Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Visszaállítási kérések

(Redirected from 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 • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎italiano • ‎日本語 • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎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.

Törlés (Törlési irányelvek)


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: 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. Watch your request's section for updates.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Nyitott visszaállítási kérések

Watch View Edit

Files uploaded by VoidWanderer

Several files of mine were deleted, and I have reasons why they should be restored.

1. I've received a permission by Pavel Netesov, the author of the Blokpost Pamyati exhibition {{PermissionOTRS|2018040410013134}}:

2. Large batch of files are exhibition plates, and are falling under {{PD-text}}, because simple geometrical shapes, logos and tiny pictures may not be considered as copyright violation:

“The depicted text is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it is not a “literary work” or other protected type in sense of the local copyright law. Facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface or basic handwriting, and simple geometric shapes are not protected by copyright.”

--VoidWanderer (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose

1) These must wait their turn at OTRS. When they reach the head of the queue there in about 50 days, if the license is acceptable they will be automatically restored.
2) I looked at about half of these and all of the ones I looked at have photographs and/or drawings which have copyrights and all have far more text then is necessary for a copyright. I don't see how we can restore them without a free license from the copyright holders. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward, all of the photos in a nomination are taken by me personally. OTRS ticket was aquired for the exhibition as a whole, not the pictures whose author I am already. So no one will mark them on OTRS queue, they're literally not queued.
Are you really saying exhibition plates that I took photo of are violating the copyrights? --VoidWanderer (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

1) I understood your comment to mean that the creator(s) of the works portrayed had sent a free license to OTRS. I have now looked at them, and in every case that will be required. In some cases, there are photographs, text, and other copyrighted works in the images, so the copyrights for those will also have to be freely licensed.

I do not understand "So no one will mark them on OTRS queue, they're literally not queued." OTRS Ticket 2018040410013134, which you cite above, is in the OTRS queue. It will be read and acted on by an OTRS volunteer when it reaches the head of the queue, which will be around June 1.

2) Yes. All of the images that I examined infringe on the copyrights for the drawings, photographs, and the texts shown in them. While I did not look at all of them, I doubt very much that any of them can be kept on Commons. This should not surprise you. Sealle, Christian Ferrer, and I, all experienced Commons Admins, all reached the same conclusion -- that they are all far above the threshold of originality anywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward, I mean how would those photos be possibly restored, if I have no guarantee OTRS Ticket even have those exact pictures mentioned? I suppose there's only the author's permission to take pictures of his exhibition. So I doubt volunteer will be even notified there're deleted photos that require to be restored. --VoidWanderer (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jim, if the permission is valid then the images will be automatically restored. When you take a photo of something then you own the copyright on your photo, that is true, but if the thing depicted is protected by copyright (which is the case as soon as there is creativity) then the copyright holder of the depicted thing has also some rights on the publication of your photo, and in such cases it is required that we have his permission to publish here the photos. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Ticket 2018040410013134 has permission for the Exhibition "Блокпост Пам'яті" from Pavel Netesov. It looks OK for me. But I do not know what pictures are from this exhibition.--Anatoliy (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Ahonc: You can restore the files and add the template {{OTRS received}} while you check which files have been authorised. I've left you a note in the ticket, and we can continue the discussion there. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 12:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Mass TechCrunch restore request

Please restore all images deleted in the following DRs and the following individual images:


I've pulled this request out of the archive since Yann received a response on Ticket:2018041510004936 that indicates that the images in question are indeed under a free license and that the copyright holder has agreed to put them under said license. I'd like to restart my request to undelete these images in light of the OTRS ticket. The original discussion is included above in the collapsed section for referral purposes. Also pinging Jameslwoodward as they opposed the original request. --Majora (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose All we have in the OTRS correspondence is "Yes you may publish and credit TechCrunch". Nothing more. There is no explanation of how TechCrunch came to have a license that allows Tech Crunch to freely license Getty property and not even a signature. We have no evidence at all that whoever wrote the message had the authority to do so. I also note that the message was forwarded to OTRS, which we do not ordinarily accept, although since the forwarder is Yann, I'm OK with it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for here. The question asked by Yann was "Could you please confirm that the copyright holder have allowed to publish the images under a free license". The response to that specific question was an unequivocal yes. The response came from an official TechCrunch account that is confirmed to belong to them via their website. The account is the "events" account that would deal with these events and therefore know the circumstances behind their photographers. The response is short, yes, but it answers the question posed in a way that indicates that the license on Flickr is correct. If you want something more perhaps Yann can unlock the ticket so you can get whatever working you want out of them. --Majora (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Technically it's not needed that the ticket owner unlock the ticket. If you press 'quick close', it will no longer be locked. Jcb (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose - without some more explanation we cannot take their statement for granted. We do not even know whether the person responding has a proper understanding of copyright regulations. Any OTRS agent is expected to be aware that a lot of statements from customers are mistaken and that we have an active role in helping them sorting things out. Jcb (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Majora, well, for one thing I expect a signature of a person with at least the apparent authority to give away their employer's property. The OTRS files represent a legal record of the licensing of an image and without a signature, we have nothing. But, as Jcb suggests, I also expect an explanation of how it is that TechCrunch thinks it has the right to freely license images whose copyright is apparently owned by Getty Images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

File:VSF - Jim Edgar - 1978-1.jpg

I request a review of this photo of Jim Edgar and others that I have added to both the Forests Commission Victoria and Victorian School of Forestry pages that have been deleted.

These photos form part of a large collection that have been donated over many years by members to the Forests Commission Retired Personnel Association (FCRPA)

They are on public display at the association museum at Beechworth or on their new webpage https://www.victoriasforestryheritage.org.au/

Many are out of copyright and in the common domain because of their age. Some are very old newspaper photos. I have identified the original donor where possible.

In many cases I edited the photos to improve their quality before I uploaded them.

I hope I have now added enough information on their source so they can be kept

Other photos are

Thanks DBHOB (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, why would a 1978 photo be public domain in Australia? Template:PD-Australia does not seem the obvious choice for a copyright license. Thuresson (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@DBHOB: Were the copyrights to these photos originally given to FCV or VSF?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there All these photos were freely donated to the Forests Commission Retired Personnel Association (FCRPA) over many years for their use They are all freely available from the FCRPA collection either online or at its museum. Some came from the Forest Commission and some came from Victorian school of Forestry The School of Forestry merged with the University of Melbourne in 1980 and everything was thrown out. The Forest Commission ceased to exist in 1983 and they had a big clean out too. The one of Jim Edgar was taken at the Victorian School of Forestry which was then managed by the FCV in 1980 Is there another form of release that I need to use I want to do the right thing with these photos. It means a lot to the FCRPA, Thanks for your help Cheers

DBHOB (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose There are two questions here. Did the people who donated the photos to FCRPA collection actually own the copyrights? Please remember that owning a paper copy of a photo does not give you any rights to the copyright -- that is almost always held by the actual photographer or his heirs. Second, even if they did, did the donation include a formal, written, transfer of copyright? I think the answer to the first question is "perhaps, in some cases". The answer to the second is almost certainly "No" and unless the FCRPA can produce copies of the relevant documents, that will be the end of it.

In order for the image to be restored, it will up to you to prove beyond a significant doubt (the Commons standard of proof, see COM:PRP) that the answer to both questions is "Yes". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

hello again. Im sorry but maybe I didn't explain myself properly. Nearly all these photos belonged to the Forests Commission of Victoria or the Victorian School of Forestry. Both were Government organisations not private individuals. So the copyright was always owned by the Government of Victoria. Some are newspaper photos (Gerraty and Code). I understood they are available to use because the copyright has expired. is this not the case ? Cheers DBHOB (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I have give an explanation of each photo below.

DBHOB (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


Again, ownership of a photo does not give ownership of the copyright. At the time a photograph is taken, the copyright belongs to the photographer. If the photographer has a work for hire agreement with an employer, then the copyright belongs to the employer. If that applies to any of these, it is up to you to prove it.
If a photograph was first published anonymously in Australia more than 50 years ago, then it is PD. However it is up to you to prove that it was actually published and that the publication was actually anonymous -- the fact that we do not know who the photographer was does not make it anonymous. Generally, you must show the published photo in situ without a by-line.
So, here are several groups:
Those that are clearly not PD:
Those that might be PD as government works, but both the date and place of publication and the fact that it is a government work requires further proof. Note that the Australian law requires publication for the clock to start, so the fact that a photo exists proves nothing unless you can prove it was published more than 50 years ago:
Those that might be PD if published anonymously, but where the anonymous publication must be proven (see above):

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again

I can't do anything about the first group. They should be deleted. I agree with you. I miss understood the rules But I have added links to original newspaper sources from Trove for A.V Galbraith, W J Code and F G Geraty. They were all well before 1955. E J Semmens is a crop headshot from the 1946 school football team photo which is published in the University of Melbourne museum. https://omeka.cloud.unimelb.edu.au/cchc/items/show/5819. Im looking for a source for E J Semmens (2)-1 The photo for A V Galbraith comes from an obituary written about him in Australian Forestry journal. It shows him sitting at his desk as Forests Commission Chairman. Gailbriath retired in July 1969. So the photo is 50 years old. Cheers DBHOB (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Personal photos from albums

http://shanson-e.tk/forum/search.php?searchid=6037678 - Personal photos from albums — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ненашева Татьяна (talk • contribs) 22:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ненашева Татьяна: Does this concern one or more of the redlinks in this log?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:59832923@N02 -hastemplate:delete

It's probably better to see what comes from Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:huntingtontheatreco before we start deleting a few dozen randomly nominated files. I suspect File:Tristano and Matteo in The Miracle at Naples.jpg was actually https://www.flickr.com/photos/huntingtontheatreco/6762342679/ so this probably wasn't even a list of really obvious copyvios.

I've been meaning to organize that mess a bit, but was holding out to hear from the digital content manager from Huntington. - Alexis Jazz 23:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Matthew Kennedy directing the Fisk Jubilee Singers.jpg.

Also:

The executrix for the Estate of Matthew Washington Kennedy has granted permission to Wikimedia Commons to use this photograph. Nina07011960 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Such a permission can be sent to OTRS. If the permission is valid, an OTRS agent will take care of undeletion. Jcb (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose There are several problems here. Since the copyright to photographs is almost always held by the photographer, even when the photographer is paid for the work, it is unlikely that the estate has the right to freely license the photographs. Even if it does (and that must be proven), executors do not generally have the right to make gifts of estate property unless directed to do so by the will. That right belongs to the heir. Finally, "permission to Wikimedia Commons to use this photograph" is insufficient. Commons requires that images be free for any use by anybody anywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I am the heir, as well as the executrix. The Last Will and Testament was sent to Wikimedia Commons. Photographs were taken in the 1940s. The photograph of Matthew Kennedy directing the Jubilee Singers was taken in the 1970s and was given to him by the photographer, who is deceased. All of the other photographers are deceased. It is my intention that the "images be free for any use by anybody anywhere." Nina07011960 (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You have answered one of my concerns above, but you still have provided no evidence that you have the right to freely license the copyrights. That right almost always remains with the photographer. That was particularly the case in the old days, with film and paper photographs, as charging for reprints was an important source of revenue for photographers. Unless you can provide either (a) evidence of formal written license or transfers of copyright for each photograph, or (b) free licenses from the heirs of the photographers, they cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Kai Tietje April 2018.jpg

Hallo, ich, Jan Tietje, erkläre in Bezug auf das Bild »Kai_Tietje_April_2018.jpg«, dass ich Inhaber des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts bin. Die Fotografin des Bildes »Kai_Tietje_April_2018.jpg« ist meine Schwester und heißt Svenja Kähler-Obermann. Ich habe sie gebeten, das Foto bei einem Familientreffen extra zur Freigabe in Commons anzufertigen. Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz »Creative-Commons-Lizenz „Namensnennung – Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0 international“«. Ich genehmige somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch kommerziell oder gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann. Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die freie Lizenzierung nur auf das Urheberrecht sowie verwandte Rechte bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, auf Grund anderer Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen. Gleichwohl erwerbe ich keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft in Wikipedia oder einem ihrer Schwesterprojekte eingestellt wird. Vorgangs-Nr. 1783-522e217039e70a04. E-Mail versendet am 15.04.2018 [Ticket#: 2018041510007013]. Viele Grüße, Jan Tietje (talk) 18:49, 23 April 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 62 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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The Infobox at my talk-page reads "Additionally you can request undeletion here," Thats why I put it here. Jan Tietje (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Arielle Adda.jpg

Bonjour, Suite au signalement de la photographe de la dispaition de son travail, merci de bien vouloir restaurer ce fichier supprimé. Cdlt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Znprweb (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 April 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. Also, please note that it is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image a second time after deletion as you did here. It wastes your time and that of other Commons editors. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing on Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Znprweb: L'auteure de la photo, Géraldine Bensasson, doit envoyer une autorisation par email. Voyez COM:OTRS/fr pour les instructions. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Naim Iorden Soul in a Vase Front Cover.jpg

I am the artist and I made this cover. It is mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlengoasa (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tlengoasa: Please follow the process indicated at COM:OTRS. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 18:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Иллюстрация_к_главе_5.jpg

Почему мой файл удален? Без суда и следствия, без анализа ситуации, без того, чтобы даже уведомить меня об этом! Данная иллюстрация, как и все остальные рисунки данной книги, была выложена создателями в открытый доступ и с удовольствием распространяется в любых СМИ и на любых сайтах. Для меня, равно как и для вас, совершенно не проблема получить прямое согласие создателя рисунка! В чем проблема? Можно было просто выйти со мной на связь и уведомить о том, что такое согласие необходимо? Восстановите рисунок! Он важен для статьи (собственно, поэтому, как я понимаю, кое-кому и режет глаз). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pesennik (talk • contribs) 08:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  Comment @A.Savin, Ymblanter, EugeneZelenko: can any of you guys please check this request? De728631 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 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. This file was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Иллюстрация к главе 5.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The permission link to VK.com in the deleted file description does not indicate free licensing. --A.Savin 16:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Why is my file deleted? Without trial and investigation, without analyzing the situation, without even notifying me of this! This illustration, like all the other drawings of this book, was posted by the creators in open access and is happily distributed in any media and on any sites. For me, as well as for you, it's absolutely not a problem to get the direct consent of the creator of the picture! What is the problem? You could just contact me and notify me that such consent is necessary? Restore the drawing! It is important for the article (in fact, therefore, as I understand it, some people also have their eyes cut).
translator: Google via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Pesennik:, пожалуйста, свяжитесь с создаталем рисунка (если он его рисовал с нуля, а не использовал другие несвободные источники, в частности, фотографии) и попросите его написать в Commons:OTRS по указанной там инструкции. --Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
please contact the creator of the drawing (if he drew it from scratch, and did not use other non-free sources, in particular, photos) and ask him to write to Commons:OTRS under the instructions indicated there.
translator: Google via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Real_Madrid_Santiago_Bernabéu_Asador_Rafael_Corrales_Aranda_de_Duero_Lechazo_Asado_.JPG

I took the picture, its a picture from a business card from the 1940´s or 50´s, its exposed to the public in the wall of the restaurant, as a rare old thing. It should be undeleted. Thank you.--Pravdaverita (talk) 13:22, 25 April 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. If the underlying photo was taken in the 1940s or 50s, its copyright extends into the 2020s or 30s due to Spain's 80pma copyright law at the time. Please see COM:CRT#Spain and COM:DW.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose The file description says 1969, but even 1930 is far too recent to assume that the photographer has been dead for the 80 years required by the Spanish copyright law until 1996. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Einspruch gegen Löschung der Bilddatei File:AbcKaterLrsZentrum.png

Mit der Löschung der Datei bin ich nicht einverstanden. Wieso verstößt die Datei gegen das Urheberrecht? Sowohl die hochgeladene Datei ist mein eigenes Werk als auch die entsprechende Datei auf der Website lrs-online.de. Die Website unseres Vereins und sämliche Illustrationen etc. wurden von mir selbst erstellt. Ich selbst bin als Vorstandsmitglied des Vereins verantwortlich für den Inhalt (vgl. das Impressum unter https://lrs-online.de/index.php/impressum). Karl-Ludwig Herné --Kalle Herné (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose Das Logo ist auf der Webseite des Vereins bereits ohne eine freie Lizenz veröffentlicht worden. In solchen Fällen wird die Datei auf Commons vorsichtshalber immer gelöscht, bis wir eine Bestätigung per Email erhalten haben. Wir machen das, weil wir täglich Dutzende von betrügerischen Freigaben erhalten, und sonst keine Möglichkeit haben, die Commons-Benutzerkonten auf Echtheit zu überprüfen. Einfacher ist aber, das Logo auf der Homepage entsprechend freizugeben. Ein Hinweis im Impressum, dass die Grafik von Kalle Herné unter der Creative Commons Lizenz cc-by-sa-4.0 veröffentlicht wurde, genügt auch als Nachweis.
Dennoch stellt sich aber die Frage, ob das Logo überhaupt für Wikimedia Commons geeignet ist. Der entsprechende Wikipedia-Artikel wurde zur Löschung vorgeschlagen, und wenn die Wikipedia-Seite auch entfernt wird, gibt es aufgrund von mangelnder Nutzbarkeit leider keinen Grund mehr, das Logo hier zu behalten. De728631 (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Emcee N.I.C.E. - I Got Angels.jpg

File:Emcee_N.I.C.E._-_I_Got_Angels_(Single_Cover).jpg The reason for this request is that the subject is "my own work" not only am I the creator of the artwork I also have the permission of both the record label Gypsy City Music and the artist Emcee N.I.C.E. -- (IMusicFacts) 13:50, 26 április 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMusicFacts (talk • contribs) 17:36, 25 April 2018‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

  Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the record company must send a free license using OTRS. The e-mail will reach the head of the OTRS queue in about 62 days. Then, if the license meets Commons requirements and is approved, the image will be automatically restored.

Also please note that reloading deleted files is a serious violation of Commons rules. If you do it again, you will be blocked from editing here.      Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 25 April 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. Also, please fix your signature, it changes every minute.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Emcee N.I.C.E. - Glory to God (feat. Fred Hammond).jpg

File:Emcee N.I.C.E. - Glory to God (feat. Fred Hammond).jpg, The reason for this request is that the subject is "my own work" not only am I the creator of the artwork I also have the permission of both the record label Gypsy City Music and the artist Emcee N.I.C.E. -- (IMusicFacts) 13:50, 26 április 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMusicFacts‎ (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

  Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the record company must send a free license using OTRS. The e-mail will reach the head of the OTRS queue in about 62 days. Then, if the license meets Commons requirements and is approved, the image will be automatically restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:06, 25 April 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. Also, please fix your signature, it changes every minute.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Actinopyga sp. à confirmer.jpg

Picture by Christophe Cadet, who has a valid OTRS ticket. FredD (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

What ticket?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Probably ticket:2018040410012742 which can be found on photos in the above gallery. De728631 (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Holothuria lineata Michonneau.jpg

From a website indicating CC-by-SA for all the pictures. FredD (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Duplicate of File:Holothuria lineata.jpg. You asked for this to be deleted yourself: "Duplicata of [[Holothuria lineata.jpg]], please remove." De728631 (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks. FredD (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Aquilonastra conandae.png

Picture by Chantal Conand, who has a valid OTRS. FredD (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@FredD: Ticket number please? --Ruthven (msg) 19:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  1. 2018040310007625. FredD (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • {{o}} This file was moved to File:Aquilonastra chantalae.png. Ticket:2018040310007625 is inconsistent with your claim, it is was approved for a different file.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Then both files are deleted ? About the ticket, like with all of my photographers it is valid for all of the author's pictures I upload (I wrote the e-mail myself). FredD (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Sorry, I had to dig into the French language Word document. Your claim appears to be valid. Perhaps @Bastenbas or another francophone OTRS member can draft a template for your uploads of Chantal Conand's works.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

File:BWHead ShotAPPROVED.jpg

I would like to request this file be reinstated. It is an updated photo of Betsy Wolfe and is currently being used across the internet (including playbill.com). The photographer has given unlimited rights to all as long as he's given a photo credit.

Can we do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxDrinksCoffee (talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose This photo appears across the internet without a free licence. S we either need an explicit permission from the original photographer sent by email (COM:OTRS) or a link to a reliable website where the photographer and a free licence are mentioned. That aside, you uploaded this image as your own work while it had been published before. We cannot verify your Commons account, so it is a standard procedure to delete such files. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Emcee NICE Tonight.jpg

File:Emcee NICE Tonight.jpg The reason for this request is that the subject is "my own work" not only am I the creator of the artwork I warranty that I have the right to grant the permission requested herein, and that I have submitted to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org a copy of that permission as given to me by artist.-- (IMusicFacts) 13:50, 26 április 2018 (UTC) —Preceding comment was added at 20:16, 25 April 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. Also, please fix your signature, it changes every minute.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Smart Street Media Logo.png

I'm the owner of this company and own the copyright. This is perfectly free to use because I am the owner.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorsmushkevich (talk • contribs) 23:51, 25 April 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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Kevin Reilly at Turner's 2017 Winter TCA session.jpg

Hello,

I'm requesting that the photo referenced above (File:Kevin Reilly at Turner's 2017 Winter TCA session.jpg) to be "undeleted." Consent for use of this photo was sent to Permissions - Wikimedia Commons on Friday, April 20th, 2018. Please find the related ticket # here: " Fwd: [Ticket#2018042010006791] Confirmation of receipt (Re: permission-for Kevin [...])'

Thank you for your email. This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received. Because all emails are handled by volunteers, it may take some time for us to reply. We kindly ask for your patience and understanding as we try our best to reply as quickly as possible. If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later.

If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2018042010006791].

Yours sincerely,

The Volunteer Response Team

Thanks in advance for your timely assistance.

TurnerBrandCentral (talk) 01:03, 26 April 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 62 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.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Photos of Wilson Cleveland

File:Wilson Cleveland Non-Transferrable Premiere.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is my own work. I am the author of this image and have noted CC-BY-SA 3.0 permissions in the description on both the Pro IMDB page (my account): https://pro.imdb.com/name/nm0166505/ and on my Flickr account: https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetemplifetv/26783817967/ Does this meet your requirements? Thank You. Wilsoncleveland (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Wilson Cleveland and Milo Ventimiglia on set.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is my own work. I am the author of this image and have noted CC-BY-SA 3.0 permissions in the description on both the Pro IMDB page (my account): https://pro.imdb.com/name/nm0166505/ and on my Flickr account: https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetemplifetv/12043571106/ I sent this image to Tim Ryan at TAR Productions for his blog. That post is here: https://tarproductions.com/5-realities-about-branded-entertainment-every-creator-should-know/ Does this meet your requirements? Thank You. Wilsoncleveland (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Also mostly confirmed via Flickr and IMDB, but: Can you get Tim Ryan to use a CC license? Who actually shot these photos?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I can talk to Tim. The TAR Productions copyright covers his entire site so he probably wont change that. Can I ask him to make this attribution in the caption? ©2014 Wilson Cleveland. CC-BY-SA 3.0. The photo was taken by Mark Rywelski. I hired him to take the photo. I own the files. Wilsoncleveland (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Wilsoncleveland

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I hold the copyright for all of these images. They are stills and poster images from content I've created. I've licensed these images CC-BY-SA 3.0 and included those permissions in the captions on my IMDB Pro and Flickr Pro accounts. IMDB Pro and Flickr image links below for your convenience. Thank you.

File:Wilson Cleveland and Shannen Doherty in the Lifetime series Suite 7.jpghttps://pro.imdb.com/name/nm0166505/photos/#rmConst=rm1605847808

File:Wilson-cleveland-milo-ventimiglia-the-temp-life-season-5-law-and-lunch-order.jpg https://pro.imdb.com/name/nm0166505/photos/#rmConst=rm1705921280

File:The-temp-life-wikipedia-poster.jpg https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetemplifetv/26741544127/

File:Taryn-southern-sandeep-parikh-the-temp-life.jpg https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetemplifetv/26741544457/

File:Jaime-murray-eddie-mcclintock-suite-7-poster-image.jpg https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetemplifetv/39801586660/

File:Jaime Murray and Eddie McClintock in the web series Suite 7 distributed by Lifetime.jpg https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetemplifetv/39801588090/

File:Hartley Sawyer.jpg https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetemplifetv/15801687904/

File:Hartley-Sawyer-cup.jpg https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetemplifetv/16424178635/ Wilsoncleveland (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • For this sort of thing, we'll really need to go through the COM:OTRS process, where you email in a verification of identity. If you do this broadly enough, and establish whose account this is, you should only have to go through the OTRS process once, and can get permission that also lets this account upload your work in the future. Basically, you'll get a ticket number and that ticket can be put in a template you can use in the future.
  • Please understand, this is for protection of your rights, really the only way we can know that this Commons account is not someone impersonating you. We had a lot of times someone claimed to be a given designer or photographer and wasn't, which is why we initiated that system. - Jmabel ! talk 06:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I hadn't seen the discussion above when I wrote that; I've now combined sections. I still say that if you are going to do this at all often an OTRS ticket and a template is simplest. - Jmabel ! talk 06:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Leap Year title poster.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I hold the copyright to this image. This is a series I created. I've licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0. Here is the link to the image on my IMDB Pro account with license permissions in the caption: https://pro.imdb.com/name/nm0166505/photos/#rmConst=rm3808054272 Wilsoncleveland (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Philippine Stock Exchange Center.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My photo of the Philippine Stock Exchange Center.jpg was deleted due to copyright violation. It was my mistake that I did not include the copyright on the webpage where the photo is hosted.

I have added the copyright to my page as you can see here: http://stockstreetblog.com/stock-market-hours/ I would like to request this image be restored as it has the appropriate CC BY 4.0 attribution. Rsch45 (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


  Done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Shelby_Welinder,_photographed_by_Daniel_Sutka.jpg

This file is undergoing OTRS and the email has already been sent, it is now sitting in a queue. Permissions from the photographer have been granted for this photograph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reriksenus (talk • contribs) 04:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose No reason to jump the queue. Thuresson (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Fot Damian Weymann.png

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol%C4%99czewo

Dear Wikimedia Commons, I am a creator of this derivative work and the owner of the copyrights of this composition made of photos (File: Fot Damian Weymann.png) done on 13 April. Damian Weymann is an author of all photos used in my composition and he already sent you a permission of using them in Wikimedia on 22 of April (permissions-commons-pl@wikimedia.org). I can also attach a copy of his permission once again.

If the name of file or description is wrong, I can change it.

I hope all is clear now and our work will be shown again. Thank you for help!

Elisabeth Krenz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elżbieta Krenz (talk • contribs) 11:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

As a general rule, all of the images that appear in a montage on Commons must be uploaded to Commons individually, so that even if the photographer sends a license for the images, the montage will not be restored. The file description for the montage must list all of the individual photographs. Without that, this montage is out of scope because, among other things it does not give any locations for any of the photos. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)