Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]

Shortcuts: COM:UDR· COM:UDELC· COM:UNDELC

Request undeletion

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.


Files uploaded by Roy17[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2020/05#RFC:_Acceptance_of_the_Brazilian_Flickr_photostream_mturdestinos_(163189519@N03). Roy17 (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Files uploaded by High source[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: ditto Roy17 (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Fermo Guisoni (1510-1580)[edit]

I ask you please that these files relating to the following portraits made by the still firm Guisoni be restored, because the source containing precisely respects the data contained in the files and in the following source


source to which the portraits are linked: https://www.academia.edu/42734316/Collezione_Freddi_-_Dipinti_2015_

there is only one portrait that is not part of the (PD-old-100) license mode:

portrait made by Cipriano CEI (1864-1922), therefore it should be part of the license (PD-Art|PD-old-70-1923) OR (PD-Italy) --37.182.21.128 15:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Berposen[edit]

What will happen to the other files? The topic has not been tackled, those are a separate dilemma. :( --Berposen (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Monseñor Pedro Schumacher.jpg[edit]

The file was deleted in a very scrambled maintenance process. Several images were mixed that I uploaded myself, and I did not do it properly. I ask in the most attentive way to redo it, because they were already corrected, but they were mixed with the wrong ones. Best regards. --Berposen (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Berposen: The image was and is still missing an evidence that it is PD. You did not provide an evidence that its author "Bishopric of Portoviejo"(?) died more than 70 years ago, or, if the image is anonymous, that it was published more than 70 years ago. This site is definitely not so old. In order to undelete the image, we need the appropriate information that allow us to determine its copyright status. Ankry (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: If we take something this as an example?
Description lllll
Source lllll
Author Unknown author
Permission
(Reusing this file)
PD-Old

What happens is that as much as I seek and seek, the portoviejo bishopric has not made clear who its author is. The source where I get the photograph, and many more places, also they are using the image of an unknown author, the photograph is over 100 years old, and because be in the public domain, they use it. --Berposen (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a source showing that the image was created before 1900? Then we can accept it under {{PD-old-assumed}} even if we don't know anything else about the picture. The 1887 in this link appears to refer to when a particular event happened rather than when the picture was created. -- King of ♥ 22:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: I have done my best to find, forgive my mediocrity. Digging deeper into Pedro's native language, German, I found that the photograph may have been extract from a source called katholischen Missionen, 1903 I beg for condescension. For now, logically, among all of us, we can conclude that the source extracts an image from before 1903, and that the person represented is between 30 and 40 years old. Pedro was born in 1839 and died in 1902 at the age of 63, one year before the source that extracted it, however it is unlikely that the author of the image had photographed it from the year 1900 onwards, and the closest thing to verifiability is the year 1887, the man represented in the image is not between 61 to 63 years old, which is the age he had between 1900 - 1902. But you are right that the years that this source has registered, more seem to refer to a particular event, but it is the closest thing I found to the date the image could have been photographed, I search and search and I cannot go further. --Berposen (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done I am convinced by your arguments that it is unreasonable for the photo to have been created after 1900. Do you have anything to say for the other two files? -- King of ♥ 17:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. On the other two files, it does not happen in the same way, I downloaded them from the web equally, but in this case, it is very possible that the author of the images is still alive, however, I deduced that the newspaper that published the photos, under that license, those did it just because it was in the public domain, I don't know, I thought I corrected them correctly, sorry. --Berposen (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Zygmunt Klemensiewicz polityk portret NAC.jpg[edit]

The same reasons as in another deletion reject by User:Andrei Romanenko of similar juridical status. --Matlin (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

While it is rather clear to me that the photo is PD in Poland, it is still not clear what is its US copyright status (this was not discussed in the abovementioned DR). US copyright status depends on initial publication date for this photo: if it was published before 1989, then if falls under URAA and US copyright status depends on Polish copyright status in 1996 (so the photo would be PD); if it was published after 1989, then US copyright status is independent on Polish copyright status and 70pma or 95 post-publication or 120 post-creation rules apply (the latter two rules in the author is unknown or their death date is unknown). So the key question here is: was it published before March 1989, and if so, where exactly? Ankry (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Gangacharan Dixit.gif[edit]

I don't think that image is a copyright violation. It comes from a source where is no copyright tag. Please verify your review. Thanks. A. Shohag

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @ShohagS: A notice is not requisite for content to be copyrighted. In India, photos are protected for 60 years after first publication, as are government works. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 11:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Undelet Charity logo File:FRAMElogo 2018.png[edit]

Hi,

I replaced the logo on this page en:Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments

I did this because it was showing our old charity logo. My name is Amy Beale and I work for FRAME. I can be found on the charity website under 'team'. My work email is amy@frame.org.uk You can email me to verify this. We were not happy that when you searched for 'FRAME' e.g on google, the Wikipedia reference was showing our old logo. We replaced this in 2018. Check on the FRAME website to see this new logo.

I deleted the old logo and tried to add our new one. I work for FRAME and give permission for the image to be used: FRAMElogo_2018.png

I would also add our FRAME logo is not currently copyrighted.

Many thanks,

Amy Beale Likesscampifries (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Likesscampifries: on what basis do you claim that the logo is not copyrighted in UK? UK ToO is quite low; the rabbit is complex enough to make it copyrighted, IMO. Ankry (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Restore following Marathi books deleted by mistake[edit]

@Ankry: Many thanks for looking into the matter. Lot of such old books were deleted by mistake. As all these files are transferred from IA, the source links are available. I am checking all files for eligibility under free license/public domain. As of now, I have checked following files. All these deleted books are in Marathi language. I have mentioned the publication year. The authors died 70 years ago. The license tags applicable are {{PD-India}} and {{PD-old-70-1923}}. The file name followed by publication year and name of the author -

  1. File:संसार घरातील कामे.pdf 1914 त्र्यंबक लेले
  2. File:मेणबत्त्या.pdf 1906 शंकर गर्गे
  3. File:श्रीएकनाथ .pdf 1903 वासुदेव शिरवळकर
  4. File:महाराष्ट्रातील किल्ले.pdf 1907 चिंतामण गोगटे
  5. File:वामनपंडित.pdf 1905 बाळकृष्ण भिडे
  6. File:बालाजी बाजीराव पेशवे भाग २.pdf 1906 दत्तात्रय पारसनीस
  7. File:अयोध्येचे नबाब.pdf 1899 दत्तात्रय पारसनीस
  8. File:महाराष्ट्र भामिनिविलास.pdf 1903 लक्ष्मण लेले
  9. File:देवमामलेदार.pdf 1903 विश्वनाथ किरकिरे
  10. File:ब्रिटिश लोकांचा जीवनक्रम व चरित्र.pdf 1915 माधव लेले
  11. File:हिंदु व मुसलमानात होणारे तंटे.pdf 1895 काशिनाथ खरे
  12. File:दूध व दुभते.pdf 1913 भास्कर घारे
  13. File:ग्वाल्हेर किल्ला व मराठे पेशवे शिंदे यांचा संक्षिप्त इतिहास.pdf 1897 नारायण पांडुरंग कुळकर्णी
  14. File:विवेकानंद खंड१.pdf 1912 विवेकानंद
  15. File:श्री तुकाराम नाटक.pdf 1901 वासुदेव शिरवळकर
  16. File:सार्थ प्राकृत प्रकाश.pdf 1900 शंकर हातवळणे
  17. File:माधवनिधन.pdf 1900 अनंत भागवत
  18. File:विधवा दुःख निवेदन.pdf 1901 सीताबाई छत्रे
  19. File:भरतपुरचा वेढा .pdf 1905 जगन्नाथ आजगावकर
  20. File:हिंदुस्थानातील दुष्काळ.pdf 1905 गोविंद टिपणीस
  21. File:बोधमणिमाला.pdf 1905 बाळकृष्ण भिडे
  22. File:भावी आयुष्य.pdf 1913 मथुराबाई जोशी
  23. File:रोगजंतू.pdf 1912 गणपत काळोखे

Kindly restore these files. I am checking other files also. I will post the next requests soon. Thanks for cooperation,
--सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Doing… Ankry (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@सुबोध कुलकर्णी: I think, the author of #6 is somebody else. Could you check his death date? Ankry (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: Thanks for restoration as these are rare reference value books in Marathi language. I have corrected the metadata of #6 after checking death date, done for other books also. Please remove the deletion tags as well.

As you are looking at these files closely, I kindly request you to rename the following files as the present file names are wrong -

  1. File:संसार घरातील कामे.pdf as - File:संसार (भाग १) - घरांतलीं कामें.pdf
  2. File:बालाजी बाजीराव पेशवे भाग २.pdf as - File:बाळाजी बाजीराव पेशवे यांची रोजनिशी (भाग २).pdf
  3. File:श्रीएकनाथ .pdf as File:श्रीएकनाथ.pdf
  4. File:महाराष्ट्रातील किल्ले.pdf as File:महाराष्ट्रातील किल्ले (भाग २).pdf
  5. File:ब्रिटिश लोकांचा जीवनक्रम व चरित्र.pdf as File:ब्रिटिश लोकांचा जीवनक्रम व चारित्र्य.pdf
  6. File:हिंदु व मुसलमानात होणारे तंटे.pdf as File:हिंदु व मुसलमानांत होणारे तंटे व ते बंद करण्याविषयीं विनंति.pdf
  7. File:भावी आयुष्य.pdf as File:भावी आयुष्य सुखमय करण्याची तरुण पिढीवर असलेली जबाबदारी.pdf
  8. File:बोधमणिमाला.pdf as File:मराठी कवींची बोधमणिमाला.pdf
  9. File:भरतपुरचा वेढा .pdf as File:भरतपुरचा वेढा.pdf
  10. File:श्री तुकाराम नाटक.pdf as File:श्रीतुकाराम (ऐतिहासिक नाटक).pdf
  11. File:विवेकानंद खंड१.pdf as File:स्वामी विवेकानंद यांचे समग्र ग्रंथ (प्रथम खंड).pdf
  12. File:ग्वाल्हेर किल्ला व मराठे पेशवे शिंदे यांचा संक्षिप्त इतिहास.pdf as File:श्रीगोपगडमणि.pdf

--सुबोध कुलकर्णी (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Lucky Star ginger ale and Super Sonico itacha, ASOBITCITY 2013-03-04.jpg[edit]

This file is one that was subject to a brief deletion request here. I wondered about this one for a while, but I now feel confident in having a case for undeletion here. For those who are curious, the file can be seen here. Essentially, it's a photograph of a store shelf with bottles of ginger ale. It was deleted under COM:PACKAGING. Indeed, the bottles have packaging on them using characters from the Lucky Star anime as well as Super Sonico. However, I do not believe the photographs are copyright violations because the photograph is about a display as a whole where all elements thereof are either purely textual or incidental. As far as de minimis or "incidental" is concerned, I have the following arguments:

  • A lot of the packaging is obscured as-is (compare File:SeoulBus202.jpg).
  • Even if the cartoon characters are visible and mentioned in the file name, the work can still be de minimis overall if that was not the main point (compare File:7Feb06Low9thDebrisPileSpongebob.jpg and its DR).
  • If it's of a display as a whole, it is de minimis (compare File:Hentai comicbooks sold in Japan 002.jpg and its DR).
  • U.S. court cases have affirmed that photographs of useful objects in their entirety are not derivative of any copyrighted labels on them (thank you, Carl Lindberg, which I got from this DR):
    • "We need not, however, decide whether the label is copyrightable because Ets-Hokin's product shots are based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety. The defendants have cited no case holding that a bottle of this nature may be copyrightable, and we are aware of none. ... Because Ets-Hokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole — a useful article not subject to copyright protection — and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work" within the meaning of the Copyright Act." Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068, 1081 (9th Cir. 2000).
    • "Further weakening defendant-appellees argument is the fact that the ZX-14 motorcycles were the subject matter and primary focus of Latimer's photographs. Latimer's photographs can best be described as being 'based upon' the ZX-14 motorcycles, useful articles not subject to copyright protection. The fact that Hathaway's artwork appears in the photographs is merely incidental. However, we need not resolve the derivative work question if the photographs were made with Hathaway's authorization." Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224, 1234-35 (11th Cir. 2010).

With that all in mind, I believe it is a usable and useful file. Pinging relevant parties: @Yuraily Lic, Solomon203, Christian Ferrer. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nothing copyrightable except a small portion of the right corner and some cut-off parts of the top center. Clear COM:DM for me. -- King of ♥ 01:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral with regard to the final decision, but i make just two comments:
In answer to "*U.S. court cases have affirmed that photographs ...", the example given by Clindberg seems to be about potential DW of US protected works. The deleted photo don't show a US work (apart from the photo itself according to where it have been published), and I don't I know to what extent the US copyright law, hence a US courtcase, can be applied to potential issues including works potentially protected by the copyright law of other countries.
In answer to King of Hearts, the argument "incidental" may be debatable, but COM:DM it is not, I quote: "A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out. If no, then it is difficult to argue that the poster is actually de minimis, even if the poster is small and is "in the background", the answer is clearly no, excepted for the center of the photo. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The Berne Convention means that the US copyright law will protect works of any Berne nation (i.e. almost all of them), and the Japanese copyright law will protect works of any Berne nation. How much deference is given to the laws of the source nation may differ, but this is potentially protected by the laws of 178 nations. The US is special because the WMF is founded here and has servers here; I'm not sure where and how much the laws of Japan affect how this work would be treated anywhere outside of Japan.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe we should compare this case with COM:DM Japan rather than normal DM policy. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, the translated portion is kind of vague, and my knowledge of Japanese is insufficient to fully understand the detailed text, though I don't think it's too far off from the global standard. Unless a Japanese speaker visits this thread, I think we're stuck using what we know. -- King of ♥ 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    @King of Hearts: Finding a ja-N speaker can be hard? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    They need to not only understand Japanese, but also have a basic understanding of international copyright law. We can try the admin corps, of which there are four. -- King of ♥ 06:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done COM:UNDEL is generally for quick requests, and it looks like this one requires deeper analysis. I have undeleted the image and listed it at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lucky Star ginger ale and Super Sonico itacha, ASOBITCITY 2013-03-04.jpg for further discussion. King of ♥ 18:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Logo Xaviers Behror.jpg[edit]

This is a Logo of an educational institution / School which under Wikipedia's policy may be used in Wiki pages. under certain templates . Find required info here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logos . This is only a trademark and not a copyrighted material .Undeletion is requested based on that . — Preceding unsigned comment added by राकेश5678 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC) राकेश5678 (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC) User:राकेश5678 11 July 2020 19:00 .

Only free logos (when copyright expired or freely licensed) may be hosted in Wikimedia Commons. Fair Use logos may be hosted in Wikipedia directly. If the logo is 60+ years old, then it may be free. However, you declared the logo to be fresh new design, created today. Ankry (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: per Ankry. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 22:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Cook_Blues_Are_Still_Blue_350ppi.jpg[edit]

I submitted this request to undelete my file and it was denied and closed before I had a chance to argue my case.

This image belongs to me, was uploaded to Flickr, and was placed in the public domain.

The image is a painting of an album cover, which I understand would not be allowed under a fair use argument. This image, however, should not be seen within that context for the following reasons:

This image is a part of an academic research project dealing with the relationships between image and object, and dissemination and experience. The image is of a painting of an image of an object, not a recreation of a copyrighted image. The work should be seen within the context of a painting of any object. This body of work is made to question the notion of what real experience is and to include the perception of images online as valid experience. The specific work in question utilizes a physical object(s) (three members of a band) which were photographed (digital image) and printed on the cover of an album (physical object), which was then photographed (digital image), recreated as a painting (object) and once again digitally photographed to be uploaded on Wikipedia. The experience of seeing the work within the native location of the Wikipedia article is intentional. This is not a question of fair use but instead a work that exists completely separate from the original source. The original source is merely an object, and the deleted image is a commentary on the perception of images as they relate to objects.

I have been exploring this theme throughout my career as an artist and professor which can be verified through my personal website (https://benjamincookart.com/home.html) and news articles about my work (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathonkeats/2020/03/25/net-art/#69cb6b196cac).

I am happy to discuss this further. Benjamincookart (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Commons:Derivative works. Thuresson (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you elaborate please? Is every still life which contains a branded product a derivative work? I understand the notion that if a work is dependent upon a specific copyrighted image, it would be in violation, but as I explained earlier, the work is specifically referencing the relationship between object hood and documentation. The crux of the work does not rely on any value that the source material contains but rather the fact of its objecthood. If you think of the painting as an object rather than a depiction of an image, does that not change anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamincookart (talk • contribs) 22:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

"Is every still life which contains a branded product a derivative work?" Yes, as long as the branded product is sufficiently complex to garner copyright protection (COM:TOO) and is featured prominently in the derivative work (COM:DM). So as an example of the first case, it's OK to upload something that makes use of the Nike swoosh because it is too simple to be copyrighted (it is trademarked, however). As for the second case, it's OK to upload a photo featuring hundreds of copyrighted packages, because each one makes up a small portion of the whole. -- King of ♥ 23:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how those examples apply to this case? Here are 3 examples of works that are uploaded and were not deleted: This is an image of a street artwork that uses a copyrighted character. this is a sculpture by Jeff Koons which uses a copyrighted character, and this image, which is a photo of an object which utilizes an image of a painting which used came from a copyrighted product.

How do you see these as differing from the file in dispute?

--Benjamincookart (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC) benjamincookart

We get thousands of files a day, so inevitably some will slip through the cracks. The first two are pretty clear-cut and should be deleted. The third one (File:TAG Andy Warhol Soup Can 01.jpg) is a bit more complicated. First of all, is the Campbell's soup can copyrighted? See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Copyright formalities. If anything substantially identical has been published without a correct copyright notice before 1978, then the design is public domain (i.e. not copyrighted). Secondly, is Target's display a derivative work of Warhol's art? You can't copyright the idea of displaying a bunch of Campbell's soup cans; I don't see any evidence that Target has copied anything from Warhol's expression of the idea. Finally, assuming that the design is public domain but these colors have not been seen before, is the selection of this color scheme sufficiently original to attract copyright protection? Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Threshold of originality is the right section to look at. Unfortunately it deals more with shapes rather than colors, so I'm not quite sure. -- King of ♥ 23:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Richiesta di pristino[edit]

potreste prististinarmi questo file per cortesia File:Ritratto di Federico Borromeo.jpg --Masira96 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Krd since he is most knowledgeable about this sock. -- King of ♥ 22:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Photo of Sangeet Bhullar.jpg[edit]

Note: This image was speedily deleted while this deletion request was pending.

This photo is of a member of Wikimedia UK's Board of Trustees; she stated that she intended to use it on the Wikimedia UK Board page. COM:SCOPE says that "Files relating to projects or events of the Wikimedia community, such as user meetings, are also allowed." I submit that this includes small numbers of photos of Wikimedia community leaders, such as members of WMUK's Board, for use on their page. Thus, I believe that this image should be restored. -Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Pictures of board members are obviously in scope. We'll need to clarify the copyright though. @Sangeet2019: Who is the photographer? -- King of ♥ 00:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

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

File:Tariq-Aziz-file-image.jpg[edit]

The said image was deleted for possible copyright violation. It's original source was from a Twitter account which was linked with the image. I request it's undeletion because it was not a copyright violation since after the death of that personality (Tariq Aziz), it went into public domain and was used by every major news outlet in the country reporting his death and remembering him. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by USaamo (talk • contribs) 07:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is nothing in Pakistani copyright law that says that photos of people who have passed away are public domain, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Pakistan. Also, if this is public domain why did you tag your upload with a Creative Commons CC-BY-SA tag? Thuresson (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Thuresson: I'm not saying his death made it go in public domain but its widespread use after death by media outlets, newspapers and social media. USaamo (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
There is no such paragraph or section in Pakistani copyright law where widely used photographs becomes public domain. Thuresson (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The author of the image has no where expressed that widespread use of his image even by national media is infringement of his copyrights. So we have to assume that it's in public domain. As to Pakistani law it is least practiced and mostly silenced over this issue which implies of it not being copyright violation. USaamo (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle:
Commons' users aim to build and maintain in good faith a repository of media files which to the best of our knowledge are free or freely-licensed.
The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted.
Also, arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims:
  1. "The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to."
  2. "The copyright owner will never find out."
  3. "The copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated their work."
  4. "Nobody knows who the copyright owner is, so it really doesn’t matter."
  5. "The file is obviously common property. It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained."
Thuresson (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per Thuresson. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Dirijorul Mircea Popa_crop.jpg[edit]

Poza a fost urcata la cererea explicita a proprietarului pozei Poetul Eugen Bunaru din Timisoara (si actualizarea datelor Dirijorului Mircea Popa)...dirijorul mircea popa fiind unchiul domnului bunaru si avand o relatie foarte apropiata. , Romania. Domnul Bunaru este o persoana de peste 70 ani si nu are abilitati tehnice (cel mult stie sa utilizeze email-ul) Pentru confirmarea directa din partea domnului bunaru, puteti sa-l contactati la adresa: eugenbunaru@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irusan (talk • contribs) 14:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

File:Annamie Paul in Regent Park Toronto.jpg[edit]

This photo is owned by the uploader and does not violate any copyrights. Please let us know what to do to have it undeleted. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2607:FEA8:EC60:95C6:90EC:6846:34DA:DE04 (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Same photo as File:Annamie Paul in Toronto Regent Park.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, what information do we need to provide?

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). For the possibility of undeletion, the copyright holder must send permission and a specific release under a acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 01:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)