This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This book is in the public domain in the United States, which is the requirement for English Wikisource (where it is in use). Please undelete it temporarily so that a local copy can be created. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
(Jameslwoodward): I’m asking for temporary undeletion, so that the outcome of the deletion discussion can be actuated. The nomination stated that the work would need to be moved locally; this having not happened, there are many errors arising in connection therewith. Temporary undeletion is a common practice, why do you oppose it here? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Info The file is available at [1] It can be discussed basing on that source or uploaded to Wikisource from there. Ankry (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
/* file:Toi Tet Rong tại Pleiku Gia Lai - 2024.png */ Tôi là nghệ sĩ đã đăng ký tại cục tác giả và cũng đã từng tham gia sản xuất nhạc phim và nhiều lần xuất hiện trên TV. Hiện tại tôi chưa cung cấp đủ thông tin nhưng mọi người đã động thủ xóa hết toàn bộ thông tin đã làm ảnh hưởng nặng nề đến cơ sở dữ liệu thuộc Google (bằng chứng là: Thông tin search An Kun đã bị mất hoàn toàn. Hiện toàn bộ thông tin đã bị Bảng tri thức Google thông báo link chết. Tôi cần một giải thích chính đáng về vấn đề nói tôi PR: trong khi định nghĩa PR tức quảng cáo để họ biết đến một sản phẩm dịch vụ. Nhưng tôi biết rằng:
- Bản thân tôi vừa là nghệ sĩ (singer-songwriter) và vừa là người làm trong lĩnh vực truyền thông đa phương tiện
- Trong khi tôi cũng vừa nắm giữ AN KUN STUDIO/P389HV có vai trò truyền thông và quảng cáo. Nhưng hơn hết là tôi chưa hề đề cập một sản phẩm sẽ sắp ra mắt. Và đương nhiên là thông tin toàn bồ dự án, hành trình của tôi với mục đích thông tin. Đồng bộ dữ liệu với Google và Spotify.
Ghi nhận hãng An Kun Studio (hãng thu) và An Kun (nghệ sĩ chính thức đã được YouTube xác minh) là 2 thông tin riêng:
+ Sản xuất nhạc, phát hành số và giữ bản quyền được quy định tại cục bản quyền tác gia VCPMC
+ Và ghi nhận quyền tại The MLC với AN KUN STUDIO/P389HV có thể kiểm tra tại Public Search
=> Tuy nhiên, nếu mọi người vẫn không tin tôi sẽ cung cấp các giấy tờ và bằng chứng việc sự nổi bật của tôi là có thật. Mọi người đã không hỏi để check kiểm tra nhưng đã xóa toàn bộ dữ liệu. Nguyên đêm hôm qua tới giờ tôi không tài nào liên hệ được cho tới khi tôi buộc phải liên hệ với Creative Commons nên giờ tôi mới có thể thông tin được nhưng mọi thứ về tôi trên Google giờ đã biến mất. Iamankun (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
/* File:Avatar chủ đề cái lân - 2024.jpg */ Tôi là nghệ sĩ đã đăng ký tại cục tác giả và cũng đã từng tham gia sản xuất nhạc phim và nhiều lần xuất hiện trên TV. Hiện tại tôi chưa cung cấp đủ thông tin nhưng mọi người đã động thủ xóa hết toàn bộ thông tin đã làm ảnh hưởng nặng nề đến cơ sở dữ liệu thuộc Google (bằng chứng là: Thông tin search An Kun đã bị mất hoàn toàn. Hiện toàn bộ thông tin đã bị Bảng tri thức Google thông báo link chết. Tôi cần một giải thích chính đáng về vấn đề nói tôi PR: trong khi định nghĩa PR tức quảng cáo để họ biết đến một sản phẩm dịch vụ. Nhưng tôi biết rằng: - Bản thân tôi vừa là nghệ sĩ (singer-songwriter) và vừa là người làm trong lĩnh vực truyền thông đa phương tiện - Trong khi tôi cũng vừa nắm giữ AN KUN STUDIO/P389HV có vai trò truyền thông và quảng cáo. Nhưng hơn hết là tôi chưa hề đề cập một sản phẩm sẽ sắp ra mắt. Và đương nhiên là thông tin toàn bồ dự án, hành trình của tôi với mục đích thông tin. Đồng bộ dữ liệu với Google và Spotify.
Ghi nhận hãng An Kun Studio (hãng thu) và An Kun (nghệ sĩ chính thức đã được YouTube xác minh) là 2 thông tin riêng:
+ Sản xuất nhạc, phát hành số và giữ bản quyền được quy định tại cục bản quyền tác gia VCPMC + Và ghi nhận quyền tại The MLC với AN KUN STUDIO/P389HV có thể kiểm tra tại Public Search + Website hãng: [3]https://www.ankun.dev
=> Tuy nhiên, nếu mọi người vẫn không tin tôi sẽ cung cấp các giấy tờ và bằng chứng việc sự nổi bật của tôi là có thật. Mọi người đã không hỏi để check kiểm tra nhưng đã xóa toàn bộ dữ liệu. Nguyên đêm hôm qua tới giờ tôi không tài nào liên hệ được cho tới khi tôi buộc phải liên hệ với Creative Commons nên giờ tôi mới có thể thông tin được nhưng mọi thứ về tôi trên Google giờ đã biến mất. Iamankun (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This picture is available for free use in an Iranian news agency named "Shahrara News" (https://shrr.ir/000Kns). I uploaded the picture, only for informative reasons and I acknowledge that no copyright infringement has been done by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.shahab (talk • contribs) 07:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I find it rather unfortunate that when admins close with arguments they don't bother making in the discussion itself (super-arguments).
Somehow this was closed, before the super-arguments of the deleting admin used to justify their deletion were addressed. Both arguments were not brought up in the initial discussion.
The uploader of the files seems to be a person affiliated with the project.
The summary deletion initiated on Wikidata after the deletion request doesn't seem to have any arguments brought forward and probably violated their policy as the item was in use at Commons on deletion.
Oppose Aside from the scope question, there are copyright questions. The first file is a detailed European map which is claimed to be "own work". I don't believe that as it is almost certain that it was copied or traced from an existing map. The second file is a copyrighted logo. Our consistent policy is that logos require a free license from an authorized official of the organization via VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I guess we could have asked the uploader to provide that in 2006, if that was custom back then.
Not sure if copyright is much of an issue. Maybe you can undelete them so we can all have a second look. It didn't have occurred to anyone before supervoting this July. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: no consensus to undelete in either request, in fact consensus was not to restore. Unanswered copyright issues. --Abzeronow (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not done: Facebook image 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 3 days.
. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Facebook image 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 3 days.
. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
You did not list the other photograph under sources, and it looks like a straight copyvio without that information. Abzeronow (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
As the uploader it is your responsibility to list all pertinent information on a file. I Support restoration but I wanted to explain that Krd's deletion was not wrong based on the information given at the time. Abzeronow (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Wrongfully deleted own work. I was there on that bridge in Cambridge, MA in the end of March 2018 and took the picture. Estrellato (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I can't. That mobile phone is long smashed and I don't have any computer from that time either. Can you at least reupload it to userspace or something to keep as a memory? Otherwise the picture is lost forever. Estrellato (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
The only other option I could see is having the original Facebook link, and seeing if it was posted on your personal Facebook page. Since that would potentially involve sensitive information, VRT might be the best option here but I'll see what a few VRT agents/administrators think @Elcobbola: @Aafi: Abzeronow (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Estrellato: We would need a release through COM:VRT. Please either email us at permissions-commonswikimedia.org or use COM:RELGEN, sufficiently demonstrating that you are the copyrights holder. These files may be undeleted after a VRT agent confirms that explicit permissions have been received. Regards, Aafi (talk)07:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Aafi. Wouldn't just showing you this be enough? My identity has already been outed by LTAs so many times, I really don't care anymore. Plus, I doubt they will see something they didn't already know.
It just feels like a much easier process. Full album, with all the deleted pictures in question included. I can email you a picture of my passport if you still don't believe me.
And if I need to reiterate. Nobody took those photos but me. I am the sole copyright owner to everything in that album. Estrellato (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
You can also edit that post to add a statement (or a comment underneath it) that "I agree to publish these images under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license." 0x0a (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Facebook image 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 3 days.
. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Wrongfully deleted own work. I was there that day and took that photo. You can even check my instagram for proof if its really necessary. @davidalfaustinon April 19, 2018. Third picture in the gallery. If it has metadata from Facebook its because I lost my phone and thats where I had it stored Estrellato (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Yes, it was deleted because the metadata shows it was taken from Facebook. Since almost all images taken from Facebook cannot be kept on Commons, such images must have a free license from the actual photographer using VRT. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
But I am the actual photographer. I just don't have access anymore to the device I used for the photo. Like I said, check my instagram. Why would I upload if there is if was not my photo? I might have the original facebook post too. Estrellato (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Facebook image 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 3 days.
. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Wrongfully deleted wiki-competion prize that was created by pictures already available on Commonsm all the credits to the original uploaders were in the description. Estrellato (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per COM:EVID. If you are the copyright holder of this work, you need to either (a) provide an evidence that the book cover was published under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license or (b) send a free license permission via email following VRT. Ankry (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
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 3 days.
. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I suspect that the user obtained these pictures from the National Palace Museum website without providing the correct source and authorship. However, according to a notice on the site, images from the collection are released under either a CC0 license (for 1-megapixel images) or a CC BY license (for 6-megapixel images). Therefore, these images may be freely licensed. Here's an example. Please restore them temporarily so that I can fix them. 0x0a (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Wrongfully deleted own work. I painted this myself then enhanced it using some program but still completely my own work. Estrellato (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
@Estrellato: If I understand what you say correctly, you were hired or authorized by Ecatzingo Municipality to create their official coat of arms? And you, not Ecatzingo Municipality, retain rights to license it? Is this accurate? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Infrogmation: Absolutely not. I was editing articles about municipalities in Mexico State (Estado de México) on Swedish Wikipedia. Most of them had Coat of Arms available on Commons, and to me their licences seemed to check out, so I applied them to the geobox in the articles (see for example sv:Acolman). See also Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of Mexico (state) for all of the CoA's of Mexico State. When I got to sv:Ecatzingo, I realized their was no Coat of Arms on Commons, so I decided to try to draw one myself, using inspiration from what I saw here, from this now archived source. I drew it with a lead pencil and a A4 paper. Just enough to make it reassemble the actual CoA, but without copying it completely to not infringe on any copyright. The actual official one, adopted in 1996 looks like this (PDF warning), see Page 6. No, I do not get paid or hired to do anything on any Wikimedia project. Everything I do here is volunteer-work in my spare time. Hopefully this gives some clarity. Best regards, Estrellato (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Wrongfully deleted own work. I painted this myself, as you can clearly see this is a drawing and I have all the right to it. I vividly remember drawing it in my room when I realized the weapon for en:Ecatzingo was missing. Estrellato (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
@Abzeronow For your info. Not sure if the date is even relevant though, since its not an exact copy - just a similar illustration made with a pen and paper. Estrellato (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
The date would be relevant since Mexican government works are publication + 100 years. If 1996 was when the coat of arms that this was based on was published, it wouldn't be PD until 2097. COM:GVT Mexico. Abzeronow (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I know that. But there are 100s Coat of Arms for Mexican Municipaliies on commons, that are just similar illustrations, bot attempting to be exact replications and that's how we get around that. If you compare to the actual CoA, you will see my illustration is more "inspirered by" than a realistic copy. This goes for the other uploads by other users as well. Estrellato (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
If it is only inspired and not presenting the actual CoA, then (a) the file name suggesting that this is the CoA of Ecatzingo would be misleading and (b) the file may be out of COM:SCOPE. At least, useless for Wikipedia articles related to Ecatzingo. Ankry (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok sure but at least let me keep them for personal memories? This is beyond a witchhunt at this point. And sure you could restore it and rename it like "Illustration inspired by Ecatzingo coat of arms". I just feel like a lot of these deletion reasons are nonsense and false, and just because I made one mistake (which was because I misinterpreted another user), now all I ever done is wrong. This feels like borderline bullying at this point. Estrellato (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Like this was deleted because the admin in question said it was "safe to assume all my files are copyvios". Based on what? That is a ridiculous statement, that goes against every principle of assuming good faith. See User talk:Krd. Estrellato (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I took this photo and I own the copyright, but for some reason, there was an upload issue when I first tried to send the photo in. When I tried to re-upload, I was told to try an undeletion request instead. All I'm looking for, is for this to be CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 4, and I'm not sure what went wrong originally. The exact file name is Jasper Harris Forbes Headshot Final.jpeg. I will also attach a link to my website here in case you want to contact me. Thank you in advance!
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Public domain images
The images below were deleted in discussions (1, 2) without comment which were closed in a matter of hours. The images are derived from judicial opinions, which are in the public domain; thus, the images, which are a necessary, constituent part of said opinions, are also in the public domain. The claim that the images are “fair use in the original document” is nonsensical; the opinion is not copyrighted, so there is no need for a fair use analysis. In any case, even if you do not accept this argument, it is the accepted opinion of English Wikisource, where the files are in use; I ask that they be undeleted temporarily so that they can be re-uploaded locally. Here are the files:
I can't see the images, but if they were pre-existing images, then being a part of a court case cannot change the copyright. The text of the judge's opinion is public domain, but if the judge did not author the images as part of the decision, then their copyright is unchanged. Any use a judge needs to make of the images would be fair use of course, and therefore their use when published as part of the decision (or other discussion about the case) would also be legal as fair use, but usages in other contexts would still be covered by the copyright. If you sue for copyright infringement, and the subject of the infringement is published in the decision, and that causes the photo to become public domain thus no more infringement is possible, then how do you sue while protecting your copyright? Being public domain in this situation is nonsensical, to me. If the images are the near-black images seen in File:Cariou v. Prince.pdf rather than the originals seen in other scans, there may be so much detail lost that they really aren't reproductions anymore, but the originals seem basically certain to still have copyright. Wikisource should have a clear case for fair use, but standalone images on Commons, not really. Temporary undeletion to move them to Wikisource should be fine, I would think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
These are clearly copyrighted photographs and artworks (note: these are the originals) so a fair use analysis would be needed (I think they would be covered under fair use). I'd be fine with temporary undeletion for local use on English Wikisource. Abzeronow (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
This photo was taken by the New York State Senate and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katdv (talk • contribs) 2024-08-01T14:22:11 (UTC)
Opposehttps://www.nysenate.gov/policies-and-waivers: Creation of derivative works and commercial usage allowed provided that such derivative works and commercial usage do not relate to political fundraising. This is a restriction we don’t accept in Wikimedia Commons as the media files hosted here should be free to use for any purpose. --Geohakkeri (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
I am the management of GOLD RECORD, which this artist is affiliated with. I am the management of this artist and have all rights to all copyrighted material, including video, images and music. Therefore, you are completely enslaved to me regarding the images you upload here.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Velocity~jawiki (talk • contribs) 16:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I am the management of GOLD RECORD, which this artist is affiliated with. I am the management of this artist and have all rights to all copyrighted material, including video, images and music. Therefore, you are completely enslaved to me regarding the images you upload here.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Velocity~jawiki (talk • contribs) 16:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Why you want to delete the picture I have uploaded? I am Copyright Holder and I give permission to upload the Picture. What kind of permission you need from me? What Evidence I should give for my own work? It is not fair to delete without any reason. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PARMJEETPALLU (talk • contribs)
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 3 days.
. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello. I work for the airport and uploaded this logo to replace the old one on the Wikipedia page about Liverpool John Lennon Airport. We have full rights to upload
Please contact me at digital@LiverpoolAirport.com if you wish to confirm we have the rights to upload and you have the permissions to have it on your website (as you did with the old logo). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiverpoolJohnLennonAirport (talk • contribs) 11:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC) (UTC)
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 3 days.
. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Undeletion Request for File: Sashani Nichole Actress.jpg
File Name: Sashani Nichole Actress.jpg
Reason for Request:
Dear Wikimedia Commons Administrators,
I am the original photographer and copyright holder of the file named Sashani Nichole Actress.jpg. The image has been marked as a copyright violation, but I would like to clarify that I have given permission for this photo to be used on IMDb, where it is legitimately hosted with my consent.
Evidence of Ownership and Permission:
1. Authorship Statement: I took this photo myself approximately 10 years ago and hold all rights to it. Unfortunately, I do not have immediate access to the original metadata as it is stored on a hard drive that I cannot access at the moment.
2. Permission to IMDb: I have authorized IMDb to use this image, and it is displayed there with my permission.
3. Context of the Photo: This photo was taken in Novi Michigan during a test photo shoot in my garage at home. I was testing my new Canon camera and 85 mm lens at 1.2 aperture to see the depth of field and it turned out so well was used for IMDB.
I kindly request the undeletion of this file, as the presence of the image on IMDb is not a copyright violation but a legitimate use authorized by me. I am willing to provide additional information if needed once I can access my hard drive.
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 3 days.
. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Fontana luminosa (L'Aquila)
Hi everyone, I'm writing here in order to request the undeletion of the following images:
They were all deleted last year after this DR and they all depict a fountain, the it:Fontana luminosa, in the city of L'Aquila. The monument was commissioned by the local mayor (during fascism called "podestà") to the sculptor it:Nicola D'Antino, who finished it in 1933 (see here and here). Therefore, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1954, way before the URAA, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi there; I can't undreastand about some unprofessional action
this is Farsad's art image he is one of the active and semi-notable undergraound iranian rapper he released many musics!
get back his image ASAP please.
Здравствуйте! Вы удалили мой файл, заявив, что он нарушает авторские права. Но он не может нарушать авторские права, поскольку, сам автор фото предоставил мне этот файл. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smople (talk • contribs) 09:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC) (UTC)
July 2024 marks the 70th anniversary of the painter Felix Cziossek's death (see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Cziossek). Therefore, his paintings are now in the public domain and can be part of Wikimedia Commons without any issues. For this reason I am requesting the undeletion of the following images:
The above files were deleted in error, due to a misunderstanding about British law and about the identity of the photographic subject. These deleted items were part of a now-resolved dispute about photographic copyright in the context of scarecrow festivals in the United Kingdom. The dispute has now been resolved and fully explained at great length here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Storye book. You will need to read through the latter discussion in order to fully understand the situation, but here is a very brief summary: Photographing scarecrow festivals in public-access places in the UK, and publishing such photos on Commons, is legal in the UK.
Re toys:
Objects which may look like toys in scarecrow festivals are not toys; their creators' intention is part of the scarecrow festival creation. Toys are defined normally as children's (or sometimes adults') playthings, but stuffed animals in scarecrow festivals are created as part of the scarecrow festival tableaux, e.g. farmers with sheep, Cruella de Ville with dogs, the Pied Piper with rats, and so on. The stuffed animals in scarecrow festivals are home made. They are not commercial objects, and that point matters in British courts. Also, British courts do not inflict punitive damages in copyright cases; it is the US punitive damages which give rise to the million-dollar damages awards that we hear about; that does not happen in UK courts.
This matters in copyright law in the UK, because only the designer's printed pattern, and the designer's own (usually unique and single) hand-made example are copyrighted. home-crafters who buy designer's patterns for home craft purposes and make a stuffy have not made an object copyrighted by the designer. I know that because I am a knitting pattern designer myself. The language and photographs in my written designs, and my own hand-made examples, are under my own copyright, as are my own photos of my own work. But my customers' creations are not under my copyright at all. No designer would want that, partly because no customer is going to make it in exactly the same way, but mostly because a lot of customers make an embarrassingly awful job of the sewing-up. As far as I am aware, no case has ever been brought to court by a home crafter who has knitted from a knitting pattern using e.g. a new colour, and then their neighbour has knitted from the same design and used the same new colour, etc. etc. Storye book (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose These are copyrighted in the UK and the USA. The facts that they are plush and were made for a festival are irrelevant to the basic fact that they are created works of art and do not have a utilitarian use and therefore are copyrighted in both countries. The fact that no case has been brought or that the UK courts do not award substantial damages are also irrelevant. The fact that they are not commercial objects is also irrelevant.
The 1988 Copyright Act is quite clear:
1 (1) Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work --
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
(snip)
4 (1) In this Part "artistic work" means --
(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality
(b) ...
(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.
One might argue whether these are sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship, but it is clear they are one or the other, or both. Note that there is no requirement that they be commercial works or, indeed, that they have any artistic quality.
Jim, we have already been through this, and you lost the case (see above link to discussion). I have discussed this with the relevant solicitors, as I described on the abovementioned discussion. British courts do not define works of art and they do not define artists, because the definition of art is a moot point. You are wasting your time talking about art, artists and sculpture.
It is intention which is taken into consideration in British courts. The intention here is to create a temporary tableau for the scarecrow festival, and these items were part of a tableau of silly non-artistic objects made of clumsy bags of straw and intended for imminent destruction. The non-commercial aspect does matter, because in British courts on this subject, it is the potential gain or loss of money which is quantifiable, and it is that which is taken into consideration. Thus, if the items had been made for sale (which they have not), there would have been potential for quantifiable gain or loss (which there is not). Unlike in the US, British courts do not inflict punitive damages, as I have said above. Therefore there would be no basis for a court case regarding my photography of these scarecrow tableau objects.
When these photographs were deleted, that was the point of loss for the villagers who made the objects, because they no longer had access to photographs of their now-destroyed works. If the photographs were still available online, they could still be using those same photographs to advertise the next scarecrow festival, and they could still be using those photographs for their own records.
I strongly recommend that from now on you save your efforts for matters regarding US law, and leave British law to those who are in the know. It is obvious that the objects in the photograph are not graphic works or collages. We have already established in discussion that a scarecrow is not, and never can be, a sculpture. Please now step back and let others discuss this. Storye book (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Wikimedia Commons is hosted in the United States, and files hosted here must be allowed to be used by anyone for any purpose. These objects are copyrighted, it does not matter one whit if the objects are non-commercial or not, there are works that has been fixed in a tangible medium of creative expression. Since the display is not permanent, they don't benefit from FOP. Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Please don't be condescending -- it just makes the target angry and doesn't get you anywhere. I think you are wrong on British law as these are clearly artistic works, but the point is moot. It is perfectly clear that they have a copyright in the USA and therefore the images cannot be kept here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
They are not copyright in the USA as the objects are traditional effigies, which in this case are not sculptures. That means that they are utilitarian. Effigies can be scarecrows in a field, which are utilitarian as bird-scarers. They can be guys in British Fireworks Night, where they are children's money-raisers for the purchase of fireworks, or (at Lewes, for example) dressed up to mock famous people. Traditionally, they were used in dimity rides, as described in Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge, where (again) they were dressed up to mock or embarrass people who had committed a social faux pas. They can be voodoo dolls, i.e. symbols of enemies, which some people used to stick pins in, in the hope that the enemy would feel pain. These examples are all utilitarian, in that they are used to symbolise something, for some further purpose, In the case of festival scarecrows, they bring the inhabitants of a village together for fun, and are used to attract visitors who may then pay money for charity, for a trail map, and usually also for tea and snacks. As for the art, that is in my ph9togrpahy. There is no Commons rule demanding the deletion of photographs such as this File:Rababou 2006.jpg, and I would like to know how my photos of festival scarecrows are a different case from that photograph (and all the other thousands of photographs like it, on Commons). Storye book (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment To me, these two files differ from some of the original effigies mentioned because they apparently utilise toys that have copyright, rather than creations that in themselves would appear not to cause copyright that the requestor identifies. The images mentioned both have clearly identifiable toys that are not de minimis and while may be effigies still essentially look like shop-bought toys, and there is no clear evidence that they are not shop-bought (PCP). — billinghurstsDrewth22:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I cannot see the pictures because they have been deleted. I uploaded hundreds of festival scarecrow pictures, as you know. Are they dalmatians (white dogs with black spots) or are they the weird stylised yellow and black bees out of the Winnie the Pooh story? If they are the dalmatians, then I accept that you cannot see whether they are shop bought or not, although I can, because I used to make them when I was a child. If they are the bees, then they are definitely hand made for one of the festival tableaux - the bees are far too scruffy and far too large to be toys (bigger than a toddler). One of the bees, if it is a re-used commercial item, then it was almost certainly made as a footstool, being very roughly hemispherical and about 1.5ft long and about a foot high - so never a toy. If they are something else, then please tell me. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Yann. Then, in that case, the bee is definitely an exhibition item made for that purpose. I really don't see how it can be seen as a toy. Too big, too scruffy, unsaleable as a toy. The bee with the scary mouth is 2-3 feet long, and would be unsuitable and unsafe for toddler handling, anyway, and the hemispherical one is almost certainly made as a footstool. As for Disney copyright, well, Disney lost copyright for Winnie the Pooh some time ago. That fact was reported in the Guardian newspaper. Storye book (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether it can be used as a toy or not -- and some toys are very big, and toys are not limited to toddlers. It also doesn't matter whether is was a one-off made by an individual or one of hundreds coming out of a factory and sold in shops. It has a US copyright as a sculpture and almost certainly a UK copyright as well, notwithstanding the claims above. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
It has now been established in another deletion request started by you here, that UK courts do not recognise artistic identity as a legal argument in copyright cases, and that scarecrow festival exhibits are not sculptures. These items at issue here do not have US copyrights; this is a UK issue, whether this is a US platform or not. Regarding the existing perspective of this US platform: if British photographs taken in the UK under UK laws are not subject to US laws (which they are not) then we have to deal with this under UK law. If our photographs were really subject only to US law, then this platform would not be taking into account our 70-years-deceased law for creative copyright of 2D artworks (which it does), or our Freedom of Panorama (which it does). Storye book (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
You have made those claims in other deletion requests. British photographs taken in the UK under UK laws are subject to US laws in the US, and have been for over a hundred years, a point only emphasized by the US signature of the Berne Convention that the UK was one of the founding creators of. Commons also pays attention to UK law for UK photographs; it's not just one or the other. COM:L says "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media ... that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." (Italics in the original.) While this is a rule often ignored, it's still a rule. Freedom of panorama is a whole different can of worms.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with that, Prosfilaes. I was only replying in general terms to a distracting comment by another editor. The point here is that the bees at issue here are not definable as toys in any country, because they were not made as toys, and cannot be used as toys. They are filled with unhygienic straw, for a start, and would quickly break apart, which is why festival scarecrows in the UK are routinely destroyed or dismantled within days of creation. If you try to overwinter them in the garden shed, they fill with insects and other wildlife due to the straw content. The 2024 BBC Springwatch programme featured one of them which was overwintered in a shed, and by spring it had acquired a robin's nest in its head, complete with eggs and sitting robin. Also, because Disney has lost copyright to Winnie the Pooh, the bees in that Winnie the Pooh tableau are not affected by Disney copyright. That is the information that pertains to the bee picture, according to the law in both countries. Storye book (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Again, whether or not they are toys is completely irrelevant, as is whether or not they are derivative works of a movie character. Each of them certainly has its own USA copyright as a sculpture and, notwithstanding the claims made here, almost certainly has a UK copyright as well. This is black letter law folks -- this should have been closed a long while ago. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
And again, you make that claim without any evidence. The copyright rules are very broadly interpreted -- a computer program is "literature" and sculptures made of butter, ice, and sand, as well as more traditional media all have copyrights. Why, somehow, does a festival scarecrow not have one? . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that certain people do interpret copyright rules broadly. But in law, words do have to be defined.
For example: toys. Toys are defined as human-designed objects originally intended as toys. Thus a plastic water pistol in the shape of a gun is a toy gun, but a real gun is not a toy. If a toddler takes his mother's real gun out of her handbag (purse) and has fun playing with it and ends up shooting her with it (as has happened, sadly), the real gun has been misused as a plaything but has never been a toy. From that we can see that an object used as a plaything but originally intended for another purpose is not a toy as defined in law. The manufacturer of the deceased mother's gun will not be prosecuted for creating a lethal toy.
Similarly, if a villager creates a straw-stuffed scarecrow bee for their scarecrow-festival tableau, the bee is an effigy for temporary exhibition purposes. It is not a toy (even if the kid next door grabs it and kicks it around as a football) and it is not a sculpture, because it was not designed as a toy or sculpture.
The law in the UK and the US both take original intention into consideration. Killing is a good example of intention being taken into consideration. The serial killer with his known modus operandi (MO) and his car-full of gaffer tape, poisons, ropes, hunting knives and guns may fairly be accused of intention to kill. But the horrified mother who has accidentally backed her car over her child when witnesses confirm that she believed the child was inside the house, is unlikely to be accused of intention to kill.
Therefore, to answer your question, if a sculptor creates an ice sculpture for the ice festival in Ottawa, then that is his intention, and that is a sculpture. If a kid plays with the food on his plate and temporarily makes it look like a face, before eating it, it is not a sculpture. That is because the sculptor is intending to made a sculpture, but the kid is using his food as a plaything, or as a way of winding up his mother. Regarding the issue here, if a villager makes a scarecrow effigy, that scarecrow by definition is supposed to be a badly-made effigy because that is what a scarecrow is. The whole point of a scarecrow is that it is not intended to be a sculpture or any other kind of art, and it is certainly not intended to be a toy. Storye book (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
And again, you keep making the claim that they are not sculptures, but have not and cannot cite either statute or case law to prove your point. Carl would you comment here? . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't know any written law which cites what things are not. There would be an infinite list of nots if they tried. Anyway, aren't you bringing this discussion off the point? The above two files were deleted on the grounds of being toys. Any argument for deletion or undeletion of those files ought to be about that. Storye book (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
There's no point in undeleting something to just start a DR on it, so we have to look at the whole picture. In general, toys fall under sculpture in copyright law, because copyright law is pretty general. I don't see any reason why these wouldn't fall under sculpture as well, as three dimensional constructions for artistic purposes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: Your "whole picture" is not the whole picture. I accept that the dalmatian dog picture can be mistaken for toys, although they were not made for that purpose. I accept that that one may remain deleted. I have already said that. But the bees are very large, and if you were there you would have seen that they are scruffy bags of straw and totally unusable as toys. They were never intended as toys, sculptures or any kind of artworks. They were intended as destructible scarecrows. A scarecrow by definition is an object carelessly thrown together as a temporary effigy. The whole point of them is that they are not an artwork, and are intended as a non-artwork. It is the camera work which is artistic. The real problem that we have in this discussion is that only one or two people have been able to see the original pictures. So all those who have not seen the original pictues are talking out of their hats. I repeat, the dogs can possibly be mistaken as toys, fair enough (if that is the picture that I think it is?). But the bees cannot be mistaken as toys. I did not photograph any bees which look like toys, or which could be used as playthings. You couldn't even kick them around the yard, because they would fall apart. Storye book (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Forget about toys. They're sculptures. If a kid plays with the food on his plate and temporarily makes it look like a face, it's sculpture. It might not qualify for copyright under the “perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than a transitory duration” rule, but the US Copyright Office specifically lists "Edible materials, such as a molded chocolate rabbit or a frosting design on a cake" as eligible, right below "“Soft sculptures,” such as stuffed animals and puppets" Compendium of Copyright Practices (section 704). Note there's no section about toys; section 910 is called "Games, Toys, Dolls, Stuffed Animals, and Puppets" and starts "This Section discusses certain issues that commonly arise with toys, dolls, stuffed animals, puppets, and other sculptural works." When you build something and put it on display as an effigy, it likely falls under the category of sculpture, provided there was human input and it's not a useful item.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
The word "likely" is significant, then. It means that the subject is up for doubt and discussion. Also, please explain to me why only my photographs have been targeted for deletion, and why only my photographs have been targeted now. It is illogical to say that only the photographs at issue in this discussion matter, and it is illogical in the context that none of the thousands of other effigy and scarecrow pictures on WP (which to my knowledge have never been disputed since WP started) have been targeted for deletion. Therefore this discussion gives the impression that my work on scarecrows is being targeted for vexatious reasons.
That leads me to wonder why you are discussing this without showing us what you are discussing. If you were to reveal the bees picture, your statements about toys and sculpture would be less convincing.
It is not the case that WP respects only US law when judging copyright violation on Commons. If you believed that US law overrides UK law in all cases, then you would not have allowed UK panoramafreiheit, and you would not have allowed the UK's 70-year death rule. UK courts do not inflict punitive damages. Judgements on copyright cases in the UK consider only specific financial losses, which are quantitative. That is to say, if an advertiser were to use my photographs of a scarecrow to make money, then the judgement would be about any moneys that the scarecrow-creator could have made with the scarecrow, but cannot make due to advertiser-behaviour. Because these scarecrows are in themselves non-commercial, then it is doubtvul whether any scarecrow-creator could ever have made money which amounts to more than court costs. Also, UK courts do not define art, artists or sculpture because art is a moot point, which can never be resolved and is not quantifiable like money. That is why I am disputing your arguments. Storye book (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:L says works must be PD in the US and their country of origin. You're arguing instead of listening, and arguing with the world experts on Commons license policy on that subject is silly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Whom one disputes with is not a premise on which to judge an argument. What we have here is a number of attempts to delete my photographs on new grounds, which have never (to my knowledge) been used on the many thousands of similar photographs which have been uploaded to Commons since Commons began. I asked above what is the difference between much older, still-existing, photographs of effigies, scarecrows, etc., and my photographs of scarecrows. And I received no answer. It is not enough in this circumstance to say that we only consider the photographs at issue here. A parallel in civic life might be that up to now no man has been indicted in any court anywhere for simply looking at another man's wife, then suddenly, without any change in the law, non-lawyers are able to indict or imprison one particular man for looking at another man's wife. To put it another way, there is no precedence for what you are doing here. So please explain what is the difference between my photographs and all the other photographs of scarecrows, and why only my photographs, after all these years, have been singled out for deletion on grounds which (in your terms) would fit thousands, if not millions of pre-existing photos on Commons? Storye book (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment I have always thought that considering these very simple objects as sculptures with a copyright is farfetched. Now I don't know how this translates to legal arguments, but Storye book made one above. If these objects are not considered copyrighted by UK law, why should we do so? Yann (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I've always had a problem when certain people are considered artists and get copyright respected for every little thing, but the average person is just making "very simple objects". I question whether Storye book's interpretation of the UK law is correct. Certainly in the US these would have copyright, and that is the law that the WMF would be sued under. Also, we have several people well versed in US law; it doesn't seem we have anyone nearly as well versed in UK law, so trying to use the UK law solely makes it harder here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
For what is worth, we sometimes deny copyright to claimed "artistic" works. A recent case from memory: Category:On Kawara. I agree that there is no reason to use a different standard for famous artists and other people. Yann (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: Hehe, yes, that example is something a lot of us would like to judge as non-art. I think that comes from the old definition of art as specific skill(s), rather than the more recent infinity of interpretations. That is why British courts decline to define art - because there could be no conclusion to it all - today it is all about opinion. But, back to the subject at hand, here. A British court would weigh up the question of who would lose what, and who would win what, if the court dismissed the case, or if it awarded something to plaintiff or defendant. In this case, if British village scarecrow-festival images were deleted, the creators of the scarecrows would lose out, because (1) they would no longer have good-quality available and shareable pictures of their creations for free, and (2) they would no longer have ditto photographs to use in promotion of the next scarecrow festival. It would be a long stretch to imagine that advertisers and other moneymakers would bother to use the images for money, or that they could make more money doing that than the cost of a court case, but if they did, they would be doing no harm to the creators, so who cares? Because British courts (unlike US courts) do not inflict punitive damages, there would be no case to answer, so a British court and/or lawyers would not pursue such a case. People are wasting their time here, on this subject of British scarecrow festivals. Storye book (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: This request has run for nearly two months (9 June 2024), at venue with high participation, with no consensus to restore. There has been no participation in over two weeks. In addition to the lack of consensus, the weight of both !votes and evidence (i.e., positions tethered to authorities rather than mere personal opinion) favours deletion. --Эlcobbolatalk15:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hello
I would prefer this image to be undeleted and restored
If there is a problem, we will fix it, but I don't think this image was deleted for copyright reasons. --Sbeyy (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose The license requires that the author is credited. Regardless, there is no source that verifies that this is licensed under a Creative Commons license anyway. Thuresson (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
This is the official Logo of our club Ughelli Rovers FC based in Delta State Nigeria
I designed the Logo myself and I downloaded it from the Club's official website
https://ughellirovers.com before uploading it here on Wikipedia Commons with the approval of club management
I request the immediate restoration of our deleted image. The correct publication of the newspaper that made the mistake of sending an image in another session of the event is sent here.
There seems to a misunderstanding as to who is the copyright holder of the image in questions, as can be deduced from the communications regarding the deletion request of this file (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ed_Force_One_TF-AAK.jpg).
It took the supposed copyright holder 6 years (!!) to file a complaint regarding this file, in which time it was used all over Wikipedia as well as outside of the Commons platform by news websites such as ours. Now, more than two years after the file has been deleted off of Wikimedia Commons (so 8 years after it was uploaded to Commons), another individual is hiring law firms to charge (news) websites that used the image in good faith, based on the reasonable understanding that they were able to use the file due to its Commons license, ridiculous amounts of money for using the image. Reading the transcript, it seems that an employee of the company claiming ownership of the picture uploaded it to Commons at the time (2016). That means that the image was provided to Commons under a Creative Commons license, which means that other websites/individuals that use the file have acted completely in good faith. The fact that due to (it seems) an internal misunderstanding within the company, the file has now been deleted off Commons, causes a situation where other users (like news outlets) that have used the image get targeted by law firms with abusive claims despite having acted in complete good faith. The file should therefore be undeleted, thereby also eliminating the risk of Wikimedia being held liable for the claims as referred to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.239.132 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
The file was deleted for not having a proper license. And this file is more complex that the Montreal Metro Logo. I'm not an expert in the Threshold of Originality in Canada and it looks borderline to me. Abzeronow (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not an expert either, but I think we can find similarly complex logos of trains in public transport on wikimedia. Examples:
The threshold of originality can differ (quite a bit) by country. Canada used to have an extremely low one inherited from UK law; more recent rulings (en:CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada) said that the NAFTA treaty had necessarily moved their threshold to somewhere in between the UK and the US. I'd guess it's below the US threshold, but less sure on Canada. For US logos, the threshold is higher, and they also have the chance of being published without a copyright notice before 1989. Unless it's from before that date, File:El Paso Streetcar Logo.png is clearly copyrightable and should be deleted. The German threshold for logos used to be very high (they did not like overlap between copyright and trademark, unlike the US and many other countries), but that has changed more recently I think. en:WP:OTHERFILESEXIST is usually not a good argument, as other files may simply not have been noticed yet. The Canadian ruling rejected sweat of the brow, but did not require the modicum of creativity the US does. I'm really not sure here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Just to note that this logo (or derivatives of it or very similar logos) is also used in many files on Commons, perhaps 40, many of which seem for some reason claimed as free licensed by the users who uploaded them. For example in this category. Also sometimes in previous versions of different logos. If this logo is not ok for Commons, a look at the other files may be necessary. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
We don't have a lot of Canadian rulings on stuff like this so it's hard to say. Given that it seems to have been uploaded here for 14 years at least in many variations, and I think would be below the US threshold, I guess Weak keep for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Please undelete the above mentioned files and giv them the "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license", as the rest of the files in Category:Marienkapelle (Obererthal) has it, too. I may have forgotten to register the license during the original upload. Thanks in advance and greetings, --Darev (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Unsure what is the request about? The file was renamed without leaving a redirect, so nothing exists under the name provided: nothing to undelete here. Ankry (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
The file was part of a DR on Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Fanta cans. File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg is not the same can, but pretty much the same setup. It was kept per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fanta grape 325ml can-front PNr°0882.jpg.
To images with pretty much the same content can not be treated differently.
Add the personal note by Ellywa: "As an amateur artist, I am often amazed how people think it is very simple to make a graphic design. No, it is not. It is difficult, it is a complex skill." - It may is challenging for the individual to draw something out of simple shapes that can also be recognised. Yet, the question if the image passes the threshold of originality is a separate one. So it's possible that the author does take time and need skill to create something like it, while at the same time they are creating something that is not eligible to be protected by copyright law. I have created many drawings that took a lot of time to make and required a certain skill to create, even they are just 'simple' shapes (for examples see here, here or here). Yet I consider all of them below the threshold of originality.
"Although the overall 3D shape of most packaging [...] is not copyright-protected, the printing on such packaging is often legally protected as an artistic work [...]" (source). In my opinion the shapes on the can are way too simple to even get close to the threshold of originality and are thereby not legally protected. --D-Kuru (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
"
User Generated Content
We encourage our End Users to create and share fan art, fan fiction, video montages, Let’s Play videos, and other creative content with our Community (herein “User Generated Content”). Likewise we encourage streaming and recording your gameplay and sharing it with our Community or through social media video streaming services such as YouTube.com or Twitch.tv—for the purpose of these Agreements, we also consider your streams and videos containing our Game “User Generated Content”.
We want you to create and express yourself freely, and you retain all rights in and to your User Generated Content. By sharing your User Generated Content with the Community, you grant thatgamecompany an unrestricted, irrevocable, non-exclusive and universal right and license to reproduce, modify, and redistribute your User Generated Content solely in connection with our Games.
However, User Generated Content shared with the Community must comply with these Community Guidelines, the Term of Service and our End User License Agreement. Failure to comply with any of the terms contained therein may result in the cancellation of your TGC Account and whatever other legal remedies may be available to us, including issuing takedowns to the appropriate service providers due to the breach of the licenses and rights granted to you herein.
As our latest game, “Sky”, includes chat functionality, it is important that you comply with our Community Rules and Restrictions when linking or sharing any User Generated Content. The Privacy Policy is also important in connection with User Generated Content, as we may collect, store, and share your User Generated Content pursuant to that policy.
" LeoMatthi (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose No part of the game has a Creative Commons license. The End User License Agreements restricts any use to non-commercial license only. License available here. Thuresson (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
The owner of the photo, Gábor Stiglincz sent you an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the given template around 8 July. His email address is (Redacted). What else can we do to prevent the portrait being deleted again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisscsi (talk • contribs) 2024-08-06T08:39:51 (UTC)
I am writing to formally request the undeletion of the files named File:Riccardo Spagni 03.jpg, File:Riccardo Spagni 02.jpg, File:Riccardo Spagni 01.jpg. I understand that the file was previously deleted, and I believe that there are strong reasons to reconsider this decision.
Reasons for Undeletion:
1.Significant Public Figure: Riccardo Spagni is a well-known public figure who has played a substantial role in the development of cryptocurrency technology, Monero. As such, there is a strong public interest in images of him.
2. Free Use Image: The images are indeed freely licensed (e.g., under Creative Commons) and the only copies on the internet, it meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons and serves the project's goal of providing freely accessible knowledge.
3. Informational Value: The images can be used to illustrate articles related to Riccardo Spagni, cryptocurrency, and related topics, providing valuable visual context for readers. This is especially important as he is on the news for having a legal battle with the USA government.
4. No Copyright Infringement: The images do not infringe on any copyright or privacy rights, there is no legal impediment to their inclusion on Wikimedia Commons.
I am confident that upon careful review, the administrators will agree that the benefits of undeleting File:Riccardo Spagni 03.jpg and related images outweigh any potential drawbacks. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Oppose as deleting admin. If in scope I have copyvio concerns - no meaningful exif, etc, would need VRT if in scope Gbawden (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I have rights on this image. Is a public picture either way. I'm employee of the person in the image
--Maely GG (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)maely gomes
Oppose - Nonsense request. Links and requests to review our licensing policy have been provided directly to you four times ([4][5][6][7]). That licensing policy includes, for example, "Media licensed exclusively under non-commercial only licenses (like CC BY-NC-SA) are not accepted" and "Some examples of licensing statuses commonly found on the Internet, but forbidden on Commons, include: Creative Commons Non-Commercial Only (-NC) licenses (and) Creative Commons No-Derivatives (-ND) licenses" (bold in original). One does not even need to speak English, or even really to be literate in any language, to understand this, as is graphically depicted as Not OK. Эlcobbolatalk18:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I was given premission by the author to use this photo, however, it got taken down. How do I proof that the author has given me premission?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomed Shadow (talk • contribs)
Oppose (1) A permission to use is not the same as {{Cc-zero}} license. The first does not allow you to upload the image to Commons. (2) as the uploader you are required either to provide an evidence that the album cover was initially published under the declared license or ensure that its copyright holder has sent a free license permission using VRT. Ankry (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The author of this image has given me premission to upload it, however it got taken down. How do I proof that the author gave me premission?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomed Shadow (talk • contribs)
Please can you undelete the File:Lila Abrahim Wiki Profile Image..png and kindly re-upload Lila's image onto her page.
I have been given ownership release rights from the owner (Ben Catchpole) for this file.
Please view permission notice sent below from Ben:
I hereby affirm that I represent Google LLC, the sole, exclusive licensee of the exclusive copyright of the media work attached to this email and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Ben Catchpole
Appointed representative of Google LLC
Here’s a more descriptive answer to how the deletion request was manipulated to look like copyright. The link to the Imgur post is a post I made, and I can easily prove it or I can delete the photo from Imgur, the source I linked in DeviantArt is real, so that’s how it was manipulated. I just copy pasted it here, in case you wouldn’t see the other one. Marcussilio (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Here’s how it was manipulated. The link to Imgur is my post, I can easily prove it, or I can delete the photo on Imgur. Marcussilio (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Tineye.com's image search found other examples posted by a range of people, some going back about a year. The DeviantArt account you claimed was the source posted it about a month ago. Plus, it is being actively spammed (by you) on inappropriate articles on enwiki, as well as on other language Wikipedias. MrOllie (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I don’t know which sites you’re specifically referring to, but I’ve uploaded it on sites like imgflip, X, iFunny, Memedroid and so on, and can again prove it’s me, or delete the photos. Most of the places I’ve uploaded it is with my username, which is either the same on DeviantArt or here. Marcussilio (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Here’s a more descriptive answer to how the deletion request was manipulated to look like copyright. The link to the Imgur post is a post I made, and I can easily prove it or I can delete the photo from Imgur, the source I linked in DeviantArt is real, so that’s how it was manipulated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcussilio (talk • contribs)
Oppose (1) the photo is likely out of scope and (2) as it was published elsewhere prior to upload to Commons the uploader is required to provide an evidence that it was initially published under the declared license (that was provided neither at upload nor here) or ensure that the copyright holder has sent a free license permission using VRT. Ankry (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I am writing to request the restoration of the page "Deleted Page Name," which was deleted on 2024/8/9.
I am the original author of the page, and I believe that the deletion was a mistake for the following reasons:
Alleged Violation of Wikipedia Policy Was Not Properly Identified
I was not informed of any specific policy violation, and I was unable to identify the reason for the deletion in the page deletion logs.
The Page Was Based on Reliable and Neutral Sources
I provided sources that supported the information contained in the page, all of which were from reliable and neutral sources.
The Page Was of Encyclopedic Importance and Was Not Promotional
The page provided comprehensive and objective information about scientists and inventors, and it was not created to promote any product or service.
I kindly ask you to reconsider the deletion decision and restore the page. I am willing to provide any documentation or additional information that may help clarify the matter.
Not done: This is the Commons, not wikipedia. You've copy-pasted en.wiki-related guidance and not even bothered to fill in the blanks. You've no deleted articles on the Commons. --Эlcobbolatalk12:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image was deleted as a supposed copyright violation. Per Template:PD-NWS, the NWS have a direct disclaimer which states,“ By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others.” The photograph that was deleted comes from this archived NWS webpage. That archived page even has an archived disclaimer, which states, “The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public…As required by 17 U.S.C. 403, third parties producing copyrighted works consisting predominantly of the material appearing in NWS Web pages must provide notice with such work(s) identifying the NWS material incorporated and stating that such material is not subject to copyright protection.” If/when copyrighted work is provided to the NWS, they appropriately make it known that it is copyrighted (example, see the “Tornado Photos” tab of this NWS webpage). In short, this is a public domain photograph. The PD-NWS template has been upheld even at deletion requests (Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg is a recent example). So, I am requesting undeletion of this public domain photograph. WeatherWriter (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Commons has just been through a couple 12 of lengthy discusions where this interpretation of the NWS disclaimer has been found unreliable for third-party content such as this. There are too many different mechanisms by which third parties can contribute material to NWS websites under a variety of different terms and conditions, over too long a span of time, that significant doubt exists about what copyright and licence exists on third-party files. --Rlandmann (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Even going off of the direct archived disclaimer for that webpage, "The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public." That single sentence right there proves this specific image is in the public domain. I'm sorry, but our other discussions are irrelevant for this image. WeatherWriter (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The key words here are "specifically annotated otherwise", which this image is, being very specifically credited to a third party (the Topeka Capitol Journal newspaper) and not the NWS. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The video was uploaded by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IAHCR), which uploads its videos with a Creative Commons license. Said license wasn't placed due to an error using video2commons. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
@Ankry: In this case, a metadata viewer allows to see the video's license: mattw.io/youtube-metadata/. Under the "Status" section, the value displayed for "license" is "youtube", and the default Creative Commons license for YouTube is CC BY 3.0.
Assunto: venho pedir a Wikimedia Commons o cançelamento da não exclusão do arquivo que enviei no commons para usar no artigo Grid (série de jogos), pois não vejo nenhum problema usar esta imagem no meu artigo.
FabioXerem (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Copyrighted logo and no evidence that the logo copyright holder granted the CC0 license. Claiming authorship on a work by someone else is a serious violation of Wikimedia Commons policies. Ankry (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
These were deleted as "personal family photos". They are images donated by the family of Flávio Terceiro Teles (1921-2015) the Mayor of Tianguá, Brazil. If he was mayor of a location in the United States, there would be no doubt they would not have been deleted. This is another example of selection bias. We have entries and images centered on USA people. Commons is not supposed delete when the images are of interest to projects like Wikidata. "It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope." --RAN (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): While photos of a public person are in scope, photos of his family are not. Unless used in Wikimedia. Moreover, we have problem with COM:EVID here: (1) it is unlikely that the photos were made in July 2024 as claimed and (2) only original photos from a digital camera with complete camera info can be accepted as Own work. These are photos of photo prints; we need an evidence that the uploader is the original photographer as he claims and a written free license permission from the copyright holder (who is either the photographer or the person who has a copyright transfer contract with the photographer). Both can be provided using VRT after the scope issues are resolved. Ankry (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Ich habe verschiedene Fotos (ähnlich wie das obige) von www.ipmimages.org "Vegetables" (insbesondere auch von dem Autorː Gerald Holmes) in Wikimedia Commons eingestellt. Soweit ich die Linzenz Vorgaben in https://www.ipmimages.org/about/imageusage.cfm verstanden habe, ist das erlaubt. Bereits vor meiner Aktivität haben schon andere Personen, Bilder von impomages.org eingestellt. Ich vermute, dass ich als Anfänger was falsch gemacht habe. Können Sie das bitte noch einmal überprüfen? Für den Bereich Landwirtschaft und Gartenbau wäre es eine sehr tolle Angebotserweiterung in WIKIMEDIA COMMONS, wenn wir die Fotos einstellen könnten. Gerade der Bereich Pflanzenschutz ist ja noch sehr unterrepräsentiert. Meine 179 persönlichen Pflanzenschutz Fotos, die ich bisher eingestellt habe, können nur als Ergänzung dienen.
Schlaghecken Josef
--Schlaghecken Josef (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
They were all deleted in 2013 after this DR, and they all depict the en:Stadio Porta Elisa, the stadium of en:Lucca. The stadium was designed by the engineer en:Enrico Bianchini and the architect en:Raffaello Fagnoni and it was commissioned by the municipality of Lucca (see [8]). It was built in 1935, and therefore it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1956 (and of course no problem with US copyright). The two stands behind the goals (sorry, I don't know the english terminology) were built at the end of the 1990's (see here, p. 78), but from what I could see from other photos, they seem under the high italian ToO to me...--Friniate (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
J'ai donc réitère ce jour ma demande à "permissions-fr@wikimedia.org" pour ce seul fichier ci dessous, que je souhaiterais voir restaurer
Bien cordialement
Denis Phan
DPhan54
copies de mail
Sujet : Release of Banjo player Bill Keith in France festival de Courville sur Eure 1977 with Bill Amatneek.jpg
Date : Sun, 11 Aug 2024 11:28:43 +0200
De : Denis PHAN (info) <info@denisphan.fr>
Pour : permissions-fr@wikimedia.org
Je , Denis Phan, confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif de l'œuvre du fichier suivant:
File:Banjo_player_Bill_Keith_in_France_festival_de_Courville_sur_Eure_1977_with_Bill_Amatneek.jpg
J'accepte de publier les œuvres mentionnées ci-dessus sous Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.
Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence.
Je suis conscient(e) de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre, et garder le droit d'être cité(e) pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées.
Je suis conscient(e) qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc.
Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia.
Sujet : elease of Kenny Kosek-Courville-sur-Eure-FolkFestival-1978.jpg, Kenny Kosek-Festival Courville-sur-Eure1978.jpg, Tony Rice-Courville-sur-Eure-Folk Festival1977.jpg, Bill Keith-David Grisman-Tony Rice-Courville-sur-Eure-Folk Festival-1977.jpg and Banjo player Bill Keith in France festival de Courville sur Eure 1977 with Bill Amatneek.jpg
Date : Tue, 2 Jul 2024 16:07:43 +0200
De : dPhan <denisphan@orange.fr>
Pour : permissions-fr@wikimedia.org
Copie à : info@denisphan.fr
Je , Denis Phan, confirme par la présente être l'auteur et le titulaire unique et exclusif de l'œuvre les fichiers suivants:
J'accepte de publier les œuvres mentionnées ci-dessus sous Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.
Je comprends qu'en faisant cela je permets à quiconque d'utiliser mon œuvre dans un but commercial, et de la modifier dans la mesure des exigences imposées par la licence.
Je suis conscient(e) de toujours jouir des droits extra-patrimoniaux sur mon œuvre, et garder le droit d'être cité(e) pour celle-ci selon les termes de la licence retenue. Les modifications que d'autres pourront faire ne me seront pas attribuées.
Je suis conscient(e) qu'une licence libre concerne seulement les droits patrimoniaux de l'auteur, et je garde la capacité d'agir envers quiconque n'emploierait pas ce travail d'une manière autorisée, ou dans la violation des droits de la personne, des restrictions de marque déposée, etc.
Je comprends que je ne peux pas retirer cette licence, et que l'image est susceptible d'être conservée de manière permanente par n'importe quel projet de la fondation Wikimedia.
[EN] I've created this file depicting the cover page of the "Şadırvan magazine, first issue" using my own copy with my own scanner. I've uploaded this file to be used in the Turkish page of the aforementioned "Şadırvan" magazie. It's been marked as "F1 - Clear Copyright Violation" by the user: "Kadı". What is my mistake here? I'm using the image I personally take using the copy of the magazine I own with the equipment I own.
[TR] Bu dosyayı kendi elimdeki Şadırvan dergisi, 1.sayı'dan kendi tarayıcımla oluşturdum. Görseli'de Şadırvan dergisinin kendi Wikipedia sayfasında kullanmak amacıyla yüklemiştim. "F1 - Clear Copyright Violation" sebebi belirtilmiş, neden acaba böyle bir sebep belirttiniz? Kendi dergimde, kendim çektiğim bir fotoğrafı kullanmaktayım. Acaba dosya telif kurallarında bir bilgiyi mi yanlış, eksik girdim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwydion The Quick (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose The uploader owns a copy of the magazine, but they are clearly not the copyright holder. @Gwydion The Quick: you don't own the copyright of the magazine. Taking a photo or scanning it is a derivative work, and Commons doesn't allow derivative works of copyrighted objects. Günther Frager (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Album of 41 photos (and crops) accidentally deleted by my improper use of a speedy delete template used for a typo on a category that got moved. Dissident93 (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I took this picture and posted it with personal information hidden.
Also, the location where it was filmed is open to everyone.
So I would like you to restore the image.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by たいやき部屋 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Support - It looks like what happened here was a {{No source since}} tag was added due to an empty source field and a mismatch between the author (taiyaki) and the uploader (たいやき部屋). However, たいやき (i.e., たいやき部屋) is "taiyaki," and I don't see a compelling reason to disbelieve the clear authorship claim above ("I took this picture"). The uploader uploaded it locally to ja.wiki following its deletion here, so presumably its present use in ja:沖縄県立那覇商業高等学校 demonstrates it to be in scope. Эlcobbolatalk00:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@たいやき部屋: Please, either upload the image version with EXIF metadata of follow instructions at VRT. Modern images without metadata are no longer accepted as {{Own}}. Ankry (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
This is news to me. Contemporary images require EXIF data now? Where was this discussed? Why has such a consequential requirement not been added to COM:L? Эlcobbolatalk14:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
This is not a requirement, but I would require EXIF data for small images of new users, images of personalities, and images uploaded by users with a bad history. Yann (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Academia_Dominicana.png. Buenos días solicito la recuperación del archivo mencionado, debido a que es tomado de una página oficial de dominio público. no incumple normas Copyrigt --Lunaroja123 (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@Lunaroja123: Not all media publicly available in Internet are in Public Domain; most of them are not. At upload you granted that the image is copyrighted and under the {{Cc-by-2.5}} granted by its copyright holder. Please, elaborate where can we find the license as we need to verify if it is granted properly. Ankry (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
File was mid deletion request, but a user (one of the delete votes) tagged it for speedy deletion. After 45-minutes of waiting for the deleting administrator (User:Yann) to close the deletion request, it appears it was speedy deleted. I am challenging the speedy deletion, given the image passed a deletion request back in 2010 as “Keep” in the public domain (closed by administrator User:Jameslwoodward). The ongoing deletion request had 2 “Keep”, 1 “delete” and 1 “Speedy delete”. This image should not have been speedy deleted, given it previously passed a DR as “Keep” and was mid-DR to begin with. The speedy deletion tag was only requested by one user, not even the one requesting the DR in the first place. I am not wanting to rehash the DR here, just overturn the speedy deletion and let the DR play out, just like the first one did in 2010. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I believe this file should exist because of the Wikipedia page “Third-party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election“. William Hunt filed with the Louisiana SOS to be on there ballot. If he is on the ballot, he will need a picture, like all the other candidates. This is not personal at all.
GeorgeMicro1 (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
There are other files, some of which have been deleted and some of which I was warned about even though they were fully licensed, but this person deliberately deletes the files for reasons that do not exist. Mohmad Abdul sahib10:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
This file was deleted by billinghurst on 8 July, based on suspected “CopyVio” flagged by user Enyavar on 14 May.
This file is a map that is a part of the Chicago Portage article and shows how the course of the Des Plaines river has changed since the time that native Americans and others had used the portage. The image shows an aerial photo of the current geography of the Portage site as it looks today with an overlay that shows what the river looked like originally before it was straightened by the Corps of Engineers. It is therefore within the scope of Wikimedia as per com:project scope.
It is also not covered by copyright. The source of the underlying aerial photo is the United States Geological Survey. I did the overlay and it is based on a map that was part of study published by the Chicago Historical Society in 1928 and is therefore in the public domain.
When I uploaded the finished image to Wikimedia, I showed “source” as “own work”, meaning that I had done the overlay. User Enyavar flagged the image for deletion on 14 May saying “Satellite maps cannot be ‘own work’”. Of course, he is correct. So, my mistake.
I propose that the image be re-instated with “source” showed as “United States Geological Survey for the underlying aerial photo plus my own work for the overlay based on Knight, Robert; Zeuch, Lucius Henry (1928). The Location of the Chicago Portage Route of the Seventeenth Century. Chicago Historical Society.”
Let me know what else I might do to get this image un-deleted.
Thanks for your help. Joe Bfsplk (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
The file is needed, in d:Q2356083 and at least in the Esperanto branch of Wikipedia, possibly in all 5 articles about him (Владимир Шмурло/Vladimir Szmurlo, 1865-1931). The person in question died in 1931 and was photographed clearly before, so the chances of the file to be PD are high. Anyway, the reason to delete the file were "no indication of early enough PUBLICATION to be PD". So the source of publication was not exactly enough indicated. That was certainly true, but there is no way anymore of knowing who was the uploader, what was indicated in the upload or when the upload took place. I would like to ask to temporarily undelete the file, for two, better four weeks, to send a personal information about the undeletion at lesat to me, one of three bureaucrats of the Esperanto Wikipedia - no problem if the note is adressed to all three bureaucrats of the Esperanto Wikipedia, and to let us check the file. --ThomasPusch (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
As an administrator, I can see the file. It's an old low resolution photograph. Uploader was User:Wierzbowski. It was uploaded in 2016 and the photograph is said to be "circa 1910". It's not clear it was published before 1917 though. Source is listed as an archive of an Esperanto society. Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Info the image probably can be uploaded to enwiki under Fair Use. Support temporary undeletion if anybody volunteers to do that. Ankry (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
as of August 10, 2024, by Túrelio. I am the
sole owner of this photo obtained at a meeting in Corfu, about 10 years
ago. As the Cyprus Alliance for Rare Disorders requested a photo of mine
for their records, I sent them this widely used photo.
@Bartsocas: So please, either upload the original full-resolution photo with complete metadata as from your camera, or send a free license permission using VRT and providing an evidence of your authorship to them. Ankry (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Please restore this sound recording. Author of composition died in 1943, so it's PD in all territories with 80pma, i.e. ewerywhere outside the United States. 185.172.241.18417:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Photographer gave permission to Artist to use
www.tommcrae.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triskel2021 (talk • contribs) 12:02, August 14, 2024 UTC (UTC)
The file has not been deleted yet, but such permissions must be received directly from the photographer (or copyright owner) through the COM:VRT process. Even if the artist has permission to use it, that may not extend to everyone else, so the artist may not be able to license it as freely as our site policy requires. "Own work" indicates that the uploader is claiming they are the photographer, and thus own the copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
The uploaded image for en:Takele Uma Benti Profile is free and no one has the copyright on that image, therefore this is a kind request to review and undelete.
Even though the file is posted on instagram on the same owner of the wiki and instagram, therefore it's free and the image is taken by the owner's phone so there is no copyright issue, kindly review.
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 3 days.
. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Writing to request the Undeletion of File:MayorJones.jpg.
The photo was shared with the express permission of the subject, has been made copyright-free, and was given express permission to share and upload to Wikimedia Commons by the photographer. The file size is small because the RAW image was too large for Wikimedia Commons. We request that the photo is undelete.
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 3 days.
. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dear Community
Our organization has taken image “นายแพทย์ นพพร ชื่นกลิ่น.jpg” and has sent this file to Wikimedia for publication. This file is a work for which our organization holds the copyright. Therefore, we request your approval to restore this file for continued use according to the purposes defined.
We kindly request your consideration and prompt approval for restoring the mentioned file. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact us at [phone number/email].
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 3 days.
. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a public street mural of an eminent public figure created on free public space by unknown artists. The mural is not attributed to any specific creator or owner at all. This is a unique content which can be very helpful for various wiki projects on the given subject. If this mural is not fit for sharing on wiki, then murals on world famous Indian monuments like Taj Mahal, Ajanta, Ellora, Bhimbetka will also be unfit for sharing! By sharing the uploaded image no specific person or organisation’s interest will be harmed. Rather sharing the image will bring value addition for related wiki articles. Hence this upload should be retained in Wikimedia Commons at least for use in other wikis. Subhrasingh (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done: File not currently deleted. Please read Commons policies and discuss the case in the DR. --Yann (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a public street mural of an eminent public figure created on free public space by unknown artists. The mural is not attributed to any specific creator or owner at all. This is a unique content which can be very helpful for various wiki projects on the given subject. If this mural is not fit for sharing on wiki, then murals on world famous Indian monuments like Taj Mahal, Ajanta, Ellora, Bhimbetka will also be unfit for sharing! By sharing the uploaded image no specific person or organisation’s interest will be harmed. Rather sharing the image will bring value addition for related wiki articles. Hence this upload should be retained in Wikimedia Commons at least for use in other wikis. Subhrasingh (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done: File not currently deleted. Please read Commons policies and discuss the case in the DR. --Yann (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a public street mural of an eminent public figure created on free public space by unknown artists. The mural is not attributed to any specific creator or owner at all. This is a unique content which can be very helpful for various wiki projects on the given subject. If this mural is not fit for sharing on wiki, then murals on world famous Indian monuments like Taj Mahal, Ajanta, Ellora, Bhimbetka will also be unfit for sharing! By sharing the uploaded image no specific person or organisation’s interest will be harmed. Rather sharing the image will bring value addition for related wiki articles. Hence this upload should be retained in Wikimedia Commons at least for use in other wikis. Subhrasingh (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done: File not currently deleted. Please read Commons policies and discuss the case in the DR. --Yann (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a public street mural of an eminent public figure created on free public space by unknown artists. The mural is not attributed to any specific creator or owner at all. This is a unique content which can be very helpful for various wiki projects on the given subject. If this mural is not fit for sharing on wiki, then murals on world famous Indian monuments like Taj Mahal, Ajanta, Ellora, Bhimbetka will also be unfit for sharing! By sharing the uploaded image no specific person or organisation’s interest will be harmed. Rather sharing the image will bring value addition for related wiki articles. Hence this upload should be retained in Wikimedia Commons at least for use in other wikis. Subhrasingh (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done: File not currently deleted. Please read Commons policies and discuss the case in the DR. --Yann (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a public street mural of an eminent public figure created on free public space by unknown artists. The mural is not attributed to any specific creator or owner at all. This is a unique content which can be very helpful for various wiki projects on the given subject. If this mural is not fit for sharing on wiki, then murals on world famous Indian monuments like Taj Mahal, Ajanta, Ellora, Bhimbetka will also be unfit for sharing! By sharing the uploaded image no specific person or organisation’s interest will be harmed. Rather sharing the image will bring value addition for related wiki articles. Hence this upload should be retained in Wikimedia Commons at least for use in other wikis. Subhrasingh (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done: File not currently deleted. Please read Commons policies and discuss the case in the DR. --Yann (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a public street mural of an eminent public figure created on free public space by unknown artists. The mural is not attributed to any specific creator or owner at all. This is a unique content which can be very helpful for various wiki projects on the given subject. If this mural is not fit for sharing on wiki, then murals on world famous Indian monuments like Taj Mahal, Ajanta, Ellora, Bhimbetka will also be unfit for sharing! By sharing the uploaded image no specific person or organisation’s interest will be harmed. Rather sharing the image will bring value addition for related wiki articles. Hence this upload should be retained in Wikimedia Commons at least for use in other wikis. Subhrasingh (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done: File not currently deleted. Please read Commons policies and discuss the case in the DR. --Yann (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a public street mural of an eminent public figure created on free public space by unknown artists. The mural is not attributed to any specific creator or owner at all. This is a unique content which can be very helpful for various wiki projects on the given subject. If this mural is not fit for sharing on wiki, then murals on world famous Indian monuments like Taj Mahal, Ajanta, Ellora, Bhimbetka will also be unfit for sharing! By sharing the uploaded image no specific person or organisation’s interest will be harmed. Rather sharing the image will bring value addition for related wiki articles. Hence this upload should be retained in Wikimedia Commons at least for use in other wikis. Subhrasingh (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done: File not currently deleted. Please read Commons policies and discuss the case in the DR. --Yann (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reason: This file was deleted on the basis that it did not have a license for its "home country" of Ireland. However, the image was created in New York, United States and had a US license. *If* this file needs an additional Irish license, then I imagine that adding something like Template:PD-old-auto or Template:PD-Ireland-anon should be sufficient. CeltBrowne (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I suggest a close reading of Linda Kearns MacWhinney. The upload says this is a 1922 image, but she had escaped from prison and was on the run then. It is therefore unlikely that it was taken then. In it she looks considerably older than she does in File:Linda Kearns.jpg which is also said to be from 1922. While Underwood and Underwood was based in New York, it had offices in London and elsewhere. There is nothing in the WP article to suggest she was ever in New York. There is enough unknown here so we should leave it on WP:EN. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: @Abzeronow: @Yann: @Elcobbola: Per Kearns' Dictionary of Irish Biography entry (here >>>[9]<<<) (which is much more fleshed out than her Wikipedia page), Kearns was in fact in New York in 1922 as part of a tour of the United States (and later Canada and Australia). Like many other Irish Republicans at the time (Liam Mellows being another famous example), she was touring to raise funds for Independence factions back home. The image itself explicitly states its "Underwood and Underwood NY".
My wife is Andrea and this is her headshot, which she owns the rights to, and is allowing to be used by anyone, especially her on her on Wiki page.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironcondor21 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose The image appears on IMDB with "Photo by Adam Hills". Therefore the claim you made in the upload that you were the photographer appears to be incorrect. That is a serious violation of Commons rules.
In order for the image to be restored to Commons, either (a) Adam Hills must send a free license using VRT or (b) someone else must send a free license using VRT together with a copy of the written license from Adam Hills which permits that person to freely license an image whose copyright belongs to Hills. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose The link provided didn't have such clause until recently (last archived version form July is https://web.archive.org/web/20240618192448/https://thestunning.net/press-kit). As the copyright holder is usually the photographer, and the page ask to credit the photographer, it is not clear that the change on the band's webpage is the real intention of the photographer. Please contact the photographer and ask them to send an explicit permission to the COM:VRT. Günther Frager (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
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 3 days.
. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed.Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Decorations of the Civic Palace of Asti by Ottavio Baussano
Hi everyone, I'm writing here in order to ask for the undeletion of the following images:
They were all deleted in 2018 after this DR and they all depict decorations of the it:Palazzo di Città (Asti), painted by en:Ottavio Baussano in 1935. As proof of the fact that they were commissioned by the Municipality of Asti, beside the obvious reason that is highly likely given that the palace is property and main seat of the Municipality since centuries, I've this snippet in which are cited pieces of a contract between the painter and the municipality about decorations to be made in the civic palace. For me it's enough to ask for the undeletion, but I'll let decide the closing admin. Anyway, if we accept that it was commissioned by the Municipality, then it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1956, way before the URAA so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 11:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Signing your posts is required on talk pages and it is a Commons policy to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Oppose Probably actually File:Thomas_Hui_To.png. You uploaded the file two days ago and requested its deletion half an hour later. That was done shortly thereafter. Now you want it restored without explanation.
I also note that the image appears at https://corporate.tvb.com/article/20.html with an explicit copyright notice. The version here is very small with no EXIF, which suggests that it is not your own work as claimed. It can be restored here only if (a) the actual photographer sends a free license using VRT, or (b) you upload the file using the same file name at full camera resolution and with full EXIF.
This is probably due to automatic permission attachment on Wikipedia's side when uploading at that time. I'm confused by this sudden incident, but will it be resolved by rewriting the permissions? C200ohv (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
元は40年以上前の1970年の画像なのでそもそも著作権は存在しないです。そしてメーカーのプレスリリース画像は改変しない限りフリーです。グレーっぽいものを消すのは分かりますが、これを遂行し続けるとwikipediaの資料としての性能を落とすことになります。 C200ohv (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Google Translate: "The original image was taken in 1970, over 40 years ago, so there is no copyright to begin with. And images from manufacturer press releases are free as long as they are not altered. I understand that you want to remove the gray areas, but continuing to do this will reduce the functionality of Wikipedia as a resource." Thuresson (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose First, a 1970 image will be under copyright in Japan until at least 2040, and probably longer and in the USA until 2065. Second, manufacturers' press releases are very rarely PD -- they may be reproduced in the press, magazines and newspapers, but may not be reproduced by anybody for any purpose as required here. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
The above file did not infringe on Copyright. The file was sent by the movie production company in a bid to submit the movie article for the WikiProject AfroCreatives.
They gave a go ahead for the release and use of the artwork for the purposes of the article and participation in the WikiProject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatrave (talk • contribs) 16:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC) (UTC)
@Heatrave: Please ask the copyright holder to send a permission for a free license via COM:VRT. The file will be undeleted if and when the permission is validated. Yann (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
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 3 days.
. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose That may be, but the requirement here is that it must be PD in the USA and the country of origin. It was published by the Oxford University Press. The author, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, died in 1975, so it will have a UK copyright until 1/1/2046. It is available at https://archive.org/download/Sarvepalli.Radhakrishnan.Indian.Philosophy.Volume.1-2. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Info The file is available at [1] It can be discussed basing on that source or uploaded to Wikisource from there. Ankry (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Done Estrellato (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Support restoration but I wanted to explain that Krd's deletion was not wrong based on the information given at the time. Abzeronow (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
wikimedia.org or use COM:RELGEN, sufficiently demonstrating that you are the copyrights holder. These files may be undeleted after a VRT agent confirms that explicit permissions have been received. Regards, Aafi (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment Related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:"Cariou v. Prince". Yann (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
is graphically depicted as 
Not OK. Эlcobbola talk 18:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.JPG_and_File:Minskip_2_September_2023_(17).JPG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_–_20160505-042.JPG,_File:Marienkapelle_(Obererthal)_–_20160505-051.JPG){kind=link}
14.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_–_20160505-042.JPG){kind=link}
_–_20160505-051.JPG){kind=link}
_–_20160505-042.JPG,_File:Marienkapelle_(Oberer){kind=link}
_–_20160505-042.JPG,_File:Marienkapelle_(Oberer){kind=link}
14.jpg){kind=link}
14.jpg){kind=link}
14.jpg){kind=link}
14.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Táchira.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
