Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Current requests

[edit]

File:Nahashogyoseimon.png

[edit]

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

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

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

@たいやき部屋: Hi, You were asked to upload the original image with EXIF data. Why can't you do that? Yann (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where should I upload my original images?
Can't I use the image edited for personal information protection? たいやき部屋 (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I understood what you were saying.
Upload it the appropriate way. たいやき部屋 (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can close this. A new file is at File:NahaCommercialHighSchool.jpg, and I think that makes undeletion unnecessary. whym (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia.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

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Undeletion of individual photographs

[edit]

Russian department awards

[edit]

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

Closed DR discussions

Current DR discussions

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

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

Two ConventionExtension screenshots

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

File:Каракачански носии од Демир-каписко.png

[edit]

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)[reply]

Cleanup after professional wrestling magazine DRs

[edit]

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.

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.
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • The Ole Anderson file illustrates your point. "Fall 1987". I don't feel comfortable restoring it unless we get more specific info on publication. The Adrian Adonis files were published in the 1988 Annual, so those are copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bmsw-logo-short-rgb-b.jpg

[edit]

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)[reply]

Bulgarian Parliament files thread 3

[edit]

Please keep this open (there are still many files to undelete, and Restore A Lot doesn't work on some pages). Abzeronow (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved
Another batch of around 50 tomorrow, please keep open. Abzeronow (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will undelete another batch of around 50 tomorrow. Abzeronow (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another batch of around 50 tomorrow. Abzeronow (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More (batch of approx. 50) tomorrow. Abzeronow (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More files

[edit]

More files. Yann (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assist, Yann. Abzeronow (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
next batch Abzeronow (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
next batch. Abzeronow (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
next batch of around 50. Abzeronow (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carla giovane.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Sono in possesso della foto originale Mirolandoni (talk) 08:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Who is the photographer? What is the date of this picture? I can't find a copy on the Net. Yann (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, no response to relevant questions. Thuresson (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Balletto Arcobaleno.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Own work Mirolandoni (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose COM:DW for the text, however the picture may be {{PD-Italy}}. What is the date of this newspaper clipping? Yann (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, no response to relevant question. Thuresson (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mlýnské nábřeží, ruské reklamy.jpg

[edit]

Arguments against deletion were again not taken into account.

The photo depicts a portable metal board of a travel office, with many similar leaflets containing large color titles in Russian (suppossed to be simple non-literary texts, without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface) and illustrative photos of the destinations offered (indistinct due to the proportions in the whole composition and resolution of the photo, apparently De minimis par excellence). The subject of the photograph is the fact that the Bohemian city of Karlovy Vary is partially Russian-language. This is an encyclopedically significant fact and the photos documenting this fact are in scope of Commons.

  • Yann argued "These posters contain a lot of copyrighted material, not only simple text." He ignored the arguments, that the texts (titles of the leaflets) have not sufficiently creative authorship and that the included photos are small, indistinct, de minimis. He did not specify which elements or aspects of the leaflets he considered copyrightable and why he disagree with the contention that the included photographs, given the size, composition, resolution and subject matter of the overall photograph, are "De minimis".
  • Jameslwoodward wrote: "If the posters are de minimis then all we have is a photo of a non-descript doorway which is out of scope." This reasoning does not respond to my arguments. My argument was that the headlines of the leaflets are non-creative PD-Texts, and the photographs contained in the leaflets are "de minimis" in relation to the whole composition and subject of the photography. The composition of individual leaflets also cannot be considered an original creative work either.
  • Jameslwoodward wrote: "If the posters are the subject of the image, then the image infringes on their copyrights." Again, an argument based on a false premise. The subject of the photo is the distinct headings of the leaflets, especially the language used, which is in scope as the subject of the photo. The headings are claimed to be not copyrightable, as simple texts without sufficiently creative authorship, in a general typeface. The only thing that could be copyrightable on those leaflets are the illustrative photos of the destinations, which are so small and indistinct in the overall composition that exactly correspond to the principle "de minimis", par excellence. (Btw., the rack itself could be also in scope.) --ŠJů (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I don't read the language, but there appear to be enough legible words there to have a copyright in the USA -- which only takes a single sentence or two. Also, many of the photographs are large enough so that they cannot be called de minimis. As I said, there is nothing in this image that is interesting that does not have a copyright as text or photos or both. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DPAG - Gartenreich Dessau-Wörlitz.jpg

[edit]

There was a misunderstanding in the DEL disc. was a misunderstanding. The painting was not done by her but by Christian August Günther who died over 200 years ago.6. Absatz Mrs. Heise put the words on it (web image). The painting makes 98 % of the stamp and the words are not art. After restoring, I will clearify the authorship(s). Thanks a lot, --Mateus2019 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mateus2019: There was no “misunderstanding” here, this simply was not mentioned at all in either the image description or the deletion request. After a bit of searching, I found the painting by Günther (which was apparently used to create the stamp) at Artnet here (file). The deleted file showing the stamp is of rather bad quality, there are better versions here and here. If you compare the painting and the stamp closely, you'll see that the stamp does not just show a (cropped) reproduction of Günther's painting, but rather a recreation presumably done by Hannelore Heise. There are subtle differences in colors (like an originally green dress which is now pink) and shapes (look at the shadows of the persons). The recreation is very close though. The question is: Is it that close that the recreation has no creativity at all? In that case we could restore the file. Else not. What do other users here think? --Rosenzweig τ 17:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the images Rosenzweig came up with, I tend to fall on the side of "new work is new copyright". It's close, but handwork like that tends to almost always get a new copyright, unlike a photograph, especially when it's distinguishable from the original. This is based on US law; I'm guessing this is German law, and I don't know how that system might rule on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Let's remember that in many countries (and in the USA before Bridgeman) even exact photographic copies have a copyright. I don't think a painted copy of an old master is free of copyright anywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment @Rosenzweig: closing verdict was "per nom". Nom was "Author died in 2021 per d:Q56122240 so will be PD in 2092 per 70 pma (2021+71)" -- so there in fact is truly a misunderstanding. Adding some slight shades to a painting is no biggy, meaning that minor edit does not really create a new threshold of originality. Just wanna point that out, thanks for understanding. Greetz from Munich (LG), --Mateus2019 (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Дмитров1.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this may be a test UNDEL case. Deleted through Commons:Deletion requests/File:Дмитров1.jpg, on the grounds that it contained one component image that was a violation of NoFoP-Russia for copyrighted public monuments.

RG72 gave an interesting case though, in 2019–20 concerning a postcard set, one of the constituent postcards contained an image of a monument in Yekaterinburg whose sculptor filed a copyright complaint (see Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Russia#NoFoP should be amended). The case reached the Russian Supreme Court, which denied the sculptor's complaint (essentially dismissed), because the involved monument was only depicted in one of the postcards of the set (the set is considered the entire reproduction, and the monument is not the main object of the whole reproduction because it was only depicted in one of the postcards). Perhaps while the original images should stay deleted, the montages or collages where those deleted images were being used should be restored, in light with this slightly-lenient ruling by the Russian court narrowing sculptors' economic rights. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping other participants of that CRT/Russia talkpage thread @Alexander Davronov@Alex Spade. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently (on June 25, 2024) the Yekaterinburg case and some similar cases were subject of trial in the Russian Constitutional Court (the highest court of the RF, higher than the Russian Supreme Court). See discussions in ru-community: 1st+2nd ones on Commons and 1st+2nd ones in Ru-wiki.
In short: the right for usage of copyrighted work for informational and similar purposes (even with some profit earning) without copyrightholder permission granted by article 1274 of the Civil Code of the RF is higher than noncommercial/limited rights granted by part 1 of article 1276. Nevertheless, that is not enough for Commons - article 1274 is the Russian analog of fair use doctrine from the US copyright legislation, which is deprecated on Commons. Alex Spade (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Spade how about the possibility of the montages/collages being lawful based on the court ruling, since the monuments themselves are not the main objects of the collages/montages. Similar analogy to the court ruling itself that concerns a set of postcards, even if one of the postcards unambiguously shows the monument itself as its sole depiction, the entire postcard set is lawful (the monument is not the main object of the entire postcard set) and the sculptor's claims dismissed, if I can understand RG72's comment in the CRT talk page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There is a simple answer to this. We routinely require that each of the individual images in a montage is present on Commons, freely licensed. We do this in order that we can check the copyright status of each image. Obviously, the offending image in a situation like this cannot be present separately on Commons, so we can't keep a montage containing it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo Concejo Municipal Monseñor José Vicente de Unda (Portuguesa).jpg

[edit]

Buenas administradores, por favor restaure el logo del Concejo Municipal ,ese logo fue generalizado (creado) por el sector público según el último párrafo de la licencia en Venezuela {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} según este link AbchyZa22 08:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tel Aviv Ibex Bingham Cup 2024 Squad.jpg

[edit]

This is my own work. The reason the photo appears on social media is simple: it's because I posted it there myself, and provided it to others to post. I am a member of the rugby club pictured and the photo was taken by me, with my camera, with a tripod and timer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilddesertgoat (talk • contribs) 21:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilddesertgoat: if you where the photographer please follow the instructions in COM:VRT. We require an explicit permission for images previously published in the web. Günther Frager (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schetsplan restauratie Vredeveld (december 1956).jpg

[edit]

Deze afbeelding valt onder het rechtmatig gebruik van het beeldcitaat volgens de Nederlandse wetgeving: https://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/citeren/beeldcitaat/ Het is niet bedoeld voor commerciële doeleinden, de afbeelding dient ter illustratie van de werkwijze van de architect en ook is de kwaliteit van de afbeelding duidelijk inferieur aan de originele tekening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyRuijtenbeek (talk • contribs) 09:48, 16 September 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

@AnthonyRuijtenbeek: please avoid creating dozen of similar requests. If there are multiple files to be undeleted with the same rationale open a single request. Günther Frager (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose the licensing policy is quite clear, Common doesn't accept images under fair use or non-commercial licenses. Also derivative works are only allowed if the original work has a free license or it is in the public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: NC images are not permitted here. All Commons images must be free for any use anywhere by anybody. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr Pramod Sawant honouring the Pinto Martyrs.jpg

[edit]

Hi, this is a publicly available photo shared by the Chief Minister of Goa state on his profile on X. personally. This has also been covered by media houses. Refer links attached. This is in the public domain and should not be considered for deletion. https://x.com/DrPramodPSawant/status/1602565055752859648

If the politician has himself published this on X could you please clarify as per Indian laws how this isn't available for licensing

As per Indian laws this is for free licensing and is in the public domain as per your own Wikipedia policy.

Wikimedia Commons only accepts media

that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.

This is in the public domain in the source country of the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChangeDavid (talk • contribs) 12:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There is no known process in Indian copyright law where photos published by politicians are exempt from copyright; see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India. Thuresson (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Nonsense rationale. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion

[edit]

Hi

I noticed that the file "File:Rangpur Areal.jpg" was deleted, and I think it might have been a mistake. Could you please undelete it? This is the only high-quality drone shot of Rangpur city, and it really represents the city well.

Best, Cerium4B Cerium4B (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose No indication of free license at source per DR. Abzeronow (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Abzeronow. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Glezekas.jpg

[edit]

I own copyrights to the image! It is published on various website pages but I hold the original work, no copyright violation has been made. Requesting undeletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrichor2.0 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Petrichor2.0: if you are indeed the copyright holder, we need an explicit permission as it is already available on the web without a free license, see COM:VRT for instructions. Günther Frager (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chinchilla Café logo.svg

[edit]

Previously deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chinchilla Café logo.svg

Permission logged at Ticket:2024071610000019

This is the logo of Institution:Chinchilla Café

This organization is the source of concert photography including this collection. Commons needs the logo to identify the source of this institution as a contributor to Commons itself. Also, the organization meets notability requires in Wikidata.

Wikidata query

Bluerasberry (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mazbel and Minorax: The deletion nominator and closing admin. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: the file was tagged with missing permission and it was deleted after a week. That is the standard procedure. Someone submitted a permission for VRT, but it seems it was never accepted. Usually when a permission is accepted, a VRT member undeletes the file. The logo may be relevant, but if we don't have a permission form the copyright holder we cannot host it. Thus, I recommend you to ask about the ticket in the VRT noticeboard. Günther Frager (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Günther Frager. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SwenksFairyBee.jpg

[edit]

I accidentally marked this image on iNaturalist as CC-BY-NC a while back (which I just changed back to CC-BY). The image was deleted today as a result of that and I was not given any time to respond to the deletion request. Also how can I report the deleter? This was not a great experience and dissuades me from contributing in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corevette (talk • contribs) 22:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose https://web.archive.org/web/20230112052129/https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/133703334 states it is has the incompatible CC-NC license. Günther Frager (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just updated the photos to CC-BY. I didn't know there was a separate license for the photos than the observation Corevette (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating the licenses. Now, I  Support the request. Günther Frager (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Per the request. https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/133703334 says CC BY 4.0, under "Copyright Info". whym (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you click in the info of any of the photo, the license displayed is CC-BY-NC, see https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/227780987 and https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/227781002 Günther Frager (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just updated the photos to CC-BY Corevette (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Undeleted. Thank you for relicensing it. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Дейша Віра.jpg

[edit]

The photo was taken in the Russian Empire, the person in the photo was photographed at a fairly young age, precisely before 1917. According to the template:PD-RusEmpire, it is now in the public domain.--Leonst (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diatkine IFJ.jpeg

[edit]

Bonjour,

Cette affiche n’a pas de vocation promotionnelle. Je l’ai téléchargée dans le but de l’utiliser comme source de référence afin de démontrer l’envergure internationale du pianiste Jean-Nicolas Diatkine, pour lequel je rédige un article à sa demande. Il s’agit d’une archive datant de 2017 qui atteste de sa participation à des événements d’envergure mondiale. Cette affiche constitue donc une source vérifiable pour illustrer la portée de sa carrière. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Bro Symphonie (talk • contribs) 09:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is probably about File:Jean-Nicolas Diatkine en récital solo à Tokyo (2017).jpg, which is a copyrighted poster. The copyright belongs to the unknown designer and photographer. It cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hamzachowdhury2024.jpg

[edit]

This is hamza Chowdhury's current photo. I get this image from Leicester city football club Facebook page. And there is no copyright issue. So please restore this image. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mushfiqshafin26 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Photos from Facebook or Twitter doesn't have a free license. @Mushfiqshafin26: to undelete we need an explicit permission form the photographer, you may try contacting him. Günther Frager (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:gulda.jpg

[edit]

Please undelete gulda.jpg. The picture is free to be used. --Miagulda (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miagulda: could you provide evidence of your claim? Günther Frager (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=925472391"