Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UNDEL)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:UNDEL · COM:UR · COM:UD · COM:DRV

Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎italiano • ‎magyar • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎svenska • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎پښتو • ‎中文 • ‎日本語

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Contents

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

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.

Appealing a deletion

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.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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.

Projects that accept fair use

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

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: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File: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. Watch your request's section for updates.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch View Edit

Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Formosa_loves_river

They're all original built upon NASA's material under public domain. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per the points I given in this discussion--Cohaf (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I am sorry, I still don't find your point justifiable. Wikimedia Projects are not democracy or literally a place to vote. Best. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 17:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We are not democracy, but providing a clear proof that uploaded content is copyright-free of freely licensed is up to uploader. Per COM:PCP if doubts cannot be resolved, we cannot host the images. No direct link to a NASA source provided nor an evidence that content from sinica.edu.tw is free. "版權所有 © 2008-2019 QGIS" is not a free license declaration, but a copyright claim. Educational only use also does not mean free. Ankry (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
"資料來源:

Release of ASTER GDEM Version 2 (ASTER GDEM官網)"

"Source:

Release of ASTER GDEM Version 2 (ASTER GDEM's official website)"

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 03:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

JPL Image Use Policy:

Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. Publishers who wish to have authorization may print this page and retain it for their records; JPL does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis.

By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees:

  • that Caltech makes no representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images, and does not represent others who may claim to be authors or owners of copyright of any of the images, and makes no warranties as to the quality of the images. Caltech shall not be responsible for any loss or expenses resulting from the use of the images, and you release and hold Caltech harmless from all liability arising from such use.
  • to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech."
  • that the endorsement of any product or service by Caltech, JPL or NASA must not be claimed or implied.

I will add the text that "work based on raw black&white data Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech." upon the recovery of the deleted photos.

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 11:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Cohaf, Yann: Should you guys have any question in regard to the copyright explanation above, please let me know. Best. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 11:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per information provided above. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Nope, the above is still not enough. We don't have the original pictures the derivatives is being produced and unless we have it, we cannot know that it is from this source. The special cases also stated that there can be images on the website not covered, so we can't be sure. It's still dubious licensing. --Cohaf (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. I'm observing this whole discussion on several pages, and here is how it looks to me: People are trying to find any potential way to view these files as a form of copyright violation, they do not find any reason, and after that they say "This must be an unknown unknown". Are you saying that you want to see a list of images that were used? If so this is just reasonable enough. My concern is that the "delete" side is actually not stating what is needed here, only vaguely hinting at it. @It's gonna be awesome: Could you please provide links to images that were used? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 12:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes @Gone Postal:. I need to see the actual files. Now they are obtained from a webpage which obviously the webpage is copyrighted. They claimed it is from NASA which in the discussion in Yann talkpage, I note that NASA have a clause that forbids commercial use without explicit permission. The commercial user needs to ask for permission each time they use the files. I supposed it is the same as per derivatives. We just can't host it here. There are a few issues: 1. The clear photo should be given. 2. The NASA clause needs to be resolved (which I offered them to host the files locally at zhwp). 3. Per COM:PCP, I am just taking due precautions. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
          • If all the data come from NASA, then the files can be accepted, but it is not clear to me if that's really the case. All content produced by NASA is in the public domain. File:Landform of Formosa.png was reuploaded. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
            • @Yann, Cohaf: I produced the final colorful images based on a raw B&W image of ASTER GDEM linked from the educational website hosted by Academica Sinica of Taiwanese Government. Please feel free to let me if you have any question. Regards. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 13:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is the raw B&W image embedded in the educational website's example, as you can see that's the northern part of Taiwan. I followed the steps taught by the website to download the complete raw B&W image of Taiwan as a whole. Afterward, I started off the work from a raw B&W image of Taiwan. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 13:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO there are 3 separate issues: 1. the license of the source data; 2. What material was used to produce these maps? 3. Does using the data to produce a new map OK? If the data is just geographical coordinates, I am not sure there can be a copyright on them. Regards, Yann (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  1. The license of the source data:
  • Source:
Release of ASTER GDEM Version 2 (ASTER GDEM's official website)"
  1. What material was used to produce these maps?
  • A raw B&W data of ASTER GDEM
  1. Does using the data to produce a new map OK?
  • Yes, otherwise the educational website, directly operated by the highest rank of academic institution in Taiwan supported by Taiwanese Government, wouldn't teach people to produce without prior warning.
  • Per JPL Image Use Policy, it's okay to use the data to produce a new map.

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 04:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • IMO you confuse several things: 1. ASTER GDEM Version 2 doesn't seem to be a free license, 2. raw data is not "black and white" as you wrote, raw data is numbers. 3. "educational website" doesn't mean that it is covered by a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Firstly,

JPL Image Use Policy:

Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. Publishers who wish to have authorization may print this page and retain it for their records; JPL does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis.

By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees:

  • that Caltech makes no representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images, and does not represent others who may claim to be authors or owners of copyright of any of the images, and makes no warranties as to the quality of the images. Caltech shall not be responsible for any loss or expenses resulting from the use of the images, and you release and hold Caltech harmless from all liability arising from such use.
  • to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech."
  • that the endorsement of any product or service by Caltech, JPL or NASA must not be claimed or implied.

Secondly, I started off upon a simple non-visible black and white picture of Taiwan of ASTER GDEM.
Lastly, I would like to emphasize that I learned the abstract knowledge rather than just copied the physical proprietary objects from the educational website.

--It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 04:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

ASTER GDEM does seem to have a free license -- if it's even copyrightable to begin with. It sounds like the GDEM data is the result of automated processing over the raw data[1], and it's given out freely. There does not seem to be any restrictions on what you can do with it (that was not always the case, but seems to be today). The raw data does seem to be photos taken by a NASA satellite using a Japanese instrument. I have no idea if there is any real aiming of the camera or if it just continually takes pictures. But even presuming there might have been a copyright, it would seem the data is being released freely with no restrictions, as is common with NASA efforts (even joint ones with non-PD-USGov entities). Other than pretty extreme theoretical areas, I don't see a real reason to doubt they are free. PD-USGov-NASA may be the most convenient license. I am not sure if the process used added any expression, so not sure if the license should just be that of the original, or whether the user needs to license their efforts as well. But leaning Symbol support vote.svg Support on this if the only real question is the license of the ASTER data. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your clear insight. I would say this is the point. The legitimacy of the license of the ASTER data is the thing they want to confirm. Respectfully yours. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 05:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Put it in a nutshell: I got an ASTER data. Afterward, I processed the ASTER data to make it colorful and visible using the knowledge learned from the educational website. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 05:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
版權所有 (All rights reserved); Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unless It's gonna be awesome may make the website source clarify (澄清, or correct 更正) the "original source" is/to be free use. If It's gonna be awesome can really make it, please notice me, and I would appreciate that. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 03:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
"All rights reserved" says nothing about if it's free or not -- it is the same thing as a copyright notice. The owner reserves the rights, then licenses them with a free license. The copyright notice was for the U.S. and later the Universal Copyright Convention; "All rights reserved" was for the Buenos Aires Convention, so people tended to use both together and continue to do so. It does not contradict any license given for that copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sanmosa: I learned the knowledge from the educational website to process the ASTER data to make it colorful and visible. --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 16:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the files can be kept. Raw data's licence is ok and this user's calim of own work has not been refuted.--Roy17 (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

File:King Kong (illustration).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file was speedy deleted as derivative. King Kong is not in general copyrighted, if so, then the derivative can not fall under this copyright because it is simply a gorilla without originality (s. w:King_Kong#Legal_rights). However, in the deletion reasoning is the comparison to the alleged original missing, since the author claims he did not use a protected material.[2] (request by User:A1Cafel) -- User: Perhelion 20:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info "Copyright (C) 1976 Dico De Laurentis Corporation. All Rights Reserved" on the image. Ankry (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Also previous undeletion discussion. Ankry (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Then it's time to reconsider again, because this is a false claim.
  • Reason for the first decline was mainly "out of scope": "Aside from the entirely correct reasons given above, these are also personal art from non notable artist, therefore out of scope."
    Aside the first part of (Jims/the) explanation is fully unclear or ambiguous in the context.
    Even OOS is not a speedy deletion reason, it is absolutely disputable, as he is a notable artist in well known in certain circles. Google hits for his name (in quotation marks): 19.200
  • It's a derivative? No, until there is evidence given for the imaginary original picture.
    To be more pragmatic open: The "Dico De Laurentis Corporation" can't have the copyright on all gorilla pictures on the world.
    The first movie (all his "basic ingredients", plot and characters) are public domain.[3]
    Beside: The here shown gorilla looks clear more like the old version (not DDL).
  • w:King Kong #Legal rights' judgment states this:
    "The courts ruling noted that the name, title, and character of Kong no longer signified a single source of origin so exclusive trademark rights were impossible."
    Even the trademark rights are not relevant for us.
-- User: Perhelion 09:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Nobody says that "Dico De Laurentis Corporation" owns copyright "on all gorilla pictures on the world". The clause is on this particular image. And to consider it invalid, we should have (IMO) clear information from the author why it was placed there. Maybe, it is an artistic effect, maybe it is work for hire, or maybe, the artist considered this work just a derivative of some copyrighted work so the clause was preserved. Ankry (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Isologotipo NPP.png

File:Isologotipo NPP.png tiene permisos suficientes para estas en Commons: por favor revisar https://www.nuestraprimerapagina.org/difusion/ Ese isologotipo tiene licencia CC BY-SA por parte de su propietario (Asoc. Civil Nuestra Primera Pagina)

Gracias desde ya por reincorporar el archivo.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpablo78 (talk • contribs)
@Jpablo78: please sign your messages.
The server hosting the abovementioned page does not work and the license was not reviewed by a license reviewer. Any other evidence of free license? If no, COM:OTRS permission is needed. Ankry (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Still not working for me. But this may be some general problem with the target site network: it is not available. Can some admin from outside of Europe check the site and the mentioned license? Ankry (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Paintings by artists who have been dead for more than 70 years

These files are all photographs of paintings by artists who have been dead for more than 70 years. They were deleted because in one person's opinion, they were probably published somewhere.

The possibilities are:

  • Never published, therefore public domain
  • First published after 12/31/2004. 70 years pma, therefore public domain (They all died 1948 or earlier)
  • First published before 3/2/1989, no notice or registration, therefore public domain
  • First published from March 2, 1989 through 2002, still under copyright

It is reasonable to ignore the very small possibility that the last case applies. The facts are exactly the same as for the file, File: Mujer con flores by Alfredo Ramos Martínez, c 1932.jpg, which was undeleted by James Woodward, and I am quoting some of his reasoning. In fact, the original deletion requests are word-for-word identical. Wmpearl (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Taivo, Prosfilaes, Jameslwoodward: some users that were related to the deletion / undeletion of the images mentioned here.
Personally, I must say, that I generally agree with Taivo's DR closing sentence that we need some evidence that the images were not published in the specified period, i.e. taking some effort to find such publications. No evidence that such effort has been taken or even intended, especially as it is impossible to make such investigations en masse. I would support such a request only if the sentence almost no painting of these artists was published between 1989 and 2002 can be considered true. But this needs at least some query in libraries and/or among auction catalogues. Ankry (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I've seen absolutely no evidence that they had no notice or registration. No one has checked the Copyright Registrations and Renewals for registrations or renewals for any of these works. I've seen no evidence that it wasn't published in some book with notice, registration and renewals if necessary, which is much harder to search for.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Although the size of the images makes it difficult to be certain in some cases, I have looked at all of them and I see no notice on any of them. Without notice, registration is irrelevant except if the copyright owner made an effort to add notice to the work.
Therefore, only the last case might apply and, as I said in the related DR, that seems unlikely -- that a work of a long dead painter would be first published during that relatively short period. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The famous photo of a naked girl having been napalmed in Vietnam also doesn't have a copyright notice on it. There is no requirement that copyright notices be watermarked into the photo or painting. Particularly if it was published in a book, books virtually always place copyright notices on the back of the title page or an extension elsewhere, both distant from the actual visual work. Even if they were placed below the photo of the painting, it still wouldn't be in the body of the painting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Zaigham Imam at Cannes Film Festival.jpg Zaigham Imam at first look launch of Nakkash at Cannes film Festival 2018

Dear Sir/Madam

This is in context of deleting a file
File:Zaigham Imam at Cannes Film Festival.jpg
Zaigham Imam at first look launch of Nakkash at Cannes film Festival 2018
for copyright violation for the following reason: https://www.india.com/hindi-news/entertainment-hindi/nakkash-released-in-cannes-film-festival.

In this regard i would like to claim that i own the copyright of this image, and hereby declare that this is originally clicked by me and my PR agency sent it to various media house including www.india.com for promotional activities. We have proof for the same. If www.india.com claims any copy right on the disputed image. we can take legal action against them, Thus i would request you to kindly cancel the deletion and restore the image as edited.

Regards --Shibli Anwer (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Shibli Anwer

@Shibli Anwer: It is irrelevant whether www.india.com claims copyright to the image or not. Due to our rules, we cannot accept on-wiki license declaration if the image was earlier available to public (legally or not). The copyright holder needs to follow COM:OTRS instructions in such cases. Ankry (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Ankry (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

c:File:Nakkash Cast at The Premiere.jpg

Dear Sir/Madam This is in context of deleting a file [[c:File:Nakkash Cast at The Premiere.jpg]] for copyright violation for the following reason: m.dailyhunt.in/news/africa/english/bollyy-epaper-bolyy/bollywood+celebs+attend+special+screening+of+film+nakkash-newsid-117724506).

In this regard I would like to claim that I own the copyright of this image, and hereby declare that this is originally clicked by me and my PR agency sent it to various media house including dailyhunt.in, for promotional activities. We have proof for the same. If dailyhunt.in claims any copy right on the disputed image, we can take legal action against them, Therefore, I would request you to kindly cancel the deletion and restore the image as edited.

Please make such declaration at the initial image publication site or follow COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done no evidence of free license declaration at the image initial publication site provided. Ankry (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:JeannieOakesNEPC.jpg.jpg - have permission from NEPC at CU (Kevin.Welner@colorado.edu)

Please restore photo. Approved by NEPC. Silverda (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Silverda: free license permissions should be provided following COM:OTRS instructions if they are not public. No other way.
BTW, is the person notable? I see no Wikipedia article the photo can be used in. Generally, unused low resolution photos are considered out of scope and cannot be hosted here. Ankry (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Lasch, Wächter, Frank, Fischer, Zörner.jpg

File's dating and permission had been fixed prior to deletion. Skjoldbro (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: No, it was not. You declared, that the photo author (Bauer) donated his copyright to Public Domain providing no evidence for this. Moreover, it is not clear whether such declaration can be considered valid in Polish or German legal system. Ankry (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: No, I corrected the permission of the file to say the Polish National Archives released it to the public domain, as it was from the Kraków-Warszawa Press publishing house. Skjoldbro (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If I remember well it's not the first time that the general permission of the Polish National Archives has been challenged (especially by me) since some German works (deleted since) have been mixed with real Polish works in this website. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Skjoldbro: You have used {{PD-author}} claiming that the PD status was granted by the author, who is Bauer. The attribution for NAC you used here is irrelevant. We have no evidence that Polish National Archive have copyright to the photo and how can they become the copyright holder. We only know that the photo originates from Wydawnictwo Prasowe Kraków-Warszawa (publishing company) which likely inherited it from some earlier entity, which already disappeared. While it is possible that Bauer had some copyright transfer contract with some older publishing company or that his copyright to the photo was nationalized by Polish government after war, we have no evidence for any of that. Note, that we have even no evidence that its country of origin (country of initial publication) was Poland which is the only case to apply Polish copyright law in Wikimedia Commons. Also note, that if the publication by NAC (in 2016?) was the first publication of the photo, US copyright applies to the photo directly, independently of its copyright status in Poland, and unless we can provide a copyright transfer contract evidence, it belongs to the author (Bauer) and lasts 70 years since his death or 120 years since the photo creation (2065) if the death date of the photographer is not known. Ankry (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Terje Norum 1.jpg

This is not a facebook photo. I took it myself, edited it and sent it to myself via my messenger to get it out on wikipedia. I know Terje Norum personally.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trompet-Tonje (talk • contribs) 20:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Trompet-Tonje: Metadata shows that it was taken from facebook, and not directly from your camera. Any evidence of free licence at its facebook page? Facebook photos are not free by default and we cannot accept on-wiki licence declaration if the photo was published earlier elsewhere. Ankry (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Terje Norum.jpg

This is not a facebook photo. I took it myself, edited it and sent it to myself via my messenger to get it out on wikipedia. I know Terje Norum personally.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trompet-Tonje (talk • contribs) 20:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


This is not a facebook photo. I took it myself, edited it and sent it to myself via my messenger to get it out on wikipedia. I know Terje Norum personally.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trompet-Tonje (talk • contribs) 20:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Trompet-Tonje: Hi, if you are Norwegian read this site no:Wikipedia:OTRS. It's important that the photographer or license holder of the image clear it as a Creative Commons license, by sending an email. - Premeditated (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Pos-dem.jpg da ripristinare

Salve,

non riesco a caricare un frame del film Possessione Demoniaca di cui detengo ogni diritto, chi vi scrive ne è l'autore. Come posso fare? Potete aiutarmi?

--Alessio Nencioni (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to send a free license permission to our OTRS system. Please follow COM:OTRS/it instructions. Ankry (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:02019 1015 (2) Nationalisten abgeklebte SLD-Wahlplakat.jpg File:02019 1014 (2) Konfederacja, Graffitti.jpg File:DSC 1012 (2) Polling place in Złote Łany.jpg

1. FOPː #Permanent_vs_temporary - "Even quickly decaying works can thus be "permanent" and therefore be subject to freedom of panorama. Street paintings, ice, sand, or snow sculptures rarely last more than a few days or weeks. If they're left in public space for their natural lifetime, they are considered "permanent" all the same." - the election posters are definitely designed to last till the election day thus they can be considered as placed there till the end of their life cycle - ie. permanently. 2. Election posters are of Utility objects nature and ephemeric ːEphemera thus not copyrighted 3. Anyway, they are too simple to be copyrightedː do not meet Threshold_of_originality In addition, at least one of them illustrated situation of proximity of electoral propaganda and the polling boot - not possible without picturing the poster itself. --Oo91 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Election posters are not "quickly decaying works" because of their nature, but they are required by law to be removed after election. So I see no way to consider them permanent. Ankry (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, while the text of them may be considered free, the photos and the party logos are definitely over ToO. Ankry (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Konventkapelle Dominkannerinnenkloster.jpg

File:Konventkapelle Dominkannerinnenkloster.jpg

Das Bild :File:Konventkapelle Dominkannerinnenkloster.jpg


Für das Bild liegt die Lizenzfreigabe durch den verantwortlichen Fotografen Michael Heinrich via Email vor: Guten Morgen,



Am 25. August 2019 um 23:19 schrieb Michael Heinrich <XXXXX>:

Guten Morgen,

kein Problem, ich bin ja selbst Alumni von Herrnn Gebhard….


Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Michael Heinrich Fotografie für Architekten Hachinger Bach 27 81671 München www.mhfa.de XXXXXX


Am 25.08.2019 um 18:06 schrieb Nils Fröhling <XXXXXXX>: Guten Tag,

am Lehrstuhl für Städtische Architektur, Prof. Fink der TU München wird gegenwärtig der Wikipedia Artikel für den 2015 verstorbenen Architekten und ehem. Professoren Helmut Gebhard angefertigt. Für diesen würden wir sehr gerne ein Bild der Konventkapelle im Dominikanerinnenkloster Diesen am Amersee (1988-1993) verwenden. Wie dem Buch "Helmut Gebhard - Bauten und Forschung" zu entnehmen ist, liegen die dazugehörigen Bildrechte bei Ihnen. Das Bild, um das es sich handelt habe ich Ihnen an diese Mail angehängt und möchte mich erkundigen, ob Sie einer Veröffentlichung dieses Bildes auf der Wikipedia-Seite von Helmut Gebhard zustimmen würden.

Viele Grüße

Nils Fröhling

TUM Technische Universität München Technical University of Munich Fakultät für Architektur Faculty of Architecture Lehrstuhl für Städtische Architektur Chair of Urban Architecture Univ.-Prof. Dietrich Fink

Arcisstraße 21 D - 80333 München

Tel. +49 (0)89. XXXXXXX Fax +49 (0)89. 289. 22464

<Konventkapelle.jpg>

--LSA-TUM (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@LSA-TUM: Neither a permission "to use" nor "no problem" is a free license. Also this page is not intended for email (or any other) permission verification. The photographer should follow COM:OTRS/de instructions in order to undelete the photo. Ankry (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Jason_Njoku.jpg

This photo was taken by myself and shared with Jason Njoku to use on his social profiles. He’s given me explicit permission to upload to Wikimedia (and thus allow unlimited usage by anyone) so it can be added to this Wikipedia page.

Matteocuellar (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Matteocuellar: If it was shared, you cannot grant license on-wiki. You can either refer to a free license you granted earlier on another site of follow COM:OTRS instructions. Ankry (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Матусовский А. А..png

Данная фотография является авторской, метаданные в ней отсутствуют по простой причине - это снимок из видеозаписи (авторской)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvontash (talk • contribs) 14:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gvontash: Uploading TV screeenshots and claiming to be their original author makes your other declarations unreliable. Please contact COM:OTRS/ru provideing a writen free license permission and proving that you are the author of the original video. Ankry (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Miss Martinique - Concours Miss West Indies - 2003 - Audrey POMIER FLOBINUS.jpg

Bonjour,

Merci de bien vouloir procédé à la restauration de cette photo car un courrier du Dr. Audrey POMIER FLOBINUS, d'autorisation des droits d'auteurs à été envoyé à l'OTRS ce jour, par moi et par elle.

Bien cordialement.

LIONS CLUB 972 16.10.2019

Hello,

Thank you kindly proceeded to the restoration of this photo because a letter from Dr. Audrey POMIER FLOBINUS, authorization of copyright was sent to the OTRS today, by me and by her.

Best regards.

LIONS CLUB 972

16/10/2019

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LIONS CLUB 972 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@LIONS CLUB 972: The image will be restored automatically, when the permission is verified and accepted. Please note that this work is done by volunteers and we have large backlog. Ankry (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Audrey POMIER FLOBINUS.jpg

Bonjour,

Merci de bien vouloir procédé à la restauration de cette photo car un courrier du Dr. Audrey POMIER FLOBINUS, d'autorisation des droits d'auteurs à été envoyé à l'OTRS ce jour, par moi et par elle.

Bien cordialement.

LIONS CLUB 972 16.10.2019


Hello,

Thank you kindly proceeded to the restoration of this photo because a letter from Dr. Audrey POMIER FLOBINUS, authorization of copyright was sent to the OTRS today, by me and by her.

Best regards.

LIONS CLUB 972

16/10/2019
— Preceding unsigned comment added by LIONS CLUB 972 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 Not done Procedural close, file is not deleted, nothing to undelete. Thuresson (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Audrey POMIER FLOBINUS égérie Yves-Michel BARCLAY.jpg

Hello,

Thank you kindly proceeded to the restoration of this photo because a letter from Dr. Audrey POMIER FLOBINUS, authorization of copyright was sent to the OTRS today, by me and by her.

Best regards.

LIONS CLUB 972

16/10/2019

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LIONS CLUB 972 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@LIONS CLUB 972: The image will be restored automatically, when the permission is verified and accepted. Please note that this work is done by volunteers and we have large backlog. Ankry (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

File:GoergeCClerk.png

A low-re camera was used to take photos of the original hard copies
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandymotownie (talk • contribs) 18:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:GCClerk.png

A low-re camera was used to take photos of the original hard copies
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandymotownie (talk • contribs) 18:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Rose Akua Ampofo.png

A low-re camera was used to take photos of the original hard copies
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandymotownie (talk • contribs) 18:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kandymotownie: Please sign your messages.
You need to prove that the original photos were made by you. Otherwise you violate copyright claiming that they are yours. Ankry (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done procedural closure: images not deleted, yet. Ankry (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Jyrkin kuva.jpg

The referred person Jyrki Lappi-Seppälä has given the photograph at my disposal for the intended purpose of the Wikipedia article about him and assures that the copyright of the picture belongs to himself. The reason why the same picture (in uncropped format) is found from https://www.kirkkojakaupunki.fi/-/kirjallisuuden-kaantaminen-on-kuin-soittaisi-nuoteista is because a Finnish publishing company "Into" has used it with Jyrki Lappi-Seppälä's permission as an illustration and as advertising material for autobiography of the referred person. Jyrki Lappi-Seppälä: "Tuulimyllyjä päin" (Into 2013).--Jumilase (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jumilase: Why did you claim that you are the photographer if you are not? In order to undelete the photo we need a free license from the photographer or an evidence that copyright has been transferred (eg a copy of the copyright transfer contract). Ankry (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: I'm a new user to Wikipedia, this is my first article ever. However, I don't recall claiming that I am the photographer but rather that I have the right to use the photograph. I have received the photo and permission to use it for this purpose directly from the referred person on email. How would you qualify me to to produce this evidence? --Jumilase (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

anita infobox.jpg

Hi!

I am not an expert. And I am quite new to this wikipedia thing. I wanted to make an article about polish politican Anita Sowińska. I got approved by her and she let me use some photos. All of them were banned. What should and/or can do to unban them? Maybe I should talk to the author of those images and ask them do write me an approval?

I don't know so I would appreciate your answer.

Thanks in advance,

Invinoveritas123

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Invinoveritas123 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

22:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC) I read other undeletion request so I guess I have to get an approval - evidence or free license. O K. So here's the second question. Where and should I upload it? So it won't get "lost" and will be connected to this particular case?

Invinoveritas123, 00:33 17/10/2019

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Invinoveritas123 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Alex diamant.Jpg

Je détiens les droits sur cette image. Le site sur laquelle vous l'avez trouvée a visiblement violé les droits d'auteurs.

Merci de restaurer l'image. 😉

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysp1980 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Female pop singer-songwriters

Category is no longer empty and should be restored. feminist (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Feminist: did you take a look at Category:Female singer-songwriters? :-) Lotje (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)