Last modified on 15 March 2015, at 11:29

Commons:Visszaállítási kérések

This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 42% 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 • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎中文

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

Először is nézd meg a törlési naplót, hogy miért törölték a fájlt. Ha a Commonson a képhez találsz egy piros linket, és arra kattintasz, akkor megnyílik egy szerkesztési ablak, de a baloldali navigációs menü Mi hivatkozik erre pontjából utánajárhatsz, hogy hol említették meg a fájlt (például egy törlési vitában). Másodsorban pedig olvasd el a Commons feltételeit, a licencfeltételeket és a törlési irányelveket.

Ha a törlésre adott indoklás nem érthető, vagy ha nem értesz vele egyet, akkor felveheted a kapcsolatot a képet törlő adminisztrátorral. Magyarázatot kérhetsz tõle vagy akár új bizonyítékot is benyújthatsz be a törlés indoka ellen. Felveheted továbbá a kapcsolatot egy másik adminisztrátorral is – a magyarul beszélő adminisztrátorok ebben a listában vannak. Ha a törlés hibás volt, akkor a fájlt visszaállítják.

Fellebbezés

Ha a törlés a jelenlegi Commons feltételek és licencfeltételek szerint indokolt volt, akkor az adott feltétel vitalapján emelhetsz panaszt a feltétel ellen.

Ha úgy gondolod, hogy a kép nem sértette a szerzői jogokat és a Commons feltételeinek is megfelel:

  • Először a vitát lezáró adminnal lenne érdemes kapcsolatba lépni. Megkérheted, hogy a bővebben fejtse ki az indoklását, vagy hogy mutasson be bizonyítékokat.
  • Ha nem szeretnél senkivel se közvetlenül kapcsolatba lépni, vagy ha egy adminisztrátor megtagadta a visszaállítást, esetleg több embert szeretnél bevonni a vitába, akkor a lentiek szerint ezen az oldalon kérvényezheted a visszaállítást.
  • 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.

Átmeneti visszaállítás 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

A fair use elvet engedélyező projektek felhasználói kérvényezhetnek egy két napos átmeneti visszaállítást, hogy a letörölt fájlt átvihessék a saját projektjükbe. A szerkesztőnek meg kell mondania, hogy melyik projektbe szeretné a fájlt átvinni, és be kell linkelni az adott projekt fair use állásfoglalását. A magyar Wikipédia nem fogad be fair use fájlokat. 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.

Új kérés beadása

Kattints ide, és megnyílik az az oldal, ahova a visszaállítási kérésedet írhatod be. Ugyanezt kézzel is megcsinálhatod, ha a mai dátum melletti "szerkesztés" hivatkozásra bököl. A kérésedet a lap aljára írd be, és ne feledkezz meg az alábbiakról:

  • A Subject/headline: mezőbe írj be egy megfelelő témát. Ha csak egyetlen egy fájl visszaállítását kéred, akkor melegen ajánlott az [[:Image:TöröltFájl.jpg]]. (Ne feledkezz meg az első kettőspontról, az hivatkozik a képre.)
  • Sorold fel a fájlt vagy fájlokat amire a visszaállítási kérésed vonatkozik, és mindegyik képhez adj meg egy hivatkozást (lásd feljebb). Ha nem emlékszel a fájl nevére, akkor a lehető legtöbb mindent adj meg. Ha egy kérésből nem derül ki, hogy mit is kellene visszaállítani, akkor az a kérés nagyon hamar archiválásra kerülhet.
  • Sorold fel indokaidat a visszaállításra.
  • Írd alá a kérésedet négy hullámvonallal(~~~~). Ha a Commonsban van felhasználói fiókod, akkor jelentkezz be. Ha te töltötted fel a képet, akkor így az adminok sokkal hamarabb megtalálják.

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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Nyitott visszaállítási kérések

Watch Edit

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

File:Ernest Mercier La Pocatière.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015012710019552 received from the subject's son claiming copyright is verbally transferred to him from the photographers who are colleagues of his father. He used the word "formally"; but as he can't recall their names I assume it is verbally. Unable to verify the email address; so collected a signed document. Subject deceased on 2002. Jee 15:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like it. Copyright cannot be transferred verbally -- it requires a written agreement, and, since he does not know the names of the photographers, obviously he does not have a written agreement. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
I restored these files. Jim, I think that's a bit too much unnecessary bureaucracy. However, I am not sure that the permission can apply to File:Dr Ernest Mercier nomination Lennoxville.jpg. {{PD-Canada}} applies to File:Ernest Mercier La Pocatière.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The man has a memory that three different copyright holders transferred copyright to him or his father more than 13 years ago. One of the three images is a newspaper clip from 1952. Quite aside from the fact that copyright law requires written transfers, can we really accept his assertion on any of them? I think this is a case where the son is willing to say anything to get his father's picture on WP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
OK fine. I deleted 2 files. Yann (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey @Jameslwoodward: you're quite right in asserting that we are trying to get those pictures on the encyclopedia. Now, we're doing our best to be honest as we fully believe in Wikimedia's mandate of respecting copyright laws and acting conservatively when ownership is contentious. I agree with you on the picture of the newspaper clipping. However, we do believe that the picture File:Dr Ernest Mercier Cuba.jpg was taken at the request of the subject and probably using his own photographic equipment. It is also very much possible that it was taken by a Cuban person (I'm not sure how they handle copyright under communist rule). Regardless, if there is a copyright holder, it is no longer feasible to find them. They are most likely long deceased or simply untraceable. Could you suggest any course of action? Thanks Tinss (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Then the file is probably not ok for Commons. See COM:PCP. In most cases, just because you are unable to discern a copyright holder of a creative work does not in fact mean that a copyright does not exist for said work -FASTILY 08:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Cuban copyright law is much the same as other signatories to the Berne Convention. Unfortunately, as Fastily suggests, "probably" and "most likely" are not good words here -- policy requires that you prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is freely licensed and without a written document from the photographer or a license from his heirs, that cannot be. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Some countries have quite different rules than others, specially in Latin America. We don't have anything for Cuba in Commons:Copyright rules by territory, but the law is available here: [1]. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I've asked the current possessor of the picture to give me a snapshot of the back of the photo to see if it will provide any clues as to its origin. That being said, I've taken a look a the cuban copyright laws as outlined by the text Yann linked to and it appears that copyright is valid for 25 years after the death of the author unless explicitly transferred to its heirs. However, the following will most likely be of interest to you guys:
Capitulo VII: de las limitacions del derecho de autor, Seccion I: de la utilizacion de une obra sin consentimiento del autor y sin renumeracion, Articulo 38: reproducir une obra por un procedimiento fortogràfico otro analogo, cuando la reproduciòn la realice une biblioteca, un centro de documentacion, una institucion cientifica o un establecimiento de ensenanza, y siempre que se haga con caracter non lucrativo y que la cantidad de ejemplares se limite estrictamente a las necessidades de una actividad especifica.
In English, it says that copyrighted works can be used in an educational context without the consent of the author. This sort of qualifies as fair use in my opinion, which is not permitted on commons, but could be of use to individual wikies.
Tinss (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
What would be most useful is: What is the term for anonymous works? Are there special conditions for photographs? (often different than for other works). Regards, Yann (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
According to [2], for photographic work, the copyright period is 10 years following the use of the work. Yann (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Article 42 states that the right to use copyrighted works from Cuba by aliens has to be formally granted by a government authority. That's an issue. However, Article 3 states that copyright protection are subordinated to the superior interests of the diffusion of science, education and culture. Article 16 states that copyright on works by an unknown author can be claimed by anyone who comes out publicly first while the real identity of the author has not been legally asserted. Lastly, Article 22 stipulates that copyright on photographic works can only be asserted if each copy of the original (we're in pre-internet days here) is duly identified according to the norms in place. Tinss (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of uncertainties here. The man was a Canadian, and the source is "family photo". We don;t know if this was first published in Cuba, in Canada, or, most likely never before it appeared here. If it can be shown that it was first published in Cuba, then the ten years that Yann mentions would apply. If first in Canada, then Canadian law would apply; if never before, then US law governs. In either of those cases it will be under copyright for 70 years after the death of the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


Going to go ahead and close this as  Not done per COM:PCP, because the remaining two files are missing clear evidence of permission. As Jim says, "there are a lot of uncertainties here", and as such, it would appear that we've hit a dead end. -FASTILY 08:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Top 10 demographic immigrant groups.jpg

This graph was sourced from Statistics Denmark {{Statistics Denmark}}, which means it is a part of free, public domain. Statistics Denmark allows visitors to their site to create their own graphs of existing national data and publish them. This graph describes the top 10 countries of origin for immigrant populations in Denmark as of 2014. As an image from public domain, I would appreciate this image being restored to the Wikimedia Commons. Please direct any further questions about this image or its source to me. Rloftis5672 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

If this is correct, the deletion was an indeed (understandable) error... I suspect a lack of proper attribution, though as a non-admin I can not ofc see the deleted file. If the description given above is correct, then I would support undeletion with a fix to the file page immediately forthcoming (i.e. undelete and tag with something like {{nsd}} for redeletion if not fixed. Revent (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It was tagged by Krdbot as 'Copyvio, external source, no license'. I guess you did not insert the license, and INeverCry presumed this is a copyvio and deleted it. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 07:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is quite that easy. At http://www.statbank.dk/statbank5a/default.asp?w=1536, the web site says the following. I have highlighted my concerns.

"It is part of Statistics Denmark’s mission to make official statistics available free of charge to every user, and all citizens are welcome to use and reproduce data from dst.dk, StatBank Denmark and publications from Statistics Denmark intended for school tasks, research, media products, etc.
The contents from dst.dk and the database StatBank Denmark may freely be reproduced, provided that Statistics Denmark is cited as source. The source reference must, as far as possible, indicate/link to the place in question on dst.dk or the the database StatBank Denmark, where the figures can be viewed in their full context by the user.
You are welcome to reproduce our graphic figures or make your own graphic figures on the basis of our data. Statistics Denmark must also in this context be cited as source.
If you subject our data to further processing; this must be clearly stated. This can be done, e.g. by writing: ”Source” Own calculations based on data from Statistics Denmark."
If you are a journalist or editor, you can obtain further details about the usage of Statistics Denmark’s data in the media from Statistics Denmark’s media pages.
Please note that passing on data of the full contents from Statistics Denmark’s publications or newsletters must only take place for commercial purposes after having obtained written permission from Statistics Denmark.

The vast majority of potential users of this material are not citizens of Denmark, so it is not at all clear that the first paragraph permission applies to us. The third paragraph is not ND, but it requires special handling of derivatives. And it's not clear what the last paragraph means -- is it a blanket prohibition on commercial use of anything, or only a prohibition on certain things. It is entirely possible that the Danish version of this page is clearer and less restrictive, but I don't think this file should be restored without clarification.

If it is restored, the license cannot be PD, as stated above. {{Attribution}} is required. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

(nods) I can't see it currently, but I assume the info given on the file page was wrong, I didn't mean the deleting admin made an 'error', but that it seems like the end result worked out that way. The last paragraph seems to only apply to a reproduction of a 'complete' publication, and not to the reuse of particular data. Of course a reading of the source language version would be better, but the {{Statistics Denmark}} template addresses the requirement for attribution (and does not make a PD claim). Revent (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The requirement to indicate if the data has been subjected to further processing by the reuser is directly equivalent to the requirement in 3.0 and 4.0 CC licenses that modifications must be indicated, so seems fine. Revent (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you as far as you go, but what about
"...and all citizens are welcome to use and reproduce data..."
as most Commons users are not citizens of Denmark. Perhaps it is a bad translation, but it is the site's official English translation.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed a valid point, if that is intended as an actual restriction or not isn't explicitly clear... Google translates the Dutch text there as 'everyone', but it really needs to be looked at by a fluent speaker (or someone needs to contact them and ask). Revent (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

file:Jaap Rus 1945.jpg

I would like to request undeletion of this photograph on behave of the uploader. This work is created in 1944 and the images is created in the Netherlands. See here and here for previous discussion's about this image. This is a family photograph which has never been published before and according to art 37/39 of the Dutch copyright law the image should be in the public domain. Works which are published 70 years after their creation date are out of copyright according to article 39. There is a publication right and that term is 25 years according to article 45o. In my opinion we can believe the uploader when it comes to the details of the image like the creation date and the fact the this is an anonymous work according to article 38 section 1. There is no author mentioned and it is impossible to verify the creator without doubt. {{PD-EU-unpublished}} should be a match. This image should at least have a proper DR instead of a speedy deletion. The image title contains the year 1945 as a date but the uploader made a mistake with the date and didn't know how to correct it. Natuur12 (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

... but then its U.S. copyright would be the earlier of 95 years from publication, and 120 years from creation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Who owns the US copyright in this case? Honest question. Natuur12 (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
According to this docuement " it is the publisher who exercises copyright in such works on behalf of the author". Since this work has never beeen published before according to the uploader and I see no reason not to believe him the uploader may exercise the copyright and he/she released this file onder a cc-license which covers the US-part. Am I correct or am I talking bullshit? Natuur12 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe US copyright is owned by the photographer or his heirs. Since the photographer is unknown, it is an orphan work and we don't keep copyrighted works, even if they are orphans. I'm not sure that you can apply the Netherlands rule either. It requires the work to be anonymous and the fact that we do not know the author does not prove that. That is different from the rule in countries like the UK, where a diligent search can put the work in the category "unknown author". In the Netherlands, you must prove that the author actually intended to remain anonymous.
I also question whether this is actually unpublished. The image shows artifacts of some sort, that might come from scanning a halftone or rotogravure reproduction. If the image is simply scanned from a photographic print, then there should be no artifacts of the sort we are seeing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
When something is an anonymous work is defined in article 38: "Het auteursrecht op een werk, ten aanzien waarvan de maker niet is aangeduid of niet op zodanige wijze dat zijn identiteit buiten twijfel staat, vervalt door verloop van 70 jaren, te rekenen van de 1e januari van het jaar, volgende op dat, waarin de eerste openbaarmaking van het werk rechtmatig heeft plaatsgehad." If there is no author mentioned it is anonymous. "Niet is aangeduid" can be roughly translates as not listed. Natuur12 (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The author or their heirs is probably the copyright owner. Although if there are specific laws in the source country in regards to copyright ownership, those would probably be followed even in the U.S. "Unknown" is not the same thing as "anonymous" unfortunately -- for the publisher to represent the author they would have to know who the author is, most likely. If they are publishing the work without explicit permission then they are committing copyright infringement themselves, technically -- that does not give them any rights over the copyright. It could very well be this falls in the ugly category of "orphan works", which are in a kind of limbo -- the authors are probably never identifiable, but rights still exist, and there is no law to specially limit them. The odds of a problem coming from actually using it are therefore very low, but it's not the same thing as "free". If it was a studio portrait and there was an implied transfer of copyright... then maybe the copyright owner changed, but I'm not sure that situation is implied (nowadays definitely not, but it was less clear in that era). If the photo was taken by a family member, and an heir is providing permission, I'd be inclined to accept that. But otherwise this sort of thing is hard. See this article, for example. (That article ignores the treatment of "published" at the time, so such photos were very possibly "published", if there was no explicit restriction on further distribution of the photos. But ownership is another issue, and it may have taken the negatives to also be given over for there to be an implied transfer of ownership.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think we should be less strict about this kind of material. However, as Jim mentioned, it seems to be a scan from some publication. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it would be very good if we adopted a freer policy on orphan works -- keeping them, appropriately tagged, unless someone complains. That would require a modification of PRP and, possibly a WMF vote. However, until we have such a policy, we're stuck with the fact that current policy is to reject copyrighted works that don't have a license, even if they are clearly orphans. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Justin Forsett.jpg and File:Justin forsett.jpg

PLEASE NOTE: there is a different file that has been uploaded at File:Justin Forsett.jpg in the time since the original was deleted. My request is in regards to the original file and it can be moved to a different name like File:Justin Forsett (Cal).jpg so as to not conflict with the file currently at that name and uses thereof.

There is a valid OTRS ticket at 2007083110001056 authenticating the license for this image. Though it was transferred to Commons by someone else, :en admins can view en:Special:Undelete/File:Justin_Forsett.jpg to confirm that this ticket is applicable to the image. I'm slightly dismayed that the cropped version, which I had uploaded, was deleted without notifying me. Had I been notified, I could have clarified the validity of the license.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Justin forsett.jpg, where the original contributor / copyright holder had asked that his real name not be used. At File:Justin forsett.jpg, we had done a history purge so obviously we want to restore only those revisions since the contributor's name was purged.

Thank you, --UserB (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There are three images involved in this filename's history, the current one, an image of him in the end zone, and an image of him midfield, with two players in red shirts on either side of a hole that he is about to go through. Which one do you want undeleted? The OTRS ticket does not describe the image. How do we tie the OTRS license to the correct image? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)