Commons:Undeletion requests

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

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

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

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.

Commons deletion (policy)


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.

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.

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

Files uploaded by VoidWanderer

Several files of mine were deleted, and I have reasons why they should be restored.

1. I've received a permission by Pavel Netesov, the author of the Blokpost Pamyati exhibition {{PermissionOTRS|2018040410013134}}:

2. Large batch of files are exhibition plates, and are falling under {{PD-text}}, because simple geometrical shapes, logos and tiny pictures may not be considered as copyright violation:

“The depicted text is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it is not a “literary work” or other protected type in sense of the local copyright law. Facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface or basic handwriting, and simple geometric shapes are not protected by copyright.”

--VoidWanderer (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg 

Oppose
1) These must wait their turn at OTRS. When they reach the head of the queue there in about 50 days, if the license is acceptable they will be automatically restored.
2) I looked at about half of these and all of the ones I looked at have photographs and/or drawings which have copyrights and all have far more text then is necessary for a copyright. I don't see how we can restore them without a free license from the copyright holders. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward, all of the photos in a nomination are taken by me personally. OTRS ticket was aquired for the exhibition as a whole, not the pictures whose author I am already. So no one will mark them on OTRS queue, they're literally not queued.
Are you really saying exhibition plates that I took photo of are violating the copyrights? --VoidWanderer (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

1) I understood your comment to mean that the creator(s) of the works portrayed had sent a free license to OTRS. I have now looked at them, and in every case that will be required. In some cases, there are photographs, text, and other copyrighted works in the images, so the copyrights for those will also have to be freely licensed.

I do not understand "So no one will mark them on OTRS queue, they're literally not queued." OTRS Ticket 2018040410013134, which you cite above, is in the OTRS queue. It will be read and acted on by an OTRS volunteer when it reaches the head of the queue, which will be around June 1.

2) Yes. All of the images that I examined infringe on the copyrights for the drawings, photographs, and the texts shown in them. While I did not look at all of them, I doubt very much that any of them can be kept on Commons. This should not surprise you. Sealle, Christian Ferrer, and I, all experienced Commons Admins, all reached the same conclusion -- that they are all far above the threshold of originality anywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward, I mean how would those photos be possibly restored, if I have no guarantee OTRS Ticket even have those exact pictures mentioned? I suppose there's only the author's permission to take pictures of his exhibition. So I doubt volunteer will be even notified there're deleted photos that require to be restored. --VoidWanderer (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per Jim, if the permission is valid then the images will be automatically restored. When you take a photo of something then you own the copyright on your photo, that is true, but if the thing depicted is protected by copyright (which is the case as soon as there is creativity) then the copyright holder of the depicted thing has also some rights on the publication of your photo, and in such cases it is required that we have his permission to publish here the photos. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Ticket 2018040410013134 has permission for the Exhibition "Блокпост Пам'яті" from Pavel Netesov. It looks OK for me. But I do not know what pictures are from this exhibition.--Anatoliy (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Ahonc: You can restore the files and add the template {{OTRS received}} while you check which files have been authorised. I've left you a note in the ticket, and we can continue the discussion there. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 12:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:59832923@N02 -hastemplate:delete

It's probably better to see what comes from Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:huntingtontheatreco before we start deleting a few dozen randomly nominated files. I suspect File:Tristano and Matteo in The Miracle at Naples.jpg was actually https://www.flickr.com/photos/huntingtontheatreco/6762342679/ so this probably wasn't even a list of really obvious copyvios.

I've been meaning to organize that mess a bit, but was holding out to hear from the digital content manager from Huntington. - Alexis Jazz 23:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Photos of Wilson Cleveland

File:Wilson Cleveland Non-Transferrable Premiere.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is my own work. I am the author of this image and have noted CC-BY-SA 3.0 permissions in the description on both the Pro IMDB page (my account): https://pro.imdb.com/name/nm0166505/ and on my Flickr account: https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetemplifetv/26783817967/ Does this meet your requirements? Thank You. Wilsoncleveland (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I can confirm both licenses, but I'm not an IMDB Pro so I had to use https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0166505/mediaviewer/rm793714944.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Wilsoncleveland: It doesn't seem a selfie. The copyright holder of a photograph is the person who took the photograph, rather than a person who appears in it, unless the copyright is transferred by operation of law or contract. Can you please have the photographer send in a free license release for this image, or clarify how the copyright was transferred? --Ruthven (msg) 06:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ruthven: Thank you. This event had a camera that was operated by a small handheld remote control. Everyone who posed for photos took their own pictures. In this case, should the owner of the camera provide the release? Wilsoncleveland (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Wilsoncleveland: I see. Without bothering the owner of the camera, I think that the best course here is to proceed with the OTRS ticket (as written below) to undelete all the files together. Just please add this comment in the release, so that the oprerator that will answer you will not ask the same thing again. --Ruthven (msg) 05:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Ruthven: Done. Thanks so much for your help! Wilsoncleveland (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

NB: ticket:2018051810012974. --Ruthven (msg) 06:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Wilson Cleveland and Milo Ventimiglia on set.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is my own work. I am the author of this image and have noted CC-BY-SA 3.0 permissions in the description on both the Pro IMDB page (my account): https://pro.imdb.com/name/nm0166505/ and on my Flickr account: https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetemplifetv/12043571106/ I sent this image to Tim Ryan at TAR Productions for his blog. That post is here: https://tarproductions.com/5-realities-about-branded-entertainment-every-creator-should-know/ Does this meet your requirements? Thank You. Wilsoncleveland (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Also mostly confirmed via Flickr and IMDB, but: Can you get Tim Ryan to use a CC license? Who actually shot these photos?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I can talk to Tim. The TAR Productions copyright covers his entire site so he probably wont change that. Can I ask him to make this attribution in the caption? ©2014 Wilson Cleveland. CC-BY-SA 3.0. The photo was taken by Mark Rywelski. I hired him to take the photo. I own the files. Wilsoncleveland (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • @Wilsoncleveland: As before: the copyright holder of a photograph is the person who took the photograph, rather than a person who appears in it, unless the copyright is transferred by operation of law or contract. Can you please have the photographer send in a free license release for this image, or clarify how the copyright was transferred? --Ruthven (msg) 06:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Wilsoncleveland

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I hold the copyright for all of these images. They are stills and poster images from content I've created. I've licensed these images CC-BY-SA 3.0 and included those permissions in the captions on my IMDB Pro and Flickr Pro accounts. IMDB Pro and Flickr image links below for your convenience. Thank you.

File:Wilson Cleveland and Shannen Doherty in the Lifetime series Suite 7.jpghttps://pro.imdb.com/name/nm0166505/photos/#rmConst=rm1605847808

File:Wilson-cleveland-milo-ventimiglia-the-temp-life-season-5-law-and-lunch-order.jpg https://pro.imdb.com/name/nm0166505/photos/#rmConst=rm1705921280

File:The-temp-life-wikipedia-poster.jpg https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetemplifetv/26741544127/

File:Taryn-southern-sandeep-parikh-the-temp-life.jpg https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetemplifetv/26741544457/

File:Jaime-murray-eddie-mcclintock-suite-7-poster-image.jpg https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetemplifetv/39801586660/

File:Jaime Murray and Eddie McClintock in the web series Suite 7 distributed by Lifetime.jpg https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetemplifetv/39801588090/

File:Hartley Sawyer.jpg https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetemplifetv/15801687904/

File:Hartley-Sawyer-cup.jpg https://www.flickr.com/photos/thetemplifetv/16424178635/ Wilsoncleveland (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • For this sort of thing, we'll really need to go through the COM:OTRS process, where you email in a verification of identity. If you do this broadly enough, and establish whose account this is, you should only have to go through the OTRS process once, and can get permission that also lets this account upload your work in the future. Basically, you'll get a ticket number and that ticket can be put in a template you can use in the future.
  • Please understand, this is for protection of your rights, really the only way we can know that this Commons account is not someone impersonating you. We had a lot of times someone claimed to be a given designer or photographer and wasn't, which is why we initiated that system. - Jmabel ! talk 06:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I hadn't seen the discussion above when I wrote that; I've now combined sections. I still say that if you are going to do this at all often an OTRS ticket and a template is simplest. - Jmabel ! talk 06:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @Wilsoncleveland: I agree with the above. Please contact OTRS, they will deal with the undeletion, and please specify which photos you've taken yourself. --Ruthven (msg) 06:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Leap Year title poster.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I hold the copyright to this image. This is a series I created. I've licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0. Here is the link to the image on my IMDB Pro account with license permissions in the caption: https://pro.imdb.com/name/nm0166505/photos/#rmConst=rm3808054272 Wilsoncleveland (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Wilsoncleveland: We cannot base on information located on non-public pages, including pages that require loging in. Ankry (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: Of course. Sorry about that. Here's the image on my Flickr with permissions info: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8438/7910617948_ac225a94c8_n.jpg Will that work? Wilsoncleveland (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Fabriciofffs

These files were created and uploaded by Fabriciofffs (talk · contribs), who submitted them for an unspecified contest. When he repented, way past the 7 days grace, he started to falsify the licensing metadata of his own files, which eventually led to the deletion of some. Please restore all of his files with their original licensing terms.

Some shall also be marked with {{Published|small=yes|legal=no|url=https://www.viajali.com.br/motivos-para-conhecer-caverna-do-maroaga-e-gruta-da-judeia/|accessdate=3 May 2018}}

Kind regards, --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 16:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I've found some more: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fernando de Noronha 1.jpg, …2.jpg, …3.jpg, …5.jpg, …6.jpg, …9.jpg, …10.jpg, and …11.jpg. Att --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 16:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg  Support . I agree with @Usien6:. Apparently the user did not read properly the rules of contest, not won the prize and now wants to delete the photos. But, our licenses are very clear: "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.". EVinente (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@Usien6: Most, maybe all, of them contain copyright information that according to our rules should be explained via OTRS permission; see Commons:Deletion requests/Files_ uploaded by Fabriciofffs. Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose unless we get such a permission, which is unlikely. Ankry (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: "BELO HORIZONTE" is actually a Brazilian city. The sixth largest one, in fact. There was, more than obviously, a technical mishandling of metadata. All of his uploads were created by a single person: himself. Att --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 14:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I said the same about BELO HORIZONTE here, but Yann ignored me. @Usien6: please, link to Commons resources wherever possible. Wikipedia has too much publicity nowadays. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, there was some uncertainty, that's why I created a DR, and Jcb seems to agree, as he deleted the files. There were not many comments in the DR. More opinions would be useful. Now if there is a (near) consensus that this was a technical mishandling of metadata, as Usien6 suggests above, I am fine with restoration. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: I see you have administrator rights and should therefore be able to inspect deleted files. Would you mind checking if any of the aforementioned photos were taken by either a Canon/Canon PowerShot SX50 HS or a SONY/DSC-H55 ?? Thank you so much, --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 13:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Usien6: I checked 2 of them. There is no mention of a camera in EXIF data. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Thank you for your support !! I could not understand your last two sentences, though, as English is not my mother tongue … Kind regards, --Usien6 (talk · contribs) 13:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Atle r s (talk · contribs)

@Atle r s, Jameslwoodward: Back in 2013, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Atle r s was closed as Delete, because the source page, http://atle.no/?p=1421 was marked Creative Commons Non-commercial, and Atle r s couldn't prove he was the Atle of http://atle.no. A mere 5 years later, I found another one of Atle r s's files, and opened Commons:Deletion requests/File:SynnøveMacodyLund.jpg on basically the same principle - in response to which Atle change the license on his pages - all his pages - to CC-BY-SA! So not only do we get to save File:SynnøveMacodyLund.jpg but we can undelete the other files as well.

Also, if some knowledgeable person can find a template to mark User:Atle r s as having been verified as the Atle of http://atle.no, we can avoid possible future misunderstandings. --GRuban (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The file File:Lasse-lehre.jpg is not published at atle.no, in fact according to the image description the photo is from www.hoyre.no. I can't find the photo there today. Thuresson (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Not having the mop, I can't see the deleted images. Is the other image at least from and on atle.no? --GRuban (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
✓  Done File:Forfatter Stig Sæterbakken.jpeg, but am unclear about File:Lasse-lehre.jpg, which as Thuresson noted, is credited to Høyre. I appreciate that it is reasonably likely that Atle r s was the photographer, but given he credited it to Høyre, I'd be more comfortable with OTRS confirmation. Likewise, marking his user page as OTRS confirmed would require actual OTRS confirmation. Storkk (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of the Republic of Ararat.png

Hello. Can you restore this logo that belonged to the organization en:Xoybûn (1927). I myself had sourced with a source dating from the 1930s. This request and the deletion seems incomprehensible to me. Thanks.--Ghybu (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose - per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of the Republic of Ararat.png - Jcb (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@user:Jcb: Have you looked at the sources that I added? I think this logo has been removed regardless of the sources. We are told that there is no source but there are sources--Ghybu (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but I am not impressed. These 'sources' seem to support the concerns of E4024 rather than contradicting them. Jcb (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
These sources (for example: (1928), 1930 "Publication de la ligue national kurde de Hoybun" (n°2 and 6) - These are writings published by the organization Xoybûn in the 20s and 30s and we see this logo) attests to the existence and veracity of this logo. I am told there is no source and I show sources to prove otherwise. But I'm not trying to impress anyone. I'm just saying this organization is encyclopedic and it has many pages on Wikipedia. And if there is no copyright problem I do not see why we could not download this 30s logo on Commons.--Ghybu (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Ps:The name of this page was different when I added sources (this page was a redirect). I am for restoration under the other name (File:Logo of the Hoyboon Organization.png) and the deletion of it.--Ghybu (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "This request and the deletion seems incomprehensible to me." Subtract "and the deletion" from there and I also sign your sentence. You are telling us that the image was not what it said it was but you're surprised that... Surprised of what? That at some point of time one of the so many baseless information given to WP users for years hit a wall? Will someone apologize for fooling millions of readers for such a long time? I believe we should discuss these things more profoundly in Commons. If we do that once, people will think twice before uploading whatever they wish to our pages and use them the way they wish afterwards. Please let us all not try to help "make" history; but help "tell" it, objectively, to the people who trust WMF projects as a source of information. Image files in Commons are not an exception. --E4024 (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Do not play the candid, I spent time correcting and sourcing this image; in spite of that you still supported the deletion . A request for deletion that can also serve to clarify some points but in this case you have ignored the changes made. This image in the form that I saw and let should not be deleted., that's why I made a request for restoration. I remind you that we are on a wiki and there is also a discussion page that can be used for corrections concerning the informations.
As for your neutrality, your sweet words and your posture of lesson givers seen your passive I do not believe too much. I think it's a camouflage to get your own POV. And in terms of deceiving people you are well-versed:
See cross-wiki on Kurdish and Armenian Genocide articles: [1] (es), [2] (en), [3] (fr) and on ca.wikipedia ([4] and [5]).--Ghybu (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I am a quite "objective" user (and I appreciate it more than being so-called neutral) and in this case happy to have made some users go to search things, it always makes you learn. Now do you feel better informed about some part of history? Good. No need to thank me. BTW I will not respond to your ... (fill in the blanks). If you want to play, use the sandbox. Discuss the file, I will not contribute any more to this. --E4024 (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Now that the veracity of this logo has been established (demonstrated by documents of this period) can we restore this logo?--Ghybu (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Mbazri

Please temporarily undelete all so I can take a look at them. I'm familiar with some of the complexities of Tasnim. At least File:Hadi Hajatmand & Ali Soleimani at the Eighth Ammar Film Festival.jpg appears to have been wrongly deleted. It's https://newsmedia.tasnimnews.com/Tasnim/Uploaded/Image/1396/10/15/139610152329007612973144.jpg and any derivative work that may be seen on that image would obviously be DM, so now I want to look at everything that was nominated. - Alexis Jazz 16:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please ping me if this request is honored as I don't check this page on a regular basis. - Alexis Jazz 23:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I would Symbol support vote.svg  Support a general undeletion of all these files. I checked a handfull random files from this DR and all of them had passed licence reviews that link to the original Tasnim pages with attribution including the allegedly "personal" images in the first section. This sweeping mass deletion was inappropriate imho. De728631 (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose - except for the first three files, it has not been questioned whether these pictures come from Tasmin. The point is, these pictures are depicting something that's copyrighted. E.g. there is no FoP in Iran and Tasnim is unlikely to be the architect of some depicted buildings. Please see COM:DW. Jcb (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support to undelete several of them –if not all–, because a second check is needed. For instance the background in File:Reza Borji at the Eighth Ammar Film Folk Festival.jpg and File:Amrollah Ahmadjoo at the Closing Ceremony of Eighth Ammar Film Folk Festival 01.jpg is blurry and can be considered de minimis as the focus is on the singer. The undeletion would allow a more collegial verification, and we can then delete again the ones that cannot be kept, like File:Camp Speicher massacre Location after Fall of ISIS 10.jpg --Ruthven (msg) 19:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • That sounds reasonable to me. As to derivatives, these images should in fact be checked for de-minimis, simple logos, etc., so an undeletion with a more thorough inspection of individual images is a good idea. De728631 (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Exactly. I only asked for temporary undeletion, I just hadn't seen the DR back when it was open. (and knew considerably less about DM, FoP and other things at the time) I'm fine with it if a new DR is created to discuss the files, but right now I can't even see them. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Henrietta Berk

"Copyright violation: Henrietta Berk - died 1990" - completely irrelevant, she's an American. All that matters is the date of the work. As I haven't found any copyright registrations, everything before March 1, 1989 should be public domain. (it doesn't look like she painted copyright notices either, I checked the back of a painting) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: When were these painted? If after 28 February 1989, her copyright lasts until 1 January 2061 per COM:HIRTLE.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I doubt she painted anything the year before she died, but if you tell me exactly which paintings those files show I'll see what I can find. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Both were painted in the early 1960s according to the Henrietta Berk Research Project. The IA copyright records are currently down for me for a few of the salient years, but there appears to be no renewal by either a "Berk Henrietta" or "Robin Henrietta", but I find my searches on https://cocatalog.loc.gov to be flaky at best, and so the fact that I haven't found it isn't gospel. Storkk (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Storkk: Thank you. Do you have better names for these paintings? The names provided by User:Califpaint leave much to the imagination.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The {{Information}} template described them as The Valley, Vacaville and Picnic, but whether those are accurate or not I have no idea. Storkk (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I hadn't even noticed these were also from Califpaint. Also see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Califpaint. I found them at Category:Undelete in 2061 when searching for other works by Henrietta Berk. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Is File:Henriettaberk.jpg also a painting? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes and no. It's an old photograph of her painting a picture. So it includes the photographer's copyright for the portrait as well as Berk's copyright for the painting. De728631 (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
When was their first publication, and did they have copyrighted notices then? If they were first published in a book, they wouldn't be required to have independent notices. If they're post-1963, they don't need renewals, and even before that they could have renewed as part of the larger work. Proving a painting of that era is in the public domain is really hard unless you're really familiar with its history.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Dick Ponzi.jpg

I don't understand why this was deleted. I supplied a link, as requested, to the copyright page associated with this image where it states that educational use is allowed. Link here: http://digitalcommons.linfield.edu/terms_of_use.html. This image is part of an academic collection and use on educational sites such as Wikipedia is permitted. Please let me know how to get this undeleted.--Birdeaux78 (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There were two files deleted, the one in the title and this one as well: File:Dick Ponzi in his winery.jpg which is from the same source under the same educational use permission. I'd like this undeleted as well. Please advise, thanks.--Birdeaux78 (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Birdeaux78: For our purposes here on Commons, those terms at http://digitalcommons.linfield.edu/terms_of_use.html boil down to "do not use unless there is an explicit CC license for that work" because we don't accept Fair Use per COM:FAIRUSE. For Fair Use on English Wikipedia, please see en:WP:F.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Birdeaux78:Is there any way to use the images? Could the copyright holders upload them? Thank you for helping me understand this.--Birdeaux78 (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Birdeaux78: Yes, with OTRS permission.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Professor Md. Saidur Rahman.png

This file was created with the intention of using it in a page on Dr. Saidur Rahman, who is a renowned computer scientist and mathematician in Bangladesh. I have just put a publication request for this page that uses this image.

Here is the draft of the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Md._Saidur_Rahman --Djyoti Mondal (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Djyoti Mondal: The target article en:Md. Saidur Rahman was not ready on 2 May due to en:WP:CSD#A7, and the draft is still not ready (awards & honors need refs). Are there other articles which this image could help, perhaps in Bangladeshi Wikipedia?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

1990 Vauxhall Nova L 1.2

Two of the files I uploaded where deleted from a OTSR ticket request. The person claimed that the photos breached their personal data because the registration plate on it was uncensored.

What happen was, About a month ago I encountered the said car and I was thrilled since it was a modern classic so I photographed it and uploaded it on Wikimedia Commons. One month later I saw it was on sale on a classic car website. So I thought I show my gratitude to the person and said there image is being used for educational purposes. The car was in a public space and I didn't mention the exact location other then the town name. The registration plate was uncensored which should makes sense for it to be deleted. I personally think a registration plate doesn't reveal their personal data because I photographed thousands of cars. I blurred out the registration plates on all cars unless they are older than 25 years.

Although, after I exchange email with the person. They said that the car was taken off sale and be used in car show exhibit. (i.e Letting hundreds photograph their car where people could share it on other websites.) Another fact I pointed out was that the pictures on the car sale page they had pictures of the car where the registration plate is clearly visible.

I understand that you usually need to ask permission from the owner but this usually the case with individuals and not cars which are often parked on public roads and car parks. I personally think my images been wrongfully deleted just because it shown the registration plate despite the facts above and there thousands of images on here, including mines are on the commons with registration plates uncensored.

If it does get undeleted I will with all due respect to the owner censor the registration plate.

The page got removed but can be still viewed on a cache. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C990917

--Vauxford (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Though I performed the deletions, based on the OTRS ticket (to which I have no access), I think the only thinkable "privacy problem" might be the well-visible car plates, which could easily be censored. The car was obviously pictured while parking in the public. --Túrelio (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The photo was also used in the Opel Corsa article as a quality example of a pre-facelift Vauxhall Nova. I'm very happy to censored the plate. --Vauxford (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Visibility of the number plate was one of the reason, but the customer has some other concerns too. The OTRS ticket can be found here. @Túrelio: I just forwarded the email to you please check. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 10:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
But I'm unable to view it. How will I know about the other details the person put on the ticket request? --Vauxford (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, GSS. I hope this was OTRS-conform. Anyway, after reading the request, IMO the only reasonable rationale is "car-plates visible". AFAIK, the owner has no right over an image of his/her car, especially if taken in public space. So, I would allow upload of carplate-censored versions of the images. However, as I'm no expert in UK law, the deciding admin-colleague might also take into account whether there is a legal risk for User:Vauxford, who seems to be identified towards the car-owner. --Túrelio (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg  Support Are license plates really private information? My gut says that if you're displaying something to the public it's hard to argue that it's private... but I'm sure this has been fought over before and don't object too much to censoring them out, since I'm not sure there is strong argument that they're educationally valuable. I also cannot see the ticket, though, and don't know exactly why it was deleted. Just to confirm, Túrelio, you were able to see the ticket at time of deletion, and it has since been moved? Storkk (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@Storkk, no, as I am no OTRS-volunteer, I wasn't able to see the ticket at the time of deletion. The deletions were based on the provided rationale (as per this request on OTRS ... for privacy reason.) and trust towards OTRS-volunteers. --Túrelio (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@GSS: In which queue is the ticket? Please move it to a Commons queue. Storkk (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@Storkk: It was in info-en I just moved it to commons. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Having now read the ticket, I still support undeletion, possibly with the license plates censored, depending on whether that is actually considered private information in the UK. Storkk (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I usually censor the registration plate but I choose not to since it basically a classic (The car is almost 30 years old). Regstration plates in the UK should be kept censored but it not mandatory from what I recall. The best you can do with the registration plate in the UK is finding out the year, make, model, colour, engine size etc. You can find out whether it a write-off or if it stolen as well as finding previous owners but that cost money and usually need special request from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency which can take days and require a valid reason. --Vauxford (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
According to a FOI request from 2015, the DVLA apparently considers number plates to be personal information if the owner is an individual. Now, whether or not that should make a difference is another question (your face is also personal information, but if you're walking around in public, it's not private...) but do I think there is a decent rationale to remove the license plate and undelete. Storkk (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Can I write "wiiikis" on it? (Wikipedia says that would be a valid license plate) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I like the idea but I usually censor registration plate using colours that match the plate. Also the deleted photo was taken at a three-quarters angle which could be difficult to replace each letters. --Vauxford (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
(Edit conflict)If there is consensus to undelete, then I would suggest leaving a clear white or black space to make it obvious that something has been removed, not alter it in a fashion that might be misleading to people without knowledge of the history of the file. But so far, there has only been my opinion, no consensus has been demonstrated. Storkk (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vauxford: I will have no problem with the angle. I could also replace it with "EXAM PLE" or something. I also support the undeletion btw, assuming OTRS doesn't have much more information than what can be read here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome to incorporate File:CENSORED.JPG or File:CENSORED.SVG.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the suggestions, although I have my own of censoring registration plates.--Vauxford (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
So have we made a decision? Or is there further things need to discuss about? --Vauxford (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support undeleting on the basis that the plate's blurred - In the UK atleast one can obtain the name and address of any vehicle owner though any website so the whole privacy thing rather fails on that point, Outside of the UK I don't know if these sorts of things exist but if they do then the only way to "protect" yourself is by never driving your car if that makes sense..... –Davey2010Talk 22:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

File:"True Prosperity".jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Deletion was done at Commons:Deletion requests/File:"True Prosperity".jpg.

In OTRS ticket:2016052510034637 the artist / copyright holder gave permission by sharing a copy of the file but neglected to connect the file attachment to their Commons upload. In the follow up there was no response with a URL.

I am writing to make the connection that (1) the art is an attachment in this ticket and (2) the art matches to that upload.

User:PolskaGoyl asked for my help in undeleting the file. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


✓ 

Done

@Bluerasberry: please add the final OTRS template. De728631 (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the OTRS template. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Two W Langdon Kihn works

per my close of Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:W._Langdon_Kihn. I've now checked 1924-1930 as well as the requisite renewal dates. The only Kihn work that appears to have been renewed (that I could find) was The tiger who walks alone Frontispiece. Storkk (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg  Support Pinging @Srittau: who deleted these. De728631 (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg  Support per Storkk's analysis. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Greg_J._Marchand_MD.jpg

I am the owner of the image, please kindly undelete it. You can see on my webpage that I have posted the image with the cc0 logo under it after attesting. http://gregmarchandmd.com/images-cc0-licensed-used-freely/

This file may be used on different wiki platforms having to do with physicians.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaraBell89 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. We need permission from the photographer, not just the subject.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Tahrir Square - February 10, 2011.png (deleted revisions)

What are our stance on a person releasing a low-res file under a free license on Commons, but high-res on Flickr? We have gone forth and back on that issue over a long-time on noticeboards and specific images in the past, and yet we don't have a written policy about it yet.

Creative Commons has stated the following on this issue:

“[I]f the low-resolution and high-resolution copies are the same work under applicable copyright law, permission under a CC license is not limited to a particular copy, and someone who receives a copy in high resolution may use it under the terms of the CC license applied to the low-resolution copy.”

I believe we need a set precedence and written a policy about "low-res versions of files being free while claiming the high-res is a different work". But until then, we should side with Creative Commons, it is them that wrote the licenses in question. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Capture d’écran 2017-12-12 à 18.26.03.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent ( verify ) request: Ticket:2018051010011364 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, and ping me. If the permission looks good for me, I'll remove {{Temporarily undeleted}} and add {{PermissionOTRS}}, otherwise, {{OTRS received}}. Thanks ! Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Mandalynn on Greys Anatomy.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I took this photo on the set, with all actors permission, including my daughter, Mandalynn Carlson. I uploaded to the wiki page. I have the original photo, taken on my phone. I'd like to see this photo back on the page, please. Sherri Carlson MandolinPictures (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Please send the original file, not one that has been through Facebook.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Eric Garris 2018.jpg

The photographer tried to give permission for the photo the same day it got deleted. He said he now knows the permission process, and will give permission as soon as he can if undeleted.


--ChicoDesigns (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Also, please note that it is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image a second time after deletion as you did here. It wastes your time and that of other Commons editors. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing on Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

File: Francisco Pesqueira. Cantante, actor, autor y escritor.jpg

--Carlos Héctor Bonfiglio (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Also, please note that it is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image like File:Francisco Pesqueira. Cantante,actor, autor, director y escritor.jpg a second time after deletion as you did here. It wastes your time and that of other Commons editors. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing on Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:MustafaKemalAtaturk crop.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: FILE NOT USED ARE NOT CORRECT!!

SEE HERE: https://gutezitate.com/zitat/161862

93.192.133.116 07:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose This was not deleted because it was not in use. It was deleted because it violated Cemal Işıksel's copyright, which will last until 2060. Storkk (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:FC Mecklenburg Schwerin 150px.png

And File:FC Mecklenburg Schwerin Logo.pdf: While these are non-trivial logos, the entire non-trivial part is identical to File:Mecklenburger Bulle (Landeswappen).svg (with some small parts in red rather than yellow) which is in the public domain. The logo consists of that CoA in a circle with a simple text in them (see here). I therefore believe the entire logo is in the public domain. (There are versions of the logo with a knight to the right, my post does not apply to that.) --Redeemer (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:1000 Yaroslav.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Based on its usage at en:Millennium of Russia and naming convention (compare files in Category:Millennium of Russia's details), I believe this image is part of the aforementioned sculpture, which was completed in 1862. The sculpture is almost certainly in the public domain by now, so the original deletion rationale is invalid. clpo13(talk) 22:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Wojciech Bojanowski.jpg

The author of the picture allowed to use it on Wikipedia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noaibanda (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Peripheral edema of a woman's face, before and after; Annapurna Base Camp, 2015.JPG

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2018030810000535 alleges permission. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

File:ERC& ASC w-5 duaghters.jpg

OTRS agent (verify): request: Ticket:2018030810010221 alleges permission. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, mark as {{subst:OR}} or otherwise appropriately, and ping me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Visoko-2.jpg

I made this picture self, with my camerea, i am the owner of all rights,

undelete this please

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Woaxit (talk • contribs) 03:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on 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 a timestamp will then automatically be added 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.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Did you upload it to http://semirosmanagic.com/en/bosnian_pyramid.html?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)