From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:削除撤回依頼)
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 33% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Undeletion requests and have to be approved by a translation administrator.


Other languages:
العربية • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎中文

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。

このページはウィキペディアの一部ではありません。 ウィキペディアや他のウィキメディアのプロジェクト群において用いられるフリーのメディア・ファイルの保管庫であるウィキメディア・コモンズの内容についてのページです。ウィキメディア・コモンズは百科事典記事を提供しません。 英語版ウィキペディアにおける記事やその他の内容の削除撤回の要請は、削除のレビュー(deletion review)にて行ってください。(同様に日本語版ウィキペディアの記事等においてはWikipedia:削除の復帰依頼を利用して下さい。)


始めに, 削除記録(deletion log)を確認し、ファイルが削除された理由を見つけ出して下さい。 リンク元(What links here)を参照し、削除されたファイルについて、どのような議論があったかを確認して下さい。もし、あなたがアップロードしたファイルであれば、あなたの議論(トーク)ページに削除についての説明があるはずです。 次に、削除の方針プロジェクトの守備範囲及びライセンシングを再度確認し、コモンズにおいて、そのファイルが許容されるかどうかの理由を見出してください。

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.


Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.


Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.


Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.


First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • In the Subject/headline: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:Image:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.


Watch Edit

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

File:O'Hara, Maureen.jpg

I did some research on this picture, and found a lot of sites say it was taken in 1940.

This means it is over 70 years old and is a free picture in almost every country, including Ireland. It should be undeleted and given the {{PD-Old}} template. --Steverci (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That is not at all correct. In almost all countries, including Ireland, an image is under copyright for seventy years after the death of the photographer. A 1940 work might be PD today, if the photographer died within four years after taking it, but it is unlikely. As a general rule, we use 1885 as a cutoff date for assuming that the photographer has been dead for seventy years. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Update I have been discussing the location of the photo on Wikipedia's help desk, and we came to the conclusion it was made in the United States by studio RKO. This would make it free under PD-US-no notice, just like a lot of her other photos here. --Steverci (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You can't conclude that the image was published without notice just because a print of the photograph doesn't have it. The law did not require that individual prints have notice if they were being sent to newspapers or other users that would print them covered by the publication's general notice. Wire service photos and photographs taken by newspaper staff never had notice on the images themselves. The same could well be true of this -- certainly beyond our standard of proof -- significant doubt. In order to restore it, you will have to show that it was published without notice, as that word is used in the 1909 law. Merely having a print wihtout notice proves nothing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If a physical print was sent to a newspaper, then yes that print needed a copyright notice. That act right there was most likely publication, regardless if it was later published in the newspaper. A publicity print sent to several newspapers would be published. But, we do like to have some actual evidence of that. I do see a copy here which does seem to show it existed as a separate print some time ago, but it often helps to see the back as well -- that would probably have been an OK spot for a copyright notice on a publicity print. It feels pretty likely this is a PD publicity image, but I'm not sure we have the evidence. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question If we can't prove that there was a copyright notice, could we prove that it was not renewed? Yann (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Probably, but who wants to slog through two years of printed copyright renewals -- the renewal would be from before the beginning of the computer searchable database. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. 12 days and still no evidence to support any of the PD rationales proposed. Time to close this one. LX (talk, contribs) 18:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done : Nothing to demonstrate PD status. Green Giant (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Presidential Standard of Sri Lanka (Maithripala Sirisena).svg

Once again this flag has been improperly deleted. The flag was created by the uploader (User:Prez001) and we know this because any images provided by the Sri Lankan government are of too poor a resolution to have been simply copied. The symbol in the centre and the border are PD-ineligible and basic geometry. There is only ONE element on this flag that is above COM:TOO and because of the poor resolution of the government images, Prez001 HAD to create it themselves. This file of the flag IS NOT copyrighted, and the nominator themselves also admitted they do not claim that it is, siply they feel that the "own work" license was inappropriate and that the Government of Sri Lanka should have been properly attributed. This qualifies for immediate undeletion. Fry1989 eh? 17:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to spell it out for everyone, here is why this file is not copyrighted. This is the image with the highest resolution available from the Government of Sri Lanka. This is the symbol in the centre and it qualifies under basic geometry. It is too simple as it is just 5 concentric rings. The 4 leaves in each corner don't even need mention because they are from the national flag. The only thing left is the border which consists of two parts which I have highlighted with an arrow. This part again qualifies as basic geometry, it's just 5 rectangles. The only remaining part that is above TOO and therefore copyrightable is this part. However, this part is not the same as on the Government image. Here is Prez001's version, but if you zoom the resolution on the Government's image you can see it is different. The only copyrightable part of this flag is not the same on Prez001's file as it is on the Government image, and it never could have been because the resolution is so poor that Prez001 had to create it themselves as everyone can see. That makes this image Prez001's own work. They hold the rights to their image, they have the right to release it, and this file is not a copyright violation. Fry1989 eh? 17:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The labored narrative addressing the numerous elements present actually demonstrates why the DR was closed correctly. Indeed, the above is essentially analogous to arguing that because individual letters and words are not copyrightable, poems, stories and other literature ought not to be copyrightable. This, of course, is nonsense. The selection, combination and arrangement of elements--even if they are individually ineligible for copyright--can give rise to sufficient originality in the aggregate/combined work. For example: "the designs are protected in their entirety because it is the combination of elements that is copyrighted. The combinations of the common elements have resulted in designs that are original and protected in their entirety." (Yurman Design, Inc. v. Golden Treasure Imps., Inc., 275 F. 2d 506, 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)) See also the bottom of page 10 here. Frankly, I don't even buy that the floral symbol in the center is below the TOO. It certainly is not a "common geometric" shape as contemplated by the Copyright Act (see page 9). Эlcobbola talk 19:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It absolutely is too simple, it's concentric geometry that any idiot with a protractor or a spirograph could draw. There is nothing copyrightable about Prez001's file except for the floral part in the border and Prez001's version is completely different. Prez001 drew this themselves, this is their work. The same principle applies to coats of arms on Commons, you draw it yourself then it's your own work. This isn't a copy of the flag from the Sri Lankan Government because the resolutions of their images of this flag are absolute junk. Fry1989 eh? 19:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
And anyone with a ruler, like Piet Mondriaan, could create this, which had a copyright before it expired due to time. Copyright law does not care about ease, labor intensity, or tools but about originality - which the flag certainly has. The uploader himself acknowledged an attempt to copy: "I came across the image from the presidency site. and i proceeded to recreate that image" [1] To the extent there are differences in the uploaded version, the COM:DW does not dissolve the copyright of the base work. When you were notifying the admin who previously restored the file (through merely because it was improperly speedied)[2] and the file's author [3], you seem to have missed @Obi2canibe: and @Taivo:. I've corrected the oversight for you. Эlcobbola talk 19:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually copyright DOES care about ease, that's the entire point of originality. The more unoriginal and simple something is, the easier it is to create. You also know quite well that "re-create" does not mean the same thing as "copy". We have thousands of flags and coats of arms that are "re-creations" but not "copies". As for notification, I shall notify whoever I wish and how I wish. If you're trying to accuse me of canvassing, you'll have a tough time since I used neutral language and only notified 2 users who have a direct relation to this matter. The flag may be copyrighted, but Prez001's version most certainly is not. DW only means anything if the original work is is a copyright violation, the only elements that Prez001 derived their work from are too simple and basic geometry, the complicated bit is completely different. Fry1989 eh? 20:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the COM:TOO entry for various countries, you can see copyright refused for many images that are more complex than the flower symbol in the centre of this flag. File:Best Western logo.svg and File:Jeff Ho logo.png for example do not use simple repeating geometry. There is no question the flower symbol is not copyrightable. In fact, nothing on this flag is copyrightable and the flag as a whole would not be considered copyrightable save for the flowery thing in the border. if it wasn't on the flag, the flag would be here right now. As I've already shown, Prez001's re-creation of that flowery thing is completely different. Their file does not violate the original. Fry1989 eh? 20:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me explain this in a more simple way. This would not be considered copyrightable, if the flag was just that design and it went through a DR it would be kept. The border is just rectangles, and the flower symbol in the centre is basic geometry. It's no different than the many roundels we host on Commons. Concentric rings are not complicated enough to be copyrighted, and just because these have 8 edges instead of perfect circles isn't enough of a difference because it is still a basic simple repetitious pattern. The leaves again don't matter, they're from the national flag. The ONLY thing on this flag that raises it above the threshold of originality and makes it copyrighted/able, is not the same design on Prez001's image as on the Government of Sri Lanka's image. Therefore is is not a violation. Prez001 drew his own flower border, his own design, he has the rights to it. It's not a DW, it's not a copy, it's not a violation. Fry1989 eh? 01:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to governmental flags, the basic design is almost never considered copyrighted (same with seals). We generally are only concerned about straight copying of files, or if there is a complex figure, copying/tracing that specific representation (since many representations are probably possible). This argument basically says we cannot have any representations of flags or seals where the basic design could be considered under copyright (even though they are typically always PD-EdictGov at the very least). I don't buy it. An SVG is already not a straight copy, and (from what I can see on the Google cache) I think this is a legitimate SVG representation from the specific JPG representation on the website. Basically, I don't think the general "selection and arrangement" copyright is really applicable to governmental flags and seals. That is getting into copyright paranoia territory for me -- has there ever been a lawsuit about such items? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Would you add that as a support, than?
Really the issue here has been argued dozens of times over coats of arms on Commons, and the result has ALWAYS come out that if you drew it yourself without exacly copying or tracing the image in question then it's free. This argument could easily also apply to the images I uploaded last night. Is File:Banner of the Lord Lyon King of Arms.svg copyrightable? Absolutely yes it is copyrightable. However, my version is not, because the only copyrightable part (which is the lion badge) was drawn by Sodacan as a free element, and the rest of the flag sans the lion would not be considered copyrighted. The same applies to this presidential standard. Fry1989 eh? 16:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question Any other opinions here? Yann (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Clearly not, but I'm not letting this one go. This is Prez001's work and they have a right to release it. Fry1989 eh? 16:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
So is this going to be undeleted the proper way or do I have to upload it again myself? Because I absolutely will. Fry1989 eh? 16:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Just be patience and if you reupload the file you likeley end up blocked. You know that right? Given your really ucivil comments in this discussion I don't find it strange that there are no more opinions given. But if you want more opinions, I agree with Elcobbola. Natuur12 (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I have said absolutely nothing uncivil regarding this matter and I know what I'm talking about. I have discussed this flag entirely on it's merits, but it's no surprise to me that you would try to make this about something it's not. You know what I'm talking about. So either give a link or quote about my supposed "uncivil comments in this discussion", or go away. Fry1989 eh? 17:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
No I don't know what you are talking about but if you insist: Once again this flag has been improperly deleted. (suggestive), it's concentric geometry that any idiot with a protractor or a spirograph could draw. (rude language), As for notification, I shall notify whoever I wish and how I wish. If you're trying to accuse me of canvassing, you'll have a tough time since I used neutral language and only notified 2 users who have a direct relation to this matter. (suggestive and assume bad faith), So is this going to be undeleted the proper way or do I have to upload it again myself? Because I absolutely will (making empty threats). The entire tone of your comments is quite hostile I'm afraid. Natuur12 (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
OH please you're grasping at straws. "Improperly deleted", well as I disagree with the deletion OBVIOUSLY I think it was improper to have been deleted! "Something any idiot can draw", that's not directed at any person or user, it's a figure of speech describing the simplicity of the element in question (ie: anybody could do it). The canvassing inference, that's absolutely right, I reserve my right to notify who and how I wish and it was obvious that I was being accused of canvassing which I was not. If you don't think I notified the right users or enough users than do it yourself but don't accuse me of canvassing without solid ground for that accusation. Notifying only 2 users is a far far way away from canvassing. As for my last comment, I have waited long enough, I am absolutely right and sound in my arguments and if it is not undeleted than I shall upload it again (multiple times if necessary). This work is free, whether the original is copyrighted or not is of no consequence. Fry1989 eh? 18:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
And I'm telling you, if you re-upload the file you probably end up blocked. Natuur12 (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
And I'm telling YOU this work is free. Don't think I won't exhaust every opportunity I have at restoring it. If File:Banner of the Lord Lyon King of Arms.svg can be on Commons, so can Prez001's work. Just try to have my file deleted, there's no arguments that can be made, I drew the flag, Sodocan drew the lion, so even if the original flag is copyrighted my file is not. The exact same principle applies to Prez001's file, they drew it themselves, and in particular they drew the copyrightable parts themselves independent of the original work and therefore it is not a copy and therefore is not a violation. If you have real arguments for why you think the flag shouldn't be restored, instead of accusing me of incivility because you don't like my manner of saying "anybody can do it", lay them out instead of this ad hominem "you're hostile, so nobody wants to listen to you even if you're right" which isn't how things work here. We delete and undelete things on their merits, and the merits for this flag being free are solid. Might I also remind you even the nominator themselves admitted they don't think it's a copyright violation, their problem was with attribution. Fry1989 eh? 18:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm still waiting. Fry1989 eh? 17:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm still waiting. Fry1989 eh? 17:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm still waiting. I'm only giving this 3 weeks, that is patience enough. Fry1989 eh? 17:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is right on the edge. I have great respect for both Эlcobbola and Carl. Эlcobbola's argument is good, but the problem here is that most of the flag is PD, so, as Fry so forcefully and unpleasantly argues, it's difficult to make the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts" argument. I am, therefore, inclined to go with Carl and support undeletion. Although his comment about lawsuits skirts PRP, I think it's a valid comment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done as per above. Yann (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Youra Livchitz (1917-1944).jpg

new default illustration on fr:WP

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The license was changed, no discussion, unfair use of the tools i'm affraid Madelgarius (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"Changing the license" didn't address the issues I raised in the deletion nomination. Let's try this again:
  • What research have you done to show that the photographer was anonymous? (Finding a photo on Google and not bothering to look into who created it isn't the same as the photographer being anonymous.)
  • Content on Commons needs to be free not just in the source country, but in the United States as well. Can you show that this photograph is in the public domain in the United States?
LX (talk, contribs) 15:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I made researches and find nothing... Anonymous-EU is not enough ?... You already gave your sympathetic (pathetic?) opinion. I answered, you did not reply, not fair. Other advises? --Madelgarius (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I've told you what's needed, and no, you didn't answer those points. LX (talk, contribs) 16:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
United-States? for illustrating Wikipedia in french? There's not known photographer for this picture... But may be you know things i do not. Or you are a white knight? A pity I can't tell you what I think about this in french... It would be more precise. Mais je peux te parler dans ma langue au fond, toi tu ne t'inquiètes pas de me parler dans une langue que tu sais ne pas être la mienne, à me parler des droits d'une photo aux états-unis, j'ignorais que commons était uniquement assujettie au droit américain. Cette photo est du domaine public en Europe. Je te dis que je n'ai trouvé aucune information concernant le photographe. Cette personne est un héros de la seconde guerre mondiale et des ayants-droit, s'il s'en trouvent, ne trouveraient rien à redire à l'usage qui est fait de cette photographie. Après, tu fais la leçon, tout ça... C'est contre-productif, tu surjoues, et c'est pour tout dire un peu pitoyable. Après cette salve pas davantage sympathique que les tiennes, seras-tu néanmoins disposé à restaurer cette image dont l'unique prétention est d'illustrer un article sur fr:WP? Ou ton rôle (celui que tu estimes être le tien) sur commons est supérieur à cette noble vélléité? --Madelgarius (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Jag hoppas att du inte förväntar dig att få någon mer hjälp, för det lär du inte få med den attityden. Inte av mig i alla fall. LX (talk, contribs) 17:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
C'est pourquoi je demande d'autres avis... --Madelgarius (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In order to use an "anonymous" license on a French work, you must show that the author was, in fact, never disclosed. His merely being unknown to you is nowhere near sufficient. The "anonymous" tag is very hard to prove. Also note that the copyright for a work that is proven to qualify for an "anonymous" tag runs for 70 years from first publication, so you also have to prove that the image was published before 1945. If you cannot prove that, then we must assume it is still under copyright.
I must also warn you that ad hominem attacks, such as you have made in several places here and the DR may get you blocked. We have a low tolerance for inexperienced editors who come here and attack Users who have made more than 100,000 contributions to Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure you will apologize this unexperimented fellow (after 4 years of contributions here I still keep in mind the purpose of all this). The first license provided was PD-old which bothered LX, I change it into Anonymous-EU. Because, no photographer can be found, and because Youra Livchitz was killed by the germans in februari 1944 after the attack of the XXth convoy of the deportation. We can reasonably think that this picture were published for the first time at that time in the clandestine press and in septembre 1944 in the first hours of the liberation. You apply strictly and in a non collaborative way rules to a 220px picture... It was preferable for all to let this photography in the "grey zone" because no author can be found, because no one could be offenced by the fact we used this picture for illustrating purpose on such an article and finally because Youra Livchitz died more than 70 years ago and we have a "devoir de mémoire" about that. You pretend to apply rules, you have thousands of contributions which allow you to do so... Others are unexperimented contributors... And during your journey you forgot your destination. Sad. --Madelgarius (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Please do not try to tell me what my goal is. In this case, my goal is to enforce the laws of France and the policies of Commons. It is up to you to prove beyond a significant doubt that either the author intended to be anonymous or that the image was actually published before 1945. You have done neither. In fact, you yourself admit that this falls in "the grey zone". You have also suggested that we break one of our most basic polices, see COM:PRP #4. Finally, again, you make an ad hominem attack. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes "grey zone" which is not binary on/off. No attack at all in this last commentary, I certainly not agree with your position. That's all. --Madelgarius (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done : No evidence for anonymous authorship. Green Giant (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Sheikh Hasina and Shinzo Abe 2014.jpg

The picture is copyrighted but the Japanese Prime Minister's Office allows it to be used for under its six Use of Content conditions specified here. --Merchant of Asia (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The page which you cite explicitly says at point #2 that material on the web site may be copyrighted by others and that the terms there do not apply to that material. In order to have this restored, you must show that the Japanese government actually owns the copyright to this image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The source page explicitly states that the content is under the copyright of the Japanese government: "Copyright© Cabinet Public Relations Office, Cabinet Secretariat."--Merchant of Asia (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it says that the page as a whole is copyrighted by the Japanese Government. That does not preclude there being items on the page for which other people hold individual copyrights. Point #2, which I cited above, explicitly recognizes that. For an example closer to home (my home, at least), please see which has a copyright notice at the bottom "© 2015 NY Times Co", just as the site which you mention does. The copyright to the image, however, is held by me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Point# 2 applies to work for which they provide third party copyright information, like in the case of the website you cited with your work. In my case they haven't and going by their copyright policy, the work is eligible for use in Commons.--Merchant of Asia (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Dona Lucilia Corrêa de Oliveira e marido, foto de noivado.jpg

The photo was already with author/date/country of creation information as requested, but nevertheless someone deleted it.--P.P.Pyres (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You cannot simply slap anything in the file description and expect it to be satisfactory. You claimed that you were the photographer of this 1896 image. I think I can safely say that that is actually impossible, not merely extremely unlikely. In order to have this image restored you must prove one of two things
a) Who the actual photographer was and that he died more than 70 years ago, or
b) That the actual photographer chose to remain anonymous and that the image was published more than 70 years ago. Note that simply not knowing who the photographer was is not sufficient -- you must prove that he intended to remain anonymous. Note also that if Commons was the first publication of the image, then it will be under copyright for 70 years from now.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
This is from Brazil. We don't need a proof that it was published. So I think a 1896 picture is OK. I don't think we have sufficient doubt that it is still under a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
First, this was their engagement photo -- a formal studio portrait, so the photographer was certainly known to the subjects and was, therefore, not anonymous. Second, according to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Brazil, the rule is "70 years counted from the first of January of the year following that of the first publication", so I don't see how we can ignore the fact that this probably came from a family album and has never been published. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Jim, this does not make sense. A photographer is always known for someone, but this doesn't change the fact, that his name was certainly never recorded anywhere, and is therefore unknown to all legal sense of the term. It seems quite clear that the copyright expired 70 years after it was taken (or even shorter? what was the law at that time?). Yann (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. In English, at least, anonymous means that the author made a deliberate attempt to be unknown. That's certainly possible for many photo-journalists, but much less so, as I argue here, for portrait photographers. The photographer may or may not be unknown, but he can't be anonymous.
You say, "his name was certainly never recorded anywhere" -- how do you know that? For all we know, his name is on the back of the photograph.
I also don't understand why you think that Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Brazil is wrong about the copyright period for anonymous works. It certainly seems very clear that anonymous works stay under copyright for 70 years after first publication. That's not unusual -- the same rule applies in France, Germany, and many other countries. In the USA it's 95 years after first publication or 120 years from creation, so this work certainly would be under copyright here if it were first published here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think "a deliberate attempt to be unknown" is an accurate description of anonymous publication, at least for old documents. In most cases, the photographer was not mentioned because he is not supposed to get any reward except an one-time payment (work for hire). For working on old documents on Commons for the last 10 years, I know that for many old pictures, the name of the photographer was not recorded anywhere. I don't think it improves anything to request impossible requirements, completely disconnected to the real life situation. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think you're right on the edge of COM:PRP #4. However, even granting you that, how do you get around the fact that as far as we know its first publication was this year and, therefore, under Brazilian law it will be under copyright until 2085? Of course, arguably, since its first publication is on Commons, in the USA, its copyright will run for 120 years from creation, until 1/1/2017. That's closer, but still 20 months from now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The law does say that the economic right is owned by the publisher in the anonymous situation though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Sukima switch-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg

The user who deleted this image (and who knows how many others of mine??) put the deletion notice on my main page not my talk page so I had no idea this was being deleted. That's crafty and evil. It was deleted for copyright violation? But that's nuts. I took the picture myself with these hands I type now. I'm quite annoyed at this user [4] who followed a deletion request from a brand new user. What the heck. Steamed, Nesnad (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if your work was deleted in error. I see that more than 50 of your uploaded files have been deleted.[5] Are they all your own work? Have you uploaded any other images that you took about the same time as this image, around December 2011, with the DMC-FX60 camera that was used to take this image? Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
My goodness. FIFTY of my files? What is going on here? Yes, I've used a Lumix for years (different models different years though), those are all my own images and why are they being deleted? Is it carelessness or some vendetta against me or something? That's all that has been deleted? But 50? I'm speechless! Can I see a list (your link can't be viewed on my permissions level, and even if you restore them I need to be able to go relink etc)? Even if they are restored the countless pages that used my images need to be relinked and everything, that's quite depressing and demotivating. None the less, I strongly protest those deletions (not even getting notice about those files is such a burn too, what's going on?) and request them to be restored ASAP. Nesnad (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the 50 deletions Walter Siegmund mentioned refers to recent deletions, but rather the total number. Given the time you've been here and the number of uploads you have made, that's not a huge amount, and it looks like a lot of it was at your own request, removal of duplicates, cleanup after file moves and other routine maintenance. If you browse through your log 500 entries at a time, you'll see a few red links, and if you click on those, you'll see the reasons for deletion. I also think you were notified of the vast majority (possibly all) of these deletions. To answer Wsiegmund's question about other uploads around the same timeframe taken with a DMC-FX60 more specifically, I see a whole bunch, e.g. File:Kaihin-makuhari-station2011.jpg, File:Asian Kung-Fu Generation-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Rhymester-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Chara-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Chatmonchy-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Thecro-magnons-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Denkigroove-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg and File:Posumon-hongkong-allcontents.jpg.
It would be interesting to know what the evidence for the supposed copyright violation was. I see that the user who nominated it for deletion has been indefinitely blocked on Japanese Wikipedia for vandalism. Based on automatic translation of ja:Special:Diff/54466755, it sounds like they had opinions about house rules on photography not being followed, but that's a matter between the photographer and the venue and not a reason for deletion from Commons. My prima facie inclination is to Symbol support vote.svg support undeletion. LX (talk, contribs) 19:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for looking into this, LX. The more than 50 deletions are of more than 2000 files uploaded since 2005.[6] They include successful deletion nominations by Nesnad. I understand now that the deleted files list must be used with care to judge the quality of an editor's contributions. I'm sorry I didn't realize you needed special permission to view the deleted files list. I don't know why that is required. Besides the images you list, File:Three Kingdoms Wu - funeral urn.jpg was taken 27 October 2010 in Tokyo with the DMC-FX60 camera. Given the above, including the information about the nominator, I support undeletion. Nesnad, I'm sorry this happened. Please save a permanent link to this discussion so you can reference it if you need to. Thanks, Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
LX, and Wsiegmund, I also thought it meant 50 of my images were recently deleted. Yes, I have asked for some of my own to be deleted in the past. Also didn't know about FOP about certain robot statues and what not in the past and got those deleted. But I clearly remember that funeral urn, and if I remember correctly it shouldn't be deleted either. (And any others from that outing, was the Japanese Wikipedia troll hitting those too?) I can't look through my long list of uploads easily, so if there are others taken with a DMC (there are other DMC models I used, been using Lumix forever) that didn't have a deletion discussion that I was notified about, then they were most likely wrongfully deleted especially if they are tagged copyvio, because I either have public domain or my own images on Commons. It's freaky to think that the Japanese Wikipedia user was that insane to go after my files here on Commons, I'm hoping this sort of thing is an isolated situation and look forward to my files being restored. Once again, is there any way you could list them here or somewhere so I can go back and try to relink any that were deleted and thus unlinked, etc? Thank you both a bunch, cheers, Nesnad (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC) EDIT: Wait, did I read that wrong? The only file that wasn't self requested or just deleted because of FOP rules etc was this Sukima Switch picture? If so, that means no major task to relink, woohoo! I'll now somewhat look at my past uploads with a paranoid eye though...! Nesnad (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The Sukima Switch picture seems to be your only DMC photo not self-requested or deleted because of FOP rules. I don't see any other deletion of DMC photos. I looked at files uploaded in June 2010 and later. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Restored 2. Anything else to do? Yann (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:X'treme GH.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015022010002277). --Mdann52talk to me! 18:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

On hold. Let's wait for the response. Ankry (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


i request to undelete the file entitled File:Mathukkutty.jpg since it is refered to the page 'Mathukkutty keecheriyi' as profile picture. Kindly undo the deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaiden eipen (talk • contribs) 08:33, 26 April 2015‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That is not a reason to restore the image. It was deleted because it is small and had no EXIF, so the two Admins involved believed that it was taken from somewhere without permission. If it is actually your own work, please upload it again at full camera resolution. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


I have received written permission from Brandon Miles and Hannah Colleen, the two individuals who make up the band Crunk Witch, and who's likeness appears in the photo. I have an email directly from them with this permission. I have included a screenshot of the email. Please let me know a good email address to send it to and I will forward the actual email to you.

--Ahughes33 (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Hughes

Ahughes33, in most cases the rights holder is the photographer, not the people who appear in the photo. The exception is if the rights have been transfered to the band members.
In either case, the rights holder should contact us directly with the form letter at COM:CONSENT (the e-mail address is on that page). Please ask the rights holder to identify the original name of the file as uploaded here. Anon126 ( ) 19:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


Je vous confirme que j'ai la propriété de ce fichier se référant à une image prise par moi (par mon appareil Sony Cybershot que j'utilisais à l'époque) le 30 mai 2011. J'ai plusieurs fois prouvé que j'en étais le légitime propriétaire, mais sans résultats. J'ai aussi remplacé l'image précédente par une pareille mais à plus haute définition, mais rien. J'ai envoyé le code pour demander un OTRS permission, mais toujours rien. Je me sens privé d'un droit réel. Merci de m'avoir écouté, --Ugo Mazzoli (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If you have sent a free license to OTRS, it will be restored after the license is checked. OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and is badly understaffed. As a result, they run a backlog that may be more than a month. Please be patient and wait for your request to come to the head of the queue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


The file has been marked as a possible copyright violation. The text of the file and the picture however are made by myself and are not copied from another source. It's therefor free content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roblito1 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 April 2015‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose?? The file was uploaded by User:Roblito1. Its file description claims that it is an image of Marc Schuilenburg and that the photographer was also Marc Schuilenburg. It's not a selfie, so that is probably not correct. The images has a watermark "(c) Foto Mats van Soolingen", and the EXIF calls out "(c) All rights reserved). I think we need a little more explanation, please, as there are at least three conflicting items here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Escola Garcia Fossas (1937).jpg

Prior to deleting the file, can we have a discussion please? As far as I know, there has been no discussion. I want to check what license was used, etc.--Jordiferrer (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see on Google Cache, it came from this PDF (1937 photo of a school) and was marked PD-Old. I presume that is Spain photo, where anonymous works should be protected for 80 years from publication, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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


Deleted wrongly.

Stdesai (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

??? There has never been a file on Commons with that name. You have not uploaded any files -- or, indeed, done anything on Commons other than the comment above, so there is no alternative way to trace the file. Also, "Deleted wrongly" is not a reason we should undelete a file. You must give us both a valid file name and a reason why you think the deletion was wrong. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing the file in question is File:TrikamlalDesai.jpg, which was uploaded by User:Trdyellow, used in en:T R Desai (which was created by User:Yellowpanthertiger) and deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/File:TrikamlalDesai.jpg. Since it was in use, deletion on Commons:Project scope grounds may not have been correct. I am, however, a bit curious as to why the uploader feels the need to use so many different accounts. LX (talk, contribs) 12:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I have blocked User:Stdesai as a Likely sock of User:Trdyellow. User:Yellowpanthertiger has no edits on Commons, so I can't checkuser it, but it appears likely to be related. Given the names involved, the WP:EN article is likely a violation of WP:EN's conflict of interest policy. While we are not here to police WP:EN, we don't need to help violators of sister projects' rules, so I would not restore this image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Vladislav Bajac, Studio Babic.jpg

The author of the photo, Nebojsa Babic,gave me the right to publish it on Wikipedia. --Miawka (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "the right to publish it on Wikipedia" is insufficient. Images on Commons and WP must be free for all uses, including commercial use. Since you are not the actual photographer, he or she must send a free license to OTRS. When that is reviewed, which may take a month or more, the image will be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Witold Szabłowski Polish journalist.jpg

It is lisensed free. I got author's permission to publish it on Wikipedia.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "permission to publish it on Wikipedia" is insufficient. Images on Commons and WP must be free for all uses, including commercial use. Since you are not the actual photographer, he or she must send a free license to OTRS. When that is reviewed, which may take a month or more, the image will be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Diabase Moiseikin.jpg

It received permission to OTRS. ticket:2015041510004334 --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Rugby Austria Logo.gif

Als Sprecherin des Österreichischen Rugby Verbands, der Rechteinhaber über das gelöschte Logo ist, verfüge ich über die Vollmacht, das Logo unter einer CC-Lizenz freizugeben, daher stelle ich den Antrag auf Wiederherstellung der Datei.

Beste Grüße Claudia Varga

Öffentlichkeitsarbeit Österreichischer Rugby Verband ZVR 710881028 c/o Dr. Robert Langer-Hansel Universitätsstraße 6/2, 1090 Wien

Mobil: +43 699 108 60 753 Email:

cloedvarga--Cloedvarga (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Summery mind Album logo Belonging 02.jpg

Ich habe alles, wirklich alles, den Richtlinien nach gemacht und so gehandelt, wie Wikipedia bzw. Wikimedia es von mir verlangt. Ich habe mir extra einen Mentor zugezogen und Fragen gestellt, wenn ich Fragen hatte. Ich finde es unfair! Einerseits benötigt man eine URL, die man dem Urheber zukommen lassen muss, wenn man nicht selbst Urheber des Bilds/Fotos/Datei ist, andererseits bekommt man binnen zehn Minuten eine "Ermahnung", daß die Regeln nicht eingehalten werden würden. Das ist doch ein Paradoxum! Das eine schließt das andere aus: Ich benötige eine Gehemigung des Urhebers, welcher mir die URL, die zu Wikimedia führt, bestätigt, daß das dort gezeigt Bild von ihm stammt und es dort verwenden werden darf. Aber bis zu dieser Genehmigung, darf es gar nicht auf Wikimedia gezeigt werden. Wie soll das zeitlich gehen???

Erklärt es mir, als sei ich ein fünfjähriges Kind!

Ich habe nach allen Regeln und Statuten Wikipedias gehandelt um eben NICHT diese Probleme zu haben. Ich habe da KEINE LUST drauf. Und dennoch kommt mir der Mist in die Quere... Das ärgert mich jetzt wirklich gewaltig und entzieht sich meinem an und für sich vernünftigen Geist.

Gruß --MattesKoeln (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)