View source for Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests


={{{requestscaption|Current requests}}}=
<noinclude>__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude>
<!--
PLEASE ADD NEW REQUESTS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE IN NEW SECTIONS AND LEAVE THIS SECTION ALONE
You can add a new section by going to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Undeletion_requests
Also, please prefix images with a colon (:), this will
make it easier for administrators to undelete the image.
Example: [[:File:Deleted image.jpg]] instead of [[File:Deleted image.jpg]]
-->

==[[:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Pavel Troshkin]]==
Images were published after 2015, expiration of posthumous copyright protection of photographer after death, or before 1954. Overly hypothetical doubts by now-banned user who made many overzealous deletion requests. [[User:Kges1901|Kges1901]] ([[User talk:Kges1901|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

{{o}} As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia. In either case we cannot keep them. .&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<strong><strong>Jim</strong></strong> . . . <small><small><small>[[User:Jameslwoodward|(Jameslwoodward)]]</small></small></small> ([[User talk:Jameslwoodward|talk to me]]) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
:We usually assume that old works were published at the time of creation, unless evidence says otherwise. If I understood correctly, the author was a reporter for RIAN, so I see no reason to assume that these pictures were not published at the time. The first file in the list, [[:File:Сессия Верховного Совета СССР первого созыва (2).jpg]], is dated 1938. That may not be sufficient for all images, but it seems OK for this one. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
::Troshkin was a reporter for the newspaper Izvestiya, and his photographs were published at the time in Izvestiya, Krasnaya Zvezda, and other papers. --[[User:Kges1901|Kges1901]] ([[User talk:Kges1901|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
:::[[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] also made an interesting argument about the country of origin. If these newspapers were distributed in the Soviet Union, they were simultaneously published in all successor nations, and that under the Berne Convention, the shorter term applies. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
::::These newspapers were distributed across the entire Soviet Union, not just on the territory of the RSFSR. In any case, the definition of publication under Russian copyright law is that the back of the photograph was marked by the artist in the appropriate way, which for war photographs implies that it passed through censorship processes and could be published. Since most of these photographs are not taken from the photographer's negatives, it is reasonable to assume that they were marked on the back, and recently digitized images appeared on the internet after 2014, when the posthumous publication copyright term expired. [[User:Kges1901|Kges1901]] ([[User talk:Kges1901|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
::::''Carl Lindberg'' is not sole in such assumption. But this is just assumption so far, it is not supported by court decisions (of 12-15 post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature (as I have known on today, I continue to seek it, to confirm or refute it). As I see such questions in court decisions (of several post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature - the concrete Soviet republic is place of publishing (because, the civil legislation was on republican level) or the RF is place of publishing, even if work was published outside of the RSFSR (as USSR-successor on union level). [[User:Alex Spade|Alex Spade]] ([[User talk:Alex Spade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

::::: I'm not sure there is any test case over the Berne definition of "country of origin".  The question would not come up internally for Russian law or that of the old republics, most likely.  It would only matter in a country ''outside'' those which implement the rule of the shorter term, and over a work which that question may be involved.  Not sure I know of any, anywhere.  But, the Berne Convention is pretty specific in its definition when it comes to works simultaneously published in multiple countries, and that is the definition that Commons follows.  Of course, the Soviet Union was not a member, though most all subsequent countries are now.  One complication is the U.S. status -- the definition of "source country" for the URAA would follow different logic than Berne, the country of "greatest contacts with the work", which would be Russia.  Russia was 50pma on the URAA date, but I think had some wartime extensions, which I think push these over the line, such that only ones published before 1929 (or created before 1904, if unpublished) would be PD in the U.S., regardless of current status in Russia, or the country of origin (if different).  [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::: I do not know such cases (on the Berne definition) too, but in the Russian copyright legislation there are 3 criterions of copyrightability - (1) the Russian territory (the territory of the Russian Federation (the RSFSR previously, not the USSR) since Nov.7, 1917 to today) in the borders on the date of publication, (2) the Russian citizenship on the date of publication, and (3) international treaties.<br>Moreover, there is similar situation with reports of telegraph agencies or press-releases- they are reported/released worldwide formally, but the country indicated in report/release is the country of origin (some reports/releases have two of more indicated countries). [[User:Alex Spade|Alex Spade]] ([[User talk:Alex Spade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::: Right -- the Berne country of origin pretty much never applies to internal works, or even most situations involving foreign works.  The specific definition in Berne pretty much only matters if a country is applying the rule of the shorter term for a foreign work to have lesser protection than their own works normally do; the Berne definition would have to be used in that case to determine the country, since that is in the treaty.  In pretty much any other situation, more sensical definitions can be used (which even the US did, with the URAA -- the "source country" there is pretty much the same thing, but differs quite a bit once it comes to simultaneous publication).  But however nonsensical it seems, Commons uses the Berne definition, since that should control when works expire in many countries (even if that virtually never comes up in a court case to test it). [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} Another aspect to consider is how publication is defined. For example, in this [https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_24229029_98887307.pdf academic article about Russian copyright law], it is stated that an author, transferring a work to another by agreement, gives consent to publication, and thus the work can be [[:ru:Википедия:Форум/Авторское право#Закон о сиротских произведениях|considered published]]. This means that if Troshkin transferred his negatives to his employer (Izvestiya), the works would be legally considered published. Since all photos in question are of a professional nature, there is no reason to assume that Troshkin kept any of these photographs in his personal possession and did not transfer them to his employer. Considering this, then all of his photos would have been legally published when he transferred them to his employer, that is, definitely before his death in 1944, and all these photographs would be firmly public domain. [[User:Kges1901|Kges1901]] ([[User talk:Kges1901|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
* Term ''publication'' (''обнародование'' or ''опубликование'' in Russian, and these are two different term in the Russian copyright) is defined in the paragraph one and two of part 1 of [https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_64629/ca5bad21533745bc8f4ad6f42607820dd60a1436/ article 1268 of the Civil Code]. Consent to publication is not publication (right for exercise of some action is not action). And mentioned resent discussion on the Ru-Wiki for orphan works (where I was the main speaker) does not matter for Troshkin's works - author of photos (Troshkin) is known. [[User:Alex Spade|Alex Spade]] ([[User talk:Alex Spade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)<br>At the same time if there is a source for original of photo and its reverse side, and such original (reverse side) is marked by author name and a year, then this year can be considered as year of publication according to the last paragraph of [https://www.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=34159 article 475 of the Soviet Russian Civil Code]. [[User:Alex Spade|Alex Spade]] ([[User talk:Alex Spade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:*In terms of copyright I am specifically discussing the nuances of ''обнародование'' because the term contains a broader meaning than simply ''опубликование'', and the expiration of copyright (if work is posthumously published) is calculated from ''обнародование'' and not ''опубликование'' of a work – regarding photographs, that public display of a work counts as ''обнародование'' while not ''опубликование'' in the strict sense, therefore opening broader possibilities for the release of a work during Troshkin's lifetime. 
::Regarding originals, another aspect is that at least some of Troshkin's photographs were sent into TASS and copyright thus transferred to TASS, falling under PD-Russia under the TASS aspect. For example [https://ru.bidspirit.com/ui/lotPage/oldpaper/source/search/auction/23834/lot/124507/%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BB%D1%88%D0%B5-%D0%A2%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%A1-18?lang=ru this photograph] was marked on the back with TASS copyright stamp even though Troshkin was an Izvestiya correspondent. 
:: In any case presence of markings on the back is the most hopeful approach to this problem of posthumous copyright since any photograph/negative with a description had to have been marked on the back with a caption and name of the author, since Troshkin's photographs presumably entered into a centralized group of photographs cleared for publication, as his photographs were not just published in Izvestiya, but in Krasnaya Zvezda, Vechernyaya Moskva, other newspapers, and books (for example a large quantity of his photographs taken during the Battle of Khalkhin Gol appeared in this [http://militera.org/books/pdf/memo/sb_boi-u-kalhin-gola1940.pdf 1940 book without mention of his name]. Secondly finding an exact date for negatives such as [https://goskatalog.ru/portal/#/collections?id=24948736 this example] would have been impossible if there was no marking on the back. The fact that exact dates taken are available for negatives indicates that they were also marked in some way with captions, dates and names of author. Examples of such author name and year markings on the back of a Troshkin photograph include [https://goskatalog.ru/portal/#/collections?id=5159614], [https://catalog.shm.ru/entity/OBJECT/2354115],  [https://goskatalog.ru/portal/#/collections?id=24049932], [https://goskatalog.ru/portal/#/collections?id=24049936], [https://goskatalog.ru/portal/#/collections?id=24049935], [https://goskatalog.ru/portal/#/collections?id=24049933], [https://goskatalog.ru/portal/#/collections?id=24049929]. [[User:Kges1901|Kges1901]] ([[User talk:Kges1901|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
::* Yes, ''обнародование''  is wider than ''опубликование'', but the fact (and the date) of ''обнародование'' must be proved (for example for some painting "This painting was created in 1923 and was shown on ZYX-art exhibition in 1925, see reference link").
::* Yes, if photowork is marked by TASS (no matter by TASS only or by TASS+name_of_real_photograph), this photowork is TASS-work. [[User:Alex Spade|Alex Spade]] ([[User talk:Alex Spade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
::* No discussion for over 3 months, there is no consensus. {{unsignedIP2|13:37, 10 December 2024|185.172.241.184}}
===Undeletion of individual photographs===
*{{ping|Yann}} Undelete [[:File:Артисты МХАТ СССР имени Горького возвращаются из Парижа со Всемирной выставки.jpg]]. [https://imgur.com/a/91wI1oi Published in Izvestiya], 1 September 1937. [[User:Kges1901|Kges1901]] ([[User talk:Kges1901|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:*{{d}} {{ping|Kges1901}} Please add relevant information in the file description. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

== [[:File:Séamus Pattison.jpg]] ==

Nominating [[:File:Séamus Pattison.jpg]] for the exact same reason outlined in the just accepted [[Commons:Undeletion requests#File:Neil Blaney 1990.jpg]]; files from this website have been found to be acceptable under a [[:Template:European Union Government]] license so long as this is specifically outlined on their individual pages. [[User:CeltBrowne|CeltBrowne]] ([[User talk:CeltBrowne|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{o}} per [[COM:PCP]]. Unlike Neil Blaney's photo, this one is photo of a photo. If EU Parliament are the copyright holder of the original photo, I do not see any reason why making a photo of a photo instead of using the original one. IMO, this constitutes a reasonable doubt if the photo was indeed made by a parliament employed photographer. IMO, more likely, it is an externally made photo just delivered to the parliament archive. [[User:Ankry|Ankry]] ([[User talk:Ankry|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[:File:Park Sung-jae.jpg]] ==
<!-- x-origin: Commons:Undeletion_requests -->Please restore the following pages: 
* {{Il|1=Park Sung-jae.jpg}}
Reason: Original uploader claimed this work as their own, but this specific file is licensed under KOGL Type 1 (see bottom right, http://www.moj.go.kr/minister/2089/subview.do) so the file can remain on Commons, just under the license Template:KOGL [[User:Average Pennsylvanian|Average Pennsylvanian]] ([[User talk:Average Pennsylvanian|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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

:Looking at the two logos, the left one refers to WebWatch, which is a web accessibility quality certification agency designated by the Ministry of Science and ICT. From what I can see, this logo is the certification mark verifying this specific webpage is web accessible, so I don't think this would impact the underlying copyright of the webpage. Would like more thoughts on this.
:As for KOGL, I'm aware it's just a link to its site. I do see on the MoJ [https://www.moj.go.kr/moj/129/subview.do copyright policy page] that pages/files should ostensibly have a KOGL Type I in writing, which my source page doesn't. I've seen on other MoJ pages explicit KOGL Type 1 or Type 2 notices, so I will concede to your reasoning on that. I suppose my remaining question would be on that WebWatch mark, especially if it's seen on other Korean gov websites.   [[User:Average Pennsylvanian|Average Pennsylvanian]] ([[User talk:Average Pennsylvanian|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[:File:Mônica Magalhães Cavalcante.jpg]] ==

I request an undeletion for the file. I would like to upgrade the data and confirm its autenticity. {{unsigned2|00:19, 10 December 2024|YuriFerro1}}
:{{o}} Very small file with "source=Google", so we need a formal written permission for a free license from the copyright holder. If you have such a permission, please see [[COM:VRT]] for the procedure. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

{{udelh}}
== [[:File:The Martyrdom of Saint Andrew - Enea Salmeggia (1604).jpg]] ==

Buenas,necesito que algún administrador restaure la imagen está en el Dominio Público (pintura fue creada en 1604),la imagen fue removida por (This is a derivative work and has been altered by Bridgeman Images (see the multiple "b"'s across the image), see metadata) y el logo de Bridgeman Images es totalmente simple (too simple) ,la licencia correcta es {{t|PD-Art|PD-old-100}}(fuentes:https://www.bridgemanimages.com/en/noartistknown/the-martyrdom-of-saint-andrew-1604-painting-by-enea-salmeggia-in-the-church-of-saint-mary-of/nomedium/asset/3936599).{{unsigned2| 21:30, 10 December 2024|AbchyZa22}}
----
:{{not done}}. We most definitely do not want a PD image full of watermarks and a company logo on top of it. That's worse than not having the image at all. [[User:Bastique|Bastique]] <sup>[[User talk:Bastique|☎ let's talk!]]</sup> 00:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
{{udelf}}

== [[:File:Vali_VLZ.jpg]] ==

[[:File:Vali_VLZ.jpg]]
Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to request the undeletion of the file Vali VLZ.jpg, which was recently deleted from Wikipedia. I believe the deletion may have been based on a misunderstanding or lack of information regarding the file’s copyright status or relevance. {{unsigned2|11:08, 11 December 2024|Vali VLZ}}

:{{o}}.  I nominated the file for deletion under [[COM:CSD#F10|CSD F10]], "Low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions."  The file name is "Vali VLZ.jpg", the uploader's user name is "Vali VLZ", and the uploader claimed the file as their own work, so "selfie" is satisfied.  "Low-to-medium quality" is a matter of judgement, but I thought it was met.  "No constructive global contributions" will require analysis of the uploader's contributions:
:* [[Special:Contributions/Vali VLZ|On Commons]], their surviving contributions are creating [[User:Vali VLZ]] and the undeletion request above, neither of which is constructive.
:* [[:en:Special:Contributions/Vali VLZ|On English Wikipedia]], their surviving contributions are all to their own user talk page, [[:en:User talk:Vali VLZ]], which contains only block notices and unblock requests, nothing constructive.  They are now blocked on English Wikipedia as not being there to build an encyclopedia.
:* [[:mw:Special:Contributions/Vali VLZ|On mediawiki.org]], their contributions were to replace [[:mw:Help talk:DiscussionTools]] with multiple unblock requests, which is not constructive.  They are now blocked on mediawiki.org as a vandalism-only account.
:* [[:ro:Special:Contributions/Vali VLZ|On Romainian Wikipedia]], they posted an unblock request (in English) on [[:ro:Wikipedia:Cafenea]] and another one on [[:ro:Discuție Utilizator:Vali VLZ]].  Neither of those is constructive.
:According to [[Special:CentralAuth/Vali VLZ]], those are the only sites on which Vali VLZ has made any contributions. --[[User:Bjh21|bjh21]] ([[User talk:Bjh21|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[Undelestion Request for several Files]] ==

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

Those files should be called:

[[:File:Scanner-22101011151.jpg]]

[[:File:Scanner-22101011120.jpg]]

[[:File:Scanner-22101011180.jpg]]

[[:File:Scanner-22101011171.jpg]]

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

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

[[:File:Scanner-23012514301.jpg]]

[[:File:Scanner-23012514302.jpg]]

[[:File:Scanner-23012514303.jpg]]

[[:File:Scanner-23012514311.jpg]]

[[:File:Scanner-23012514310.jpg]]

[[:File:Scanner-23012514312.jpg]]

[[:File:Scanner-23012514321.jpg]]

[[:File:Scanner-23012514320.jpg]]

[[:File:Scanner-23012514322.jpg]]

[[:File:Scanner-23012514292.jpg]]

[[:File:Scanner-23012514290.jpg]]

[[:File:Scanner-23012514300.jpg]]

[[:File:Scanner-23012514280.jpg]]

[[:File:Armin und Irmgard Reumann - Rund um den Leierkastenmann.jpg]]

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

Hope all is clear now and let me know if there are still problems I need to adress! Thank you in advance. {{unsigned2|12:22, 11 December 2024|ArtWriter22}}

((By the way, I did not put a hyperlink to the files since they only lead to the wikimedia page where it states that the file is deleted)) {{unsigned2|12:28, 11 December 2024|ArtWriter22}}

{{o}} Note that links are used by Admins to see the files in question, so they should be used here.  Some of these were deleted because they are old works and are obviously not your own work as claimed. Others are copyrighted dolls whose images cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from their creators.  .&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<strong><strong>Jim</strong></strong> . . . <small><small><small>[[User:Jameslwoodward|(Jameslwoodward)]]</small></small></small> ([[User talk:Jameslwoodward|talk to me]]) 14:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)