Open main menu
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 69% 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:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎svenska • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎پښتو • ‎中文 • ‎日本語

在此页面,用户可以请求一个被删除的页面或文件(下文主要介绍文件)得以恢复。用户可以在请求上评论附加标记,例如保持删除恢复,并附加相关原因。

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.

Contents

文件被删除的原因

首先,检查删除日志并找出文件被删除的原因。 并且通过链入页面检查是否有链接到页面上的讨论。若您上传了该文件,则请查看您的讨论页是否有关于删除的任何消息。 然后,请再次阅读删除方针项目范围方针许可协议方针以了解图片是否适合共享资源。

如果删除原因含糊或您认为其有争议,您可以联系执行删除的管理员并要求他们解释删除的原因或向他们提供反对删除的新证据。 您同样可以联系其他活跃的管理员(或许是会说您的母语的管理员)。他们将乐于提供帮助,并在删除出错时纠正该错误。

申请删除

基于目前删除方针项目范围授权协议而无误的删除不能撤销。但可在这几项方针的讨论页中讨论改进事宜。

如果您认为被删除的图片既不侵犯版权又不超出目前的项目范围:

  • 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.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

临时恢复

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.

请在提请恢复前阅读以下指导。

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).

要允许合理使用内容转移到另一个项目

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.

允许合理使用的项目

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.

添加申请

首先,确保您阅读了文件被删除的原因。其次请在添加申请前阅读下列指导:

  • Subject:字段中,请输入适当的对象。如果仅申请恢复一个文件,建议使用[[:File:删除的文件.jpg]]格式。(请记住链接中应以半角冒号开头。)
  • 鉴别你所申请的文件,可如上提供文件链接。若你不知道准确名称,则请尽可能多地提供该文件的信息。无法提供足够信息的恢复申请将会不经提示而被存档。
  • 为恢复申请说明理由
  • 使用四个半角波浪号(~~~~在申请中签名。如果您在共享资源上拥有账户,则请先登录。若您是原图片的上传者,这将有助于管理员找到这些图片。

请在页面底部加入申请点此进入您应添加申请的位置。同样你可以通过点当前日期下的击“编辑”链接提交申请。请监视您的申请一节以获得更新。

存档

关闭的请求会被每日存档存档

当前的申请

Watch View Edit

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)
I think the files can be kept. Raw data's licence is ok and this user's calim of own work has not been refuted.--Roy17 (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

File:King Kong (illustration).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file was speedy deleted as derivative. King Kong is not in general copyrighted, if so, then the derivative can not fall under this copyright because it is simply a gorilla without originality (s. w:King_Kong#Legal_rights). However, in the deletion reasoning is the comparison to the alleged original missing, since the author claims he did not use a protected material.[2] (request by User:A1Cafel) -- User: Perhelion 20:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  Info "Copyright (C) 1976 Dico De Laurentis Corporation. All Rights Reserved" on the image. Ankry (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Also previous undeletion discussion. Ankry (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Then it's time to reconsider again, because this is a false claim.
  • Reason for the first decline was mainly "out of scope": "Aside from the entirely correct reasons given above, these are also personal art from non notable artist, therefore out of scope."
    Aside the first part of (Jims/the) explanation is fully unclear or ambiguous in the context.
    Even OOS is not a speedy deletion reason, it is absolutely disputable, as he is a notable artist in well known in certain circles. Google hits for his name (in quotation marks): 19.200
  • It's a derivative? No, until there is evidence given for the imaginary original picture.
    To be more pragmatic open: The "Dico De Laurentis Corporation" can't have the copyright on all gorilla pictures on the world.
    The first movie (all his "basic ingredients", plot and characters) are public domain.[3]
    Beside: The here shown gorilla looks clear more like the old version (not DDL).
  • w:King Kong #Legal rights' judgment states this:
    "The courts ruling noted that the name, title, and character of Kong no longer signified a single source of origin so exclusive trademark rights were impossible."
    Even the trademark rights are not relevant for us.
-- User: Perhelion 09:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Nobody says that "Dico De Laurentis Corporation" owns copyright "on all gorilla pictures on the world". The clause is on this particular image. And to consider it invalid, we should have (IMO) clear information from the author why it was placed there. Maybe, it is an artistic effect, maybe it is work for hire, or maybe, the artist considered this work just a derivative of some copyrighted work so the clause was preserved. Ankry (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Isologotipo NPP.png

File:Isologotipo NPP.png tiene permisos suficientes para estas en Commons: por favor revisar https://www.nuestraprimerapagina.org/difusion/ Ese isologotipo tiene licencia CC BY-SA por parte de su propietario (Asoc. Civil Nuestra Primera Pagina)

Gracias desde ya por reincorporar el archivo.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpablo78 (talk • contribs)
@Jpablo78: please sign your messages.
The server hosting the abovementioned page does not work and the license was not reviewed by a license reviewer. Any other evidence of free license? If no, COM:OTRS permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Still not working for me. But this may be some general problem with the target site network: it is not available. Can some admin from outside of Europe check the site and the mentioned license? Ankry (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done: I was able to open the source link and review the CC licence. --De728631 (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Paintings by artists who have been dead for more than 70 years

These files are all photographs of paintings by artists who have been dead for more than 70 years. They were deleted because in one person's opinion, they were probably published somewhere.

The possibilities are:

  • Never published, therefore public domain
  • First published after 12/31/2004. 70 years pma, therefore public domain (They all died 1948 or earlier)
  • First published before 3/2/1989, no notice or registration, therefore public domain
  • First published from March 2, 1989 through 2002, still under copyright

It is reasonable to ignore the very small possibility that the last case applies. The facts are exactly the same as for the file, File: Mujer con flores by Alfredo Ramos Martínez, c 1932.jpg, which was undeleted by James Woodward, and I am quoting some of his reasoning. In fact, the original deletion requests are word-for-word identical. Wmpearl (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Taivo, Prosfilaes, Jameslwoodward: some users that were related to the deletion / undeletion of the images mentioned here.
Personally, I must say, that I generally agree with Taivo's DR closing sentence that we need some evidence that the images were not published in the specified period, i.e. taking some effort to find such publications. No evidence that such effort has been taken or even intended, especially as it is impossible to make such investigations en masse. I would support such a request only if the sentence almost no painting of these artists was published between 1989 and 2002 can be considered true. But this needs at least some query in libraries and/or among auction catalogues. Ankry (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I've seen absolutely no evidence that they had no notice or registration. No one has checked the Copyright Registrations and Renewals for registrations or renewals for any of these works. I've seen no evidence that it wasn't published in some book with notice, registration and renewals if necessary, which is much harder to search for.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Although the size of the images makes it difficult to be certain in some cases, I have looked at all of them and I see no notice on any of them. Without notice, registration is irrelevant except if the copyright owner made an effort to add notice to the work.
Therefore, only the last case might apply and, as I said in the related DR, that seems unlikely -- that a work of a long dead painter would be first published during that relatively short period. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The famous photo of a naked girl having been napalmed in Vietnam also doesn't have a copyright notice on it. There is no requirement that copyright notices be watermarked into the photo or painting. Particularly if it was published in a book, books virtually always place copyright notices on the back of the title page or an extension elsewhere, both distant from the actual visual work. Even if they were placed below the photo of the painting, it still wouldn't be in the body of the painting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

File:02019 1015 (2) Nationalisten abgeklebte SLD-Wahlplakat.jpg File:02019 1014 (2) Konfederacja, Graffitti.jpg File:DSC 1012 (2) Polling place in Złote Łany.jpg

1. FOPː #Permanent_vs_temporary - "Even quickly decaying works can thus be "permanent" and therefore be subject to freedom of panorama. Street paintings, ice, sand, or snow sculptures rarely last more than a few days or weeks. If they're left in public space for their natural lifetime, they are considered "permanent" all the same." - the election posters are definitely designed to last till the election day thus they can be considered as placed there till the end of their life cycle - ie. permanently. 2. Election posters are of Utility objects nature and ephemeric ːEphemera thus not copyrighted 3. Anyway, they are too simple to be copyrightedː do not meet Threshold_of_originality In addition, at least one of them illustrated situation of proximity of electoral propaganda and the polling boot - not possible without picturing the poster itself. --Oo91 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose Election posters are not "quickly decaying works" because of their nature, but they are required by law to be removed after election. So I see no way to consider them permanent. Ankry (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, while the text of them may be considered free, the photos and the party logos are definitely over ToO. Ankry (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Konventkapelle Dominkannerinnenkloster.jpg

File:Konventkapelle Dominkannerinnenkloster.jpg

Das Bild :File:Konventkapelle Dominkannerinnenkloster.jpg


Für das Bild liegt die Lizenzfreigabe durch den verantwortlichen Fotografen Michael Heinrich via Email vor: Guten Morgen,



Am 25. August 2019 um 23:19 schrieb Michael Heinrich <XXXXX>:

Guten Morgen,

kein Problem, ich bin ja selbst Alumni von Herrnn Gebhard….


Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Michael Heinrich Fotografie für Architekten Hachinger Bach 27 81671 München www.mhfa.de XXXXXX


Am 25.08.2019 um 18:06 schrieb Nils Fröhling <XXXXXXX>: Guten Tag,

am Lehrstuhl für Städtische Architektur, Prof. Fink der TU München wird gegenwärtig der Wikipedia Artikel für den 2015 verstorbenen Architekten und ehem. Professoren Helmut Gebhard angefertigt. Für diesen würden wir sehr gerne ein Bild der Konventkapelle im Dominikanerinnenkloster Diesen am Amersee (1988-1993) verwenden. Wie dem Buch "Helmut Gebhard - Bauten und Forschung" zu entnehmen ist, liegen die dazugehörigen Bildrechte bei Ihnen. Das Bild, um das es sich handelt habe ich Ihnen an diese Mail angehängt und möchte mich erkundigen, ob Sie einer Veröffentlichung dieses Bildes auf der Wikipedia-Seite von Helmut Gebhard zustimmen würden.

Viele Grüße

Nils Fröhling

TUM Technische Universität München Technical University of Munich Fakultät für Architektur Faculty of Architecture Lehrstuhl für Städtische Architektur Chair of Urban Architecture Univ.-Prof. Dietrich Fink

Arcisstraße 21 D - 80333 München

Tel. +49 (0)89. XXXXXXX Fax +49 (0)89. 289. 22464

<Konventkapelle.jpg>

--LSA-TUM (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@LSA-TUM: Neither a permission "to use" nor "no problem" is a free license. Also this page is not intended for email (or any other) permission verification. The photographer should follow COM:OTRS/de instructions in order to undelete the photo. Ankry (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Jason_Njoku.jpg

This photo was taken by myself and shared with Jason Njoku to use on his social profiles. He’s given me explicit permission to upload to Wikimedia (and thus allow unlimited usage by anyone) so it can be added to this Wikipedia page.

Matteocuellar (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Matteocuellar: If it was shared, you cannot grant license on-wiki. You can either refer to a free license you granted earlier on another site of follow COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Матусовский А. А..png

Данная фотография является авторской, метаданные в ней отсутствуют по простой причине - это снимок из видеозаписи (авторской)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvontash (talk • contribs) 14:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gvontash: Uploading TV screeenshots and claiming to be their original author makes your other declarations unreliable. Please contact COM:OTRS/ru providing a writen free license permission and proving that you are the author of the original video. Ankry (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Miss Martinique - Concours Miss West Indies - 2003 - Audrey POMIER FLOBINUS.jpg

Bonjour,

Merci de bien vouloir procédé à la restauration de cette photo car un courrier du Dr. Audrey POMIER FLOBINUS, d'autorisation des droits d'auteurs à été envoyé à l'OTRS ce jour, par moi et par elle.

Bien cordialement.

LIONS CLUB 972 16.10.2019

Hello,

Thank you kindly proceeded to the restoration of this photo because a letter from Dr. Audrey POMIER FLOBINUS, authorization of copyright was sent to the OTRS today, by me and by her.

Best regards.

LIONS CLUB 972

16/10/2019

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LIONS CLUB 972 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@LIONS CLUB 972: The image will be restored automatically, when the permission is verified and accepted. Please note that this work is done by volunteers and we have large backlog. Ankry (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ankry, if the OTRS permission is acceptable, these will be automatically restored. Эlcobbola talk 19:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Audrey POMIER FLOBINUS égérie Yves-Michel BARCLAY.jpg

Hello,

Thank you kindly proceeded to the restoration of this photo because a letter from Dr. Audrey POMIER FLOBINUS, authorization of copyright was sent to the OTRS today, by me and by her.

Best regards.

LIONS CLUB 972

16/10/2019

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LIONS CLUB 972 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@LIONS CLUB 972: The image will be restored automatically, when the permission is verified and accepted. Please note that this work is done by volunteers and we have large backlog. Ankry (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ankry, if the OTRS permission is acceptable, these will be automatically restored. Эlcobbola talk 19:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Jyrkin kuva.jpg

The referred person Jyrki Lappi-Seppälä has given the photograph at my disposal for the intended purpose of the Wikipedia article about him and assures that the copyright of the picture belongs to himself. The reason why the same picture (in uncropped format) is found from https://www.kirkkojakaupunki.fi/-/kirjallisuuden-kaantaminen-on-kuin-soittaisi-nuoteista is because a Finnish publishing company "Into" has used it with Jyrki Lappi-Seppälä's permission as an illustration and as advertising material for autobiography of the referred person. Jyrki Lappi-Seppälä: "Tuulimyllyjä päin" (Into 2013).--Jumilase (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jumilase: Why did you claim that you are the photographer if you are not? In order to undelete the photo we need a free license from the photographer or an evidence that copyright has been transferred (eg a copy of the copyright transfer contract). Ankry (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I'm a new user to Wikipedia, this is my first article ever. However, I don't recall claiming that I am the photographer but rather that I have the right to use the photograph. I have received the photo and permission to use it for this purpose directly from the referred person on email. How would you qualify me to to produce this evidence? --Jumilase (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jumilase: I see no such option ("I have the right to use") in the fiwiki upload tool (at least in its English version). I see only "This is my own work". If there is mistake in translation it should be fixed. As far as I know, only photos made personally by the uploader are allowed to be uploaded using the crosswiki upload tool. In any other case, the upload wizard in Wikimedia Commons should be used as this requires providing much more information (who is the photo author - photographer, what license was granted by the photographer and how it can be verified - license evidence). Only the photographer is authorized to grant a license in most cases. And permission "to use" is not enough to upload an image to Wikimedia Commons as well as to most Wikipedia language versions. More freedom is required than "to use". Ankry (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

anita infobox.jpg

Hi!

I am not an expert. And I am quite new to this wikipedia thing. I wanted to make an article about polish politican Anita Sowińska. I got approved by her and she let me use some photos. All of them were banned. What should and/or can do to unban them? Maybe I should talk to the author of those images and ask them do write me an approval?

I don't know so I would appreciate your answer.

Thanks in advance,

Invinoveritas123

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Invinoveritas123 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

22:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC) I read other undeletion request so I guess I have to get an approval - evidence or free license. O K. So here's the second question. Where and should I upload it? So it won't get "lost" and will be connected to this particular case?

Invinoveritas123, 00:33 17/10/2019

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Invinoveritas123 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Invinoveritas123: First, you need free license permission from the photographer, not from the subject. A free license is required here and the photographer is the only person authorized to grant a license. Second, permission from the subject is needed only if the photo is made in private circumstances or if the subject is not a public person. So the question is: where is a free license permission from the photographer and how we can verify it basing on public records? If not public, the actual copyright holder needs to follow COM:OTRS instructions. Otherwise the photo is not suitable for Wikimedia projects. Ankry (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Alex diamant.Jpg

Je détiens les droits sur cette image. Le site sur laquelle vous l'avez trouvée a visiblement violé les droits d'auteurs.

Merci de restaurer l'image. 😉
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysp1980 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ysp1980: If it was ever earlier available to public (legally or not), then we cannot accept on-wiki license granting by an anonymous Wikimedia user (due to our rules). You need either to provide a public evidence of free license being granted by the photographer, or follow COM:OTRS/fr instructions. Ankry (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: Per Ankry. --De728631 (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Category:Female pop singer-songwriters

Category is no longer empty and should be restored. feminist (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Feminist: did you take a look at Category:Female singer-songwriters? :-) Lotje (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I see no reason to reject existing more specific categories. Ankry (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I did not reject, I simply wanted to draw you attention to that category. Lotje (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done: Undeleted by Ankry. --De728631 (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Lola Akande.jpg

I noticed that the above named file got deleted and wish to have it undeleted. This is as I have now granted copyright permission for its usage as required.

Thank you! --Ibnamoo (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ibnamoo: If the proper permission has been send by the actual photo copyright holder, the photo will be restored automatically after the permission is verified and accepted. Also, the information you provided needs to be corrected (as you declared the photo to be a selfie while it is not). Ankry (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: Please wait for the permission email to be processed by our team of volunteers. --De728631 (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Dimitris Fidirikos.jpg to undelete

I have uploaded this image for Dimitris Fintirikos' wikipedia bio and the copyrights belong to him, so no violation.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by NotaMous87 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@NotaMous87: How can we verify that copyright has been transferred to the subject and that he has granted a free license? Both require a written form. And we need clear evidence of free license if an image is not your personal unpublished work. Ankry (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: Please have the copyright holder grant a permission through the process at COM:OTRS. --De728631 (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

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

File:1871 FA Cup.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:1871 FA Cup.png

Based on the facts that this photograph is from before 1896, and there is not a named photographer, the photograph seems to meet {{PD-old-assumed}} Abzeronow (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  Support per above. Ankry (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done @Abzeronow: Please add any additional information to the image description page. Thuresson (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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

UNDELETE Samy's Cameras (mini) by Ed Massey (File:Samy's Cameras (mini) by Ed Massey.jpg)

{{PD-author}} I am the photographer, copyright owner, and artist of the photo Samy's Camera by Ed Massey. Please undelete this photo. I am releasing it into the Public Domain.

You can see my work on my website https://www.edmassey.com/sculptures and https://www.edmassey.com/paintings .
— Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieMassey (talk • contribs) 20:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed "Eddie" Massey EddieMassey (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

{PD-self}} Please undelete Samy's Cameras by Ed Massey. I am the photographer, copyright owner, and artist, releasing my work/photo into public domain. You can see my work on my website https://www.edmassey.com/sculptures and https://www.edmassey.com/paintings .

Thank you, Ed "Eddie" Massey EddieMassey (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, here this image is available in even higher resolution and credited (in image) to Felix Massey. Please explain. --Túrelio (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As noted by Túrelio, disinterested third-party sites credit this image to Felix Massey and indeed contain prose that makes it clear Ed is not Felix ("film editor Sandy Solowitz intended to introduce Samy to photographer Felix Massey. The three of them ate and talked photography and cinematography. Sandy invited Ed to join them and at the end of lunch Samy had an idea and turned to Ed and said, 'Ed, why don’t you do artwork on my Fairfax Building wall.'") The purport that "I am the photographer" seems demonstrably untrue. Эlcobbola talk 20:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: Per the above. This needs verification through the OTRS email process. --De728631 (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

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

UNDELETE The Wedding Dress, by Ed Massey (File:The Wedding Dress, by Ed Massey.jpg)

{{PD-author}} I am the photographer, copyright owner, and artist of The Wedding Dress, by Ed Massey. Please undelete this photo. I am releasing it into the Public Domain.

You can see my work on my website https://www.edmassey.com/sculptures and https://www.edmassey.com/paintings .

Thank you, Ed "Eddie" Massey EddieMassey (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  •   Oppose: 1) Previously published images require addition evidence of permission to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS and 2) as per above, this user's purports seem demonstrably untrue and require explanation. Эlcobbola talk 20:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: Per above. --De728631 (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

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

UNDELETE POH Patented Paintbrush by Ed Massey (File:POH Patented Paintbrush by Ed Massey.jpg)

{{PD-author}} I am the photographer, copyright owner, patent holder, and artist of the POH Patented Paintbrush by Ed Massey. Please undelete this photo. I am releasing it into the Public Domain.

You can see my work on my website https://www.edmassey.com/sculptures and https://www.edmassey.com/paintings .

Thank you, Ed "Eddie" Massey EddieMassey (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  •   Oppose: 1) Previously published images require addition evidence of permission to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS and 2) as per above, this user's purports seem demonstrably untrue and require explanation. Эlcobbola talk 20:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: Per Elcobbola. --De728631 (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Pasquale Festa Campanile.jpg

Удаленный файл необходим для опубликованной статьи о неизвестном в России писателе и кинематографисте и, с моей точки зрения, в первом знакомстве с большой личностью его портрет определяет читательскую расположенность или нет наряду с содержательной и иллюстративной частями. Опубликованный мною файл больше подходит для иноязычных страниц Википедии (не только для русской), поскольку отражает глубокую человечную личность, в то время как используемая для этих целей фотография 1950-х годов направляет читателя в первое послевоенное время, к сладкой жизни римской богемы. Она слишком датирована и в историческом, и в иконографическом смыслах, поэтому ее использование закрепляет за данным автором принадлежность к относительно короткому периоду развития итальянского кинематографа, так называемой "комедией по-итальянски", но никак не отражает его значимость в последующие десятилетия ит. кино и литературы. Он - мэтр, и должен выглядеть таким. Я согласен, что ранее файл был загружен с нарушениями лицензирования. Я привел его в соответствие с лицензиями и вновь поместил в статью, в которой я просил бы его сохранить. Спасибо за предупреждение и понимание, уважающий вас--Pontycosta (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose. @Pontycosta: You initially claimed that you are the author and copyright holder of the photo. Now you claim that it was made by an unknown photographer and published before 1.1.1978 (required by {{PD-Italy}}+{{PD-1996}}) without evidence for this. Personally, I think that this is an artistic photo, where PD-Italy cannot apply, byt another opinion here is welcome.
It is not necessary that a Wikipedia article is illustrated. And photos that are neither freely licensed nor PD cannot be hosted in Wikimedia Commons.
this page says it is photo by Olivier Père published in 2011. Any evidence that this is not correct? Ankry (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Agree with Ankry. In addition to the previous authorship misrepresentation and new, unsubstantiated claim(s), {{PD-Italia}} applies to simple photographs ("Italian law makes an important distinction between 'works of photographic art' and 'simple photographs') and this appears artistic rather than simple. Эlcobbola talk 15:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: Per Ankry and Elcobbola. --De728631 (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Glane Avatar 100x100 Extended Icon.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My Avatar Sketc Glane Research Labs (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Glane Research Labs:
  1. if it is your personal avatar, made by you from scratch, why it is in COM:SCOPE?
  2. if based on some other image, where is evidence that it is freely licensed?
  3. your username may be considered promotional, you should change it if you wish to contribute here.
Ankry (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

All these photos are personal properties free of access

Thank you to restore all deleted photos. These are personal archives free of rights that I wish to make available to the community.

They preserve the memory of Dr. Jean Le Boulch in time and seems essential to illustrate his wiki's page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbrisard (talk • contribs) 15:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Lbrisard: You need to provide correct copyright related information about these photos and prove that they are free. It is unlikely that you used iPhone in 1944 while making the original photos as you claimed. Ankry (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Prof. Arun Kamble at University Of Mumbai.jpg

Hello,

File:Prof. Arun Kamble at University Of Mumbai.jpg This file is from my own Collection. I own the copyright of this Photo.

Adhanter (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adhanter: Any evidence that you are the photographer is available in public records? Otherwise, please provide such evidence following COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Arun Kamble with Dalai Lama.jpg

Hello, This is a personal archive free of rights that I wish to make available to the community.

Adhanter (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adhanter: What is your claim that a personal archive is not copyrighted based on? Any photo is copyrighted unless there is a specific exception in copyright law. Ankry (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This is my personal photo. Look for "Aymane Sennoussi"

The photo deleted is own work.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennoussi (talk • contribs) 12:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose The previous revision of File:Aymane Sennoussi.jpg has been published before without a free lincence, so you would have to verify your authorship throught the process at COM:OTRS. As to your new selfie, usually we do not allow personal images of new users who have not made substantial contributions to any Wikimedia project. De728631 (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

[[:File:The Jo Jones Special.jpg]

I would like to have this file undeleted for reasons of creating a Wikipedia page on the Jo Jones album "The Jo Jones Special", for there was not a page created before and there still is not. I am experimenting with the Wikipedia article editor by making the page in my sandbox to not mess up or take a long time to make it in the actual article page. It would be strange if the article didn't have a photo of the album cover, so I would please like you to undelete the file for reasons stated.--Samuelrob (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)