Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Current requests

[edit]

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

[edit]

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As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia.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]
I'm not sure there is any test case over the Berne definition of "country of origin". The question would not come up internally for Russian law or that of the old republics, most likely. It would only matter in a country outside those which implement the rule of the shorter term, and over a work which that question may be involved. Not sure I know of any, anywhere. But, the Berne Convention is pretty specific in its definition when it comes to works simultaneously published in multiple countries, and that is the definition that Commons follows. Of course, the Soviet Union was not a member, though most all subsequent countries are now. One complication is the U.S. status -- the definition of "source country" for the URAA would follow different logic than Berne, the country of "greatest contacts with the work", which would be Russia. Russia was 50pma on the URAA date, but I think had some wartime extensions, which I think push these over the line, such that only ones published before 1929 (or created before 1904, if unpublished) would be PD in the U.S., regardless of current status in Russia, or the country of origin (if different). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know such cases (on the Berne definition) too, but in the Russian copyright legislation there are 3 criterions of copyrightability - (1) the Russian territory (the territory of the Russian Federation (the RSFSR previously, not the USSR) since Nov.7, 1917 to today) in the borders on the date of publication, (2) the Russian citizenship on the date of publication, and (3) international treaties.
Moreover, there is similar situation with reports of telegraph agencies or press-releases- they are reported/released worldwide formally, but the country indicated in report/release is the country of origin (some reports/releases have two of more indicated countries). Alex Spade (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right -- the Berne country of origin pretty much never applies to internal works, or even most situations involving foreign works. The specific definition in Berne pretty much only matters if a country is applying the rule of the shorter term for a foreign work to have lesser protection than their own works normally do; the Berne definition would have to be used in that case to determine the country, since that is in the treaty. In pretty much any other situation, more sensical definitions can be used (which even the US did, with the URAA -- the "source country" there is pretty much the same thing, but differs quite a bit once it comes to simultaneous publication). But however nonsensical it seems, Commons uses the Berne definition, since that should control when works expire in many countries (even if that virtually never comes up in a court case to test it). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect to consider is how publication is defined. For example, in this academic article about Russian copyright law, it is stated that an author, transferring a work to another by agreement, gives consent to publication, and thus the work can be considered published. This means that if Troshkin transferred his negatives to his employer (Izvestiya), the works would be legally considered published. Since all photos in question are of a professional nature, there is no reason to assume that Troshkin kept any of these photographs in his personal possession and did not transfer them to his employer. Considering this, then all of his photos would have been legally published when he transferred them to his employer, that is, definitely before his death in 1944, and all these photographs would be firmly public domain. Kges1901 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Term publication (обнародование or опубликование in Russian, and these are two different term in the Russian copyright) is defined in the paragraph one and two of part 1 of article 1268 of the Civil Code. Consent to publication is not publication (right for exercise of some action is not action). And mentioned resent discussion on the Ru-Wiki for orphan works (where I was the main speaker) does not matter for Troshkin's works - author of photos (Troshkin) is known. Alex Spade (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time if there is a source for original of photo and its reverse side, and such original (reverse side) is marked by author name and a year, then this year can be considered as year of publication according to the last paragraph of article 475 of the Soviet Russian Civil Code. Alex Spade (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of copyright I am specifically discussing the nuances of обнародование because the term contains a broader meaning than simply опубликование, and the expiration of copyright (if work is posthumously published) is calculated from обнародование and not опубликование of a work – regarding photographs, that public display of a work counts as обнародование while not опубликование in the strict sense, therefore opening broader possibilities for the release of a work during Troshkin's lifetime.
Regarding originals, another aspect is that at least some of Troshkin's photographs were sent into TASS and copyright thus transferred to TASS, falling under PD-Russia under the TASS aspect. For example this photograph was marked on the back with TASS copyright stamp even though Troshkin was an Izvestiya correspondent.
In any case presence of markings on the back is the most hopeful approach to this problem of posthumous copyright since any photograph/negative with a description had to have been marked on the back with a caption and name of the author, since Troshkin's photographs presumably entered into a centralized group of photographs cleared for publication, as his photographs were not just published in Izvestiya, but in Krasnaya Zvezda, Vechernyaya Moskva, other newspapers, and books (for example a large quantity of his photographs taken during the Battle of Khalkhin Gol appeared in this 1940 book without mention of his name. Secondly finding an exact date for negatives such as this example would have been impossible if there was no marking on the back. The fact that exact dates taken are available for negatives indicates that they were also marked in some way with captions, dates and names of author. Examples of such author name and year markings on the back of a Troshkin photograph include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Kges1901 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, обнародование is wider than опубликование, but the fact (and the date) of обнародование must be proved (for example for some painting "This painting was created in 1923 and was shown on ZYX-art exhibition in 1925, see reference link").
  • Yes, if photowork is marked by TASS (no matter by TASS only or by TASS+name_of_real_photograph), this photowork is TASS-work. Alex Spade (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of individual photographs

[edit]

Russian department awards

[edit]

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 3 subpoint 4). Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it would be crucial here to know if the documents granting awards and awards themsetves are official (i.e. if they have legal basis).  Support if yes,  Oppose if not (unless we have knowledge that Russian courts interpret the word official differently), and COM:PCP if unsure. Without extra information it is the third option. If they are issued and granted just basing on an internal decision of the organization, then they are not official (IMO). Ankry (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, department order for decoration of someone(s) by department award(s), наградной лист (award paper), and наградная книжка (award card) for department awards are official documents of administrative characters. Same as for state awards. Alex Spade (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:UG-GE Photowalk (March, 2018)

[edit]

those files deleted as no FoP in Georgia but they are just graffiti. I think that COM:GRAFFITI applies. Template {{Non-free graffiti}} should be added as well. We have a lot's of them in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Documentation of Template:Non-free graffiti states: "Note that this template doesn't have enough help on the undeletion requests, deleted files are unlikely to be restored just because of the potential application of this tag.". Günther Frager (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's not just because the template. The template is only for information. The deletion rational was no FoP in Georgia. But it is not FoP issue. I linked COM:GRAFFITI and we have a lots of files in Category:Non-free graffiti. -- Geagea (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose But Georgia does not have FOP anyway. Also, these are murals by unknown artists, not just text or tags. Thuresson (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So graffiti is a FoP case? If FoP in Georgia will be ok than the graffiti also ok? Aren't they in temporarily exhibition by definition. If they just a case of FoP it's not very clear in COM:GRAFFITI. -- Geagea (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, we have allowed photos of illegal graffiti by policy regardless of FoP laws -- but we prefer using the FoP tags, or PD tags, if those apply rather than relying on that rationale. If this looks like "legal graffiti", i.e. murals, then we should not allow it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. However, I have doubts about legal status of some of the images form this DR, eg. Tbilisi street art 18 (UG-GE, 2018).jpg. They may be created legally. Ankry (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mola_Ali.jpg

[edit]
Request temporary undeletion

It seems to have been deleted because it was considered a derivative work. But actually, checking it from the Archive, it does not appear to be a derivative of any particular depiction of Ali. There are many similar illustrations of him with many variations, which are ubiquitous. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, see this image, which is in the public domain. It is also quite similar to the deleted image, so I think these kinds of depictions of Ali are too generic to be considered derivatives of one another. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Could we have it undeleted temporarily for the discussion since the Internet Archive is down? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The argument above certainly has some force, but side by side the deleted image and the one cited at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mola_Ali.jpg look very similar. Compare the folds in the shirt and the creases in the face. The position of the eyes is also identical. The image cited above does not have the same similarities. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: This quote from page 39-40 of the referenced book implies that some of those features you mention are very common in his contemporary portraits:

Contemporary portraits of Imam Ali also give importance to the face. The viewer’s attention is drawn to the Imam’s face by a light illuminating the upper part of his face, that is, the forehead, nasal bone and cheekbones. However, the iconographic detailing of the face often differs between images to present a variety of physiognomic traits all held to represent Imam Ali. The most commonly produced and distributed portraits, which I call the ‘conventional’ facial type, are illustrated in Figures 2, 3, 12 and 14. Imam Ali is shown in part profile with lofty forehead and wide, a little oversized, eyes with large pupils. The high eyebrows accentuate the size of the eye. Ali avoids eye contact with the viewer and the gaze seems to be directed slightly upwards with the look of a far-sighted visionary, creating an almost dream-like appearance. The face is oval, and the cheekbones round. The lips are full rather than thin. Cheekbones and lips are partly covered by a dark, thick, well-trimmed beard.

Also, actually, I can't entirely agree that the public domain image I shared does not have these similarities. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some signatures

[edit]

These files deleted with the reason: "Although the signatures themselves are likely to be public domain, we have no source to confirm the accuracy of the images. They are not used anywhere; therefore, they were deleted." I wasn't very active during that time, but now I would like to source each file. Please restore them:

FYI: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Owais Al Qarni. Regards, Aafi (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hotel Cheyenne 6.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nkon21. But if any of the two shows something similar to the files kept at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Disney's Cheyenne hotel (like, COM:DM France-eligible File:Street in Disney Village 1.jpg), then the two (or at least one of the two) can be restored. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, kindly check to see whether any (or at least one) of the files can be restored as only showing incidental/accessory presences of buildings (COM:DM France).

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I undeleted 2 files which certainly do not show anything with a copyright. Yann (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:etvwinlogo.png

[edit]

I want to create a profile for ETV Win, it is only for identification purposes only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allachandrasekhar (talk • contribs) 09:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is about File:ETVWINLOGO.png. May be {{PD-textlogo}}, but what about scope? Yann (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support peer website, it's a simple logo (too simple) (google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose India has a low ToO, so it may well be under copyright. I note that ETV Network uses a different logo, which is a subset of this image and appears there under Fair Use. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jerzy_Ruszczyński_artysta_malarz.jpg

[edit]

File should be undeleted as it's my father's photography, which I have uploaded from my website which I am administrating: https://jerzyruszczynski.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/arton4774-045f0.jpg and that's the only photo of my father in front of his work (painting) during an exhibition that we have right now.

This Photo uploaded in wikipedia commons, is my own work and I hereby declare that also is publicly available for use in wikipedia or anywhere elese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J0k3rOLSZTYN (talk • contribs) 12:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete this photo, thank you.

Krzysztof Ruszczyński, son of Jerzy Ruszczyński contact: <redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by J0k3rOLSZTYN (talk • contribs) 12:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Krzysztof -- If you personally took this photo, you can grant permission via this tool. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The copyright holder should send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. --Yann (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Immigration Department of Malaysia Logo.svg

[edit]

Request of undeletion for File:Immigration Department of Malaysia Logo.svg, File:Logo of Department of Immigration Malaysia.svg and File:Immigration Department of Malaysia Flag.jpg.

The Immigration Department of Malaysia has used the logo since Malaysia's independence. The attachment below should explain this. {{PD-Malaysia}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by N niyaz (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Malaysia's independence is 67 years ago, the Immigration Dept. of Malaysia's logo by right is available in the public domain as per {{PD-Malaysia}}. n_niyaz 🇷🇺 (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Malaysia was founded in 1963. The URAA date was 1996. If this was an anonymous work -- something which is unproven here -- its Malaysian copyright expired on or after 1/1/2014. If the designer is known, then it is probably still under copyright there, but in any event it is still under copyright in the USA and will be until at least 1/1/2059. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward Don't be a ruler Jim, I'm referring to the Federation of Malaya which gained independence in 1957. And stop putting extra possibilities which aren't even realistic; IT WAS MADE BY THE MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT. n_niyaz 🇷🇺 (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'd need evidence that the Malaysian government releases their rights worldwide when their copyrights expire. Other than that, URAA applies whether we like it or not. (And believe me, I hate URAA). Abzeronow (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow Under the Malaysian Copyright Act 1987 17, except as otherwise provided in this Act, copyright in any literary, music or artistic work which subsist in such work under this Act shall subsist during the life of the author and fifty years and shall continue to subsists until the expiry of a period of fifty years after his death.[8] In this case, the author that made the logo has no rights whatsoever for the work they made due to them being employed by the Malaysian Government to do so. Therefore, right after it is published the 50 years after that can already be counted. n_niyaz 🇷🇺 (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
23. Duration of copyright in works of Government, Government organizations and international bodies. Copyright which subsists in works of the Government, Government organizations and international bodies under this Act shall continue to subsist until the expiry of a period of fifty years computed from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work was first published. n_niyaz 🇷🇺 (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing it is a Malaysian government work. Per COM:Malaysia you are correct on government works. So you'd be correct that it would be public domain in Malaysia if published before 1974. The issue is U.S. Copyright, an emblem is not an edict of government, and Malaysian government could still enforce their copyright in the U.S. (EDIT: Please present evidence that this emblem was published before 1962, URAA doesn't apply to pre-1962 government works) Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Immigration Department was formed right after independence (1957) with them using the logo.[9] n_niyaz 🇷🇺 (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royal Malaysia Police VSP.png

[edit]

A derivative work from the original Royal Malaysia Police logo which is in the public domain.

{{PD-Malaysia}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by N niyaz (talk • contribs) 15:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@N niyaz: How can an image from June 3, 2016 be public domain in Malaysia? Thuresson (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuresson Its an app icon using a logo in the public domain. 113.211.210.101 22:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but how did it come about that the logo is public domain? Thuresson (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per {{PD-Malaysia}}, works more than 50 years old are in the public domain. The Royal Malaysia Police has used their logo for over 60 years. n_niyaz 🇷🇺 (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuresson File:Royal Malaysian Police.svg for example. You need to understand that the app icon is just a derivative work of the agency's logo. n_niyaz 🇷🇺 (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Malaysia was founded in 1963. The URAA date was 1996. If this was an anonymous work -- something which is unproven here -- its Malaysian copyright expired on or after 1/1/2014. If the designer is known, then it is probably still under copyright there, but in any event it is still under copyright in the USA and will be until at least 1/1/2059..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward Don't be a ruler Jim, I'm referring to the Federation of Malaya which gained independence in 1957. And stop putting extra possibilities which aren't even realistic; IT WAS MADE BY THE MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT. n_niyaz 🇷🇺 (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
23. Duration of copyright in works of Government, Government organizations and international bodies. Copyright which subsists in works of the Government, Government organizations and international bodies under this Act shall continue to subsist until the expiry of a period of fifty years computed from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work was first published.[10] n_niyaz 🇷🇺 (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please present evidence that this logo was published before 1962. (to satisfy U.S. copyright). Abzeronow (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck understanding Malay [11], the logo now is a derivative of that logo which was introduced way before 1962. You must understand history to know that after Malaysia's independence the Royal Malaysia Police changed their logo. n_niyaz 🇷🇺 (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow And what you are asking for is unnecessary because if that was really necessary why would {{PD-Malaysia}} exist? n_niyaz 🇷🇺 (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is necessary because Wikimedia Commons has its servers in the United States, and therefore must obey U.S. copyright law. PD-Malaysia exists because we as a community have also decided to honor copyright laws of countries of origin. (EDIT: Concerning Malay, I can use google translate on .pdf text, it's not perfect but adequate. Thanks for the link) Abzeronow (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the logo has the word "Malaysia" on it, so it was not created much before the creation of the country, which was in 1963. The law calls for copyrights of works created anonymously (which has not been proven here) to have a copyright for 60 years after first publication. Since the URAA date is 1996, any work first published after 1935 has a USA copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:Malaysia notes that before the 1987 law, copyright terms were:
" General term: Author's life + 25 years
   Anonymous, pseudonymous, or posthumous works: Publication + 25 years
   Cinematographic works: Publication + 25 years
   Photographic works: Publication + 25 years
   Sound recordings: Publication + 25 years
   Broadcasts: Broadcast + 25 years
   Works of legal bodies: Publication + 25 years"
So Government or anonymous works published before 1962 are public domain (1987 law extended copyright but did not put expired works back into copyright.) From 1962 to 1973, government or anonymous works published are PD, but are restored by URAA. 1974 and after, still in copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Остапенко Юрій.jpg

[edit]

Добрий день. Видалили файл, фото лікаря-онколога.Цей файл є у вільному доступі, я особисто робила це фото. Можна його відновити?--Karynakarpenko (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)-22.10.2024[reply]

 Not done: No file by that name. --Yann (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jerzy_Ruszczyński_artysta_malarz.jpg

[edit]

I hereby request undeletion of this image as I am a son of artist painter Jerzy Ruszczyński and I took this picture long time ago, it is my file, reuploaded (downloaded) from my father's website.

I can write a Copyright confirmation letter to Wikipedia Commons if needed, aswell as my father can and send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Please reupload our own photo showing Jerzy Ruszczyński - polish artist painter (Wikipedia page: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerzy_Ruszczy%C5%84ski ), full wikipedia photo file address: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jerzy_Ruszczy%C5%84ski_artysta_malarz.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by J0k3rOLSZTYN (talk • contribs) 11:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Krzysztof -- If you personally took this photo, you can grant permission via this tool. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The copyright holder should send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. --Yann (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vlastislav Bříza mladší.jpg

[edit]

Rozporuji odstranění souboru (obrázku) s názvem Vlastislav Bříza mladší, jelikož mám povolení na užívání fotky od tvůrce a fotka je zdrojovaná. Děkuji! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneta Hofmanová (talk • contribs) 13:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: In order for the image to be restored to Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Restoring files from VOGUE Taiwan

[edit]

Can restore the following images that were taken from videos of the Vogue Taiwan official YouTube Channel? Althougt these captures we're from videos originally posted by another accounts like Architectural Design, since both Vogue and AD are from the same company, Condé Nast, I think Vogue Taiwan has the rights to release it on YouTube with CC licenses, despite original videos did not have that license, becasue some of them have been in use in Wikipedia articles like Kourtney Kardashian, and they were deleted without notice or a deletion request:

RevengerTime (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emma Watson 2023 head and shoulders 1.jpg must be consulted to aid this request. Regards, Aafi (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Not an obvious case, opened DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kourtney Kardashian 2019.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emma Roberts House Tour 2024.jpg. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iliya Balinov.webp

[edit]

Hello. The photo is my own work. I made it on 28.07.2021. in Vienna, when Balinov turned 55. Please restore the file immediately. Greetings.Tormon245t (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image was found prepublished at https://www.schachklubvoitsberg.at/team/balinov-ilia . --Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Very small file, no EXIF, copies on the Net. The copyright holder should send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. --Yann (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Majed Chergui 2022 Alain Herzog.jpg

[edit]

it has somehow been deleted. I would kindly need it to be back online as a profile picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4S 11190 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)4S 11190 (talk)
Please follow the instructions on your talk page User talk:4S 11190 regarding permission through VRT. Thuresson (talk) 16:07, 23 October 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 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Christopher Marquis Profile.png

[edit]

Hi,

Please find this file as the associated copyright permission, and please undelete this file.

File:SubjectRelease of (2024CU025-029 Marquis Profile Jesus College Wide….pdf
Photo copyright permission file
.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know.

Dequn Teng — Preceding unsigned comment added by DequnTeng (talk • contribs) 14:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DequnTeng: The permission should be sent by the copyright holder to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Yann (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yann, please check permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, and the email has been sent via chris@pagephotography.co.uk. DequnTeng (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, chris@pagephotography.co.uk is the email from the copyright holder, the email content is the permission document. DequnTeng (talk) 19:15, 23 October 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 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dan Chebac.jpg

[edit]

This photo is not subject to copyright. It was used to create the cover of the CD "Dan Chebac – Cîntece Despre...Caii Liberi" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristifs (talk • contribs) 17:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose All modern created works have a copyright. This cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the actual photographer using VRT. Note that the upload calls out Dan Chebac as the photographer, but that seems unlikely as it does not look like a selfie. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per above. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alice Farnham.jpg

[edit]

Hello, It took me longer than expected but I got an unqualified document that proves that Kate Mount is the photographer and gives her permission to share it publicly. She emailed the document to the address given to me by Ratekreel permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Please activate this photo

Permission Declaration

I hereby affirm that I, Kate Mount, am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of both the work depicted and the media, as shown here: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons

  1. cite_note-3

I have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Signed, Kate Mount Copyright holder 20 October 2024Londonopera (talk) 18:44, 23 October 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 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jan Tyl portrét.jpg

[edit]

Hello, Jan Tyl has already sent the copytright information but we got no response. Should I reupload the file or what is the problem?--Petiii3 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Reuploading a photograph is never permitted. It is a waste of time and resources, both computer and human to do so. 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 3 days.

     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Jim. Regards, Aafi (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PLEXIPHONES_Photo_by_Rozlyne_Anderson-Brunnhoff.jpg

[edit]

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2024102310009689. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: FYI. --Yann (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gperez24.jpg

[edit]

Hola, esta foto fue realizada por mi hace unas semanas. En la información interna de la foto, se muestra claramente mi autoria. Pienso que se ha tratado de un error porque en su momento así se lo transmití a @Adeletron 3030. Estoy a disposición de quien desee realizar cualquier aclaración al respecto. Un cordial saludo, --Hard (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brady Brim-DeForest, Board of Directors, BluShift Aerospace.jpg

[edit]

I am the photographer who originally took this photo. I took this photo personally and I own the copyright to this photo. When I uploaded the photo, I did so granting access to it under a Creative Commons license. Please undelete this photo.

Lindsaybmaine (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also uploaded the file here under a CC license: https://www.flickr.com/photos/lindsaybmaine/54090411440/ Lindsaybmaine (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need original camera EXIF, EXIF there is from Adobe Photoshop. Abzeronow (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alfclogo.png

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The football club (office@accralions.com) sent an Email today that Wikipedia is allowed to use the logo. Tfnalp (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: already restored. Regards, Aafi (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rory Amon MP, Member for Pittwater.jpg

[edit]

Hi, This file should be undeleted - The deletion process was accelerated and the issue is one of metadata and permissions. Permission (which is granted under the Governemnt of New South Wales, Parliament of New South Wales) should have been referenced to Parliament's permission page rather than the permission page of the Government's master site.

This is a minor issue and should have been corrected rather than the image deleted.

13:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErgonomicMinder (talk • contribs) 13:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

El archivo subido corresponde al documento publico sobre los resultados del escrutinio del Plebiscito de Esquel, por lo tanto no corresponde solicitar autorización para su subida. Gracias! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewenCurruf (talk • contribs) 13:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC) NewenCurruf (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I see only text and small stamps and signatures, nothing copyrightable there --Ezarateesteban 13:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liceo franchetti.jpg

[edit]

Hi everyone, I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of this file, deleted in 2014 after this DR. The image depicts the it:Istituto d'Istruzione Superiore Bruno - Franchetti, a publich high school in Mestre, built in 1940. The building was designed by the architect Mirko Artico, and was commissioned by the Municipality of Venezia and paid by the Municipality and the State (see here and here). Therefore, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1961, way before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Режиссер Алина Верипя, Москва.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello. This photo, like the others I uploaded earlier, was taken by me. The editors of Wikipedia deleted them because they found the same photos on other sites, for example, here — https://www.kino-teatr.ru/kino/director/ros/895424/bio / However, my photos were added to other portals after they were posted on Wikipedia. I ask you to restore the files so that they can be added to the article again. Filming 1 (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Российский режиссер Алина Верипя, Москва.jpg

[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello. There is a similar problem with this photo: the photo was taken by me, I uploaded it to Wikipedia for the first time, but then other sites that publish biographies of directors and screenwriters added it to themselves. Please restore access. https://www.kino-teatr.ru/kino/director/ros/895424/bio/ Filming 1 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree - no educational use, ruwiki article on deletion request. Uploader has no other contributions, only person advertising. --Drakosh (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=948893396"