Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 380: Line 380:
== [[File:SBSWorldWatch logo 2022.svg]] ==
== [[File:SBSWorldWatch logo 2022.svg]] ==


This file should be temporailly undeleted here on Commons and this file should be moved to the English Wikipedia ([[:en:Wikipedia:Fair use|it's fair use guidelines]]) per the template [[:Template:Request temporary undeletion}}. This file was deleted after a [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:SBSWorldWatch logo 2022.svg|deletion request]]. Please undelete this file before I put it in the English Wikipedia page [[:en:SBS WorldWatch|SBS WorldWatch]]. From Bas.
This file should be temporailly undeleted here on Commons and this file should be moved to the English Wikipedia ([[:en:Wikipedia:Fair use|it's fair use guidelines]]) per the template [[:Template:Request temporary undeletion]]. This file was deleted after a [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:SBSWorldWatch logo 2022.svg|deletion request]]. Please undelete this file before I put it in the English Wikipedia page [[:en:SBS WorldWatch|SBS WorldWatch]]. From Bas.

Revision as of 10:11, 26 January 2023

Current requests

File:Tokyo Skytree light up in US flag for Trump's visit.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: At section 5(6), the policy of Facebook page of the Japanese Kantei is complied with the GJSTU 2.0 license. A1Cafel (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did it appear on Facebook? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tokyo Skytree light up in US flag for Trump's visit.jpg seems to say it was copied from Twitter. Do they have a similar policy for Twitter? Google Translate of that link seems pretty clear about the photos on Facebook, though -- those should be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joseph Prill (1934).jpg

I don;t understand why this pic was removed, but I got the permission of the owner of this site to use it for Wikipedia: https://www.heimat-lohmar.de/exponate/bilder/prof-prill/ So please restore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasvonderDunk (talk • contribs) 22:15, 28 December 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

[confidential information removed]

 Oppose A 1934 German image was under copyright in Germany until at least 1/1/2005 and is therefore under copyright in the United States until 95 years after first publication, that is, until at least 1/1/2030. I doubt very much that the person giving permission actually has a written license from the photographer allowing them to freely license the image. Also note that "permission ... to use it for Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Both Commons and WP require that an image must be free for any use by anybody anywhere..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, photos of this type can be difficult. First, for photos first published elsewhere on the web, we need a free license directly from the copyright holder, via the process (using private emails) specified at COM:VRT. We have too many photos simply copied from the Internet, and accounts here are essentially anonymous.
If the copyright on the photos has lapsed, then it is OK, but that can be surprisingly difficult to determine (as copyright lasts a very long time). We need works to be public domain in both the country of origin, and the United States. This would appear to have been published in Germany, so that is the country of origin. Since this was definitely still under copyright in Germany in 1996, the U.S. restored any copyright for 95 years from publication, so it will not be public domain in the U.S. until 2030. The German copyright might be even more difficult -- the source states that a Hans Dieter Heimig is the author. If that was the photographer, we would need to find out how long they lived, and add 70 years to that (plus to the end of that year) to know when it will be public domain in Germany. If that name is a modern person, i.e. a contributor but the actual photographer is unknown, we'd need to see how it was credited at the further source. If it was published anonymously, it may have become public domain in Germany 70 years after publication (so, 2005), so then we'd just have to wait for the U.S. copyright to expire. However, for non-simple photographs like these (studio portraits were considered full works of art, not simple photos), they were always supposed to be 70 years from the death of the human author, and not sure the 70-year anonymous term common to the EU shortened that (though that is still a bit nebulous to me). If you subscribe to that theory, or Hans Dieter Heimig actually was the photographer but we can't find how long they lived, you'd have to wait until a reasonable amount of time passes (100 or 120 years) before using it.
If the site owner actually does own copyright somehow (that would need to be explained to the COM:VRT team), then they can license it, though as mentioned not for "Wikipedia only" -- it would have to be for anyone. But if they don't own the copyright, then they can't license it, and policy is to wait out the copyright term, as frustrating as that can be. I think the German Wikipedia has a rule of thumb that allows any work older than 100 years if the author's death date can be determined, though Commons uses 120. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hans Dieter Heimig seems to be the author of a chapter in the 2016 book in which this image was apparently published. It's unclear if the image had been published before. --Rosenzweig τ 23:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For anonymous works in German law, see the rather comprehensive COM:Germany#Anonymous and pseudonymous works. For anything created before July 1 1995, if the author's name became known in any (unspecified) "other way", that was enough for the work to not be an anonymous work anymore, even if originally published without a named author. Which might work somehow for complete books, but is rather crazy for single photographs. Nevertheless it was the law before that was changed in 1995. --Rosenzweig τ 23:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. For photographs then, the situation was similar to now -- if published without attribution to a human author, and the author did not become known in the next 70 years, the term expired then. We'd have to assume anonymous publication in this case, which we don't always do without having some evidence of that. (For simple photos, such as snapshots of everyday life, the anonymous aspect was irrelevant in Germany -- those were at most 50 years from publication, or 50 years from creation if not published, before the 1995 law changes, regardless of author. The 1995 law retroactively changed them to 70pma though, or the anonymous term.). But, the U.S. term seems fairly straightforward. We could undelete in 2030. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright situation in Germany of this photo (and also the US) is still unclear. It is said to be taken in 1934, and it was published in a book in 2016. We don't know if it was first published before 2016. Unlike the situation in the US, where the sale of a print by the photographer to the customer could (at least in some cases) already be publication, publication in Germany required the dissemination of copies to the general public. We also don't know if the 2016 publication (or any other publication) named a photographer or not. If that 1934 photo was first published in 2016 and we don't know the author, we can't tell if it is still protected by copyright in Germany or not. Under the "new" method explained at COM:Germany, the copyright of an anonymous work expires after 70 years, so it would have expired at the end of 2004 in this case. But under the old method, the term of protection would be 70 years pma even if the author is unknown. And the longer term of those two applies, even if we don't know which one is the longer term. Very unsatisfying, but that's what you get when laws don't really fit the subject matter they're meant to regulate, or at least not all aspects of it. Without further information about the first publication and the photographer, I can only see us hosting this with {{PD-old-assumed}} after 120 years, in 2055. Which would also be the US term for works of unknown authorship unpublished before 2003.
Btw, the terms for "simple" photographs in Germany have a rather convoluted history. In 1965, when the distinction between "Lichtbild" (= "simple" photograph) and "Lichtbildwerk" was first introduced in the then new Urheberrechtsgesetz (copyright law), they both had 25 year terms from publication (or creation if unpublished within 25 years after creation). In 1985, photographic works went to 70 years pma, while "simple" photographs stayed at 25 years from publication/creation, unless they were "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" (documents of contemporary history), which got a 50 year term from publication/creation. Then in 1995, that "Dokumente der Zeitgeschichte" category was eliminated, and all "Lichtbilder" got the 50 year term. Courts then whittled down what can be a "Lichtbild", and now, only images from automated photo booths, x-ray images, satellite imagery, surveillance images (from automated cameras) and similar stuff can be a "Lichtbild", but not a photo taken by a human being. Not by law (there is no clear definition there), but because of court decisions. --Rosenzweig τ 01:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, as far as I understand it, the courts changed their interpretation what a "Lichtbild" is due to the EU regulations. So, before the EU regulations, the "documents of contemporary history" type photograph were a 50 year term from publication/creation, then after the EU regulations they were 70pma, or 70 years from creation/publication if anonymous. So there could be no "longer existing term" for those, unlike for anonymous sculptures, which are more nebulous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as this photo, it sure looks like something published in a school yearbook or something like that. The web page source does mention a further source, a "monography" by a Wilhelm Pape from 1993 or something like that. Unsure if that was just for the text, or the photo too. I do see there is some disagreement over whether the old 70 year term required the distribution of copies to the general public, or not. I typically dislike deletions based on extremely delayed publication possibilities, unless there is some evidence which points to that situation actually happening -- most works were made to be published, one way or another. I would not have a problem assuming that it became public domain in Germany in 2005, though there are some uncertainties, though the U.S. status seems clear (if published in 1934, which I am assuming). If it was truly unpublished until recently, it would get more "interesting". Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berliner Fernsehturm November 2013.jpg

Per precedent at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-12#File:Arena auf schalke veltins arena gelsenkirchen 1.jpg, works located in a public place are covered by COM:FOP Germany under a new court ruling. This overturns our previous understanding that the work must be photographed from a public place. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2022-12#File:Berlin_Hi-Flyer_Sept14_views04.jpg. The 2020 decision is a single decision by a minor court (Landgericht Frankfurt), while Germany's highest court (Bundesgerichtshof) has affirmed its contrary position in 2017. --Rosenzweig τ 10:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the 2017 case was one in which the Bundesgerichtshof ruled in favor of FoP. In fact, the definition of "public" was not even a point of contention (as opposed to the definition of "permanent"), but merely an offhand remark; of course it's not going to take a position that neither side's attorneys asked for. With 17 years having passed between 2003 (the last real time the Bundesgerichtshof was asked to rule on the definition of "public") and 2020, I think this is long enough to consider the decision of the Landgericht Frankfurt more relevant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BGH ruled that in the AIDA case the images of the ship with the AIDA symbol were covered by freedom of panorama because they could just as well have been taken from the shore. But they also confirmed what they had written in their 2003 Hundertwasser-Haus decision, that was not just an “offhand remark”. That's also what Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany#Public says: “It is important to note that only the view from the public place is privileged: If, for instance, a statue is located next to a public street, photographs of the statue taken from that street enjoy freedom of panorama, but photographs of the very same statue taken from a non-public spot do not.” And no, I don't think the decision of a lower Landgericht openly contradicting the country's highest court will be more relevant any time soon. If we really care about the precautionary principle and our obligations to re-users, we'll have to wait for the BGH to overturn itself, or for an even higher court (like Germany's constitutional court or the European Court of Justice) to decide differently. --Rosenzweig τ 11:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richard Baer and Karl Höcker.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:

I cannot see if these are duplicates of other Höcker Album photographs that are on Commons. But according to the precedents of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Auschwitz Solahutte (34750).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg, these should be undeleted if they aren't duplicates that Commons already has. Abzeronow (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have some of the photographs from that album at Commons right now (Category:Höcker Album). These use the license tags {{PD-Polish}} and {{PD-US-alien property}}. I don't think either of those applies. PD-Polish is applicable for photographs published in Poland before May 23, 1994 or for photographs by Polish authors also published before that date. Accd. to en:Höcker Album, the album was donated to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) in 2007 by an unnamed former US intelligence officer who found and took the album in Frankfurt, Germany in 1945 and subsequently took it to the USA with him. So not anything official, he basically stole the album. Then, in December 2006 (accd. to de:Auschwitz-Album) or January 2007 (accd. to en:Höcker Album) – he must have been at least in his 80s by then – he donated the album to the USHMM. The album contains photographs which were unknown at the time.
So we have an album with private photographs, unknown before 2006/2007. Which means they were not published before May 23, 1994, and the PD-Polish tag does not apply. It was also not officially seized or something like that, but privately taken by this officer who apparently kept it for over 60 years before turning it over to the museum. Which means that its copyright was never “owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian”, and the copyright of the private photographs in the source country was also not “owned by a government or instrumentality thereof”, and the PD-US-alien property tag does also not apply.
Now which tags do apply, if any? The photographs were apparently taken in 1944, but it's not totally clear who took them. Probably more than one person. de.wp claims either Höcker (who died in 2000) or de:Bernhard Walter (SS-Mitglied) (who died in 1979) took the photos. I don't know it that is true or not. Since both are apparently in several photographs, there were probably other photographers as well. Since the photos were not published before May 23, 1994, it does not matter so much if we assume Germany or Poland as the source country, both have 70 years pma or 70 years after publication for anonymous works. So photographs taken by Höcker are still protected until the end of 2070, those taken by Walter until the end of 2049. The photos were finally published (by the USHMM) in or after 2007, but before 2015, so within 70 years after creation. If they had been published more than 70 years after creation (so in 2015 or later), the anonymous photos would be in the PD in Germany, but they were published before, so they are protected for 70 years from publication (until the end of 2077 if publication happened in 2007).
For the US side, the terms for works unpublished before 2003 apply ({{PD-US-unpublished}}). So 70 years pma for known authors with a known date of death (same as in Europe) or 120 years from creation for all other works, including anonymous works. Until the end of 2064 in this case.
All of that means that these photographs are still protected in both Europe and the US. Many will find that hard to accept, especially since in "the real world", most likely nobody will ever sue or claim a copyright, and the USHMM obviously is not bothered by any copyright concerns. And as soon as documents from Nazi times, about the Holocaust etc. are concerned, there are all kinds of claims, like that the works were created by criminals or while committing a crime and that there simply cannot be a copyright for them. That may feel right from a moral standpoint, but it's not like copyright works. And per COM:PCP, such arguments are not permitted here.
So my conclusion is that these photographs are still protected both in Europe and the US for quite some time. Anyone who has a convincing rationale why they should not be please respond here. --Rosenzweig τ 12:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selection Birkenau ramp.jpg is about a photo from a different album with a quite different history, so the arguments above do not necessarily apply to that file. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Auschwitz Solahutte (34750).jpg however is about a photo from the Höcker Album. --Rosenzweig τ 12:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your analysis that the country of origin for this is Germany, not Poland. Publication as far as Germany is concerned occurred in 2007 when it was made available to the public. As far as the United States though, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has said in various DRs that "United States case law has sided with "made public" when an image leaves the custody of the creator.", which would mean these would have been published in 1945. Commons:Deletion requests/Russian copyrights. This goes against Commons precedents and obviously should be discussed in COM:VPC before being used here, but that is an argument that I've seen. Following Commons precedent, publication occurred in 2007 so copyright in the United States is as you have said. I listed the Selection Birkenau DR as a precedent because the closing administrator of the Auschwitz Solahutte DR used it as reason to keep it.
As a Polish-American (my paternal grandmother's family came to the US from Poland when it was still part of the Russian Empire) and as someone who has at least one Jewish ancestor (the Ancestry DNA test that I had done at my mother's request turned up 1% of my DNA coming from European Jewish), it's important to me that we handle this right. If keeping the status quo is the best decision from the standpoint of Commons, then I will honor that decision. Abzeronow (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For some older US photographs, publication might have indeed happened as soon as the photographer sold prints of the photographs to the customer, because courts ruled so according to Common law. About this, see for example Carl Lindberg's lengthy contribution in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg. I don't see that this also applies to any non-US photographs though. --Rosenzweig τ 16:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And as for the Berne Convention, I see that RAN conveniently shortened what the Convention actually says. It's in Article 3: “The expression "published works" means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work.” So: availability of copies, and enough of them to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public. I don't see how handing over one copy to a customer can mean "published" in that sense. We don't even know if there was a (paid) photographer-customer relationship here, they easily could have developed and printed those photographs themselves. It's not like they did not have access to resources. The “published with the consent of their authors” bit is dubious here though, and if we take the 2007 publication (by the USHMM) to not be a "rightful" publication in the sense of the Berne Convention, the analysis above may have to be changed. --Rosenzweig τ 16:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Com:Publication Publication has always meant even a single "discernable copy", remember the original creative work, is the camera negative, it is created when the photographer open the shutter. Making a print from the negative is a "discernable copy". I "conveniently shortened" the Berne definition because "works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work." adds no more useful information, unless the argument is that the images were stolen and the creator never gave their "consent". It is time to update Com:Publication with the relevant case law in the United States. If the argument concerns a daguerreotype, there may be no copies, the image is formed directly on a piece of metal, with no negative involved. This would be for images from the 1840s to 1860s, and would be in the public domain by virtue of their creation date. --RAN (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding would also be that the images have presumably never been published with consent of the copyright holders, so we should not be hosting them until 120 years after creation by both US law and the PD-old-assumed convention according to Germany's old system of copyright for anonymous unpublished works. I am rather certain that at least in German law, taking your own film to be developed by a photographic lab for a fee is not "publication" in the legal sense, and the original copyright holders will not have been involved in any further part of the publication history. Felix QW (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:RN-Riviera-Adriatica-1973-gozzi.jpg

The image was deleted because it was wrongly licensed as being the uploaders own work. I assume it would qualify for PD-Italy due to the 20 year term for simple photographs though. So I'd appreciate it if the image was un-deleted and I'll update the license. The same goes for following images:

--Adamant1 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Screenshoot from scratch.mit.edu

All screenshots from Scratch.mit.edu are licensed under CC-BY-SA as can be deduced from the FAQ, readable here: https://scratch.mit.edu/faq. Can I use screenshots of Scratch in a book or presentation? 

   Yes, you can use screenshots / images of the Scratch application and website in a book or presentation, and consider them to be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. We ask that you include a note somewhere in your materials saying: "Scratch is a project of the Scratch Foundation, in collaboration with the Lifelong Kindergarten Group at the MIT Media Lab. It is available for free at https://scratch.mit. edu".

I therefore ask that they be restored. --Mattruffoni (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point us to particular screenshots?
Also there's a question for individual screenshots. Whilst that licence statement is releasing any claims from MIT as to any part of Scratch itself, there's still scope for Scratch coders to have produced a copyrightable work within that environment. We'd also have to be certain that they released that claim too. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No response after one week. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Любезнов-старый-собор-алтарь.jpg

I have reviewed the situation after I was reached by the requestor. I agree that users here are usually suspicious about such old photos and usually the pictures are just found somewhere and declared to be free as they are owned by the uploader. Here the explanation seems sufficient for me, it can't be checked/confirmed via VRT (as works weren't published before), @PereslavlFoto is a long-term contributor and I trust him. I see no other way to confirm the license here, it is simply the first publication of own works. Restore rubin16 (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Biagiolli

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: authorization process ongoing, Ticket#2022111710012689 .avgas 15:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filippo Biagioli doesn't seem to be notable, so I wonder why these would be in scope. In addition, File:Personal photo 1.jpg and File:Filippo Biagiolli.jpg are portraits of the artist himself, so the permission should come from the photographer(s). Yann (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I have to disagree about notability -- he appears on many of the art auction and art pricing web sites. However, I agree about the two photographs of him -- they are not selfies so can't be {{Own work}}. Also, it is policy to require that editors using the name of notable artists must confirm that they are actually the artist using VRT, see Commons:Username policy. We get far too many imposters to allow anonymous users to upload copyrighted works without checking that they are actually the artist. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment One renamed to File:Filippo Biagioli 1.jpg. Yann (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battlezxxzxz.jpg

Reasoning - faithful reproduction of a work that is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Original uploader may have accidentally uploaded the file as "their own work." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightoftheswords281 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 22 January 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because the magazine found the image on Wikipedia and for this reason credits the uploader Wisielec.97 as the author. Is Wisielec.97 = Henryk Baranowski who died in 2005? Thuresson (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bruce Gilley on Chinese politics.ogg

I think this file was removed by mistake, user Herby accidentally read the wrong terms of service intended for C-Span's proprietary materials such as logos, commercials, banners, etc., which does not apply to the content appearing on C-span and which has completely different terms of service which clearly states that: "Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRoyalTrust (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 January 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I see an NC license here, but not a free license and in any event, this did not originate "from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate", It is obvious both from the on-screen display and the logo on the wall behind the speakers that this panel was at the American Enterprise Institute. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Not currently deleted. Please create a DR if needed. --Yann (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elizabeth Tan001.jpg

This is my photo. I don't why it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apm44 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 January 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image appears at https://m.imdb.com/name/nm1989862/mediaviewer/rm3017403393/. Policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Żołnierz NJW MSW w latach 1974-76.jpg

Proszę o ponowne załadowanie pliku .Plik jest mojego autorstwa i posiada wymaganą licencję . Pierwsza wersja posiadała zła licencję i zosatła usunięta z tego powodu.24.01.2023 (Pamulab (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC) )[reply]

 Comment You claim that you were the actual photographer of this image which was taken almost 50 years ago. Is that correct?.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pamulab, do you believe that taking screenshots of Google Image results makes images yours? Are you aware this is merely stealing from others (direct)? Given that your uploads are replete (and perhaps entirely) NETCOPYVIOs of this subject matter, why should we believe a word you say? How do you explain the appearance of the instant image on Twitter? Эlcobbola talk 17:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:senem tuzen by Furkan Ustel.jpg

Hello,

I have full rights to use this image. It is me, who is photographed by Furkan. I have his email which gives me full authorisation.

Thank you, Senem Tuzen. --Sepheri (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Policy requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Breakthrough Party Logo 2023.jpg

I am jess Nelson I am a member of the Breakthrough party and I had got permission from the DL to update the Breakthrough Wiki page to the new logo, I am requesting the undeleting of the Image in question.--JessNelson12345 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Policy requires that an authorized official of the copyright owner must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, per Jim. Permission to update a Wiki page is not enough. Thuresson (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:RobertMargolskee.jpg

The picture seems to be deleted for a copyrights violation. I am not sure what I missed but the picture is NOT copyrighted. I also received it from Robert Margolskee, the person pictured in it, for the purpose of uploading it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmedNotAkhmed (talk • contribs) 06:10, 25 January 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

@AhmedNotAkhmed: If it is not copyrighted, why is there a Creative Commons license assigned to it? Thuresson (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose There are several problems here:
First, the image is copyrighted. Almost all works are copyrighted until expiration, which, for this image, will probably be in the next century.
Second, the subject rarely owns the right to freely license an image. That right is almost always held by the photographer.
Third, the image appears at https://www.med.upenn.edu/asef/robert-margolskee.html with "© The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania"
Fourth, "for the purpose of uploading it here" is not sufficient. Images on Commons must be free for any use by anybody anywhere.
I also note that when you uploaded the image you claimed that you were the actual photographer, using {{Own}}. Now you claim something different. Note that making incorrect claims of authorship is a serious violation of Commons rules and may lead to your being blocked from editing here.
In order to restore the image, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(File:B. Galinon-Mélénec. Colloque L'Homme-trace, Le Havre, 2018.jpg

colloques L'Homme-trace. IDEES-Le Havre - CNRS 6266. ULHN, Normandie Université Bonjour,

Je réponds très tardivement aux questions concernant le dépôt de deux photos de deux professeurs d'université français du XXIème siècle ayant des fiches sur wikipedia. Je vous prie de m'excuser pour ce retard.

Cette photo est un travail personnel.

Elle est stockée dans le fichier photo du e Laboratory on Human Trace UNITWIN UNESCO Complex Systems UNESCO (fondé à l'université du Havre) Ce laboratoire organise régulièrement des colloques à l'université du Havre et ailleurs. Ce fichier a déjà été validé comme source par wikimedia pour la photo d'un autre conférencier (Yves Jeanneret) intervenant dans ces colloques. Voir le lien : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yves_Jeanneret._Colloque_L%27Homme-trace,_Le_Havre,_2011_-_1.jpg

Les colloques ont eu lieu tous les 2 ans de 2011 à 2018. Ce qui explique que la légende des photos reprennent la date du colloque et non pas celle du dépôt sur wikimedia. Ceci est vrai pour chacune des photos issues de ces colloques. Le lien concernant la photo de Béatrice Galinon-Mélénec lors du colloque de 2018 est : http://www.colloquelehavre.fr.

Espérant avoir répondu à vos questions,

Cordialement

COVD — Preceding unsigned comment added by COVD (talk • contribs) 18:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@COVD: Qui est le photographe de cette image ? Yann (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:NHS mural seen during the COVID-19 pandemic on the Baxtergate side of the Horse Vaults pub in Pontefract (23rd May 2020).jpg

This file despite having only 1 recorded delete vote and by the end of the vote had 3 keep votes and 0 delete votes, was deleted despite general opinions of the people in the discussion. --FusionSub (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:NHS mural seen during the COVID-19 pandemic on the Baxtergate side of the Horse Vaults pub in Pontefract (23rd May 2020).jpg

 Oppose Please remember that

"The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept, it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' precautionary principle." [from Commons:Deletion requests]

With that understood, also note that two people asked for deletion, the nominator and the closing Admin. They are both highly experienced Commons editors, with more than a million actions between them.

I agree with the deletion. There is nothing in the record to suggest that this is not a legal mural. In cases where there is uncertainty, it is up to those who want to keep the image to prove beyond a significant doubt that it qualifies for the status they suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:SPECIALPURPOSEONLY Grouppicture 2019 BUSCH 14 Familie Aussen 294 3 300dpi RGB.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Wir haben die uneingeschränkten Rechte an diesem Bild. Busch Vacuum Pumps and Systems (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image appears at the photographer's web site, https://www.leonkopplow.com/corporate, with "All images on this website are copyright protected and may not be used without written permission." Owning print or digital copies of an image does not give you the right to freely license it. Licenses from photographers rarely include that right. In order for this to be restored to Commons, either (a) the photographer, Leon Kopplow, must send a free license using VRT, or (b) you must send a copy of your written license from Leon Kopplow which gives you the right to freely license the image.

Also note that Commons:Username policy requires that accounts in the name of organizations must be verified by an authorized official sending a message to VRT. If you do not accomplish that promptly, the account will be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn´t know that. Sent an E-Mail already. Leon Kopplow also sent an E-Mail to VRT. Busch Vacuum Pumps and Systems (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muster.jpg

Das Bild "File:Muster.jpg" soll wieder hergestellt werden, denn ich habe es wirklich selbst hergestellt und jeder kann es verwenden. Vermutlich habe ich aus Versehen nur falsche Angaben gemacht. Wieso das Bild "File:Zwei Muster.jpg" gelöscht wurde, ist mir ein Rätsel. FriedeWie (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:E Woodward Seated Female Nude 1927.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:E Woodward Seated Female Nude 1927.jpg

This is a 1927 painting by w:Ellsworth Woodward, an American artist. It should be public domain in the US now. Abzeronow (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, as the original nominator.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: PD now. --Yann (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crônicas para se ler na guerra - Eduardo Vespoli Paolucci .webp

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Gentlemen, Good Afternoon! The quoted text and work do not violate copyright terms. There is a mistake. It's a book by a Brazilian writer named Eduardo V. Paolucci, a book that is for sale on all digital platforms in the country. Please check again and revert what happened. Yours sincerely, Dutis Dutis04 (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Per Commons:Fair use. Please have a look at Commons:First steps before contributing more photos. Thuresson (talk)
Note Paolucci's article on PT Wikipedia was deleted for being out of scope. I think we could get a license for this work, but it would probably be out of scope here as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The fact that it is for sale in print or digital form does not give you the right to claim that you were its creator (that is what {{Own}} means) or any right to freely license it. That right belongs to the author or the publisher. Please note that falsely claiming that you are the creator of a work is a serious violation of Commons rule and may lead to your being blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No valid reason for restoration. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coefficients d'extinction amérindienne.pdf

What is this file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educated Businessman (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 January 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The file description is

"Effets des 5 siècles de colonisation sur les populations amérindiennes"
Effects of 5 centuries of colonization on American Indian Populations (translation: JLW)

If needed, the file should be recreated in wiki markup. PDFs are not useful. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hans-Jürgen Bretschneider.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022112310011945. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mussklprozz: As requested. --Rosenzweig τ 20:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: restored as requested by VRT agent. --Rosenzweig τ 20:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wappen-600-dpi ohne Name.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022111810009682. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mussklprozz: As requested. --Rosenzweig τ 20:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: restored as requested by VRT agent. --Rosenzweig τ 20:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MLK Danville Airport

I own the rights to the file and grant permission for its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torreydixon (talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably about File:MLK visits Danville meeting 1963.jpg.
@Torreydixon: Why do you own the right of this image? Who is the photographer? What is its publication history? Yann (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another version of it here, labeled as courtesy of the newspaper. That site dates it as 1963, same as the title, but the image description says 1964. That difference actually could be the factor between it being public domain or not; the Danville Register copyrights were never renewed, though particular contributions were. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All other sources an internet search brings up confirm that the event took place on July 11, 1963, so the image description just seems to be a mistake. Felix QW (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shay Mitchell Headshot TheCollectiveYou.jpg

I am the photographer of this photo and request undeletion.

hereby affirm that I, Dennis Gocer of The Collective You, the creator of the exclusive copyright of the media work, photo of Shay Mitchell, as shown here: File:Shay Mitchell Headshot TheCollectiveYou.jpg, and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 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

Dennis Gocer

Copyright holder

Dgrocerphoto (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This should go through the established procedure Commons:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Standard COM:VRT grace period which this upload failed to benefit from previously, given that it is available at a resolution not found online. Following up with the uploader on their talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alessia Russo Tar Heels 2019 (cropped).png

Both File:Alessia Russo Tar Heels 2019 (cropped).png and parent file File:Alessia Russo Tar Heels 2019.png.

The files were nominated for deletion as copyvio of an ESPN broadcast even though the file pages noted that the YouTube video from which they were taken contained both clips from ACC (ESPN), and a montage of what were claimed to be original photos by the uploader that were made available under the license - the file page also noted that I had done a reverse image search and could find those photos nowhere else, so this and the fact they were all of the same game from the same angle made it seem clear that the YouTube uploader was the author as they said. As the files are screenshots of those photos, they should not have even been nominated for deletion if someone bothered to read the note and paid attention at the source. Kingsif (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Where does the Youtuber make an explicit claim that the photos are her own work? Without such a claim, I am reluctant to assume that these were taken by her when there is no other evidence of her being a sports photographer. With such a claim, I'll believe it per COM:AGF. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great question, I can't remember the link nor see it at the files for obvious reasons. I would ask for temp undeletion for discussion and to review the uploader's comments, then (I of course don't remember them, either, just enough of the details that made me confident to upload the image, insomuch as I believe there was at least a comment attributing the elements of the video that aren't the photos, so one would assume the uploader would have also attributed the photos if not own work)... but I appreciate that would have to be a quick thing and I might be tied up through (until) next week. I assume the discussions at this page stay current for a week and if I am busy, I can come back and ask then Kingsif (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: Link: [1]. Your comments: "The uploader notes in the video description that the match footage and the audio over the photographs is taken from other sources, but claims the photographs as own work. As there are several photographs, all of one match and which I have used Google Lens and not found anywhere else on the internet, I am satisfied that the uploader is the photograph author and able to release them under the YouTube Creative Commons license." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:SBSWorldWatch logo 2022.svg

This file should be temporailly undeleted here on Commons and this file should be moved to the English Wikipedia (it's fair use guidelines) per the template Template:Request temporary undeletion. This file was deleted after a deletion request. Please undelete this file before I put it in the English Wikipedia page SBS WorldWatch. From Bas.

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=728009507"