Вікісховище:Запити на відновлення

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 89% 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.
Outdated translations are marked like this.

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

Other languages:

На цій сторінці користувачі можуть попросити про відновлення вилученої сторінки або файлу (далі — «файл»). Користувачі можуть залишати свої коментарі до таких запитів, залишаючи такі ремарки як keep deleted або undelete із зазначенням відповідної аргументації.

Ця сторінка не є частиною Вікіпедії. Ця сторінка — про контент Вікісховища — сховище вільних медіафайлів, що використовуються у Вікіпедії та в інших проектах Вікімедіа. Вікісховище не зберігає енциклопедичних статей. Щоб попросити про відновлення статті чи іншого контенту, що був вилучений з англомовної Вікіпедії, перегляньте сторінку перегляду вилучення в цьому проекті.

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 1 timestamp • 0 reasons • 2 subpages) • 0 malformed
19 copyvios • 9 duplicates • 1 advert • 76 selfies • 56 others
п • о • р

Як дізнатися, чому файл було вилучено

Спершу перегляньте журнал вилучень, і дізнайтесь, чому файл було вилучено. Також скористайтесь функцією Посилання сюди, щоб побачити , чи є якісь обговорення щодо вилученого файлу. Якщо Ви завантажили цей файл, подивіться, чи є якісь повідомлення на Вашій сторінці обговорення користувача, що пояснюють вилучення. Далі прочитайте, будь ласка, політику вилучення, політику щодо сфери проекту, і правила ліцензування ще раз, щоб дізнатись, чому файл міг бути неприйнятним на Вікісховищі.

Якщо вказана причина неочевидна, або Ви з нею незгодні, можете зв'язатися з адміністратором, що виконав вилучення, щоб він дав пояснення такої дії, або повідомте його про нову аргументацію, що нівелює попередню причину вилучення. Також можете зв'язатись із будь-яким іншим активним адміністратором (можливо таким, що розмовляє Вашою рідною мовою) — більшість з них будуть раді допомогти, і якщо справді була зроблена помилка, виправити ситуацію.

Оскарження вилучення

Вилучення, коректні з точки зору поточних політик вилучення, сфери проекту і ліцензування не будуть скасовані. Пропозиції щодо внесення змін до політик можна робити на сторінках обговорення цих політик.

Якщо Ви вважаєте, що файл, про який йде мова, не є ані порушенням авторських прав, ані не виходить за межі поточної сфери проекту:

  • Можливо, Ви захочете обговорити це питання з адміністратором, що виконав вилучення файлу. Можете попросити адміністратора надати детальне пояснення або надати вагомі підстави на підтримку відновлення файлу.
  • Якщо Ви не хочете зв'язуватися з будь-ким напряму, або якщо окремий адміністратор відхилив відновлення, або якщо Ви хочете мати можливість ширшої участі людей в обговоренні, можете подати запит на відновлення на цій сторінці.
  • Якщо файл вилучено через відсутність доказу ліцензійного дозволу від правовласника, будь ласка, виконайте процедуру з надання підтвердження дозволу. Якщо Ви вже це зробили, немає потреби подавати запит на відновлення ще тут. Якщо з поданим дозволом все добре, файл буде відновлено, коли поданий дозвіл опрацюють. Будь ласка, проявіть терпіння, бо це може зайняти декілька тижнів, залежно від робочих завалів і доступності активних волонтерів.
  • 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.

Тимчасове відновлення

Файли можна тимчасово відновлювати або для того, щоб підтримати обговорення щодо відновлення цього файлу, або щоб для перенесення його в проект, який дозволяє добропорядне використання. Використайте шаблон {{Request temporary undeletion}} у відповідному запиті на відновлення і надайте пояснення.

  1. якщо тимчасове відновлення має підтримати обговорення, поясніть, яким чином воно буде корисним для обговорення, або
  2. якщо тимчасове відновлення має дозволити перенести файл на проект, де дозволене добропорядне використання, зазначте, в який саме проект Ви хочете перенести цей файл, і дайте посилання на інформацію про критерії добропорядного використання в цьому проекті.

Для підтримки дискусії

Файли можна тимчасово відновлювати для підтримки обговорення, якщо користувачам без доступу до файлу важко визначити, чи запит на відновлення слід задовольнити чи ні. Там, де доступний опис файлу або є достатньою цитата зі сторінки опису файлу, адміністратор може надати щось із цього замість тимчасового відновлення файлу. Запити можна відхиляти, якщо користь для дискусії нівелюється іншими факторами (наприклад, відновлення, навіть тимчасове, файлів, де є значні сумніви в доцільності збереження файлу з огляду на Вікісховище:Фотографії людей, яких можна ідентифікувати). Файли, тимчасово відновлені для підтримки обговорення, будуть вилучені знову через тридцять днів, або коли запит на відновлення закриють (залежно що відбудеться раніше).

Для уможливлення перенесення контенту до іншого проекту, де дозволене добропорядне використання

На відміну від англійської Вікіпедії та декількох інших проектів Вікімедіа, Вікісховище не приймає контенту на умовах добропорядного використання з посиланням на положення добропорядного використання. Якщо вилучений файл відповідає вимогам до добропорядного використання в якомусь іншому проекті Вікімедіа, користувачі можуть подати запит на тимчасове відновлення файлу для перенесення його туди. Ці запити зазвичай можна швидко виконувати (без обговорення). Файли, тимчасово відновлені з метою перенесення в інший проект Вікімедіа, будуть заново вилучені через два дні. При поданні запиту на тимчасове відновлення. будь ласка, зазначте, в який саме проект Ви плануєте перенести файл, і дайте посилання на політику добропорядного використання в цьому проекті.

Проекти, що приймають добропорядне використання
* 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.

Подання запиту

Спершу переконайтесь, що Ви зробили спробу дізнатись, чому файл було вилучено. Далі, будь ласка, прочитайте ці інструкції щодо того, яким чином подавати запит, перед тим як, власне, його подати:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • В полі Subject: введіть відповідну назву теми. Якщо Ви подаєте запит на відновлення єдиного файлу, рекомендується додати заголовок на кшталт [[:File:Вилучений_файл.jpg]]. (Не забудьте додати на початку двокрапку в посиланні.)
  • Ідентифікуйте файл(и), який Ви хочете відновити, і надайте відповідні посилання (див. вище). Якщо Ви не знаєте точної назви, надайте стільки інформації, скільки зможете. Запити, що не містять інформації про те, що саме треба відновити, можуть бути заархівовані без жодного додаткового повідомлення.
  • Вкажіть причини запитуваного відновлення.
  • Підпишіть свій запит за допомогою чотирьох тильд (~~~~). Якщо Ви маєте обліковий запис на Вікісховищі, спершу увійдіть у систему. Якщо Ви були завантажувачем файлу, це може допомогти адміністраторам ідентифікувати його.

Додайте запит внизу сторінки. Клацніть тут, щоб відкрити сторінку, де Ви маєте додати свій запит. Альтернативно, можете відкрити посилання «ред.» біля розділу з поточною датою нижче.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Архіви

Закриті обговорення щодо відновлення архівуються щодня.

Поточні запити

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]

File:Mola_Ali.jpg

Request temporary undeletion

It seems to have been deleted because it was considered a derivative work. But actually, checking it from the Archive, it does not appear to be a derivative of any particular depiction of Ali. There are many similar illustrations of him with many variations, which are ubiquitous. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, see this image, which is in the public domain. It is also quite similar to the deleted image, so I think these kinds of depictions of Ali are too generic to be considered derivatives of one another. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Could we have it undeleted temporarily for the discussion since the Internet Archive is down? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The argument above certainly has some force, but side by side the deleted image and the one cited at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mola_Ali.jpg look very similar. Compare the folds in the shirt and the creases in the face. The position of the eyes is also identical. The image cited above does not have the same similarities. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: This quote from page 39-40 of the referenced book implies that some of those features you mention are very common in his contemporary portraits:

Contemporary portraits of Imam Ali also give importance to the face. The viewer’s attention is drawn to the Imam’s face by a light illuminating the upper part of his face, that is, the forehead, nasal bone and cheekbones. However, the iconographic detailing of the face often differs between images to present a variety of physiognomic traits all held to represent Imam Ali. The most commonly produced and distributed portraits, which I call the ‘conventional’ facial type, are illustrated in Figures 2, 3, 12 and 14. Imam Ali is shown in part profile with lofty forehead and wide, a little oversized, eyes with large pupils. The high eyebrows accentuate the size of the eye. Ali avoids eye contact with the viewer and the gaze seems to be directed slightly upwards with the look of a far-sighted visionary, creating an almost dream-like appearance. The face is oval, and the cheekbones round. The lips are full rather than thin. Cheekbones and lips are partly covered by a dark, thick, well-trimmed beard.

Also, actually, I can't entirely agree that the public domain image I shared does not have these similarities. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images of the Palazzo Uffici

Hi everyone, I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of the following images:

They were all deleted in 2013 after this DR and they depict all the it:Palazzo degli Uffici (Roma), designed by it:Gaetano Minnucci and built between 1937 and 1939. As we can read here it was commissioned to Minnucci by the it:EUR (azienda), which at that time was still a public entity before its transformation into a society for profit in 2000. Therefore, the building fell into Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1960. It was built way before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Example.jpg

This is an image showing the source according to the rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yukichi0221 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/uk&oldid=756610986"