Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests
_2022.jpg){kind=link}
_MET_DP119145.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Current requests
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)）
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia.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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
Another aspect to consider is how publication is defined. For example, in this academic article about Russian copyright law, it is stated that an author, transferring a work to another by agreement, gives consent to publication, and thus the work can be considered published. This means that if Troshkin transferred his negatives to his employer (Izvestiya), the works would be legally considered published. Since all photos in question are of a professional nature, there is no reason to assume that Troshkin kept any of these photographs in his personal possession and did not transfer them to his employer. Considering this, then all of his photos would have been legally published when he transferred them to his employer, that is, definitely before his death in 1944, and all these photographs would be firmly public domain. Kges1901 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Term publication (обнародование or опубликование in Russian, and these are two different term in the Russian copyright) is defined in the paragraph one and two of part 1 of article 1268 of the Civil Code. Consent to publication is not publication (right for exercise of some action is not action). And mentioned resent discussion on the Ru-Wiki for orphan works (where I was the main speaker) does not matter for Troshkin's works - author of photos (Troshkin) is known. Alex Spade (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
At the same time if there is a source for original of photo and its reverse side, and such original (reverse side) is marked by author name and a year, then this year can be considered as year of publication according to the last paragraph of article 475 of the Soviet Russian Civil Code. Alex Spade (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- In terms of copyright I am specifically discussing the nuances of обнародование because the term contains a broader meaning than simply опубликование, and the expiration of copyright (if work is posthumously published) is calculated from обнародование and not опубликование of a work – regarding photographs, that public display of a work counts as обнародование while not опубликование in the strict sense, therefore opening broader possibilities for the release of a work during Troshkin's lifetime.
- Regarding originals, another aspect is that at least some of Troshkin's photographs were sent into TASS and copyright thus transferred to TASS, falling under PD-Russia under the TASS aspect. For example this photograph was marked on the back with TASS copyright stamp even though Troshkin was an Izvestiya correspondent.
- In any case presence of markings on the back is the most hopeful approach to this problem of posthumous copyright since any photograph/negative with a description had to have been marked on the back with a caption and name of the author, since Troshkin's photographs presumably entered into a centralized group of photographs cleared for publication, as his photographs were not just published in Izvestiya, but in Krasnaya Zvezda, Vechernyaya Moskva, other newspapers, and books (for example a large quantity of his photographs taken during the Battle of Khalkhin Gol appeared in this 1940 book without mention of his name. Secondly finding an exact date for negatives such as this example would have been impossible if there was no marking on the back. The fact that exact dates taken are available for negatives indicates that they were also marked in some way with captions, dates and names of author. Examples of such author name and year markings on the back of a Troshkin photograph include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Kges1901 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, обнародование is wider than опубликование, but the fact (and the date) of обнародование must be proved (for example for some painting "This painting was created in 1923 and was shown on ZYX-art exhibition in 1925, see reference link").
- Yes, if photowork is marked by TASS (no matter by TASS only or by TASS+name_of_real_photograph), this photowork is TASS-work. Alex Spade (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Undeletion of individual photographs
- @Yann: Undelete File:Артисты МХАТ СССР имени Горького возвращаются из Парижа со Всемирной выставки.jpg. Published in Izvestiya, 1 September 1937. Kges1901 (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
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)
Closed DR discussions
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Awards of Rostekhnadzor
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Medals of Rostekhnadzor
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Medals of Ministry of Sport (Russia)
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Awards of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia
Current DR discussions
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Russian Federation Investigative Committee medals
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Medals of Ministry of Transport (Russia)
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)
Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Two ConventionExtension screenshots
- File:Conference Dashboard - ConventionExtension.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Conference Setup - ConventionExtension.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
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)
- Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- For better or worse, we have allowed photos of illegal graffiti by policy regardless of FoP laws -- but we prefer using the FoP tags, or PD tags, if those apply rather than relying on that rationale. If this looks like "legal graffiti", i.e. murals, then we should not allow it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Along with a few others that have been undeleted, this was also taken from my phone... by me Big ooga booga mf (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
An Bildern menschlicher, männlicher Achselbehaarung dürfte es nichts verwerfliches geben. Auch andere haben dazu Bilder eingestellt. Marc66 (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Права на фотографию пренадлежат Николаю Танцереву. Использование этой фотографии не противоречит авторским правам. Просьба восстановить удаленный файл.
78.117.234.144 19:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose That's not a reason to restore this. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Танцерев Микола.jpg in which the uploader admits that he is not the photographer and the VRT process is named for him. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The photo was taken in the 1870s and 1880s in the Russian Empire. According to the template:PD-RusEmpire, it is now in the public domain.--Leonst (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Support Looks like a 19th Century published image to me. Abzeronow (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't understand what you wrote about the translation and what the Russian language has to do with it. This is a photo of a Ukrainian writer in his youth. Leonst (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like a drawing, not a photo. Which is the source and who is the illustrator? Thuresson (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is a photo. The source is indicated in the description.--Leonst (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The stated source goes to a website that shows current weather in Poltava. Is there evidence that this is a photo? Thuresson (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is a photo. The source is indicated in the description.--Leonst (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support Apologies. I saw "Russian" in the first line above, and used the Google Russian translator. The Google Ukrainian translator translates the filename as Mykola Filyanskyi, who lived 1873-1938. I agree that he looks young, so this is probably a 19th century image and therefore PD-OLD. It is always helpful to include information beyond the name of the subject, as mistakes of this kind can be avoided with a little more information. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Done: See above. @Leonst: Please add categories. --Yann (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Files deleted by Taivo
Please restore the following pages:
- File:PBS logo 2019.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Kgtf2019.jpg.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:KMOS PBS logo.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:NMPBS 2019 logo.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:PBS logo.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: The design is likely above COM:TOO US however per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SergioCarino the file acually became free through formalities so therefore these qualify for {{PD-US-1978-89}}. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:PBS 1971 id.svg which regards an older variant of PBS's logo, also resulting in keep. Jonteemil (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to @The Squirrel Conspiracy and @Taivo as deleting admins. Jonteemil (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Taivo Their complexity has nothing to do with why they were kept. Have you really read the discussions? Jonteemil (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am already sleepy, there's almost midnight where I live. Argument is that they are old US logos published without notice. If IronGargoyle said that, then I agree with him. Then the logos can be restored and licenses corrected. Taivo (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, perfect. Jonteemil (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am already sleepy, there's almost midnight where I live. Argument is that they are old US logos published without notice. If IronGargoyle said that, then I agree with him. Then the logos can be restored and licenses corrected. Taivo (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Taivo Their complexity has nothing to do with why they were kept. Have you really read the discussions? Jonteemil (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a photo of me. It was taken by Shayne Gray and I have written permission from him to use it.--Miriam Khalil (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Where does the Creative Commons license come from? Thuresson (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I don't have access to the deleted file, but it seems it was re-uploaded today under a different name File:Miriam-Khalil Portrait2.jpg. Günther Frager (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is a different photo of the same subject. Thuresson (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 3 days.
The email from Shayne Gray to VRT should name both images. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
_2022.jpg){kind=link}
_2022.jpg){kind=link}
Buenas administradores,por favor restaura la foto ,ese fue generalizado (creado) por el sector público (Alcaldia) como indica el último párrafo de la licencia {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} según este link AbchyZa22 09:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
_2022.jpg){kind=link}
- @AbchyZa22: el último párrafo no es de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual sino de la Ley de Trabajo. El término "dominio público" es para indicar que la propiedad intelectual quedan en manos del estado y no del trabajador estatal que la generó. La ley venezolana no usa el término "dominio público" para referirse a las obras que no están protegidas por derechos de autor, sino para los bienes del estado que están destinados al uso público o para brindar un servicio público. Puedes leer la Ley Orgánica de Bienes Públicos [8] donde se definen los términos "dominio público" y "dominio privado". Günther Frager (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Al igual que logos el Usuario Administrador Taivo dice claramente en este link:The last paragraph of license says: "Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector or financed through public funds that generates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, while maintaining the authors' rights to public recognition." And this is CoA of local government. License seems plausible. El sector público es totalmente ineligible del copyright. AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @AbchyZa22: de nuevo el término "dominio público" no tiene el mismo sentido que nosotros le damos en Commons, lea la ley que te cité donde define que es "dominio público" en la legislación venezolana. El párrafo que se cita menciona propiedad intelectual que incluye no solo obras artísticas y literarias sino a las patentes. De hecho el título del párrafo es «Invenciones, innovaciones y mejoras en el sector público». Si usáramos la definición de "obras sin derechos" los científicos que trabajen en universidades públicas no podrían patentar nada porque sus invenciones estarían en el "dominio público", lo que es claramente falso porque los científicos son evaluados por sus de publicaciones y sus patentes. Günther Frager (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wait a minute Gracias por la opinión ,pero hay que esperar si los administradores van a dar la opinión. AbchyZa22 (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @AbchyZa22: de nuevo el término "dominio público" no tiene el mismo sentido que nosotros le damos en Commons, lea la ley que te cité donde define que es "dominio público" en la legislación venezolana. El párrafo que se cita menciona propiedad intelectual que incluye no solo obras artísticas y literarias sino a las patentes. De hecho el título del párrafo es «Invenciones, innovaciones y mejoras en el sector público». Si usáramos la definición de "obras sin derechos" los científicos que trabajen en universidades públicas no podrían patentar nada porque sus invenciones estarían en el "dominio público", lo que es claramente falso porque los científicos son evaluados por sus de publicaciones y sus patentes. Günther Frager (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Al igual que logos el Usuario Administrador Taivo dice claramente en este link:The last paragraph of license says: "Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector or financed through public funds that generates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, while maintaining the authors' rights to public recognition." And this is CoA of local government. License seems plausible. El sector público es totalmente ineligible del copyright. AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Done: Como obra de la administración pública de Venezuela, está en el dominio público. Los resquicios sobre "dominio público", "dominio privado", etc., han sido discutidos. No es una discusión definitiva en todo caso, la que puede continuar en la página correspondiente de la plantilla PD-VenezuelaGov. --Bedivere (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
_2022.jpg){kind=link}
Request temporary undeletion
- Reason: This file was in use on an encyclopedia project called Wikikids, where it was attached to an article concerning the Penis. There is no local copy to use, nor am I able to find an alternative to this image, labelled in the Dutch language. Could I please request temporary undeletion, to allow me to download a copy, and upload it to Wikikids directly? Thank you.
DaneGeld (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Please restore the following pages:
- File:John Tower 1989 Uncropped.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: I have searched through the copyright records and there is no record of the creator Wally McNamee ever having put copyright and this photo even if the date is wrong on getty would still be before march 1989 as the tower hearings were concluded in February. KlaudeMan (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Oppose During that period, registration was not required -- notice would suffice. Therefore in order for it to be restored, you must show an instance where the image was published without notice before March 1, 1989. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
So, if you don't know, my image has been deleted. I have no idea why, if anyone is online, tell me why. Why, why, why? Hmmm?
It was a recreation of a profile picture of a neo-Nazi on the internet, and it was not like I was supporting nazis!
But, if there is any other reason, tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sondroop (talk • contribs) 16:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC) (UTC)
- Oppose Personal image by non contributor. Out of scope. Yann (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- WAIT WHAT?! So, if that is the case, how should I fix it? Sondroop (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done. Every active contributor has right to upload some personal images, but contributions must come first and some personal images after that. You have no edits in mainspace, so you are not allowed to create a userpage and you are not allowed to upload personal files. Taivo (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dear Wikimedia Administrators,
I am writing to request the undeletion of the Wikimedia Image titled Arman the ChotoBhai that was recently deleted . I believe the page meets Wikipedia's notability and content guidelines.
--Arman the ChotoBhai (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose We don't host personal images of non-contributors. Günther Frager (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Per Günther Frager -- all Google hits are self promotion, as is this. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Cleanup after professional wrestling magazine DRs
Refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Sismarinho, which I initiated last year, and Commons:Deletion requests/Professional wrestling magazines, which I initiated in June and was recently closed.
- In the first DR mentioned above, some of the deleted files need to be revisited:
- File:Tom Zenk 1986.jpg
- File:Road Warriors 1986.jpg
- File:Road Warriors Hawk 1986.jpg
- File:Road Warriors Animal 1986.jpg
- File:Masked Superstar 1984.jpg
- File:Adrian Adonis 1982.jpg
- File:Adrian Adonis 1986.jpg
- File:The Blade Runners tag team.jpg
- File:Boris Zhukov.jpg
- File:Velvet McIntyre 1983.jpg
- File:Ole Anderson.jpg
- The five-year rule which dominated discussion of the second DR wasn't clear to me at the time of the first DR. The closing admin deleted everything from those publications whose copyrights were registered without regard for the five-year rule, which was never acknowledged. Since I was still in the dark as a result, the second DR wound up being much larger than it needed to be. Anyway, most everything above appears to have been published prior to fall 1987 based on the dates given in the file, but I have no way of knowing for certain as the files were deleted. I'm guessing the Adrian Adonis photos accompanied a story on his death, which means they were published in 1988 and therefore ineligible for undeletion.
- File:John Holt 1982 (cropped).png was deleted by Túrelio as the discussion was ongoing, despite the fact that parent image File:Tampa Bay Buckanners softball charity game 1982.png and all sibling crops were deemed PD and kept.
- File:Paul Jones and Ric Flair.jpeg and File:Bruiser Brody vs José González 1976.jpg were mistakenly kept, as both were published in 1988. The uploader entered the date taken in the date field, as it was known and differed from the publication date, which is as it should be. Fault both the uploader for providing only a URL and not detailed provenance, and the closing admin for going through the motions and not giving it further thought.
- It was a large DR. Yes, I will delete those momentarily. Checking each file individually was not an option for me, but you are correct that they should have been marked as 1988. Abzeronow (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- The closing admin bifurcated the requests between two categories and deleted everything in the second category. Please review the following:
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- I provided further commentary as I did further research following the initial posting, which showed that this particular issue was published in the U.S. and bore a defective copyright notice. The notice said "All rights reserved by Champion Sports Publishing Corp. 1972". This can be verified here. See my earlier comment about the closing admin going through the motions and not giving it a whole lot of thought.
- I checked again, and yes, I should have caught that. Undeleted. I wouldn't have deleted that if those were crossed out. Abzeronow (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I also provided extensive commentary in that DR about the difficulty of determining exact publication dates and how it applies to the 1987 cutoff date for copyright protection. Can we get clarification on that? It's one more thing that I don't believe was given much thought. It would be helpful to the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling in determining resources available to them for expanding coverage of the topic area. It would also be helpful in correcting the boilerplate text which accompanied the PD templates, which falsely claimed the circumstances under which PD was claimed and resulted in the deletions which did occur. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
_MET_DP119145.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_MET_DP119145.jpg){kind=link}
== [[:File:Terracotta column.krater (bowl for mixing wine and water) MET DP119145.jpg]] has been removed from the detected page. Please help me in using this illustration according to the rules of Wikipedia. Thank you. ==
Dear Sirs,
I was trying to use the wikimedia common images to add a picture on a draft article. Unfortunately I am not so able to use all the commands of VisualEdit and I probably made a mistake. I have removed the image from the draft article, however. I kindly ask any editor or controller to help me to use, if it is allowed, in a lawful way the image of wikimedia depository. Thank you. Francesco Bonini — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeracleonGelensis (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
_MET_DP119145.jpg){kind=link}
Done but not undeleted: Fixed accidental edit on en:User:HeracleonGelensis/sandbox and replaced dupe File:Terracotta column.krater (bowl for mixing wine and water) MET DP119145.jpg by File:Terracotta column-krater (bowl for mixing wine and water) MET DP119145.jpg. --Achim55 (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
_MET_DP119145.jpg){kind=link}
_MET_DP119145.jpg){kind=link}
Hi everyone. I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of File:Santa Croce Foscolo.jpg, deleted in 2013 after this DR. The image depicts the statue of it:Ugo Foscolo, completed in 1939 by en:Antonio Berti (sculptor) and posed on his grave. The sculpture was commissioned by the Ministry for National Education in 1935 (see here and here). Therefore it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1960, way before the URAA, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mlýnské nábřeží, ruské reklamy.jpg, arguments against deletion were not taken into account.--ŠJů (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose These posters contain a lot of copyrighted material, not only simple text. Yann (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose You can't have it both ways. If the posters are de minimis then all we have is a photo of a non-descript doorway which is out of scope. If the posters are the subject of the image, then the image infringes on their copyrights. Either way, we can't keep it. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Please restore the following pages:
- File:Fort Massu Timia.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Reason: deleted as claimed to not comply with restrictive, non-commercial FoP of Niger. However, it is an anonymous work (no named designer) that is in PD since 2022. Per w:fr:Fort Massu (translated using Google): "It was built from 1951 under the authority of Jacques Massu, then commander of the 4th AOF brigade in Niamey." Applicable tag: {{PD-old-architecture}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: We don't apply URAA for architecture, do we? Since in US law, there was no copyright for architecture. Yann (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Support Oops -- right you are, architecture from before 1991 does not have a USA copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion the logo of the school was a composition of text and the heraldic symbol of the Kanton of Zurich, which is used in every publication (e.g. https://www.zh.ch/de.html) As I understand it, heraldic symbols of Swiss entities governed by law ("öffentlich-rechtliche Körperschaften") are Public Domain.--Rocky187 (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Images related to Wikidata
- File:Solidest fail (2).jpg
- File:Soldiest xd 3.jpg
- File:Manske fail (2).jpg
- File:Soldiest fail.jpg
- File:Simon Villeneuve fail.jpg
- File:Solidest xd.jpg
- File:Solidest fail2.png
- File:Solidest fail.jpg
- File:Solidest fail.png
- File:Soldiest xd 2.jpg
- File:Soldiest xd.jpg
- File:Nurni fail.jpg
- File:Multichill fail.jpg
- File:Manske fail.jpg
- File:Epidosis fail.jpg
- File:Epidosis fail (2).jpg
- File:Emu genial.png
- File:Emus fail.jpg
- File:Emu mnm fail.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
The removal of these files was an error. These images are being used as evidence in a Wikidata discussion to highlight a potential misuse of the platform. As simple screenshots of Wikidata tools, they are directly relevant to a Wikimedia project. The accusation of vandalism is unfounded and the removal of these files is both unfair and hinders constructive discussion within the Wikimedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.37.233.37 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Out of scope images by globally locked account. IP blocked for block evasion. Yann (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Dear Wikimedia Commons Team
On behalf of the Merz Akademie, I would like to ask you politely to restore the above picture. The photo of Miss Barbara M. Eggert was taken by Anja Weber, photographer and professor for photography at Merz Akademie on behalf of Merz Akademie on the occasion of the announcement of her appointment as Rector.
I found out about the deletion because Ms. Eggert recently pointed out to me that the picture had been removed.
I will immediately ask the photographer, Ms. Prof. Anja Weber, to send an email to the Volunteer Response Team (permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org), as suggested, allowing the use of the photo under a free license.
Kind regards from Stuttgart Wikisuperheroine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisuperheroine (talk • contribs) 12:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 3 days. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
This is my image and is free to use by all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthstar1969 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC) (UTC)
- @Earthstar1969: we need an explicit permission, please follow the instructions in COM:VRT. Günther Frager (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Please restore the file for permission verification for Ticket:2024090910009244. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 14:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Please restore the file for permission verification for Ticket:2024090910010545. –TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 14:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Done: @Tanbiruzzaman, please update permissions. Regards, Aafi (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
