Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 167: Line 167:
{{udelf}}
{{udelf}}


== [[Thomas_Hui_To.jpg]] ==
== [[:File:Thomas_Hui_To.jpg]] ==


Reason - Mistaken delete
Reason - Mistaken delete {{unsigned3| 08:56, 17 August 2024‎ Kinsleyhk}}

{{o}} Probably actually [[:File:Thomas_Hui_To.png]]. You uploaded the file two days ago and requested its deletion half an hour later. That was done shortly thereafter. Now you want it restored without explanation.

I also note that the image appears at https://corporate.tvb.com/article/20.html with an explicit copyright notice. The version here is very small with no EXIF, which suggests that it is not your own work as claimed. It can be restored here only if (a) the actual photographer sends a free license using [[VRT]], or (b) you upload the file using the same file name at full camera resolution and with full EXIF.


== Russian department awards ==
== Russian department awards ==

Revision as of 14:30, 17 August 2024

Current requests

File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (19).jpg, File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (18).jpg, File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (16) 2.jpg

No protected 1960 interior as krd errorously tells. Photographer is the organ builder himself, iirc. Discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pipe organ of Lambertikirche Aurich --Subbass1 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pipe organ of Lambertikirche Aurich was closed on the statement that the pipe organ is protected. The architecture seemed to not be an issue. Abzeronow (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote: Photographer is the organ builder himself, iirc. Besides that on commons an organ case is never protected and is shown thousands of times. --Subbass1 (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted in the DR, the problem here is not the organ itself, but the church architecture, which is modern and likely copyrighted.  Oppose unless we have a free license permission from the architect also or an evidence that the church architect died more than 70 years ago.
If the images are cropped / altered to show the organ only and the church architecture in the background / surroundings is not shown at all or minimized, the photos may be OK. Ankry (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The church architecture is not "modern". Try reading the german Wikipedia article. --Subbass1 (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It is from 1830s, I withdraw my comment. Ankry (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I think Abzeronow has it right -- perhaps User:Ankry should read the DR again. The problem here is that the design of the organ case goes way beyond utilitarian and therefore has its own copyright. If, as claimed above, the organ builder actually took the pictures, then a note to VRT from an address at https://www.orgelbau-ahrend.de/ should be easy to get (The other named builder, Gerhard Brunzema, died in 1992). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The VRT team of course already has a permission from Hendrik AHrend for the pictures. For the organ case itself it's not necessary (but here included..), in common use on Commons. --Subbass1 (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the DR, we have the photographer's permission per ticket:2023120810006959. If that photographer and the organ builder is one and the same person (which I did not know until User:Subbass1 wrote it here, and which was not mentioned in either the previous undeletion request or the deletion request), that ticket should be re-evaluated to see if the permission also covers the organ itself. Else a new permission which explicitly covers both the photographs and the organ design should be sent. --Rosenzweig τ 14:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: it's NOT necessary to have a permission for organ cases on commons. Just keep doing so to scare away the last people who provide pictures. In this case, unfortunately, even the "superintendent" had to deal with the claim of a "modern church design". Ridiculous. --Subbass1 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly the situation, these photos of the organ are offered under a free license by the copyright owner of both the organ and the photos. Therefore, there is no problem of copyright violation with these photos. These photos of the organ are fine and free to use and have all the permissions necessary. The organ itself does not need to be offered under a free license. There is no need to force the organ builder to allow his competitors to build identical organs. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As discussed in the first round at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-04#Aurich, the only goal of sending these files to a deletion request was to clarify the status of the church architecture, and on that point the closing administrator of that DR agreed that the church architecture is not a problem. The VRT permission 2023120810006959 from Hendrik Ahrend for the photos of the organ was not disputed. The organ is attributed to the organ building business [1]. It was built when the father of Hendrik owned the business. Hendrik Ahrend is now the owner of the business. (Hendrik himself also worked on the organ in 2022/2023.) He free licenses his photos of the organ. That's sufficient. We don't need to require that he sends another email to spell out that as the owner of the business he's giving the permission to himself to show the organ in his own photos, nor that his 94 year old father send an email as former owner. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    never ever Ahrend has to prove anything further. I don't wish that he is contacted from hee again, ok? Instead some persons here should overthink their behaviour (and knowledge) and inform themsleves better before making others lots of unnecessary work. --Subbass1 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are several assertions here and in the DR that the organ builder's son has given permission for the free use of the copyright on the organ case, none of the people making those assertions are VRT agents and the cited note at Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/archive/2024#ticket:2023120810006959 does not tell us who sent the email. I think it very likely that we should restore these, but I think we need confirmation from a VRT agent that we do indeed have a free license from organ builder's son. Krd is familiar with the case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Linda Kearns Portrait.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file was deleted on the basis that it did not have a license for its "home country" of Ireland. However, the image was created in New York, United States and had a US license. *If* this file needs an additional Irish license, then I imagine that adding something like Template:PD-old-auto or Template:PD-Ireland-anon should be sufficient. CeltBrowne (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I suggest a close reading of Linda Kearns MacWhinney. The upload says this is a 1922 image, but she had escaped from prison and was on the run then. It is therefore unlikely that it was taken then. In it she looks considerably older than she does in File:Linda Kearns.jpg which is also said to be from 1922. While Underwood and Underwood was based in New York, it had offices in London and elsewhere. There is nothing in the WP article to suggest she was ever in New York. There is enough unknown here so we should leave it on WP:EN. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that she was born in 1888, it seems to me that File:Linda Kearns.jpg is post-dated. Yann (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source suggests this could have been from 1923: https://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000670601 Regardless for UK or Ireland, Underwood & Underwood is the credited photographer, and so would be PD as PD-UK-unknown or PD-Ireland-anon. Abzeronow (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - The bottom left is stamped "© Underwood & Underwood Studios, N.Y.," which is a defective notice as it lacks the year of first publication. Given this is apparently from the Sheehy Skeffington Photographic Collection (dated 1885-1956), pre-1956 publication (we needn't consider the alleged 1922/3) with no notice would make this {{PD-US-no notice}}. The N.Y. (New York) is sufficient evidence to consider this a US work; Irish status is not germane (PD-Ireland-anon is nonsense; it, like all anon status, requires demonstration of anonymity, not merely being unknown to us). Эlcobbola talk 20:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: @Abzeronow: @Yann: @Elcobbola: Per Kearns' Dictionary of Irish Biography entry (here >>>[2]<<<) (which is much more fleshed out than her Wikipedia page), Kearns was in fact in New York in 1922 as part of a tour of the United States (and later Canada and Australia). Like many other Irish Republicans at the time (Liam Mellows being another famous example), she was touring to raise funds for Independence factions back home. The image itself explicitly states its "Underwood and Underwood NY".
US-PD is thus correct. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Clearly published in New York, USA. --Yann (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nahashogyoseimon.png

こちらの写真は私が撮影・編集したものです。 最初にアップロードした際は著作者の記名を忘れおり、削除されてしまったので再アップロードしました。そのことにつきましては注意等を十分に確認しておらず大変申し訳ありませんでした。 今後はこういうことがないように十分注意します。 この写真は私が撮影・編集したものですので問題はありません。ですのでファイルの復元をお願いします。

This photo was taken and edited by me. When I first uploaded it, I forgot the author's name and it was deleted, so I re-uploaded it. I am very sorry that I did not fully check the instructions. I'll be very careful not to let this happen again. This picture was taken and edited by me, so there is no problem. So please restore the file.

（たいやき部屋 (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)）[reply]

@たいやき部屋: Hi, You were asked to upload the original image with EXIF data. Why can't you do that? Yann (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where should I upload my original images?
Can't I use the image edited for personal information protection? たいやき部屋 (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I understood what you were saying.
Upload it the appropriate way. たいやき部屋 (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Иван Антонович Лапшов.jpg

Boris Losin and Georgy Konovalov were photographers for LenTASS, the Leningrad branch of TASS during World War II (photo was likely published with (TASS) indicated as well). PD under point 4 of {{PD-Russia}}. Kges1901 (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: In such cases, TASS should be mentioned in the description. --Yann (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Кренкель Эрнст Теодорович (почтовая карточка).jpg

Photo indicated has logo of Soyuzfoto, predecessor/subordinate agency of TASS, predecessor of TASS photo chronicle, therefore public domain under point 4 of {{PD-Russia}}. Same rationale for File:Krenkel ET.jpg. Kges1901 (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: In such cases, TASS should be mentioned in the description. --Yann (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Pavel Troshkin

Images were published after 2015, expiration of posthumous copyright protection of photographer after death, or before 1954. Overly hypothetical doubts by now-banned user who made many overzealous deletion requests. Kges1901 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia. In either case we cannot keep them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We usually assume that old works were published at the time of creation, unless evidence says otherwise. If I understood correctly, the author was a reporter for RIAN, so I see no reason to assume that these pictures were not published at the time. The first file in the list, File:Сессия Верховного Совета СССР первого созыва (2).jpg, is dated 1938. That may not be sufficient for all images, but it seems OK for this one. Yann (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Troshkin was a reporter for the newspaper Izvestiya, and his photographs were published at the time in Izvestiya, Krasnaya Zvezda, and other papers. --Kges1901 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg also made an interesting argument about the country of origin. If these newspapers were distributed in the Soviet Union, they were simultaneously published in all successor nations, and that under the Berne Convention, the shorter term applies. Yann (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These newspapers were distributed across the entire Soviet Union, not just on the territory of the RSFSR. In any case, the definition of publication under Russian copyright law is that the back of the photograph was marked by the artist in the appropriate way, which for war photographs implies that it passed through censorship processes and could be published. Since most of these photographs are not taken from the photographer's negatives, it is reasonable to assume that they were marked on the back, and recently digitized images appeared on the internet after 2014, when the posthumous publication copyright term expired. Kges1901 (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg is not sole in such assumption. But this is just assumption so far, it is not supported by court decisions (of 12-15 post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature (as I have known on today, I continue to seek it, to confirm or refute it). As I see such questions in court decisions (of several post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature - the concrete Soviet republic is place of publishing (because, the civil legislation was on republican level) or the RF is place of publishing, even if work was published outside of the RSFSR (as USSR-successor on union level). Alex Spade (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Binsudah.jpg

Hello.. Please return the image because it is a free image of a public figure and is allowed to be circulated and is not restricted by rights at all. The following link contains a copy of the image on the personal website of its owner, writer https://www.binsudah.ae/قصة-عجيبة-من-التاريخ/--JovaYas (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The footer on the link provided states: جميع الحقوق محفوظة لموقع حسين بن سوده - 2015 (All rights reserved to Hussein Bin Souda website). @-JovaYas: the term "free license" has a precise definition that you consult in COM:L. Günther Frager (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your response. I would like to explain the following: the purpose of uploading the image here is to use it on the individual's page in the encyclopedia, and the title is his name. His Wikipedia page includes a link to his personal website, in addition to the fact that the image has been circulating for years, like any image of a public figure. The management of the writer's website has been contacted for the purpose of licensing the image at the following link [3]https://www.binsudah.ae/binsudah-2/ JovaYas (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JovaYas: that is not a free license. Did you read the link provided?. It would be more productive if you ask the copyright holder to send an explicit permission to COM:VRT . Günther Frager (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guidance and cooperation, and we contacted the management of the writer's website to amend the formulation and the full waiver of the Wikipedia website - the following link [4]https://www.binsudah.ae/binsudah-2/ JovaYas (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The notice on the cited website now reads,

"This image is fully licensed for publication and use on the Wikipedia website - https://commons.wikimedia.org, and they have the right to use the image on any of their platforms, this is a waiver of rights - the management of the Hussein bin Sudah website 17-08-2024".
Since the permission is limited to Commons, it is not the free license for any use by anybody anywhere that is required here. In order for us to restore the image, the license must be changed to CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or another acceptable license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:F6Rpo2RbsAA yfy.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: 承諾証.png Kumapc391 (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose File copied from X without permission. Yann (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per Yann. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decorations of the Civic Palace of Asti by Ottavio Baussano

Hi everyone, I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of the following images:

They were all deleted in 2018 after this DR and they all depict decorations of the it:Palazzo di Città (Asti), painted by en:Ottavio Baussano in 1935. As proof of the fact that they were commissioned by the Municipality of Asti, beside the obvious reason that is highly likely given that the palace is property and main seat of the Municipality since centuries, I've this snippet in which are cited pieces of a contract between the painter and the municipality about decorations to be made in the civic palace. For me it's enough to ask for the undeletion, but I'll let decide the closing admin. Anyway, if we accept that it was commissioned by the Municipality, then it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1956, way before the URAA so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Institutions of government

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Well-established category deleted per COM:SPEEDY. It should not be deleted without a formal COM:CFD on it. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category was empty, and said to be a duplicate of Category:Government organizations. Yann (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be useful to restore it as a redirect, but I agree with Yann that we don't need two categories with essentially the same name. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK for a redirect. Yann (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, my reading of Commons:Category redirects suggests that a redirect is not appropriate here, see Inappropriate uses #4. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andrea Deck.jpg

My wife is Andrea and this is her headshot, which she owns the rights to, and is allowing to be used by anyone, especially her on her on Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironcondor21 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 16 August 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image appears on IMDB with "Photo by Adam Hills". Therefore the claim you made in the upload that you were the photographer appears to be incorrect. That is a serious violation of Commons rules.

In order for the image to be restored to Commons, either (a) Adam Hills must send a free license using VRT or (b) someone else must send a free license using VRT together with a copy of the written license from Adam Hills which permits that person to freely license an image whose copyright belongs to Hills. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Info As far as I can tell from subject's Instagram page, she is married to somebody whose name is not Adam Hills. Thuresson (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:А.Ф.Попов- Ленинград 1978.jpg,

Hello, I ask you to restore the photo portrait of Popov Alexander Fedorovich. The portrait was made by me in 1978 and is part of the family archive. I am the grandson of Popov Alexander Fedorovich. The photo has not been published anywhere before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpo2709 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 16 August 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Alpo2709: How did you take a 1978 photo with a Nokia G20? Thuresson (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I made this photo from the original with Nokia.The original is in oua family archive. Alpo2709 (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...I mean the original photo.) Alpo2709 (talk) 07:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:The Stunning-on fire by Kathrin Baumbach_CC BY-SA 4.0.jpg

Hi, the photo is copyright of the band and is the creative commons CC BY-SA 4.0 is stated here on their website: https://thestunning.net/press-kit

Thanks, --Craicmerchant (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The link provided didn't have such clause until recently (last archived version form July is https://web.archive.org/web/20240618192448/https://thestunning.net/press-kit). As the copyright holder is usually the photographer, and the page ask to credit the photographer, it is not clear that the change on the band's webpage is the real intention of the photographer. Please contact the photographer and ask them to send an explicit permission to the COM:VRT. Günther Frager (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 5 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas_Hui_To.jpg

Reason - Mistaken delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) 08:56, 17 August 2024‎ Kinsleyhk (UTC)

 Oppose Probably actually File:Thomas_Hui_To.png. You uploaded the file two days ago and requested its deletion half an hour later. That was done shortly thereafter. Now you want it restored without explanation.

I also note that the image appears at https://corporate.tvb.com/article/20.html with an explicit copyright notice. The version here is very small with no EXIF, which suggests that it is not your own work as claimed. It can be restored here only if (a) the actual photographer sends a free license using VRT, or (b) you upload the file using the same file name at full camera resolution and with full EXIF.

Russian department awards

Please, restore deleted Russian department awards and close (as keep) similar current DR. Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed DR discussions

Current DR discussions

Yes, they are not state awards, but they are state symbols ({{PD-RU-exempt}}) indeed - symbols, which are established by state authorities, which design (including both text description and visual representation) are established (which design are integral part of) in respective official documents of state government agencies (the Russian official documents are not just texts), which are subjects of the en:State Heraldic Register of the Russian Federation (point 4.3). Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two ConventionExtension screenshots

These files was speedily deleted as copyright violations. I was originally going to request undeletion on the basis of them being screenshots of free software (i.e., {{MediaWiki screenshot}}); annoyingly, though, the Git repository of the MediaWiki extension that they're screenshots of doesn't appear to contain a license statement of any kind. However, I noticed that the account that uploaded these files (Chughakshay16) is the same account that developed the extension in the first place (see mw:User:Chughakshay16/ConventionExtension, git:mediawiki/extensions/ConventionExtension/+log) - therefore, even if this extension's code isn't freely licensed, Chughakshay16 would nevertheless have the ability and authority to release screenshots of the results of their own programming under a free license (as they did when they uploaded the files in question to Commons); and these freely-licensed screenshots are therefore not copyvios.

At User talk:Moheen#Screenshot of conference extension deleted?, the deleting admin mentioned that the files were tagged as likely belong[ing] to Cisco Webex; however, I didn't see anything that would indicate that Cisco holds a copyright over this extension's code (or that would prohibit the code's author from being able to freely license screenshots of its results).

All the best, --A smart kitten (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=910852307"