Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UNDEL)
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
34 copyvios • 23 duplicates • 3 adverts • 1 selfie • 5 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]

Undeletion of individual photographs

Russian department awards

Please, restore deleted Russian department awards and close (as keep) similar current DR. Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed DR discussions

Current DR discussions

Yes, they are not state awards, but they are state symbols ({{PD-RU-exempt}}) indeed - symbols, which are established by state authorities, which design (including both text description and visual representation) are established (which design are integral part of) in respective official documents of state government agencies (the Russian official documents are not just texts), which are subjects of the en:State Heraldic Register of the Russian Federation (point 3 subpoint 4). Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it would be crucial here to know if the documents granting awards and awards themsetves are official (i.e. if they have legal basis).  Support if yes,  Oppose if not (unless we have knowledge that Russian courts interpret the word official differently), and COM:PCP if unsure. Without extra information it is the third option. If they are issued and granted just basing on an internal decision of the organization, then they are not official (IMO). Ankry (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, department order for decoration of someone(s) by department award(s), наградной лист (award paper), and наградная книжка (award card) for department awards are official documents of administrative characters. Same as for state awards. Alex Spade (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can we verify its official status? Where and when the decission that established this reward was published? Ankry (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the specific Russian department lists its award(s) on its official site (for example, награды Минобрнауки). Also, department order (приказ) of award establishment can be found in the Russian juridical databases (like pravo.gov.ru, consultant.ru, garant.ru, docs.cntd.ru, and others). Alex Spade (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I do not see "Awards of Rostekhnadzor" on the page mentioned above. Ankry (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Минобрнауки (Minobrnauki) was just example, it is not Rostekhnadzor. Link to current Rostekhnadzor awards. Alex Spade (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KF_Skënderbeu_Korçë_Logo_1908.png

This file should be kept as it provides the real founding date about the club's history. The information about this date is here on this link: https://newsport.al/ckerkon-skenderbeu-ne-korce-historia-e-klubit-sportiv-te-qytetit-te-serenatave

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamSala (talk • contribs) 10:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The logo must be out of copyright in both Albania and the United States. It (assuming it was designed in 1908) is a free file in the United States because it was designed before 1929, but its copyright status in Albania is unknown. If it is an anonymous work, the copyright should have expired, but if there is a designer, you need to check the copyright status of the logo. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fumikas Sagisavas Yes, the logo is not copyrighted. I mentioned the copyright status as "my own work" and also I mentioned as "This work contains the work of others" and "Yes, the pre-existing work is not protected by any copyright law". I have also attached proof that the team is founded on that date, due to the reference I added, so restore the file and let me use it on the club's article page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KF_Skënderbeu_Korçë so I will also add the reference there to let the visitors know about the date of foundation. Thanks AdamSala (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we need evidence that 1.) This logo was published before 1929 and 2.) That the creator of this logo deliberately withheld their name when it was published or that they died before 1954. Logo also looks somewhat modern to me like 1960s or 1970s. Abzeronow (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow The file is original, is published before 1929 but it was upscaled to look better nowadays. Also the creator of the logo didn't mentioned the file as copyrighted, so the file should be restored. You can search the logo with Google image upload search and the logo will appear there as free to use. So please restore it. I have also a person @Yann which supports the file to be restored. Thanks AdamSala (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AdamSala: Yes, I support undeletion if you can provide some evidence that the original logo is the same. This is a recent recreated logo, so we need some more information. Yann (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann I found the logo on this website: https://m.forebet.com/en/teams/skenderbeu but the logo was remastered by me to look fine on Wikipedia. The website in question doesn't mention it as copyrighted. Also I have found information that the real founding date of this club is on 5 September 1908, as per this website in Albania: https://newsport.al/ckerkon-skenderbeu-ne-korce-historia-e-klubit-sportiv-te-qytetit-te-serenatave so the logo should be restored and it should be added to the main article of the club, together with the reference. Thanks AdamSala (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I think @AdamSala: misunderstands copyright -- all works have a copyright automatically from the moment of their creation. In Albania, that copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. 1908 is recent enough so that we cannot assume that the creator of the logo has been dead for 70 years. If the author is anonymous, the copyright lasts for 70 years after the first publication of the work, but note that "anonymous" is not the same as "unknown". In this case we do not have proof of the first publication date and we do not have proof that the work was anonymous. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't answer the question. How do we know that the logo wasn't changed recently? It is certainly possible to find some old document showing how the logo was in the 1920s or before. Yann (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann The file doesn't have documented information, but is the original file of the club since on that website is in low resolution and was taken directly from the team's archived data. Also the reference shows evidence about the founding date of the club, so you should restore the file. Please undelete the file now! Thanks AdamSala (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support provided some evidence that this version is identical, or nearly identical, to the 1908 version. Yann (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow@Fumikas Sagisavas@Yann Another proof that this team was founded in 1908 is shown here at an Albanian sport newspaper: https://www.panorama.com.al/sport/foto-cila-eshte-stema-zyrtare-e-skenderbeut-po-viti-krijimit/#gsc.tab=0
So please restore the logo now!
Thanks AdamSala (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AdamSala I have found references that the club was originally founded on 14 April 1909 as "Vëllazëria Korçë" so the logo that is mentioned the year 1908 is incorrect. I have added the information about the founding date of the club and the references corresponding to it on the article of KF Skënderbeu Korçë on English Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KF_Skënderbeu_Korçë and I want to let you know the logo which is used on Albanian Wikipedia: https://sq.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeda:Logo_SK_Skënderbeu_e_re.png should be used on English Wikipedia too. I can't use that logo since it doesn't appear on the article, but it appears the name of the file instead. Thanks Izmirrexha1992 (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Not evidence provided. See also message by Izmirrexha1992 above. --Yann (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Porträtfotografie von Julien Bam .jpg

Das Bild File:Porträtfotografie von Julien Bam .jpg sollte wiederhergestellt werden, da der Benutzer AnnikaSchulzYOUTalentMGMT seit 2019 nicht mehr aktiv war und daher vermutlich nicht mitbekommen hat, dass eine Freigabe des Bildes erforderlich ist. Es wurde aufgrund fehlender Lizenzierung am 4. November 2023 gelöscht. Eine Wiederherstellung des Bildes wäre sinnvoll, um den Benutzer zu kontaktieren und ihn zu fragen, ob er die nötige Freigabe für die Nutzung des Bildes erteilen kann. Falls der Benutzer nicht erreichbar ist, könnte auch das Netzwerk von Julien Bam, Y.O.U. Talent Management GmbH, kontaktiert werden, um die notwendige Freigabe zu klären. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MysticShadow187 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Strong oppose MysticShadow187 created an undeletion request today and not liking how it fared they decided to delete the discussion, see Special:Diff/963774217. Günther Frager (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Original post

The image should be restored because ...

  • Topicality: The current image from 2015 shows Julien Bam at an earlier stage of his career. The image from 2019 represents his more current appearance and thus complements the article with a more contemporary representation.
  • Additional added value: The image from 2015 continues to be a valuable resource as it shows Julien Bam at an earlier stage. However, it would be desirable for the image from 2019 to also be available to illustrate his development as a public figure.
  • Public availability: As the image from 2019 was featured in one of his videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS6S71u3dvE&t=431s), this shows that Julien Bam has released it to the public. Restoring it would improve the quality and topicality of the article.
  • Relevance': The availability of both images could enrich the article by visually representing different periods of Julien Bam's career.
  • Loss of the original version: The 2019 image is no longer available in its original unaltered and high-resolution form on any other website. Wikipedia was the only place where it was accessible in its full and unaltered quality. By restoring it, this image could continue to be preserved for the public and add a unique visual element to the article.
  • Image usage and copyright: The image was uploaded by the user ManagementJulienBam (formerly AnnikaSchulzYOUTalentMGMT). According to the imprint information on the official website julienbam.de, Julien Bam is represented by Annika Schulz, and Y.O.U. Talent Management GmbH is the operator and contact. This could indicate that the image usage comes from an authorized source who is able to provide the image.

I therefore propose to restore the image.

--MysticShadow187 (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose None of that matters if the image isn't under a free license. That is a requirement for images on Commons. See COM:L. Unless I'm missing something, there's no indication that the image has a free license. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the individual depicted in the 2019 image, and I hold the copyright to it. The image was released as part of my public work and can be licensed accordingly. Unfortunately, I lost access to my original Wikimedia account, which is why I could not add the licensing details at the time.
    Restoring the image would enhance the article by showcasing a more contemporary representation of my work. JulienBudorovits88 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file was deleted for the reason absence of evidence of permission, not for absence of a license tag. (I assume that it had a CC BY-SA 4.0 like the other uploads by the account that are not deleted.) The last point by MysticShadow187 is relevant, if the uploading account is verified as authorized by the talent company. The account is in fact verified at de:Benutzer:AnnikaSchulzYOUTalentMGMT. The remaining issue might be if Annika Schulz's talent company owns the copyrights on their photos. I tend to assume that they do. I tend to support. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, strike the last part, now that a competing copyright claim was just posted by JulienBudorovits88. That now makes two contradictory copyright ownership claims, the first by Annika Schulz's company, the second by JulienBudorovits88 as an individual. Then, oppose the undeletion until this contradiction is resolved. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify the situation regarding the copyright claim for the 2019 image. The account "AnnikaSchulzYOUTalentMGMT" was created and managed by my management team, which still represents me. The image was uploaded on my behalf as part of their responsibilities to handle my public image and content.
However, the copyright to the image has always remained with me as the individual depicted and the creator of the original work. My management acts as an authorized representative to handle such matters, but I am the sole copyright holder.
To address the issue directly, I created this account to personally confirm the copyright ownership and provide the necessary details for proper licensing.
I hope this explanation clears up the misunderstanding. JulienBudorovits88 (talk) 16:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the original conversation. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment MysticShadow187 also tried to delete this UDR, see Special:Diff/963849865. Günther Frager (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The uploader declared that she is the author (photographer) and copyright holder of this photo. Notifying anyone but uploader about doubts raised in this matter is (a) against policy and (b) pointless as nobody else can prove that the anonymous Wikimedia user named "AnnikaSchulzYOUTalentMGMT" is indeed the photographer and owns copyright. Regardless of whether this declaration was true or not, the status of the photo can only be resolved if the actual copyright holder sends a free license permission to VRT proving their copyright if they are not the photographer. Ankry (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've given them a talk page warning. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although the behavior of MysticShadow187 is wrong when they try to censor the discussions, if we leave that behavior aside, what they say does not seem unreasonable. Surely it cannot be against policy to contact the person or organization that is registered in the VRT system as being represented by an account. That would be one of the uses of having their identity and address in the VRT ticket, to contact the person or organization registered as represented by their certified account if a question arises. In the present case, the ticket seems to be 2016092210025636, probably in Deutsch. When the account wrote the description page of the file, in that context, it seems implicit that they meant that the agency held or was authorized to manage the copyright and that was the attribution they wanted. They probably did not mean to say that the CEO (Annika Schulz) of the agency (YOU Talent) necessarily took the photo herself. The explanation provided above in the second comment of JulienBudorovits88 (30 November 2024 at 16:30 UTC) is plausible. If the agency confirms it, at least that part of the problem will be solved. The Commons account officially represents the agency and the agency officially represents Julien Bam. They all seem to agree with a free license. That should end positively. Of course, the whole situation will need to be resolved through the VRT team, not here. VRT would decide if they need also a confirmation of the cession of rights directly from the photographer. The other files uploaded through the account might need the same sort of clarification also. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tony Yarber.jpg

The image is produced by the Congressional Office of U.S. Senator Roger Wicker. Congress is a federal institution, and images produced by Congressional offices are therefore not copyrighted. I am unsure why the file was deleted. PoliticsIsExciting (talk)

@PoliticsIsExciting: Is there any evidence that this is a US Congress photo? Thuresson (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuresson Well, considering Congress is made up of independently run offices, and it is posted on the Office of US Senator Roger Wicker -- the government account -- and doesn't credit anyone else, it would be presumed to be a Congressional photo, no? Just like how if a photo was published on Sen. Wicker's government page, and it didn't credit anyone else, you would presume it to be the office's photo. PoliticsIsExciting (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Presumption is not evidence. The source is Twitter which is not run by the US congress. Thuresson (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tony Yarber.jpg. --Yann (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fastentuch Wurm Stephansdom.jpg

This picture hung on the high altar of St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna. It was in a public place and was created for the public and commissioned by the church for this purpose. It is therefore not necessary to obtain the artist's permission to publish the image on Wikimedia. A high-quality photo was deleted here completely unnecessarily! Therefore, please restore the image and reinstate it in the Wikipedia articles “Fastentuch” and “Erwin Wurm”.--Johann Werfring (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per COM:FOP Austria, interiors of churches are not covered by FoP. @Rosenzweig: Abzeronow (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What ist that: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pfarrkirche_Hetzendorf_2.jpg and that: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephansdom#/media/Datei:Wien_-_Stephansdom,_Wiener_Neust%C3%A4dter_Altar.JPG And that: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephansdom#/media/Datei:Wiener-Neust%C3%A4dter_Altar_Werktagsseite.JPG and so on. Furthermore, my photo does not exclusively show Erwin Wurm's Lenten cloth, but it is shown in the context of the church. If my picture is rightly deleted, then please delete all photos of works of art in church interiors from all Wikipedia articles. That would affect thousands of them. So, please delete them all or restore my picture.--Johann Werfring (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU @Johann Werfring: . Now my pictures will be deleted! Well done! --Stefan Fadinger (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Per COM:FOP Austria, Austrian FOP does cover building interiors, but only for parts of the building itself, like doors, windows etc. This textile artwork is not covered by Austrian FOP. Of the three images linked, the two altar images show a 15th century altar, old enough for the copyright to have expired; I've requested deletion for the Hetzendorf image. Finally, while the cloth is shown as part of the church interior, it is shown as the central and prominent part of the image, so Commons:De minimis (Beiwerk in German) does not apply. --Rosenzweig τ 08:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Images of copyrighted works cannot be kept on Commons unless either (a) the work is old enough so that it never had a copyright (the second two above) or the copyright has expired or (b) the creator of the work has given a free license. Also note that Commons has over 100 million images -- it should not surprise that some of them should be deleted -- that does not make this image OK. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Athletics Bologna Baseball Serie A 2024.jpg - Detentore Copyright

Siamo i detentori del copyright. A conferma il link dell'immagine sul nostro sito internet è il seguente: https://athleticsbaseball.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/team.jpg --Athletics Bologna (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Athletics Bologna: You are linking to the .jpg that exists on that external website, which is a reason why it can't be on Commons without evidence of permission. There doesn't seem to be a free license on the website, which states "© Copyright 2004-2024 athleticsbaseball.it". And there doesn't seem to be an indication that your account on Commons is certified as officially linked to Athletics Bologna Baseball. You can send an email from the verifiable address of Athletics Bologna Baseball to Wikimedia, to confirm a free license for this photo (or to certify your account, but, considering your difficulties with this user name on it.wikipedia, preferably after you settle on a permanent user name). Please see Commons:VRT/it for details. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alziamo le braccia e ci arrendiamo. Pare tutto meno che qualcosa di libero. Se non interessano neanche contributi reali (i detentori di un'immagine che debbono fornire prove della loro detenzione...) non possiamo fare altro che avere pagine incomplete di informazioni ed immagini. Secondo me alla lunga a "gestire" le cose in questo modo il problema sarà vostro, non tanto per la pagina specifica in questione, ma perché il servizio fornito sarà sempre di più di basso livello. Athletics Bologna (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the same strange attitude that you displayed on it.wikipedia when you were blocked there. It causes a doubt about the claim that your account might represent Athletics Bologna. Normally, an organization is willing and happy to take the basic precaution to prevent misuse of its name and property. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondo te di grazia quale sarebbe il vantaggio nel farmi bloccare per pubblicare una mia foto in una pagina wikipedia che tratta della mia squadra? Potrebbe essere che la tua precauzione sia forse eccessiva in quanto stai fondamentalmente chiudendo la porta a chi ha più corrette informazioni specifiche di te? 5.179.179.190 10:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondo te di grazia quale sarebbe il vantaggio nel farmi bloccare per pubblicare una mia foto in una pagina wikipedia che tratta della mia squadra? Potrebbe essere che la tua precauzione sia forse eccessiva in quanto stai fondamentalmente chiudendo la porta a chi ha più corrette informazioni e/o conoscenza specifiche di te sulla singola pagina? Athletics Bologna (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: In almost every case the right to freely license an image belongs to the actual photographer and not to the subject or anyone else who may have a paper or digital copy of the photograph. In order for the image to be restored here, either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or (b) someone else must send a free license together with a written license from the actual photographer.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BADVOID in Los Angeles.png

I have a written email from the original copyright holder proving there is permission to use this on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenesisGSE (talk • contribs) 10:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GenesisGSE: you don't need to request the undeletion. A member of the COM:VRT will do it once they review and approve the permission sent by the copyright holder. The current backlog is 5 days. Günther Frager (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 5 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

My content has the right to be seen

I had someone say my content is crap and this isn’t my personal site I thought everyone had the right to share their content

I feel we all have the right to share our own content

I was told my content is crap which is very rude and unprofessional I should have been told a specific reason not that their opinion of my content is crap please reconsider posting my photos thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan Briglio (talk • contribs) 12:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I don't see anywhere in the record where it says your images are crap. The only comment on each of them is " (Requesting speedy deletion because of COM:CSD#F10, Personal photos of or by non-contributors.)". That is an appropriate comment -- only those who have made significant contributions are allowed personal photos and even if you were a contributor, these are questionable. Among other things, Commons requires that each constituent image of a montage be uploaded separately. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's been my comment on Commons:Help_desk#I submitted but pics aren’t showing where I also told them that their uploads are lacking COM:EDUSE and that Commons is not their personal free web host. The uploader seems to confuse Commons with flickr or the like. And Google images is so good to me making me famous speaks for itself. --Achim55 (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Obviously not. User warned twice. Seeing the file names, this is clearly not OK here. --Yann (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Javad Ghaffari.jpg

با سلام و خسته نباشید. من درخواست احیای این تصویر رو دارم. چون مجوز حق نشر دارد. در زیر سایت تسنیم نوشته All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. که به فارسی میشود همه محتوای خبرگزاری تسنیم تحت مجوز Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 بین‌المللی مجوز دارند. ابوالفضل زارعی (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The CC-BY license is site wide and only applicable to the text and images produced by them. Per {{Tasnim}} we only accept images with a watermark that acknowledge a photographer from Tasnim. The image has no watermark in the source link. Günther Frager (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Può accadere che il fotografo coincide con il soggetto, come in questo caso... 5.179.179.190 14:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose That seems unlikely -- the subject is speaking with a microphone and could not be holding a camera. Even if it were a selfie, we would still need a free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul Gogarty official ballot paper photo 2015.jpg

Paul Gogarty official ballot paper photo 2015.jpg was deleted because of "Suspected Flickrwashing" simply because the Flickr account the account did not have many uploads or followers. The file was uploaded to Flickr in late 2015, well after Flickr had lost popularity to sites such as Facebook and Instagram. The account should not be expected to have followers. The subject of the image (Paul Gogarty) was a political candidate and elsewhere the account makes clear they were uploading the images with the hope they would be used on Wikipedia. The account name is "Paul G", obviously Paul Gogarty.

I believe the image should be undeleted because the subject/uploader's intent was for the image to be used publicly, and there is no good reason to suspect anything else. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Intent was for the image to be used publicly is not the same as public domain or a free license, which we require. Also the copyright belongs by default to the photographer, not the subject. Yann (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the copyright belongs by default to the photographer, not the subject
Typically yes, but these photographs were taken for a political campaign. It is almost certainly the case that there will be an agreement between the Photographer and the Candidate that once the photographs are taken, that the copyright will go to the subject so that the subject can use the images on campaign material such as leaflets and posters. We should Commons:Assume good faith.
Intent was for the image to be used publicly is not the same as public domain
The image has been placed under a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not almost certainly the case that the copyright will be ceded to the subject. If it was ceded in this case, it needs evidence. I myself took photos of political candidates for their campaign photos and I did not cede the copyrights to them. Giving the right to use is different from ceding the copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For info: source on flickr, 17 September 2015, original Commons log (slightly different filename), 18 September 2015, DR, December 2019, logs of Darepng. The uploader to flickr and to Commons may be the suject but it is not obvious that the subject owns the copyright or that the photos are self-portraits. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=949416169"