Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Demandes de restauration

(Redirected from Commons:Demandes de restauration)
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 96% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Undeletion requests and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

Cette page a pour but de permettre aux utilisateurs de déposer une requête pour qu'une page ou un fichier (ci-après indifféremment désignés par le mot fichier) soit restauré. Les utilisateurs peuvent commenter les requêtes déposées en indiquant leur opinion ne pas restaurer ou restaurer, suivi de leurs arguments.

Cette page ne fait pas partie de Wikipédia. Cette page concerne le contenu de Wikimedia Commons, un recueil de fichiers multimédia librement utilisables par Wikipédia et d'autres projets Wikimédia. Wikimedia Commons ne contient pas d'articles encyclopédiques. Pour solliciter la restauration d'un article ou un autre contenu qui a été effacé de l'édition de Wikipédia en anglais, merci de voir la page deletion review sur ce site.

Suppression en Commons (guide)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
non libre • redondant • publicité • selfie • autres cas
v • d • m

Trouver les raisons de l'effacement d'un fichier

Consultez d'abord le journal des effacements et notez le nom de la personne ayant supprimé le fichier. Utilisez également Special:Whatlinkshere (depuis la page de l'image, cela fonctionne même si le fichier a été supprimé) pour voir s'il y a eu débat quelque part avant que la suppression ait eu lieu. Deuxièmement, merci de lire la politique de suppression, les objectifs du projet, et la politique de licences pour découvrir pourquoi le fichier n'est peut-être admissible sur Wikimedia Commons.

Si la raison avancée n'est pas claire ou si vous êtes en désaccord avec elle, vous pouvez contacter l'administrateur ayant effectué la suppression pour lui demander des explications ou lui fournir des preuves allant à l'encontre de la raison de la suppression. Vous pouvez aussi contacter n'importe quel administrateur actif (peut-être une personne parlant votre langue maternelle) — la plupart seront ravis de vous apporter leur aide, et si une erreur a été commise, de rectifier la situation.

Mode d'emploi

Les suppressions qui sont correctement basées sur les politiques en vigueur concernant la suppression, les objectifs du projet ou les licences ne seront pas remises en question. Les propositions de modification des politiques doivent être faites sur les pages de discussion de ces politiques.

Si vous pensez que le fichier en question ne violait pas de droits d'auteur ni ne se trouvait en contradiction avec les objectifs du projet :

  • Vous pouvez avoir envie de discuter avec l'administrateur qui a supprimé le fichier. Vous pouvez lui demander une explication détaillée ou lui apporter des preuves pour étayer la restauration du fichier.
  • Si vous ne désirez contacter personne directement, ou si un administrateur en particulier a décliné votre demande de restauration, ou si vous voulez donnez l'occasion à plus de personnes de participer à la discussion, vous pouvez demander la restauration du fichier sur cette page.
  • Si le fichier a été supprimé par manque de preuves de l’existence d'une permission de placement sous une licence par le détenteur des droits, merci de suivre la procédure pour apporter des preuves de l'existence d'une permission. Si vous avez déjà fait cela, il n'est pas nécessaire de demander une restauration ici. Si la permission indiquée est en ordre, le fichier sera restauré lorsque la permission sera traitée. Veuillez vous montrer patient, car cela peut prendre plusieurs semaines en fonction de la charge de travail du moment et du nombre de bénévoles disponibles.
  • Si certaines informations sont manquantes dans la description de l'image supprimée, il se peut qu'on vous pose des questions. Une réponse à ces questions est généralement attendue dans les 24 heures suivantes.

Restauration temporaire

Les fichiers peuvent être restaurés temporairement soit pour faciliter une discussion à propos d'une restauration de ce fichier, soit pour permettre le transfert vers un projet qui autorise l'usage loyal (fair use). Utilisez le modèle {{Request temporary undeletion}} sur le demande de restauration concernée et fournissez une explication.

  1. si la restauration temporaire est réalisée dans le but de faciliter un débat, expliquez en quoi elle pourrait être utile pour ce débat, ou
  2. si la restauration temporaire est destinée à permettre un transfert vers un projet acceptant l'usage légitime (fair use), précisez vers quel projet vous désirez transférer le fichier et proposez un lien vers la page du projet mentionnant sa politique en matière d'usage légitime.

Pour aider dans une discussion

Des fichiers peuvent être temporairement restaurés afin de donner des éléments lors d'un débat s'il apparaît difficile aux participants de décider si une demande de restauration doit être validée ou non tant qu'ils n'ont pas accès au fichier en question. Si une description ou une citation du fichier est suffisante, un administrateur peut les fournir au lieu d'accéder à la demande de restauration temporaire. Les demandes peuvent être rejetées si l'utilité pour la discussion est réduite par d'autres facteurs (comme la restauration, même temporaire, de fichiers où il existe des enjeux importants en matière de Commons:Photos de personnes identifiables). Les fichiers restaurés temporairement pour faciliter une discussion seront de nouveau supprimés après 30 jours, ou lorsque la demande est clôturée (en prenant le délai le plus court).

Pour permettre le transfert de contenu en fair use vers un autre projet

À l'inverse de Wikipédia en anglais et de quelques autres projets Wikimedia, Commons n'accepte pas d'héberger du contenu non libre dans le cadre de l'usage loyal (fair use). Si un fichier supprimé correspond aux critères pour un usage loyal (fait use) sur un autre projet Wikimedia, les utilisateurs peuvent demander sa restauration temporaire afin de le transférer vers cet autre projet. De telles requêtes peuvent en général être traitées rapidement (sans débat). Les fichiers restaurés temporairement pour être transférés seront supprimés après deux jours. Lors de la demande de restauration temporaire, veuillez préciser sur quel projet vous comptez transférer le fichier et fournir un lien vers la page du projet définissant les modalités de l'usage loyal (fair use) sur ce projet.

Liste des projets acceptant le fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Ajouter une demande

Assurez-vous en premier que vous avez essayé de trouver la raison pour laquelle le fichier a été supprimé. Ensuite, veuillez lire ces instructions sur la manière de rédiger la demande avant de l'ajouter :

  • Ne demandez pas la restauration d'un fichier qui n'a pas été supprimé.
  • Ne publiez pas votre adresse de courriel ou votre numéro de téléphone, ni ceux d'autres personnes.
  • dans le champ Subject:, saisissez un sujet approprié. Si vous demander la restauration d'un seul fichier, un titre comme [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] est conseillé (souvenez-vous du caractère deux-points initial dans le lien).
  • identifiez le ou les fichiers dont vous demandez la restauration et fournissez des liens vers les images (voir plus haut). Si vous ne connaissez pas le nom exact, fournissez autant d'informations que possible. Les demandes sans informations suffisantes sur ce qui doit être restauré peuvent être archivées sans préavis.
  • donnez le ou les motifs de la demande de restauration.
  • signez votre demande avec les quatre caractères tilde (~~~~). Si vous avez un compte sur Commons, connectez-vous d'abord. Si vous êtes la personne ayant téléversé le fichier en question, cela peut aider les administrateurs à l'identifier.

Ajoutez la demande à la fin de la page. Cliquez ici pour ouvrir la page à l'endroit où vous devriez ajouter votre demande. Sinon, vous pouvez cliquer sur le lien "modifier" situé à côté de la date, ci-dessous. Surveillez les mises à jour apportées à la section correspondant à votre demande.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Les débats clôturés concernant les restaurations sont archivés quotidiennement.

Requêtes en cours

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

File:Nahashogyoseimon.png

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]

  Not done: per whym. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Russian department awards

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

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)

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

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]

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

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

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

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]
Next batch of approximately 50. Abzeronow (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Next batch of 50. Abzeronow (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another batch of approx. 50. Abzeronow (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even More Files

About 3/4s done. Next batch. Abzeronow (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Next batch of around 50. Abzeronow (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mlýnské nábřeží, ruské reklamy.jpg

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

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]
Mateus2019, please read my comment above. Even paintings that are exact copies of an old master have copyrights in most countries. In several Eupopean counties, even exact copy photographs have a copyright of their own. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She didnt paint it (copy it) period. She added shadows (according to Rosenzweig) and words and a number (both not in an artistic manner). Greetings, --Mateus2019 (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what Rosenzweig said, and I'm sort of confused by what was done. It was clearly retouched in ways not respecting the original author. Nobody has discussed German law specifically, and I'm guessing this might get a copyright in the US, though I can imagine some discussion about the matter from the Copyright Office. "No biggy" doesn't really help, and I can't recall any cases in the US that would be great guidelines.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not write anywhere that there were shadows "added". To me it looks like the whole painting was recreated, and the two things I mentioned (color differences and the shape of the shadows) are the most obvious deviations. There are other spots, like the reflections of the buildings in the water, but with both images being rather small-ish that is not as obvious to see as the colors and the shapes of the shadows. --Rosenzweig τ 22:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment I uploaded the original painting to File:Das Fürstliche Haus zu Wörlitz von der Wasserseite aus.jpg. Yann (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Дмитров1.jpg

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]
Hmmm... This is interesting PoV (suggestion), but Jim's point below (We routinely require that each of the individual images in a montage is present on Commons) is too strong. Alex Spade (talk) 22:10, 21 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]

  Support Firstly the author of the image expressly freely licensed his image to the Commons. Secondly, according to the Russian Constitutional Landmark case mentioned above (see news on Court's website, [8] and [9]) NoFoP is not applicable anymore to the images of the objects situated in public spaces and therefore can be freely distributed requiring no object's (depicted on the images) copyrightholder permission. I think it's clear now that anything copyrighted that was publicly displayed (either by author himself or contractor) can be freely taken photo of and the photo can be therefore freely distributed, including for commercial purposes. If you don't want this way of your works to be imaged, then make it private. That's simple. Alexander Davronov (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bakradze (cropped).png

The file is free to use and can be found here on flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/eppofficial/25556451760/in/photolist-kLj6vw-tk761z-EWqS9w-EWkuJC-Ffvf24-ErpSfy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlad! (talk • contribs) 22:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose The Flickr site is owned by the European People's Party. The EXIF credits alohafred as the photographer. Since we have no evidence that the EPP has the right to freely license the image, in order to restore the image we will need a license from alohafred. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Info There is a Belgian professional photographer who use alohafred as a nickname (alohafred.com). Thuresson (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says that the copyright is CC BY 2.0 Attribution 2.0 Generic. Why should we assume that an organization as highly respected as EPP has no right to license it? Zlad! (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because most organizations, other than those such as libraries that regularly deal with copyright, don't have a clue. They assume that having the right to use an image in their promotional material gives them the right to freely license it. Licenses from professional photographers very rarely allow more than use in promotion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this may need to be dealt with by contacting the photographer directly, however, I do not have the time to do it right now and there already exists good quality pictures of Bakradze on Wikimedia, even if they are older, which can be used for him. Zlad! (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Vietnamese celebrities

I would like to request undeletion of these images of Vietnamese celebrities, which were tagged as No permission, yet their licenses are compatible with Commons:

and so on and thus need no permission. I already checked the licenses myself before and found no issues as I'm in charge of cleaning up copyright-violated images related to Vietnam and Vietnamese Wikipedia. These images are being used in articles about these celebrities in viwiki. Of course I can manually review them again and nominate those whose licenses are not compatible with Commons for deletion.  Băng Tỏa  13:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose You say, "screenshots from CC YouTube videos, photos taken by uploaders, photos first published on Commons and cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet and so on".

Large requests with multiple reasons are difficult here. Sreenshots from CC YouTube videos are usually derivative of the underlying video so the YouTube license is meaningless unless the YouTube account belongs to the actual copyright holder of the video. I am also very skeptical of {{Own}} claims of images of celebrities. Far too often they are taken from somewhere. That's particularly true if the uploader is a new editor.

I suggest you withdraw this, look hard at the images and their uploaders, and perhaps reopen it in several pieces, each having images that belong to the same type as you laid them out above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: Please review a request related to this issue: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Unusual Deletion of Images of Vietnamese Artists. Thank you. Plantaest (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May not all, but e.g. File:Tóc Tiên, Trấn Thành và Dương Anh Vũ tại Siêu trí tuệ Việt Nam.jpg and File:Tóc Tiên at the premiere for "Big Girls Don't Cry" music video (2015).JPG seem OK to me: HR with EXIF data, taken with a smartphone. Yann (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weighted Foreskin Restoration.png

Judging from the DR it seems obvious that the photo is created by the uploader--Trade (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Info Deletion request. As far as I can say File:Foreskin Restoration Weight.jpg is another penis selfie from the same contributor. Thuresson (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foto Senador Castellar Neto.jpg

It's an oficial picture of the Senator Castellar Neto, from the Senate page.

Link bellow:

https://www25.senado.leg.br/web/senadores/senador/-/perfil/5991

--Sf942 (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Info Reuploaded as File:SenadorCastellar.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sf942 : Why do you need two identical photos of the same subject? Thuresson (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's working; i've just tried again. Sorry and thanks. Sf942 (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Серж Лифар2.jpg

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) 21:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beer training for the Simpson desert run, circa 1980.png

In 2022, I mistakenly uploaded this photo with incorrect copyright information. My apologies for this error, as I was new to Wikipedia editing at the time. Unfortunately, the photo was deleted afterward. Yesterday, I re-uploaded the photo with the correct copyright details. I believe this should resolve the issue, and I hope that a mistake on the initial upload doesn't mean the photo is permanently disallowed. If you review the image, it's clear that there is no significant copyright risk. The person in the photo is now deceased and holds historical significance for our small community. Could you please advise on the steps I need to follow to clear this photo for use on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will3322 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably concerns File:Bon Beer simpson desert run training.png.. Thuresson (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that you own the copyright to this low quality black and white scan from a printed newspaper? Please contact the photographer and ask him or her to release the photo with an appropriate license, per the instructions at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/fr&oldid=756610919"