Commons:Запросы на восстановление

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 89% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Undeletion requests and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

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

Other languages:

На этой странице участники могут оставить запрос на восстановление удалённой страницы или файла (далее «файл»). Участники могут комментировать запросы, оставляя такие замечания, как keep deleted (оставить удалённым) или undelete (восстановить) в сопровождении своих аргументов.

Эта страница — не часть Википедии. На этой странице обсуждаются материалы Викисклада — репозитория свободных медиафайлов, используемых Википедией и другими проектами Викимедиа. Викисклад Не содержит энциклопедических статей. Чтобы запросить восстановление статей или других материалов, удалённых из английской Википедии, см. там страницу с обзором удалений.

Удаления на Викискладе (правила)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 0 subpages) • 0 malformed
нарушения АП: 66 шт. • дубликаты: 5 шт. • селфи: 17 шт. • другие причины: 36 шт.
п • о • р

Определение причины удаления файла

Сначала проверьте журнал удаления и узнайте, почему файл был удалён. Также воспользуйтесь возможностью Ссылки сюда, чтобы проверить, были ли какие-то обсуждения по поводу удаления файла. Если удалили файл, который вы загрузили, проверьте свою страницу обсуждения, на ней могут быть сообщения о причинах удаления файла. После этого, пожалуйста, ещё раз ознакомьтесь с правилами удаления, описанием рамок проекта и политикой лицензирования, чтобы понять, почему файл мог не соответствовать правилам Викисклада.

Если указанная причина удаления неясна, или вы можете её оспорить, свяжитесь с администратором, осуществившим удаление, и попросите дать комментарии или же предоставьте новые свидетельства против причины удаления. Вы можете связаться и с любым другим активным администратором (например, с носителями вашего родного языка) — большинство из них будет радо вам помочь и при обнаружении ошибки исправить ситуацию.

Оспаривание удаления

Справедливые удаления, основанные на текущих правилах удаления, рамках проекта и политике лицензирования, не будут отменены. Предложения об изменении правил могут приниматься на соответствующих страницах обсуждения.

Если вы считаете, что удалённый файл не нарушает авторские права и соответствует рамкам проекта:

  • Вы можете обсудить файл с удалившим его администратором. Можно попросить подробного объяснения причин или предоставить свидетельства в пользу восстановления.
  • Если вы не хотите обращаться к кому-либо напрямую, если администратор отклонил просьбу о восстановлении или же если вы хотите привлечь больше участников к обсуждению, вы можете запросить восстановление на этой странице.
  • Если файл был удалён из-за отсутствия доказательств разрешения от правообладателя, возспользуйтесь процедурой подтверждения разрешения. Если вы уже сделали это, нет нужды дополнительно создавать запрос на восстановление на этой странице. Если принятое разрешение в порядке, файл будет восстановлен по мере обработки разрешения. Пожалуйста, будьте терпеливы, поскольку этот процесс может занять несколько недель в зависимости от текущей загруженности и доступности волонтёров.
  • Если в описании удалённого изображения не хватает какой-то информации, вам могут задать вопросы. В общем случае ожидается, что ответ на эти вопросы будет получен в течение 24 часов.

Временное восстановление

Файлы могут быть временно восстановлены либо для облегчения обсуждения восстановления либо для переноса их в проект, допускающий добросовестное использование. Для этого используйте шаблон {{Request temporary undeletion}} в соответствующем запросе восстановления и приведите объяснение.

  1. если временное возобновление нужно для помощи обсуждению, объясните почему для обсуждения номинации будет полезно временно восстановить файл, или
  2. если временное восстановление нужно для перемещения в проект, допускающий добросовестное использование, укажите этот проект и дайте ссылку на правила использования таких файлов в этом проекте.

Для помощи в обсуждении

Файлы могут быть временно восстановлен, чтобы помочь в обсуждении, если участникам сложно решить без доступа к файлу, должен ли быть удовлетворён запрос на восстановление. Если для обсуждения достаточно описания файла или цитаты из этого описания, администратор может их предоставить без восстановления самого файла. Запросы могут быть отклонены, если будет сочтено, что польза для обсуждения перевешивается другими факторами (например, восстановление, даже временное, файлов, в отношении которых есть существенные опасения, связанные с Викисклад:Фотографии идентифицируемых людей). Файлы, временно восстановленные для содействия обсуждению, будут удалены снова через тридцать дней или же когда запрос будет закрыт (в зависимости от того, что произойдет раньше).

Для перемещения в проект, допускающий добросовестное использование

В отличие от Английской, Русской Википедии и некоторых других проектов Викимедиа, Викисклад не принимает несвободные материалы со ссылками на добросовестное использование. Если удалённый файл соответствует критериям добросовестного использования другого проекта Викимедиа, участники могут запросить временное восстановление для переноса туда удалённых файлов. Такие запросы обычно обрабатываются быстро (без обсуждения). Файлы, временно восстановленные для переноса в другой проект, будут снова автоматически выставлены на быстрое удаление через два дня. При размещении запроса на перенос в другой проект, пожалуйста, укажите этот проект и дайте ссылку на правила использования таких файлов в этом проекте.

Проекты, допускающие добросовестное использование:
* 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.

Добавление запроса

Первом делом убедитесь, что вы попытались разобраться, почему файл удалили. Затем, пожалуйста, прочитайте эти инструкции по написанию запросов перед составлением своего запроса:

  • Не подавайте запросы на восстановление файлов, которые не удаляли.
  • Не публикуйте собственные или чужие телефон или адрес электронной почты.
  • В поле Subject: введите непосредственно предмет обсуждения. Если вы запрашиваете восстановление единственного файла, используйте заголовок вида [[:File:УдалённыйФайл.jpg]]. (Не забудьте о ведущем двоеточии в ссылке.)
  • Укажите файл(ы), о котором(ых) идёт речь и предоставьте ссылки на них (см. выше). Если вы не знаете точное имя файла, укажите как можно больше известной вам информации. Запросы, из которых нельзя понять, что требуется восстановить, могут быть заархивированы без обсуждения.
  • Опишите причину(ы) для восстановления.
  • Подпишитесь с помощью четырёх тильд (~~~~). Если у вас есть учётная запись на Викискладе, сперва войдите в неё. Если вы были загрузившим искомый файл, это поможет администраторам идентифицировать его.

Добавьте запрос внизу этой страницы. Нажмите сюда, чтобы открыть страницу, на которой нужно добавить запрос. Или нажмите ссылку [править] у заголовка ниже. Следите за разделом вашего запроса, чтобы не пропустить обновления.

Закрытие обсуждений

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Архивы

Закрытые обсуждения восстановления архивируются ежедневно.

Текущие запросы

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Pavel Troshkin

Images were published after 2015, expiration of posthumous copyright protection of photographer after death, or before 1954. Overly hypothetical doubts by now-banned user who made many overzealous deletion requests. Kges1901 (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As I noted in the DR, these are either under URAA copyright, as are all Russian images published after 1942, or, if unpublished until recently, are under copyright in Russia. In either case we cannot keep them. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We usually assume that old works were published at the time of creation, unless evidence says otherwise. If I understood correctly, the author was a reporter for RIAN, so I see no reason to assume that these pictures were not published at the time. The first file in the list, File:Сессия Верховного Совета СССР первого созыва (2).jpg, is dated 1938. That may not be sufficient for all images, but it seems OK for this one. Yann (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Troshkin was a reporter for the newspaper Izvestiya, and his photographs were published at the time in Izvestiya, Krasnaya Zvezda, and other papers. --Kges1901 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg also made an interesting argument about the country of origin. If these newspapers were distributed in the Soviet Union, they were simultaneously published in all successor nations, and that under the Berne Convention, the shorter term applies. Yann (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These newspapers were distributed across the entire Soviet Union, not just on the territory of the RSFSR. In any case, the definition of publication under Russian copyright law is that the back of the photograph was marked by the artist in the appropriate way, which for war photographs implies that it passed through censorship processes and could be published. Since most of these photographs are not taken from the photographer's negatives, it is reasonable to assume that they were marked on the back, and recently digitized images appeared on the internet after 2014, when the posthumous publication copyright term expired. Kges1901 (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg is not sole in such assumption. But this is just assumption so far, it is not supported by court decisions (of 12-15 post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature (as I have known on today, I continue to seek it, to confirm or refute it). As I see such questions in court decisions (of several post-Soviet states) or jurisprudential literature - the concrete Soviet republic is place of publishing (because, the civil legislation was on republican level) or the RF is place of publishing, even if work was published outside of the RSFSR (as USSR-successor on union level). Alex Spade (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is any test case over the Berne definition of "country of origin". The question would not come up internally for Russian law or that of the old republics, most likely. It would only matter in a country outside those which implement the rule of the shorter term, and over a work which that question may be involved. Not sure I know of any, anywhere. But, the Berne Convention is pretty specific in its definition when it comes to works simultaneously published in multiple countries, and that is the definition that Commons follows. Of course, the Soviet Union was not a member, though most all subsequent countries are now. One complication is the U.S. status -- the definition of "source country" for the URAA would follow different logic than Berne, the country of "greatest contacts with the work", which would be Russia. Russia was 50pma on the URAA date, but I think had some wartime extensions, which I think push these over the line, such that only ones published before 1929 (or created before 1904, if unpublished) would be PD in the U.S., regardless of current status in Russia, or the country of origin (if different). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know such cases (on the Berne definition) too, but in the Russian copyright legislation there are 3 criterions of copyrightability - (1) the Russian territory (the territory of the Russian Federation (the RSFSR previously, not the USSR) since Nov.7, 1917 to today) in the borders on the date of publication, (2) the Russian citizenship on the date of publication, and (3) international treaties.
Moreover, there is similar situation with reports of telegraph agencies or press-releases- they are reported/released worldwide formally, but the country indicated in report/release is the country of origin (some reports/releases have two of more indicated countries). Alex Spade (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right -- the Berne country of origin pretty much never applies to internal works, or even most situations involving foreign works. The specific definition in Berne pretty much only matters if a country is applying the rule of the shorter term for a foreign work to have lesser protection than their own works normally do; the Berne definition would have to be used in that case to determine the country, since that is in the treaty. In pretty much any other situation, more sensical definitions can be used (which even the US did, with the URAA -- the "source country" there is pretty much the same thing, but differs quite a bit once it comes to simultaneous publication). But however nonsensical it seems, Commons uses the Berne definition, since that should control when works expire in many countries (even if that virtually never comes up in a court case to test it). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect to consider is how publication is defined. For example, in this academic article about Russian copyright law, it is stated that an author, transferring a work to another by agreement, gives consent to publication, and thus the work can be considered published. This means that if Troshkin transferred his negatives to his employer (Izvestiya), the works would be legally considered published. Since all photos in question are of a professional nature, there is no reason to assume that Troshkin kept any of these photographs in his personal possession and did not transfer them to his employer. Considering this, then all of his photos would have been legally published when he transferred them to his employer, that is, definitely before his death in 1944, and all these photographs would be firmly public domain. Kges1901 (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Term publication (обнародование or опубликование in Russian, and these are two different term in the Russian copyright) is defined in the paragraph one and two of part 1 of article 1268 of the Civil Code. Consent to publication is not publication (right for exercise of some action is not action). And mentioned resent discussion on the Ru-Wiki for orphan works (where I was the main speaker) does not matter for Troshkin's works - author of photos (Troshkin) is known. Alex Spade (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time if there is a source for original of photo and its reverse side, and such original (reverse side) is marked by author name and a year, then this year can be considered as year of publication according to the last paragraph of article 475 of the Soviet Russian Civil Code. Alex Spade (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of copyright I am specifically discussing the nuances of обнародование because the term contains a broader meaning than simply опубликование, and the expiration of copyright (if work is posthumously published) is calculated from обнародование and not опубликование of a work – regarding photographs, that public display of a work counts as обнародование while not опубликование in the strict sense, therefore opening broader possibilities for the release of a work during Troshkin's lifetime.
Regarding originals, another aspect is that at least some of Troshkin's photographs were sent into TASS and copyright thus transferred to TASS, falling under PD-Russia under the TASS aspect. For example this photograph was marked on the back with TASS copyright stamp even though Troshkin was an Izvestiya correspondent.
In any case presence of markings on the back is the most hopeful approach to this problem of posthumous copyright since any photograph/negative with a description had to have been marked on the back with a caption and name of the author, since Troshkin's photographs presumably entered into a centralized group of photographs cleared for publication, as his photographs were not just published in Izvestiya, but in Krasnaya Zvezda, Vechernyaya Moskva, other newspapers, and books (for example a large quantity of his photographs taken during the Battle of Khalkhin Gol appeared in this 1940 book without mention of his name. Secondly finding an exact date for negatives such as this example would have been impossible if there was no marking on the back. The fact that exact dates taken are available for negatives indicates that they were also marked in some way with captions, dates and names of author. Examples of such author name and year markings on the back of a Troshkin photograph include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Kges1901 (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, обнародование is wider than опубликование, but the fact (and the date) of обнародование must be proved (for example for some painting "This painting was created in 1923 and was shown on ZYX-art exhibition in 1925, see reference link").
  • Yes, if photowork is marked by TASS (no matter by TASS only or by TASS+name_of_real_photograph), this photowork is TASS-work. Alex Spade (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletion of individual photographs

Russian department awards

Please, restore deleted Russian department awards and close (as keep) similar current DR. Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed DR discussions

Current DR discussions

Yes, they are not state awards, but they are state symbols ({{PD-RU-exempt}}) indeed - symbols, which are established by state authorities, which design (including both text description and visual representation) are established (which design are integral part of) in respective official documents of state government agencies (the Russian official documents are not just texts), which are subjects of the en:State Heraldic Register of the Russian Federation (point 3 subpoint 4). Alex Spade (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Any opinion about this? Yann (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it would be crucial here to know if the documents granting awards and awards themsetves are official (i.e. if they have legal basis).  Support if yes,  Oppose if not (unless we have knowledge that Russian courts interpret the word official differently), and COM:PCP if unsure. Without extra information it is the third option. If they are issued and granted just basing on an internal decision of the organization, then they are not official (IMO). Ankry (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, department order for decoration of someone(s) by department award(s), наградной лист (award paper), and наградная книжка (award card) for department awards are official documents of administrative characters. Same as for state awards. Alex Spade (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mola_Ali.jpg

Request temporary undeletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Netflix screenshots

I think image 1 complies with {{PD-text}}. It is pretty much the same text (with a total of three sentences), but slightly modified for each of the four text boxes. All the text does is describe what each plan contains, with no literary language. More complicated files have been kept for {{PD-text}}. See:

Image 2 should also comply with {{PD-text}}. The email is very short, with only a total of six sentences, and two headers, that describes the discontinuation of a subscription plan. If it's too complicated, I would like to ask whether I could upload a new version with the body blurred out, only keeping the title.

Country of origin is the US. Note the "canceled" spelling in image 2. The threshold of originality seems to be high for short phrases in the US. See [8], which says "Copyright laws disfavor protection for short phrases. Such claims are viewed with suspicion by the Copyright Office...", and that originality is not a matter of the number of words used, but rather "the uniqueness and value of the phrases as well as the way in which you (and the borrower) use them." (See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hillary_Clinton_2016_DNC_Speech.webm for an example of a PD short phrase) FunnyMath (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose These both have multiple complete sentences and certainly have US copyrights. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, for image 1, it is pretty much the same text (with three sentences), but slightly changed for each of the four text boxes.
You can think of the text boxes as like "recipes" for making food. And recipes are not eligible for copyright according to the Copyright Office: "A mere listing of ingredients or contents, or a simple set of directions, is uncopyrightable"
It's like if someone wrote a cookbook containing a page with the ingredient lists for four different types of pizzas, with only slight changes in the ingredient list for each of the four pizzas.
And it doesn't matter how many ingredients are listed for each pizza, whether it's three, 30, or even 3,000. There is simply no copyright for listing items with no creative authorship.
Also, in the case that the body of the email in image 2 is judged to be copyrightable, I would like to ask whether I can upload a new version of image 2, but only with the title legible, and the body blurred. The Copyright Office also said that "Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are uncopyrightable..."
The Copyright Office also said that copyright is ineligible for "format" or "layout", so even the format of the email in image 2 is uncopyrightable.
All references to the Copyright Office's judgments mentioned above come from Circular 33: [9]
Complete sentences are not automatically copyrighted in the US, so we have to actually look at the sentences and ask ourselves if they are eligible for copyright.
I'm not sure if you have seen the Hillary Clinton example I posted earlier (Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hillary_Clinton_2016_DNC_Speech.webm), but the following sentence was judged to be uncopyrightable:
"So it is with humility, determination and boundless confidence in America’s promise that I accept your nomination for president of the United States.”
And the sentence above has way more literary language than either image 1 or image 2. FunnyMath (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: FunnyMath (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think it's worth taking a look at Circular 33 for an example of a recipe that is uncopyrightable:

Paulina Neumann submits an application to register a recipe for caesar salad dressing. In the “Author Created” field, Neumann asserts a claim in “text.” The work consists of a list of eleven ingredients with the following instructions: “(1) puree anchovies, garlic, Dijon, egg yolks; (2) drizzle oil in gradually to emulsify; (3) add lemon, parmesan cheese, salt, pepper, Worcestershire and tabasco sauce.” The Office will refuse registration for this work, because the list of ingredients is uncopyrightable, and the instructional text contains an insufficient amount of creative authorship.

FunnyMath (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, I showed an example of a set of 11 ingredients and 3 complete sentences that is explicitly denied copyright by the US Copyright Office. Thus, having multiple complete sentences is not enough to guarantee US copyright. If you think those three sentences in those textboxes are copyrightable, then I don't know what to say, especially considering that the 3-sentence-instruction is much longer and complicated. FunnyMath (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded by my previous account

I would like to kindly request the restoration of some images that I uploaded to Commons from my main account, Macrobreed. I am no longer active on that account and now use this alternative account. The images are as follows:

These images were deleted for being out of scope. Please refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Macrobreed for more details. I understand that some of the other images I uploaded may not meet Commons' scope. However, I added all images in good faith, either sourced from Flickr or created by myself, such as the image taken on World Stroke Day.

Thank you for your consideration. Macrobreed2 (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the educational use of these? Nobody doubts your good faith, merely the usefulness of these images. (EDIT:A cropped and blurred Roy Royalty Hamilton file could be useful, as is too much focus on DWs).Abzeronow (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Roy Hamilton one needs VRT since it's from Facebook per Flickr metadata and that Flickr account looks like a license laundering account. https://www.flickr.com/photos/196198494@N02/52261708207 Abzeronow (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow, Thank you for clarifying the potential issue with the Roy Hamilton image.
Regarding the two volunteer images, I believe they could contribute to sections related to Indian non-profits, volunteerism and children's education along with related categories.
As for the image clicked by me on World Stroke Day of Dr. Ritwiz Bihari, I noticed that there are relatively few images in the Commons category for World Stroke Day. I thought this image could help add to that, especially as it highlights an important aspect of stroke awareness in India. I hope it can serve as a useful contribution to the category.
However, if you still feel they may not meet the criteria for inclusion, I completely understand. Thank you once again for your thoughtful feedback and for considering and responding to my request. Macrobreed2 (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sam Smith live in the Netherlands.jpg

the file is an up to date image of Sam Smith, by photographer Ronan Park. The license to publish this image on Wikipedia is visible on the Photographers website. https://ronanpark.co.uk/sam-smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrix (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Per the site named above, "Sam Smith live at PinkPop Festival, Netherlands, 2024 © 2024 by Ronan Park is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0" .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per request and Jim. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Teresa Laespada2.jpg

Solicito que sea recuperado este archivo por ser de mi propiedad y estar autorizada para su uso público Lolabimba (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose According to your upload, the photographer is unknown. Owning a paper or digital copy of an image does not give you the right to freely license it as required here. That right is held by the photographer. This image cannot be restored without a free license from the actual photographer using VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:第50屆金馬頒獎典禮 星光大道主持人黃子佼 楊千霈.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: When this file was uploaded, it was available under Public Domain Mark (PDM), which is an acceptable license on Commons. Since CC license is irrevocable, this file should still be ok on Commons. A1Cafel (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The PDM is acceptable only if the person posting with it is the actual photographer. That is not the case here. The source site is now CC-BY-ND. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo PPUM UMMC.png

logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. Logo only to show the existance of that teaching hospital. The institution had given permission to distribute and use and even encourage public to use it.--MikeRoffe143 (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The logo is available at [10], and is far from simple. Yann (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Agreed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Миша Смирнов и Ольга Бузова.jpg

Я внимательно ознакомился с причиной удаления моего файла File:Миша Смирнов и Ольга Бузова.jpg. Как я понимаю из описания причины, какая-то девочка в соц. сети ВК разместила без моего разрешения у себя на страничке фотографию моего сына - Миши Смирнова (певец Мартин) вместе с Ольгой Бузовой. Я - отец Миши Смирнов (певец Мартин). Именно я сделал эту фотографию за кулисами новогоднего шоу, когда сопровождал туда своего сына. Фото было сделано на мой телефон, права на эту фотографию принадлежат мне. Прошу восстановить файл. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopold2017 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose as photo was widely available on the web before the upload we need a valid COM:VRT ticket from the copyright holder. Günther Frager (talk) 10:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Günther Frager. --Yann (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marteen July 2024.jpg

Я внимательно ознакомился с причиной удаления моего файла File:Marteen July 2024.jpg. Как я понимаю, причина в том, что использовано фото из официальной группы певца Мартин в соц. сети ВК. По этому поводу поясняю, что певец Мартин - это мой сын Миша Смирнов (при необходимости, я готов предоставить Свидетельство о рождении). Я являюсь одним из администраторов его официальной группы в соц. сети ВК, где также была размещена эта же фотография, права на которую принадлежат нашей семьей. Именно я сделал эту фотографию за кулисами новогоднего шоу, когда сопровождал туда своего сына. Фото было сделано на мой телефон, права на эту Прошу восстановить файл. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopold2017 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: No reason to believe the uploader is not the author, as per above. All copies are smaller than Commons. --Yann (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Миша Смирнов и Катя Адушкина.png

Я внимательно ознакомился с причиной удаления моего файла File:Миша Смирнов и Катя Адушкина.png. Как я понимаю из описания причины, аналогичная фотография размещена в соц сети Instagram. Я являюсь отцом Миши Смирнова (певец Мартин), эта фотография была сделан мной для соц. сети моего сына перед релизом его совместной песни с Катей Адушкиной. Поэтому права на эту фотографию принадлежат мне. Прошу восстановить файл. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopold2017 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leopold2017: Hi, This seems to be copied from Instagram. Could you please confirm via COM:VRT that you are the author? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Am încărcat un fișier cu Biblia în versuri, lucrare care îi aparține lui Ioan Ciorca

Am încărcat pe Wikipedia un fișier cu Biblia în versuri, lucrare care îi aparține lui Ioan Ciorca. Am inclus, de asemenea, un certificat ce atestă că acesta este autorul și că lucrarea a intrat în Cartea Recordurilor. Cu toate acestea, fișierul continuă să fie propus pentru ștergere, iar eu nu înțeleg care este problema. Am ajustat formatul pentru a respecta cerințele, și solicit ca fișierul să nu fie șters. De asemenea, doresc să primesc o explicație clară privind motivul pentru care se dorește eliminarea fișierului. Vă mulțumesc! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleju13 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Not deleted, nothing to do here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images of the Casa del Fascio (Florence)

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

They all depict the it:Casa del Fascio (Firenze) and they were all deleted in 2013 after this DR. The building was commissioned to en:Raffaello Fagnoni by the local fascist party (see here, p. 50). The italian copyright law considers the fascist party as if it were part of the state administration. The construction of the building ended in 1940, thefore it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov in 1961. The construction ended way before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.
Please restore also the Category:Casa del Fascio (Florence), deleted in the same year after this DR because it had been emptied of all its images.--Friniate (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am încărcat pe Wikipedia un fișier cu Biblia în versuri, lucrare care îi aparține lui Ioan Ciorca.

Am încărcat pe Wikipedia un fișier cu Biblia în versuri, lucrare care îi aparține lui Ioan Ciorca. Am inclus, de asemenea, un certificat ce atestă că acesta este autorul și că lucrarea a intrat în Cartea Recordurilor. Cu toate acestea, fișierul continuă să fie propus pentru ștergere, iar eu nu înțeleg care este problema. Am ajustat formatul pentru a respecta cerințele, și solicit ca fișierul să nu fie șters. De asemenea, doresc să primesc o explicație clară privind motivul pentru care se dorește eliminarea fișierului. Vă mulțumesc! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleju13 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Probably concerns File:Biblia-in-versuri.djvu. Commons do not have encyclopedic articles about subjects. Thuresson (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kh.Amonullo.jpg

Aliev Nematullo - Алиев Неъматулло является нашим фотографом, и это он снял эту фотографию, благодарю за внимание и за помощь — Preceding unsigned comment added by Сарфарозхон (talk • contribs) 07:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose we need an explicit authorization. @Сарфарозхон: please request Aliev Nematullo to send a permission via COM:VRT. Günther Frager (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Example.jpg

Míguez in 1948 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel.yiadom1 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mayan3.jpg

As im the part of crew and im responsible for creating the wiki page for the movie, so kindly undelete the image so tha i can create a wiki page for the movie.

--Karthikmovie30 (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mayan3.jpg

As im the part of crew and im responsible for creating the wiki page for the movie, so kindly undelete the image so tha i can create a wiki page for the movie.

Karthikmovie30 (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/ru&oldid=811520742"