Commons:Запросы на восстановление

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UR/ru)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 89% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Undeletion requests and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

На этой странице участники могут оставить запрос на восстановление удалённой страницы или файла (далее «файл»). Участники могут комментировать запросы, оставляя такие замечания, как keep deleted (оставить удалённым) или undelete (восстановить) в сопровождении своих аргументов.

Эта страница — не часть Википедии. На этой странице обсуждаются материалы Викисклада — репозитория свободных медиафайлов, используемых Википедией и другими проектами Викимедиа. Викисклад Не содержит энциклопедических статей. Чтобы запросить восстановление статей или других материалов, удалённых из английской Википедии, см. там страницу с обзором удалений.

Удаления на Викискладе (правила)
(Missing: нарушения АП: 11 шт. • дубликаты: 205 шт. • реклама: 0 шт.) • селфи: 0 шт.
нарушения АП: 11 шт. • дубликаты: 205 шт. • другие причины: 6 шт.
п • о • р

Определение причины удаления файла

Сначала проверьте журнал удаления и узнайте, почему файл был удалён. Также воспользуйтесь возможностью Ссылки сюда, чтобы проверить, были ли какие-то обсуждения по поводу удаления файла. Если удалили файл, который вы загрузили, проверьте свою страницу обсуждения, на ней могут быть сообщения о причинах удаления файла. После этого, пожалуйста, ещё раз ознакомьтесь с правилами удаления, описанием рамок проекта и политикой лицензирования, чтобы понять, почему файл мог не соответствовать правилам Викисклада.

Если указанная причина удаления неясна, или вы можете её оспорить, свяжитесь с администратором, осуществившим удаление, и попросите дать комментарии или же предоставьте новые свидетельства против причины удаления. Вы можете связаться и с любым другим активным администратором (например, с носителями вашего родного языка) — большинство из них будет радо вам помочь и при обнаружении ошибки исправить ситуацию.

Оспаривание удаления

Справедливые удаления, основанные на текущих правилах удаления, рамках проекта и политике лицензирования, не будут отменены. Предложения об изменении правил могут приниматься на соответствующих страницах обсуждения.

Если вы считаете, что удалённый файл не нарушает авторские права и соответствует рамкам проекта:

  • Вы можете обсудить файл с удалившим его администратором. Можно попросить подробного объяснения причин или предоставить свидетельства в пользу восстановления.
  • Если вы не хотите обращаться к кому-либо напрямую, если администратор отклонил просьбу о восстановлении или же если вы хотите привлечь больше участников к обсуждению, вы можете запросить восстановление на этой странице.
  • Если файл был удалён из-за отсутствия доказательств разрешения от правообладателя, возспользуйтесь процедурой подтверждения разрешения. Если вы уже сделали это, нет нужды дополнительно создавать запрос на восстановление на этой странице. Если принятое разрешение в порядке, файл будет восстановлен по мере обработки разрешения. Пожалуйста, будьте терпеливы, поскольку этот процесс может занять несколько недель в зависимости от текущей загруженности и доступности волонтёров.
  • Если в описании удалённого изображения не хватает какой-то информации, вам могут задать вопросы. В общем случае ожидается, что ответ на эти вопросы будет получен в течение 24 часов.

Временное восстановление

Файлы могут быть временно восстановлены либо для облегчения обсуждения восстановления либо для переноса их в проект, допускающий добросовестное использование. Для этого используйте шаблон {{Request temporary undeletion}} в соответствующем запросе восстановления и приведите объяснение.

  1. если временное возобновление нужно для помощи обсуждению, объясните почему для обсуждения номинации будет полезно временно восстановить файл, или
  2. если временное восстановление нужно для перемещения в проект, допускающий добросовестное использование, укажите этот проект и дайте ссылку на правила использования таких файлов в этом проекте.

Для помощи в обсуждении

Файлы могут быть временно восстановлен, чтобы помочь в обсуждении, если участникам сложно решить без доступа к файлу, должен ли быть удовлетворён запрос на восстановление. Если для обсуждения достаточно описания файла или цитаты из этого описания, администратор может их предоставить без восстановления самого файла. Запросы могут быть отклонены, если будет сочтено, что польза для обсуждения перевешивается другими факторами (например, восстановление, даже временное, файлов, в отношении которых есть существенные опасения, связанные с Викисклад:Фотографии идентифицируемых людей). Файлы, временно восстановленные для содействия обсуждению, будут удалены снова через тридцать дней или же когда запрос будет закрыт (в зависимости от того, что произойдет раньше).

Для перемещения в проект, допускающий добросовестное использование

В отличие от Английской, Русской Википедии и некоторых других проектов Викимедиа, Викисклад не принимает несвободные материалы со ссылками на добросовестное использование. Если удалённый файл соответствует критериям добросовестного использования другого проекта Викимедиа, участники могут запросить временное восстановление для переноса туда удалённых файлов. Такие запросы обычно обрабатываются быстро (без обсуждения). Файлы, временно восстановленные для переноса в другой проект, будут снова автоматически выставлены на быстрое удаление через два дня. При размещении запроса на перенос в другой проект, пожалуйста, укажите этот проект и дайте ссылку на правила использования таких файлов в этом проекте.

Проекты, допускающие добросовестное использование:
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

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.

Добавление запроса

Первом делом убедитесь, что вы попытались разобраться, почему файл удалили. Затем, пожалуйста, прочитайте эти инструкции по написанию запросов перед составлением своего запроса:

  • Не подавайте запросы на восстановление файлов, которые не удаляли.
  • Не публикуйте собственные или чужие телефон или адрес электронной почты.
  • В поле Subject: введите непосредственно предмет обсуждения. Если вы запрашиваете восстановление единственного файла, используйте заголовок вида [[:File:УдалённыйФайл.jpg]]. (Не забудьте о ведущем двоеточии в ссылке.)
  • Укажите файл(ы), о котором(ых) идёт речь и предоставьте ссылки на них (см. выше). Если вы не знаете точное имя файла, укажите как можно больше известной вам информации. Запросы, из которых нельзя понять, что требуется восстановить, могут быть заархивированы без обсуждения.
  • Опишите причину(ы) для восстановления.
  • Подпишитесь с помощью четырёх тильд (~~~~). Если у вас есть учётная запись на Викискладе, сперва войдите в неё. Если вы были загрузившим искомый файл, это поможет администраторам идентифицировать его.

Добавьте запрос внизу этой страницы. Нажмите сюда, чтобы открыть страницу, на которой нужно добавить запрос. Или нажмите ссылку [править] у заголовка ниже. Следите за разделом вашего запроса, чтобы не пропустить обновления.

Закрытие обсуждений

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Архивы

Закрытые обсуждения восстановления архивируются ежедневно.

Текущие запросы

File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (19).jpg, File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (18).jpg, File:Aurich, Lambertikirche (16) 2.jpg

No protected 1960 interior as krd errorously tells. Photographer is the organ builder himself, iirc. Discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pipe organ of Lambertikirche Aurich --Subbass1 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pipe organ of Lambertikirche Aurich was closed on the statement that the pipe organ is protected. The architecture seemed to not be an issue. Abzeronow (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote: Photographer is the organ builder himself, iirc. Besides that on commons an organ case is never protected and is shown thousands of times. --Subbass1 (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted in the DR, the problem here is not the organ itself, but the church architecture, which is modern and likely copyrighted.  Oppose unless we have a free license permission from the architect also or an evidence that the church architect died more than 70 years ago.
If the images are cropped / altered to show the organ only and the church architecture in the background / surroundings is not shown at all or minimized, the photos may be OK. Ankry (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The church architecture is not "modern". Try reading the german Wikipedia article. --Subbass1 (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It is from 1830s, I withdraw my comment. Ankry (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I think Abzeronow has it right -- perhaps User:Ankry should read the DR again. The problem here is that the design of the organ case goes way beyond utilitarian and therefore has its own copyright. If, as claimed above, the organ builder actually took the pictures, then a note to VRT from an address at https://www.orgelbau-ahrend.de/ should be easy to get (The other named builder, Gerhard Brunzema, died in 1992). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The VRT team of course already has a permission from Hendrik AHrend for the pictures. For the organ case itself it's not necessary (but here included..), in common use on Commons. --Subbass1 (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the DR, we have the photographer's permission per ticket:2023120810006959. If that photographer and the organ builder is one and the same person (which I did not know until User:Subbass1 wrote it here, and which was not mentioned in either the previous undeletion request or the deletion request), that ticket should be re-evaluated to see if the permission also covers the organ itself. Else a new permission which explicitly covers both the photographs and the organ design should be sent. --Rosenzweig τ 14:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: it's NOT necessary to have a permission for organ cases on commons. Just keep doing so to scare away the last people who provide pictures. In this case, unfortunately, even the "superintendent" had to deal with the claim of a "modern church design". Ridiculous. --Subbass1 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly the situation, these photos of the organ are offered under a free license by the copyright owner of both the organ and the photos. Therefore, there is no problem of copyright violation with these photos. These photos of the organ are fine and free to use and have all the permissions necessary. The organ itself does not need to be offered under a free license. There is no need to force the organ builder to allow his competitors to build identical organs. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As discussed in the first round at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-04#Aurich, the only goal of sending these files to a deletion request was to clarify the status of the church architecture, and on that point the closing administrator of that DR agreed that the church architecture is not a problem. The VRT permission 2023120810006959 from Hendrik Ahrend for the photos of the organ was not disputed. The organ is attributed to the organ building business [1]. It was built when the father of Hendrik owned the business. Hendrik Ahrend is now the owner of the business. (Hendrik himself also worked on the organ in 2022/2023.) He free licenses his photos of the organ. That's sufficient. We don't need to require that he sends another email to spell out that as the owner of the business he's giving the permission to himself to show the organ in his own photos, nor that his 94 year old father send an email as former owner. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    never ever Ahrend has to prove anything further. I don't wish that he is contacted from hee again, ok? Instead some persons here should overthink their behaviour (and knowledge) and inform themsleves better before making others lots of unnecessary work. --Subbass1 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are several assertions here and in the DR that the organ builder's son has given permission for the free use of the copyright on the organ case, none of the people making those assertions are VRT agents and the cited note at Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard/archive/2024#ticket:2023120810006959 does not tell us who sent the email. I think it very likely that we should restore these, but I think we need confirmation from a VRT agent that we do indeed have a free license from organ builder's son. Krd is familiar with the case. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion is not that Hendrik Ahrend has given some additional permission, it is that there is no need for such additional permission. When he issues the free license on his photos that show the organ, that means necessarily that he agrees with himself that the organ can be shown in those free-licensed photos. A full license on the whole organ itself is not required. It is common practice on Commons that Commons does not require that an artist completely free-licenses an artwork shown on a free-licensed photo, but only that the artist agrees to the free-licensing of the view of the artwork as shown in the photo. As noted in the previous UDR, Krd validated the VRT ticket 2023120810006959 for the photos sent by Hendrik Ahrend, thus confirming that the permission is indeed from Hendrik Ahrend, because that cannot be anything else. Cf. photos numbered 20, 21 and 22. Krd explained that the reason he objected to Hendrik Ahrend's photos numbered 16, 18 and 19 was because of the church architecture, which is something unrelated to Hendrik Ahrend. That objection is now settled. What is missing? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nahashogyoseimon.png

こちらの写真は私が撮影・編集したものです。 最初にアップロードした際は著作者の記名を忘れおり、削除されてしまったので再アップロードしました。そのことにつきましては注意等を十分に確認しておらず大変申し訳ありませんでした。 今後はこういうことがないように十分注意します。 この写真は私が撮影・編集したものですので問題はありません。ですのでファイルの復元をお願いします。

This photo was taken and edited by me. When I first uploaded it, I forgot the author's name and it was deleted, so I re-uploaded it. I am very sorry that I did not fully check the instructions. I'll be very careful not to let this happen again. This picture was taken and edited by me, so there is no problem. So please restore the file.

（たいやき部屋 (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)）[reply]

@たいやき部屋: Hi, You were asked to upload the original image with EXIF data. Why can't you do that? Yann (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where should I upload my original images?
Can't I use the image edited for personal information protection? たいやき部屋 (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I understood what you were saying.
Upload it the appropriate way. たいやき部屋 (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images were published after 2015, expiration of posthumous copyright protection of photographer after death, or before 1954. Overly hypothetical doubts by now-banned user who made many overzealous deletion requests. Kges1901 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia. In either case we cannot keep them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We usually assume that old works were published at the time of creation, unless evidence says otherwise. If I understood correctly, the author was a reporter for RIAN, so I see no reason to assume that these pictures were not published at the time. The first file in the list, File:Сессия Верховного Совета СССР первого созыва (2).jpg, is dated 1938. That may not be sufficient for all images, but it seems OK for this one. Yann (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Troshkin was a reporter for the newspaper Izvestiya, and his photographs were published at the time in Izvestiya, Krasnaya Zvezda, and other papers. --Kges1901 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg also made an interesting argument about the country of origin. If these newspapers were distributed in the Soviet Union, they were simultaneously published in all successor nations, and that under the Berne Convention, the shorter term applies. Yann (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These newspapers were distributed across the entire Soviet Union, not just on the territory of the RSFSR. In any case, the definition of publication under Russian copyright law is that the back of the photograph was marked by the artist in the appropriate way, which for war photographs implies that it passed through censorship processes and could be published. Since most of these photographs are not taken from the photographer's negatives, it is reasonable to assume that they were marked on the back, and recently digitized images appeared on the internet after 2014, when the posthumous publication copyright term expired. Kges1901 (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg is not sole in such assumption. But this is just assumption so far, it is not supported by court decisions (of 12-15 post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature (as I have known on today, I continue to seek it, to confirm or refute it). As I see such questions in court decisions (of several post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature - the concrete Soviet republic is place of publishing (because, the civil legislation was on republican level) or the RF is place of publishing, even if work was published outside of the RSFSR (as USSR-successor on union level). Alex Spade (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Binsudah.jpg

Hello.. Please return the image because it is a free image of a public figure and is allowed to be circulated and is not restricted by rights at all. The following link contains a copy of the image on the personal website of its owner, writer https://www.binsudah.ae/قصة-عجيبة-من-التاريخ/--JovaYas (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The footer on the link provided states: جميع الحقوق محفوظة لموقع حسين بن سوده - 2015 (All rights reserved to Hussein Bin Souda website). @-JovaYas: the term "free license" has a precise definition that you consult in COM:L. Günther Frager (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your response. I would like to explain the following: the purpose of uploading the image here is to use it on the individual's page in the encyclopedia, and the title is his name. His Wikipedia page includes a link to his personal website, in addition to the fact that the image has been circulating for years, like any image of a public figure. The management of the writer's website has been contacted for the purpose of licensing the image at the following link [2]https://www.binsudah.ae/binsudah-2/ JovaYas (talk) 06:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JovaYas: that is not a free license. Did you read the link provided?. It would be more productive if you ask the copyright holder to send an explicit permission to COM:VRT . Günther Frager (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guidance and cooperation, and we contacted the management of the writer's website to amend the formulation and the full waiver of the Wikipedia website - the following link [3]https://www.binsudah.ae/binsudah-2/ JovaYas (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The notice on the cited website now reads,

"This image is fully licensed for publication and use on the Wikipedia website - https://commons.wikimedia.org, and they have the right to use the image on any of their platforms, this is a waiver of rights - the management of the Hussein bin Sudah website 17-08-2024".
Since the permission is limited to Commons, it is not the free license for any use by anybody anywhere that is required here. In order for us to restore the image, the license must be changed to CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or another acceptable license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello sir.. It has been edited to be general and not specific.[4]https://www.binsudah.ae/binsudah-2/ JovaYas (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is not irrevocable and does not mention derivative works. Please follow my instructions above,
In order for us to restore the image, the license must be changed to CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or another acceptable license."
See COM:L. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We worked so hard to make this very ordinary image acceptable to you, that we asked the site to remove the copyright notice at the bottom of the site for JovaYas (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JovaYas: Removing the copyright notice doesn't remove the copyright on the image. As Jim writes above, we need a free license. Yann (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience and understanding. The wording of the image license has been amended by referencing the Creative Commons license - CC BY [5]https://www.binsudah.ae/binsudah-2/ JovaYas (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.. The owner of the photo personally contacted you via his official email, .. regarding the photo. Please check the email. JovaYas (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian department awards

Please, restore deleted Russian department awards and close (as keep) similar current DR. Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed DR discussions

Current DR discussions

Yes, they are not state awards, but they are state symbols ({{PD-RU-exempt}}) indeed - symbols, which are established by state authorities, which design (including both text description and visual representation) are established (which design are integral part of) in respective official documents of state government agencies (the Russian official documents are not just texts), which are subjects of the en:State Heraldic Register of the Russian Federation (point 3 subpoint 4). Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two ConventionExtension screenshots

These files was speedily deleted as copyright violations. I was originally going to request undeletion on the basis of them being screenshots of free software (i.e., {{MediaWiki screenshot}}); annoyingly, though, the Git repository of the MediaWiki extension that they're screenshots of doesn't appear to contain a license statement of any kind. However, I noticed that the account that uploaded these files (Chughakshay16) is the same account that developed the extension in the first place (see mw:User:Chughakshay16/ConventionExtension, git:mediawiki/extensions/ConventionExtension/+log) - therefore, even if this extension's code isn't freely licensed, Chughakshay16 would nevertheless have the ability and authority to release screenshots of the results of their own programming under a free license (as they did when they uploaded the files in question to Commons); and these freely-licensed screenshots are therefore not copyvios.

At User talk:Moheen#Screenshot of conference extension deleted?, the deleting admin mentioned that the files were tagged as likely belong[ing] to Cisco Webex; however, I didn't see anything that would indicate that Cisco holds a copyright over this extension's code (or that would prohibit the code's author from being able to freely license screenshots of its results).

All the best, --A smart kitten (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MD-Tournai-photo2Mende.tif

The artiste (Mathilde Delattre) is into public domain, and I have the consent from Musée du Gévaudan- ville de Mende to use it thanks to restaure this file eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achille Watergutt (talk • contribs) 10:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

 Support Both in the public domain in France and in USA. Yann (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chez la fleuriste.jpg

Hi The artiste Mathilde delattre is into public domain, and I have authorization from centre National des Arts Plastiques (CNAP) to use this photography éric — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achille Watergutt (talk • contribs) 10:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

 Support Both in the public domain in France and in USA. Yann (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: See above. --Yann (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reza Abedini 2015.jpg

This image was from Mehr News Agency (here) which states "All Content by Mehr News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License" in page footer. Carl (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support As note above, CC-BY applies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kristin Fairlie Official IMDB Image.jpg

Hi there,

I believe this image was wrongfully deleted and I am the copyright owner and it is in the public domain, it better represents the person and I'd like to add it to their page as the official image. Free Use or otherwise. Please advise/re-insert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undergirl422 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As for all images previously published elsewhere, please send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tropicana Dancers2.jpg

Deleted as a copyvio. Can anyone see the reason for that? --MGA73 (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as a "copyright violation" without any further information why this is so. The administrator who deleted the photo has left the project. The license and source appear to be legitimate. Thuresson (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:9mm pistol India Browning.jpg

Asking on whether I can ask for an undeletion. I understand that the person who asked for it had concerns about using GODL-India as the license, even though I explained that the archived URL was from the government-controlled OFB. I have found a current up to date alternative from the Directorate of Ordnance (Coordination and Services), which is a company under Indian control. Ominae (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose - Nonsense request. 1) The image at the provided link is not the same as the deleted image. 2) This was purported to be {{EdictGov-India}}, which is absurd on its face (this is none of the bullet points); and 3) that a "company under Indian control" (Rifle Factory Ishapore) has its works automatically licensed GODL-India--which applies only to some, not all, government works, let alone companies--has not been proven. No evidence whatsoever supporting restoration has been provided. Эlcobbola talk 16:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:שעיה סגל.png

Hello,

I ask to retrieve the photo of Shaya Segal that was uploaded yesterday- שעיה סגל.png The photo belonged to Shaya, it was taken for use in his passport and belongs to his family. We (his family) have the rights to this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YaaraSegal1 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 25 August 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose In almost every case the rights to freely license an image belong to the actual photographer and not to the subject or anyone else who may have a paper or digital copy of the photograph. In order for the image to be restored here, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or (b) someone else must send a free license together with a written license from the actual photographer.

I also note that in the upload, you claimed that you were the actual photographer. Your note above suggests that that is not correct. Making false claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose - Previously published works require additional evidence of permission (see COM:VRT). Note also that copyright initially vests in the author (photographer); being "his family" is of no meaning whatsoever in the absence of evidence of a transfer ("The photo belonged to Shaya" is, of course, not "the copyright belonged to Shaya"--and you are not Shaya either way). Эlcobbola talk 16:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/ru&oldid=811520742"