Commons:Demandes de restauration

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 96% 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.

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

Cette page a pour but de permettre aux utilisateurs de déposer une requête pour qu'une page ou un fichier (ci-après indifféremment désignés par le mot fichier) soit restauré. Les utilisateurs peuvent commenter les requêtes déposées en indiquant leur opinion ne pas restaurer ou restaurer, suivi de leurs arguments.

Cette page ne fait pas partie de Wikipédia. Cette page concerne le contenu de Wikimedia Commons, un recueil de fichiers multimédia librement utilisables par Wikipédia et d'autres projets Wikimédia. Wikimedia Commons ne contient pas d'articles encyclopédiques. Pour solliciter la restauration d'un article ou un autre contenu qui a été effacé de l'édition de Wikipédia en anglais, merci de voir la page deletion review sur ce site.

Suppression en Commons (guide)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 1 reason • 1 subpage) • 0 malformed
non libre • redondant • publicité • selfie • autres cas
v • d • m

Trouver les raisons de l'effacement d'un fichier

Consultez d'abord le journal des effacements et notez le nom de la personne ayant supprimé le fichier. Utilisez également Special:Whatlinkshere (depuis la page de l'image, cela fonctionne même si le fichier a été supprimé) pour voir s'il y a eu débat quelque part avant que la suppression ait eu lieu. Deuxièmement, merci de lire la politique de suppression, les objectifs du projet, et la politique de licences pour découvrir pourquoi le fichier n'est peut-être admissible sur Wikimedia Commons.

Si la raison avancée n'est pas claire ou si vous êtes en désaccord avec elle, vous pouvez contacter l'administrateur ayant effectué la suppression pour lui demander des explications ou lui fournir des preuves allant à l'encontre de la raison de la suppression. Vous pouvez aussi contacter n'importe quel administrateur actif (peut-être une personne parlant votre langue maternelle) — la plupart seront ravis de vous apporter leur aide, et si une erreur a été commise, de rectifier la situation.

Mode d'emploi

Les suppressions qui sont correctement basées sur les politiques en vigueur concernant la suppression, les objectifs du projet ou les licences ne seront pas remises en question. Les propositions de modification des politiques doivent être faites sur les pages de discussion de ces politiques.

Si vous pensez que le fichier en question ne violait pas de droits d'auteur ni ne se trouvait en contradiction avec les objectifs du projet :

  • Vous pouvez avoir envie de discuter avec l'administrateur qui a supprimé le fichier. Vous pouvez lui demander une explication détaillée ou lui apporter des preuves pour étayer la restauration du fichier.
  • Si vous ne désirez contacter personne directement, ou si un administrateur en particulier a décliné votre demande de restauration, ou si vous voulez donnez l'occasion à plus de personnes de participer à la discussion, vous pouvez demander la restauration du fichier sur cette page.
  • Si le fichier a été supprimé par manque de preuves de l’existence d'une permission de placement sous une licence par le détenteur des droits, merci de suivre la procédure pour apporter des preuves de l'existence d'une permission. Si vous avez déjà fait cela, il n'est pas nécessaire de demander une restauration ici. Si la permission indiquée est en ordre, le fichier sera restauré lorsque la permission sera traitée. Veuillez vous montrer patient, car cela peut prendre plusieurs semaines en fonction de la charge de travail du moment et du nombre de bénévoles disponibles.
  • Si certaines informations sont manquantes dans la description de l'image supprimée, il se peut qu'on vous pose des questions. Une réponse à ces questions est généralement attendue dans les 24 heures suivantes.

Restauration temporaire

Les fichiers peuvent être restaurés temporairement soit pour faciliter une discussion à propos d'une restauration de ce fichier, soit pour permettre le transfert vers un projet qui autorise l'usage loyal (fair use). Utilisez le modèle {{Request temporary undeletion}} sur le demande de restauration concernée et fournissez une explication.

  1. si la restauration temporaire est réalisée dans le but de faciliter un débat, expliquez en quoi elle pourrait être utile pour ce débat, ou
  2. si la restauration temporaire est destinée à permettre un transfert vers un projet acceptant l'usage légitime (fair use), précisez vers quel projet vous désirez transférer le fichier et proposez un lien vers la page du projet mentionnant sa politique en matière d'usage légitime.

Pour aider dans une discussion

Des fichiers peuvent être temporairement restaurés afin de donner des éléments lors d'un débat s'il apparaît difficile aux participants de décider si une demande de restauration doit être validée ou non tant qu'ils n'ont pas accès au fichier en question. Si une description ou une citation du fichier est suffisante, un administrateur peut les fournir au lieu d'accéder à la demande de restauration temporaire. Les demandes peuvent être rejetées si l'utilité pour la discussion est réduite par d'autres facteurs (comme la restauration, même temporaire, de fichiers où il existe des enjeux importants en matière de Commons:Photos de personnes identifiables). Les fichiers restaurés temporairement pour faciliter une discussion seront de nouveau supprimés après 30 jours, ou lorsque la demande est clôturée (en prenant le délai le plus court).

Pour permettre le transfert de contenu en fair use vers un autre projet

À l'inverse de Wikipédia en anglais et de quelques autres projets Wikimedia, Commons n'accepte pas d'héberger du contenu non libre dans le cadre de l'usage loyal (fair use). Si un fichier supprimé correspond aux critères pour un usage loyal (fait use) sur un autre projet Wikimedia, les utilisateurs peuvent demander sa restauration temporaire afin de le transférer vers cet autre projet. De telles requêtes peuvent en général être traitées rapidement (sans débat). Les fichiers restaurés temporairement pour être transférés seront supprimés après deux jours. Lors de la demande de restauration temporaire, veuillez préciser sur quel projet vous comptez transférer le fichier et fournir un lien vers la page du projet définissant les modalités de l'usage loyal (fair use) sur ce projet.

Liste des projets acceptant le fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Ajouter une demande

Assurez-vous en premier que vous avez essayé de trouver la raison pour laquelle le fichier a été supprimé. Ensuite, veuillez lire ces instructions sur la manière de rédiger la demande avant de l'ajouter :

  • Ne demandez pas la restauration d'un fichier qui n'a pas été supprimé.
  • Ne publiez pas votre adresse de courriel ou votre numéro de téléphone, ni ceux d'autres personnes.
  • dans le champ Subject:, saisissez un sujet approprié. Si vous demander la restauration d'un seul fichier, un titre comme [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] est conseillé (souvenez-vous du caractère deux-points initial dans le lien).
  • identifiez le ou les fichiers dont vous demandez la restauration et fournissez des liens vers les images (voir plus haut). Si vous ne connaissez pas le nom exact, fournissez autant d'informations que possible. Les demandes sans informations suffisantes sur ce qui doit être restauré peuvent être archivées sans préavis.
  • donnez le ou les motifs de la demande de restauration.
  • signez votre demande avec les quatre caractères tilde (~~~~). Si vous avez un compte sur Commons, connectez-vous d'abord. Si vous êtes la personne ayant téléversé le fichier en question, cela peut aider les administrateurs à l'identifier.

Ajoutez la demande à la fin de la page. Cliquez ici pour ouvrir la page à l'endroit où vous devriez ajouter votre demande. Sinon, vous pouvez cliquer sur le lien "modifier" situé à côté de la date, ci-dessous. Surveillez les mises à jour apportées à la section correspondant à votre demande.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Les débats clôturés concernant les restaurations sont archivés quotidiennement.

Requêtes en cours

File:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg

There was no consensus in favour of deletion. The larger file from which it was cropped (and the series of which that file was part) remains in place unchallenged. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin S. Taylor, It would be good of you to link the larger file which you indicate was uploaded while the license was valid, since I can't find that in the file history of the deleted file. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There may be a basis for discussion, although not for the reason stated in the request. From its logs, it looks like the file "Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg" was uploaded to Commons on 22 June 2024 and was sourced directly from flickr. As such, it was under the CC NC-ND license on flickr. The only argument to keep that was made in the deletion discussion was that seven days before the upload to Commons, the flickr photo had, very briefly, a CC BY license. That could not be a valid argument to keep the file, based only on the facts presented in the DR. The deletion decision is correct based on those facts. However, you mention the larger image "File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg" (currently sourced from the wrong flickr page), uploaded to Commons on 15 June 2024, which brings an interesting aspect, because the chronology gets much more compressed and because it seems to have exif data that are apparently not displayed on the flickr page. The chronology goes like this. Everything happened on 15 June 2024. The photo was taken at 12:19 (UTC or UTC+1 assumed). The photo was uploaded to flickr at some unknown time apparently very briefly under CC BY, the license was almost immediately set to CC NC-ND at 13:40 UTC, and the file was uploaded to Commons at 21:14 UTC. Even with that compressed timeline, the upload to Commons still occurred after the license was already CC NC-ND at the flickr source used. (And the fact that the license was CC BY for only a few minutes suggests that it may not have been intentional.) However the exif data on Commons display these usage terms : "Usage terms: This image is for Editorial use purposes only. The Image can not be used for advertising or commercial use. The Image can not be altered in any form. All images are Crown copyright and re-usable under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ Pictures marked as the copyright of a third party may only be re-used with permission from the rights holder." That sounds like the restrictions exclude the OGL. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


To closing admin: if the license on the original file was valid when it was uploaded, then this file should be restored, since that one is the source. If not, we should obviously delete that one as well. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 27).jpg
This was the source file.

The copyright on UK Government photographs is often confusing and contradictory, but the impression I've garnered over the past few months is that all the files copied to the Government Flickr Archive are automatically covered by that site's general licence even if the information for a specific image says otherwise, and indeed that the Number 10 Flickr account's general statement on image usage trumps whatever may be applied to individual pictures (hence Wikimedia having a dedicated licence tag for that). My general impression for a long time has also been that once a copyright-holder has released some intellectual property under any Creative Commons (or equivalent) declaration then they cannot revoke said declaration later, so if there are multiple contradictory official notices for the same photograph then we should take the most permissive one as correct.

I agree that it "may not have been intentional" for whichever government employees actually operate the Flickr accounts to initially release under one licence and then change after a few minutes, but then I'm not sure what those people's intentions have ever been because different images on those accounts are under a smorgasbord of different tags with no apparent rhyme or reason behind them. To take one example, a large number of coronation photographs from last year (and a smattering of other ones for many years before that) uploaded to Flickr under the Public Domain Mark rather than the Public Domain Dedication and eventually the community decided to treat them as the same, realising that in many cases the uploaders themselves didn't know the difference. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin S. Taylor: 1. About the CC license, you may be confusing the notion of "cessation to offer a license at a source" with the notion of "revocation of a license already granted". Please see the Creative Commons FAQ for more details. 2. On principle, the specific conditions trump the general conditions. 3. The mention of a dedicated license tag for Number 10 relates to Template talk:Number-10-flickr, and the previous decisions might be worth exploring to see if you can find something there. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose First please note that

File:Prince Louis (carriage window crop) 2024.jpg is not extracted from
File:Trooping the Colour 2024 (GovPM 26).jpg

While the two are similar, the pattern of rain drops is different and in the first, the hair is surrounded by white from the opposite window while in the larger image the hair is surrounded by black. On the other hand

File:Trooping_the_Colour_2024_(GovPM_27).jpg, is the source image. This has a CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 license so both the subject image and the larger one cannot be kept here.

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've just unilaterally deleted another image within fifteen minutes of seeing it and with no deletion discussion nor acknowledgement of anything I said about it. This is unacceptable. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robin S. Taylor I am willing to give the benefit fo the doubt, however, those two pictures, while uploaded under a CC-BY license, were changed within a day to the by-nc-nd license. What that tells me is that the license they were uploaded with was incorrect, and they corrected it within a reasonable amount of time. What we don't do here at Wikimedia Commons is play "gotcha" with people who have uploaded under erroneous licenses. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim, the other one has the same license problems as the ones already deleted. I've put that one in a DR. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened per request. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for leaving it open for a little while. Although the part about the CC license is settled, it seems that the part about the OGL might need to be addressed, in light of Template talk:Number-10-flickr, listing some keep decisions for other cases. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, apparently the metadata states the OGL, but does that supersede the Flickr license? Does Number 10 know what they are doing? Bastique ☎ let's talk! 21:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, considering the metadata is the only actual per-file licensing statement that complies with the UK government licensing framework, it should be taken as an appropriate attribution statement. Some files explicitly change their statement to remove the OGLv3 notice, which shows that there is at least some awareness of the meaning.
A Freedom of Information request and/or a Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations request can always be made if further clarification is needed. It is worth noting that images uploaded recently have made the attribution statement just Crown copyright. Licensed under the Open Government Licence. For any of those images, a RPSI request can compel them to OGL it anyways. Isochrone (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per discussion. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 20:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely sounds like a complicated request. I deleted it since as I said in the closing message that the photograph had an unfree license at the time of upload. I agree with Jim that CC-BY was not the intended license. The OGL question is a tough one, since as mentioned above, it appears Number 10 licenses under OGL unless otherwise stated. CC-NC-ND is not a default on Flickr so it feels to me that it would fall under the otherwise stated. I almost feel like we should ask Number 10 about this. Abzeronow (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of Information request filed. I also note that, as stated here, No 10 has not obtained a delegation of authority to exempt itself from the Cabinet Office licensing framework. Isochrone (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bastique has now withdrawn his deletion nomination for picture No. 26 based on seeing the outcomes of similar discussions. Logically it follows that No. 27 and its derivatives shouldn't be deleted either. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew my nomination primarily because I didn't want to separate the point of discussion for what appears to be a larger discussion. Until we come to some consensus about this, this shall remain open. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 00:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arnaud Askoy (Alhambra) by Sandrine Mulas

Dear Commons administrators,

I am writing to request the undeletion of the portrait of the singer Arnaud Askoy that was recently deleted from Wikimedia Commons. Below is an explanation of the situation:

Image Source: The image was provided to me by the music production agency ARTCOSCENE, which represents Arnaud Askoy. They shared the image with me via Google Drive specifically for use in a Wikipedia article about him. Author and Rights: The photograph was taken by Sandrine Mulas. While she is the author of the image, the rights to the image now belong to ARTCOSCENE, who manage and control its usage. They have permitted its use for informational purposes. Purpose of the Image: The image is intended solely for use in a Wikipedia article about Arnaud Askoy. Its inclusion is important to visually represent the subject for educational and non-commercial purposes. Proposed Solution: I believe the image aligns with Wikimedia Commons’ mission to provide freely licensed media for educational use. If further documentation or clarification regarding the image rights is required, I am willing to provide more details or work with ARTCOSCENE if absolutely necessary. I appreciate your time and assistance in reviewing this request. Please let me know if there are specific steps I need to follow to facilitate the undelete process.

Best regards, --Coquelicotrouge (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Images hosted in Commons must have a free license that anyone can use with any purpose, and that includes among other comercial usage. If the right holders agree on releasing it under a free license, please ask them to send an explicit permission via COM:VRT.Günther Frager (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ludwig Wittgenstein - Some Remarks on Logical Form.pdf and File:Lynd Ward - God's Man.pdf

Two files that are now in the public domain since it's 2025.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these are in the public domain in the United States as of 2025-01-01, so please undelete. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me, it is still December 31st. They will be undeleted tomorrow. Yann (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. Still 2024. Thuresson (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to close this for a few hours just to open it again. @Yann : are you saying that you will definitely do it whenever it's the 1st in your time zone or something? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to be clear, it will be 2025 in Guam in a few minutes, so at least for part of the United States, it is 2025 very soon. If we want to wait until it is in Florida or San Francisco or whatever, great, but I don't see the value in closing this discussion for a period of a few hours. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf : I am OK to keep it open until tomorrow. There will be a lot of work to undelete a lot of files, but yes, I will do it tomorrow. Yann (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merci, mon frere. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll undelete this in about 11 hours. Abzeronow (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I don't understand. Ludwig Wittgenstein died 29 April 1951. The work was first published in Austria in 1921 in German and 1922 in English. Therefore, URAA does not apply, so both versions were under copyright until 70 PMA, or 1/1/2022.

Lynd Ward died in 1985 and God's Man was published in 1929, so 1/1/2025 would be the PD date if the copyright had notice and had been renewed. There is, however, no copyright notice in the version of the book we have here, so it apparently was PD from the moment of publication in 1929.

Therefore the debate above is moot, as the one has been PD for three years and the other for 95 years. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per Jim. Not need to wait. --Yann (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Park Sung-jae.jpg

This photo was originally uploaded on the “Open Minister's Office”(열린장관실) homepage of the Ministry of Justice. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll notice three things.

  1. “COPYRIGHTⓒ MINISTRY OF JUSTICE. REPUBLIC OF KOREA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.” — This claim is on every website of the South Korean government, even on the page of the KOGL. This is just a general disclaimer only.
  2. Logo of WebWatch in green color — A web standardization certification that has nothing to do with copyright. (It's like W3C or HTML5 logo)
  3. The KOGL Type 1 logo ({{KOGL}}, File:KOGL 1.svg) — It is clearly indicates that the entire content of the this subdomain of MoJ is released under KOGL Type 1. Please note “Open Minister's Office” homepage is separated from the original homepage of MoJ. It is only accesiable by click "법무부 소개" > "장관소개" from top menu and it will be open in new tab. You can obviously see that it's separated from the original site with diffrent logo, title and web design.

Average Pennsylvanian mentioned that he couldn't be sure because each photo didn't have the KOGL logo, which is not true. Here's an example of a misuse of the KOGL logo. This is the homepage of the Office of the President. It also displays the KOGL logo(File:KOGL wordmark (Korean).svg at the bottom of the page, but it doesn't say what kind of KOGL it is at all. In this case we cannot use the image unless there is KOGL logo and specified type on each page.--Namoroka (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meir_Nir.jpg

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to formally request the undeletion of the file Meir_Nir.jpg that was recently removed from Wikipedia. I am the copyright owner of this image and hold the exclusive rights to use and distribute it.

I uploaded the file under a free license to contribute to the Wikipedia project and confirm that I have the authority to do so. If additional documentation or a declaration of ownership is required, I am happy to provide it.

Please let me know if further steps are necessary to restore the file to Wikipedia, and I appreciate your assistance in resolving this matter.

Thank you for your time and support.

Best regards, --Juststreamit (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose EXIF data says "Artist Shay-lee, Copyright Shay-lee". We need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. Please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:DwightBirdwell.jpg

Hello the photographer of this photo gave permission for this image to be used on Dwight W. Birdwell's wikipedia page. He was notified on December 11 that it would take around 5 days for it to be processed but the image/file was deleted on December 25. This is the file.

--Edbirdwell76 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The problem may be that "permission for this image to be used on Dwight W. Birdwell's wikipedia page" is not sufficient, Both Commons and WP:EN require that images be free for any use by anybody anywhere, not just on WP. Please make sure that the photographer has actually sent a free license and not just the limited one you describe above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer said they did send a release to Wikipedia that it was okay to use the photo, this was back on December 11th. Should I forward the email correspondence the photographer had with Wikipedia? Edbirdwell76 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that User:Mark Umstot has uploaded the image with a CC-BY-4.0 license. That is the name of the photographer, but we have no way here of verifying that User:Mark Umstot is not an imposter. We see many of them here. Either Mr. Umstot can send a message from umstot.com to VRT verifying that the user is him or he can put a note on https://umstot.com/contact-us/ saying that he is User:Umstot here. In either case we will put a short note on his user page, User:Mark Umstot, confirming the identity. The image can then be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Dip Portrait

hello dear concern could you undelete this picture ? this public profile faisal dip actor bangladesh. and i have full of rights this copyrights.. so please undelete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisal dip (talk • contribs) 07:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Personal image by non contributor. Please read COM:WEBHOST. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


File:Felix Cziossek - Forsthaus in Bermaringen-Blaustein.jpg and others

July 2024 marks the 70th anniversary of the painter Felix Cziossek's death (see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Cziossek). Therefore, his paintings are now in the public domain and can be part of Wikimedia Commons without any issues. For this reason I am requesting the undeletion of the following images:

Thanks and best Konrap (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PD now. @Konrap : Please fix the license and add categories. --Yann (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened. I don't understand. two of these,

are from before 1930 and therefore do not have URAA copyrights. All the rest have US copyrights expiring on dates ranging from next year to the 2040s. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that in such a case, the copyright status needs to be reevaluated for each file. This is best done if the files are undeleted. Then a new DR can be created. Yann (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sir Frank Mears.jpg

I consider this image should be re-instated, for its value as a visual representation of Sir Frank Mears. As Mears died on 25 January 1953, the image is well over 70 years old and therefore no longer protected by UK copyright by my reckoning.

I consider the claim by Filedelinker.bot that the image was previously deleted by 'community consensus' to be erronious. The record shows that it was removed on the opinion of Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) on 9 May 2022. I have seen no evidence of any attempt to achieve consensus on the matter.Sandy Fortingal (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, please note that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sir Frank Mears.jpg represents community consensus -- to be sure, only two people commented, but the DR was open for ten days and you were invited to comment.

Second, while you initially claimed to be the actual photographer, you subsequently changed that to "anonymous". The rule in the UK is that copyright for an anonymous work lasts for 70 years after publication. In order to avoid a URAA copyright, the work must have been published before 1930. He was born in 1880 and died, as you say, in 1953. He would have been 50 in 1930. It is possible that he was under 50 in this image, but it seems unlikely. In order for the image to be restored, you must prove that this image was published before 1930. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Botswana Anthem Music Sheet.InstrumentalSimple.svg

It has been almost seven years since this file got deleted. This file went into public domain on this year's public domain day, and therefore I'm requesting the undeletion of this file. See this. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 11:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Since it was under Botswana copyright until yesterday and was written in 1962, Fatshe leno la rona will have a URAA copyright until at least 1/1/2058 and perhaps later, depending on its publication date. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Felix Cziossek

Files were restored for public domain day. --Nintendofan885T&Cs apply 12:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: PD now. --Yann (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carter mourning drape.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Even though the painting is not created by the US Government, it is on Commons with VRT at File:President Carter National Portrait Gallery.jpg. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Statue de Paris (Kapla).jpg

Hello,

This file is important because we need to add the image named File:La Statue de Paris (Kapla).jpg on the page Draft:La Statue de Paris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicreator2562 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/fr&oldid=972453154"