Commons:削除撤回依頼

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:削除撤回依頼)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 85% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Undeletion requests and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Outdated translations are marked like this.

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

Other languages:

このページでは、削除されたページやファイル（以下、まとめて「ファイル」と呼ぶ）の「削除の撤回」（復帰）を依頼できます。一般の利用者は削除撤回依頼に、理由を添えて削除維持（keep deleted）あるいは削除撤回（=復帰、undelete）の賛否コメントを入れることができます。

このページはウィキペディアの一部ではありません。 ウィキペディアや他のウィキメディアのプロジェクト群において用いられるフリーのメディア・ファイルの保管庫であるウィキメディア・コモンズの内容についてのページです。ウィキメディア・コモンズは百科事典記事を提供しません。 英語版ウィキペディアにおける記事やその他の内容の削除撤回の要請は、英語版の削除のレビュー (deletion review) にて行ってください。（同様に日本語版ウィキペディアの記事等においては日本語版の削除の復帰依頼を利用して下さい。）

削除メニュー (方針)
(Missing: 60著作権侵害 • 60重複ファイル • 2広告) • 25自分撮り
60著作権侵害 • 60重複ファイル • 2広告 • 25自分撮り • 58その他…
v • d • e

ファイルが削除された理由を見い出す

始めに, 削除記録 (deletion log) を確認し、ファイルが削除された理由を見つけ出して下さい。 リンク元 (What links here) を参照し、削除されたファイルについて、どのような議論があったかを確認して下さい。もし、あなたがアップロードしたファイルであれば、あなたのトーク（会話ページ）に削除についての説明がないか確認してください。 次に、削除の方針、プロジェクトの守備範囲及びライセンシングを再度確認し、コモンズにおいて、そのファイルが許容されないかもしれない理由を調べてください。

削除された理由が明白でない場合、あるいは削除理由に異論がある場合、削除を行った管理者に連絡を取り説明を求めたり、削除理由を否定する新たな事実を示してください。 実行した管理者本人以外でも、活動中の管理者（管理者リスト（言語別））へ連絡を取っても構いません、もし間違いで削除されていた場合は、事態を修正してくれるでしょう。

削除に対する不服申し立て

削除の方針、プロジェクトの守備範囲及びライセンシングに正しく基づいた削除が撤回されることはありません。諸方針の修正はそれぞれのノート（議論ページ）で提案することができます。

そのファイルが著作権侵害案件ではなく、現在のプロジェクトの守備範囲をはずれてもいないと信じる場合：

  • そのファイルを削除した管理者と議論を希望することができます。その管理者に詳しい説明を求めたり、復帰を支持する証拠を示すことができます。
  • だれにも直接連絡することを望まない場合や、連絡した管理者が復帰を断った場合、あるいはもっと多くの人に議論参加してほしい場合、このページで削除撤回依頼を出すことができます。
  • そのファイルが、著作権者によるライセンス許諾の証拠がなくて削除された場合、許諾確認プロセスに従ってください。 すでに許諾確認のプロセスを進めている場合、ここで削除撤回を依頼する必要はありません。もし許諾が規則にかなう形で行われた場合、許諾が確認できた段階でファイルは復帰されるでしょう。現在の案件数とボランティアの人数の関係で、何週間かの時間がかかるかもしれませんので、しばらくお待ちください。
  • 削除された画像の説明に一部の情報が足りない場合、いくつかの質問されることがあります。 通常、このような質問には24時間以内に回答することが期待されます。

一時的な復帰

削除撤回議論を支援するために、あるいはフェアユースを受け入れるプロジェクトへファイルを転送するために、ファイルが一時的に復帰されることがあります。そのような場合は、{{Request temporary undeletion}}（一時的な復帰の依頼） のテンプレートを使って 説明してください。

  1. 削除撤回議論を支援するための一時的復帰の場合、一時復帰が議論に有用な理由を説明してください。あるいは
  2. フェアユースを受け入れるプロジェクトへファイルを転送するための一時的復帰の場合、どのプロジェクトにファイルを転送しようとしているのかを述べて、そのプロジェクトのフェアユース・ステートメントのリンクを貼ってください。

議論の支援のため

一般利用者がファイルを見ないと削除撤回依頼を認めるべきか決めかねる場合、議論を支援するためにファイルを一時的に復帰することができます。ファイルの説明ページ、あるいはその引用で足りる場合は、管理者はファイルの一時復帰を認めないで、代わりに説明ページまたはその引用を提供することがあります。 一時復帰が議論にもたらす有用性よりも他の要因が重要であると感じられる場合は一時復帰依頼が拒否される可能性があります（たとえば、ファイルを一時的にでも復帰することに識別可能な人物の写真に関する相当な懸念がある場合など）。議論を支援するために一時的に復帰されているファイルは、30日後、もしくは復帰依頼が閉じられたとき（のどちらか早い方）に再削除されます。

フェアユースを受け入れるプロジェクトへの転送を可能とするために

英語版ウィキペディアやそのほかのいくつかのウィキメディアのプロジェクトと異なり、コモンズは、フェアユース(Fair use) のようなフリーでないコンテンツを受け入れません。 削除されたファイルが他のウィキメディアプロジェクトのフェアユース要件を満たす場合、そちらへファイルを転送するために一時的復帰を依頼することができます。通常、このような依頼は（議論なく）即時復帰の対応が可能です。 転送目的で即時復帰されたファイルは二日後に削除されます。一時復帰を依頼するときは、どのプロジェクトに転送するるつもりかを明らかにして、そのプロジェクトのフェアユース・ステートメントをリンクしてください。

フェアユースを受け入れているプロジェクト
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

依頼の手順

まず、ファイルが削除された理由を確認してください。次に、以下の依頼提出方法を読んで、それから提出してください：

  • 削除されていないファイルの復帰を依頼しないでください。
  • メールアドレスや電話番号を書かないでください、あなたのであれ、ほかのひとのであれ。
  • Subject:（見出し） の箇所には, 適切な件名を入れてください。 単一ファイルの削除撤回依頼の場合、見出しに[[:File:削除されたファイル名.jpg]]を入れることが推奨されます（リンクするには　Fileの前にコロンが必要です）
  • ファイルを特定する あなたが削除撤回依頼するファイルを特定して、イメージリンクを提供してください。正確な名前を知らない場合あ、できるだけたくさん情報を出してください。なにを復帰させたいかについての情報を提供できていない依頼は通告なくアーカイブに移動させられます。
  • 理由を述べる 復帰を行うべき理由を述べます。
  • 依頼に署名する - 4つのチルダ(~~~~)を使って依頼に署名します。コモンズにアカウントを持っているなら、先にログインしてください。問題のファイルをアップロードした本人なら、ログインすることで管理者がファイルを特定する手助けになります。

ページの下部に依頼を追加してください。ここをクリックして開いたページに依頼を書いてください。 または、以下の現在の日付の横にある「編集」リンクをクリックすることもできます。あなたの依頼のセクションの更新を注視してください。

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

アーカイブ

終了した依頼は毎日アーカイブされます。

現在の依頼

File:EdaEce1990.png

I noticed this image was deleted, but I think it should be undeleted. It was taken from an official distributor channel (FOX) as you can see here: [1] I see the nomination says "The director of this TV serie until March 2020 was Neslihan Yeşilyurt. Since this director didn't publish it on Youtube with CC, we don't use screenshot here with CC" but we can safely assume the official TV channel of the show has the necessary permissions from production crew/director before "distributing" it. I mean, when do you see a show or film release from director's own channels? The director works on the production and the production company/distributor/TV channel handles the release and the distributing part. So for this reason, "because it's not from director's youtube channel" is not really a good argument to delete, it's from official TV channel page after all.Tehonk (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DR does seem to conflate the author with the copyright owner, which are not necessarily the same person or entity. If the director was employed by Fox, then Fox is the copyright owner. Article 10 of Turkey's law even states that for a joint work, the owner is the one who brings the collaborators together, and Article 18 is their work-for-hire clause. I don't know much about that television program. If there was production company, they probably own the rights. If Fox was just the distributor and not the copyright owner, they could not license it. But if Fox was the production company as well and as such owns the rights, it would seem to be fine. The question is if the YouTube account is the copyright owner of the material (which may be different than the author). Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The video cited as the source, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qG-9LDLj-4, returns "Video unavailable. This video is private." The uploader did not request and we did not do a {{License review}}, so we have no confirmation of the license status of the YouTube page. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least as of November 2021, that link had that license, per the Internet archive, which I think was a year and a half after the upload. Interesting that it has been taken down now, though. That often happens when Youtube gets a copyright complaint which is not defended. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is confirmation of the license status from the archived link.
@Clindberg no, disappearance would be because of the recent rebranding from FOX to NOW, some old videos/channels were removed as part of it. Tehonk (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg

This file, a photograph of a bronze age helmet, was deleted by User:Jameslwoodward as a copyright-based restriction, but as I read the BCS license it is a non-copyright restriction, not a copyright-based one. I believe the image is allowable, though it may need a caution about possible limitations on reuse, such as {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} or {{Greek-antiquities-disclaimer}}. In discussing this with Jameslwoodward, he suggested there may be nuances in the BCS license that would benefit from review by a native Italian speaker. —Tcr25 (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read the BCS as a restricted copyright license. If it is not a copyright license, then we have no license at all for the use of the photograph. As Tcr25 says, I agree that there may be subtleties here that I don't understand..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: @Friniate: for their Italian language skills and Italian copyright expertise. Abzeronow (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, in 5.2 they state that BCS is not a license : "Beni Culturali Standard (BCS) : Questa etichetta non è una “licenza” bensì si limita a sintetizzare il contenuto delle norme vigenti in materia di riproduzione di beni culturali pubblici, definendone i termini d’uso legittimo." -- Asclepias (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asclepias, OK, but if isn't a license, then how do we keep the photograph? It's clearly a modern photograph of a 3D object, so we need a license in order to keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the file deleted, it's hard to know what other info was provided by the uploader. Is it a picture taken by the uploader? Is it from a museum? {{PD-art}} wouldn't apply since it isn't a 2D object, but does another valid license cover a photo of an ancient 3D object? —Tcr25 (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tcr25: source is https://catalogo.beniculturali.it/detail/ArchaeologicalProperty/1100094920#lg=1&slide=1 Abzeronow (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I keep coming back to the BCS algins with NoC-OKLR 1.0 (No Copyright - Other Known Legal Restrictions). It doesn't appear that there is any assertion of copyright over the photo itself; the Catalogo generaledei Beni Culturali's terms and conditions mentions CC by 4.0 and the need to comply with BCS. (There is a mention of Law No. 633, but there's no indication of who the photographer is, implying that it is the property of the stated museum. If the "Data di Compilazione" (1999) is the date the image was created, then the museum's 20-year copyright would have expired, leaving just the non-copyright restriction in play. —Tcr25 (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: Your conclusion seems correct. But I am not an Italian speaker either. The whole long document should be read in its entirety. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tcr25 on the reading of the BCS license. The link to the NoC-OLKR statement contained in the BCS license is broken, but we can read it here (english version here), and it begins with Use of this item is not restricted by copyright and/or related rights. So it seems to me that the BCS license is a non-copyright restriction, since in the text of the BCS license is said that it complies to the NoC-OLKR. Adding the {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} should be sufficient for what regards the copyright on the object.
I'm much less sure about the copyright on the photo though. The terms and conditions mention indeed CC-BY-SA 4.0 (actually that is something that is valid for the entirety of the Italian Public Administration) but they also contain a specific exception for the photos, for which is clearly said that is necessary to obtain an authorization from the owner of the object (in this case the Soprintendenza Archeologica delle Marche), which will concede it with the same conditions that are applied for the photos of the object taken by other people (these). You can try to obtain an authorization from the Soprintendenza, asking if you can use these images with the Mibac-disclaimer, they may agree. Friniate (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot to address the issue of the date of compilation. Yeah, it seems likely also to me that the photo was taken in the same occasion, but it's not clearly stated either... Friniate (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I actually nominated the file for deletion because of the NoC-OLKR statement (something close to {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}). But, if it is just a request, and not a copyright statement (in fact, in the very same page it is written that BCS applies to public domain artworks), we should consider the file/photograph as published under CC BY 4.0 license, like the whole website [2]. --Ruthven (msg) 12:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The general terms of use (which mention the CC license) begin right at the start with the familiar statement that it applies only "Dove non diversamente specificato", i.e. "Where not otherwise specified". The specific terms of use of this photograph clearly do specifiy otherwise with the BCS. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that's the Catch-22, the BCS says it's not a license, but if it isn't a license then the default license seems to be CC by 4.0 albeit with BCS as a non-copyright limitation on use. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CC license is excluded by the specific terms of use statement. Not every work is under a license or another. (And if a work was not copyrighted anywhere, it could not be licensed.) If the BCS tag means that the image is not copyrighted in Italy, either because this type of image is uncopyrightable under Italian law or because a 20-year copyright has expired in Italy, the question for Commons is if and how could that unlicensed image be used in the United States? A photo published after February 1989 is directly copyrighted in the U.S. (If the URAA is added, the photo would need to be from before 1976.) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"And if a work was not copyrighted anywhere, it could not be licensed" but that's part of the issue. The Italian cultural law, as I understand it, specifically looks to allow monetization through licensing of cultural artifacts that are no longer covered by copyright. It's not that a specific photograph requires a license, but any photograph of a cultural artifact would require a license. There is a current court case regarding the validity of this rule involving a German puzzle maker and Da Vinci's Uomo Vitruviano. Under Commons:NCR, "non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia." I'm not sure where the right line is here, but I don't think that we can say there is a clear copyright-based reason to exclude the image. If the image, like other parts of the website is CC-by-4.0 with the BCS limitation, wouldn't that be the baseline for the copyright status, not an unasserted U.S. copyright? —Tcr25 (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Friniate: There is no question about the free nature of the object. The question is indeed about the nature of the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asclepias Similar limitations as the BCS apply to all photos of objects classified as italian cultural heritage, also if you go to the museum and take one, for example. That is the reason why the Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer is embedded within all the photos taken within WLM Italy. Friniate (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such photos taken by Commons contributors are not a problem because contributors necessarily release them under free licenses. Such photos by Wikimedia Commons contributors are even mentioned in section 2.4.1 of the Linee guida per l’acquisizione, la circolazione e il riuso delle riproduzioni dei beni culturali in ambiente digitale. But the photo in discussion, File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg, is not a licensed photo by a Commons contributor, but an unlicensed photo from an external site. The problem for Commons is not the Italian BC directive. It is the absence of license and the U.S. copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make things clear, since if the BCS license is interpreted as a copyright restriction, that would mean the deletion of all the photos on almost every italian cultural object.I let other people more expert than me in the US copyright judge if according to the US law the image is ok or not. Friniate (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the very simple question: If the BCS is a copyright license then it is an NC license and not acceptable here. If it is not a copyright license, then we have no license for this photograph. I doubt very much that it is PD-Old, so on what basis can we keep it on Commons?

Also, statements such as "that would mean the deletion of all the photos on almost every italian cultural object." are not helpful. If we determine that this image is unlicensed then it cannot be kept. If we have many similar images that must also be deleted, so be it. We do not make decisions on copyright issues by talking about how many images will be deleted if we decide against keeping this one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not implying that we should keep the image for what you are saying, I only said that if commons deems as unacceptable hosting objects covered by non copyright restrictions as the BCS or the Codice Urbani, that means deleting the photos of almost all italian cultural objects. It's a fact, not an opinion, everyone can decide what to do with this fact. By the way, I was not even saying that in order to argue for undeleting this image. Friniate (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per COM:GVT Italy, According to article 52, paragraph 2 of the Digital Administration Code, data and documents published by Italian public administrations without any explicit license are considered "open by default" (with exception of personal data). In this case, data and documents without explicit license can be used for free, also for commercial purpose, like CC-BY license or with attribution. Since the photo is a work of the Soprintendenza Archeologia delle Marche, the COM:GVT Italy statement would seem to apply. If the BCS considered a copyright restriction, despite its language, then this does become a wider problem, as Friniate noted. Regardless of the decision around this specific image, I think there needs to be broader consideration of how the BCS limitation is considered/handled. Also, this discussion, once it's closed, should probably be attached to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg to update/expand the deletion rationale. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this matter we have finally a verdict on the lawsuit of the Italian Ministry against Ravensburger for the usage of images of the en:Vitruvian Man, which has clarified that restrictions as the Codice Urbani or the BCS are non-copyright restrictions which can not be applied outside Italy. Friniate (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again (third time) -- if the BCS is not a copyright license, then we have no license for the photograph. Apparently it is not a copyright license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you parse the COM:GVT Italy statement that such images can be used without an explicit license? —Tcr25 (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fortepan 213815.jpg

Please restore the file. There are many images on Fortepan that are legally unclear, Tamás Urbán's images are uploaded with a Cc-by-sa 3.0 license. On 2017031210011731 number ticket you can read his confirmation that his photos on Fortepan were provided by him under a Cc-by-sa free license. So the file is free to use. thank you! Translated with DeepL.com ) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hungarikusz Firkász: No, we can't. A VRT agent can. If a VRT agent confirms here that this permission covers the mentioned photo, we can go on. It is unclear to me if the permission covers (and even if it can legally cover) future uploads. Ankry (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Ankry. so hundreds of Fortepan images may be up because their site says they are available under a Cc-by-sa licence, when in many cases they have been found to be there in an infringing way.

But! The images cannot be up if the author has confirmed that he/she has licensed them to Fortepan under a Cc-by-sa license, and we have a letter to that effect in VRT.

So why don't you delete all the Tamás Urbán images that come from Fortepan? Why just this one? Where and from where does the ticket apply to the images? Since when does it not apply to them? Where and from when is it possible to upload a picture of Tamás Urbán from Fortepan and from when is it not?

You can sense the strong contradiction in this, can't you?

I know what the letter contains, when we received it I was still the operator. The content of the letter has not changed because I am no longer an operator. The letter confirms that the author, Tamás Urbán, is the one who gave Fortepan his images under a Cc-by-sa licence. ( Translated with DeepL.com ) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, does not seem like this should have been speedied. Agreed that a VRT agent would be the only one who could confirm, but seems like it should not be deleted until that question is answered. If VRT permission was supplied, then the uploader did enough. A regular user being unable to read a VRT ticket is not grounds for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) @Hungarikusz Firkász: The problem is that administrators are not able to verify what is inside the ticket. We rely in this matter on VRT volunteers who make UDR requests if they need and add the appropriate ticket numbers to the images if this is needed. In this case, no ticket was added and I see no verifiable information on your homepage that you are a VRT volunteer. Also, maybe, we need a specific Fortepan template containing the ticket number for this author? But this page is not a venue to discuss it.
We are not talking about any other image, just about this one.
BTW1, the link to the image is [3].
BTW2, pinging users involved in the deletion: @Didym および Krd: It is standard to do so.
BTW3, I do not oppose undeletion; just pointing out that referring to a VRT ticket requires to involve a VRT volunteer. Ankry (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Ankry, You don't seem to understand the situation.

In addition to this file, there are hundreds of Fortepan images and dozens of Fortepan images by Tamás Urbán uploaded.

For the hundreds or dozens of images, why are these conditions not expected? Why is this one?

Why is the ticket accepted for the templated images? Why not for this one? The same content of the letter applies in the same way to images of Tamás Urbán uploaded to Fortepan and taken from there.

For the hundreds or dozens of images that do not have a VRT template, but are Fortepan images and were taken by Tamás Urbán, neither VRT nor operators are required. Why? Why only for this one image?

Do you see why I see a very strong contradiction here?

Translated with DeepL.com Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I think all that happened was that the uploader accidentally put out a Cc-by-sa 4.0 license instead of Cc-by-sa 3.0. It would have been enough to put the correct template instead of the wrong one. Translated with DeepL.com Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hungarikusz Firkász: No. I understand. I do not think that any other image should be deleted and I do not know if this one should: that is why I think that the deleting users should be pinged and given time to answer (maybe thay made a mistake, maybe they have seen a reason that we do not see). The question why are these conditions not expected? Why is this one? should be directed to the deleting admins, not here. Here we do not know.
In my comments above I am referring strictly to your request and a VRT ticket reference in it: you suggested that a VRT ticket contains important information concerning licensing of this image - in such cases this ticket should be added to the description page (either by a VRT volunteer who verify that, or - as I suggested above - through creation of a specific template - if it is general permission ticket, referring to multiple files). If the ticket is irrelevant, just forget all my comments above. My intention was to point you, that referring to a VRT ticket as an undeletion argument by a non-VRT-member is pointless. Only that. Ankry (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry: We could undelete until a VRT response is gotten, or at least convert to a regular DR. If there is a significant question like this, it probably was not an "obvious" deletion. Seems like somebody marked it "no permission" and an admin just processed it, but that initial tagging was maybe not appropriate given there was a stated license from Fortepan. The guidance at Category:Images from Fortepan does say that images do need to be checked, so agreed there should be a VRT or a specialized template on the images, or a specific category of them, eventually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{Temporarily undeleted}} per Carl request. Ankry (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have over 1400 photos of his in Category:Photographs by Tamás Urbán. If the VRT ticket seems to apply to all contributions to Fortepan, we should probably link 2017031210011731 in that category (and/or the parent, Category:Tamás Urbán). Would that need to be done by a VRT user? Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding VRTS ticket templates is currently restricted t VRT users by abusefilter. Ankry (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also over 1900 other photos are not categorized in that category. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 2017031210011731, it seems that Tamás Urbán's permission is accepted. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asclepias: Ah, thank you.  Keep then. Can we get a VRT agent to place that VRT template on the category? Maybe with that summary, to state that photographs of his specifically from Fortepan are fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm a bit puzzled by Ruthven's closing comment, "Kept: per Samat and Krd + discussion." But Krd was saying that the ticket was invalid. @Krd, do you remember why you thought that the ticket was invalid? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Emblem of the Peninsula Field Naturalists Club.png

Incorrect copyright used, should have been standard open license. Owner ((Redacted)), Peninsula Field Naturalists Club has sent through the email template providing consent as per 'Supplied by author' template attached to image. We are requesting undeletion and will change copyright to the correct one. Thank you.

--JEastaugh (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose VRT permissions should be processed through COM:VRT. Thuresson (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Thuresson. --Yann (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:新北市私立復興高級商工職業學校 杜靖瑩.jpg

The source website did indicate a Creative Commons (CC) license, just like File:光隆家商 女生夏季制服上衣.jpg, so I don't know why it was still determined to be copyright infringement.--Copyhums21357 (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo workman.svg

I got this image from the web site. However, tihs logo's shape is too simple to have copyright.
Thank you.
Amaterasu 1-1 (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The text "Workman" certainly is too simple, but the abstract art square above it isn't. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barry Gough (businessman).jpg

Hello,

This file was deleted because the permissions were never received. I am requesting undeletion and a change of the author/owner from Ryan Johnson to Kamal Kheldouni. The file was originally uploaded with Ryan Johnson as the author, but the actual author and copyright holder is Kamal Kheldouni who send in the permissions. Matthewvetter (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose VRT permssions should be processed by VRT volunteers. Thuresson (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:اجتماع حامیان طرح نور فراجا در میدان شهدای مشهد، ۱۲ اردیبهشت ۱۴۰۳.jpg

I think we need further discussion about Fars. It still has cc-by-4.0 license. Hanooz 13:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose @Hanooz: the link you provided is not about this particular photo. The source https://farsnews.ir/Hadisfaghiri/1714578928525475436/ doesn't a CC-BY indicate a CC-BY license, on the contrary it states ©1041 Fars, Inc. Günther Frager (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the license has to be on every subpage of a website? Hanooz 19:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greek F-4E taxiing Bierset Airshow 26 September 1993.jpg and File:Greek C-130H (Hercules) Bierset Airshow 26 September 1993.jpg

I would like to request the undeletion of the following files;

I have found with a CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic) use. Here are the links to the original images on flickr where this license is indicated;

Have a good day, and thank you for your help and for trying to contribute to Wikimedia Commons regarding licences ;) Michail Angelos Georgoulas (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Non-commercial and non-derivative clauses are incompatible with Commons' policy, see COM:WKL. Günther Frager (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/ja&oldid=756610940"