also include File:Coperta Touch Magazine.jpg and other uploads by you that were marked as missing permission. See COM:OTRS for details. Once you have done so, please add {{OTRS pending}} to each of the file pages. File:Coperta Touch Magazine.jpg will be undeleted once the permission has been approved, but this will take several weeks. De728631 (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Aozora avanti 001.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: 著作権侵害はない 高畠裕輔 (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Images concerning Theres Cassini

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

File:Theres Cassini, 2018.jpg

Theres Cassini und ich haben bereits zum 2 Mal eine entsprechende Urheberrechtserklärung abgegeben --Rico Steiden (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Theres Cassini, Realität, The Model.jpg

Theres Cassini, die Künstlerin und ich haben bereits 2 mal eine Urheberrechtserklärung übermittelt. --Rico Steiden (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Theres Cassini, CASSINIS LICHTSPEISEN.jpg, File:Theres Cassini, Möglichkeiten oder noch nicht geborene Wirklichkeiten.jpg, File:Theres Cassini, Glühend Eis.jpg, File:Theres Cassini, MOOS, RHYTIDIADELPHUS.jpg

Es wurden bereits von der Künstlerin und von mir mehrfach eine Urheberrechtserklärung übermittelt. Ich bitte daher um eine Wiederherstellung der Dateien. Danke und beste Grüße --Rico Steiden (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Theres Cassini, CASSINIS LICHTSPEISEN.jpg, File:Theres Cassini, Möglichkeiten oder noch nicht geborene Wirklichkeiten.jpg, File:Theres Cassini, Glühend Eis.jpg, File:Theres Cassini, MOOS, RHYTIDIADELPHUS.jpg

Es wurden bereits von der Künstlerin und von mir mehrfach eine Urheberrechtserklärung übermittelt. Ich bitte daher um eine Wiederherstellung der Dateien. Danke und beste Grüße --Rico Steiden (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

  •   Oppose Hallo Rico, bitte habt noch ein wenig Geduld. Die Emails mit diesen Erklärungen werden von einer sehr begrenzten Anzahl freiwilliger Helfer bearbeitet, und die Warteschlange liegt zurzeit bei 99 Tagen. Sobald die Genehmigungen geprüft und für gültig befunden wurden, werden die Bilder umgehend wieder freigeschaltet. De728631 (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

File:Olympian fire thief.png

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

For unknown reasons Jcb has been constantly deleting File:Olympian fire thief.png even though it has repeatedly been demonstrated not to be a copyright violation. No valid response has been given. I believe its time for a formal undeletion request that will hopefully end this issue, and also an unblocking of the files uploader, who has only uploaded this one image in a few versions and was blocked for uploading it after it was wrongfully deleted. A discussion can be seen on this page w:WP:DINOART under the section "Pyroraptor". IJReid (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

As said, let the uploader contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Why should the uploader need to contact OTRS? There is no valid reason I can find to assume the artwork is not the uploaders own. A reverse image search came up with no similar results; requested fixes were completed to the exact same standard and quality as the rest of the work; the editor has repeatedly stated it is their own work. IJReid (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
More discussion can be found on Jcbs talk page User_talk:Jcb#Unwarranted_deletion_of_File:Olympian_fire_thief.png? where all the things I've pointed out above were mentioned (and more). IJReid (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
  Comment There was no reason for a speedy deletion, as I can't find any evidence of a copyright violation. One may question that the file is in scope, but a proper DR should be use for that. I unblocked the uploader. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
I agree with IJReid and Yann here. Jcb, there is no point in sending this to OTRS. OTRS can do only two things: verify the user's identity and have them certify that they release it under a free license. The former is useless, as this work is apparently unpublished outside of Commons. The latter is redundant, as they agreed to our terms when uploading. OTRS is horribly backlogged and is a huge time sink for volunteers, so let's not involve it unless necessary. There are other polite ways to say "piss off." Guanaco (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what is a descriptive heading, but here is the image in question File:2015 Tatiana Gelfand.jpg

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I keep getting my image deleted. I am getting this messages:

File source is not properly indicated: File:Tatiana Gelfand.jpg العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | +/− Warning sign This media may be deleted. A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Tatiana Gelfand.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

I have no idea what to do and there is no person I can get in touch with.

Can someone please help me?


Thank you

Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikven96 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Erikven96: That message concerns File:Tatiana Gelfand.jpg, and was sent by Patrick Rogel, who can be reached via User talk:Patrick Rogel. It appears that Patrick's concern is that the file is low-resolution, has no EXIF metadata, and is attributed to the subject without mention of a timer. These are all classic hallmarks of the copyright violations we see here on a daily basis. So who is the real photographer? Can you upload the high-resolution original version with intact EXIF metadata? Did you get it directly from the subject, or from https://i.vimeocdn.com/portrait/4838176_640x640.webp ? Also, what is that text you put at File:2015 Tatiana Gelfand.jpg?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply


Category:Grain coupons of China

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Grain couponsin China were abolished so no copyright existed. The pics are PD-China and in used. including:

File:1969年辽宁省粮票(0.1市斤).JPG
File:Liangpiao.jpg
File:Liangpiao1.jpg
File:Liangpiao12.jpg
File:Liangpiao2.jpg
File:Liangpiao22.jpg
File:Liangpiao3.jpg
File:Liangpiao32.jpg
File:Ticket for commissariat.JPG
--Fanghong (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=308545175"