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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.


Nyitott visszaállítási kérések

Watch View Edit

Bergström/Wallgren

Please undelete the following files:

Swedish OTRS agent (verify): These files has a valid OTRS release, only that the template was added by the uploader and sender rather than an OTRS agent. I can, however, confirm that the release is valid and that the file should be ok. The files were deleted due by a reason not related to this ticket, and on a technicallity, rather than anything being actually wrong, should have been tagged with OTRS pending instead. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  Comment @Josve05a: I think this is enough to look at for now... we can worry about the others once these are addressed. They actually needed to be temporarily undeleted for review, even by admins, because the filesizes are extremely large....without being able to see the thumbnails, it would be a matter of downloading several gigabytes of data to look at each set. Even undeleting them was rather slow, as it lagged the database a bit. - Reventtalk 05:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Steinschreiber


I created this DR for a potential problem of DW regarding the images on each cigarette packs. It was closed as deleted by Jcb. Following this discussion on my talk page initiated by Steinschreiber, I'm wonder if we can restore the images. The images were published there and without any special restrictions. Your opinions? Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The copyright notice does not explicitly allow derivative work, which is mandatory to comply with COM:L. So I am afraid the permission is not compatible. Jcb (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
That is true that the legal notice point to this decision. And in this decision we can read at the article 6 (2)b "the obligation not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents", and it looks great to no derivative restriction. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
A) As Christian Ferrer (talk) correctly stated, that in this decision we can read at the article 6 (2)b "the obligation not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents" (or same in official German version of this EU decision: Artikel 6 Bedingungen für die Weiterverwendung von Dokumenten (2)b "die Verpflichtung, die ursprüngliche Bedeutung oder Botschaft des Dokuments nicht verzerrt darzustellen;".
A 'distortion' of a health warning
- is *not* just a photo of the health warning with the same content (i.e. same picture of health warning and same text of health warning) on another background or context or use
- but a 'distortion' is a change which changes the *message*, e.g. changing the text from to "smoking can kill you" to "smoking is healthy" or changing the picture from a person spitting blood to a person smiling happily.
=> undelete
B) Besides that (i.e. even if it would be a distortion), the [Article 6] states that "Conditions for reuse of documents
1. Documents shall be available for reuse without application unless otherwise specified and without restrictions or, where appropriate, an open licence or disclaimer setting out conditions explaining the rights of reusers.
2. Those conditions, which shall not unnecessarily restrict possibilities for reuse, may include the following: [..]
(b) the obligation not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents"

but it only may include "the obligation not to distort" but not do include "the obligation not to distort", because it is not mentioned that this obligation applies in that case/web page. The right to use it for commercial or non-commercial purposes is explicitely stated [see copyright notice]
=> undelete
--Steinschreiber (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If still not convinced, please note: According to the German implementation of the EU Tobacco Product Directive 2 [Directive 2014/40/EU] into German national law [Verordnung über Tabakerzeugnisse und verwandte Erzeugnisse (Tabakerzeugnisverordnung - TabakerzV) § 11 Allgemeine Vorschriften zur Kennzeichnung von Tabakerzeugnissen] (1) Für die Gestaltung und Anbringung der gesundheitsbezogenen Warnhinweise nach den §§ 12 bis 17 auf Packungen und Außenverpackungen von Tabakerzeugnissen gelten folgende allgemeine Anforderungen: Die gesundheitsbezogenen Warnhinweise [..] 4. dürfen zum Zeitpunkt des Inverkehrbringens, einschließlich des Anbietens zum Verkauf, nicht teilweise oder vollständig verdeckt oder getrennt werden; [...] (2) Abbildungen von Packungen und Außenverpackungen, die für an Verbraucher gerichtete Werbemaßnahmen in der Europäischen Union bestimmt sind, müssen den Anforderungen dieses Unterabschnitts genügen. in conjunction with: [Gesetz über Tabakerzeugnisse und verwandte Erzeugnisse (Tabakerzeugnisgesetz - TabakerzG) § 35 Bußgeldvorschriften]
it is an offence under German law to use photos of cigarette packs, on which the graphic health warnings are hidden, for advertising to end customers within the EU (with a fine of up to 30 000 €). (The same is valid for presenting them in a shop (included into the paragraph listed above by Bundesrat (German States Council), Drucksache, 221/17 on 12 May 2017) i.e. the whole idea of the EU law is to enforce the use of graphic health warnings and *not* to hide them. The graphic health warnings were made purely by the EU to spread their messages.
=> undelete
--Steinschreiber (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Indeed my quote did not include the beginning, and my understanding was maybe wrong. My quote above is about one possible condition, but this part only applies when it is specified : "...available for reuse without application unless otherwise specified". Therefore I tend to   Support undeletion. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose The photographs used on the packs are NOT covered by {{PD-GermanGov}} or {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. There is no CC license attached to those photographs. The photographs are still covered 70 years pma if author is known and 70 years after publication if not. Everything else quoted above is procedural / moral rights and has nothing to do with Commons-compatible licensing. A transfer of the copyright (e.g. to the DE-GOV) is only possible by inheritance, as § 29 UrhG clearly states. The intention of showing the photos and not hiding them seems logical, but is NOT a valid license statement. There's no way Commons can keep these photos. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Except where otherwise stated, reuse of the EUR-Lex data for commercial or non-commercial purposes is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. According to this and ensuing from the image descriptions provided by User:Steinschreiber restoral and tagging with {{European Union Government}} should be fine cause there's no such exception annotated on the page of EU government where the photographs you refer to were originally published. jm2c --Jotzet (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Simonyi-Semadam.jpg

Please, restore the following speedy-deleted file and nominate for deletion to discuss it: File:Simonyi-Semadam.jpg. The source, an academic work (Izsák, Alajos – Pölöskei, Ferenc – Romsics, Ignác – Urbán, Aladár: Magyar miniszterelnökök 1848–2002 [Prime ministers of Hungary 1848–2002], Kossuth Kiadó, Budapest, 2003. p. 85. and 227.) clearly says the author is unknown and the photo was taken in 1920 (thus it is more than 70 years old). User:Hungarikusz Firkász nominated the image for speedy deletion without giving a reason. When I asked him to describe the reasons, he reverted my edit without comment both in Commons and Hungarian Wiki. Thanks in advance, --Norden1990 (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A kép szerzője Halmi Béla, aki 1962-ben hunyt el. Attól, hogy egy könyvben nem tüntetik fel a szerzőket, nem azt jelenti, hogy a könyv szerzői szerint ismeretlen, hanem csak annyit, hogy nem tüntették fel. :-) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A megadott könyv konkrétan írja, hogy ismeretlen szerző, illetve 1934 helyett 1920 szerepel dátumként. De ha Halmi a fényképész, akkor a kép még nem közkincs (majd 2033-ban). Ugye, hogy nem fájt annyira a válaszadás. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Nem neked válaszoltam. :-) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)   Oppose Hmm. I don't think so. The Hungarian law is 70 years pma in the case of published works. Published works by unknown authors are copyrighted for 70 years after publication, but we have no evidence of any publication before 2002. While the 2002 book cited above could publish it legally under the rule that unpublished works by unknown authors are PD 70 years after creation, the publisher of that book has a new 25 year copyright for the work.

(After edit conflict) If HF has correctly named the author above, then the work will be under copyright until 1/1/2033 (1962+70). If not, it will be under copyright until 1/1/2029 (2003+25)..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Egyébként az europeana.eu sem feltétlenül hiteles forrás. Itt például ismeretlen fényképezőt ír, miközben erről a képről egyértelműen lehet tudni, hogy a készítő Jelfy Gyula. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Meg gondolom, a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum sem feltétlenül megbízható, ami a kép adatszolgáltatója. (Institution: Hungarian National Museum) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk)
Jól gondolod, egyetértek. A kép a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Történeti Fényképtár (Historical Photo Collection of the Hungarian National Museum) része, a miniszterelnöki protokollkép 1920-ban készült. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Halmi Béla akkor is 1962-ben hunyt el, a lényegen ez nem változtat. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Ha a honlap téved a dátumban (1934), akkor a szerzőt illetően is tévedhet. Főleg, hogy Halminak 1920-ban még nem is volt műterme. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Tehát a Múzeum csak abban téved, amiben neked jól esik? Gondolod, az élet így működik? Attól, hogy valakinek nincs műterme, még fényképezhet. :-) Az pedig még véletlenül sem fordulhat elő, hogy a Izsák, Alajos – Pölöskei, Ferenc – Romsics, Ignác – Urbán, Aladár szerzők tévednek. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Legalább most ne légy ostoba, bár nyilván, nehéz ezt kérni tőled. :) Az adott kor feltételei mellett a beállított fotók műtermekben készültek. Halmi az 1920-as években még nem volt aktív (maximum tanonc lehetett). A kép más könyvekben is előfordul (pl. legújabban A Horthy-korszak, Helikon, 2017), szintén 1920 és ismeretlen fényképész megjelöléssel. De nekem mindegy, hogy a kép marad-e vagy sem, mert Simonyi-Semadamról legalább van még fotó, igaz, ez volt a legjobb, lévén, hivatalos miniszterelnöki portré. További jó ámokfutást. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Látom, nem sokáig bírod ki személyeskedés nélkül, ha nem bírod a véleményedet ráerőszakolni a másikra, de csak saját magadat minősíted. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Ez van. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Én tőlem, lehet akár ez is, engem nem zavar, ha ilyenképpen mutatkozol be. :-D Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear User:Jameslwoodward, this is a well-known official photograph of a prime minister (1920, so I doubt the date of 1934). It already appeared in the book Magyarország miniszterelnökei 1848-1990, published in 1993. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, if HF is wrong and the author is actually unknown, then a 1993 publication has a 25 year copyright that expires on 1/1/2019. The only way to have it be PD today is to show that it was first published either (a) after 1/1/1991 and before 1/1/1992 (so that the original 70 years had passed, and that the 25 year copyright has also passed) or (b) before 1/1/1926, so that the original 70 years had passed before the URAA date. ..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Which, anyway, is not a criteria for speedy deletion. :) 1993 was just an example, the photo already appeared in earlier works, for example daily 8 Órai Ujság (after his appointment in March 1920). --Norden1990 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
But the author is not unknown. The Hungarian National Museum supports Béla Halmi (see Provenance-Institution: Hungarian National Museum). There is no proof that the museum is wrong, so it is not proven that the author is unknown. (machine translation). Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Another, academic sources, which also confirm that the photo belongs to the Hungarian National Museum, say the author is unknown. An academic source is more relevant than a website (in other case, it claims the author is unknown, while, in fact, the photographer is Gyula Jelfy (d. 1945). Thus this website is not so reliable as Hungarikusz Firkász suggests. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Csakhogy én nem az Eeuropeana megbízhatóságáról beszélek, hanem a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum megbízhatóságáról. Inkább hiszek ennek az intézménynek, mint annak, aki jogsértő képeket töltöget fel. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hát igen, a Fortepan üldöztetése ezek után különösen vicces. :) Egyébként is irreleváns, hogy te mit hiszel. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Parks in France

Hi, I think these 2 files were deleted by error. There is no proeminent copyrightable element in them:

Regards, Yann (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose In the first, there are two topiary swans in the immediate foreground. The fact that they are plants, rather than bronze or marble, does not somehow take away their copyright. The second shows a lot of topiary, and also the layout of a maze. If the maze were on paper it would clearly have a copyright. I don't see any reason why this one does not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    • It is not because something on paper has a copyright, that a garden that looks the same has also a copyright. A recent map of any place has a copyright, but the place doesn't automatically get a copyright. I don't see any provision for copyright in French law for this. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I think your map analogy fails because the direction of creativity is reversed. A map is created from reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is not, of course, a created work, and does not have a copyright. A topiary maze is created from a drawing which has a copyright. In the technical sense of the word "map", the copyrighted drawing of the maze is mapped onto the ground. The topiary maze is a DW of the copyrighted drawing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment while there is a high ToO, or at least it exist undoubtedly, regarding architecture in France (mainly due to the utilitarian side of the buidings), the ToO regarding the other artistic works, whose aim is artistic, is very very very low in France, e.g. this photo have been considered by a court as a DW of the yellow letters (an artistic work!) above the door! Therefore   Oppose as per Jim. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Both are de minimis imho. The swan is not the main element of the photo, while the maze is a panoramic view of it, and of the people in it. --Ruthven (msg) 08:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per above --/St1995 23:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The test of de minimis is whether an average observer would notice if the object were removed from the image. That test is clearly not met in the case of the swan. As for the other, the fact that the walls in the maze are living rather than lines on a printed page does not change the fact that the maze is copyrighted. It is, as you say, a panoramic view of the maze. The fact that is a panoramic view makes it more problematic, not less so. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose per Jim. Topiary is clearly copyrightable art. Taivo (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Victor Fink Book Covers.jpg

The file contains covers of the books published in the Soviet Union before 1973, when the USSR signed the Universal Copyright Convention. Moreover, according to the Soviet copyright law, the copyright of a published work lasted only 15 years after the author's death.

Therefore, they are not the subject of copyright. --Doctor Gregory (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose First, I would not restore this even if it were not a copyvio -- it is too small to be really useful and is blurred. There is no reason why this sort of image should not be tack sharp.

Second, I see no WP article on Fink. I see only a smattering of Google hits. Amazon does not carry any works by him, so whatever his importance may have been 50 years ago, he is forgotten. That suggests strongly that his book covers are out of scope as not useful for any educational purpose.

Finally, I see nothing at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Russia_and_former_Soviet_Union which even hints that the applicable law is pma 15. In fact, the rule is pma 70 and since Fink died in 1973, these will be under copyright until 1/1/2044 unless it can be shown that the copyright to the covers lies with the publisher, not Fink, in which case it will probably last until 70 years after the publication of each of these editions, but that has yet to be proven. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

If he was a published author, he would be in scope for Wikipedia and also for us, regardless of Google hits. Part of an educational mission is to try to preserve the memory of such people, not forget them just because they do not appear online (especially those for non-English authors, where fewer works are online thus far and they are harder to search for, since you may have to search in Cyrillic, etc.). And if the only available photo is small and blurry, we should keep it until we get something better. He does have a Wikipedia article -- ru:Финк, Виктор Григорьевич. Something like this is way, *way* within scope.
However, while Soviet copyright law was 15 years after death, more recent Russian law has retroactively restored copyright to a much longer term. It sounds like Fink was born in Odessa, lived in Paris quite a bit, and also Moscow. Whichever country of those his books were published in, the copyright is today 70 years from the author's death for any of his works. Both Russia and Ukraine retroactively restored copyright to 50 years after the author's death in the early 1990s ; this was a requirement to join the Berne convention. That means that even though the 15 pma term may have expired, copyright was restored going forward. Both Russia and Ukraine later non-retroactively extended copyright to 70 pma (meaning that if a work was still under the 50-years-after-death copyright in the early 2000s, then the term was extended to 70 years after death, but not if the 50 year term had previously expired). Russia later made the 70 year term retroactive as well. France, as with all EU countries, was at least 50pma to begin with, and retroactively restored works to 70pma in the 1990s. So, if these covers were the work of Fink himself, they are all still under copyright. If they were the work of anonymous people at the publishing companies, they would still have a copyright of 70 years from publication. It's possible some of those have expired, although anything published after 1946 would likely still have a U.S. copyright even if they have since expired in Russia/Ukraine (since the U.S. retroactively restored works in 1996 if they were still under copyright in the foreign country on that date, and the terms would have been 50 years from publication then). So... we would need to know the authorship of the covers. If by Fink, they are still under copyright. If anonymous, we would need to know the publication country and date, they would likely have to be from before at least 1946. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I withdraw my objection on the grounds of Scope, thank you for pointing out the article. The quality objection is debatable, but, as Carl has verified, it is moot, because there is a clear copyright problem. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for doing research on the subject. Unfortunately, deletion of the file seems to be inevitable, but I'd like to make some things clear.
Firstly, neither Victor Fink is forgotten, nor his works are useless; his original works are in demand and his translations from French are still in print. Information about him in English is in An Anthology of Jewish-Russian Literature. Two Centuries of Dual Identity in Prose and Poetry. Vol. 1: 1801-1953. Edited, selected, and cotranslated, with introductory essays by Maxim D. Shrayer. Armonk, NY, London: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2007. — P. 361-364. ISBN 978-0-7656-0521-4.
Secondly, the file in question is of good quality, unlike File:Victor Fink.jpg, which is really blurred, and which is nominated for deletion.
Now about the authorship of the book covers. There are 8 of them in the file. All books were published in the USSR; the books in the first row were published in 1925, 1931, 1932, and 1942, in the second row -- in 1966 (two books), 1962, and 1968. Copyright in the USSR belonged to the publisher, not to the author/translator/artist/designer.
I hate seeing the files deleted, but by no means want to violate the law. --Doctor Gregory (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
We clearly have very different standards for quality. 676 × 509 pixels would be small for a scan of one of these covers and is very much too small for all of them. I would expect to see that, when magnified, all of the smaller print on the covers was legible, which it is not here, and the edges of all of the lettering to be crisp, rather than fuzzy. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Most images on Wikipedia articles are rendered at less than a 500 pixel resolution. So, any image that big is still useful for an educational purpose. If it's too small for even a Wikipedia article thumbnail, that gets more arguable. We would of course prefer larger, so that people can look at the more detailed larger-resolution image, but that does not put the smaller images out of scope if they can still be used on a Wikipedia article. If they are additionally blurry at that resolution, that can be more arguable as well. File:Victor Fink.jpg is in scope too at that resolution, though it likely has other copyright issues. For something like book covers, even small thumbnails are useful for identification purposes and can be used on book listings, etc. To me, they would have to be unrecognizable as that particular book cover to fall out scope. Reading the lettering is highly preferred, but not a requirement to be useful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't see the image, so I can't say for sure, but such use would not likely violate the law -- it would almost certainly be fair use of the book covers. However, Wikimedia Commons does not accept works which are only legal due to fair use, as they are not "free" -- we want works which can be used in all situations. U.S. fair use is fairly broad, but does not apply in most other countries. So, it's more of a policy issue -- we need works which are either licensed by the copyright owner, or where copyright is currently expired. Even if the copyright was owned by the publisher, the copyright would still exist -- we care about the author because that determines the *length* of copyright, and when it expires, regardless of who actually owns it. It's possible the retroactive Russian laws changed who owns the restored copyright, but the main issue is does that copyright exist or not. If it does, actual ownership of the copyright would matter if we can get a license from that person/entity, but most of the time we have to wait for copyright to expire. If a human author was known, the copyright term is based on their lifetime; if published without a human author being credited, and (in most countries) if the human author did not become known in the subsequent 70 years, it would be anonymous and the term is usually based on when it was published. It sounds like the bottom row doesn't have much hope either way. I may have found a thumbnail cache version on Google Images -- if so, the top left and top right book covers appear to be lettering-only, and laid out in normal lines -- as such, those book covers are likely {{PD-ineligible}} to begin with, so no copyright would exist, and individually those should be OK. The other two on the top row may qualify for {{PD-Russia}}, but that would depend on demonstrating anonymous status, which is different than simply not knowing -- it would depend on the cover author being someone other than Fink who died before the 1940s, or not credited on the publication and not becoming generally known in the subsequent 50 years. Information like that can be hard for non-Russians to search for and find out. Some Wikipedias do allow fair-use images, if there was an article specifically about the book or something like that -- but that is up to the policy of each Wikipedia. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:KAS-Zehlendorf-Bild-4422-1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file belongs to a cooperation project initiated by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung and Wikimedia Germany. It was deleted by Admin User:Daphne Lantier per COM:ADVERT. Since pretty much all images donated/uploaded by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung are CDU related campaign posters, they are by definition (political) advertisement - but also important and widely used historical sources. That's why I'd argue that COM:ADVERT doesn't really apply here. Thanks --KAS-ACDP (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose I agree that COM:ADVERT does not apply. However, there is no evidence that the uploader or the source have the right to freely license the image. The source is an archive, which may own the physical poster, but usually will not have the right to license it. That right will belong to the photographer or to the campaign that created the poster. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Jim, we are the CDU's one and only offical archive. For all practical purposes we offically represent and make accessible the party's historical legacy including its archival records & fonds, documents, AV-material, photos, posters, in short: also everything created during and for election campaigns. See the CDU's multimedia portal: "Auf der Suche nach älterem oder historischem Bildmaterial? CDU-Bildmaterial der vergangenen Jahre und Jahrzehnte wird vom Archiv für Christlich-Demokratische Politik der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung verwaltet. Bitte wenden Sie sich bei einer entsprechenden Suchanfrage an die dortigen Kollegen. Kontaktdaten und weitere Informationen über: www.kas.de". --KAS-ACDP (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose Autor = CDU ist weder eine gültige Autorenangabe für die Fotografie noch das Endprodukt. Siehe § 28 und insb. § 29 Urhg. Ein Archiv sollte grundlegende Daten wie Autoren zur Hand haben. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  Comment ohne jetzt in Details archivischer Theorie und Praxis abzugleiten: Die Metadatenstruktur mit Autor=CDU etc. ist dem Workflow mit Massenexport aus unser Datenbank und Batchimport nach Commons geschuldet. Weitergehende Informationen auch zu Werkbeteiligten finden sich idR im Feld "Description". Im Übrigen finde ich es doch erstaunlich, wie energisch seit Neuestem, so jüngst auch hier, gegen unsere Uploads vorgegangen wird. Angesichts einer beachtlichen Nutzung und unserer grundsätzlichen Sympathie für Open Knowledge wollten wir die Kooperation künftig sogar noch ausbauen und weiteres Material liefern - bislang scheiterte dies lediglich an knappen internen Ressourcen. Wenn das gar nicht gewünscht sein sollte, könnten wir uns die Mühe natürlich auch ersparen - dies wäre aber wirklich schade (pinging auch User:JeLuF und User:Mathias Schindler (WMDE) als damals Beteiligte sowie User:John Weitzmann (WMDE)...) --KAS-ACDP (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  CommentOhne jetzt in geltendes Recht abzugleiten: Bitte § 28 und § 29 UrhG nachlesen und dann Angriffe starten. Wir operieren hier im Rahmen der geltenden Gesetze, interne Probleme / Workflow entbinden nicht vom UrhG. DA hilft auch das pingen der halben WMDE nichts. Keiner hat mich lieb - Kommentare wie oben sollte die KAS sich doch ersparen, einfach nur peinlich. Sollte die KAS Hilfe beim Hochladen benötigen kann Commons sicherlich Hilfestellung leisten. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Wow. Wäre ich als privater Nutzer diesen Tonfall nicht durchaus schon gewöhnt, würde ich mich als Institution hier wahrscheinlich doch arg wundern... Natürlich hat die Community beim Hochladen geholfen. Und nicht zu knapp. Und natürlich war das Feldmapping und die Darstellung der Metadaten auch abgesprochen und koordiniert. --KAS-ACDP (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Only half-following the above with my barely adequate German, so someone should feel free to tell me if I'm off base. It seems to me that:
  • I agree that COM:ADVERT does not apply.
  • Someone took the photo, which would be inherently copyrighted under the Berne Convention.
  • Either (1) they signed the copyright over to the party or (2) they merely licensed it and retained copyright.
  • In either case, it should be possible to accurately credit the photographer (and probably the poster designer as well, for whom similar issues arise, though I think the design of the poster barely hits the threshold for copyright)
  • If they signed the copyright over to the party, we should get at least an explicit statement here to that effect; evidence, or at least a formal statement, sent per COM:OTRS/de would probably also be a good idea. Still doesn't make the party the author, though they may grant a license.
  • If they did not sign the copyright over to the party, then clearly we would need the copyright holder to send email per COM:OTRS/de granting a license. Assuming it's not the only time that photographer worked for the CDU, they might simplify things for the future by saying that your account is welcome to upload and offer licenses on their behalf for any CDU-related photography. - Jmabel ! talk 22:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel, KAS-ACDP: FYI: Transfer of copyright is restricted by German law, the only way to transfer is by inheritance. That's why I mentioned § 28 und § 29 UrhG. This file actually has three potential authors: 1) the photographer of the portrait 2) the photographer of the background 3) the person who put it all together. Just to state that the author is the party is morally wrong and unlawful. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Btw.: "copyright" refers to two different things in German: a) Urheberrecht (which cannot be transferred - only by inheritance) and Nutzungsrechte (which can be transferred) --KAS-ACDP (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  Support I suggest to undelete as there seems to be a consensus that the original deletion reason is not applicable. The historical campaign posters are clearly realistically useful for an educational purpose, as politicians tend to be public figures. Next we should try to work together to fix the issues with the image attributions. --Dschwen (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Sarkin Fada Mato Aboubacar Dan Azoumi.jpg

Je suis l'auteur de la photo. C'est moi qui l'ai prise avec mon propre appaeil photo. Je ne l'ai copié de nulle part. veuillez me la restaurer à sa place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mato bachir (talk • contribs) 12:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This refers to File:Sarki'n Fada Mato Aboubacar Mahaman Dan Azoumi - décédé le 13-06-97 (3).jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log), which was deleted at DR. seb26 (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  Question @Mato bachir: La photo était de mauvaise qualité (floue) et il n'y a avait pas de données qui confirment son origine. Vous avez fait la photo dans quelle occasion? elle semble un cliché d'un livre... Voir aussi: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sarki'n Fada Mato Aboubacar Mahaman Dan Azoumi - décédé le 13-06-97 (3).jpg. --Ruthven (msg) 12:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

File:ESCUDO BANDEIRANTES AEB.png

O Escudo do time do bandeirantes foi criado em 1951, eu mesmo o refiz a partir de fotos da época o intuito é criar a página com a história do clube Bandeirantes de Itatiba. O clube possui referência bibliográfica, juntamente com imagem do escudo impressa:

referencia bibliográfica, Livro Itatiba na História: 1804-1959

{{Citar livro|autor=Rasmussen Gabuardi|nome=Lucimara|sobrenome=Rasmussen Gabuardi|título= Itatiba na História: 1804-1959|local=Itatiba|editora=Pontes|ano=2004|página=120-121|isbn =85-7113-193-7}}

Url consultável com o escudo https://www.escudosweb.com/escudos-sp?lightbox=dataItem-j2f4d0k9

também possui fontes na internet consultáveis, porém creio que a referência bibliográfica citada acima é o suficiente para compreensão de que se trata de arquivo legítimo. Disanf (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

File:NBG Geschäftsbericht 2016.pdf

Hallo, als Mitarbeiterin in der Unternehmenskommunikation der Nürnberger Versicherung möchte ich gerne unseren aktuellen Geschäftsbericht auf der Wikiseite "Nürnberger Versicherung" hochladen. Unter https://www.nuernberger.de/ueber-uns/investor-relations/berichte/ sind die Geschäftsberichte aller unserer Gesellschaften jedem zugänglich. Unter https://www.nuernberger.de/impressum/ stehen die Urheberrechte. Ich bitte um Wiederherstellung der PDF-Datei NBG Geschäftsbericht 2016.pdf, vielen Dank.

Ich hoffe, dass ich nun alles richtig gemacht hab. Bitte um Info, wenn nicht. Danke schön.

--NV1884 (talk)

  Oppose Permission in writing is necessary before using or adapting the text and images. "Ohne vorherige schriftliche Zustimmung der NÜRNBERGER dürfen Inhalte, insbesondere Texte, Bilder, Grafiken etc., nicht genutzt oder verwendet werden." Please use the process described at Commons:OTRS if you have any other information. Thuresson (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Volkswagen Golf VII facelift and Category:Category:Jaguar at the Emirates Airline Invitational at Yas Links, Abu Dhabi - Febuary 2011

My categories were probably speedy deleted because some user, possibly User: ‎AutomobilePassion emptied them and filed a SD request. Category:Volkswagen Golf VII facelift is for Volkswagen Golf that underwent a facelift with major design changes in 2016/2017. Category:Category:Jaguar at the Emirates Airline Invitational at Yas Links, Abu Dhabi - Febuary 2011 is for files that were from a flickr album that got transfered to the commons . I created this category because I wasn't be able to find better categories for them and the only thing that connected them was the flickr album, some of that files that are possibly uncategorised now. In the Category:Jaguar vehicles, where the second category was a subcategory, are multiple categories of events with Jaguar automobiles.--Steinfeld-feld (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Jamesd.jpg

I can see no valid reason for deletion. The article about the person has been deleted on English WP for various reasons, however it still exists in three other languages; I can only speak for German WP, but he clearly fulfills our criteria. So I find it unacceptable simply deleting a picture following an internal procedure of enWP.--XanonymusX (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason for deletion is stated quite clearly here, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jamesd.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
No. It is needed for the German WP article, now please tell me what the missing “educational purpose” is. Of course it has been uploaded by the person themself, like countless other photos here on Commons.--XanonymusX (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose It seems very odd to me that the German WP has an article on a minor American personage who is far outside the scope of WP:EN. However, given that there is such an article, the reason for deletion in the DR is not valid and this should be kept if its copyright status were clear.
However, the subject, uploader and named photographer are the same person. This image was taken in 2009, when selfies were much less common than now and does not appear to be a selfie. Therefore we need a free license from the actual photographer using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Odd? Maybe, I am used to write a lot of articles about Italian pop singers in German, which do not fulfill the criteria of itWP; in fact it has already happened that some OTRS people refused to accept a photo because they only looked at the Italian criteria and totally ignored the German article! Imo it is indeed odd that the internal procedures of some WPs should be relevant for deciding on deletion requests here on Commons. The deletion was in any case invalid and I also think that it should be obvious to everyone that it is not a copyviol, only the information given by the uploader had been incomplete. Anyway, I will contact the uploader if someone can link me the user page.--XanonymusX (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
This person is a know LGBT-activist and the son of a famous singer. That alone makes a picture of him educational valuable. Even if there wouldn't be any Wikipedia article at all. Since there are some sources about him a picture for him may be usefull for a magazine or a newspaper for example. We have a pretty clear own work claim and this picture is without doubt shot by an amateur. Natuur12 (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Gulab Khandelwal.jpg

This is the photograph of Poet Gulab Khandelwal from my own personal collection. I am his daughter Vibha Jhalani. Hence, there is no copyright problem here.

--Vjhalani (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Vibha Jhalani

Vibha Jhalani 24 July 2017

@Vjhalani: Did you take this photo yourself? Guanaco (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

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

画像削除の件に対する異議申し立て

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E3%80%8CLight_My_Fire%E3%80%8D_%E3%82%B8%E3%83%A3%E3%82%B1%E3%83%83%E3%83%88%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F.jpg

上記について、著作権侵害疑いということで、当該画像が削除をされたが、私はMCSメンバーである山崎本人より当該画像をアップロードする依頼を受けており、著作権法上の問題は発生していないと考えられる。 また、 [当該画像の削除については、MCSメンバーの山崎莉緒より掲載の依頼を受けた。山崎本人へ依頼をし、当該画像の掲載を許諾した旨、permissions-ja@wikimedia.org に対して、意思表示するよう要請した。 山崎本人は、前記内容のメールを当該メールアドレスへ送信したとのこと。 著作権法上の問題は発生していないと考えられる。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TM2017 (トーク • 投稿記録) 17:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC) [ https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:%E3%80%8CLight_My_Fire%E3%80%8D_%E3%82%B8%E3%83%A3%E3%82%B1%E3%83%83%E3%83%88%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F.jpg ] 左記URL議論ページ内容と同一。] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TM2017 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi TM2017, if you have sent OTRS permission, you need to wait until OTRS agents respond to claims sent before yours, then they will respond. If it is sufficient, they will arrange undeletion themselves. Please have patience we are volunteers. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  Not done : as per Seb26. Daphne Lantier 02:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

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

File:「Light My Fire」 ジャケット画像.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: 当該画像の削除については、MCSメンバーの山崎莉緒より掲載の依頼を受けた。山崎本人へ依頼をし、当該画像の掲載を許諾した旨、permissions-ja@wikimedia.org に対して、意思表示するよう要請した。 山崎本人は、前記内容のメールを当該メールアドレスへ送信したとのこと。 著作権法上の問題は発生していないと考えられる。  よって、当該画像削除の件については撤回をすること、を求める。

Reason: For deleting the image, I received a request from MCS member Yamazaki Rio. Asked to Yamazaki Herself, requesting permission-ja @ wikimedia.org to express his / her intention to the effect that permission to post the image was accepted. Yamazaki herself sent a mail with the above contents to the mail address. It is considered that the problem under the copyright law has not occurred. Therefore, we ask that we withdraw about the deletion of said image. TM2017 (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi TM2017, if you have sent OTRS permission, you need to wait until OTRS agents respond to claims sent before yours, then they will respond. If it is sufficient, they will arrange undeletion themselves. Please have patience we are volunteers. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  Not done : as per Seb26. Daphne Lantier 02:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

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

File:MCS 3rd Solo Live チラシ画像.jpg

Reason: 当該画像の削除については、MCSメンバーの山崎莉緒より掲載の依頼を受けた。山崎本人へ依頼をし、当該画像の掲載を許諾した旨、permissions-ja@wikimedia.org に対して、意思表示するよう要請した。 山崎本人は、前記内容のメールを当該メールアドレスへ送信したとのこと。 著作権法上の問題は発生していないと考えられる。  よって、当該画像削除の件については撤回をすること、を求める。

Reason: For deleting the image, I received a request from MCS member Yamazaki Rio. Asked to Yamazaki Herself, requesting permission-ja @ wikimedia.org to express his / her intention to the effect that permission to post the image was accepted. Yamazaki herself sent a mail with the above contents to the mail address. It is considered that the problem under the copyright law has not occurred. Therefore, we ask that we withdraw about the deletion of said image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TM2017 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi TM2017, if you have sent OTRS permission, you need to wait until OTRS agents respond to claims sent before yours, then they will respond. If it is sufficient, they will arrange undeletion themselves. Please have patience we are volunteers. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  Not done : as per Seb26. Daphne Lantier 02:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

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

File:灯篭の灯りに鎮魂の想い/おいなっさん.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: 当該画像の削除については、MCSメンバーの山崎莉緒より掲載の依頼を受けた。山崎本人へ依頼をし、当該画像の掲載を許諾した旨、permissions-ja@wikimedia.org に対して、意思表示するよう要請した。 山崎本人は、前記内容のメールを当該メールアドレスへ送信したとのこと。 著作権法上の問題は発生していないと考えられる。  よって、当該画像削除の件については撤回をすること、を求める。

Reason: For deleting the image, I received a request from MCS member Yamazaki Rio. Asked to Yamazaki Herself, requesting permission-ja @ wikimedia.org to express his / her intention to the effect that permission to post the image was accepted. Yamazaki herself sent a mail with the above contents to the mail address. It is considered that the problem under the copyright law has not occurred. Therefore, we ask that we withdraw about the deletion of said image. TM2017 (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi TM2017, if you have sent OTRS permission, you need to wait until OTRS agents respond to claims sent before yours, then they will respond. If it is sufficient, they will arrange undeletion themselves. Please have patience we are volunteers. Cheers, seb26 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  Not done : as per Seb26. Daphne Lantier 02:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

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

OTRS requests: 02:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Request temporary undeletion to evaluate the following files with their respective tickets:

Request normal undeletion of the following as permission was confirmed by their respective tickets:

seb26 (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


  Done: @Seb26: Restored. Daphne Lantier 02:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC). Daphne Lantier 02:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Actress-Rashi-Khanna-Latest-Stills-04.jpg

This is not a fake or screenshot photo's...this is a newspapers image or article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nm52664 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose Which newspaper? 2014 photo that can be found in hundreds of Indian web sites. Thuresson (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Amy ng (cropped).jpg

File:Amy ng (cropped).jpg is just a cropped version of File:Amy ng.jpg. I don't know why while Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amy ng.jpg is "kept", Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amy ng (cropped).jpg with the same reason is "deleted". --Pineapplew (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose. Although the primary reason for deletion might seem improper, the cropped version is very blurry (as well as the original which makes me quite confident that it might be own work as Taivo said in that DR) and thus useless. --Mates (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Adhyan Theatrical Poster.jpg

Adhyan Poster