Open main menu

Commons:Undeletion requests

(Redirected from Commons:UD)

Shortcut: COM:UNDEL · COM:UR · COM:UD · COM:DRV

Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎svenska • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎پښتو • ‎中文 • ‎日本語

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use

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.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

Files uploaded by Alx90865

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The documents from Russian Empire, published in newspapers in 1906, free to access, no authoring. These documents are very useful for those researching their family roots from the mentioned cities. These documents for the mentioned cities were never published online before, I'd like to make them accessible for wide range of users who cannot visit local (Russian) libraries. Alx90865 (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I cannot see the files, but their names suggest that these are lists of voters. Simple lists do not have copyright, as they are data and are not creative. So it does not even matter if they are from the time of Russia Empire or are compiled just yesterday. Thus I   Support the undeletion at this time. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 04:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @EugeneZelenko: ? Ankry (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    I don't mind undeletion of these files as long as uploaded or somebody else is willing to fix license information. Actually I explained on my user talk page to uploader what need to be done, but somehow it was not implemented. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    @EugeneZelenko: I have added the "PD-Russian Empire" copyright tags several days ago, prior to deletion. So I do not understand what else should I do to these files to have them undeleted. Could you explain? --Alx90865 (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    I checked couple of files and licensing remained same as in time of nomination for deletion. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    @EugeneZelenko: I cannot check the licensing because these files are deleted. So I see 2 options: 1) Do add "PD-Russian-Empire" copyright tag to the files after they have been undeleted 2) upload the same files as new ones, providing "PD-Russian-Empire" tag. What should I do? --Alx90865 (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    I restored all files. License tags must be fixed. If you don't know how to do this, just edit these files and newly uploaded one and see difference in wiki-markup. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Alx90865: Take a look at File:Быхов список городских избирателей 1906.pdf I have edited it to make licence reasonable. We can argue whether PD-RusEmpire also applies, but I would disagree, since this is something that is actually not eligible for copyright in the first place. So please take a look and go through other ones as well. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gone Postal: Please take a look at File:Список_лиц,_имеющих_право_на_участие_в_выборах_в_Государственную_Думу_1906.pdf I have edited it in a slightly different way, providing source and author as Mogilevskie Gubernskie Vedomosti (newspaper where the lists were published), not "self-photographed". Also, there are tons of similar files containing old newspapers scans on wikicommons from other contributors, e.g. File:Irkutskie_gubernskie_vedomosti.jpg with licensing and authoring varying from file to file. Should I use newspaper as author, or 'my own work'? In my opinion, the author was the newspaper, not me (not to talk that actually these lists were created by special government electoral commitees prior to publishing them). Thanks for your contribution to this issue. --Alx90865 (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Alx90856: The way I interpret the "source" is where the specific file comes from. While author is the original copyrighted work and all the additional authors that have added something that has in any way transformed it. As such you filling in the author field goes further than what I did, and that is much better. As for the source portion, I disagree with repeating the author, but not enough to actually edit the file or demand that somebody does it differently. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Not eligible for copyright" can be a complex rule, and IMO should be avoided whenever a clearer, more definite rule applies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • The issue is that we do not follow that approach in other things, for example, when somebody puts a public domain image available under a free licence, we normally remove a free licence. Personally, I believe that we should have "fall back" templates. For example, "This image is PD-ineligible, if this happens to be wrong, it is PD-old, if this happens to be wrong it is also available under CC-BY". However, this isn't a place to discuss such a change. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Applying {{PD-RusEmpire}} to something that is not copyrightable (and never was) is providing false information IMO. Reasoning provided there applies to works, not to anything. But {{PD-text}} may be better here than {{PD-ineligible}}. Ankry (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with that. "Not eligible for copyright" is a better rationale than "PD in the Russian Empire". Regards, Yann (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree with using {{PD-text}}, it is more specific. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I've added {{PD-text}} as category (giving no license) and source as the newspaper title. Can you check please is it all OK to make this request finally closed? There are still some warnings for 'deriative work' which is definitely not this case, so I'm afraid of new deletions.. being a novice in wikicommons it is not so straightforward to cope with its policies--Alx90865 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Never was" seems like a big claim. Such things weren't clearly PD in the US until 1991 (the Supreme Court overruled lower courts in w:Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.) and database rights might apply today in the EU. Given the growth of modern copyright law from previous publisher protection, I wouldn't be surprised if the Russian Empire had sweat of the brow style copyright laws. Not to mention incidental text or typographical copyrights... easier just to say PD-RusEmpire and be done with it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Formosa_loves_river

They're all original built upon NASA's material under public domain. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Per the points I given in this discussion--Cohaf (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I am sorry, I still don't find your point justifiable. Wikimedia Projects are not democracy or literally a place to vote. Best. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 17:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We are not democracy, but providing a clear proof that uploaded content is copyright-free of freely licensed is up to uploader. Per COM:PCP if doubts cannot be resolved, we cannot host the images. No direct link to a NASA source provided nor an evidence that content from sinica.edu.tw is free. "版權所有 © 2008-2019 QGIS" is not a free license declaration, but a copyright claim. Educational only use also does not mean free. Ankry (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
"資料來源:

Release of ASTER GDEM Version 2 (ASTER GDEM官網)"

"Source:

Release of ASTER GDEM Version 2 (ASTER GDEM's official website)"

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 03:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

JPL Image Use Policy:

Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. Publishers who wish to have authorization may print this page and retain it for their records; JPL does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis.

By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees:

  • that Caltech makes no representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images, and does not represent others who may claim to be authors or owners of copyright of any of the images, and makes no warranties as to the quality of the images. Caltech shall not be responsible for any loss or expenses resulting from the use of the images, and you release and hold Caltech harmless from all liability arising from such use.
  • to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech."
  • that the endorsement of any product or service by Caltech, JPL or NASA must not be claimed or implied.

I will add the text that "work based on raw black&white data Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech." upon the recovery of the deleted photos.

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 11:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Cohaf, Yann: Should you guys have any question in regard to the copyright explanation above, please let me know. Best. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 11:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per information provided above. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Nope, the above is still not enough. We don't have the original pictures the derivatives is being produced and unless we have it, we cannot know that it is from this source. The special cases also stated that there can be images on the website not covered, so we can't be sure. It's still dubious licensing. --Cohaf (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. I'm observing this whole discussion on several pages, and here is how it looks to me: People are trying to find any potential way to view these files as a form of copyright violation, they do not find any reason, and after that they say "This must be an unknown unknown". Are you saying that you want to see a list of images that were used? If so this is just reasonable enough. My concern is that the "delete" side is actually not stating what is needed here, only vaguely hinting at it. @It's gonna be awesome: Could you please provide links to images that were used? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 12:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes @Gone Postal:. I need to see the actual files. Now they are obtained from a webpage which obviously the webpage is copyrighted. They claimed it is from NASA which in the discussion in Yann talkpage, I note that NASA have a clause that forbids commercial use without explicit permission. The commercial user needs to ask for permission each time they use the files. I supposed it is the same as per derivatives. We just can't host it here. There are a few issues: 1. The clear photo should be given. 2. The NASA clause needs to be resolved (which I offered them to host the files locally at zhwp). 3. Per COM:PCP, I am just taking due precautions. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
          • If all the data come from NASA, then the files can be accepted, but it is not clear to me if that's really the case. All content produced by NASA is in the public domain. File:Landform of Formosa.png was reuploaded. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
            • @Yann, Cohaf: I produced the final colorful images based on a raw B&W image of ASTER GDEM linked from the educational website hosted by Academica Sinica of Taiwanese Government. Please feel free to let me if you have any question. Regards. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 13:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is the raw B&W image embedded in the educational website's example, as you can see that's the northern part of Taiwan. I followed the steps taught by the website to download the complete raw B&W image of Taiwan as a whole. Afterward, I started off the work from a raw B&W image of Taiwan. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 13:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment IMO there are 3 separate issues: 1. the license of the source data; 2. What material was used to produce these maps? 3. Does using the data to produce a new map OK? If the data is just geographical coordinates, I am not sure there can be a copyright on them. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  1. The license of the source data:
  • Source:
Release of ASTER GDEM Version 2 (ASTER GDEM's official website)"
  1. What material was used to produce these maps?
  • A raw B&W data of ASTER GDEM
  1. Does using the data to produce a new map OK?
  • Yes, otherwise the educational website, directly operated by the highest rank of academic institution in Taiwan supported by Taiwanese Government, wouldn't teach people to produce without prior warning.
  • Per JPL Image Use Policy, it's okay to use the data to produce a new map.

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 04:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • IMO you confuse several things: 1. ASTER GDEM Version 2 doesn't seem to be a free license, 2. raw data is not "black and white" as you wrote, raw data is numbers. 3. "educational website" doesn't mean that it is covered by a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Firstly,

JPL Image Use Policy:

Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. Publishers who wish to have authorization may print this page and retain it for their records; JPL does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis.

By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees:

  • that Caltech makes no representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images, and does not represent others who may claim to be authors or owners of copyright of any of the images, and makes no warranties as to the quality of the images. Caltech shall not be responsible for any loss or expenses resulting from the use of the images, and you release and hold Caltech harmless from all liability arising from such use.
  • to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech."
  • that the endorsement of any product or service by Caltech, JPL or NASA must not be claimed or implied.

Secondly, I started off upon a simple non-visible black and white picture of Taiwan of ASTER GDEM.
Lastly, I would like to emphasize that I learned the abstract knowledge rather than just copied the physical proprietary objects from the educational website.

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 04:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

ASTER GDEM does seem to have a free license -- if it's even copyrightable to begin with. It sounds like the GDEM data is the result of automated processing over the raw data[1], and it's given out freely. There does not seem to be any restrictions on what you can do with it (that was not always the case, but seems to be today). The raw data does seem to be photos taken by a NASA satellite using a Japanese instrument. I have no idea if there is any real aiming of the camera or if it just continually takes pictures. But even presuming there might have been a copyright, it would seem the data is being released freely with no restrictions, as is common with NASA efforts (even joint ones with non-PD-USGov entities). Other than pretty extreme theoretical areas, I don't see a real reason to doubt they are free. PD-USGov-NASA may be the most convenient license. I am not sure if the process used added any expression, so not sure if the license should just be that of the original, or whether the user needs to license their efforts as well. But leaning   Support on this if the only real question is the license of the ASTER data. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your clear insight. I would say this is the point. The legitimacy of the license of the ASTER data is the thing they want to confirm. Respectfully yours. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 05:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Put it in a nutshell: I got an ASTER data. Afterward, I processed the ASTER data to make it colorful and visible using the knowledge learned from the educational website. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 05:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
版權所有 (All rights reserved);   Oppose unless It's gonna be awesome may make the website source clarify (澄清, or correct 更正) the "original source" is/to be free use. If It's gonna be awesome can really make it, please notice me, and I would appreciate that. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 03:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
"All rights reserved" says nothing about if it's free or not -- it is the same thing as a copyright notice. The owner reserves the rights, then licenses them with a free license. The copyright notice was for the U.S. and later the Universal Copyright Convention; "All rights reserved" was for the Buenos Aires Convention, so people tended to use both together and continue to do so. It does not contradict any license given for that copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sanmosa: I learned the knowledge from the educational website to process the ASTER data to make it colorful and visible. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 16:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

File:The battle path 10th guards rifle corps.jpg

Hello!

What is reason to delete this file? There was no discussion after the file was nominated for deletion. I have made changes to the license, it was taken into account when making the outcome? --Odinn1 (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Odinn1: Please clarify if this is a request for administrative action. Thuresson (talk) 06:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Thuresson: This is a request to restore the file or explain the reasons for its deletion. --Odinn1 (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Odinn1: Deleted per community decission as uploader did not provide an evidence that they file indeed originates from mil.ru / минобороны.рф domains. If there is such evidence (or another clear reason for the declared license, the decission may be reconsidered). Ankry (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: This document is available on the portal memory of the Nation (pamyat-naroda.ru) which is owned by the Ministry of defence of the Russian Federation. --Odinn1 (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
And where is the evidence that all content of this portal is also owned by the Ministry and that the did grant the CC license to it? This must be explicitly stated to be valid. The fact that somebody published something on their page does not automatically mean that they have right to license this. Ankry (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Evidence that all the content of this portal also belongs to the Ministry can be found in the section "about the project" of this portal " Welcome to the portal "Memory of the people", created by the Ministry of defense by the decision of the Russian organizing Committee "Victory" and supported by the order of the President of the Russian Federation And". Under CC license I will look for information. --Odinn1 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
"created by the Ministry of defense" does not mean copyright ownership to all the content. Maybe, they only have the right to use this? Or they can use unless somebody complains? Ankry (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Documents posted on this portal belong to the Central archive of the Ministry of defence of the Russian Federation, it follows that all scanned documents posted on the portal belong to the Ministry of defence. --Odinn1 (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
"The main goal of the project is to provide users with the opportunity to get the most complete information about the participants of the great Patriotic war through new interactive tools and the development of generalized databases «memorial» and «Feat of the people in the great Patriotic war of 1941-1945»". --Odinn1 (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Here is the answer to the administration portal "terms of use documents from the website in publications relating to the history of the great Patriotic war, is simple – you must link to the website. Not a mandatory link for each photo, it is only necessary that it was clear that the photos from the site. For example "All pictures are not particularly marked, are taken from the website of the Ministry of defense of the Russian Federation pamyat-naroda.ru»". --Odinn1 (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
  1. Is this declaration public? This must be verifiable even in 20-50 years. So if not public and archived (or be verified by an uninvolved license reviewer), it should go through OTRS.
  2. I see no declaration that the site owner owns copyright; and without such a declaration (or another evidence) the above words are rather just their wish than a legal contract.
Summarizing: this does not convince me, but another admin opinion is welcome. Ankry (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Sir John Woodroffe.jpg

This file may correspond to [2] (1928). If so, the author is: "Lafayette (Life time: not applicable)" as in File:1911 Redmond Barry.jpg (1911) or File:Katherine Mayo 1928.jpg (1928). --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  Info Same photo. Thuresson (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Then, I propose to undelete it under {{PD-UK-anon}}. Thanks. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rédacteur Tibet: The template says: "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." Is there any such information to be added to the image description? Thuresson (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Source in [3] indicate : "Artist: Lafayette (Lafayette Ltd) (founded 1880), Photographers. Artist associated with 6906 portraits." Based on this source, in the image description, we can indicate: "Sir John George Woodroffe, by Lafayette, half-plate nitrate negative, 25 October 1928, Given by Pinewood Studios via Victoria and Albert Museum, 1989." or as in File:Sir Abe Bailey, 1st Bt (Lafayette, 2).jpg. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:U.K.-Japanese minister meeting at 2019 ASEAN.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are come from FCO, an official department of U.K. Government, and they are licensed as {{OGL3}}. See https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office A1Cafel (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated": but the images originate from twitter, not from www.gov.uk. @A1Cafel: Why OGL3 should apply to them? Ankry (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: UK Government has a national archive on all official Twitter accounts from every department. --A1Cafel (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@A1Cafel: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk is not www.gov.uk. Any evidence that OGL3 applies to webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk service content also? Ankry (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: The home page does have the OGL terms. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  Support then, if source link is changed to point to the archive. Ankry (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Anybody volunteers? Ankry (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:EF 131 V1.JPG

I recently got a copy of the 1998 book Secret Aircraft Designs of the Third Reich by renowned Nazi aviation writer David Myhra and it transpired that the deleted file shows a scale model of the planned Junkers Ju 287A-1 made by Gunter Sengfelder. The deleted image in question is on page 7 of Myhra's book, and a grainy photo of the EF 131 and project documents for the EF 131 can be found in Gordon (2004) and Griehl (2004). Also note that Griehl (2004, p. 289) identifies the Ju 287 V3 as unarmed and the Ju 287 V5 as the first armed Ju 287 prototype.

References:

Gordon, Yefim, 2004. Early Soviet Jet Bombers. Hinkley, Midland. ISBN 1-85780-181-4.
Griehl, Manfred, 2004. Jet Planes of the Third Reich, Secret Projects: Volume 2. Sturbridge, Massachusetts: Monogram Aviation Publications. Extrapolaris (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
Good research. What is the source and copyright status of the photo? Thuresson (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure who took this photo of the Ju 287 model, but the same pic can be found at these links:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdWings/comments/83708m/okb1_ef_131_soviet_experimental_bomber_based_on/
http://war-russia.info/index.php/nomenklatura-vooruzhenij1/345-aviatsiya/blizhnie-frontovye-bombarbirovshchiki/1588-opytnyj-dalnij-bombardirovshchik-150-ef-150-1952g-368.4.252.105 19:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
@Extrapolaris: Note, that if author or early pulication cannot be identified, the photo may be copyrited up to 120 years since creation; see COM:Hirtle chart for details. None of the above publications is more than 70 years old. Ankry (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
David Myhra may have taken the photograph of the model, and it was featured on page 7 of Secret Aircraft Designs of the Third Reich. This picture therefore made its way into the internet who were unaware that it was of a scale model of the Ju 287A-1. There's a 1947 photo of the EF 131 parked next to two Lisunov Li-2s in Ramenskoye at the following link which could be used for this deleted file:
http://www.hugojunkers.bplaced.net/junkers-ef131.html Extrapolaris (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
David Myhra is unlikely to be the photo author. He was 15 when the photo was made. Moreover, his copyright has not expire, yet. Ankry (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  Not done As far as source and copyright status is concerned, there is no new information. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:EF 131 V1.JPG. Thuresson (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:ATO.jpg

This image is owned by the user of the proposed Wikipedia Page, for Arc Ayoola Tokunbo Onajide. He has paid for full rights to use the photograph in whatever manner he may choose. The photo does not therefore, infringe on any copyright violation.

This image also appears on his company website (atoarchitects.com), and is being reused for this Wikipedia page following his permission.

--Ayoonajide (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose The right to claim authorship cannot be sold or bought. Copyright transfer contract can be provided together with a free license permission following COM:OTRS. This procedure is required for images already published with no evidence of free license. We need an evidence that the image may be used by anybody for any purpose od for derivative works creation and we need to verify if the user's contract allows for this. Ankry (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Deborah Bronk - Bigelow Laboratory_cropped.jpg

I would like to request that "Deborah Bronk - Bigelow Laboratory_cropped" be undeleted. I have explicit permission from Deborah Bronk and Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences (the institution which took the photo) to use this image on Wikipedia and allow it to become a free resource as part of Wikimedia Commons. Algae1974 (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Algae1974: permission "to use" does not fit Wikimedia Commons licensing requirements. We need a free license that comes directly from the copyright holder: either via their homepage or via email, following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Facundo Bosch.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Comme tous les joueurs de foot ou de rugby, les photos viennent des sites des clubs. Je ne crois pas que la photo illustrant l'article sur Mbappé soit véritablement libre de droit...merci de prendre en compte ma demande pour ce joueur. TomTom95240 (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose no evidence of free license by the photographer.
@TomTom95240: If you upload your own image, eg. made during a sport event, you can declare any license you wish. If you upload an image made by somebody else, you can declare only the license that was granted by the photographer and you need to provide an evidence for that. We do not know what license the photographer granted to the club and without clear evidence that it is one of free licenses accepted in Wikimedia Commons we cannot host this image here. Ankry (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Aurus Senat.jpg

I am the author of that photo. It is my name in EXIF.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unkinderpuma (talk • contribs) 09:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
It could be. Author name in EXif is Andrey Okunev. Would prefer confirmation via OTRS Gbawden (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zuzannadolega

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The following works were uploaded by the artist because she established cooperation with Wikimedia Poland as part of the GLAM project. The artist was asked to upload them from her own account. The works "Miesz(k)ając (w) przeszłości" and "G8 Gdyńska Grafika Kobieca" are collages using works in the public domain and uploaded by Polish cultural institutions as part of Polish GLAM projects. The works have a high educational value, because they will serve as an example of the possibilities that artists can use works in the public domain for their own creativity. The works are to be an example of works for the planned GLAM remix competition, which Wikimedia Polska plans to organize. The uploaded files were needed to illustrate the activity reports. Some of them were uploaded by the artist because she took part in the Public Domain Day ("Dzień Domeny Publicznej 2019") by conducting workshops at the Digital Center. The event was organized in cooperation with Wikimedia Polska and the artist was asked to prepare the documentation and make it available through Wikimedia Commons. The situation was the same in the case of the photographs taken during workshops for creating Warsaw collages ("Warsztaty tworzenia warszawskich kolaży"). During the workshop materials from the public domain were used.The uploaded files were needed to illustrate the activity reports. The uploaded files were also needed to illustrate the article on Wikipedia: Zuzanna Dolega. The artist uses a unique technique of pyrography, which gives the work an educational value. --Celina Strzelecka (WMPL) (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  Support IMO, in scope. Ankry (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  Support Those are important files documenting both chapters activities and artist's work. They can be used to educate about Wikimedia Commons and how it can be used in a creative way. WMPL needs them to illustrate, promote and educate. And let me add that the fact tha media gathered through GLAM projects are being deleted is quite discouraging for our volunteers and partners. Natalia Szafran-Kozakowska (WMPL) (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  Support I would like to support a statement above. GLAM-wiki cooperation is very important and especially in countries like Poland, where there are still problems with open knowledge, copyright and understanding of open licences. Every time, we managed to convince an institution or Artist to share its her/his collection/works, we consider this as a success, because it`s not easy. That`s why we support all actions under the protection of Wikimedia Poland to make artists feel safe and well treated. Zuzanna Dolega is a well-known artist (there is a wiki article about her), and also she decided to make an effort and create her own wiki-account. She carefully took care of this project, choosing very rare works of a great value. We consider this as a great example of artist`s involvment, which could be good for future cooperation with art`s world. Works, which have been deleted should be restored, because they should illustrate article about artist and about rare technique, too. And the last part - we have to document whole event by creating a gallery of works on the websites of Wikimedia Poland. Klara Sielicka-Baryłka (WMPL) (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  Support Wikimedia Polska is trying to encourage artists to support free licenses and we should be happy that Zuzanna Dolega agreed to cooperate. I can't understand deleting these files. Please undelete them all. Gdarin (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  Support The files in question shouldn't have been deleted in the first place as they are definitely in scope. Firstly, they come from a notable artist using a rare technique of pyrography who isn't seeking publicity here (she already has it), but was asked to share her work. Secondly, the files are a document of WMPL GLAM activities concentrating on promoting the idea of free licences among artists and the wider public. I believe they should be restored. Maire (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  Support I am baffled as to the ease with which Commons admins deleted files that document the artist's works as well as the activities / partnership of one of WM chapters. The files ought to be restored to encourage artists to go into the digital world, not exclude them. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 17:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:2018 OHBM Replication Award.jpg

I am the true copyright holder of this photograph. I was in that room an took it with my own camera. I published it on Twitter (https://twitter.com/chrisgorgo/status/1008291843488952321) soon after I took it. https://www.ukm.de/index.php?id=vollstaendiger_artikel&tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=6832&cHash=13444a1f295e6cb983f16c0908d271e6 must've copied it from there.

Please undelete it as soon as you can.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Φιλο (talk • contribs) 14:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
From what I see, you posted after the website. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 14:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
You are wrong. ukm.de took a screenshot of my tweet - including the timestamp. Just compare https://www.ukm.de/fileadmin/news_import/Benedikt_Sundermann_award.jpg with https://twitter.com/chrisgorgo/status/1008291843488952321. Please undelete the file as soon as possible.Φιλο (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Φιλο: When there is doubt over who owns the rights to a photo we need confirmation via the OTRS process. Please contact them to verify that that is the case and we can take it from there. While this may be a pain at the end of the day we are trying to protect the photographers rights Gbawden (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Lallah miles perry 2007.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I previously used this photo on Lallah Perry's page on Geni. Notice that I as the creator of this wikipedia page have the same name as the the administrator of the Geni page. I can use the same picture twice. Dcroberts (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

As this is low resolution photo, I would prefer proving authorship through COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Abena rockstar 05.jpg

I am requesting undeletion for this series of pictures because the reason for this deletion wasn't done in good faith. The photographer in question User:Iamnipah is a member of the Ghanaian community and has uploaded a lot of images on commons. He has participated in some Wikimedia photo contexts too.

The name of the pictures deleted are the following;

The images uploaded do not fall into this category COM:CSD#F10 and I believe this request must be rescinded and photos restored.

Looking forward to hearing your point of view too.

Thanks.

--Owula kpakpo (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  Support. They seem artistic photos indeed. Also subject seems to be notable. @Gbawden: ? Ankry (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  Done Scope can be discussed Gbawden (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Kyng Oxxf4rd photo.jpg

I am the person in the picture, my name is Quewayne Cunningham also known as "Kyng Oxxf4rd". I own all rights to the photo and I request that it is restored so that my article can be completed and look more presentable. Please make that change as soon as possible. Thank You.

--I Am Walk N Oxxf4rd (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Q. Cunningham 9/18/2019

@I Am Walk N Oxxf4rd: Generally, if copyright of a photo belongs to somebody else than the photographer, we need an evidence of copyright transfer to be provided to OTRS. But in this case copyright was not related to deletion reason. The image is out of COM:SCOPE as autopromotion is not allowed here.Ankry (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Quewayne Cunningham Kid.jpg

I am the person in the picture, my name is Quewayne Cunningham also known as "Kyng Oxxf4rd". I own all rights to the photo and I request that it is restored so that my article can be completed and look more presentable. Please make that change as soon as possible. Thank You.

--I Am Walk N Oxxf4rd (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Q. Cunningham 9/18/2019

@I Am Walk N Oxxf4rd: Generally, if copyright of a photo belongs to somebody else than the photographer, we need an evidence of copyright transfer to be provided to OTRS. But in this case copyright was not related to deletion reason. The image is out of COM:SCOPE as autopromotion is not allowed here. Ankry (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:UsElections Obama Latuff.png

improper DR closure at Commons:Deletion requests/File:UsElections Obama Latuff.png. Original author release has OTRS confirmation, see User talk:555/Latuff --Denniss (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Denniss: OTRS confirmation is for user identity only to confirm validity of license granted at upload. But this image was not uploaded by user Latuff, so the ticket confirms nothing here. Ankry (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
That's irrelevant as all his works are released as copyleft per his statement. --Denniss (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Denniss: Do you wish reopenning the DR? Ankry (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Example.jpg

Reina Escolapia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonimo242002 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
File:Reina de roma.jpg is the only deleted image of this user.
If the image is not uploaded personally by the photographer, we need evidence of free license. Not provided yet. Ankry (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Michael Aloni1.jpg

Hi There, We are Michael Aloni's managers and we kindly request that you undelete the main image we uploaded yesterday to his page. We and he hold the copyright to this image and would like to have it represented on his Wikipedia page.

Kindly let me know if I can help this matter in any way. My direct email address is sarafin@bursteinco.com.

Thank you 64.183.30.230 22:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose We need an evidence that it is freely licensed by the photographer, or that the copyright has been transferred to those who declare free license on them. If the information is not public, then it can be provided only via COM:OTRS. Ankry (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Portrait of prosenjit koley.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this photo is the real picture of Prosenjit Koley. And it was clicked by me. So I have the copyright of using this picture in the article. Girltalks (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Girltalks: Upload the original image then, with full camera nfo in EXIF, not the one already processed by facebook. Ankry (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

File:DILEVA-IMAGE.jpg

I upladed a photo of Thomas Di Leva that I have the copyright to. It was deleted and linked to this page: http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/helenewigrenprbeyond/images/thomas-di-leva-496006 I am Sofie Di Leva (the photographer of this photo). By uploading this photo I agree to the wikipedia use of the photo under a free creative commons license.

Best regards Sofie

Shantify108 (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

File might be File:Di Leva.jpg instead. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Shantify108: Please send in your permission to COM:OTRS as source states All Rights Reserved. (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

DILEVA-IMAGE.jpg

I upladed a photo of Thomas Di Leva that I have the copyright to. It was deleted and linked to this page: http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/helenewigrenprbeyond/images/thomas-di-leva-496006 I am Sofie Di Leva (the photographer of this photo). By uploading this photo I agree to the wikipedia use of the photo under a free creative commons license. Shantify108 (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

File:roman_riklin_2017_Andy Juchli_Zürich.jpg

Dear Wikipedia-Team

The File "roman_riklin_2017_Andy Juchli_Zürich" is a profile picture of the swiss componist Roman Riklin. The picture was taken by us and we would like to update his Wikipedia-page by uploading it on the page.

Thank you very much for taking care of my request as fast as possible.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peri_Showhouse?markasread=16594915&markasreadwiki=commonswiki#File:Roman_riklin_2017_Andy_Juchli_Zürich.jpg


Kind regards, Team of Roman Riklin

@Peri Showhouse: Please can you provide confirmation via COM:OTRS and your request will be reviewed Gbawden (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Selbstporträt von Reinhard Feldmeier.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I was given permission by the creator of this photography (= Mr Feldmeier, the person in the picture) to upload the file under a CC license. Although the self-portrait had been previously uploaded to a personal webpage of Göttingen University (https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/prof.+dr.+reinhard+feldmeier/55870.html), Mr Feldmeier remains the right owner of the photography, which is why the reason the person marking the upload as copyright violation seems invalid to me. He cited https://www.uni-goettingen.de/en/copyrights+and+intellectual+property+rights/439463.html, but this legal disclaimer actually acknowledges the possibility of permissions given by "the respective copyright holder". I could, therefore, ask the copyright holder to give his explicit permission per mail, if this would solve the matter? But (correct me please if I am wrong) before this, the file has to be restored to put the link into the permission text, right? DaPa2019 (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Kalantakaposter.jpg

Hi, This poster was designed for movie. This poster has no copyrights violations. Izaccess (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)