Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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

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

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

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch Edit

File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg

Hello, i found that the file File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg was deleted with the assumption it has copyright by AP wich is not true, since on 1984 the argentine autor of the photo (Martin F. Sgut) did take legal actions and a judge of a New York court ruled that the photos were stolen from him, the real autor. The photo was originally taken by "Capitán de fragata Martín F. Sgut" (Argentine Navy, Frigate captain, Martin F. Sgut) and was stolen and then published illegally at the US. and its under public domain on Argentina. because it was published on argentina (one of the many that punblished it on argentina) may 13, 1982 on the Argentine megazine "revista Gente" (numnero extraordinario/special edition) you can see the photo on the magazine cover at this website that collect covers from magazines here [1] buth even that you can find that photo published in argentina and since those US publications had it ilegaly, then they never had any copyright over that photo.

the same apply to any other photo of the Belgrano sinking, since he did take several photos and he was the only one taking pictures so there is no place for doubts.

you can read here (spanish), but the info its all over the web and if anyone know how to search through NY Court files it should not be that hard to find those records,

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1461073-la-foto-robada-que-hizo-historia http://www.elobservador.com.uy/noticia/221590/una-foto-robada-que-hundio-a-argentina/

here you can see the photo used citing the true autor

http://blog.yaninapatricio.com/tag/belgrano/

is so obvious as you can see on this Daily Mail Australia news site that the photo is public domain, as you can see on the article i link bellow every photo is with a copyright on the bottom corner BUT the one taken from Martin Sgut. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256369/Argentina-accuses-UK-colonialism-holding-Falkland-Islands.html


the photo is this one File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg and where i foudn why it was deleted is this link here Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ARA_Belgrano_sinking.jpg

i hope that i did gather all needed info to futfill all it was needed to restore the photo and give proper recognition to the original autor even if it is under public domain and does not need to, will be great to let ppl know who did take the picture here at commons.

the licence should PD-AR-Photo

BTWː the autor, Argentine Navy, frigate captain, Martin F. Sgut, died on january 4, 2010 --WiZaRd SaiLoR (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I've read the links provided by Wizard Sailor and seem to clarify that the copyright belongs to captain Sgut. Therefore, according to {{PD-AR-Photo}}, it's in the public domain in Argentina. As the picture was published in Argentina on 13 May 1982 and in the US on 8 May 1982, it can be covered by one of the exceptions of the URAA applicability (Works simultaneously published in the US and abroad (defined as publication in the US within 30 days) are not affected.). Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 22:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It's IMO worth pointing out for the record that if the publication in the US was 'pirated' (without the permission of the copyright owner), which is apparently the case, then it would not count... publication must be legal. Revent (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I pointed this out during the original deletion request, AP couldn't have copyright. WCMemail 22:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Unfortunately, due to the age of the case and the vagueness of the description of the venue (just 'a New York court') it's probably not possible to locate the actual decision online... it was probably a federal court case, and predates the electronic archives by well over a decade. My attempts to find it, at least, were unsuccessful, but we can probably proceed on the basis of RS articles documenting the decision. Seems fairly clearcut, tbh. Revent (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I also make some searches and only found Spanish-speaking references (mainly Argentinean and Uruguayan news papers). They're mainstream newspapers so that I think they're reliable references. My only concern relates to URAA. If the US edition is "pirate" (it was done without the consent of the copyright owner), URAA would bee applicable, wouldn't be? --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 00:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment i dont know the judge name, but the info from the links i found, and already provided, state that on 1984 Captain Sgut, did start legal actions on "those NY courts" aganist The New York Times, Newsweek, Associated Press and an agency called Gamma-Liasson. maybe this may help to search--WiZaRd SaiLoR (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@WiZaRd SaiLoR: The (presumably) relevant online archive only goes back to 1996 (unfortunately). To get the actual ruling would require a request for a search of paper archives, but we can 'presume' that the reporting in reliable sources of the judgement was accurate (i.e. that AP does not own the photo). Given that, the photo seems to be obviously PD in Argentina, the only real question is if it is not PD in the in the US because of the URAA. Revent (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by Jcb

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015011310017213 Signed permission received from National Archives of Malawi through Wikipedian-in-Residence, Malawi. Jee 12:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Jee, call me a skeptic. Notwithstanding the declaration of its Director, I doubt very much that the National Archives of Malawi is actually the copyright holder. The Director gives no explanation of why the National Archives owns the copyrights to this varied assortment of images and I think we probably should have such an explanation.
I also note that while the authorization letter (which was forwarded to us and did not come directly from the Director) is on letterhead and looks very authentic, it is dated October 13th, 2014, and it is now 4 1/2 months after that. The date on the letter is in a different typeface from the letter's body, so I have my doubts about the authenticity of the letter as well. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jim for the opinion. I too have some doubt about the "ownership of copyright"; so I had discussed it at IRC prior to posting here. But The National Archives of Malawi is a government department in the Ministry of Information, Tourism Culture. I didn't see much meaning in doubting a state department. The mail was forwarded; but Michaelphoya is Wikipedian-in-Residence, Malawi. From the log I see those deleted files are uploaded before 1 August 2014. The delay may be due to the communication between many people and departments. I can't see deleted contents; but from the file names, it looks like many of they are taken by govt. agencies.
If further clarification is needed, it is better the Wikipedian-in-Residence him/herself handle it as it is difficult for us to communicate with them. Jee 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This feels like violating PRP, but I suppose we can always take the position that we have an official government authorization to use them. Let's see how our colleagues feel about it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
No worries. As this is a mass upload, it is wise to see more opinions. I pinged the uploader too; let us see his/her arguments too. Thanks. Jee 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perso, I would accept a permission from such a government agency. We usually accept claim by other government agencies about copyright (i.e. from the French National Library about pictures being in the public domain). Regards, Yann (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I see no reasonable doubts. Restoring. Ankry (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: ✓ Done Ankry (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks . So there was an old ticket too which Jcb attended. So pinging for his opinion too. (I don't think it was good he deleted those files straight away even without a DR.) Jee 16:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Saint Xavier Alumni Magazine - Spring 2000.jpg

This is a magazine article appearing on page 15 of Saint Xavier University Alumni Magazine. The article is about Christine Mouser, she is an alumnus of St. Xavier University. The Wikipedia article the magazine article pertains to is about her.

What gives you the impression this published article constitutes a copyright violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3rdi-info (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 March 2015‎ (UTC)

 Not done No evidence of free license provided. Ankry (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
To answer the question posed by User:3rdi-info: The alumni magazine is copyrighted -- copyright is automatic now in the USA and everywhere else. It is extremely unlikely that it is freely licensed. Without a free license, the deleted image is a copyright violation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

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


Files uploaded by Henry Austen


All of these files are owned by the subject of the page "Norman Lacy". They are photos taken for the subject and are owned by him. They were given to me for use in the writing of this page. The owner has communicated to me that he wishes for these photographs to be in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Austen (talk • contribs) 05:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you don't mind, I've edited your post to make it more readable. Anon126 ( ) 05:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 Not done Ownership of photos does not automatically mean ownership of copyright. A photographer selling a photo may still restrict its use. If uploader is not the photographer who made the photos, they should follow OTRS procedure to send a permission from the photographer (or from another copyright owner if copyright transfer can be proved). Ankry (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Delitzsch 19 20081118 1872720780.jpg

Thias picture was taken by me so there is no copyright violation. Thx

Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyla (talk • contribs) 08:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Watermark suggests the photo is copyrighted by the club. Follow OTRS procedure.

File:Régal'ad (Kréma).jpg

and File:Régal'ad (Kréma)2.jpg

I am obviously not the copyright holder of the packaging.
But I do not understand how in the world this copyright could possibly applies, whereas it is not even represented in its entirety!
I assume that with such accusations, we could argue that this pic is a violation of the packaging of the podium, that one might be a violation of the tailor's copyright ? And maybe this one could obviously be a violation of the gardener that grow the plants.
Oh, you might want to look at my aviations pics, as most of them featured airlines logos and liveries that are surely submited to copyright.
With such accusations, we could delete most of the documents currently on Commons.

If you're not satisfied with my examples, let me tell you that I am actually angry and dissatisfied with the way it happenned: two of my pictures has been proposed for deletion — months after they've been uploaded — by a new user that has been blocked a few days later for abuse of multiple accounts. Two opinions has been given on those deletion requests, both in favor of conservation. And a month later, without any warning, there are deleted. Two possibilities: whether you don't give a fuck about how many people are opposed to deletion, or you don't give a fuck about what they are actually saying and you delete anyway using argument that have been disapproved.

If you disagred, I would have appreciated that you intervened in the discussion so we could have addressed the issue.

I am NOT SATISFIED with the argumentation of the admin that deleted the file, and I considered the deletion abbusive and unfounded. Gyrostat (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

For the images you mentioned in the text above:
Josve05a (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, in general we don't care 'who' nominated an image at DR, or even what rationale was originally used. The point of the process is to comply with policy and copyright law... the copyright status of an image is an 'objective fact', though still open to opinion. Deletions where the image is a problem even though the nom itself was questionable are not uncommon. Revent (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I am glad {{PD-simple}}, {{PD-text}}, De minimis and Commons:Threshold of originality are mentioned above. Now you can have a look at the deleted pictures (well...) and you'll realise that those concepts apply to my pictures. Gyrostat (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No,sorry, they do not. De minimis can apply only when the copyrighted items is so insignificant that it could be deleted without changing the picture significantly. Since the copyrighted items are the only things in your images, that cannot be the case with them. The Olympic Rings were actually under copyright, but it has expired. The product packaging in your images is far too complex to qualify as PD-Simple.
As for the handling of this, please remember that Commons get around 10,000 new images every day. We delete around 1,500. 25 Admins do 90% of the work. Much as we might like to be able to give personal service, we are fundamentally working very hard to stay ahead of the flood and, at the moment, are falling behind.
Finally, you say:
"Two possibilities: whether you don't give a fuck about how many people are opposed to deletion, or you don't give a fuck about what they are actually saying and you delete anyway using argument that have been disapproved."
That is, in fact partly true. DRs are not votes and any comments that are not well grounded in the applicable law will be ignored. The closing Admin is required to use his or her judgement and knowledge of the law and to use the comments only to help that decision, not vote on it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
(endorse comment, tho closable) "DRs are not votes and any comments that are not well grounded in the applicable law will be ignored. The closing Admin is required to use his or her judgement and knowledge of the law and to use the comments only to help that decision, not vote on it." is quite correct. Revent (talk)

File:Irene_Hannon.jpg

This image replaced a press photo image that attached a photo credit. I am the originator of this photograph and it free to be used by Wikipedia users, without restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCarrington (talk • contribs)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image appears without a free license at http://www.irenehannon.com/news.html. Therefore policy requires that the copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. Please note that "free to be used by Wikipedia users, without restrictions" is not sufficient. Files on Commons and WP must be free for use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Bernard Cathelin.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There is no alternative, public domain or free-copyrighted replacement available. Inclusion is for information, education and analysis only. Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s) because it shows the subject, or the work of the subject, of the article(s). The image is a low resolution copy of the original work of such low quality that it would be unlikely to impact sales of the work. 90.60.185.90 18:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see the deleted image, but this reads like a 'fair use' claim that would allow uploading on a local project, not on Commons (fair use is not allowed here). Revent (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Hommage 1994.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There is no alternative, public domain or free-copyrighted replacement available. Inclusion is for information, education and analysis only. Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s) because it shows the subject, or the work of the subject, of the article(s). The image is a low resolution copy of the original work of such low quality that it would be unlikely to impact sales of the work. 90.60.185.90 18:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see the deleted image, but this reads like a 'fair use' claim that would allow uploading on a local project, not on Commons (fair use is not allowed here). Revent (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Poster-sm.jpg

I created the image and own the trademark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmal66 (talk • contribs)

My photos deleted

I did nothing wrong I did NOT steal other people's work I gave credit, cites, and sources of correct and valid information to every picture I contributed and every page I contributed to. I did not violate anything. There was only 1 photo that I recall citing incorrectly, as it was the first time I ever used the website and it would not let me edit and fix my mistake after it. All my other 3 photographs were accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conattack (talk • contribs)

Well, at least you cited things. But can you forinstance explain why File:Stephen Amell's Facebook Photo.jpg, copied from Stephen Amell's Official Facebook is under a {{cc-0}} license? (“The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. ”)
By default, all imagess have copyright, and cannot be used without permission. You can't copy a random image from the internet and just upload it as if the author allowed it. Unless of course the author allowed it.
Platonides (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Roger Hodgson Breakfast in America World Tour Montage.ogg

Please attribute copyright tag: {{Non-free fair use in|Roger Hodgson}} --Zenithstar (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"Fair use" media files are not allowed on Commons. See Commons:Fair_use. Platonides (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Nabiha.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Can you please show proof that im infringing any copyright?

I own this picture together with Nabiha and her mangement and record company Sarahhesselbo (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If we find photos that appear to be taken from the Internet (i.e. we find that they were published elsewhere first), then we need an indication of a free copyright license at the original source, or we need a communication from the rights holder to COM:OTRS to verify the permission. If you follow the instructions at the OTRS link, that is the process which will get the photo undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Hi Carl! @Sarahhesselbo: It's not a matter of 'proof of copyright infringement', but of 'signifigant doubt' of licensing that is compatible with Commons (see COM:PRP). It's standard to disallow uploads of images that were previously published with a copyright notice, for the sake of preventing 'theft' of images from websites. Please follow the procedure at COM:OTRS, if all is in order the file will be restored. Revent (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Russian FOP cases

Due to the generosity of the State Duma (they have cancelled and took away all the copyrights of all the architectors) we may undelete those masterpieces.

As soon as the Russian architect cannot claim any rights anymore, these images appear to be free. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@PereslavlFoto: For the sake of non-admin watchers (who cannot see the images) can you possibly give a bit more context please? (like the name of the architect, or a link to the Duma ruling?) Thanks in advance. Revent (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)