Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:RFU)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

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

Other languages:

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.

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
90 copyvios • 10 duplicates • 2 adverts • 20 selfies • 35 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • 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.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

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

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

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. 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.

Projects that accept 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.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

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. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Pavel Troshkin

Images were published after 2015, expiration of posthumous copyright protection of photographer after death, or before 1954. Overly hypothetical doubts by now-banned user who made many overzealous deletion requests. Kges1901 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia. In either case we cannot keep them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We usually assume that old works were published at the time of creation, unless evidence says otherwise. If I understood correctly, the author was a reporter for RIAN, so I see no reason to assume that these pictures were not published at the time. The first file in the list, File:Сессия Верховного Совета СССР первого созыва (2).jpg, is dated 1938. That may not be sufficient for all images, but it seems OK for this one. Yann (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Troshkin was a reporter for the newspaper Izvestiya, and his photographs were published at the time in Izvestiya, Krasnaya Zvezda, and other papers. --Kges1901 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg also made an interesting argument about the country of origin. If these newspapers were distributed in the Soviet Union, they were simultaneously published in all successor nations, and that under the Berne Convention, the shorter term applies. Yann (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These newspapers were distributed across the entire Soviet Union, not just on the territory of the RSFSR. In any case, the definition of publication under Russian copyright law is that the back of the photograph was marked by the artist in the appropriate way, which for war photographs implies that it passed through censorship processes and could be published. Since most of these photographs are not taken from the photographer's negatives, it is reasonable to assume that they were marked on the back, and recently digitized images appeared on the internet after 2014, when the posthumous publication copyright term expired. Kges1901 (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg is not sole in such assumption. But this is just assumption so far, it is not supported by court decisions (of 12-15 post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature (as I have known on today, I continue to seek it, to confirm or refute it). As I see such questions in court decisions (of several post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature - the concrete Soviet republic is place of publishing (because, the civil legislation was on republican level) or the RF is place of publishing, even if work was published outside of the RSFSR (as USSR-successor on union level). Alex Spade (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is any test case over the Berne definition of "country of origin". The question would not come up internally for Russian law or that of the old republics, most likely. It would only matter in a country outside those which implement the rule of the shorter term, and over a work which that question may be involved. Not sure I know of any, anywhere. But, the Berne Convention is pretty specific in its definition when it comes to works simultaneously published in multiple countries, and that is the definition that Commons follows. Of course, the Soviet Union was not a member, though most all subsequent countries are now. One complication is the U.S. status -- the definition of "source country" for the URAA would follow different logic than Berne, the country of "greatest contacts with the work", which would be Russia. Russia was 50pma on the URAA date, but I think had some wartime extensions, which I think push these over the line, such that only ones published before 1929 (or created before 1904, if unpublished) would be PD in the U.S., regardless of current status in Russia, or the country of origin (if different). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know such cases (on the Berne definition) too, but in the Russian copyright legislation there are 3 criterions of copyrightability - (1) the Russian territory (the territory of the Russian Federation (the RSFSR previously, not the USSR) since Nov.7, 1917 to today) in the borders on the date of publication, (2) the Russian citizenship on the date of publication, and (3) international treaties.
Moreover, there is similar situation with reports of telegraph agencies or press-releases- they are reported/released worldwide formally, but the country indicated in report/release is the country of origin (some reports/releases have two of more indicated countries). Alex Spade (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right -- the Berne country of origin pretty much never applies to internal works, or even most situations involving foreign works. The specific definition in Berne pretty much only matters if a country is applying the rule of the shorter term for a foreign work to have lesser protection than their own works normally do; the Berne definition would have to be used in that case to determine the country, since that is in the treaty. In pretty much any other situation, more sensical definitions can be used (which even the US did, with the URAA -- the "source country" there is pretty much the same thing, but differs quite a bit once it comes to simultaneous publication). But however nonsensical it seems, Commons uses the Berne definition, since that should control when works expire in many countries (even if that virtually never comes up in a court case to test it). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect to consider is how publication is defined. For example, in this academic article about Russian copyright law, it is stated that an author, transferring a work to another by agreement, gives consent to publication, and thus the work can be considered published. This means that if Troshkin transferred his negatives to his employer (Izvestiya), the works would be legally considered published. Since all photos in question are of a professional nature, there is no reason to assume that Troshkin kept any of these photographs in his personal possession and did not transfer them to his employer. Considering this, then all of his photos would have been legally published when he transferred them to his employer, that is, definitely before his death in 1944, and all these photographs would be firmly public domain. Kges1901 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Term publication (обнародование or опубликование in Russian, and these are two different term in the Russian copyright) is defined in the paragraph one and two of part 1 of article 1268 of the Civil Code. Consent to publication is not publication (right for exercise of some action is not action). And mentioned resent discussion on the Ru-Wiki for orphan works (where I was the main speaker) does not matter for Troshkin's works - author of photos (Troshkin) is known. Alex Spade (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time if there is a source for original of photo and its reverse side, and such original (reverse side) is marked by author name and a year, then this year can be considered as year of publication according to the last paragraph of article 475 of the Soviet Russian Civil Code. Alex Spade (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of copyright I am specifically discussing the nuances of обнародование because the term contains a broader meaning than simply опубликование, and the expiration of copyright (if work is posthumously published) is calculated from обнародование and not опубликование of a work – regarding photographs, that public display of a work counts as обнародование while not опубликование in the strict sense, therefore opening broader possibilities for the release of a work during Troshkin's lifetime.
Regarding originals, another aspect is that at least some of Troshkin's photographs were sent into TASS and copyright thus transferred to TASS, falling under PD-Russia under the TASS aspect. For example this photograph was marked on the back with TASS copyright stamp even though Troshkin was an Izvestiya correspondent.
In any case presence of markings on the back is the most hopeful approach to this problem of posthumous copyright since any photograph/negative with a description had to have been marked on the back with a caption and name of the author, since Troshkin's photographs presumably entered into a centralized group of photographs cleared for publication, as his photographs were not just published in Izvestiya, but in Krasnaya Zvezda, Vechernyaya Moskva, other newspapers, and books (for example a large quantity of his photographs taken during the Battle of Khalkhin Gol appeared in this 1940 book without mention of his name. Secondly finding an exact date for negatives such as this example would have been impossible if there was no marking on the back. The fact that exact dates taken are available for negatives indicates that they were also marked in some way with captions, dates and names of author. Examples of such author name and year markings on the back of a Troshkin photograph include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Kges1901 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, обнародование is wider than опубликование, but the fact (and the date) of обнародование must be proved (for example for some painting "This painting was created in 1923 and was shown on ZYX-art exhibition in 1925, see reference link").
  • Yes, if photowork is marked by TASS (no matter by TASS only or by TASS+name_of_real_photograph), this photowork is TASS-work. Alex Spade (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No discussion for over 3 months, there is no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 185.172.241.184 (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of individual photographs

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

File:Séamus Pattison.jpg

Nominating File:Séamus Pattison.jpg for the exact same reason outlined in the just accepted Commons:Undeletion requests#File:Neil Blaney 1990.jpg; files from this website have been found to be acceptable under a Template:European Union Government license so long as this is specifically outlined on their individual pages. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose per COM:PCP. Unlike Neil Blaney's photo, this one is photo of a photo. If EU Parliament are the copyright holder of the original photo, I do not see any reason why making a photo of a photo instead of using the original one. IMO, this constitutes a reasonable doubt if the photo was indeed made by a parliament employed photographer. IMO, more likely, it is an externally made photo just delivered to the parliament archive. Ankry (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Ankry. --Yann (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Park Sung-jae.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Original uploader claimed this work as their own, but this specific file is licensed under KOGL Type 1 (see bottom right, http://www.moj.go.kr/minister/2089/subview.do) so the file can remain on Commons, just under the license Template:KOGL Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There are two logos in the bottom right of the cited page -- one leads to a page which has an explicit copyright notice. The other links to a page whose terms of use say, The copyright of the post posted by the member within the service screen belongs to the member who posted it. In addition, the public may not commercially exploit the post without the consent of the publisher. However, this does not apply to non-profit purposes, and it also has the right to publish in the service. (Google tanslation)" This is an NC license which we do not permit..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the two logos, the left one refers to WebWatch, which is a web accessibility quality certification agency designated by the Ministry of Science and ICT. From what I can see, this logo is the certification mark verifying this specific webpage is web accessible, so I don't think this would impact the underlying copyright of the webpage. Would like more thoughts on this.
As for KOGL, I'm aware it's just a link to its site. I do see on the MoJ copyright policy page that pages/files should ostensibly have a KOGL Type I in writing, which my source page doesn't. I've seen on other MoJ pages explicit KOGL Type 1 or Type 2 notices, so I will concede to your reasoning on that. I suppose my remaining question would be on that WebWatch mark, especially if it's seen on other Korean gov websites. Average Pennsylvanian (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mônica Magalhães Cavalcante.jpg

I request an undeletion for the file. I would like to upgrade the data and confirm its autenticity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriFerro1 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Very small file with "source=Google", so we need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. If you have such a permission, please see COM:VRT for the procedure. Yann (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Martyrdom of Saint Andrew - Enea Salmeggia (1604).jpg

Buenas,necesito que algún administrador restaure la imagen está en el Dominio Público (pintura fue creada en 1604),la imagen fue removida por (This is a derivative work and has been altered by Bridgeman Images (see the multiple "b"'s across the image), see metadata) y el logo de Bridgeman Images es totalmente simple (too simple) ,la licencia correcta es {{PD-old-100}}(fuentes:https://www.bridgemanimages.com/en/noartistknown/the-martyrdom-of-saint-andrew-1604-painting-by-enea-salmeggia-in-the-church-of-saint-mary-of/nomedium/asset/3936599).— Preceding unsigned comment added by AbchyZa22 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. We most definitely do not want a PD image full of watermarks and a company logo on top of it. That's worse than not having the image at all. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 00:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vali_VLZ.jpg

File:Vali_VLZ.jpg Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to request the undeletion of the file Vali VLZ.jpg, which was recently deleted from Wikipedia. I believe the deletion may have been based on a misunderstanding or lack of information regarding the file’s copyright status or relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vali VLZ (talk • contribs) 11:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose. I nominated the file for deletion under CSD F10, "Low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions." The file name is "Vali VLZ.jpg", the uploader's user name is "Vali VLZ", and the uploader claimed the file as their own work, so "selfie" is satisfied. "Low-to-medium quality" is a matter of judgement, but I thought it was met. "No constructive global contributions" will require analysis of the uploader's contributions:
According to Special:CentralAuth/Vali VLZ, those are the only sites on which Vali VLZ has made any contributions. --bjh21 (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per bjh21. User further warned. --Yann (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undelestion Request for several Files

Hello Administrators, I only now get on top of things sorry - some files I uploaded were flagged by an user quite some time ago (other users were kind enough to update some missing licencing information on my of my files, however some were overlooked and I guess deleted - please restore them for me so I can update the missing information accordingly).

Those files should be called:

(for those files I will put more precise names and put the following banners where still necessary: PD-art|PD-old-auto|deathyear=1952; self|cc-by-sa-4.0 )

A different user flagged/deleted some other files of mine a bit more recent, please restore the following:

(for those files (if I remember correctly what they were, I now see the problem with IDing the files more accurately), I will also put more precise names and put the public domain license since when the artwork (puppets) were created, their images were published in the local art newspapers in the 1920s and 1930s, so the licensing is free).

Hope all is clear now and let me know if there are still problems I need to adress! Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtWriter22 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

((By the way, I did not put a hyperlink to the files since they only lead to the wikimedia page where it states that the file is deleted)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtWriter22 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Note that links are used by Admins to see the files in question, so they should be used here. Some of these were deleted because they are old works and are obviously not your own work as claimed. Others are copyrighted dolls whose images cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from their creators. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArtWriter22: For each image, can you provide a list of authors, when they died, and when the work was published? If it's a photo of a person, the sole author is the photographer. If it's a photo of a 2D artwork, the sole author is the artist. If it's a photo of a 3D artwork, both the artist and photographer are authors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArtWriter22: (Edit conflict) As KoH said above, we need more information: who was the photographer, and who was the artist? Yann (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:6400 & 6524 (Coach USA livery) on Route 24.jpg

The reason why I want it to be undeleted is because the original owner: Arnold Binaday gave me permission to repost his picture with credit.

--Danny5784 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=949416169"