Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Вікісховище:Запити на відновлення

This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 100% 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.

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

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

На цій сторінці користувачі можуть попросити про відновлення вилученої сторінки або файлу (далі — «файл»). Користувачі можуть залишати свої коментарі до таких запитів, залишаючи такі ремарки як keep deleted або undelete із зазначенням відповідної аргументації.

Ця сторінка не є частиною Вікіпедії. Ця сторінка — про контент Вікісховища — сховище вільних медіафайлів, що використовуються у Вікіпедії та в інших проектах Вікімедіа. Вікісховище не зберігає енциклопедичних статей. Щоб попросити про відновлення статті чи іншого контенту, що був вилучений з англомовної Вікіпедії, перегляньте сторінку перегляду вилучення в цьому проекті.

Commons deletion (policy)


Як дізнатися, чому файл було вилучено

Спершу перегляньте журнал вилучень, і дізнайтесь, чому файл було вилучено. Також скористайтесь функцією Посилання сюди, щоб побачити , чи є якісь обговорення щодо вилученого файлу. Якщо Ви завантажили цей файл, подивіться, чи є якісь повідомлення на Вашій сторінці обговорення користувача, що пояснюють вилучення. Далі прочитайте, будь ласка, політику вилучення, політику щодо сфери проекту, і правила ліцензування ще раз, щоб дізнатись, чому файл міг бути неприйнятним на Вікісховищі.

Якщо вказана причина неочевидна, або Ви з нею незгодні, можете зв'язатися з адміністратором, що виконав вилучення, щоб він дав пояснення такої дії, або повідомте його про нову аргументацію, що нівелює попередню причину вилучення. Також можете зв'язатись із будь-яким іншим активним адміністратором (можливо таким, що розмовляє Вашою рідною мовою) — більшість з них будуть раді допомогти, і якщо справді була зроблена помилка, виправити ситуацію.

Оскарження вилучення

Вилучення, коректні з точки зору поточних політик вилучення, сфери проекту і ліцензування не будуть скасовані. Пропозиції щодо внесення змін до політик можна робити на сторінках обговорення цих політик.

Якщо Ви вважаєте, що файл, про який йде мова, не є ані порушенням авторських прав, ані не виходить за межі поточної сфери проекту:

  • Можливо, Ви захочете обговорити це питання з адміністратором, що виконав вилучення файлу. Можете попросити адміністратора надати детальне пояснення або надати вагомі підстави на підтримку відновлення файлу.
  • Якщо Ви не хочете зв'язуватися з будь-ким напряму, або якщо окремий адміністратор відхилив відновлення, або якщо Ви хочете мати можливість ширшої участі людей в обговоренні, можете подати запит на відновлення на цій сторінці.
  • Якщо файл вилучено через відсутність доказу ліцензійного дозволу від правовласника, будь ласка, виконайте процедуру з надання підтвердження дозволу. Якщо Ви вже це зробили, немає потреби подавати запит на відновлення ще тут. Якщо з поданим дозволом все добре, файл буде відновлено, коли поданий дозвіл опрацюють. Будь ласка, проявіть терпіння, бо це може зайняти декілька тижнів, залежно від робочих завалів і доступності активних волонтерів.

Тимчасове відновлення

Файли можна тимчасово відновлювати або для того, щоб підтримати обговорення щодо відновлення цього файлу, або щоб для перенесення його в проект, який дозволяє добропорядне використання. Використайте шаблон {{Request temporary undeletion}} у відповідному запиті на відновлення і надайте пояснення.

  1. якщо тимчасове відновлення має підтримати обговорення, поясніть, яким чином воно буде корисним для обговорення, або
  2. якщо тимчасове відновлення має дозволити перенести файл на проект, де дозволене добропорядне використання, зазначте, в який саме проект Ви хочете перенести цей файл, і дайте посилання на інформацію про критерії добропорядного використання в цьому проекті.

Для підтримки дискусії

Файли можна тимчасово відновлювати для підтримки обговорення, якщо користувачам без доступу до файлу важко визначити, чи запит на відновлення слід задовольнити чи ні. Там, де доступний опис файлу або є достатньою цитата зі сторінки опису файлу, адміністратор може надати щось із цього замість тимчасового відновлення файлу. Запити можна відхиляти, якщо користь для дискусії нівелюється іншими факторами (наприклад, відновлення, навіть тимчасове, файлів, де є значні сумніви в доцільності збереження файлу з огляду на Вікісховище:Фотографії людей, яких можна ідентифікувати). Файли, тимчасово відновлені для підтримки обговорення, будуть вилучені знову через тридцять днів, або коли запит на відновлення закриють (залежно що відбудеться раніше).

Для уможливлення перенесення контенту до іншого проекту, де дозволене добропорядне використання

На відміну від англійської Вікіпедії та декількох інших проектів Вікімедіа, Вікісховище не приймає контенту на умовах добропорядного використання з посиланням на положення добропорядного використання. Якщо вилучений файл відповідає вимогам до добропорядного використання в якомусь іншому проекті Вікімедіа, користувачі можуть подати запит на тимчасове відновлення файлу для перенесення його туди. Ці запити зазвичай можна швидко виконувати (без обговорення). Файли, тимчасово відновлені з метою перенесення в інший проект Вікімедіа, будуть заново вилучені через два дні. При поданні запиту на тимчасове відновлення. будь ласка, зазначте, в який саме проект Ви плануєте перенести файл, і дайте посилання на політику добропорядного використання в цьому проекті.

Подання запиту

Спершу переконайтесь, що Ви зробили спробу дізнатись, чому файл було вилучено. Далі, будь ласка, прочитайте ці інструкції щодо того, яким чином подавати запит, перед тим як, власне, його подати:

  • В полі Subject: введіть відповідну назву теми. Якщо Ви подаєте запит на відновлення єдиного файлу, рекомендується додати заголовок на кшталт [[:File:Вилучений_файл.jpg]]. (Не забудьте додати на початку двокрапку в посиланні.)
  • Ідентифікуйте файл(и), який Ви хочете відновити, і надайте відповідні посилання (див. вище). Якщо Ви не знаєте точної назви, надайте стільки інформації, скільки зможете. Запити, що не містять інформації про те, що саме треба відновити, можуть бути заархівовані без жодного додаткового повідомлення.
  • Вкажіть причини запитуваного відновлення.
  • Підпишіть свій запит за допомогою чотирьох тильд (~~~~). Якщо Ви маєте обліковий запис на Вікісховищі, спершу увійдіть у систему. Якщо Ви були завантажувачем файлу, це може допомогти адміністраторам ідентифікувати його.

Додайте запит внизу сторінки. Клацніть тут, щоб відкрити сторінку, де Ви маєте додати свій запит. Альтернативно, можете відкрити посилання «ред.» біля розділу з поточною датою нижче.

Архіви

Закриті обговорення щодо відновлення архівуються щодня.

Поточні запити

Watch View Edit

Files uploaded by Fabriciofffs

These files were created and uploaded by Fabriciofffs (talk · contribs), who submitted them for an unspecified contest. When he repented, way past the 7 days grace, he started to falsify the licensing metadata of his own files, which eventually led to the deletion of some. Please restore all of his files with their original licensing terms.

Some shall also be marked with {{Published|small=yes|legal=no|url=https://www.viajali.com.br/motivos-para-conhecer-caverna-do-maroaga-e-gruta-da-judeia/|accessdate=3 May 2018}}

Kind regards, --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 16:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I've found some more: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fernando de Noronha 1.jpg, …2.jpg, …3.jpg, …5.jpg, …6.jpg, …9.jpg, …10.jpg, and …11.jpg. Att --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 16:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
   Support . I agree with @Usien6:. Apparently the user did not read properly the rules of contest, not won the prize and now wants to delete the photos. But, our licenses are very clear: "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.". EVinente (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@Usien6: Most, maybe all, of them contain copyright information that according to our rules should be explained via OTRS permission; see Commons:Deletion requests/Files_ uploaded by Fabriciofffs.    Oppose unless we get such a permission, which is unlikely. Ankry (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: "BELO HORIZONTE" is actually a Brazilian city. The sixth largest one, in fact. There was, more than obviously, a technical mishandling of metadata. All of his uploads were created by a single person: himself. Att --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 14:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I said the same about BELO HORIZONTE here, but Yann ignored me. @Usien6: please, link to Commons resources wherever possible. Wikipedia has too much publicity nowadays. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, there was some uncertainty, that's why I created a DR, and Jcb seems to agree, as he deleted the files. There were not many comments in the DR. More opinions would be useful. Now if there is a (near) consensus that this was a technical mishandling of metadata, as Usien6 suggests above, I am fine with restoration. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: I see you have administrator rights and should therefore be able to inspect deleted files. Would you mind checking if any of the aforementioned photos were taken by either a Canon/Canon PowerShot SX50 HS or a SONY/DSC-H55 ?? Thank you so much, --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 13:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Usien6: I checked 2 of them. There is no mention of a camera in EXIF data. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Thank you for your support !! I could not understand your last two sentences, though, as English is not my mother tongue … Kind regards, --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 13:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Mbazri

Please temporarily undelete all so I can take a look at them. I'm familiar with some of the complexities of Tasnim. At least File:Hadi Hajatmand & Ali Soleimani at the Eighth Ammar Film Festival.jpg appears to have been wrongly deleted. It's https://newsmedia.tasnimnews.com/Tasnim/Uploaded/Image/1396/10/15/139610152329007612973144.jpg and any derivative work that may be seen on that image would obviously be DM, so now I want to look at everything that was nominated. - Alexis Jazz 16:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please ping me if this request is honored as I don't check this page on a regular basis. - Alexis Jazz 23:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I would    Supporta general undeletion of all these files. I checked a handfull random files from this DR and all of them had passed licence reviews that link to the original Tasnim pages with attribution including the allegedly "personal" images in the first section. This sweeping mass deletion was inappropriate imho. De728631 (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose - except for the first three files, it has not been questioned whether these pictures come from Tasmin. The point is, these pictures are depicting something that's copyrighted. E.g. there is no FoP in Iran and Tasnim is unlikely to be the architect of some depicted buildings. Please see COM:DW. Jcb (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support to undelete several of them –if not all–, because a second check is needed. For instance the background in File:Reza Borji at the Eighth Ammar Film Folk Festival.jpg and File:Amrollah Ahmadjoo at the Closing Ceremony of Eighth Ammar Film Folk Festival 01.jpg is blurry and can be considered de minimis as the focus is on the singer. The undeletion would allow a more collegial verification, and we can then delete again the ones that cannot be kept, like File:Camp Speicher massacre Location after Fall of ISIS 10.jpg --Ruthven (msg) 19:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • That sounds reasonable to me. As to derivatives, these images should in fact be checked for de-minimis, simple logos, etc., so an undeletion with a more thorough inspection of individual images is a good idea. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Exactly. I only asked for temporary undeletion, I just hadn't seen the DR back when it was open. (and knew considerably less about DM, FoP and other things at the time) I'm fine with it if a new DR is created to discuss the files, but right now I can't even see them. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This is really needed. Now a file that was extracted from one of the files in this DR got speedied: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Amrollah_Ahmadjoo_at_the_Closing_Ceremony_of_Eighth_Ammar_Film_Folk_Festival_01).jpg&diff=303534631&oldid=300202131. I just hit undo and I'm not even going to bother to start a DR: that file is fine and a DR is a waste of everybody's time. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Alexis Jazz: I'v e undeleted that file, blurring the logo in the background. Imho it was unecessary because the logo was alredy blurred, as it wasn't the focus of the photo. When I'll have more time, I'll dig a little more in the deleted versions, even if I would prefer to have a different sysop to review those files. --Ruthven (msg) 08:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks. If they could could just all be undeleted (and all re-nominated or the DR reopened) I can go on a blurring tour myself. (and mark files I think can be speedily deleted again) I'm not sure what is blocking that from happening. Tasnim images are quite frequently used to crop faces from, so any logos or artwork in the background tend to be irrelevant anyway. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


File:Tahrir Square - February 10, 2011.png (deleted revisions)

What are our stance on a person releasing a low-res file under a free license on Commons, but high-res on Flickr? We have gone forth and back on that issue over a long-time on noticeboards and specific images in the past, and yet we don't have a written policy about it yet.

Creative Commons has stated the following on this issue:

“[I]f the low-resolution and high-resolution copies are the same work under applicable copyright law, permission under a CC license is not limited to a particular copy, and someone who receives a copy in high resolution may use it under the terms of the CC license applied to the low-resolution copy.”

I believe we need a set precedence and written a policy about "low-res versions of files being free while claiming the high-res is a different work". But until then, we should side with Creative Commons, it is them that wrote the licenses in question. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we should allow it -- the situation could differ by country. Creative Commons is just restating copyright law, in that in some countries it may not be legally possible to separate, copyright-wise, a low-res versus high-res photo. That aspect is not part of their license. In countries where that is possible, the license would only cover the low-res version and any use of the high-res version would be a copyright violation. I do think we should allow and respect that situation here, even if the U.S. is one of those countries where it may not be possible. (The difficulty comes in the nature of the copyrighted expression for a photograph -- quite often the subject itself is not copyrightable, so the copyright rests on the angle, framing, and other aspects which would exist in full in even the low-resolution photo, and that would be the expression the photographer would be licensing. But it's just as possible that a judge could find some aspect which exists more in only the high-res, and uphold the licensing based on that.)
The problem comes from the national definition of "work". For example, under Swedish copyright law, a photo is usually not a "work" so there are maybe situations where application of a Creative Commons licence can be unpredictable. I don't know how Egyptian law defines a "work". However, other than just looking at the national definition of a "work", I think that we also need to look at what the licensor has stated. In this case, the uploader licensed content by using Commons templates which use a mixture of "file" and "work":
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work
attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
If you talk about licensing a "file" rather than a "work", then maybe this has the effect that you unintentionally don't license the file under the real CC licence but under a modified licence which licenses "files" instead of "works". It gets more confusing when the templates mix the words "file" and "work". Technically, the legally binding wording is the one used when the user uploaded the file, but I have not checked if the wording in the templates has changed since the file was uploaded. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Not sure the issue the definition of a "work" in that sense -- you are using the license for whatever rights you do have, be they a "work" per a country's law or a "simple photo" or whatever. As long as you have copyrights (or effectively the same thing) over a portion of material, which you can define, you can license that material, which is the "work" from the license's perspective. To my mind, the issue that Creative Commons is pointing out is that all the material that a photographer has rights over may be just as much present in the low-resolution version of a photo as a larger version -- thus that by licensing the lower-resolution file, there is no additional expression in the higher-resolution version they can protect with a more restrictive license. If it's an image of a painting, there likely would be more expression present in the higher-resolution photo than the low-res, and that expression would not be licensed, so a painter could use this approach most likely. But for a snapshot, that may well not be the case (though that has not been tested in a court of law). It is possible that by licensing a low-resolution photo, they have licensed the entirety of their own expression, so they can no longer prevent usage of a higher-resolution version. The question comes down to if a country's copyright law can identify protectable expression in a higher-resolution version that is not present in a lower-resolution version. If there is such expression, then that expression is not licensed by just the low-res version, and the practice is legally valid as the author can claim infringement of that additional expression. But if the law cannot find such expression, then all of the expression is licensed, and the author cannot prevent usage of the high-res version in accordance with the license.
While that is a distinct possibility, we have no court case guidance over something like that, and even if true in one country in may not be in another, so I would allow the practice -- if someone wants to use a higher-resolution version and risk the consequences, that is up to them, but I think we should not provide the higher-resolution versions here when that has not been explicitly licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Since this whole problem with higher resolution versions is untested and based on legal theory, I think that we should provide a warning template if we ever host a higher resolution version so that reusers are made aware of the problem. That said, per COM:PRP I'm not sure if we should host higher resolution versions in the first place. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm in complete agreement with you there. I don't think we should even host them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
   Oppose Policy as recorded in COM:L is clear: Sometimes, authors wish to release a lower quality or lower resolution version of an image or video under a free license, while applying stricter terms to higher quality versions. It is unclear whether such a distinction is legally enforceable, but Commons's policy is to respect the copyright holder's intentions by hosting only the lower quality version. This has been policy since 2014.

File:“홍대거리가 마비” ... 유앤비, 성공적인 버스킹 -UNB (디패짤).webm

despite I was talking about this issue on this page and the file is clearly from the official dispatch youtube account (also it has a confirmed facebook account (with check symbol) ), the file is deleted, so I appeal it here. Puramyun31 (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I see CC-BY mentioned in the HTML source code of the archive.li page. The "show more" link doesn't work in Firefox (no additional information is displayed), but I don't see why that would matter given that the info is present in the source code. I note that the licence since has changed on the Youtube page. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
As background information see, User_talk:Puramyun31#File:“홍대거리가_마비”_..._유앤비,_성공적인_버스킹_-UNB_(디패짤).webm and File talk:“홍대거리가 마비” ... 유앤비, 성공적인 버스킹 -UNB (디패짤).webm, I deleted this file as I was not personally able to verify the previous copyright status, if others can, then I concede on the issue of the copyright of the actual video. I undeleted the file to review it and was happy to delete it again for other reasons. The video is of a music and song performance (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoM6JmhOLak ) the sound has been removed (my bad for not originally noticing this), so it is less of a clearcut case of a violation of a performer's right then it would be otherwise. However it is now to all extents and purposes a mimed dance (note we have very few files of mime artists actually performing).--KTo288 (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
This is not a mime art. Puramyun31 (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't originally, but the video is now of people dancing to music no one else can hear.--KTo288 (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not intended as mime purpose (such as storytelling by actors), so with no sounds, and the moves substantially loss its meaning. Puramyun31 (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Dance is a performance.--15:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
performer's copyright? — regards, Revi 14:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm no lawyer reading actual legal stuff online makes my head hurt, but see en:Related_rights#Performers
  • If the uploaded copy is without sound, then there is no violation of any music copyright. Was the performance created by these people, or are they copying someone else's performance? There is also the question of the changed copyright tag: maybe the uploader realised that he wasn't allowed to license the performance or the music or some other part of it (because someone else holds the copyright to it) and therefore corrected the copyright tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Stefan2: In changing the license, Dispatch now makes the claim that everything in the video, from song to dance, is its own work and is not infringing on any other rights—this is specified when uploading a video onto YouTube—which is definitely not the case. Ultimately, it does not make a difference whether the Standard YouTube License or the Creative Commons License is utilized, at least in regards to the recorded content specifically, so asserting that Dispatch "corrected the copyright tag" is not an accurate claim; the claim is "this is entirely my work", and the claim will be wrong regardless of the license it chooses. xplicit 01:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    Please disregard my previous comment - it is difficult for me to decipher Korean text, so I misunderstood. The file talk page links to this, so I assume that this was the film uploaded. The video was created by Dispatch, a news website. The people perform a song called Kamgak by Korean music group UNB. Dispatch can license the contributions by Kim Su-in, the journalist credited for recording and editing the video at 3 minutes and 40 seconds into the video.
It is fine to extract screenshots from a film as the screenshot does not contain any parts of the song, and performances aren't protected in the form of single photographs. For example, File:180303 UNB 03.png has been extracted from a different Dispatch video which also contains unlicensed music, but since it's just a screenshot, the file should be fine. The problem with this file is that it is a video. Performances are protected as sound and video recordings, and I'd imagine that you infringe the performer right even if you only use the video track but not the sound track. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"en:Related_rights#Performers", According to this South Korean copyright law page (Article 64)(in english), it is defined in a separate manner to "copyright", so it seems to be Non-copyright restriction as Commons defines (Article 65: 이 장 각 조의 규정은 저작권에 영향을 미치는 것으로 해석되어서는 아니 된다. The provisions of each Article in this Chapter shall not be construed as affecting copyright. ), though it is mentioned in "coryright law" (South Korean copyright law also define "database rights (Article 91-98)" which is considered a non-copyright restriction on Commons). The rights relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons ("author's economic right") only refers to something that is defined Article 16-22. (Author’s Moral Right (article 11-15) is considered a non-copyright restriction on Commons) According to the COM:NCR page, "non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia, and the licensing policies are accordingly limited to regulating copyright related obligations." Puramyun31 (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons has copyright tags for sound recordings (see Category:License tags for audio files) which are also neighbouring rights and therefore no different from performers' rights. If you are arguing that we should not honour neighbouring rights, then all copyright tags for sound recordings also need to be deleted, and some copyright tags for photographs need to go. The section about database rights on COM:NCR is obviously an error; the database right work in the same way as normal copyright in that you can't distribute a database without permission from the rights holder. The most common databases on Commons are probably maps - the database right prevents you from distributing other maps derived from the same map data. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Sound recordings are irrevent for this discussion, since the flie did not include any sounds. Puramyun31 (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Sound recordings are relevant in the discussion about neighbouring rights. If we are supposed to ignore all neighbouring rights, as you suggested, then we are supposed to ignore all protection of sound recordings and thus delete all. Obviously, we do not ignore copyright of sound recordings (since we have lots of copyright tags for those), so therefore we don't ignore copyright of performances either. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there a precedent set for cases like this? From the looks of this discussion, the main argument for speedy deletion lays its foundation in COM:PCP, but that itself is not a speedy deletion criterion. In regards to the lack of miming videos, is that a result of previous deletion discussions, or is there simply a lack of contributed videos? Regardless, miming and dancing are quite difference scenarios here, so I'm not sure a sweeping generalization can be applied to these two separate art forms. At the very least, a full deletion discussion should take place to help determine what should be done for these type of media, as Puramyun31 has uploaded several videos like this. xplicit 01:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

File:C.K. Williams (1986).jpg

This image was uploaded and the standard licensing email send to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by the copyright holder/author, Catherine Mauger (widow of C.K. Williams) on several occasions. There has been no response to those emails nor to my previous undeletion request.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbell (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Upperhill.jpg

Permission for free license has been granted by photographer , view page and email Free license for use on wikipedia provided by original photographer rex maina , email from the photographer rex.maina1@gmail.com confirms this (Cyclops25 (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC))

  •    Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 93 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. @Cyclops25: Did you tag the file {{subst:OP}} as instructed at OTRS and COM:CONSENT?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Cyclops25: Which of the many photos on http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=146232991 was this, and which username there was used to upload it?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
en:File:Upperhill.jpg / http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=145819737&postcount=809 – Photographer: Rex Maina, poster: zacmwanzia — JJMC89(T·C) 01:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@JJMC89: Thank you, I have updated the ticket. The actual source https://www.flickr.com/photos/123695371@N08/40509384112/ is "All rights reserved". The post on skyscrapercity uses image address https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4656/40509384112_f926115e3c_b.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Bandeira da Guarda Pontevedra.svg

it is requested to cancel the deletion of this file, it is 100% legal, svg format is an official flag of the Concello da Guarda published in http://www.depontevedra.es/?1,6784 version of that design --Nemigo galiza 11:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  •    Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Take note that the current backlog for OTRS is 93 days, OTRS depends completely on volunteers, who work as hard as they can. @Nemigo: Who created this design, the original, and http://www.aguarda.es/organizacion-municipal/escudo-e-bandeira/?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
not true, there was a previous design jpg that was deleted because it was downloaded from a website (Deputación de Pontevedra) the current design is svg created by me from scratch. It is a design based on a public description of the administration: Bandeira en campo de gules, cruz llana blanca, co escudo ó centro. Expediente de aprobación en trámite na Comisión de Heráldica. Non adaptada tampouco ó Decreto 258/1992, do 10 de setembro, e ó Decreto 369/1998 --Nemigo galiza 12:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

File:My father and me.jpg - wrong file deleted?

[Moving discussion here, as Jameslwoodward is on a break. Two files have been using the same (too generic) file name. It seems one was mistakenly deleted (the other was moved and is discussed), but the admin thinks it was a copyvio, although the evidence was deemed sufficient in a DR. --LPfi (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)]


I am confused about the history of File:My father and me.jpg. I wonder if it was deleted by accident. For me as non-admin it seems the file discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mandoji.Dawood khan was moved to a new name 22 December 2017 at 19:59 (and now requested for deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Memories of my life - being my personal, professional, and social recollections as woman and artist (1907)) while the one you deleted seems to be the one discussed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sandlapper1709, where it was decided to be kept.

I have not been following my watchlist lately, so did not get any notice at the time of deletion. It is very frustrating to try to reconstruct what has happened without access to the history of deleted file. It is also very frustrating to notice a file I probably found worth keeping having been deleted as "personal files", with little possibility to see what file this is about.

I think those who argued for not deleting a file should be notified when it is nominated for deletion a second time, or about to be deleted without a new nomination.

(Please ping me, as I do not follow my Commons watchlist regularly for the time being.)

--LPfi (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The file is both an unused personal file and a probable copyvio, as the uploader is the subject of the image and there is no evidence of a license from the photographer. The file description says that the author was the uploader's father, but since the father is also in the image, that is unlikely. Even if the father is the author (self-timer?), we still require a license via OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
The uploader states (in a diff linked from the short DR) "All three photos are in my possession, were photographed by my late father, and any identifiable people in one photo are [...] me as an infant and my late father, taken with a timer beside the family garage." Why does it "seem unlikely" that the author was the father as stated? We usually believe uploaders, why would we need an OTRS in this case? For the "personal file" thing, that needs a DR, and the file already survived one. These are historical photos, which are not easily replaced. --LPfi (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The question to answer here is why are they relevant historical photos. Are they educational useful? Ruthven (msg) 21:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
That is hard to discuss while the photo is deleted. It survived a DR and was later deleted without notice. If it is to be deleted as not in scope we need a new DR (with a pointer to the category with better similar photos).
As to the relevance, I think we need samples of "personal photos" as historic documents on that genre, and on everyday situations and milieus of the time. We do not need any and all personal photos people are uploading, but I suppose we do not have an abundance of personal photos from the 1950s, so we should be careful to check that any such photo we delete is such that we have better ones (in quality and documentation) of the specific type. This applies partly also for modern photos, but for those replacements will usually appear, and with modern ones flooding the site can be a real problem.
--LPfi (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Lewis_broadus_tombstone.jpg

Please re-evaluate. Look on the web page that was provided as a source. The photographer CLEARLY states he releases any rights to the images he has taken.


URL of the image itself: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/412197/lewis-broadus

URL of photographer stating he has released rights: https://www.findagrave.com/user/profile/47509482 —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.74.18.53 (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Technically the person did not state that one gives permission to modify and/or sell the image, only to use it. I would guess that if somebody were to politely ask, this individual may chose a free licence or release the image into the public domain. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 07:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Flie:ZenFone 5 2018 Logo.svg

According to the Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Taiwan_(Republic_of_China) (update), this file is the PD-textlogo and do the discussions with @兆C, Wcam (Zh Wikipedia discussion). This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 04:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

File:ZenFone 5 2018 Logo.svg has been deleted on 2018-05-07 by Taivo with the reasoning of "Author requested deletion of page: author's request on creation week". ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 04:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: the CSD request was made from @兆C. However, according to the discussions, we agree that the file can be restored (evidence). This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 06:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Прямая трансляция матча Перу - Дания в Московском метро.jpg

It was deleted as "derivative work". It is not allowed to make images of monitors? How about this category Category:BBC Big Screens? How about the images of Times Square, NYC, with lots of monitors? It is derivative work of what? Of green pixels or what?--Александр Мотин (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

There are probably some photos in Category:Times Square which need to be deleted, but in many cases, the screens will be covered by the de minimis exception. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Војводи Тетово.png

I am a member of the managing board of the group and therefore I have the right to publish this image online. The fact that the image can be found on the web it's because is our logo and it's available to be used in public. We do not look for any copyrights if someone uses the logo online as it represents only us.

--Bstojanovski (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Bstojanovski: Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Monument for the Yoshino Immigrant Village in Ji'an.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: According to the updated FoP of Taiwan on June 10, 2018, this meets the FoP requirement. 219.79.226.29 16:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  •    Support , meets the FoP of Taiwan "by extension other outdoor 3D works"--B dash (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Sufi Sonal Shah.jpg

Sufi Sonal Shah.jpg is the image of singer, that image is clicked by me, there may be possibility she used it anywhere but the rights of images with me only, please don't delete the image. Shrinivaskulkarni1388 (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Shrinivaskulkarni1388: "Metadata shows Author as TUSHAR PATHAK and Copyright holder as WEDDMEMORIES", so the copyright holder has to send a permission via COM:OTRS. And do not upload more files like this, or you might be blocked. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

hello sir, Tusshar Pathak is my friend i clicked this photographs by using his camera, so what shall i do in that case ? Shrinivaskulkarni1388 (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Shrinivaskulkarni1388: Please ask him to send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Mandalynn on Greys Anatomy.jpg

I'd like to put this photo that I took back on Mandalynn's page. What do I need to do for this to happen.

Sherri Carlson

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MandolinPictures (talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@MandolinPictures: Hi,
Please send a permission via COM:OTRS, or better, upload the original picture, not a copy from Facebook. That's also the case for the other files you have uploaded. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

File:दिवाळी (भारतीय सण) 25 Diwali.jpg

Hi, These are certainly in scope (Category:Dipavali), and no real doubt about the author. Yann (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Neenyo in The Fader.jpg

Hello,

Thanks in advance for your support, sorry for uploading the photo the first time in a way that violate copyright. Already i received this photo from Sean Seaton him self, He confirmed too that he sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org that i can use his photo here in Wikipedia and received auto reply mail with ticket Num 2018061410009475

Noona Noona (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Robyn 1993-08-07 0300Z.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is an satellite image, and the data superimposed by CooperScience himself 219.78.191.210 02:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so I cannot see the image. There is, however, a point. You are saying that this a satellite image, but that doesn't necessarily make it public domain. If it is a satellite that was created by NASA that is a different story, but there are many other space agencies and most of them claim their copyright. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 02:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose , this image is based on NII, which are copyrighted image. --B dash (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Victor-750-150x150.jpg

The photo that was deleted belongs to me. The sites mymilim.info AND www.milim.org belongs to me ! and the rights to the photo are mine ! Please undelete the photo. Thank you Victor.Hrz

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor.Hrz (talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello @Victor.Hrz: You have actually forgotten to provide the link to the file that you want to have undeleted. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The only deleted file is File:Victor-750-150x150.jpg. That's a small file with a copy on [1]. So a permission is needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:AyunamiGaming_Header_Logo.jpg

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AyunamiGaming_Header_Logo.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayunami2000 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I created this image with Minecraft Pocket Edition on my iPod 5S. I went to options, turned off the UI, and took multiple screenshots. I settled on this one which you see here. (Actually, I am not sure what this image is, so the above description may be inaccurate. I would have to at least see what the image even was to give you an accurate reason)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayunami2000 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:大黑松小倆口元首館 Salico Foods King Garden - panoramio (2).jpg

Deleted Per "No FoP in Taiwan". COM:FOP modified, we acknowledge that FoP exists in Taiwan.--WQL (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Decline: Not OK for indoor works and outdoor 2D artistic works. -Mys_721tx (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:2017上图免押金办新版证书展展板.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: FoP of China exist 219.78.191.210 16:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Decline: [Freedom of panorama allows] copying, drawing, photographing, or video recording of an artistic work located or on display in an outdoor public place. -Mys_721tx (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Outdoor 2D artistic works are not covered by the new FoP rules. FoP is only applicable to outdoor sculptures and architecture. De728631 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Restore my photos

I was told that I needed to the license on my Flickr account to Creative Commons Attribution in order to use my photos which I uploaded. I have done that and was instructed to then request undeletion into to restore my photos.

--Redmen007 (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Source_-_4_high_voltage_pylons_into_artworks,_Amneville,_France.jpg

--Elena Paroucheva (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Bonjour,

Suite à la suppression d'une de mes pages:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Source_-_4_high_voltage_pylons_into_artworks,_Amneville,_France.jpg

je vous renvoie mon mail d'autorisation, envoyé le 13 avril 2018.

Question de liberté de panorama en France, justement une des condition de publication est d'avoir l'autorisation de l'auteur, ce qui est le cas.

Je vous demande de remettre ma page en ligne avec ma mention qu'elle est libre de droits comme indiqué dans mon mail du 13 avril 2018.

N'hésitez pas de me contacter si vous avez des questions.

Merci infiniment de veiller sur respect des droits d'auteures et je vous confirme que personne autre n'a le droit de publier mes oeuvres signées Elena Paroucheva.

Merci d'avance!

Elena Paroucheva - artist