Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests

[edit]

File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (19).jpg, File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (18).jpg, File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (16) 2.jpg

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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]

File:Binsudah.jpg

[edit]

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

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

 Oppose The notice on the cited website now reads,

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

Russian department awards

[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]

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]

File:Marg-Ba-Tame-Nescafe.jpg

[edit]

پوستر نمایش مرگ با طعم نسکافه به نویسندگی و کارگردانی بابک صحرایی

"A poster showing a bitter taste of Nescafe with a sweet and tacky taste on your desert door." (Google translation)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NoorAfkan (talk • contribs) 10:34, 20 August 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]


 Oppose That is not a reason to restore this image. This is a film poster so restoring it requires that an authorized official of the film company send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Assassination of Abe Shinzo Yamato Saidaiji.jpg, File:Itagaki Taisuke 100kaiki Shinagawa Tokyo 2018.jpg, File: Tennoheika gosokui 30nen kinenshikiten.jpg

[edit]

表題の3件の写真が、著作権侵害であるとの錯誤により削除されたため、下記に錯誤である証拠を示し、写真の復帰を求めます。

著作権侵害ではないことを示す証拠。

上記のリンク先に、この画像をCreative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 Internationalの下で公表する。また撮影者として 「Photo by Photo memories 1868」の記名があります。--Photo memories 1868 (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per license at Instagram. Ankry (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:MDpichetsousunpêcherLeFlochStCloud2023.jpg

[edit]

Hi,

I contest the deletion of the file MDpichetsousunpêcherLeFlochStCloud2023.

Indeed: 1. I am the owner of this artwork since auctions at LeFloch in StCloud in 2023; 2. Mathilde Henriette Delattre, the artist (which is from my family) was dead in 1950 and felt into public domain.

Best regards,

eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achille Watergutt (talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 August 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Owning a work of art does not give one the right to freely license it. That right is held by the artist or their heir unless transferred in a written license. A work by a French artist who died in 1950 had a French copyright until 1/1/2021 and therefore will be under URAA US copyright for 95 years from first publication. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Artist is fr:Mathilde Delattre, and the work is indeed in the public domain in France. Yann (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment No one is disputing that the art is public domain in France. This being a 1930 work means U.S. copyright would expire on January 1, 2026. Abzeronow (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is moot today, but in 2026 we need to remember that the 95 years starts with publication, not creation. One of the many weird provisions of US copyright law is that if this work had been created post 1977, it would be pma 70 and therefore PD now. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment if the work remained unpublished till 2003, it is also PD in US. Ankry (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TD Kanneganti wikipedia edit 2.jpg

[edit]

I request undeletion of this file, as it is a photo owned by the person that this page is written about (Thirumala-Devi Kanneganti) and it is used with her permission. Rtweedell (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is a crop from an image at https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/911965 which has an explicit copyright notice. As a general rule, the subject of an image does not have the right to freely license it as required here; that right belongs to the photographer. In order to have this image restored, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or (b) someone else must send a free license together with a written license from the actual photographer give the sender the right to freely license the image.

I note that Rtweedell claimed in the upload that they were the actual photographer; the message above suggests that that is not true. If so, it is a serious violation of Commons rules. Repeatedly making false claims can lead to being blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:森累珠オフィシャル写真.png

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: これは私自身で撮影した写真です。写真に写っている人物は私です。セルフィーで撮影しました。転載したと疑われて送られてきたURLからも、同様の写真は載っていません。画像転載ではないです。間違いなく、私が著作権者であり、本人画像です。

"This is a photo I took myself. The person in the photo is me. I took it with a selfie. The URL I was sent with the suspicion of reposting does not contain any similar photos. It is not image reposting. I am definitely the copyright holder and it is my image." (Google translation)

Pote maru (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment That appears to be correct -- the image does not appear on the page named in the deletion summary. User:Netora, you added {{Copyvio}} to the image. Will you please comment? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oliver Worobjow (2023).jpg

[edit]

Urheberrechte werden nicht verletzt. Nur informativer/s Text und Bild wird hier verwendet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver Worobjow (talk • contribs) 21 August 2024, 00:02:21 (UTC)

 Info deleted under F10. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:المخترع العراقي غزوان ال عزاره.png

[edit]
  • To the Wikimedia Commons Team
  • Date:
  • Subject: Request to Restore Artwork==

Thank you for granting my account permission to restore my artwork. The following is the requested information:

I understand that I am responsible for any copyright or intellectual property violations that may result from the deletion of the artwork. I also agree to follow any other terms or restrictions that may be imposed by the Wikimedia Commons Team.

I appreciate your time and effort in processing this request. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page.

Sincerely, Ghazwan Al-azar --Ghazwan Al-azar (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose the criteria for deletion was F10 (out of scope, selfie) and the user is already blocked in 3 wikis for self-promotion. Clearly the user has no constructive edits to justify hosting personal photos. Günther Frager (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Estátua do Grande Buda de Ibiraçu.jpg

[edit]

These files were deleted because I uploaded other images and was blocked for copyvios, the person who nominated for deletion claims that the images had no EXIF ​​data and I can explain why. I used AI to remove people from the image, I took that and other photos during a family trip, and I still have the original with me.

I believe this clarifies something. Eughoost disc. 13:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daisuke-ohyama-official.jpg

[edit]

大山大介公式のプロフィール画像のため、削除取り消しのリクエスト。

File:Nesterenko_5919.jpg File:Shkumat_5919.jpg

[edit]

Good day, my 2nd file File:Nesterenko_5919.jpg was deleted, but I sent a letter it long before it was deleted, it was not processed or something did not work?.. 22 july 2024. and my 1st file File:Shkumat_5919.jpg There: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard (2024071110011258) and there: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2024-08#c-Yann-20240815180100-File:Shkumat_5919.jpg 

not restored too. But i sended permission again to this photo too.

I did everything according to the wiki rules, uploaded photos, sent proof of ownership of the photos, but they were deleted and I don't understand why. I could say that I don't understand how to do this, but I was able to confirm ownership of 2 out of 4 photos. Please, help someone. --Uszn19 (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

upd: those 2 links below are not mine, I don't know how they appeared there. Uszn19 (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uszn19: This page is to request undeletions not to ask about the status of VRT tickets. You should ask about them in the VRT noticeboard. Günther Frager (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but this both photos was DELETED, and i already sended all what i need, and i asking about UNdelete them. Whats wrong? Uszn19 (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ambassador Thomas Greminger (2021).jpg

[edit]

Needs to be undeleted as the photo is agreed to be uploaded under CC by Florian Golay

  1. ↑ https://arab-newz.org/%D8%B5%D9%86%D8%B9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%82/
  2. ↑ https://www.imamhussain-fm.com/news/science/63929
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=914428522"