Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SignBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
101,805 edits
m Signing comment by Eric bothorel - '→[[:FileEric Bothorel député.jpg]: new section'
Slowking4 (talk | contribs)
117,474 edits
Line 502: Line 502:
The author is a french public salary. ( not fieec )
The author is a french public salary. ( not fieec )
Eric Bothorel {{unsigned2|06:48, 3 April 2019|Eric bothorel}}
Eric Bothorel {{unsigned2|06:48, 3 April 2019|Eric bothorel}}

== [[:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Whpq]] ==

MacArthur Foundation explicitly releases as "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License". produce the WMF legal letter ticket:2016102610013764. the deletion is astonishing, and you should expect periodic mass uploads until you do. and a mass speedy deletion is not appropriate. <font face="Vijaya">[[User:Slowking4| Slowking4]] § [[User_talk:Slowking4|Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge]] </font> 11:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:38, 3 April 2019

Current requests

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

Request undeletion

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

File:Turkiye-nin-ilk-yerli-ucagi-nu.d-38.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turkiye-nin-ilk-yerli-ucagi-nu.d-38.jpg

"This is not Nu D 36, Nu D 38. The date of first flight of this aircraft was not 1939 but 1944. 2011 - 1944 = 67. The copyright will be expired in 2014." Abzeronow (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is unclear to me how PD copyright status of the photo can be proved basing on age of the phographed subject. This works one way only: the photo cannot be older than the subject.
  2. The license template used there is {{PD-old}} which is wrong for a photo of unidentified author (I assume "Bilinmiyor" is the nick of the author of the blog where the photo was found - http://img.dmry.net/blog/01/turkiye-nin-ilk-yerli-ucagi-nu.d-38.jpg) and with unknown publication date. Without a valid license template(s) the photo cannot be restored, IMO. Ankry (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. It appears to have been a unique aircraft w:Nuri Demirağ Nu D.38 so photo creation around 1944-1945 is plausible. As you say, publication date appears to not be known to us or supplied by the uploader. I guess we may just have to mark it for undeletion around the 2060s when 120 year rule would occur. Abzeronow (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avramisdimitris1.jpg

Hello, As representing my best friend Dimitris Avramis, who asked me to help updating his personal wikipedia information, I request to undelete the photo Avramisdimitris1.jpg, because it is a photo that belongs to Greek Greco-Roman Wrestling Champion, Dimitris Avramis.

The following link https://slideplayer.gr/slide/13365815/, where you found a similar photo, is a link where local students from an area near Trikala (the town that Avramis comes from), created a project to honor Mr Avramis for his standing career in Greek-Roman wrestling. He was the one that gave the students all the photos and information that have been upload in this slideplayer link.

Yours Sincerely, Xristos Karakitsios

--Xristoskar (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose @Xristoskar: You cannot upload a photo that belongs to somebody else and claim that you are its author (protographer). This is against Wikimedia Commons rules and illegal. {{Own}} applies only to unpublished photos that you made yourself using your camera. For other photos the photographer (or another copyright holder if they have a contract) should send us a permission following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to ask if we can finally upload our photo in wikipedia, after asking slideplayer to delete the following link https://slideplayer.gr/slide/13365815/, where local students uploaded our photo. --Xristoskar (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xristoskar: The problem is not that the image is available elsewhere now but that Commons is not its initial publication site. If it was ever published without free license evidence we cannot be 100% sure whether it is uploaded here by the author who is able to license it or it is uploaded by a third party who copies the photo therefrom and claims it freely licensed without author's permission. As anybody is anonymous here, we cannot verify uploader identity and we have to rely on information available on other sites in such cases. So, please, either (1) ans the author(s) to send a free license permission following COM:OTRS instructions or (2) provide information that the image is under a free license at its initial publication site. The latter is much faster way, if possible, as processing OTRS permission takes months now. Ankry (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:EEA agency logo.svg

{{PD-EEA}} {{PD-textlogo}} Please see File:Coca-Cola logo.svg as an example. The RedBurn (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The RedBurn: Read carefully the template text: the first template applies only to logo uploader here more that 10 years ago and the second one is valid for simple logos below TOO, mainly originating from US, where TOO is relatively high. If you can prove that the logo is too simple to receive copyright protection in EU (or the Agency officials declares so) we can go on. Otherwise, a free license OTRS permission form the Agency is needed. Ankry (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The logo comes from the 2006 website logo page, aren't they still in PD? The RedBurn (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This applies to documents; unsure if this can be applied to the logo. Another opinion? Ankry (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then what about {{PD-textlogo}} like for Category:Logos of agencies of the European Union and Category:PD_ineligible? By the way, there's now a discussion for these logos in Commons:Deletion requests/File:European Environment Agency-Logo - fr.svg. The RedBurn (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carlo_De_Carli_-_Sedia_Compasso_d'Oro,_1954.jpg

Hi, the photo represents a chair designed by my granfather, Carlo De Carli. I'm trying to edit his page publishing some picture of its main architecture and design opera. I think this photo is public domain picture.

All of the pictures I uploaded were deleted:

Thanks, Luca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Looka.decarli (talk • contribs) 21:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Giménez

The first photo is from a 1976 movie, so it could not be PD prior to 1996.  Neutral about the others as there is no exact publication information as required in the template text, but they are likely PD as claimed by the requester. Ankry (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is the first photograph a low quality version of this File:Susana Giménez y Sandro en Tú me Enloqueces.jpg? Mutter Erde (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is this photo. Unsure whether 1975 or 1976 is correct date. Ankry (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hela bandet på plats sommaren 84.jpg

Bilden är från privat samling som ägs av min bror. mvh Peter Palm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nattregn (talk • contribs) 05:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)  Oppose You need to start by finding the unknown photographer (link to discussion) Thuresson (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dima Bamberg.jpg

Please, undelete file File:Dima Bamberg.jpg. I have an exclusive rights for this file (I am the author of this photo). Dima Bamberg (the person who depicted in the photo) allowed me to use this photo on the Internet.

Kostikch (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kostikch: Please, send COM:OTRS permission. Ankry (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ch finzi ed.jpg

Il file "Edg finzi cherchi.jpg" è stato autorizzato dall'autore della foto, Andrea Cherchi, con mail di conferma del 11 marzo 2019 e di seguito ripetuto:

Con la presente, autorizzo l'utilizzo gratuito e libero da ogni diritto di tutte le mie immagini e in particolare quelle che sono associate alla richiesta [Ticket#2019021510006623]. Ringrazio e porgo distinti saluti Andrea Cherchi

Chiedo quindi il ripristino del file --Marco steiner (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion requests for João Justiceiro files

Solicito o restauro dos seguintes arquivos, inadvertidamente deletados pelo usuário Jcb (talk · contribs) sob alegação de violação de direitos autorais:

São fotografias de minha autoria. As cinco últimas são colaborações de amigos que cederam a mim suas fotografias sem restrições de licença e inicialmente foram publicadas no Imgur.

São desenhos vetoriais de minha autoria baseados em obras de mais de 20 anos que não estão registradas em propriedade industrial. O penúltimo é feito a partir deste ficheiro do Commons, e o último é uma forma textual simples que não pode ser enquadrada em copyright.

São mapas de minha autoria baseados em trabalhos já existentes no Commons. O último é um mapa retirado da web com a devida referência.

São bandeiras e brasões que estão em domínio público pelas leis nº 9610/1998, art. 115 e nº 9610/1998, art. 8.

São formas geométricas ou textuais simples sujeitas a copyright, mas que foram identificadas como tal. Os ficheiros da Jovem Pan FM inclusive possuem outras versões em .svg disponíveis aqui no Commons.

Creio que dei uma explicação plausível sobre todos os arquivos, mas se ainda houver dúvidas, estou disponível para contato. Só quero que desfaçam esse engano absurdo, ou se possível restaurem temporariamente pra que eu possa passa-los para outra plataforma, pois eu não possuo mais os originais da maioria destes arquivos. João Justiceiro (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose - I checked several files which were all copyright violations. E.g. non free logos and File:Antiga UMJ da TV Itapoan (1981).png, which was taken from this non free video. Jcb (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eu já havia sido avisado a respeito do referido arquivo e pretendia repor em outra plataforma. Mas o restante dos arquivos não pode ser enquadrado como violação de direitos autorais, sobretudo o que eu mesmo fotografei e postei aqui. O mesmo se aplica aos mapas derivados de outros mapas, os desenhos vetoriais e as formas geométricas e textuais simples. João Justiceiro (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Info I think this should be split to separate requests per undeletion rationale. Eg. as some logos are IMO PD-textlogo, wile the maps are not PD-textlogo. Also as some maps clearly refer to PD maps as sources (and the deleting admin did not explain why he doubts that), others have external sources. Also, I cannot find anything about PD status of COA in the above mentioned legal references. Such cases should be discussed in COM:VPC first and if there are indeed exceptions in the law here, they need to be expressed in appropriate copyright templates, prior to coming here. Ankry (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: Sobre os brasões e bandeiras, está escrito desta forma: "Art. 8º Não são objeto de proteção como direitos autorais de que trata esta Lei: [...] IV - os textos de tratados ou convenções, leis, decretos, regulamentos, decisões judiciais e demais atos oficiais;". Os símbolos oficiais (brasões e bandeiras) são definidos por lei, e as leis são domínio público no Brasil. Há uma citação no Wikiquote que esclarece melhor. Sobre o registro de marcas, isto é, propriedade industrial, pode ser utilizado o site do INPI para consulta. João Justiceiro (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Individual depictions of CoAs have their own copyright. It's only the description that would be free under this rationale. Jcb (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bom, essa não é uma representação individual minha, e mesmo que fosse, a lei também permitiria isso. João Justiceiro (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Senhores, por favor, alguém poderia dar uma solução pra essa questão aqui? Ao menos as imagens que eu fotografei deveriam necessariamente ser repostas, é mais do que óbvio. É um absurdo que ninguém preste atenção nisso. João Justiceiro (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Allsecur-logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file is a "Logo with only simple text (wordmark)" and does not meet the threshold of originality in Germany. Mstadlr (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liubov Baz.jpg

Hello, this photo is a selfie made by me. https://deskgram.net/p/1870640516626992120_2908847520 - it's a link to my instagram page. Basically, Liubov Baz in the photo and in the article is me. So, I ask to undelete this file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laora-ell (talk • contribs) 22:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Anybody can say that. As there is no evidence of free license on the Instagram page, COM:OTRS permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And how shall I mark free license on my Instagram page? What exactly shall I write in my profile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laora-ell (talk • contribs) 02:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laora-ell: You should mention the license with its version and add information depending on the license itself (sometimes the required atribution info, sometimes link to the full license text - if possible). It should be clearly stated what the license applies to. I do not know what is technically possible in Instagram. Ankry (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fromis 9 Logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Although it is uploaded as external source, no license, no permission. In my opinion, it bare the same situation as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Apink_Logo_01.png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Pink_logo.png. Can you un-delete or guide me through to change the license attribute of the file to {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}} same as the example above. Thanks in advance. Rly.oka (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion requests for tpyk's files

Please undelete the following files. As far as I can see, these files were all published before 1920 in China, and so they are also in the Public Domain in the Unted States. I forget to add appropriate license to them. After their undeletion I will add them.

The following two pictures are maps that I make about historic warfare, I forget to add appropriate license to them.

Thank you. --Tpyk (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Support temporary undeletion of the first set: source & copyright template needs fixing. Ankry (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Support temporary undeletion of first set per Ankry. Abzeronow (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done for the first part. @Tpyk: Please fix the source, author, and license. Who did make the maps? Which source(s) did you use? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tranh dân gian Việt Nam - Vợ chồng ngâu.jpg

This is my personal collection--Nguyenqa (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nguyenqa: Who is the artist? When and where was it published? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crimean status referendum Ballot boxes.jpg

I consider this as a wrong application of COM:PRP, as I don't see at which point we need to apply any precaution. It is very difficult to prove it five years later, but overall the situation is the following:

  • This is a screenshot from UTR News video. UTR was a government-own TV channel that does not exist anymore. As such, this channel was specialising in coverage of all official events in Ukraine, and there is no need to apply any precautions: the channel was clearly genuinely interested in covering this event.
  • The video was published by the official YouTube channel of this TV channel. Here is a snapshot of UTR official website as of February 2014. You can notice several embedded YouTube videos, all dead as of now. All these videos were pointing to the same YouTube channel. For example, you can check the video Неділя, 9 лютого, 19:30. Україна дипломатична. which is found in this Google cache of the YouTube mirror of the same YouTube channel. There is no need for precautions here either: UTR indeed published all these videos on their own channel under a free license.
  • This video was the channel's own production: they had own coverage in Crimea (for instance, File:February 2014 Simferopol Pro-Ukrainian Manifestation.jpg or File:Aleksei Chalyi.jpg are a part of that coverage). There is no evidence that this particular video was not made by UTR's journalists: see, for example, this Human Rights Watch report stating that Ukrainian journalists were still working in Crimea at that time.
  • While the channel UTR NEWS has been terminated because we've received multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement regarding material that the user posted, this screenshot is not a part of any third-party material. The channel did use third-party materials labelling them as video from the Internet, but I checked all videos before uploading and this one was not a part of them.

I think that deleting this video is not a reasonable precaution: we had a legitimate material released under a free license by a legitimate copyright holder, it is harder to prove five years later but that should not be a reason for deletion — NickK (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NickK: Do you suggest reopening the DR? I t does not seem to me that there is anything new in the above request that was not said there. And this case shows why it is a bad idea to review own uploads. Ankry (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: I don't know what is the procedure. I was already told that reviewing own uploads is bad, but that was five years ago, and when I got the reviewing rights years ago self-reviewing was still normal. Is self-reviewing the only problem? If yes, there are many files from UTR News channel that were reviewed by other users. I can look for and give examples here if needed — NickK (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YWB Philly

File:YWB Philly.jpg

YWB Philly

The file in question was deleted for copyright violation of the Instagram Profile Picture of YWB Philly. YWB Philly has an account on Wikipedia. User:Ywbphilly. He edited the file, and took/owns all images used. We request undeletion because there is no Copyright infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyboya (talk • contribs) 23:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose You don't sign away your copyright to things you have created when you become a registered Wikipedia user. Thuresson (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose @Sunnyboya: And claiming to be the author of somebody else's work is a violation of both: Wikimedia Commons rules and law. Ankry (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picture of Northview Heights Secondary School from the 1960s.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: "Non-free historic image." Description: Picture of Northview Heights Secondary School, formerly called Northview Heights Collegiate Institute from somewhere in the 1960s Author or copyright owner: Panda Photography, Source (WP:NFCC#4): https://gencat4.eloquent-systems.com/webcat/systems/toronto.arch/resource/fo0207/ser1251/f0207_s1251_it0110.jpg, City of Toronto Archives, Fonds 207, Item 110 Use in article (WP:NFCC#7): Northview Heights Secondary School, Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8): (WP:NFCC#8) To support encyclopedic discussion of this work in this article. The illustration is specifically needed to support the following point(s): Northview Heights Secondary School looks very similar right now to what it used to look like 50+ years ago. Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1): It is a picture of a government-owned property, We shouldn't alter what they did. Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3): It is less than 200kb It is a small portion of the full page Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2): picture of the school is not a major commercial item TheLordOfMiners8 (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLordOfMiners8: Commons does not accept fair use. You have to upload the file in the local Wikipedia if it allows it. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:MW_logo_cn.png

Company which holds license & copyright has sent e-mail releasing rights for use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longjiangmei (talk • contribs) 06:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Longjiangmei: A free license, i.e. which authorizes commercial uses and modifications, is necessary. The file would be undeleted when the permission is validated. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: IMO, {{PD-textlogo}}. Your opinion? Ankry (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For your reference, OTRS Ticket:2019040110003318. I have also re-uploaded file onto a Flickr account with the acceptable attribution, so if that's a better option I can also do that. Best, User:longjiangmei (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2019 (GMT)

File:1979-80, Vican 2.jpg

Bonjour,

La photo que nous souhaitons télécharger a été réalisé lors d'une séance de photo dans l'atelier parisien de Ljuba (Ljubomir Popovic) par Vican Vicanovic, ami du peintre, qui a offert les photos à Ljuba. L'un et l'autre sont mort, Vican en 2003 et Ljuba en 2016. Slavica Batos, veuve de Ljuba a entrepris de classer, d'archiver les divers documents pour constituer un catalogue raisonné de son oeuvre et une biographie exhaustive. Dans ce cadre, la photo de Ljuba par Vican a été choisie pour illustrer l'inbox de la page wikipedia de Ljuba. Il semble que la licence n'a pas été bien choisi. Elle souhaite aucune utilisation commerciale et modification possible de cette photo.

Bien cordialement--GraceduVal (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GraceduVal: Pour être importée sur Commons, il faut une licence libre, i.e. qui autorise l'utilisation commerciale et les modifications. De toute façon, Vican Vicanovic doit envoyer une autorisation écrite via COM:OTRS/fr. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Samantha Barks - ALJ Shoot 0.jpg

Hi,

I would like to request that this file be undeleted and restored back to Samantha Barks page. The reason for the deletion, isn't a copyright violation. The photographer credited allowed United Agents (Samantha Bark's representation) use of the image on their website. They don't hold the copyright, the photographer does. Copyright violation: taken from https://www.unitedagents.co.uk/samantha-barks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaystockwell89 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaystockwell89: The copyright holder has to send a written permission for a free license via COM:OTRS. The file would be undeleted when the permission is validated. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Időt- érdeklődő, nyitott szemeket, tudásvágyat hiányolok- ti mindent egy meg sem írt témával kapcsolatban. Ki veszít? Várjatok- ennyit kérek- vagy csalódunk egymásban. Én nem blöffölök.

A Vértesszőlősi szoborról nagyjából senki semmilyen igazolt , megalapozott véleményt nem írt le- a hüvelylabda, marokkő, mesterségesen göndörített hajra tippelés, teljesen a felületes, a küllem alapján készült szubjektív vélemények arzenálja mind elfogadott- a képről kijelentették, hogy bárhol, bárki bármikor felhasználhatja- a készítő nem él, a fotográfus jogai nem sérülnek- mert nem művészi alkotás, önmagáért feltenni a képet indokolatlan lenne. Ergo: alig jelent meg valami objektív, logikus hozzászólás a szoborról, (Meggyesi után: ....az nem LÚ, az szobor- ahogy itt sem igazolt, hogy NŐ-nek készült e a figura- vagy szobor, ami üzenetet hordoz és kb. 90%-a a hsz-t íróknak téved. Téved a képpel kapcsolatban és téved, amikor biztonságosan ilyen-olyan negatív véleményt ír le- hiszen bizonyított vélemény nincs, a szobor hossza, átmérője egy mondatba belefér. Nincs forrás. Ha a forrás hiánya- és nem hivatkozhatok a logikailag nagyon odavaló irodalomra, mert nem éppen erről a szoborról íródott egyik sem- de nem érteni a párhuzamokat, amire a véleményt csak el kezdtem írni- nem veszi észre senki....ez biztosan a felületesség, erre lehet hivatkozni. Az összefüggések az univerzum minden részével- biztos. Ehhez el kellene olvasni a hivatkozásokat, amiket nem tudtam csak elkezdeni, mert kezdettől törlésre lett jelölve egy olyan kép, amit mindenki szabadon használ- tehát miért fáradjak tovább azzal, hogy egy tucatnál több műből idézzek, ami a megértéshez mást is közelebb vihetne? Miért éppen a meg sem írt, még ki sem fejtett szoborfej, elkezdett szöveg az, ami ilyen káros? Miért nincs lehetőség időt adni, nem a törléssel zaklatni? Fontosságból elégtelen? Az is marad, mert senki nem minősítheti, ha nem érti az egész képet...Kb. 10 %-ot írtam, amikor már nem volt több okom elmondani, amit én több, mint egy évig tanulmányoztam? Miért jelenhet meg egy csomó hülyeség vagy indifferens szubjektív vélemény + szintén jellegtelen adatok a megtalálással kapcsolatban- ezek semmire nem jutnak a 30000 éves üzenettel kapcsolatban....? Ezek elég fontosak? Kizárt. Megérthető és sokat is mond a szobor. A türelmetlenség, az egész leminősítése semmire nem igazán hivatkozhat, max. technikai okokra- de már akkor törlésre jelölték, amikor alig pár mondatot írtam. Írnom kéne egy könyvet, hogy legyen mire hivatkozni? A szobor kevés- ill. mi vagyunk kevesek, hogy önmagából megértsük a mondanivalóját- de ettől nem jogos kijelenteni, hogy nem mond eleget. Írjuk le inkább: keveset értünk. (megmutatni, elmagyarázni szeretném, hogy más is örüljön- de nem első közlés helye.... MI az első közlés helye? Egyre inkább úgy érzem, szubjektív tudatlanság alapján egy nem érhető alkotást nem hajlandó megismerni a többség- vagy egy óra alatt kevés információ áramlást produkálok- a semminél mindenképpen több, ha leírhattam, közzé tehettem volna- fontosabbnak tudná látni mindenki. 20 millió cikk- ettől le kellene esni az államnak- pedig 2500 évig kéne olvasni egy vagon nem fontos dolgot- a Wikipédia információs csatorna, közös tudás- ha nincs idő rá, mert 100 más, ismertebb témát fel tudna szerkeszteni sok szerkesztő- az biztosan több? A kíváncsiság, a megértése a szokatlanul ismeretlennek- ez volt a cél. Keveset mondok?- nem. Kevés a nyitott elme. Kevés a valódi érdeklődés. Keveset ért az ember, de türelmetlen kivárni a végét- ha törlésre kerül- akkor mindenki, aki nem fáradt vele- ezután sem fogja tudni, hogy a világ legősibb üzenete mit mond. Az sem igazolt, hogy nő a szobor. Ennyi- és kevés, de ne is legyen több? Sajnálom, őszintén, ha ez az okolás bölcsebb, mint aki kivárta volna -pár héten túl- a lényeget. Nem tudjuk. Ez jobb? Nekem is csalódás- csak ellentétesen.Izzibell01 17:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzibell01 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Izzibell01: Which image you wish to undelete? Ankry (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:BurghRecords Logo.png

I hereby affirm that File:BurghRecords Logo.png: [I, (Michael Fascia), am] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of BurghRecords Logo: [BurghRecords/Music Making] as used here: [1], and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). (THIS IS THE STANDARD CHOICE; YOU MAY CHOOSE ANOTHER ACCEPTABLE FREE LICENSE, IF YOU WISH TO)

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[Michael Fascia] [Sender's authority ("Copyright holder", "Director", BurghRecords.)] [01/04/2019]

Sonnyf (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)M.S.Fascia[reply]

@Sonnyf: two issues:
  1. as we cannot and may not verify your identity on-wiki, such permissions should be send to <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org>. More info in COM:OTRS
  2. is the logo in scope? Eg., is there an accepted Wikipedia article that the logo may be used in?
Ankry (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Jeanne Letitia Lopes painting Kalua beach Hawai1 Jun 13, 1934 – Jun 27, 2009 (Age 75) died in Kamuela hawai (1).jpg.

I'm the legal owner of that painting, as such, I have the legal copyright to post pictures of them to honor the painter's legacy and help others when researching that painter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardolagunes (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the copyright normally remains either with the painter or his or her heirs. I don't own the copyright to Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone just because I own a copy of the book. Have you acquired the copyright as well a copy of the painting? Thuresson (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose OP do not respond to reasonable questions; it is not at all clear what OP believes copyright is. Thuresson (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mari Holopainen.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have personally contacted the owner and subject of this work to obtain permission to publish it in Wikimedia. What should I do differently to upload it correctly? Heycci (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Heycci: You should ask the author (the photographer, not the subject) to send a permission following COM:OTRS. Alternatively, if somebody has a copyright transfer contract with the photographer, they should send the permission together with a copyright transfer evidence. The permission has to come to OTRS directly from the copyright holder, not via a third party, so you could do nothing but ask for it. Ankry (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And also, a "permission to publish in Wikimedia" does not fit Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. Ankry (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: Thank you for your explanation. I have explained the situation to the copyright owner and the subject (The Green Party of Finland and Mrs. Holopainen) and they will now take steps to add an image of the politician themselves, allowing them to upload it with the right licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heycci (talk • contribs) 10:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:El_Passo_Cameo.jpg

Published previously on www.cameonation.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by PricklyPearLV (talk • contribs) 21:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And any evidence that this site content is under CC-BY 4.0 license or that User:PricklyPearLV is its owner as a private person?  Oppose otherwise. Ankry (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Børge Brende.jpg

Requesting undeletion of this file as the owner of the file has given permission, stating on the page it is published here: https://www.weforum.org/about/leadership-and-governance

That "This image is available under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeh101 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeh101: , That is not an acceptable license for Commons. COM:L.  Oppose since commercial use and derivatives must be allowed for a file to be on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wang Leehom - 2018 Golden Lotus Awards for Best Actor .jpg

This photo was uploaded before and deleted because of a suspected copyright issue. I had the owner sent email to wiki and thought that was taken cared of. However, it was not put back so I tried to request undelete again. On Wiki Commons it says the file has been archived and to re-upload the photo. So I uploaded it again, and it is now flagged and deleted, again.

The photo is provided by Hongsheng Culture, which is the owner of the photo. They distributed the photo for free publicity use and is being used by various articles and websites. Original violation notice was because the photo appeared in other sites. I wish we don't have to go back and forth on this, again. Please kindly advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kievew (talk • contribs) 02:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Image was uploaded twice more File:Macau IMTF Award 2018.jpg and File:Wang Leehom Best Actor Award.jpg - both deleted. There is an OTRS ticket Ticket:2019013110001626 pending and image restored and annotated by Arthur Crbz, not sure why it was deleted again. Ronhjones  (Talk) 03:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:IraVolkova(2016)jpg

Hello to users of Wikimedia. I am trying to request undeletion of the file “IraVolkova(2016)”.

Why do I think that Wikimedia should not delete the photo?

Firstly, that photo was given to Ira Volkova(the person on the photo) as a gift in the year 2016, so now she uses that photo in some other media.

Besides, I know the person from the photo and before downloading she gave a verbal permission to post the photo on Wikimedia.

Thank you. Candy-Kubik (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

————————————-

Здравствуйте. Я пытаюсь запросить неудаление файла «IraVolkova(2016)” на Wikimedia.

Почему же эту фотографию удалять не нужно?

Во-первых, эта фотография была подарена автором фотографии изображённой и, по словам самой Иры Волковой(человека на фотографии), может использоваться в статье про неё, так как эта фотография является одним из единственных качественных изображений с ней.

Во-вторых, я знаю Ирину(Иру) Волкову и знаю фотографа лично и все они дали своё разрешение на публикацию фотографии.

Спасибо.

Candy-Kubik (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose First, a permission "to post the photo on Wikimedia" does not fit licensing requirements, read COM:L. Second, licensing a photo or copyright transfer both require written form (verbal form is invalid due to copyright law). So we need an evidence that the initial copyright owner (the photo author) intended to make it freely licensed and that their intention had a written form. Ankry (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carl Javér.jpg

3. This file has been used before in other pages/network. 4. my request to make it come back is bc I did a misstake and forgot to mark it as the right I have from the owner I can use it. I am also new so I don't have an idea how it works on Wikimedia Commons. So if I can just fix what I wrote wrong it would be great. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicagomez96 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sähköturvallisuustutkinto S1 syksy 2018 vastaukset.pdf

These questions and answers are from an 2018 exam and no law prohibits the distribution of these documents. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.237.27.30 (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ayatollah Khamenei

Copyright notice of the source was fixed: [2]. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Various FoP-Albania cases in Tirana

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

These appear to be {{FoP-Albania}} Abzeronow (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of the Robots Art Cover.jpg , and 3 other files to undelete

These images are either created by, or used with the permission of the film directors. These are photos of already approved, and past published and copyrighted CD and/or DVD covers for which Stephen Melillo has composed the Music.

I am currently sitting with Stephen Melillo in his office and these artworks are coming straight from the source of Stephen Melillo's images and artworks.

 Comment If Stephen Melillo is the copyright holder, have him verify permission for a free license using e-mail template at COM:OTRS Abzeronow (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fashionable ann.jpg

Avtor email send. 

2.99.17.252 23:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file should be undeleted as it has a compatible license with commons and has been confirmed to be the stated license by Ronhjones. The source was also recommended by Thincat on the media copyright question page. Thincat also corrected one of the statement regarding the file, stating “It was also claimed the licence itself was unsatisfactory but (if this is the same photo) that does not seem to be the case.” Bunnies959 (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you point out where it says on vimeo.com/187882462 that the file has been released as {{CC BY 3.0}}, or where there's a link on the vimeo page which leads to another vimeo page which states the file has been released under such a license? I also checked the main page of the vimeo uploader and I'm not finding any mention of his uploads being released as such there as well.
    Another thing to consider is whether the vimeo uploader is really the sole copyright holder. The video looks like it a promotional campaign for en:True Religion (clothing brand) and both he and Baldwin might have been hired by the company for the shoot; thus, the company may own or partially own the copyright on finished project. An agreement between the director, Baldwin and the company might allow some personal use of the work because it's seen as a means of promoting all three and it's unlikely the work is going to be used by one of the three to disparage the others and there may be restrictions in place to prevent such a thing. The same, however, can be applied to Commons under c:COM:L, which make it possible for pretty much anyone anyone anywhere in the world to download the file and then freely use it for any purpose, including commericial and derivative use. In other words, some one could download the file and try to make money off it, or use it for parody or other ways, even negative ways, that the copyright holder might not want done. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment vimeo copyright links are hard you find unless you "know" where to go (this site has caught me out before!) Under the image it says "Ireland Baldwin for True Religion" and below that "2 years ago More" - Press the "More" - it shows a CC-BY symbol linking to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marchjuly The page doesn’t state any formal agreements so it’s assumed that all the content in the media is available under that license. If there was any agreements it should explicitly stated. This file is also currently is our only free option unless someone releases a photo to commons. If there any issues than the content creators can make contact and the file will be deleted. Thanks Bunnies959 (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I think the opposite is assumed in cases like this. Content is assumed to be protected by copyright unless it clearly states otherwise per COM:PCP. Another option to using this file actually to use no image, and that option would be preferred to using a file with a questionable license. Commons will only keep this file if it's licensing can be verified as best as possible to actually be free and I think the link found by Ronhjones is probably good enough, but others might feel differently. That's what's going to be determined here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:ОАО Электромеханика-logo.png

Прошу восстановить файл File:ОАО Электромеханика-logo.png, который был удален, потому что я установила неверный тип лицензии при загрузке файла. Файл File:ОАО Электромеханика-logo.png является логотипом предприятия ОАО "Электромеханика" и как другие логотипы компаний может свободно размещаться, в том числе в Википедии. --МаринаРомашкина (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:ОАО Электромеханика-Пенза.jpg

Не вижу причин для удаления файла File:ОАО Электромеханика-Пенза.jpg. Прошу не удалять файл --МаринаРомашкина (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[[:FileEric Bothorel député.jpg]

This pix is property of french parliament only. There is no reason to consider it's not a common use pix. The author is a french public salary. ( not fieec ) Eric Bothorel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric bothorel (talk • contribs) 06:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Whpq

MacArthur Foundation explicitly releases as "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License". produce the WMF legal letter ticket:2016102610013764. the deletion is astonishing, and you should expect periodic mass uploads until you do. and a mass speedy deletion is not appropriate. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=344744449"