Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 221: Line 221:


.The logo is the property of the Michaelhouse Old Boys' Club and as an official representative, I request that it is reinstated on our Wikipedia page. --[[User:QWERTY1896|QWERTY1896]] ([[User talk:QWERTY1896|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
.The logo is the property of the Michaelhouse Old Boys' Club and as an official representative, I request that it is reinstated on our Wikipedia page. --[[User:QWERTY1896|QWERTY1896]] ([[User talk:QWERTY1896|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

== [[:File:Jonas Dumke.jpg]] ==

Ich möchte das Löschen der Datei gerne widerrufen. Diese Datei wurde von professioneller Seite erstellt und ich habe die Rechte für diese Datei käuflich erworben. Somit sollte es mir zustehen, dieses Bild für den Rest der Benutzerseite frei verwendbar zu machen.

Revision as of 18:43, 8 April 2022

Current requests

Files uploaded by SpectraKo

The game these screenshots are taken from (SCP - Containment Breach ) are licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0 as seen at the bottom of their website

See related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SpectraKo‎. Yann (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the deletion request page linked above, any screenshots which do not contain the likeness of the Untitled 2004-derived model for SCP-173 are CC-BY-SA 3.0. Any images containing the model have restricted licensing terms incompatible with Commons. aismallard (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC) @Thuresson: Please undelete?--Trade (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iarnród Éireann Irish rail train social distancing sign - July 2020.jpg

Please may you undelete as per 2019 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2019.172.01.0056.01.ENG rather than Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (No. 28 of 2000) @Ellywa: @Edl-irishboy: . Ear-phone (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Iarnród Éireann is a subsidiary of Córas Iompair Éireann which is, in turn, a subsidiary corporation of the Irish government. It is therefore not completely clear whether the law is 50 years (Irish government works) or 70 years (other works) after creation, but in either event, it will be under copyright for many years from now. Note that the cited document explicitly says that the national governments may have their own rules. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomsen Buste.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thomsen Buste.jpg

"this is a photograph by "Jonals Co.". "Jonals Co." was a company founded by photographer Herman Bente (1881–1947)". I cannot see if this is a simple photograph or one that would require 70 years PMA. Either way, it appears to be public domain in Denmark. {{PD-Denmark50}} if applicable would make this public domain in the US as this very likely would have been public domain on URAA date. Abzeronow (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose First, the photograph. Under a 2010 law, non-artistic photos from before 1970 are PD. I'm not sure whether this is an artistic photo or not -- arguably since it was created by a studio photographer with special lighting, it could be artistic. I also don't know what the law was in 1996, so it may or may not be copyrighted under URAA. Also, the photo is of a bust. The subject of the sculpture died in 1909, so the bust is likely from around that time, not much later, but the sculptor could easily have lived past 1926, so that the bust was under copyright in Denmark in 1996. I think there is too much unknown here to restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Question regarding the bust: is this the same as the one in this photo https://www.europeana.eu/en/item/2058618/object_KUAS_22113397 if so, it was created in 1890 by August Saabye who died in 1916. I'll keep looking for busts of Julius Thomsen if that's not a match. Abzeronow (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Yes, that is the same bust by August Saabye, so the object is out of copyright. But I agree with Jim that we don't know enough about the status of the photo. De728631 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite as sure about the bust. On the one hand, the costume and stand is the same, but it looks to me if the head position is different -- in the deleted image it seems to be looking straight ahead, while in the one cited above, he seems to be looking down and to his right. Perhaps the same sculptor made two different versions? Still, I'd have to say that it is the same sculptor and since he died in 1916 it's PD-US whether the same or different. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the lack of a concrete date on this is the biggest obstacle. Potential date range from 1910s to 1947. Abzeronow (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canon Abel Brohee (1880-1947).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Guido convents

I don't like DRs that give minimal information on files. These might still have URAA issues, but I am definitely curious if any of these photographs have dates or other information on them that could help determine when they should be undeleted. EDIT:The date range for these photographs appears to be from late 1920s to mid 1930s if context from the captions they had on English Wikipedia give us anything to go on. Abzeronow (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose All three appear to have URAA issues.

The first shows "Illustrazione Vaticano 1935."
The second:
|description=
English: The Dutch Fr Lambert-Perquin o.p. founder of the KRO and first president of BCIR from 1929 to 1935.
date=1934::source=archives BCIR 1934
author=Responsable of the dutch Dominicans 1934
The third:
description=... In 1928 he was the co-founder of the International Catholic Film Office (OCIC). He was elected in 1933 as president of OCIC and will remain its president until his death in 1947
author=photographer is unknown but the photo was made for OCIC for public distribution

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. The first seems like it could be restored in 2031. The second could be as early as 2030 or may have to wait until 2055 if it's not considered anonymous enough. Third appears to possibly have a creation range from 1933 to 1947. Abzeronow (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kynodesme_image.jpg

This image has been deleted (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kynodesme_image.jpg) for the stated reason that "This file is a copyright violation because PD-Art can't apply since it is a 3D object (pottery)". However, from the image itself it is apparent that the image in question is not an image of a pottery, but an image of the painting (2D) that was painted on a pottery. The image does not show neither the shape, the texture, nor even the curvature of the pottery on which the painting was made. The image is even unrecognizable as a pottery, if not for the fact that the image was properly attributed to as a 2,500-year-old painting made on a pottery. For that, I would argue that the image is a faithful reproduction of a 2D painting and not of an 3D object, and request undeletion.

--トダユウ (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The theory behind Bridgeman is that a photograph or scan of a flat work is trivially easy so the photograph cannot have a copyright. On the other hand, photographing this work was much more complex. As the requester says, "The image does not show neither the shape, the texture, nor even the curvature of the pottery on which the painting was made." Making the curved vase look flat took considerable skill, both in lighting the vase evenly over its curved surface and in picking a focus point that showed the whole thing in focus. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that you misread Bridgeman. It actually says in quote: "a photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits lacks originality. That is not to say that such a feat is trivial, simply not original". So, what makes a photograph "more than a copy of work", that warrants a copyright of its own, is NOT the skill, the effort, or the labor required to produce such photograph. It does not matter whether it was "trivially easy" or otherwise "more complex" work to produce the photography. It is the originality of the photography that warrants itself a copyright of its own. Indeed, "The rule therefore excludes from copyright protection photographs which are intended to be no more than a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art such as a painting. If only technical expertise is involved (to take a faithful and unimaginative picture), the photograph acquires no copyright protection in its own right."
Now to the question of whether "Making the curved vase look flat" constitutes an "originality". Before we get to the point of originality, first I would like to briefly point out (again) that the image in question is NOT an image of a vase, whether it appears curved or flat. The image only shows the painting that is (supposedly) painted on a vase. Three is no clear indication whether any effort or modification was made to make the image appear more flat than it actually appears on the vase.
That being said, whether it "took considerable skill" in any way for the image to appear curved or flat is not of any relevance. The question is, whether or not the creator of this image intended the image to be "a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work", which is the painting, or intended the image to be his/her "original" work, by making it look different from the painting being photographed.
The log [1] of this image indicates the image was used to illustrate the custom of the Greek in the period (circa 480 B.C.), as depicted in the painting. Then the intent of creating such image has been to faithfully represent what is painted there just as it is painted, and not to present the image as an original art work of one's own by making the image appear more flat for its artistic effect.
As the creator of the painting has long been deceased (since the 5th century BC) and the photograph is no more than a copy of the original painting, it could not be protected by copyright. トダユウ (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have consistently refused to apply the Bridgeman decision to works that were not flat. That has often included works that included a frame and works such as coins that are almost flat. If you want to argue that we should change that practice, then this is not the place to do it.
I also note that the work was in Germany and presumably the photograph was taken there. Our summary of German copyright law does not discuss whether or not there is a Bridgeman-like practice there. In many places in Europe it does not apply. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1901 Constitutional Convention in Alabama.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:1901 Constitutional Convention in Alabama.jpg

This would easily seem to be {{PD-US-expired}}. Abzeronow (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This image is 453×600 pixels. It has 155 portraits of the delegates to the convention. Although their spouses might recognize them, I doubt that many others would. Although each one is named at the bottom of the oval containing their picture, the names are only 3 pixels high and therefore illegible. Useless. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per KoH. --Yann (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:1999 cavalier with coversion.jpeg

i own the photo that i posted and uploaded, a photo that i took of my own car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E40sick (talk • contribs) 16:52, 6 April 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It always helps if you tell us what file you want restored. I have added your only deleted file. The deletion reason is that it appears at http://www.stancenation.com/forums/showthread.php?7489-Loving-my-e46-but-deeply-miss-my-CAVALIER-lol with an explicit copyright notice. That site is down at the moment, but if that is correct, the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT. I also note that it is a small image. We much prefer to have images at full camera resolution. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marcos Antonio Cabral.jpg

As depicted person died already in 1903, this image should be in the PD.--OliverDF (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per KoH. --Yann (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FileːATENU770 KMB 109 04-11-2021.jpg

  File:ATENU770 KMB 109 04-11-2021.jpg

I am the photo owner,before I upload this photo to here,I upload this photo to hkbus fandom,use cc-by-sa license.

https://hkbus.fandom.com/wiki/%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88:ATENU770_KMB_109_04-11-2021.JPG LN9267 (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No file by that name. --Yann (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened, The second line shows the correct file name. The only difference is that the colon after "File" in the first line is different from a standard colon. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)  Oppose The photograph infringes on the copyright for the art on the bus. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Support OOPS, thanks Jim, but it was decided long ago that art is acceptable on such a case. See Pokemon Boeings. We even have category for these: Category:Pokémon Jet. Yann (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yann, what's the rationale for that? The art on the planes is clearly far from de minimis and there's no applicable FoP in either Hong Kong or Japan. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: There are many DRs about these, so I am not sure which one is the oldest. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg (2008), Commons:Deletion requests/File:ANA B767-381 JA8578 Pokemon-Jet98.jpg (2011), Commons:Deletion requests/Pokemon Jet (2014). Yann (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also found Commons:Deletion requests/Image:PokemonJA8956.JPG (2007) and Commons:Deletion requests/Image:JR ED79 Kaikyo at Aomori Station.jpg (Pokemon train, 2008). Commons:Deletion requests/File:ANA Boeing 747-400 yellow 060318 haneda.jpg should be undeleted, to be consistent with other DRs. Yann (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Philipp Ackermann deutscher Diplomat.jpg

Confirmation of copyright holder Lena Stahl submitted to you on April 6th via email (Ticket#2022040610011213) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baums A (talk • contribs) 08:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

@Baums A: Please sign your messages with ~~~~. You have to wait for a volunteer to process the permission. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fa 210810 nicole 172.jpg

This is own by us and is not subject to copyright.

 Oppose The files was moved to File:Nicole Offendal 2021.jpg. It was published on Twitter though without a free licence. This requires that the copyright holder sends an email with permission for the file as explained in COM:VRT. De728631 (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per De728631. --Yann (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bryan Adams - Classic to undelete.jpg

File name: Bryan Adams - Classic

This is image is the cover of a music album. It falls under common public-use category, as most album covers do. The artist, Bryan Adams, posted the picture on his Instagram page, which is not a private account and does not carry a copyright warning. Additionally, the picture is also the cover art of videos on the artist’s YouTube page.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cbyr5FmshIz/?hl=en

https://m.youtube.com/user/bryanadams/videos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flynn101 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 7 April 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose "Common public-use" is not an acceptable license. Copyrighted content from instagram.com. Thuresson (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Agreed. Contrary to the requester's assertion, all album covers are copyrighted and very few of them are freely licensed. A "copyright warning" is not required for a work to have a copyright. The reverse is true -- in order for a work to be eligible for Commons it must have an explicitly stated free license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Obviously not, as per above. --Yann (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pverbica-books-photo.jpg

I'm the intellectual property/copyright owner of this photograph; I give Wikipedia, Wikimedia permission and affiliates of said (a non-exclusive license) to post my photograph. The article to which it is attached is about me. I'm a Candidate for the California State Board of Equalization, District 2, 2022. Sincerely, Peter Coe Verbica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter verbica (talk • contribs) 17:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose First, you are clearly not the photographer, so in order for it to be restored either (a) the actual photographer must send a free license using VRT or (b) you must send a free license and a copy of the written license from the actual photographer which gives you the right to freely license it. Second, note that permissions limited to Wikipedia are insufficient -- images on Commons and Wikipedia must be free for any use anywhere by anybody. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:My Baggage Logo.png

We have a permission ticket Ticket:2022040410006901 for this file. Please restore for verification. Ww2censor (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Ww2censor: . --Yann (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Volker Burkert.jpg

The photo is owned by Jefferson Labs, which allows the use of its photos: https://www.jlab.org/photos https://www.jlab.org/news/releases/volker-burkert-named-virginia-outstanding-scientist

HRShami (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eri Maeda- Extension XXVI-2018.jpg

Please undelete. We have permission per Ticket:2022040410001522. Thanks, --Mussklprozz (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Mussklprozz: . --Yann (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trengellick Rising Teaser.png

This is my own work, I created it and it is present on my social media. I wish to enable it for use on wikipedia for all to use in perpetuity.

It's the teaser poster for my film 'Trengellick Rising'.{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trengellick_Rising}



--Nalgrenn60 (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Koalicja Odnowy Rzeczypospolitej Wolność i Nadzieja.svg and File:Wolność (political party).svg

  1. I don't really think these are above ToO now that I'm looking back at it.
  2. Either way Polish political parties are now licensed under Template:PD-Polishparty. Piotr Bart (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Courier 1901 Lausanne Sport LS.gif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Courier 1901 Lausanne Sport LS.gif

1901 letter makes it old enough that we don't need to know M. Remelet's death date (which I wasn't able to find). Abzeronow (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old-Boys-Club-Logo.jpg

My name is Sean Lumley, I am the President-Elect of the Michaelhouse Old Boys' Club. My official email address is [mail address removed]. Here is a link to the Office Bearers page on our website: https://www.michaelhouse.org/old-boys/office-bearers/

.The logo is the property of the Michaelhouse Old Boys' Club and as an official representative, I request that it is reinstated on our Wikipedia page. --QWERTY1896 (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jonas Dumke.jpg

Ich möchte das Löschen der Datei gerne widerrufen. Diese Datei wurde von professioneller Seite erstellt und ich habe die Rechte für diese Datei käuflich erworben. Somit sollte es mir zustehen, dieses Bild für den Rest der Benutzerseite frei verwendbar zu machen.

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=647591583"