Commons:Visszaállítási kérések

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 42% 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.

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

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

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Törlés (Törlési irányelvek)


Finding out why a file was deleted[edit]

Először is nézd meg a törlési naplót, hogy miért törölték a fájlt. Ha a Commonson a képhez találsz egy piros linket, és arra kattintasz, akkor megnyílik egy szerkesztési ablak, de a baloldali navigációs menü Mi hivatkozik erre pontjából utánajárhatsz, hogy hol említették meg a fájlt (például egy törlési vitában). Másodsorban pedig olvasd el a Commons feltételeit, a licencfeltételeket és a törlési irányelveket.

Ha a törlésre adott indoklás nem érthető, vagy ha nem értesz vele egyet, akkor felveheted a kapcsolatot a képet törlő adminisztrátorral. Magyarázatot kérhetsz tõle vagy akár új bizonyítékot is benyújthatsz be a törlés indoka ellen. Felveheted továbbá a kapcsolatot egy másik adminisztrátorral is – a magyarul beszélő adminisztrátorok ebben a listában vannak. Ha a törlés hibás volt, akkor a fájlt visszaállítják.

Fellebbezés[edit]

Ha a törlés a jelenlegi Commons feltételek és licencfeltételek szerint indokolt volt, akkor az adott feltétel vitalapján emelhetsz panaszt a feltétel ellen.

Ha úgy gondolod, hogy a kép nem sértette a szerzői jogokat és a Commons feltételeinek is megfelel:

  • Először a vitát lezáró adminnal lenne érdemes kapcsolatba lépni. Megkérheted, hogy a bővebben fejtse ki az indoklását, vagy hogy mutasson be bizonyítékokat.
  • Ha nem szeretnél senkivel se közvetlenül kapcsolatba lépni, vagy ha egy adminisztrátor megtagadta a visszaállítást, esetleg több embert szeretnél bevonni a vitába, akkor a lentiek szerint ezen az oldalon kérvényezheted a visszaállítást.
  • 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.

Átmeneti visszaállítás[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

A fair use elvet engedélyező projektek felhasználói kérvényezhetnek egy két napos átmeneti visszaállítást, hogy a letörölt fájlt átvihessék a saját projektjükbe. A szerkesztőnek meg kell mondania, hogy melyik projektbe szeretné a fájlt átvinni, és be kell linkelni az adott projekt fair use állásfoglalását. A magyar Wikipédia nem fogad be fair use fájlokat. 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.

Új kérés beadása[edit]

Kattints ide, és megnyílik az az oldal, ahova a visszaállítási kérésedet írhatod be. Ugyanezt kézzel is megcsinálhatod, ha a mai dátum melletti "szerkesztés" hivatkozásra bököl. A kérésedet a lap aljára írd be, és ne feledkezz meg az alábbiakról:

  • A Subject: mezőbe írj be egy megfelelő témát. Ha csak egyetlen egy fájl visszaállítását kéred, akkor melegen ajánlott az [[:Image:TöröltFájl.jpg]]. (Ne feledkezz meg az első kettőspontról, az hivatkozik a képre.)
  • Sorold fel a fájlt vagy fájlokat amire a visszaállítási kérésed vonatkozik, és mindegyik képhez adj meg egy hivatkozást (lásd feljebb). Ha nem emlékszel a fájl nevére, akkor a lehető legtöbb mindent adj meg. Ha egy kérésből nem derül ki, hogy mit is kellene visszaállítani, akkor az a kérés nagyon hamar archiválásra kerülhet.
  • Sorold fel indokaidat a visszaállításra.
  • Írd alá a kérésedet négy hullámvonallal(~~~~). Ha a Commonsban van felhasználói fiókod, akkor jelentkezz be. Ha te töltötted fel a képet, akkor így az adminok sokkal hamarabb megtalálják.

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[edit]

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.


Nyitott visszaállítási kérések[edit]

Watch View Edit

File:Coat of arms of Cook Islands.svg[edit]

See also [1]. Looking for an alternative depiction of that image, I found that the image the SVG is based on does not come originally from [2], but it was instead taken from [3] (for proof, see http://web.archive.org/web/20030129101711/www.ngw.nl/). Images from NGW are very commonly used here, although NGW does not appply a specific licence to its images.--Antemister (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Are not uploads by Copyviol

Are not randomly extracted images the copyright of the following images is correct (ANSWERED FILES),,, Can you explain what is the problem of images? They only deal with portraits, photographs and paintings of various times, why then? --79.31.200.43 09:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The fact that Commons has apparently used a great many images from NGW is not relevant to this discussion. At http://www.ngw.nl/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Heraldry_of_the_World:About there is a clear copyright notice "© since 1996, Heraldry of the World, Ralf Hartemink" and no evidence of a free license. Therefore it appears that the many uses of works from the NGW site are copyvios. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I hate to re-open a closed request, but there is additional information if the source was ngw.nl. The author, Ralf Hartemink, was a contributor here (User:Knorrepoes) and I believe licensed images from ngw.nl that he created ({{NGW}}). There is apparently an OTRS ticket to that effect (2008040910005359). So... if this SVG was in fact based on a graphic done by that author, it may well be fine. That is also the reason we have so many NGW images (and they are likely not copyvios). ngw.nl also does copy images from external sources, and we can't host those, but I believe that images created by Mr. Hartemink are OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: per Jim. Ruthven (msg) 13:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Re-opening Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I stand corrected. The Cook Islands image is one of those from NGW that is covered by {{NGW}}. Thanks, Carl. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Google Chrome Screenshot.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Requesting temporary undeletion for discussion. I believe there may be a case to be made that there is no non-free, original authorship in these images. The Chromium software, available under BSD, LGPL, etc., is the basis for the Chrome software and its layout. The Google Chrome logo has been held to be below the threshold of originality. Whatever proprietary contribution Google may or may not have made to these images is likely to be de minimis. Guanaco (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Jcb, Polarlys, Rosenzweig: I'd like your input, as you deleted these images. Guanaco (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • At least you shouldn't rely on the licensing of Chromium for screenshots of Chrome. They have shared code, but there are differences and we don't want to need an expert in every DR who has to tell us whether the particular part is suffenciently simular to that part of Chromium. If somebody wants to rely on the licensing of Chromium for a screenshot, they should install Chromium and make that screenshot. Jcb (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      The fundamental layouts are the same between the two browsers, and this is verifiable by comparing screenshots of equivalent versions. Proprietary Chrome features include media codec support, Google updates, error reporting, and similar; nothing that affects the base layout of the browser. If I wanted to upload a screenshot of a website, I'd use a free browser (Firefox is my personal preference), but when writing about Chrome itself, the Chrome screenshots are strongly preferred. If there's a question about some particular screenshot showing a non-free part of the browser, unfortunately we may have to go to the extra effort of comparing the browsers. Guanaco (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, we have many other images of Google Chrome, such as File:Google Chrome Finnish.png. I think we should address them all together in a single DR. Guanaco (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I deleted the file in July 2011 because it was marked as copyvio. The concern was mainly the Chrome logo. At the time, we didn't actually have the Chrome logo as a file on Commons (those came a little later), the threshold of originality was interpreted differently IIRC. Anyway, if we have the logo on its own now, there's no need to delete a screenshot because of the logo. --Rosenzweig τ 19:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I restored the file. I overlooked the decision from earlier this year. Mea culpa. --Polarlys (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Polarlys: Thanks for restoring it. Could you link the decision from this year for reference? Guanaco (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Guanaco: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Google_Chrome_Screenshot.png. --Polarlys (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Files deleted by Jcb[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: "Flickrreview failed, NC restriction at source" is not a valid reason for deletion. These are all genuine NASA files and therefore Public Domain, see here. Ras67 (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • No, the NC licences are not valid, it exists a FAR, that NASA works are in public domain. This is a higher instance as an incorrect "licence" on a private image service. --Ras67 (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The main problem is that not everything published by NASA is authored by NASA. If you want to demonstrate that a file is indeed a PD work from NASA, you cannot rely on an unfree Flickr file as a source like you did. Jcb (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Why not? Since few years, Flickr is the only source of current NASA images. In the metadata of every file this link is embedded. Until now, this guidelines were acceptable for Commons. With your opinion we have to delete all newer NASA images and are cut of from NASA's current image footage. I don't think, that you have right. --Ras67 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I believe this non-DR out of process mass deletion was sloppy, as the deletions are correctly contested, and had a DR been raised for these it would have been complex and debatable. The second image I looked at, out of two, is published at nasa.gov (archive) and credited "NASA", clearly making it public domain. That's a very poor hit rate for a random sample. For these reasons I would rather the images were undeleted and if a particular contractor photographer's set of images is problematic for NASA credits, those smaller sets can have their own DR, thereby avoiding accidentally blitzing some of our most valuable public domain materials. Doing these investigations post-deletion is really only possible for administrators, thereby locking out the rest of our community from helping with analysis, and the history of our UNDEL process tends to bias towards deletion in a way that does not happen with open DR discussions. It is worth highlighting again that Deletion Requests should always be the default process for any deletion action that is contested; speedy deletions must be obvious and in any reasonable circumstances where contributors are contesting the speedies, the deleting admin's first action should be to presume good faith and undelete so there can be proper review and open discussion. -- (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm with Yann and Fæ on this. Out of process mass deletions like this one by Jcb should not be tolerated. We need these files restored forthwith so that the whole community can research and decide which photographers were NASA (or other US Government) employees on the dates of photography, and start DRs by photographer as and when appropriate. Any photos just credited to NASA or one of its units should just be kept.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jeff G.: Please take back the accusation. I did follow proper process. I am aware that you cannot see the history of the deleted files, so that you cannot verify this, but you may ask another admin to have a look if you have any doubts. Jcb (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • @Jcb: I was using 's words "out of process mass deletion" from the !vote directly above mine and I mentioned that user; perhaps I should have attributed (sorry for not doing so earlier). In my defense, I cite the truth of following facts in order: "out of process" there was no community involvement allowed in the decision making process evidenced in the deletion log; "mass" many files were deleted; "deletions like this one by Jcb" you did this mass deletion, and out of process mass deletions like this have happened before. In this case, via its Flickr account NASA is committing copyfraud re the PD photos its employees / unit employees took by even claiming licensing rights in the first place. Did you investigate which photographers were NASA (or other US Government) employees when they took those photos? What process did you follow that you consider proper?   — Jeff G. ツ 14:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, worth re-iterating. This was a mass speedy deletion which means that extra care should be taken that the deletions are justified as the administrator is taking full responsibility for skipping having an open mass deletion request where the community has 7 days to check, discuss and propose alternatives to mass deletion. As it took me literally 20 seconds of research using Google image searching (even without access to the actual files, as they have been deleted) to find that one of two searched for files is available as public domain, it is clear that the deletions are by default controversial. Though Jcb will argue that the deletions met COM:CSD criteria 1 or 4, the fact remains that while this may be sufficient for one file, it is not good enough for a mass deletion of multiple files where it must be clear to the community that the deleting admin has not taken enough care to avoid controversy, simply because the Flickrstream is known to contain public domain files. However this is turned around and wikilawyered, public domain is public domain and all administrators have a duty to take all reasonable precautions to avoid deleting public domain educational media from Wikimedia Commons.
      At the top of COM:CSD is the statement "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Jcb has failed to demonstrate that the required care was taken as these are not "obvious cases". If anyone should be apologizing and reversing their decisions, it is Jcb as the deleting administrator, not the few handful of community members prepared to both hold these sysop actions correctly to account and brace themselves for the defensive behaviour we see too often from Jcb when their actions are questioned. If anyone doubts this behaviour, they need to go research Jcb's talk page archives where the pattern is painfully clear. -- (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      • @Jcb: In addition, I was not accusing you, I was criticizing your actions (I'm not sure if deletions are considered "edits" per se). Potentially controversial deletions should always be via DR, rather than SD.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment These deletions by Jcb are not OK, but he is not the only one guilty here. Speedy requests by B dash are not OK either. :( Yann (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    This is an UNDEL, not a hunt for the guilty, but procedural responsibility lies fully with the deleting administrator as COM:CSD makes clear. If someone is using the speedy deletion template without sufficient care, that is a separate issue to address. The final decision to speedy delete rather than defaulting to having a deletion request is the acting administrator's alone. -- (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I restored all images obviously by NASA. Those taken in Russia, and of the eclipse can be debated further. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support temporary undeletion for discussion, any not proven specifically to be copyvios. We should all have a chance to look through these and decide based on the evidence. Guanaco (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

NASA photographer Joel Kowsky[edit]

Photographs with NHQ numbers are original NASA commissions, going through the central request process. I suggest these are all undeleted and if anyone remains concerned that photographs, including those which have been released on nasa.gov, are given credits as NASA/<individual photographer name>, that DRs can be raised by photographer. If necessary to increase confidence, someone may want to write to the relevant photographer to check if their interpretation is that these are non-commercial use or public domain. Those I've checked appear to have active twitter accounts or instagram accounts.

As a starter, I have sent a twitter message to Joel Kowsky this evening:

-- (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately Kowsky has got back to me by direct message. Twitter DM notification copied to OTRS at ticket: 2017092010020535 (if needed I could screenshot the whole message, but almost all of it is in the notification).
Kowsky confirmed that the terms at https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html apply, so commercial reuse is allowed so long as "it must not explicitly or implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services". It may be helpful to add the webpage link to the permissions parameter of the information box on each image page.
I find this encouraging, as it is likely to be the case for other NASA photographers credited in the same way.
Kowsky also confirmed that NHQ numbers are NASA asset numbers. Though Kowsky's message did not confirm how to interpret copyright for all NASA asset registered photographs, it seems unlikely that anything other than the standard terms would apply as linked above unless they were explicitly stated with the published image.
-- (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Can somebody conclude this undeletion request? Andrej-airliner beginns to reupload "my" uploads with succeeding speedies! That's redicoules. How can "my" effort recreate correctly in that situation? --Ras67 (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Andrej-airliner has been stopped. Could you easily say which files are from Kowsky? We can at least proceed to undeleted these files. Jcb (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
From Kowsky are the files from 26, 27 and 28 July 2017 (NHQ20170726xxxx), (NHQ20170727xxxx), (NHQ20170728xxxx) respectively Expedition 52 Soyuz Blessing, Expedition 52 Rollout, Expedition 52 Preflight and Expedition 52 Launch. Many others are from NASA senior photographer Bill Ingalls, we have over 1,000 images from him. --Ras67 (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I have restored these files. I have put some of the Joel Kowsky files on my watchlist, to prevent them from being deleted this way in the future. Jcb (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

NASA photographer Bill Ingalls[edit]

I have contacted Ingalls via their website, sending the following request:

-- (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I have received an email from Ingalls today. A copy has been lodged at ticket:2017101210013761. This confirms exactly the same release as previously, defaulting to the NASA guidelines, and so suitable to be hosted on Commons with attribution. On this basis any past photographs with the NASA/Ingalls credit can be safely undeleted. (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

NASA photographer Aubrey Gemignani[edit]

Based on Gemignani's website, http://aubreygemignani.com/bio/, they are a "full time" photographer for NASA and the NASA photograph archivist. Without Sysop tools, I cannot easily discover which deleted files were credited to Gemignani, instead this relies on a rather stupid waste of valuable volunteer time and energy. Again I propose that all NHQ files are undeleted and only redeleted via a correctly raised deletion request. As an example NHQ201708210116 was deleted and should be restored, if necessary with a DR to set out the facts. Thanks -- (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Selenium[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My name is Marcin Szczygielski (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcin_Szczygielski) and I've upload all photos of Filipinki band (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipinki). I'm a writer and graphic designer. My mother is Iwona Racz-Szczygielski (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iwona_Racz-Szczygielska) – one of the Filipinki singers. All band photos wich I've upload was published between 1960 – 1972 in Filipinki's promotional materials (brochures, cards, concert programs and posters) WITHOUT copyright notes – {{PD-Polish}} Photos came from private archives of my mother and her friends from the band and I have their permission for publishing those photos in any media.

I wrote and published the book about a Filipinki band (http://latarnik.com.pl/filipinki-to-my-szczygielski) and I used all those photos in my book. Before that I carefully clear all rights and I made sure that there is no copyright violation. The book was published by Instytut Wydawniczy Latarnik (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instytut_Wydawniczy_Latarnik) – publishing house run by me and my partner Tomasz Raczek (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomasz_Raczek)

Bands Bez Atu (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bez_Atu), Coma 5 (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma_5) and Warsaw Stompers (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warszawscy_Stompersi) cooperated with Filipinki as their musicians.

Photo File:Warszawscy Stompersi 1964.jpg was published on promotional card without copyright note in 1964.

Photo File:Coma 5 1964.jpg was published in concert programm in summer of 1964 without copyright note.

Photo File:Bez Atu 1969.jpg was published on promotional card in 1969 without copyright note.

File:Filipinki & Bez Atu „Nie wierz chłopcom”.jpg is a cover of Filipinki's longplay which was released by last year by my publishing house (http://latarnik.com.pl/pl/p/Filipinki-Bez-Atu-Nie-wierz-chlopcom-plyta-winylowa-fioletowa%2C-kolekcjonerska-numerowana-edycja-limitowana/380). I'm the author of layout. Photo used on cover was published in 1970 in Filipinki's concert tour promotional brochure without copyright note.

Im kindly asking for undeleted all those files. (Selenium (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph as in "Photos came from private archives of my mother and her friends from the band" does not give them any right to give permission for their use here or elsewhere. The copyright and right to freely license use almost always rests with the photographer or his heirs. In order to have the photos restored, you must either (a) prove that they are PD by proving that they were published without notice in Poland before 1994 or (b) have the actual photographers send free licenses using OTRS.

There are 27 files listed above. You have listed three of them as being published before 1994 without notice. Assuming that our colleagues are willing to accept your assertion that the three were published without notice, that still leaves 24 that have no claim to have been published before 1994. You also list a fourth file, which, as you say, appears on a web site. That site does not have a free license and therefore the use here requires that the actual owner of the copyright send a free license using OTRS or that the owner of the site adds a free license to it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jim for information. I already sent a free license using OTRS for File:Filipinki & Bez Atu „Nie wierz chłopcom”.jpg (ticket#2017092410011163), because I'm the author of this cover design, longplay was realesed by my publishing house and photo used in design was published in 1970 without copyright note in concert programm brochure of Filipikni band. All files mentioned above was published between 1960 – 1972 in Filipinki's promotional materials without copyright notes – I got oryginals from archives of the band so I'm able to made good quality scans but I understand what is a difference between copyright holder and owner of photo. I have ower 1000 Filipinki's photos but I upload to wiki commons only files which I'm 100% sure that not violate copyright rights. I'll check my archives to find specified posters, articles, brochures, cards e.t.c where those photos was published and I'll describe each file and I'll send those information using OTRS. Is it ok? Should I than ask again for undeletion? Thank you for your help (Selenium (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC))

Commons:Deletion requests/Internationale melody[edit]

See also b:The Internationale/Performing and respecting copyright calculating the likely date of French copyright expiration. If expired, please undelete related template and files.Jusjih (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support per Wikibooks. De728631 (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support per the normal undeletion already planned in the deletion discussion itself and as we explained in the associated VP/C discussion. The nominator of the deletion request mentioned that the files could be undeleted in the fall of 2017 and that this DR was categorized in the category "undelete in 2018" instead of "undelete in 2017" only to avoid the possible mistake of an undeletion in January 2017. But now more than 272 days have passed since the beginning of 2017 and the files can be undeleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hm. Are we *sure* the math is calculated that way? Seems like it may be just as logical to add the wartime extension periods to the author's date of death, then extend to the end of the calendar year of the resulting calculation. Otherwise, you have copyrights expiring mid-year, which seems to be against the intent of the law. I may be missing something, but January 1 may be safer to undelete. I'm not sure there was too much discussion if courts indicated how the math should be calculated. Not sure the 1866 law, which the wartime extensions are explicitly added to, had the "calendar year" part -- that may have been an extension of later law. If there was court guidance on how to do the math, that is fine -- it just seems more logical to me that the "end of calendar" year would be applied after the extensions themselves were added to the date of death. But, it's only a mild objection -- maybe there was separate guidance for this, and there is no U.S. issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we're sure. For an example, see at the bottom of this page by the SACEM. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Elan Buller WR2011.jpg[edit]

Greetings,

I am interested in learning why this file was deleted. I am interested in getting it restored to Wikimedia commons.

All best, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbaranski (talk • contribs)

It was deleted on September 9, 2017, with this comment: "Copyright violation; see COM:Licensing. If you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on OTRS". Thuresson (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
El Funcionario nominated it for speedy deletion with reason "non-free media". Why it is non-free, that's not explained, but it has very small size and probably (s)he thought, that the file is not own work as claimed. So small photo is quite useless; if you have a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels, then you can re-upload it, bigger photo has bigger educational value and also then it's easier to believe own work. Taivo (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Richter 2017.jpg[edit]

Hello, my name is Horacio Martinez Bellon (a.k.a Zenitram Richter), I´m the singer of the electro-rock band Richter from Argentina, and I have recently upload an updated picture of the band (Richter 2017.jpg) that was deleted because of a possible copyright violation. That picture is an original picture property of myself and currently included in my band´s official website www.richternet.net , you can reach it at http://www.richternet.net/Foto-Richteria1.jpg . I probably used a popular word for the file name, and I supposed that it was the reason for which it was deleted, but that picture is entirely ours, we, ourselves, are depicted in it. That´s why i´m asking for its undeletion. I´ve just uploaded again the same picture with a more specific file name (Richter Electro-Rock 2017.jpg), in order not to confuse it with another files called "Richter", and linked my wikipedia pages to it, but i´m afraid that, if I don´t explain this situation to you, it will also be deleted. I uploaded all my images to wikicommons agreeing on a creative commons licence for free use, as you can see in the "permission" tags. Thank you very much.

(Zenitram richter (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC))

@Zenitram richter: Who is the actual photographer? The second file is named File:Richter Electro-Rock 2017.jpg.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, the picture is actually a selfie, the set was prepared for me and the picture was shot using a timer. The new file is named "Richter Electro-Rock 2017.jpg", but it is exactly the same picture, the same file with other name, and I´ve included the permission tag that lacked in the file (Richter 2017.jpg). Thank you very much again! --Zenitram richter (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The web site has an explicit copyright notice:

"Copyright © Todos los derechos reservados | RICHTER Electro-Rock - Site Oficial"

Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. Alternately, you could change the web site copyright notice to include a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license. We do this because we have no way of knowing who User:Zenitram richter actually is and we have many fans and vandals who think it is OK to lift an image off the web and post it here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello James, I understant it, but I´m the owner of that website www.richternet.net, and I was the one who wrote that sentence there! And as the owner of it, i´ve recently sent a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org agreeing to publish the picture in Wikicommons under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Like 4.0 International. I don´t know what else to do, I attached here the Whois Results with my data as owner of the website www.richternet.net where this picture is already published at the link http://www.richternet.net/Foto-Richteria1.jpg:

Do another WHOIS lookup Domain Name: richternet.net Registry Domain ID: 53278521_DOM AIN_NET-VRSN Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.register.com Registrar URL: http://www.register.com Updated Date: 2001-01-23T05:00:00Z Creation Date: 2001-01-23T13:47:21Z Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2019-01-23T13:47:21Z Registrar: Register.com, Inc. Registrar IANA ID: 9 Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@web.com Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8773812449 Reseller: Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited http://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited Registry Registrant ID: Registrant Name: Horacio M artinez Bellon Registrant Organization: Horacio M artinez Bellon Registrant Street: Don Bosco 3711 Registrant City: Buenos Aires Registrant State/Province: Buenos Aires Registrant Postal Code: C1206ABG Registrant Country: AR Registrant Phone: +54.1149826050 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant Fax: Registrant Fax Ext.: Registrant Email: zenitram_richter@yahoo.com.ar Registry Admin ID: Admin Name: Horacio M artinez Bellon Admin Organization: Horacio M artinez Bellon Admin Street: Don Bosco 3825 7 48 Admin City: Buenos Aires Admin State/Province: CF Admin Postal Code: 1206 Admin Country: AR Admin Phone: +54.111541420144

Please, if you want to verify it, I would thank you, I don´t know what else to do, I´m the owner of that picture and I am, myself, pictured in it! I already sent this mail from zenitram_richter@yahoo.com.ar, my usual mailbox, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org:

I hereby affirm that I, Horacio Martinez Bellon, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Richter 2017.jpg. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Horacio Martinez Bellon (Zenitram Richter) www.richternet.net 2017-10-07

[generated using relgen]

Thanks again!!!

Horacio Martinez Bellon (Zenitram Richter) www.richternet.net --Zenitram richter (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

  • The OTRS email you sent will probably sort this out (in time) but it would be quicker for you to post the desired license on the site that you control, instead of the contradictory claim that you reserve all rights. - Jmabel ! talk 01:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. As I said above, the problem with any statement made here is that we do not know who User:Zenitram richter actually is -- he could be a fan, a vandal, or, as claimed, H.M. Bellon. So all of the statements above prove nothing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The editorial cartoons of Dr Seuss. One was deleted, its file name was: File:10425cs.jpg[edit]

These cartoons were owned by PM Magazine, which was owned by Marshall Field (I think) and I and other users have not found evidence that the copyright was renewed.

See discussion here at the Village Pump: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#I_want_to_add_some_of_Dr._Seuss.27_Japanese_Internment_cartoons

I apologize if I'm not quite doing this right. H0n0r (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support At Commons:Deletion requests/Image:10425cs.jpg, Carl states fairly strongly that the copyrights to PM were not renewed and therefore this image and others like it are PD. While non-renewal is difficult to prove with absolute certainty, I think this has been proven beyond our standard of "significant doubt". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Carl and Jim.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Monikha.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: To serve as source and attribution for File:Monica (actress).jpg. These files may need a seperate DR to discuss possible copyright status though. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems to me this should go the other way. The larger image has been deleted, so the crop should also be deleted. There is no reason that somehow having a crop proves that the larger image is OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, that would be the reasoning if the original files had been deleted for reasons of illegality or if they were irremediably out of scope, but that's not the case. If we look at what happened, we find that, in 2012, the uploader uploaded some 62 files. Judging by the files that are still on Commons, they were photos of actors and actresses known in their countries, who were photographed holding a magazine. At some point, at least 12 of those 62 files had cropped version made and uploaded separately. The cropped versions were probably made to remove the "holding the magazine" part and center on the person's face. In 2014, a deletion request was made about 58 of the 62 uncropped files. The rationale for the deletion request about the uncropped files invoked various variations around the notion of scope, such as a possible advertising aspect or personal photos. The criticism about advertising may be justified, because of the "holding the magazine" aspect, but the criticism about "personal photos" does not seem justified, if we consider the fact that many or most of the cropped versions, which were not deleted and are still on Commons, are in use in the articles about those people in the Wikipedias. From the 62 uncropped files that had been uploaded, 58 were deleted and 4 were not deleted (the nominator of the deletion request may have missed those 4 because they had been renamed). The 12 cropped versions were not nominated for deletion, they are still on Commons, their "holding a magazine" aspect has been cropped out, many or most are used in Wikipedia articles, and even those that are not currently in use probably have a reasonable potential for being inside the scope of Commons, if the pictured people are known in their countries. (Come to think of it, the 46 uncropped files that were deleted before cropped versions of them were made might also deserve to have cropped versions made and kept.) -- Asclepias (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote.svg Restore Per Asclepias, unless there is some copyright issue with the larger images. Platonides (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Service Rationale was: Images seem promotion/advertisement to "Thangam Book". Possible COM:ADVERT COM:NOTSOCIAL and COM:NOTHOST
Temporarily restored. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Note that my comment was more a reply to say that there was no need to delete the cropped version. I don't really have an opinion about the original under discussion. It seems rather innocuous. And, when possible, it's better to preserve the transparency of the chain of sources. It would not be a big problem to keep it. But it would not be a big problem to delete it, if the magazine seems too much in evidence. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

File:GO WEAST, Original Montreal run poster, 1996.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS agent ( verify ) request: Ticket:2017100610218865 alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation, and ping me. If the permission looks good for me, I'll remove {{Temporarily undeleted}} and add {{PermissionOTRS}}, otherwise, {{OTRS received}}. Thanks ! Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Framawiki: ✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Portraet Markus Beile.JPG[edit]

Ich bitte Wiederherstellung, es ist ein Ticket mit der Nummer 2017082410006564 bei uns eingegangen und ich würde gerne die Lizenz usw. prüfen. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 12:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done OTRS member request. @Raboe001:. Thuresson (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Supranational European Bodies-en-edit.svg[edit]

In 2015, File:Supranational European Bodies-en-edit.svg (rectangular version originally uploaded by Grandoise in 2013) was deleted as an exact duplicate of File:Supranational European Bodies-en.svg (round version originally uploaded by NikNaks in 2010, with rectangular version uploaded by Aris Katsaris in 2015). However, it appears that Aris Katsaris's version might be a derivative of Grandoise's (now-deleted) version. The file should probably be undeleted in order to allow proper attribution. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Drake Jensen NAC.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I first loaded the file File:Drake Jensen NAC.jpg on Wikimedia Commons but I did not make it right. I sent an email to 'permissions-fr@wikimedia.org' because I thought I made a mistake. The file was deleted. A wikipedian User:MelAntipam told me that he acted for me to make the image acceptable but meanwhile the file was deleted. So I tried another time following the right way to download it on Wikmedia Commons.

You tell me that my account on Wikipedia can be deleted because of what I did. I remind you that I am a new Wikipedian (since September 30th 2017) and I am not aware of all the rules that's why I asked help to do my best.

To prevent being alarmed, I will not include a picture on the French Wikipedia about Dranke Jensen.

Sincerely yours.

--Dominique BLOUET (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: There is still a copy of File:Drake Jensen NAC.jpg in the Google cache, so I can see that the photo is on the singer's facebook page, where it was posted on 20 March 2012: image, set. There is no free license there. A user uploaded a cropped copy of the photo to en.wikipedia on 5 May 2014. Thus, possibly a copyvio, unless the en.wikipedia copy had OTRS validation there, which was probably not the case because it was deleted from en.wikipedia yesterday, apparently on the basis of the publication of the cropped version in a magazine in April 2012 [4], [5], although the en.wikipedia uploader replied that he is the author. The reply seems strange however, because why did he upload to en.wikipedia the cropped version taken from the magazine instead of the uncropped original photo? And why did he never refer to the set on the singer's page? I suppose this can be cleared up if the first publisher (the singer) sends a mail to OTRS saying that he received the set of photos from the uploader. But unless confirmation is received, the file should probably remain deleted. @Dominique BLOUET: Rassurez-vous, vous ne risquez rien pour un seul re-versement fait de bonne foi. Le bandeau d'avertissement pré-rédigé sert à informer sur la bonne façon de faire une demande, ce que vous avez bien fait ci-dessus. La phrase qui évoque un blocage s'adresse plutôt aux utilisateurs qui reversent un fichier de nombreuses fois sans tenir compte des avertissements. Même si ce n'était pas ce que vous aviez prévu, votre versement de ce fichier sur Commons a eu comme effet bénéfique d'attirer l'attention d'autres utilisateurs et ainsi de permettre d'identifier qu'il y avait un problème préexistant avec le fichier qui se trouvait sur la Wikipédia de langue anglaise (en.wikipedia) depuis 2014. En effet, ce fichier était en situation de possible contravention aux droits d'auteur. À moins d'une validation, le fichier ne pourra probablement pas être remis en ligne. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Since I'm notified on this : I transferred the picture from en.wikipedia to Commons October 1st according to the recommended procedure (check that the file was a candidate for a transfer to Commons, keep the name of the original uploader, indicate the original license and finally tag the picture for removal from en.wikipedia). I did this because the picture's license was considered valid on en.wikipedia already for some time. In addition, I did the transfer myself because the previous upload by Dominique BLOUET did not maintain the original license and changed the name of the uploader, which would have for sure lead to its speedy deletion from Commons. Now I agree with Asclepias that the full picture is also found on the Internet (at various places) and that Eagle65ca(the original uploader) reply was surprising. Nevertheless it was accepted on en.wikipedia and the rules have been followed to our best.
Deleting this picture from Commons for copyright violation means that the file was not transferable to Commons, contrary to what was clearly stated on its en.wikipedia page. The sad part of this story is that picture on the English page of Drake Jensen has been removed just because I tagged it as having been transferred, as required... MelAntipam (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Il ne faut pas être désolé. Si on regarde la raison de suppression de suppression sur en.wikipedia, ce n'est pas parce que vous avez marqué le fichier comme ayant été transféré, mais c'est plutôt parce que ce fichier n'était pas conforme aux règles et qu'il y avait possibilité d'une contravention aux droits d'auteur. Ce problème existait déjà depuis le versement du fichier sur en.wikipedia. Le transfert sur Commons a simplement permis de constater ce problème, qui était passé inaperçu jusque là mais qui aurait risqué de faire surface tôt ou tard. C'est aussi bien que ce soit maintenant plutôt que plus tard. C'est une bonne chose de toutes façons, puisque cela permet de clarifier la situation. S'il y a confirmation de la validité du fichier, sa situation s'en trouvera régularisée. S'il s'agissait d'une contravention aux droits d'auteur, il ne peut pas être conservé. De ce que j'en comprends, on ne peut pas dire que le fichier avait été «accepté» sur en.wikipedia. Les fichiers ne font pas l'objet d'un examen systématique lors de leur versement. Ils sont examinés lorsqu'un utilisateur remarque un problème possible. Le problème était passé inaperçu jusqu'à maintenant. Le transfert a attiré l'attention d'utilisateurs. D'où les suppressions. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Simitar-syndrome-003.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is in the public domain ({{PD-US-Medical imaging}}), so copyright isn't a problem. There was an IRC discussion where the doctor who took the MRI wanted it removed. He said he wants to use the image for a board exam question and not have the answer available online.

As of yesterday, the image was in use on multiple wikis. We also have no other images of its kind. Category:Scimitar syndrome only contains two versions of the same X-ray. This file is a much more illustrative MRI. Guanaco (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick, BU Rob13, Bawolff, Doc James, Radswiki: Pinging everyone I know to be involved in discussion about this file. Guanaco (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not think {{PD-US-Medical imaging}} applies because the author mentioned doing substantial work in Photoshop to clean up the image. That is creative; it is not merely a machine process. ~ Rob13Talk 04:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
They have said that they will get another image of the condition in question for us to use. I would request some time to figure that out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I made the call, but I concede it is a close call. In fact, I went back and forth myself before deciding to make the deletion. I'm led to believe that it isn't clear-cut that it's in the public domain. In my opinion, if, as promised, we get another image that is suitably licensed, that is the best solution. I hope that happens soon.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
FYI, the IRC discussion about wanting to use it in a board exam is information that I did not have at the time I made the deletion. While the information I saw wasn't perfectly clear-cut, I got the impression that the uploader, in GF, believed it was public domain, but later realized that might be wrong (perhaps because patient's permission was needed). Deleting because the uploader unilaterally decided they prefer it no longer be available is obviously fundamentally different than deleting because the original claim of copyright status was incorrect. I still stand by my observation that if we can get a replacement image, that's the best solution all around.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Peter Marggraf (talk · contribs[edit]

The artist have send permission(s) to OTRS Ticket#2017083110018396 -- Ra Boe watt?? 08:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Material identificatio nith nano-FTIR.png[edit]

I would like to certify that this image is an original scientific figure (done by me) and is different from the image used in the publication at http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nl301159v. Please, compare the scale bar location, middle panel title, bold fonts, etc. The similarity arises from the fact that this image was compiled from the same measurements dataset that was used in the publication of http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/nl301159v. This dataset is not owned by the journal and is not subject to its copyrights (I am a coauthor of this dataset). Please, undelete this image. Thank you. --Clearscience (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

File:NeaSNOM from neaspec GmbH.png[edit]

The copyright owner (neaSPEC GmbH) has agreed to the publication of this image in wikipedia. I made the attribution by placing a link to their website. Please, undelete the image or let me know what else is needed in order to do so. Thank you. --Clearscience (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)