Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UDEL)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.

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

Other languages:

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 2 timestamps • 1 reason • 4 subpages) • 0 malformed
45 copyvios • 6 duplicates • 10 adverts • 25 selfies • 12 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use
* 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.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

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]

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

File:Example.jpg

This is an image showing the source according to the rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yukichi0221 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment You have many deleted images. You need to tell us which one you would like restored and why. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please provide a file name and a valid reason for undeletion. --Yann (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image rights of File:Macromia splendens mâle de profil émergeant.jpg

Hello,

After their deletion by @Yann :

were passed today in CC-BY-SA by their author (Esteban Prat) on the site INaturalist. I therefore request their reinstatement in order to put them back on the page of the species in question :D

Have a nice day,

yours sincerely JeSuisTropSalty (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: License reviewed. --Yann (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lansing McLoskey at Copland House June 2022.jpg & File:Lansing McLoskey headshot elevator.jpg

These are photos of Lansing McLoskey, uploaded BY Lansing McLoskey. I am Lansing McLoskey. I took the first photo myself, and I have authorized permission to use the 2nd anywhere/anyway I want as it is my headshot. Please undelete these photos and restore them to the Wiki page about Lansing McLoskey (me).

Reason for deletion given was "Model is different than author" or something like that. Author and model are the same: Me.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odhecaton Z (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The first image is small and has no EXIF. Please either (a) upload a full camera size version of the image with full EXIF using the same file name or (b) send a message using VRT verifying your authorship.

In the second case, the actual photographer, Raniero Tazzi, must send a free license using VRT. This image will be restored automatically, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT. The current backlog at VRT is 3 days. . .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Замена фильтров - MultiVapor 1 - NIOSH.jpg File:Замена фильтров - MultiVapor 3 - NIOSH.jpg File:Замена фильтров - MultiVapor 2 - NIOSH.jpg File:Замена фильтров - MultiVapor 4 - NIOSH.jpg

NIOSH has been conducting extensive research work, involving competent specialists from other organizations (by concluding contracts) since the foundation of this institute.

For example, the publication of the institute, posted on its website


DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 77-173 Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual

was created exclusively by those specialists who were not and did not become employees of NIOSH.

In connection with the deletion of the files, I contacted NIOSH with a question about whether the program posted on the institute's website, also developed FOR THE INSTITUTE UNDER CONTRACT, AND PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT, is protected by copyright. That is, the government paid for their work not in the form of a salary, but under a contract. If one of the performers of the work (program "MultiVapor", DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2010-124C, Gerry Odel Wood) also posted a copy of the work (paid for by the government) on his website, this does not change the fact that he performed the work paid for under the contract, performed in the interests of the institute, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and is declared by NIOSH as its own publication - on the institute's website. Please read the response of the copyright specialists.

(the question and answer are provided below)

CDCInfo <cdcinfo@cdcinquiry.onmicrosoft.com> 28 окт. 2024 г., 22:22 (6 дней назад) (translation: 6 days ago) кому: мне (translation: to whom: me)

Greetings:

Thank you for contacting CDC-INFO.

Here is the information you requested on CDC guidelines and recommendations for utilizing CDC content.

The information that is most applicable to your question is in bold text below.

Most of the information on the CDC and ATSDR websites is not subject to copyright, is in the public domain, and may be freely used or reproduced without obtaining copyright permission. There are, however, a few exceptions. Visit CDC's "Use of Agency Materials" Web page (https://www.cdc.gov/other/agencymaterials.html) to learn about these exceptions, as well as the requirements that must be followed to use CDC's public domain content.

Furthermore, the following requirements must be followed to utilize CDC’s public domain content:

1) Attribution to the agency that developed the material must be provided in your use of the materials. Such attribution should clearly state the materials were developed by CDC ATSDR and/or HHS (e.g., “Source: CDC”; “Materials developed by CDC”);

2) You must utilize a disclaimer which clearly indicates that your use of the material, including any links to the materials on the CDC, ATSDR or HHS websites, does not imply endorsement by CDC, ATSDR, HHS or the United States Government of you, your company, product, facility, service or enterprise. All such disclaimers must be prominently and unambiguously displayed (e.g., “Reference to specific commercial products, manufacturers, companies, or trademarks does not constitute its endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. Government, Department of Health and Human Services, or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;

3) You may not change the substantive content of the materials; and

4) You must state that the material is otherwise available on the agency website for no charge.

Note: Many of CDC’s on-line publications are continually updated as the agency learns more about a specific disease or condition. Occasionally, sites that copy and re-post CDC materials fail to check for updates, which may result in out-of-date information being offered to users. For that reason, we urge you to link directly to our resource documents rather than re-posting. If you do re-post, please check back periodically to see if there are revisions.

Linking to CDC, ATSDR or HHS content should open up a new browser window to our site/page. CDC content should not appear within the original window, framed by the existing site.

This information can also be found on CDC’s website at https://www.cdc.gov/other/agencymaterials.html.

To learn more, these additional links might also have relevant information for you. The CDC website is updated regularly, please check back to get most up to date information. CDC Resources

Using CDC.gov: Policies and Regulations Office of the Associate Director for Communication, Division of Public Affairs https://www.cdc.gov/Other/policies.html

Use of Agency Materials Centers for Disease Control and Prevention https://www.cdc.gov/other/agencymaterials.html

We hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please reach out via our online form at www.cdc.gov/info or call us at 1-800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636).

Please let me know how CDC and I did. Click here to take our quick 1-2 minute survey.

Sincerely, Nina CDC-INFO Correspondence Team


This e-mail was sent from an unmonitored mailbox, and CDC-INFO will not respond to replies sent to this mailbox. Links to nonfederal organizations are provided as a service. Links are not an endorsement of these organizations or their programs by CDC or the federal government. CDC is not responsible for the content of organization websites found at these links. CDC-INFO is a service of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). This service is provided by the Verizon and MAXIMUS contract with CDC and ATSDR.

JR/PR#5457

Original Message---------------

Sent: 10/28/2024 From: General Public Email Address: alexandr.chir@gmail.com Subject:  Copyright - publication on Your site  Question: Good day, good health!

Dear employees of the NIOSH,

Your website contains the results of Your colleagues' work, which are in the public domain;

as well as other materials that may be protected by copyright. Please, help eliminate the uncertainty in this area, regarding one work.

Mr. Gerry Odel Wood has done a great deal of research, which has allowed the creation of the Multivapor program, link

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/multivapor/multivapor.html

Mr. Nelson, Leidel and Bush have also done a great deal of work, which has allowed the preparation of the document, link

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/11158

It is highly likely that all of them are not NIOSH employees, but their work was paid for by Your institution.

Can the result of Mr. Wood's work (on your website) be treated as a "NIOSH publication" (like the publication of Mr. Nelson and others),

or should it be considered protected by copyright?

At the very least, the "quick removal criterion" hardly corresponds to this case. Therefore, I would like to ask to return these files. I would also like to ask to suggest how I must indicate the origin of such files (To eliminate similar situations in the future, for example: link to the page of the NIOSH website where there are adequate explanations from competent specialists, or in some other way. I think You know better how to avoid uncertainty in such matters).

Please forgive my terrible English. Thank You for Your assistance, and good health to You. Alexander Chirkin AlexChirkin (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Work performed by employees of the Federal government is free of copyright. Work performed under contract by persons who are employees of a contractor is not free of copyright unless (a) the employee has a written work for hire agreement in place with the employer (this is likely but not certain), (b) the contract explicitly calls for any copyrights to be transferred to the Federal government and (c) the Federal government chooses to make the work PD. For examples where (b) does not apply, see . For an example where (c) does not apply, see the Sacagewea Dollar obverse, https://www.usmint.gov/news/image-library/circulating-coin-design-use-policy. None of these has been proven here.

Also note that the requirements set forth by the NIOSH representative in the in the email in the {{Collapse}} section above restrict use in a way that is unacceptable on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rüütli 40a, Pärnu.jpg

It should not be delete. --LeeMarx (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Relevant DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rüütli 40a, Pärnu.jpg. It seems the architect Alar Kotli died in 1963 and Anton Soans died in 1966, and there is no FoP in Estonia. Yann (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose We would still need permission from Soans's estate. Abzeronow (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netflix screenshots

I think the 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 Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Fernsprechbuch_der_DDR_K-M-St_-_1990_-_Ortsnetzkennzahlen.pdf.

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. FunnyMath (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=949416169"