Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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


Current requests[edit]

File:Ordinanza del Giudice per le indagini preliminari respingente le accuse di diffamazione verso Cécile Kyenge.pdf[edit]

This document was an Italian court judgement, that if I remember well, as any other judgement pronounced by a court in Italy, should have been released in the public domain. In fact, this same file can be obtained directly from the official website of the "Giudice per le indagini preliminari del Tribunale di Milano". Anyway, since it can't be directly linked (one can download it through a php form after inserting the judgement number) I have uploaded it here to link it through the special property related to Commons to its wikidata element. --Ogoorcs (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ogoorcs: Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Italy seems to indicate that at least government documents may not be Public Domain. Do you have any source that judgements from Italian courts are in the Public Domain? I have tried to find the judgement in questions via this site, but had no luck neither with 28558/15 (R.G.N.R.) nor with 14428/16 (R.G.G.I.P.), the two numbers given at the top of the document. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The Italian Copyright Law, at Article 5 says:
"The provisions of this Law shall not apply to the texts of official acts of the State or of public administrations, whether Italian or foreign." (WIPO translation)
A court judgement is certainly an "official act of... public administration", so I think this is PD.
With that said, though, there remains the question of whether it is in scope. There are millions of court judgements available electronically and I can not, offhand, recall that Commons hosts any of them. Neither Roe v Wade nor Brown v Board of Education are hosted on Commons and they are arguably two of the most important cases in the last hundred years. Why is this judgement more important than Brown v Board? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward:(Jim), I'm sorry that I haven't provided all the needed details on my first post, I hope this second answer can remedy to that; although I can still be considered a novice to online interactions with wiki* community, I think I can still persuade you that this file can stay.
Symbol support vote.svg Support About the public domain status of the document, it should be made available on the page @Srittau: linked, as per court order, but unfortunately the retrieval tool, as many other PA (public administration) web tools in Italy, doesn't work at all for me. Anyway, as specified in my previously linked news, the document can be copied going directly to the tribunal, as the journalist of the national newspaper I took the file from, probably did.
As for the project scope, that is "making available public domain and freely-licensed media content providing instructional or informative knowledge to all", I think this document, as any other court sentence, perfectly complies with it.
Even if the argument you used (the fact that more important judgements are not hosted on this site) is logically inconsistent (no one has done this, so is forbidden), one can easily observe that the two cases you mentioned have their court judgement hosted officially by their state web infrastructure. This is obviously not the case here, since on the contrary we don't have the luck to have a government capable of keeping online his judgements, and that's the main reason I am trying to upload this file her, otherwise lacking the chance to use it for reference use in a wiki project.
Ogoorcs (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You still have not explained the importance of this document -- most of us do not read Italian and therefore have no idea why it should be an exception to a long standing method of operation. Please give us a summary of the document. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The black Italian MP Cécile Kyenge was called publicly orangutan by the racist Lega Nord MP Roberto Calderoli in 2013; the official party pressroom defended his "position"; Kyenge then published an article saying that the party is racist; after that, the party sued her for defame.
This is the judgement declaring that she didn't defame Lega Nord. In general I need this document to reference the wikidata entry about the sentence and eventually reference a statement affirming that Lega Nor is a racist party (in the future).
Ogoorcs (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't know if there are any different rules on wikidata or WP:IT, but on WP:EN you would reference the document as you do any other source just as you have described in the first paragraph above. I still don't think we should be keeping court judgements that are otherwise easily available on line, but I don't feel strongly about it. What do others think? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem is in fact that it isn't easily available; I mean, we can't stay assured that the newspaper will keep this file online forever. Further you can't directly link it since you have to pass for this page. Another reason for the file to stay is that will serve to proof the need for a generic media type Commons property in Wikidata, which right now consider image (P18) as the only linkable media type.
It can be considered lame to say, but my alternative, if we can't reach an agreement on the usefulness of having a mirror of a court judgement here, is to upload it to the Internet Archive, which community doesn't pretend to judge the information value of the document their users upload (they just review license), appealing to the principle that any kind of original work in the public domain must have a value, otherwise why keep it? They don't care for storage and bandwidth since 1996; shouldn't wikimedia projects too?
Ogoorcs (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Why wouldn't we host them? The reason we don't have Brown v. Board is largely historical; if someone wanted to upload the appropriate official volume here, we should, and it wouldn't hurt the English Wikisource to do so and have scan-backed sources for those court cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I fear that there is a copyright on the Italian court judgements, even if they are published on an official webpage (available, yes, but still copyrighted as for any other webpage; in fact, you have to pay to access to a written copy of a judgement). They are not "official acts" of the Republic, which are the laws, so they fall under the law 633/1941; see www.giustizia.it. So, as the Ministry holds the copyright, requests have to be addressed to it. Certain information can be published, but only for information sake, and non commercial activities ("L'utilizzazione, la riproduzione, l'estrazione di copia, la distribuzione delle informazioni testuali, degli elementi multimediali e del patrimonio conoscitivo disponibile su questo sito sono autorizzate esclusivamente nei limiti in cui le stesse avvengano nel rispetto dell'interesse pubblico all'informazione, per finalità non commerciali, garantendo l'integrità degli elementi riprodotti e mediante indicazione della fonte. L’amministrazione individua le ipotesi di possibile utilizzo anche a fini commerciali"), which is not compatible with Commons' policy.

Moreover, the usage of private data from the judgements is strictly limited by Italian law 36/2006, and we don't exactly know the usage that can be done of these private data, even if it's not central in this case ("In particolare, i dati personali pubblicati sono «riutilizzabili solo alle condizioni previste dalla normativa vigente sul riuso dei dati pubblici (direttiva comunitaria 2003/98/CE e d.lgs. 36/2006 di recepimento della stessa), in termini compatibili con gli scopi per i quali sono stati raccolti e registrati, e nel rispetto della normativa in materia di protezione dei dati personali» [1]). --Ruthven (msg) 23:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That's non correct. I'm sorry bit I will reply properly only tomorrow. I'm adding this commento to avoid archiving the discussione. Ogoorcs (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2015-05-24 Boulefestival Hannover, (311) Edeltraut-Inge Geschke.JPG[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg Support Finde vergleichbare Bilder auf Commons, da Bezirksbürgermeister auch immer politische Entscheidungen treffen und so in den Medien sind. -- Ra Boe watt?? 07:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Engagierte und beliebte Kommunalpolitikerin (Hannover Nord) [2][3][4][5]. --Stobaios (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Volkswagen logo 2012.svg[edit]

a simple letter and geometric logo, no need for a deletion. its a typical Wdwd thing, he is well known in german wikipedia for deletions like this Norschweden (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - not below TOO - Jcb (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
of cause it is, the logo is made of two circles, a V a W a, two triangles, two rectangles, and 2 semicircles Norschweden (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
A close call. Probably below the ToO in the USA, but as I understand it, probably above the ToO in Germany. Ultimately everything is made up of simple components. The question is not the components, but whether they are creatively arranged. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
its also below ToO in germany Norschweden (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Why? Natuur12 (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
because its just gemetric stuff and two letters Norschweden (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


Actually, Germany had a much (MUCH) higher threshold than the U.S. for logos, until recently -- logos had "clearly surpass the average design" to be copyrightable. A 2013 ruling overturned that though, with this: When assessing whether a work of applied art reaches the level of creativity necessary for copyright protection, it must be taken into consideration that the aesthetic effect of the design can only provide a basis for copyright protection to the extent that it is not due to its intended use, but is based on artistic creativity. It must further be considered that a level of creativity that, while providing grounds for copyright protection, is still only slight, results in a correspondingly narrow scope of protection for the work in question. That ruling does involve "aesthetic effect" where the U.S. does not, but does seem to limit it to artistic creativity -- and also mentions that the scope of protection is pretty narrow, so that uses in derivative works would presumably rarely be infringing. If the SVG has a lot of 3-D effects and that sort of thing, it probably is copyrightable in the U.S. anyways, though the basic letters and arrangement probably would not be. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I support because of the argument, but I would like to see the file anyway. Ogoorcs (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Google has a low-resolution snapshot of this file: [6]. De728631 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:3OTO-SAC-UTR-JB4.pdf[edit]

Hi, i think that the rationale of this deletion request is completely wrong. I've no doubt, that Ph.D. Cesar D. Fermin is the copyright owner of his microscopic images. We need this PDF with it's licence as source of the extracted version. Regards --Ras67 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Irrespective of the licence, this appears to have been a single image stored as PDF. Photographic images at Commons should be stored as JPG but not as PDF. De728631 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure, nobody needs the PDF, but i can not put the licence to the new JPG version. An admin or trusted user may prove, that the licence is correct. Thanks --Ras67 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That is also why you should not have uploaded the JPG. Unless we have written evidence that Cesar D. Fermin is the scientist of the same name, we cannot host this image. De728631 (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment About storing images at Commons with PDF, the image (P18) property on Wikidata assert that PDF is an acceptable format for Commons, so to me if we can't convert to other format due to license problems, I think we can of course host a PDF. Ogoorcs (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • PDF is perfectly acceptable but for text files only. For images we should only use common graphical file formats. E. g. one disadvantage of PDF is that you will almost always need a separate viewer to view the file while image files are supported by all browsers. And the format has absolutely nothing to do with copyright or licenses. De728631 (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. The presented above arguments about disadvantages of PDF format suggest that the deletion reason is invalid. Ankry (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As long as policy says that we do not keep PDFs of images, no other reason for deletion is required. If you want to change the policy, go ahead and try -- I would oppose it -- but arguing that we should break policy won't get you anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
It was not deleted "because of wrong format" but "because doubt own work". The first reason would allow somebody to convert it to other format providing "own work" pdf as a source, the latter does not. I support undeletion to change the deletion reason only. Ankry (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't need the PDF, we need an administrator's permission, that the licence of 3OTO-SAC-UTR-JB4.jpg seeing here is correct. Thanks --Ras67 (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-01-09 Neujahrsempfang der Landeshauptstadt Hannover (169).JPG[edit]

Moin zusammen, ich stelle jetzt für jedes Bild ein gesonderten Antrag, wir habe uns gestern im Büro Hannover getroffen und die relevanten Bilder gefunden. Bernd wird die Bilder wo er die Erklärung erst auf Papier erst bei mir im Namenraum ausarbeiten, ich kopiere sie dann hier her. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 13:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sozialistische Jugend Deutschlands – Die Falken --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Vertreterin und Vertreter des hannoverschen Zweigs der Sozialistischen Jugend Deutschlands – Die Falken beim Neujahrsempfang des hannoverschen Oberbürgermeisters im Rathaus Hannover. Auf Einladung des Oberbürgermeisters hatten sie einen Informationsstand aufgebaut.--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Passt in Category:Sozialistische Jugend Deutschlands – Die Falken. De728631 (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-01-09 Neujahrsempfang der Landeshauptstadt Hannover (163).JPG[edit]

Moin zusammen, ich stelle jetzt für jedes Bild ein gesonderten Antrag, wir habe uns gestern im Büro Hannover getroffen und die relevanten Bilder gefunden. Bernd wird die Bilder wo er die Erklärung erst auf Papier erst bei mir im Namenraum ausarbeiten, ich kopiere sie dann hier her. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 13:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Wie auf dem Bild genau zu lesen: Jugendaktion Natur- und Umweltschutz (JANUN) ...

Vertreterin und Vertreter des hannoverschen Zweigs der Jugendaktion Natur- und Umweltschutz (JANUN), die beim Neujahrsempfang des hannoverschen Oberbürgermeisters auf dessen Einladung einen Informationsstand betrieben.--Klaaschwotzer (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ich kann hier keine eindeutige Relevanz der Personen erkennen. Der Verein selbst scheint auch nicht sonderlich viel Medienrezeption zu erfahren. De728631 (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Der Verein hat, wie weiter oben verlinkt, einen eigenen Eintrag auf de.Wikipedia: Jugendaktion Natur- und Umweltschutz. Dass hier selbst Fotos eines offiziellen Informationsstands eines relevanten Vereins bei einem offiziellen Anlass gelöscht werden sollen, ist ... Mir fehlen die Worte. --Stobaios (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Dann hilf doch lieber, den Artikel mit eindeutigen Belegen zu verbessern, um die Bedeutung dieses Vereins zu belegen. Ich kann da leider nichts passendes finden. Der Artikel ist bereits seit 2011 als problematisch markiert. De728631 (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support ich sehe es als relevant an wie gestern bei offenen Editieren auch die anderen sonst hätte ich nicht die Wiederherstellung beantragt. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-01-09 Neujahrsempfang der Landeshauptstadt Hannover (170).JPG[edit]

Moin zusammen, ich stelle jetzt für jedes Bild ein gesonderten Antrag, wir habe uns gestern im Büro Hannover getroffen und die relevanten Bilder gefunden. Bernd wird die Bilder wo er die Erklärung erst auf Papier erst bei mir im Namenraum ausarbeiten, ich kopiere sie dann hier her. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 13:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Türkische Jugend Niedersachsen, offizieller Aussteller im Neuen Rathaus von Hannover. --Bernd Schwabe in Hannover (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Über diese Bilder kann man geteilter Meinung sein, ich sehe darin Vertreter verschiedener Vereine; JARUM e.V, rote Taube auf blauen Grund??, Türkische Jungend Niedersachsen alter Text von mir der Sammellöschung -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Keine Relevanz der Personen und kein erkennbarer Nutzen für Commons, Wikipedia oder andere Bildungsprojekte. Das rote Banner auf der Säule im Hintergrund ist von den Falken, aber das Bild selbst hat mit denen ja offensichtlich nichts zu tun. De728631 (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Der Neujahrsempfang 2017 im Rathaus Hannover stand unter dem Motto "Jugend lebt Stadt", eingeladen waren zahlreiche Jugendorganisationen [7][8], darunter auch die Türkische Jugend Niedersachsen-Hannover [9]. Category:Youth organizations in Germany --Stobaios (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support ich sehe es als relevant an wie gestern bei offenen Editieren auch die anderen sonst hätte ich nicht die Wiederherstellung beantragt. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 15:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Leon_Drolet.png[edit]

This image was provided to me by Leon Drolet himself, the officeholder whom the Wikipedia page is about. He provided it to me for the express purpose of updating his Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berzebuey (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 February 2017 (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.
Please ask the copyright owner to verify the licence through Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Note also that "for the express purpose of updating his Wikipedia page" is insufficient permission. The photographer or the actual copyright holder will have to freely license the image for use by anybody anywhere for any purpose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Dunkerque - le port.jpg[edit]

Hi, I don't understand why this file has been deleted. It is in the public domain, my company owns it, and we provide it for free on our website : ehne.fr. I really don't see why it has been deleted, for the more that I provided the missing informations about date, author and rights. Can you restore this file ? Thank you. Best regards. --Clabexio (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You say "It is in the public domain". If it is in the public domain, why? Can you prove that the photographer died before 1947? Or is there some other reason? You also say, "my company owns it". If you mean that you own a paper print of the photograph, that does not give you any right to license the use of the image by others. That right belongs to the photographer, or his heirs, until the copyright expires. If, on the other hand, you are claiming that you own the copyright, that is inconsistent with your claim that it is PD. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:GOT7 海軍服.jpg File:GOT7海軍服.jpg[edit]

不懂Why被刪除.... 之前上傳維基共享資源時 那些資料、出處,都有打清楚阿.. 如果沒有,拜託請復原... 還有以下這些圖片也是!!



(I'm from Taiwan )Sheng20241 (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Sheng20241 2017/2/24

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You put a CC-BY-SA license on these. I see no evidence of that or any other free license at any of the sources. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Elckerlyc zaal.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Deletion was just after a couple of minutes. Normally it must after a couple of days, and not minutes! I was just with the uploader in conversation to fix the parameters of licenses. The moderator who deleted the image has not given the publisher any information about that!! LIVE NIEUWS (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:De728631 ;) --LIVE NIEUWS (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) ✓ Done @LIVE NIEUWS: The image was published here without a free licence. Because you seem to be in conversation with the uploader about the issue, I have, however, restored this and given it the usual period of grace. Unless a verifiable licence is added within seven days, the file will be deleted again. The easiest way would be to release the original file under a free commercial licence like Creative Commons by attribution 4.0 directly at the theater's website. This would also require mentioning the name of the copyright holder. Otherwise, the copyright holder needs to send a written permission by email as can be read in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on it! ;) --LIVE NIEUWS (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Marco Brambilla Politecnico di Milano.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I confirm I was the owner of the photo and I would like to publish it here. I also allowed use on social networks and similar sites, Marcobramb (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Marcobramb: So, maybe you should upload the original photo version from your camera? Ankry (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the suggestion, I will look into that and find the original. Now, if I edit from the original (like cropping and such, for making it more suitable) is this hindering the process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcobramb (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The original photo can be some kind of proof of authorship. Then, you can create a crop or request undeletion of the crop. The original photo will be the source for the crop. Alternatively, if you do not wish to publish the original photo, you can contact OTRS people sending them a written permission and proving authorship in a more private way. Please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) Ankry (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Toppers Old.jpg[edit]

This photo is soley my property — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevobmmd (talk • contribs) 19:41, 24 February 2017 (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.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose My first reaction is that the quality is so poor that it is probably unusable for any educational purpose and therefore out of scope.

Second is that with the only description "Toppers 1960" and no categories, it is useless anyway because no one can find it among our 36 million images.

Third is to ask if you actually were the photographer in 1960? If not, please remember that owning a paper copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it any more than owning a copy of a book gives you the right to make and sell copies of it. The right to license the photo belongs to the photographer or his heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)