From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

This project page in other languages:

このリンクをクリックして、削除撤回リクエストを提出する

このページは、削除撤回を希望するユーザのためのフォーラムです。アップロードしたページやファイル（以下、「ファイル」と呼ぶ）が削除された場合、そのファイルをアップロードした本人は「削除の撤回」を要請することができます。一般の利用者は、議論中の話題へ参加して、削除されるべき（keep deleted）あるいは削除の撤回（undelete）の賛否コメントを入れることができます。

過去に実施された削除撤回の議論ログはアーカイブとして、こちら「削除撤回の過去ログ」に保存してあります。閉鎖された「削除撤回の議論」は、24時間が経過のちに、毎日DRBotによってアーカイブとして過去ログへ収集されます。

[edit] なぜ削除されたのか理由を知る

「削除タグ」が添付された場合には、Commons:削除のガイドライン、Commons:プロジェクト基準、Commons:ライセンシングなどを読み、ルールに違反していないか確認をして、問題点を改善してください。

ファイルが削除された場合、削除ログ（deletion log）で削除されたファイル状況と、誰に削除されたのか状況を確認してください。また、Special:Whatlinkshere（その該当するファイルのページから実行してください、仮にそのファイルが削除されていたとしても動作します）を使って、そのファイル削除の議論が行われた場所を確認してください。

もし、削除された理由が明白でない場合、その「削除タグ」を貼り付けた管理者、ファイルを削除した管理者へ連絡を取り、理由を尋ねてください。または、その実行した管理者本人以外でも、活動中の管理者（管理者リスト（言語別））へ連絡を取っても構いません、何かのミスであった場合、前向きに訂正ヘルプをしてくれるでしょう。

[edit] 削除された理由に納得できない

もし、削除された理由に納得できずに反論がある場合、その管理者へ連絡を取り、さらに詳しい理由を尋ねたり、「削除の対象でない」ことを証明するものを提出することができます。また、その管理者本人以外でも、活動中の管理者（管理者リスト（言語別））へ連絡を取っても構いません。

もし、個人的に直接、連絡を取りたくない場合や、対応してくれた管理者が削除撤回を拒否した場合など、多くの人の意見を集め、多くの人に議論に参加して欲しい場合には、下記の手順に従い、「削除撤回の依頼」を提出することができます。

[edit] 削除撤回が実施される特例

[edit] 臨時的な削除撤回（削除の保留）

以下のケースにより、削除撤回の要求が出されたものは、通常"speedily undeletable"として考慮され、恐らく「削除の議論」は保留にされます：

[edit] フェアユース

フェアユースを受け入れるプロジェクトの利用者の場合、そのプロジェクトへのファイル転送期間として、臨時的に削除の保留（２日間）を要求することができます。この処遇は、著作権に関する理由でファイルが削除された場合に限り適用されます。その利用者は、どのプロジェクトにファイルを転送しようとしているのか、そのプロジェクト名を述べなければなりません。また、そのプロジェクトのフェアユース・ステートメントのリンクが下記に含まれていない場合には、その該当リンクを探して追加してください。

フェアユースを受け入れるプロジェクト：

Wikipedia: ca | cs | el | en | et | eo | fi | fr | hr | it | ja | lt | lv | ro | ru | sr | tr | uk | vi | zh | he | +/−
Wikinews: en | pl | +/−
Wikibooks: en | +/−
Wikisource: fr | +/−

Note: the list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content. (last updated: August 2009)

[edit] コンテンツ内容の理由で削除された場合

もし著作権以外の理由（例：offensive or biased content）でファイルが削除された場合、他のプロジェクトへの転送するために、臨時的に「削除の保留」を要求することができます。これを申請できるのは、その転送先プロジェクトで管理者を務めている利用者です。自分が管理者であることを証明してください。（例：コモンズ利用者リストに「Sysop（シスオペ）」フラグがある利用者）

もし、著作権に関する懸念がある場合には、その内容に関わらず、許可されることはありません。

[edit] 管理者の方へのガイドライン

Common sense can be applied. If, for example, an image was deleted as no source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the image can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user says he wishes to tag an image with a certain license, you can do that for him if you want to, or leave it to him to do it. However, it is important that you remove any "speedy delete" template from the file.

In general, try to comply with the requests of well intending users. Images can for example be undeleted for the requesting user to look at, without the request itself having to be closed.

When it is established that a debate is settled, you can close it with a remark such as "Kept deleted" or "Undeleted". Then you add the template {{udelh}} above the header, and the template {{udelf}} below your own comment (the templates are short for "Un-DELete Header" and "Footer").

Closed requests are automatically moved to the archive.

Please refer to the undeletion request when you undelete, eg "Undeleting per [[Commons:Undeletion requests/Image:Foo.jpg]]".

Temporarily undeleted images should be tagged with {{temporary undelete}}. This places them into Category:Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Category:Candidates for deletion. Anything here should be re-deleted after 2 days.

[edit] 「削除撤回の依頼」の手順

「削除撤回リクエストを追記する」をクリックして編集画面を開き、末尾にリクエストを追記してください。

リンク： 必ず削除の対象となっている（削除依頼タグが貼られている）ページや画像ファイル（ページが存在しない場合には「削除ログ」）のリンクを貼り、状況を把握できるようにしてください。
コメント： 削除撤回の議論を再開したことを明白にするために、必ず「削除されるべきでない理由」コメントを書き込んでください。何もコメント入力がない要求は、早急に閉鎖されます。

[edit] 現在の議論ログ

この議論ログは、ウィキメディア・コモンズの英語版と共有しています。

1 なぜ削除されたのか理由を知る
2 削除された理由に納得できない
3 削除撤回が実施される特例
- 3.1 臨時的な削除撤回（削除の保留）
  - 3.1.1 フェアユース
  - 3.1.2 コンテンツ内容の理由で削除された場合
4 管理者の方へのガイドライン
5 「削除撤回の依頼」の手順
6 現在の議論ログ

[edit] File:E haplogroup.gif

I was aware of copyright issues when I created this image. I wanted to maintain as much likeness to the contours of the image on the source, to portray as accurately as possible the frequencies of the specific lineages. But I created a different image using the File:BlankMap-World-noborders.png as a background. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I still believe its a DW from this protected map Huib talk 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the description of that map, the contour lines in it were automatically generated by computer from the referenced table of frequency data. As such, I doubt there's anything eligible for copyright in the maps except perhaps for the color scheme. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I support allowing this user to re-generate a map using the same data, but not copying the existing map. -Nard the Bard 13:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bismarck mit Doggen im Park.jpg

I probably forget with the first upload some information. Because I'm so often here I got the information too late. Today I've made a second upload with information on author, license and permission. Nontheless it was deleted with the comment: re-created by user, still no authorship information on the original photograph. But there was an inormation on the author, it is an own work and so I am the author. I can't imagine what problem is. --Polemos (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is who created the photograph. If it was taken in 1880, it may still be in copyright depending on who the photographer was (and when he died).--Nilfanion (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

restore with all due respect to the above user, that's insane; the image is 129 years old! we can reasonably assume that the copyright has expired by now; certainly in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Lx 121 (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating keeping the image deleted, I was merely responding to his query - its clearly not own work. Insane is a tad strong: most jurisdictions have copyright expiry 70 year after death (unless it is covered by some other sort of copyright, such as state copyright maybe?). If 59(+70) years is waiting an unreasonably long time, what number should we use in the absence of any author information? Obviously its not black and white, but can we reasonably assume that the photographer may have lived 5, 10, 20 years after the photo? More? Do we have any guidance on that number anywhere? I agree 60 years is almost certainly too high (if the photographer was 20 at the time and died at 80 its possible, but that's unlikely), so have no objection to restoring this file.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Commons ASFAIK doesn't have very clear rules on this. Dewiki explicitly uses the rule of thumb that if the photographer is unknown, pictures of 100 years or older are acceptable. I think, commons inofficially applies similar terms. So if a picture is more than about 100 years old, out-of-copyright is assumed and the opposite (photographer died later than 70 years ago) needs to be proven. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy'ed files with {military Insignia}

File:UK-Navy-OF1.gif and some others (50? I did not count [1]) were speedy'ed as "no source or license since May 2007". They were tagged with {{military Insignia}} which states that:

"If an image was uploaded with this template after 8 May 2007, it should be tagged with {{subst:nld}}. If the copyright status of images tagged with this template and uploaded cannot be confirmed as free, they should be listed for deletion."

So speedy is not a valid oprion here. Files were old so they should be nominated for deletion if it is not possible to find proper source and license.

There is a lot of files like these - Category:PD tag needs updating has 8,456 files that need an update. Problem is that it takes time to fix and there is to few users to fix all problems on Commons here and now. I think it is a bad idea just to speedy them all. --MGA73 (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose These files have had 2 years for proper licensing to be found. Someone properly marked them as not having proper licensing and someone else properly deleted them as such. I would support undeletion only if you are able to supply proper licensing. If you cannot then undeleting them is a waste of everybody's time as they will get redeleted again shortly. -Nard the Bard 14:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

These were files uploaded prior to the 2007 date (i.e. before the tag in question was deprecated). So, it isn't sure if anyone really has tried to find licensing. I'm sure many would still have to be deleted though. I think the nominator is saying these should go through a DR and not be speedied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The template says the files will only be deleted after a DR. We need more users to help cleanup. I'm sure that there is people out there who has some of these on their to-do-list but as with a speedy they get no warning that it is time to look at excactly these files. We can't just speedy +8,000 files when template says they are safe until someone makes a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO there has been a procedural irregularity in this matter. It wasn't clear that there was a two-year deadline for finding licensing etc. The template isn't crystal clear enough and it's very annoying to suddenly discover that this and that image have been deleted on Wikimedia. The bot CommonsDelinker automatically removes dead image links on Wikipedia, why couldn't there be a bot inserting "The xx image is due for deletion because of yy" on the relevant pages. On the English Wikipedia you'll get a warning for the local fair-use images. At the moment it isn't very user-friendly and people might start storing images on the local Wikis. --Necessary Evil (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I second the request that uploaders be warned before their files are deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 23:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

oppose yeah there have been a mistake by deleting them all as speedy but the uses are removed now so undeletion isn't going to help a lot, I oppose to undelete for a dr but I do support undeletion if somebody finds a good source en license. Huib talk 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but not all users are admins and can see the deleted images and pages. So how on earth are they going to find out if image could be saved? --MGA73 (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Besides we have [2] that can help admins that delete images by a mistake. --MGA73 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Support There are many old files (2005-2006) with source and license tagging irregularities. However deleting them is not the way to go. Sv1xv (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Support We have processes for proper deletion of images, we entrust admins to use the tools following the rules and not take shortcuts for other reasons. Allowing this just sets a precedent and more such deletions will probably follow. There was obviously no urgency in the need for deletion (2 years?), a mistake has been made and needs to be reverted. It is obvious that none of the images are going to have licensing found once they have been deleted because most of us (the people who do the majority of the work here due to shear numbers) are not admins, and can no longer see the images. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Deletion was way out of process. Deleter should be desysopped, depending on follow-up.--Elvey (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Support: We need to get rid of deprecated licenses, that for sure. But speedying all those 8000+ files without even making a DR and notifying the original uploaders isn't appropriate. If there's a specific problem with one of these files or with some of them, they should either be tagged with {{subst:nld}} or brought to a DR. I think it's important that the users who did this in good faith aren't passed over. It's still Humans who edit this media database. Fed up users can do the Commons more harm than 0.16 % of possibly unfree files which are marked for reusers that they might not be free. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Support undeletion -- it is essential that those who enforce our policies strictly comply with both the spirit and the letter of it. Those who point out that the image was uploaded when the liscense was valid make an excellent point, and that proper notice, not a speedy deletion, was the appropriated response when that liscense was deprecated. Geo Swan (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Support} reasons as stated above, & see my comments in the section below: "The general problem" Lx 121 (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The general problem

A directly related problem, that we may further discuss on Commons_talk:Licensing: Someone uploads a file using a valid license tag. Two years later the license tag becomes deprecated, like {{PD}} or {{Military Insignia}}. Another 2 years later there is a deletion request based on the invalid license tag. However the uploader is no longer active, so nobody can change the licensing, unless the original tag is a flavor of PD. What do we do then? Sv1xv (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If the uploader isn't there anymore, someone else can add a license or source, but will be very harder. But regardless, we delete away. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So you regardless delete away ? I am really sorry to see this demonstration of copyright extremism. Sv1xv (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It happens all of the time. Plus, anyone can change the license of an image (not just the uploader) if we have what could fit next. For example in these sets of images, I found one image of a Russian Insignia; it was changed to where it was PD in Russia for being a state symbol. But I checked the talk page of the uploaders; they been told before in 2007, 1008 and 2009 and still done nothing. It happens on other projects too; we cannot let uploader's absence hurt us. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Of course if some obviously public domain image has a wrong license tag, I do change it as well. No problem there. It becomes more complicated, however, when an image may still be copyrighted.

However I am worried by the phrase "But regardless, we delete away". What exactly do you mean? Sv1xv (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless if the uploader is here or not, we still delete images if they do not respond. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I strongly oppose this view. It is exteme deletionism. Sv1xv (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Because they cannot respond? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Because you delete useful images based on a technical problem for which the uploader was not responsible. These issues could have been easily resolved when the tag became deprecated. Sv1xv (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Technical problem? Since when is licensing just a "technical problem"? The original military Insignia template falsely claimed military Insignia was copyright free, and people uploaded stuff from all over the web on that basis. Many of them can be relicensed (PD-US-Gov, PD-shape, etc) but the ones that cannot be are not free and should be deleted. It would take you less time to re-create these files with inkscape than what it would take to track down sources and licenses for these files or argue about them. -Nard the Bard 19:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You accuse the uploaders for a problem which was caused inadvertently by Commons housekeepers. The contributors who uploaded the images were (mis)guided to believe that {{Military Insignia}} was a valid license. They thought that they were releasing their work in the public domain. I believe I am clear enough. Sv1xv (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a solution could be to recreate the lost images. But if some admin just decides to nuke them with no warning it is much harder for others to make a new version. It would be better and "after the book" to make a DR. That way others have a chance to comment or make a new file if they want to. When the file is deleted only admins can see the file. Anyway I can't understand why we do not have the time to do it right. If the file has been her for two years it could be here a week more while things are checked properly.

I say undelete and make check if relicense is possible or if not make a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Someone appears to have marked all old military Insignia files with no license. Since you were all complaining about not getting notice I figured I'd tell you. -Nard the Bard 02:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Seems they have not read the "conditions". It says that a DR is the proper thing to do. Besides uplader was not warned! --MGA73 (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a look at some of the deleted files: File:UK-Navy-OF1.gif, File:IT-Army-OF2a.gif, File:POR-Army-OF3.gif, and File:Bp aut hptm schulter.gif. All these files were speedy deleted without any warning to the respective uploaders and without anyone tagging these images first. Three of these candidates can be considered as {{PD-shape}} and the last one is most likely a case of “amtliches Werk”, i.e. {{PD-AustrianGov}} could apply. I agree with MGA73 and others that this calls for a DR which allows the uploaders and others to inspect the individual cases, obtaining missing documentation, and switching to proper licenses as far as possible. It is correct that this is long overdue and many of these files cannot be kept at Commons but we shall follow proper procedure. I suggest that

all the speedy deleted files will be temporarily undeleted,
one or more deletion requests will be filed for them (it might be useful to group them into countries),
a proper deadline will be set (I suggest one or two months), and
all uploaders will be notified and all will be invited (possibly through the village pump and the other forums) such that we have plenty of opportunity to save what can be saved.

--AFBorchert (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

2 obvious points:

1. we need to track (& check/pay attention to) alterations in the permissions/licensing of files, & be able to differentiate between changes made by the uploader & changes made by 3rd parties (& reasons for each)

2. if a license tag is valid at the time of the original upload, then it should not cause the file to be nominated for deletion, if the tag is later deprecated/altered/eliminated/etc.

the only valid exception to this rule, that i can think of, would be if/when there is a change in the legal status of the file, i.e.: alterations in relevant copyright law.

otherwise such files should never be deleted for this reason!

the fact that this is being done would seem to constitute a fairly major bug/flaw/loophole in commons procedures.

Lx 121 (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Support suggestion by AFBorchert -- if there are admins willing to set it up and follow through. What's important is, after all, not that images are to be deleted, but that copyright violations are to be deleted and all other useful material kept. Now Zscout brought attention to the issue so it should be possible to resolve in the way suggested by AFBorchert.

Fred J (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Laszlo - Archbishop Dr. Cosmo Lang.jpg

13:24, 22 July 2009 Kameraad Pjotr (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Laszlo - Archbishop Dr. Cosmo Lang.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation: this painting was published in The Art of Philip de László: An Appreciation; Apollo, July 1933, p. 16.[3]
Have I missed a new policy? Couldn't find a deletion request with details. Mutter Erde 92.230.107.14 20:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Painting from 1932, British artist, died in 1937. Now public domain in the UK, but still copyrighted in the U.S. (until 2028). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What?? Is this one of these incomprehensible URAA things? Just ignore such complications -

Support. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What's incomprehensible about "the US doesn't have the rule of the shorter term"?--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} made for such cases? --Túrelio (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was just noting it. I'm not an admin, so I didn't delete it, and I don't know the true reasoning. For what it's worth, I would be much more inclined to delete URAA-restored works like novels and paintings than I would photographs... those typically carry much more financial value, and for a much longer period of time. The URAA is still the law. The image probably should not have been speedied, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The complete reason for deletion was (as quoted from the image page) this painting was published in The Art of Philip de László: An Appreciation; Apollo, July 1933, p. 16.[4] As stated at http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, any work published abroad during 1923 to 1977 that does not fall into public domain in its country of origin by 1 Jan 1996 receives 95 years of copyright protection in the US. László died in 1937; hence, his works are protected in the UK until 2008 (1937 + 70 + 1), which means his work are still copyrighted in the UK on 1 Jan 1996. Therefore, the US copyrights for this work lasts till 1933 + 95 + 1 = 2029. and this is from my point of view a clear copyvio which can be speedy deleted. Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 13:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it is probably not a good idea to speedy-delete URAA-restored-only problems (i.e. works which are PD in their country of origin), but rather go through a regular DR instead. It is at least possible that it was simultaneously published in the U.S., meaning it would not be eligible for restoration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No reason for a speedydelete, see another Laszlo work: Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2008/05#Image:Philip_Alexius_de_Laszlo-Princess_Elizabeth_of_York.2C_Currently_Queen_Elizabeth_II_of_England.2C1933.jpg Mutter Erde 78.55.212.242 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Vals

Please undelete this category. It was removed without discussion. -- User:Docu at 13:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was removed to force people to use another cat when they use JavaScript categorisation. IMHO it is a good idea. ~ bayo or talk 19:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that it was done to "force people", but simply because an administrator disagrees with someone, he/she can't use admin tools and delete categories. -- User:Docu at 19:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Drawing_in_Domus_Galilaeae_church.jpg

The file was deleted based on a false interpretation by Pieter Kuiper of the Israeli law. In several occasions he asked whether 2D works are covered by the FOP principle in its Israeli version. In all of these occasions he was answered: yes. The answers came from people who are well acquainted with the Israeli law, one of them is an Israeli lawyer. Pieter Kuiper, on the other hand, is not a lawyer, never visited Israel, and speaks no word in Hebrew. His interpretation is based upon machine translations of parliamentary hearings that have no relevancy to this case. No other user or admin asked to delete this file, and there is no one who is acquainted with the Israeli law ever contested the legitimacy of this image of images of its kind. Drork (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drawing in Domus Galilaeae church.jpg. It is not just my interpretation of Israeli law. It is the interpretation of Tamir Afori, the expert of the Israeli Ministry of Justice, the person who had drafted to the text of the 2007 law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper is the one who initiated the deletion request, so his objection to the undeletion is quite obvious. Pieter Kuiper does not know who Tamir Afori nor does he know his position. He based his request on a few words said in Hebrew during an Israeli parliamentary hearing. Mr. Kuiper does not speak Hebrew, nor is he acquainted with the procedures of the Israeli parliament. While his document retrieval qualifications are admirable, I'm afraid his findings here are absolutely irrelevant, as often happens when searching in a language which one does not understand. Drork (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the undeletion request, I would like to elaborate why I ended up with a decision to delete this image. I am not an expert in Israel copyright law nor do I claim to be one. In consequence, I do not attempt to judge the ongoing debate at COM:FOP whether 2D works are covered in Israel or not. All, I can see, is that there is currently no consensus regarding this point. This is best documented by the recent edit war. Given this and the quite long period (nearly half a year) this DR waited to be closed, I followed the precautionary principle and decided to delete it to be on the safe side on copyright law. I suggest to postpone this undeletion request until we can be sure whether this is covered by FOP or not. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no ground for a precautionary measure whatsoever. No one acted against any law, and no one complaint about copyvio. There was one single user who raised a question about the Israeli FOP rule. He was answered properly, and yet he decided to keep the debate alive and bring more and more irrelevant information. Even when this information was properly addressed, he wasn't satisfied, opened more deletion requests and started an edit war on the FOP information page. You decided to delete the image based on his unreliable opinion, and didn't notice that he was the person leading the edit war. Mistakes happen to all of us, but now, given this information, a correction of your mistake would be very much appreciated. Drork (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Support per Drork--Mbz1 (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per Commons:Licensing, all works are considered unfree for Commons unless a specific exemption (copyright expired, FOP, etc) applies. There is *no specific exemption* for 2D works in Israel, only one that you could imply as applying. This work is unfree unless proven otherwise. -Nard the Bard 16:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. There is such exemption. What else do you want me to say? Do you want the Commons' admins become Israeli legislators? Drork (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am now Neutral. I originally opposed 2d FOP in Israel because it seemed to have only one very vocal proponent and nobody else spoke for it but it appears other voices have joined in support. I am not certain anymore. -Nard the Bard 13:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Support per per Drork. Clearly the Admin who deleted this image was mislead by Pieter Kuiper false claims. It is not his fault of course, but the action must be reverted. Kooritza (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Palace of Parliament - Bucharest - Romania.jpg

I am requesting that the following image, which in my view was incorrectly deleted owing to a questionable interpretation of Romanian copyright law, be restored to Wikimedia Commons.

File:Palace of Parliament - Bucharest - Romania.jpg

Hmm. The deletion request is still open although the image has been deleted -- maybe the admin just forgot. I'm not sure the interpretation was questionable -- Romania, like many countries in the region, has a non-commercial restriction on photos of still-copyrighted public sculpture and works of architecture, I'm pretty sure -- i.e. the author of the pictured object still controls the economic rights of the photograph, which makes it invalid for the photographer to license it without a non-commercial restriction. Article 86(1) reinforces this: The right of the author of a photographic work to exploit his own work shall not prejudice the rights of the author of the artistic work reproduced in the photographic work. However, this is a *government* building, mostly built during the 80s, designed and built by the Ceauşescu regime... not sure there was an architect's copyright to begin with. If anything, the copyright would now be owned by the state. Deletion does feel a bit extreme in this particular case, though (unfortunately) not with most modern buildings being photographed there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Killiondude also deleted a bunch of related files at same time (Partial list: File:Palatul-parlamentului-SW-angle.jpg, File:Palace of the Parliament.jpg, File:The grand hall in the second largest building in the world.jpg, File:Unirii Boulevard (1.May 1986).jpg, File:Bukarest Parlament.jpg, File:Palatul Parlamentului Saal.jpg, File:Palatul Parlamentului Deckenleuchter (geändert).JPG, File:PalaceParliament, Bucharest.jpg, File:Bukarest1.jpg, File:Palace balcany Unirii view.jpg, File:Bucuresti palatul parlamentului inside 02.jpg, File:Bucuresti palatul parlamentului inside 01.jpg, File:Boulevard Unirii.jpg).

I think at minimum File:Unirii Boulevard (1.May 1986).jpg, File:Palace balcany Unirii view.jpg and File:Boulevard Unirii.jpg should be restored - the main subject of those images is not the Palace. The images of the palace depend on interpretation of FOP. I'm guessing that Killiondude deleted these images without reference to the DR (and may not have been aware of its existence). Further images I think are questionable: File:Bucuresti fantana.jpg, File:Unirii Boulevard and Palace of the Parliament.JPG, File:Palace of the Parliament-balcony-20040801.JPG, File:Boulevard Unirii 2007.jpg, File:Bucuresti palatul parlamentului view.jpg and File:Palais du Peuple depuis la Piata Unirii.jpg. The last of these is of a fountain - not sure if fountains can receive copyright protection. There are also a load of duplicate images in the ones I have listed.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with undeleting. But maybe we could then change the wording that's currently used for the Romanian section on COM:FOP. My understanding from reading that was that 3D works of art and "applied art" are only allowed non-commercial work, and that's only if it isn't the main focus of the image "(i.e. the images are very free at all). I only have a few minutes to reply, so I won't have time to undelete until later. Somebody can start in the meantime if they'd like. Killiondude (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-commercial only applies if it is the main subject of the work -- otherwise photos are always fine. I can't see the deleted photos, so I don't know if they are completely out of line -- probably not. Romania does have non-commercial FOP... the only issue is the copyrightability of this particular subject. They should perhaps go through regular DRs (as the nominated-for-undeletion one was at the time). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Majority of deleted images are straightforward images of the palace (equivalent those at to w:Palace of the Parliament#Picture gallery). Clearly it is the main subject the question is if its copyrighted which IMO is a matter for DR. I've restored the ones that do not have the palace as the main subject.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Duo-Zikr.jpg

Undelete file File:Duo-Zikr.jpg please. The owner is using Free Creative Commons license now (attribution, noncommercial, share alike). See the link with photogallery Zikr gallery and the signs in the left lower part of the screen. Oleksiyv (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

We still couldn't accept it; the "noncommercial" restriction is against policy (see Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses). Files licensed CC-BY or CC-BY-SA are fine (i.e. the attribution and share alike restrictions are OK). However, CC licenses with "ND" or "NC" in them are not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:TSLS.jpg

File copyrighted (copyright violation: Nintendo character)

Eh, hello? This is my own image!! If the star is Luigi, what image will i put down? Besides, this is a plush! A Luigi plush! I took it myself, its supposed to be an image for the series!

Homsar Walker 14:57, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

It's a derivative work. The plush is copyrighted, and taking a picture of it doesn't give you the right to release the image under a free license. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so, if this is a shot from The Super Luigi Show, is that a completly diffrent copyright? 1. Its not just any ordinary picture, its a screenshot from a certain show. 2. I own the show. 3. The original Luigi Wikipedia page has a Luigi image; and THATS not copyright?

What if i took a picture of every character in the show? In one big picture; am I breaking over 7 diffrent copyrights? Homsar Walker 15:36, December 8, 2009 (UTC) Homsar Walker (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC) "Waaah! Im a song from the 60's!"

Wikipedia allows fair use (ie copyrighted) images. We do not. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

But to get an image on Wikipedia, I need to upload it here! User:Homsar Walker 16:47, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

what do you mean you own the show? -Nard the Bard 04:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Untitled by Daniel Buren.png

First, I protest that a file uploaded by an established editor with a plausible license was deleted without notification. Second, this drawing, consisting of 4 green rectangles[5] is ineligible for copyright protection. Period. We host dozens of Category:Flags that are more complex under the same license tag. Daniel Buren's entire Untitled work with all 5 sheets is perhaps copyrighted but this single sheet is not eligible for protection. -Nard the Bard 04:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Virginia_Hey_0323_by_Sheldon_Pax.jpeg

Deleted per this request. No proof the requester is actually the Flickr user, and personality rights do not apply to public figures, so they cannot request files of them be deleted from Wikipedia. Finally, Creative Commons licenses are not revocable. Actually, the photo *still* has a free license at Flickr -Nard the Bard 04:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 関連項目

Commons:削除撤回依頼