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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Shahr Theatre

City Theater of Tehran is WFH and based on Intellectual property in Iran after 30 years it's free. There are many photos from this building here. MasoodHA (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  Support 70 pma definitely does not apply to Iran. Ankry (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I doubt we can go on here without explanation how the "Work for hire" term from Iranian copyright law is interpreted in Iran, especially concerning architecture. Ankry (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose First, while it is true that 70pma does not apply, it is still 50 pma in Iran (30 pma for deaths before 22 August 1980). Second, architects rarely work on a work for hire basis -- they almost always retain copyright in their work. There is no evidence that this building was work for hire. The architect, Ali Sardar Afkhami, was alive in 2004, so the building will be under copyright until at least 1/1/2055. Third, the building has been added to after its 1972 construction. That work may or may not be in the photograph. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@MasoodHA: Could you provide an evidence that this particular work is considered to be a work for hire in Iranian legal system? The Wikipedia article you pointed out is about US law, which is irrelevant here (PD in US because Iran is not a member of Berne convention). Ankry (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry:In this case Iran's copyright law is not clear. But this is a public building that was built under the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran. MasoodHA (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support As previously discussed, the architect's copyright only lasts 30 years in Iran. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Yann, I don't understand that. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Iran is clear that architectural works have a copyright that lasts 50 years pma. The thirty year limit in Article 16 extends only to financial rights, and does not include all of the other author's rights. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It would be based on Article 16. Iranian "work for hire" for architects may not be the same as U.S. norms, especially when it comes to past regimes or items built for the state. Article 16 also isn't particularly clear on ownership of the copyright or ownership of a single physical work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Avicenna Mausoleum and Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Azadi_Tower. I don't see any difference with this request. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Both of those were based on a misreading of Article 16 -- it does not say that work is PD after 30 years, but only that the author's financial rights terminate. Other rights remain in place for 50 pma. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Generally, I would equate "financial" rights with the economic right, and any other rights as moral rights. Iranian law says that only the financial rights are transferable, so those are the only rights you can sell. Also, the "intellectual rights" have no time limit in their law. It is only financial rights which are normally 50pma, in Article 12, but that term seems to be explicitly limited by Article 16 in those situations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ebrahim, Mardetanha, Mmxx: Could you please have a look at this? Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support A theatre cannot be something different than a work for hire (it's not the architect's personal house). As Yann said: the 30 years after creation rule holds. --Ruthven (msg) 08:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • What logic is that? If you hire someone to create a creative work for you, it frequently can be cheaper to not mess with work for hire, if you don't need the copyright (and a building is a big case where you might not care.) In the US, a building can not be work for hire; there's a list of things that can be, and architecture is not one of them. Iran is hard, because we don't have many good Persian speakers and I don't think they cribbed their copyright law from someone else like many other nations did. But let's not jump to conclusions without knowledge.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This hinges on the question of whether the building was a work-for-hire or not. As I have said elsewhere, architects rarely workon a work-for-hire basis because that would mean that they could not use details from building A when designing building B later unless they got a license from the the owner of building A. While there is a possibility that Iran is different from the rest of the world in this regard, it seems to me that that must be proven here. Unless someone experienced in architecture contracts in Iran can speak to the subject, I think we must assume that Iran follows the rest of the world in this and that, therefore, the buidlings are pma 50. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm a bilingual and can read the original text of the law. According to the article.13 of the Law for the Protection of Authors, Composers and Artist Rights, the copyright of the works created as a result of an order (WOH), belongs to the author until 30 years after the creation date, unless there's an agreement over shortening the period. However, I've got no clue as to whether the work is really WOH. --Mhhossein talk 19:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Khayam mausoleum 01.JPG

WFH for 55 years ago (See also:Category:Omar Khayyam Mausoleum). MasoodHA (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support as per previous discussion. Yann (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose Again. If an architect were to work for hire, he would be constrained from using details or features that he had included in any building in subsequent buildings. Therefore, architects rarely work on a work for hire basis in any country that I am aware of. No one has provided any evidence to show that Iran is different from the rest of the world. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ebrahim, Mardetanha, Mmxx: Could you please have a look at this? Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Can theese cases be closed? Or maybe the above discussion should be moved to COM:VPC? It does not seem that any Iranian user is willing to help us to resolve these cases. So IMO, keeping them open here is pointless. Ankry (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I have opened a thread on COM:VPC. Very few people speaking Farsi and having a knowledge of Iranian copyright law are active, but Mhhossein said he will look into it. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support As Yann: 30 years after creation rule hold here. --Ruthven (msg) 08:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, this hinges on the question of whether the building was a work-for-hire or not. As I have said elsewhere, architects rarely workon a work-for-hire basis because that would mean that they could not use details from building A when designing building B later unless they got a license from the the owner of building A. While there is a possibility that Iran is different from the rest of the world in this regard, it seems to me that that must be proven here. Unless someone experienced in architecture contracts in Iran can speak to the subject, I think we must assume that Iran follows the rest of the world in this and that, therefore, the buidlings are pma 50. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Manila skyline day.jpg

Skyline images are not covered by FOP restrictions. Skyline images containing buildings still under copyright rather falls under de minimis, as they are all incidental. Lack of FOP is not a good reason to delete skyline images.-TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 08:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support as per TagaSanPedroAko. Yann (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose I disagree. The test of de minimis is that the copyrighted content is dm if an average observer would not notice if the copyrighted content were removed from the image. In cases where almost everything shown in the image is copyrighted, that is obviously not possible. While any one of these buildings is certainly dm, removing all of them would leave us with a white page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You may use censoring out the buildings to test the DM argument if they are such, and, I support undeletion under that argument (as what you pointed, removing X (the copyrighted buildings) would make the file useless). I agree the buildings form the elements of the skyline and are an unavoidable feature. This can be listed as another example of use of DM as an argument for undeletion. This can be undeleted, with addition of the {{de minimis}} tag after the image license. -TagaSanPedroAkoTalk -> 01:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  Neutral I have no opinion here. Another opinion is welcome. Ankry (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose The buildings occupy approx 40% of the image, I think that is too much copyright content, if the photographer had included more water and sky - it might be a different answer - but the way it's cropped, highlights the buildings. Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Files in Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 2875355 forgotten files

User:Materialscientist kept Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 2875355, but a lot of files were deleted out of process and are hiding in the history of this page. Please restore the files listed at [1], [2], [3] & [4]. These files are not low quality and are not out of scope. Should be undeleted. Multichill (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose - these files were not deleted "out of the process". Till now, among the thousands of files only a handful have been identified as useful. Almost all the files are low quality and don't depict any notable thing. - Jcb (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  Support There was at least one used image, many high quality and many with no replacement among nominated by User:Mitte27. Eg. File:Notitle - panoramio (1385).jpg this image is used, is high quality and I do not see many replacemnts for it as declared. The DR nominations by this user require at least careful review. @Jcb: I thing they were not carefully reviewed while closing the DRs. Ankry (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Notitle - panoramio (1385).jpg = Category:Self-seizure of the land in Simferopol. —Mitte27 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mitte27: I do not see another photo of this ruined object there that could be used as a replacement. Ankry (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
A little off topic, but what does "Self-seizure of the land in Simferopol" mean? I'm pretty sure there's a better way to write that in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
ru:Самозахват земельных участков в Крыму. — Mitte27 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Jcb’s sysop doesn’t necessarily make all his actions “[due] process”, and his insistence to argue about this case—where he was clearly a party—shows partiality and wears off the community’s trust in any process to which Jcb is a party. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are trying to state. Do you think I should not voice my opinion in this UDR, because I participated in the DR? Jcb (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I try to state that Jcb has authority to close a delreq, but shouldn’t wave it here, mistaking this authority alone for the [due] process. Jcb certainly has the right to voice opinion, like any other legitimate member, but it only has weight of an opinion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, just like the opinion of everybody else. I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Apparently you just want to be critical, without having a message? Jcb (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Русский:   Oppose, Зачем я пытался систематизировать, категоризировать, переименовывать файлы данного автора? Зачем просил администратора расставить ботом соответствующую категорию? Потратил кучу времени, как выясняется, впустую. У данного автора есть множество хороших фото, однако многие должны быть удалены как бесполезные. Если вы считаете, что подобное тут нужно, то ок. Даже упомянутый File:Notitle - panoramio (1385).jpg, чем полезен викискладу непонятно.— Mitte27 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Some are very likely in scope, but it's true that a significant part have a bad quality. Now they are deleted it's hard to sort the bad ones and the good ones. Much, much, much, much too big DR. Although I was firstly thinking at an undeletion, I now wonder if it is not to much work for little gain. Indeed I think Mitte27 really tried to sort the images, I agree that some cases are questionable but almost have bad quality and should stay deleted. Now that the harm is done, maybe administrators who want to restore some files, should do it on their own initiative only for the files that deserve it.
  Oppose Now that the harm is done, and because a significant part have a (very) bad quality. However I strongly   Support individual undeletions for some files on the initiative of administrators who wants that. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill: I must agree with Christian here. Do you suggest particular files to be restored, or can we close this as {{Not done}}? Ankry (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
We should ask too to @Jcb: Are you agree that me or other administrators undelete a few selected images at our initiative? Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, no problem. These files were not deleted for copyright issues. If some of them are somehow useful, undeletion should not be a big deal. Jcb (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

G Force One

  CommentFile:Astronauts_disembark_G-Force_One_at_NASA_Ames.png was taken by my fiancée just following a parabolic microgravity flight at NASA Ames in Summer 2009. Several other photos from the same series are seen here. Matt Rutherford, our Media Producer, is seen kneeling in the background of this photo. Wiki User:bonnibellemv, aka Flickr bonnibella@Ames, herein credited as Commons Author: Bonnibelle Ventura [1] [2][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] , has been working in collaboration with several others in correspondence with OTRS over the last several weeks through @Majora: who has further detail and extended private information, to compile formal permissions to release several sets of photos drawn from travels and spaceflight training at NASA Ames, Johnson Space Center, and commercial astronaut training facilities around the country.

One of tickets

Ticket#
ticket:2018012710006257
ticket:2018020410005138
ticket:2018020410005487

sent to OTRS contains file permissions for this photo in particular.

This is one of many files she forwarded licensing information on over the last month for release under CC-BY-SA 4.0.

For additional context please please see : Talk page.

Please   Keep Thank you! — Altman (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This request was declined earlier today: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2018-02#G_Force_One. If you sent a valid permission to OTRS, an OTRS agent will take care of undeletion if they verify the permission. Jcb (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Roger that. I'll double check with OTRS and @Majora: to confirm on this file in particular. Thanks, — Altman (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose Let's wait for an OTRS agent request while processing theese tickets. Ankry (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I must have missed that one. There were quite a few files listed in that ticket. My mistake. Ankry, could you undelete File:Astronauts disembark G-Force One at NASA Ames.png it is part of ticket:2018020410005487. Again. My mistake. --Majora (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Majora: Done, for this one. Ankry (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! All set. --Majora (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Majora: and @Ankry: for getting it sorted. Now I've just got to get to my storage unit in Amsterdam and my backup hard drives to upload the original in full resolution. Soon! ... — Altmantalk 05:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Altman: I don't mean to rush you, but how long is that process likely to take?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:Hahahahaha, longer than I'd like!—my Ducati shares the same space. It's just not right to keep it bottled up like that. A minor downside to otherwise exciting travel and adventures ... Thanks again — Altmantalk 06:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

File:North Light at the Burlinton, VT Waterfront.jpg File:123017 Burlington Waterfront.jpg

The uploader only replied to enquiries at AN/U after these files had been deleted for their confusing exif. The uploader does seem to be the copyright holder after all of File:North Light at the Burlinton, VT Waterfront.jpg and File:123017 Burlington Waterfront.jpg per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User_MarkVII88 - Takeaway (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is the comment, copied from ANU:

"Hello, this is MarkVII88. I am not sure if I am putting this information in the correct spot as the only thing I know how to do on Wikimedia Commons is upload my images and post to monthly photo contests. I am sorry for the confusion about the copyright info for my uploaded images. My name is actually Lee Stirling and my commonly used username is MarkVII88. This username dates back to my very first car which was a 1988 Lincoln MarkVII. About the copyright info, the camera that I am using is a used Nikon D700 that used to belong to my father-in-law whose name is A. Mark Gadue. I did not realize that he had that information stamped into the EXIF data for the images that come off this camera. Since receiving your first notice about my images, I delved into the camera menu and updated this copyright information to my own name. For any confusion I apologize. I understand if you still feel the need to delete any and all submissions I have made with the old image copyright." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkVII88 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it is just because it is a wonderful lighthouse picture, but I am inclined to believe MarkVI88.   Support .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Files deleted by Sreejithk2000

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Le fotografie risultano,essere di dominio pubblico e sono state prese dal sito ufficiale del Senato della Reupplica Italiana.Vi sono altre foto della stessa foto che sono onsiderate di dominio pubblico come per esempio: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Senatore_Vincenzo_Sylos_Labini.gif

This photograph is in the public domain in Italy because it was first created in Italy and its term of copyright has expired. According to Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions, images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks (Art. 87) are protected for a period of 20 years from creation (Art. 92) Mark 75 (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Info To have them restored at least proper license template should be suggested. Ankry (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

All files from leader.ir

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amir Habibollah Sayyari.jpg

To be honest I have no idea why this image was kept when Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iranian Supreme Leader leading Eid al-Fitr prayer.jpg was deleted, but if Tasnim images with leader.ir watermark are OK now I request undeletion of all of them. - Alexis Jazz 01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alexis Jazz, Is there more than one? Please make a list. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Yes, I'm sure there are more. However, I cannot search deleted file pages. I have found the 5 files listed in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ali Khamenei in his office.jpg but there are probably more that were speedy deleted. I don't know if insource:"leader.ir" (maybe you first need to enable a deleted pages category, I don't know how it works) shows deleted pages for you, if it does that would be the list. - Alexis Jazz 04:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Why did you keep this image Dyolf77? If it is because of the Tasnim watermark, we just had this discussion on another DR. Images taglined leader.ir or president.ir do not fall under the Tasnim licensing scheme. Only photos directly by their photographers are under that license. That is the entire reason Tasnim is under a license review type situation. To make sure those images that are taglined as such are marked for deletion. INC also reviewed a bunch of president.ir photos that had to be deleted. See Commons:Deletion requests/Photos from president.ir. Apparently his sock reviewed this one. As far as I can tell, leader.ir does not have a Creative Commons license. --Majora (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I was confused as well, but I had linked a DR that said the same thing and it was kept. - Alexis Jazz 04:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Majora:, in deed I thought the Tasnim watermark (logo on picture, not text) was a proof of CC license. I dont't now how to fix the issue here? I made a search on leader.ir to find the license they use, but found nothing. Do you propose that I renominate it for deletion? — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 16:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Three options that I see. Renominate it for deletion since leader.ir does not have a Commons compatible license and is likely All Rights Reserved. Speedy delete it as a type of license laundering by Tasnim which is why all Tasnim images require license review. Or, amend your close on the last DR and delete it that way. --Majora (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I deleted the file. Sorry for all of this. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 22:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

File:台風に刺激された寒冷前線接近中 (17529635901).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Though JMA's image is copyrighted, according to {{JMA}}, the image can be used as long as credit is given. B dash (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Does "can be used" also include making adaptations and commercial use of the image? De728631 (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose{{JMA}} clearly says that that JMA images can be used for any purpose, including commercial use. However, it's not clear how that fits here. The image came from a Flickr site belonging to someone other than JMA that is CC-BY. The image footer shows "All Rights Reserved, copyright © Japan Meteorological Agency". Even if the JMA Web Site confirms the template, the fact that there is an explicit "All Rights Reserved" on this image overrules whatever the Web Site says. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

File:RichardMLocke.jpg

Hello,

This file is indeed a creative commons license, and therefore should be allowed.

File:RichardMLocke.jpg

Here are the CC 2.0 license and link via Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/brownuniversity/39331896745/

Anything I can do to help, please let me know - thank you.

--Jmurphy88 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  • {{Cc-by-2.0}} is definitely permitted here. Unsure what happened – may @Ronhjones misidentify the image? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Image loaded 16:03, 8 February 2018 as "source=Brown University" using name File:Richard M. Locke.jpg. Image deleted. New image (File:RichardMLocke.jpg) uploaded 17:56, 15 February 2018 claiming Flickr image as source - which was uploaded February 12, 2018 - some 4 days after the original upload. Looks like Flickrwashing - it really needs to go through OTRS to prove the consent is genuine - unless we can be certain that the flickr site is an official university site. Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose The Flickr account looks very much like it is owned by the University. Unfortunately, however, if you go to www.brown.edu, they show icons for eight social media sites at the bottom of the page. Flickr is not one of them, so I have to agree with Ron -- lets get an OTRS record that shows that the Flickr account actually belongs to Brown -- or, if it doesn't, inform Flickr. I'll get off a message from OTRS today..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Message sent. Ticket #2018022010014348. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Wendy Osefo Behind the Scenes (March, 2017).pdf

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission confirmed under CC-BY-SA-4.0 in OTRS ticket 2018021810000312. Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose I was about to restore this when I noticed that it is a PDF. We do not keep PDFs of photographs, see Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats and Commons:File_types#Scanned_text_documents_(DjVu,_PDF). Please have the contributor upload the file as a JPG. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Portrait of President Barack Obama by Kehinde Wiley.jpg

The painting was commissioned by the National Portrait Gallery, which is a branch of the United states government, see http://npg.si.edu/exhibition/obama-portraits-unveiled While working on this painting, the artist was employed by the government of the United States, and the painting is therefore in the public domain.Wmpearl (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Where does it say they were employed by the Government? It sounds like they were commissioned to paint the painting. Paintings can't be a work for hire under US law, so I would assume instead of actually hiring them, they would contracted to produce the work, and thus the paintings are copyright, a copyright that may stay with the painter or have been sold to the Government.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose Prosfilaes is right. Please see the various DRs listed at Category:Official presidential painted portraits in the White House for comprehensive discussions of the issue. Also note that even if the copyright was purchased by the Smithsonian along with the painting, that does not make it PD. When the government purchases the copyrights to paintings, they remain under copyright. Examples of this are most recent postage stamps and the obverse of the Sacajawea dollar. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Files under Category:Albanian FOP cases/deleted

Due to recent amendments in the Albanian copyright law, as updated in Commons:Freedom of panorama#Albania, I am more than happy to request the undeletion of the following files, from Category:Albanian FOP cases/deleted:

CC @Margott:, @Liridon:. Thank you. Gikü (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Interesting. Albania has gone from having no FOP to having FOP for all works, including text, permanently located in certain places. The recent change at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Albania says "permanently located in public ways, street or places". Google translates Article 82 to read "permanently located in the street, shuttles, parks, or other squares that are accessible to the public", which is much narrower -- "places" could mean almost anything. I think we need a trusted person who reads Albanian to interpret Article 82 for us.

However, it is clear that we need to restore most of these. A fast look suggests that some of them are indoors and therefore do not qualify unless "places" is read very broadly. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Gikü: for ping. This one, in general is translated correctly. Detailed translation as it is in Article 82: 1. Reproduction of works without the authorization of the author or copyright holder and without remuneration, which are permanently located on the street, landings, parks or other squares which are accessible by the public, as well as distribution, transmission to the public of these reproductions. 2. The works referred to in paragraph 1 of this article can not be reproduced in three-dimensional form. 3. With regard to the reproduction of architectural structures, paragraph 1 of this Article shall apply only with respect to the external appearance of the architectural structure. 4. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, the source and authorship shall be indicated these copies, when this is possible.--Liridon (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Liridon, as I said above, "public ways, street or places" is very different and much broader than "the street, landings, parks or other squares". The former could include indoor places and many more outdoor places. If your translation in the paragraph immediately above is correct, then we need to change the one at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Albania. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure there's a better English word here than "squares", because I'm having no success in making it make sense in the context. Given no knowledge of Albanian and the discussion above, I'd guess "places" was a good translation. Do you mean a w:town square? That doesn't really make sense in context, since streets, and parks aren't squares. I'm not exactly sure what a landing (or shuttle, as it's put above) means in this context. It's clear that it's pretty broad, but the exact meaning is not coming through in the English translations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Prosfilaes, I don't see any problem with "squares". Our translation of the Spanish law and our clarification of the German law both use it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The Spanish law is translated as saying "Works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public places ...". Our interpretation of the German phrasing says "outside on public ways, streets or places (e.g. squares, plazas)". In those cases, squares means w:town squares, I think, and the overall statements are inclusive enough I don't feel I have to worry about that specific word over much. But in "the street, landings, parks or other squares", it can't mean w:town squares in the sense I understand that term, because streets and parks aren't town squares.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, The wording seems to mean "public places outside of buildings". So it would not cover, for example, railway and metro stations, which are covered in some other countries. Is that right? Regards, Yann (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
"squares" (sheshe) means w:town square, and the other word "sheshpushim" that I have translated "landing" is something related to squares, unfamiliar word for me, so I used google translate for that. @Margott: or @Arianit: maybe can give us a better explanation.--Liridon (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Do we think it is as broad as Yann suggests with "public places outside of buildings". What about works sitting on private property that are visible from public places? I would include them because otherwise most buildings in a town would not be covered. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
It's tough using Google Translate for legal stuff when trying to determine the edges like this. When I put the law into Google, I don't see "other squares" but rather just "squares". I get permanently placed on public roads by public roads, shuttles, parks or squares. The word sheshpushime is "shuttles" there, which doesn't make much sense. Putting in that word individually gets "landing" or "level landing", and sheshpushim gives "vestibule", which makes a tiny bit more sense but would include the entrances to buildings as part of the law (though not anywhere else inside). It does sort of sound like it would be works put in public outdoor places, or meant to be seen from those places (I think the law says situation on or by the named places, so something on private property just off of those public places would seem fine -- but probably not something you can just glimpse at long distances. I suspect we don't have a good translation for that sheshpushime word yet. But it does sound closer to the German one, and Yann's interpretation, though the law does not seem to have an open-ended "or other similar" wording, but rather the named locations. Not sure what examples there would be of outdoor public places that are not named though. On the other hand... I just found an English translation here which translates the clause as: There is permitted the reproduction of works, without the authorization of the author or the holder of the copyright and without remuneration, which are permanently located in the street, public squares, parks or other spaces accessible to the public, as well as the distribution to the public of these reproductions. That sounds broader, though still feels like outdoor-only. I'm not sure what the source of that translation is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


Hi, this is good news, I wasn't aware. Here is my translation of Article 82:

Albanian Neni 82 Riprodhimi i veprave të vendosura në mënyrë të përhershme në vende publike

1. Lejohet riprodhimi i veprave, pa autorizimin e autorit ose titullarit të së drejtës së autorit dhe pa shpërblim, të cilat janë në mënyrë të përhershme të vendosura në rrugë, sheshpushime, parqe ose sheshe të tjera që janë të aksesueshme nga publiku, si dhe shpërndarja, përcjellja ndaj publikut e këtyre riprodhimeve.

2. Veprat e referuara në pikën 1, të këtij neni, nuk mund të riprodhohen në formë tredimensionale.

3. Për sa i përket riprodhimit të strukturave arkitekturore, pika 1, e këtij neni, zbatohet vetëm në lidhje me pamjen e jashtme të strukturës arkitekturore.

4. Në rastet e parashikuara në pikën 1, të këtij neni, do të tregohen burimi dhe autorësia e këtyre kopjeve, në rastet kur kjo është e mundur.

English Article 82 Reproduction of works deployed permanently in public places

1. Reproduction without the authorization of the author or the copyright holder and without reward is allowed, of works permanently located in the streets, vestibules, parks, or other squares that are accessible to the public, as well distribution, delivery to the public of these reproductions.

2. The works referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article may not be reproduced in three-dimensional form.

3. As regards the reproduction of architectural structures, paragraph 1 of this Article shall apply only to the exterior appearance of the architectural structure.

4. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article, source and authorship of the copies should be indicated where this is possible.

Arianit (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I expected this discussion to be initially in the FoP discussion page, and after 48 hours I took the initiative to change the Albanian section of the article. Anyway, after I put the translation from google translate, I made a little more correct translation, explaining what the law refers to. @Carl Lindberg The best translation of the word "Sheshpushim" it is "Break square" because it is a compounded word by Shesh = Square and Pushim = Break (Bes-ARTTalk 19:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC))
  • Comment: seems pretty clear that a translator got confused between "place" and "plaza". While sometimes in the English-speaking world a plaza has a proper name using "Place" instead of "Plaza", as a common noun, "plaza" would clearly be the choice. - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment: I have provided a better translation of Article 82 and updated the previous section of Albania in FOP article. (Bes-ARTTalk 18:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC))

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

File:Friends-easy-diaper.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: need to upload new file Nobelhygiene (talk) 08:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Oppose This image has appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appears to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was 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 09:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: as per Jeff, the copyright holder must send a permission to OTRS. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Ulmus minor 'Dicksonii'. Hilliers. 1990.jpg

A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2018022310004291.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and make sure that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can apply {{temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance.     — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose While the OTRS permission appears to be OK, I don't think the image is in scope -- it suffers badly from camera motion. We have other, much better, images in Category:Ulmus minor 'Dicksonii', so I don't think this one will ever be used by anyone. Since the image is properly licensed, I have restored it so others can see if they agree. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It's in use though (and was before), which means it is in scope. I presume an editor has gone out and gotten permission from someone else in order to use that image instead of the existing ones; we should respect that choice. Commons should not be making editorial decisions for other projects, and decide what is "better" for them. We should give them more options, even if it seemingly is worse.   Support if the licensing is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
It is in use only because its uploader replaced a perfectly good image with this one that is significantly blurred. That does not meet our test of "in use". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Until its deletion, this photo was in continuous use in the article's infobox for three months since this edit on 16 December 2017. I think it looks fine for that standard 120px downscaled use, but I'm not about to nominate it for QI.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I was referring not to the edit today, but the one three months ago which you cite above. The IP who made that edit is this uploader. Since he used the IP address then to insert his image on the WP:EN page, I assume he knew that he was doing something which others might not like. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, I originally uploaded File:Ulmus minor 'Dicksonii'. Hilliers. 1990.jpg, Wikipedia did not receive the OTRS email from the copyright holder and so the image was deleted. I asked the copyright holder to send the email again and the image was restored. See thread here The IP editor you refer to is not me... we have shared interests and we collaborate on Wiki and by email regularly. If an Admin is able to see my IP (it's a fixed IP starting in 82.69.***.**), they will see that geographically they are some distance apart. @Jameslwoodward: left a message on my talk page about me supposedly using multiple accounts and I responded explaining I do not. Tom_elmtalk 19:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Jacques Palumbo.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2017082310020166.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and make sure that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can apply {{temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance.   AntonierCH (d) 21:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC) AntonierCH (d) 21:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Temporarily undeleted. @AntonierCH:. Thuresson (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Ryan Farish 2017 press photo.jpg

I need to update this press photo to Ryan Farish's Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rytone (talk • contribs) 00:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose From [5], "All images, music, content and video (C) & (P) 2018 Ryan Farish, RYTONE Entertainment, LLC.". Please use COM:OTRS if you are a legal representative and wish to publish this photo with a free license. Thuresson (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Mohit Kumar Yadav at Taj Mahal.jpg

Because that work is mine, you tell me i copy the background from http://zeenews.india.com/hindi/sangam/uttar-pradesh/doing-this-near-taj-may-take-you-in-prison-for-7-years-245104 but my pic background is clear than that pic you can check it whole website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohitkumaryadav (talk • contribs) 13:18, 24 February 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 There are three reasons not to keep this.

  1. It's a fake and we don't keep fakes.
  2. It's a personal image and we don't keep personal images except for use on the user pages of significant contributors, which you are not.
  3. The background is clearly from http://zeenews.india.com/hindi/sangam/uttar-pradesh/doing-this-near-taj-may-take-you-in-prison-for-7-years-245104, which carries the notice, "© 1998-2015 Zee Media Corporation Ltd (An Essel Group Company), All rights reserved."

Any one of these would prohibit its restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Mohit Kumar Yadav at Red Fort Delhi.jpg

THE RED FORT OF INDIA TEAM PROVIDES ALL INDIAN TO CAPTURE IMAGES AND EDIT BACKGROUND BUT NOT ADULTING, BUT YOU PROVIDEN LINK IS NOT IN INDIAN WEBSITE SO YOU CAN NOT DELETE MY PHOTO, IF YOU DELETE MY PHOTO THAN DELETE ON THAT WEB PAGE PHOTO http://www.alamy.de/stockfoto-red-fort-lal-qila-mit-indischen-flagge-delhi-indien-102723545.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohitkumaryadav (talk • contribs) 13:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose As above, there are three reasons not to keep this.

  1. It's a fake and we don't keep fakes.
  2. It's a personal image and we don't keep personal images except for use on the user pages of significant contributors, which you are not.
  3. The background is clearly from a non-free source.

Any one of these would prohibit its restoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


  Not done: as per Jim : out of our project scope, and the content is non-free. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Caihong.png

The deviantart author and wikipedia editor are the same person, as has been confirmed on multiple occassions before. There is no reason Tomopteryx can't have an image in wikipedia and deviantart, the license as deviantart does not mean the license here is incorrect. Basically: The uploader is the author, so there is no copyright violation. Please undelete the image. IJReid (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Comment @IJReid: The author of the image must send a permission to OTRS under a valid license, it must be taken into account that the Creative Commons licenses that contain NC-ND are not compatible with Commons (see here). Regards. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 16:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I already pinged the author. Tomopteryx is the uploader, as has been confirmed on multiple occasions both here and on his deviantart. IJReid (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
If you wish to read over the many indications I'll list some of them below:
The last one clearly indicates that 1) Tomozaurus on Deviantart had the intention of the image being on wikipedia and 2) uploaded it himself. Checking the file page (linked above) shows that Tomopteryx was the one who uploaded it here. I think that's as good an indication as what is on the uploaders talk page User talk:Tomopteryx. IJReid (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, what should be the final nail in the coffin of this, please look over this internet archive of his deviantart page https://web.archive.org/web/20141230065354/http://tomozaurus.deviantart.com:80/ Under the deviantID section, there is a bullet point that states clearly "Tomopteryx on wikipedia". IJReid (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

  Support The last cite in particular is convincing. While it is strange that he should use a CC-BY-NC-ND license there and a CC-BY license here, he is within his rights to do so and the declaration there makes it clear that our uploader here is the same person. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


  Done: as per Jim, the uploader is the author and he can publish his work under different licenses. For info @Túrelio:. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Henrique Salas Römer en 2003.jpg

La imagen que se ha mencionado para borrarla, no deben hacerlo, ya que la imagen es de una cinta a la que tomé captura, dicha imagen no publicada a la red, por lo tanto, la imagen es trabajo propio realizado por mi persona y no deberían borrarla. 22x20px  Usuario:LuisRiera Wiki97 (discusión) 24 feb 14:05 (UTC) 22x20px  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisRiera Wiki97 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The file has not yet been deleted, but it probably will be. The image comes from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0G9zmVVe9Y at 48:20. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)