Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:UR)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page

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)
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

File:ROC Ministry of National Defense Seal.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file had been deleted per this DR due to "Logos are not covered under {{PD-ROC-exempt}} or {{GWOIA}}" and then it was re-uploaded by User:人人生來平等.

However, according to the email response by the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office "故政府機關之部徽、署徽或局徽，如其形式係依法所制訂者，依著作權法第9條，不得為著作權之標的。" (English Machine Translation: "Therefore, the emblems of ministries, departments or bureaus of government agencies, if their forms are made in accordance with the law, shall not be the subject of copyright in accordance with Article 9 of the Copyright Law." ) Since this logo is the Seal of Ministry of National Defense, in my opinion, it is not copyrighted and is covered under {{PD-ROC-exempt}} . The previous delete decision should be overturned and the previous page history also need to be recovered. cc @Wcam, Mdaniels5757, and Ericliu1912: Thanks. SCP-2000 18:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SCP-2000: If the emblem is made in accordance with the law, such law needs to be specified. In the email you quote, the national flag is defined in 中華民國國徽國旗法第4條, and the Taipei City's seal is defined in 臺北市市徽市旗設置自治條例第4條. A seal/emblem/logo is only in the PD if it is based on a law. Wcam (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, it is based on 《陸海空軍軍旗條例施行細則》第五條. Looks ok to keep. --Wcam (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support. (And should recover all revision history altogether) —— Eric Liu（Talk） 23:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The revision history of File:Seal of the Ministry of National Defense of the Republic of China.svg should be merged with this file if the latter get restored. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only this file (to request restoration of all deleted revisions) or for all deleted files of that DR? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only this file. Wcam (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Afghanistan-Spange.jpg

And also:

I created the picture myself. So please restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User85521 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Carlos-Meyer-Baldo.jpg

The image was taken during Baldó's military service during World War I, between 1914 and 1918, and Carlos Meyer Baldó died in 1933. The image's age means that it already is in the public domain per {{PD-old}}, and in the worst case scenario media enters in Venezuela's public domain after 60 years of its publication ({{PD-Venezuela}}). --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NoonIcarus: When was this photo first published in Venezuela? Thuresson (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NoonIcarus: Who is the photographer and has she or he been dead for 70 years? Thuresson (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment If the above questions remain unresponded, {{PD-old-assumed}} can be applied in 2039. Ankry (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The picture was first published in 1918, along with other pictures ([1]), during Baldó's service as an instructor (Fluglehrer) at the Fighter Squadron School Nr. II to train Jasta pilots. The copyright law in Venezuela does not consider the author's death for media such as photographs (unlike music, for instance), but rather its publication date. At any rate, {{PD-US-expired}} also applies given that the picture was published before 1928. Best wishes. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The deleted file appears to have a modern colorization, which could have its own copyright. Abzeronow (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Was it already in its original version or was it added by an user? In the case of the former, I can withdraw my request and ask for undeletion to be applied in the respective years (like 2039). --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is only one version that we have (the colorized version). Abzeronow (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose The template "PD-Old" can not be used without knowing who the photographer is and when she or he died. "PD-Venezuela" can not be used without providing the authorship and publication details. If the photo was first published on Twitter, it may be undeleted in 2081. Thuresson (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image was not first published in Twitter (Twitter's version is black and white while the deleted one is colorized, for instance). It was simply provided for context about the other images it was first published with. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support Per NoonIcarus --Wilfredor (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support:Per NoonIcarus, Venezuela license it's OK. AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: Could you, please, elaborate which 60 years old publication you mean? Ankry (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ankry:Buenas según Wikipedia (https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Meyer_Bald%C3%B3) el murió en 1933, por eso es que según Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Venezuela son 60 años después de la publicación (osea después de la muerte del autor) por eso está OK. AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: But where is an evidence that the photo was published (available to the general public) during his life? Photo creation date is irrelevant for copyright (except US 120 year cut-off time). Ankry (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ankry:Look (https://www.meer.com/en/58066-carlos-meyer-baldo-a-venezuelan-fighter-pilot-of-the-wwi) in the photo number 5 (Carlos Meyer piloting his Fokker D.VII “Drooling boxer” in the summer of 1918 (photo Greg van Wyngarden)) (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: This page is dated 17 October 2019. This is not 60 years ago. Also the photo #5 is not the photo we are discussing here (the photo requested here is a colour portrait photo - or maybe a painting? - this one; claimed to be made personally by the uploader). Ankry (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We usually assume that old pictures were published at the time they were taken, but this is not photo #5 mentioned above. But that picture is available at File:Bóxer Babeante.jpg. Yann (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Greg vanWyngarden is a contemporary writer about fighter planes of WW1, he is not the photographer. Thuresson (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg

Buenas, necesito que algún administrador restaure la imagen por que la Bandera del Municipio Libertador de Caracas, Venezuela es una invención por eso está en el Dominio Público según el Articulo 325 de la Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, Trabajadores y Trabajadoras en Venezuela. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbchyZa22 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 1 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Commons:Coats of arms, each rendering can have its own copyright. Was this a user-drawn version or copied from a copyrighted source? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg:Buenas, pero en el artículo 325 dice:Invenciones, innovaciones y mejoras en el sector público
La producción intelectual generada bajo relación de trabajo en el sector público, o financiada a través de fondos públicos que origine derechos de propiedad intelectual, se considerará del dominio público, manteniéndose los derechos al reconocimiento público del autor o autora.
El {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} aplica directamente a los Logos, Banderas y escudos de Armas por que son invencionales (significa se basa en la imaginación de los autores osea personas.) AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As mentioned in the other discussions you started last week about art. 325 at HD and VP/C, that argument is not necessarily convincing without authoritative interpretation by courts or doctrine and without evidence that these artworks by independent artists meet the factual conditions. Even if hypothetically it applied, that would be for the Venezuelan copyright, not for the United States copyright. However, the concept of the flag designed in 2022 by María Jiménez and Víctor Rodríguez might be (or not) too simple for copyright, but even then, each particular artistic rendering of it can be copyrighted. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg:Aquí esta las fuentes https://elpais.com/internacional/2022-04-21/el-chavismo-entierra-el-legado-espanol-del-escudo-de-caracas-400-anos-despues.html AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is the source for the escudo at File:Coat of arms of Caracas (2022).png. The question by Clindberg was what is the source of the particular rendering of the bandera in File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Buenas aquí esta la fuente:https://eldiario.com/2023/10/12/nuevos-simbolos-de-caracas-concejo-municipal/amp/ AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of the particular svg rendering in File:Flag of Caracas (2022).svg? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The statement by the uploader in the original upload log was "own work". Pinging the uploader User:Salvadoroff. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Echando una mano: Buenas y Feliz Año, por favor una pregunta es posible restaurar la foto de la Bandera de Caracas (2022) con respecto a este tema??
AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: lo siento, no lo sé. Feliz año a usted también. Echando una mano 21:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's truly a vector version drawn by a contributor, I'd lean towards keeping it. If it was extracted from a PDF of a government source (or is an SVG wrapper around a bitmap taken from another unlicensed source), then I'd go the other way. I would treat each drawing as its own copyright (even the choice of vector points in an SVG can in theory have a copyright, if complex enough, beyond the rendered image). Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg:Buenas, con respecto a la Bandera, aquí esta las fuentes:https://eldiario.com/2023/10/12/nuevos-simbolos-de-caracas-concejo-municipal/amp/ AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: Given that any drawing must be derived from the original 2022 design by Jiménez and Rodríguez, do you evaluate that their work is below or above the threshold for copyrightability? The composition with the triangles of colour, the star and the mountain is not as simple as bands of colour, but it's not very complex either. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Often the design is an idea, with each drawing a particular expression of that idea. That is more straightforward with seals with a written blazon -- a drawing cannot be derivative of the written description. But in general we seem to allow self-drawn images of flags too. Furthermore, as far as the design is part of law, that part would be {{PD-EdictGov}}. Any additions done by a private party (even particular vector points) may qualify for copyright though, so we often look at the history of the specific drawing. If it's the flag as seen here, the only part which may be copyrightable is the very specific outline of the mountain or hill or treetops or whatever that is, which likely differs a little between versions and so they may well not be derivative of each other. If that image was self-drawn without slavishly copying the outline, I would restore it. A lot of this gets into highly theoretical territory, as it would probably be near impossible for a country or city to sue over copyright infringement of a flag, where the scope of fair use and PD-edict is probably pretty wide. I think as such, we would respect any copyright of a privately-drawn version, but if self-drawn it's probably fine. (Individual government drawings may not be OK though; we tend to not copy those from websites.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Buenas ,por favor lee el Artículo 2 del Derechos de Autor en Venezuela,en que está sometidos los derechos del Autor?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: Hi, What about it? If it's still about its scope, I already commented in your thread last month at Commons:Help desk/Archive/2023/12#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Caracas (2022).png. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Buenas, una pregunta que pasaría si el Artículo 325 de la Ley Orgánica del Trabajo los Trabajadores y Trabajadoras en Venezuela es Constitucional, es posible restaurar la foto de la Bandera?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: A) Constitutionality is only one of several questions to which we do not have answers for now. Other questions, already mentioned above, are B) can the intended goal and scope of 325 include this type of artistic works and, if so, C) does the particular work meet its conditions of application? (Did the two authors get any money and, even then, would their flag proposal be considered "financiada" solely for winning the first prize in the contest?) Again, all that sounds like specialized matters of Venezuelan law. Getting reliable answers require research in court decisions and doctrinal texts or the help of jurists in Venezuelan law. However, and fortunately, we probably do not need to consider that at all here. From the above discussions, if the original flag is considered to be below the "Umbral de originalidad" ("threshold of originality"), both in Venezuela and in the United States, and if the subsequent svg drawing is considered to be the own work of the uploader, then this file with the flag could be undeleted under that rationale only. (It is different for the other file with the coat of arms, wich is above the threshold of originality and directly reproduced.) -- Asclepias (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Elcobbola:Hi, please can you close the UDR (Undeletion Request),the flag its a invention in 325 Article in Venezuela law (its a Public Domain) and the SVG its a valid? (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Buenas, por favor lee artículo 33 numeral 3 de la Ley de Propiedad Industrial en Venezuela con respecto a la Banderas y Escudos de Armas municipales y estatales de Venezuela. AbchyZa22 (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@User:AbchyZa22: Hi, That is about trade marks (marcas comerciales). It is not a concern as such for Commons (Commons:Non-copyright restrictions). -- Asclepias (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Ok en el Artículo 33 dice:”No podrán adoptarse ni registrarse como marcas:
En el numeral 2 dice “la Bandera, Escudo de Armas u otra insignia de la República, de los Estados o de las Municipalidades y, en general, de cualquier entidad venezolana de carácter público” (fuentes:https://sapi.gob.ve/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ley_propiedad_intelectual.pdf) AbchyZa22 (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: That is about marcas comerciales (trademarks). It is not about derechos de autor (copyright). No marcas does not mean that there are no derechos de autor. Commons is not much concerned with marcas. Commons is concerned with derechos de autor. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This request having been open for some time, can there be some consensus to accept it along the lines suggested by Clindberg, assuming that the original flag is considered to be below the threshold of originality, both in Venezuela and in the United States, and assuming that the subsequent svg drawing is the own work of the uploader? That does not seem to require taking a position on other points of Venezuelan law raised in the request. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:K-On anime logo (US).svg

The file was deleted in October 2023 and has never been used since. It was uploaded as PD-textlogo.

However if this restoration is denied on the Commons, I request this file to be transferred for the English Wikipedia article: K-On! (TV series) in accordance with fair use.

Contingency: Request temporary undeletion

-Imperial meter (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Imperial meter: when are you usually online? Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm alive. User:LaMagiaaa deleted those back in October here. In addition to above, could you also undelete File:K-ON anime logo.svg and transfer the file to the Japanese Wikipedia via fair use if the file is unable to remain in commons? -- Imperial meter (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can temporarily undelete the file, but you would have to do the transfer to English Wikipedia yourself. Same case with Japanese Wikipedia (I don't read or speak Japanese, so transfering it there would be very difficult for me.) Abzeronow (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you mentioned me, I want to notice that it seems Japanese Wikipedia not allow this picture by the policy. Be careful about that. See w:ja:Wikipedia:FAQ 画像などのファイル#フェアユースによるファイルのアップロードはできますか. LaMagiaaa (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, LaMagiaaa. Imperial meter, I cannot undelete the one you want on Japanese Wikipedia because the copyright is still active in Japan. Japanese Wikipedia only allows fair use for media that is expired in Japan but not in the United States (which tends to include many things from the 1940s to the 1960s, and also post-1928 media from authors who died from 1947 to 1967.). Abzeronow (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Imperial meter: since it's been more than a week. As mentioned, I cannot undelete for Japanese Wikipedia but I could still for English Wikipedia provided that you want to transfer it yourself. Abzeronow (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen ausgefertigte Heimatverzichtserklärungen zu Dolgen im Entwurf, die abgelehnt wurden.pdf

Guten Abend, es handelt sich bei dem gelöschten File um ein familiengeschichtlich relevantes Dokument der Plessen-Familie. Das Dokument ist bzgl. des abgewickelten Rittergutes Dolgen von zentraler Relevanz und erklärt historische Fakten nach der Wiedervereinigung Deutschlands. Das Rittergut Dolgen ist insgesamt von enzyklopädischer Relevanz. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of the people mentioned are identified by their real names by the Chairman of the Plessen-Family and I therefore see no violations of personal rights through the historical family document. - My mother Rosemarie Pfeiffer (geb. von Plessen) is dead. This is a historical- and one of the last documents of the Dolgener-Plessen-Family and it was the last with of my dead mother to complete the family documents, regarding "Rittergut Dolgen" of her suicided father Leopold Freiherr von Plessen, in an encyclopedic format for all Plessen-members and Wiki-readers. I think the chairman of the Plessen family - User:Christian von Plessen - also agrees, since he has publicly named everyone's real names. " Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Raymond du hast offenbar eine Oversight Anfrage zu dieser Datei bekommen und diese durchgeführt. Abgesehen davon waren die Angaben zu Autor und Urheberrecht falsche, es müsste auch geklärt werden, woher das Dokument stammt. GPSLeo (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Das historische Familiendokument der Plessen stammt - völlig klar erkennbar von User:Christian von Plessen - dem Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen. Ich denke, Herr Rechtsanwalt Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen zu Damshagen & Schönfeld wird mit der Veröffentlichung des historischen Dokuments bzgl. des Rittergutes Dolgen sehr einverstanden sein, da er selber alle Klarnamen öffentlich publiziert hat und immer an einer wahrheitsgemäßen enzyklopädischen Außerdarstellung der Familie von Plessen sehr interessiert ist, so denke ich. Als Rechtsanwalt und Volljurist hat er die Publizierung der Klarnamen hinsichtlich des Datenschutzes ganz sicherlich geprüft, so denke ich. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPSLeo Das ist richtig. Der Benutzer mag sich gerne für eine Überprüfung wieder an die Oversighter, aber logischerweise nicht an mich, wenden. Raymond (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@(Christian von Plessen möge sich zur mögl. Freischaltung äußern) - Das historische Familiendokument der Plessen stammt - völlig klar erkennbar von User:Christian von Plessen - dem Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen. Ich denke, Herr Rechtsanwalt Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen zu Damshagen & Schönfeld wird mit der Veröffentlichung des historischen Dokuments bzgl. des Rittergutes Dolgen sehr einverstanden sein, da er selber alle Klarnamen öffentlich publiziert hat und immer an einer wahrheitsgemäßen enzyklopädischen Außerdarstellung der Familie von Plessen sehr interessiert ist, so denke ich. Als Rechtsanwalt und Volljurist hat er die Publizierung der Klarnamen hinsichtlich des Datenschutzes ganz sicherlich geprüft, so denke ich. Ich bitte hiermit um Freischaltung des Dokuments, da es im Interesse einer enzyklopädisch korrekten Außendarstellung der Ur-Adelsfamilie derer von Plessen liegt. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support My vote, the reasons have been explained. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gordito1869: you cannot vote on your own undeletion request. Günther Frager (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only wanted to express my argument visually. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The activation of this historical document +++ https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:R%C3%BCckabwicklung_des_Plessengutes_Dolgen_am_See.pdf&action=edit&redlink=1 +++ would be even more important, as it clearly documents the final and historical demise of the Dolgen manor. All people were publicly expelled from Commons by the chairman of the Plessen-family association +++ here +++. I therefore do not recognize any data protection violations. I would very politely ask you to also unlock this encyclopedic and contemporary historical document. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC) - PS : "...das Verständnis familiärer und historischer Zusammenhänge" ist das enzyklopädische Ziel; deshalb ist die Freischaltung i.S. des Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen enzyklopädisch dringend geboten & absolut erwünscht, so denke ich. ... vgl. auch +++ hier +++; die neuesten Forschungsstände zum abgewickelten Rittergut Dolgen wurden leider bisher noch nicht enzyklopädisch erfasst resp. dokumentiert. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)-Reply[reply]
@(Christian von Plessen have now been repeatedly asked publicly to support the activation by publicly agreeing; since it is a verified user Template:User account verified I suggest that the support team made a corresponding request to the verified User / Benutzer Christian von Plessen via e-mail. The matter is very important for all Plessen and CvP will certainly agree, I think. Best regards --Gordito1869 (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...zur vollständigen familiengeschichtlichen-, historischen- und auch enzyklopädischen Dokumentation der Abwicklung des historischen Rittergutes Dolgen wäre sicherlich insgesamt die Freischaltung folgender - gelöschter - Files wünschenswert und im enzyklopädischen Interesse der Familie von Plessen :

  • File:Rückabwicklung des Plessengutes Dolgen am See.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen Einlassungen eines unberechtigten Dritten Vorsitzender des Familienverbandes der Plessen.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen gemeinschaftlicher EALG-Antrag an LARoV Hartwig von Plessen, Rosemarie Pfeiffer, 10-1994.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen ausgefertigte Heimatverzichtserklärungen zu Dolgen im Entwurf, die abgelehnt wurden.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen Notarvertrag zum Erbe des Rittergutsbesitzers zu Dolgen Leopold Freiherr von Plessen.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen LARV Schwerin Entscheidung nach AusglLG.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen Flächenerwerbsabsicht auf dem vormaligen Rittergut Dolgen nach ALG.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente Rittergut Dolgen Beschluss Deutscher Bundestag zu vollmachtloser BVVG-Vetternwirtschaft zu Damshagen, mit Auswirkung auf Dolgen.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Rittergut Dolgen - BVVG Landerwerbszusage nach ALG bzgl Dolgen.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Widerruf der BVVG bzgl einer zuvor bereits mehrfach durch LARoV und BVVG schriftlich erteilten ALG-Landerwerbszusage auf dem Rittergut Dolgen am See.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Aufkauf der (E)ALG-Rechtsansprüche an Plessengütern in der vormaligen SBZ.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Rittergut Dolgen - EGMR-Beschwerde 2005-1.pdf
  • File:Historische PLESSEN-Dokumente - Rittergut Dolgen - EGMR-Beschwerde 2005-2.pdf

Die Freischaltung der vorstehenden Files würde die komplette jüngere Vergangenheit der sog. "Nach-Wende-Zeit" vollständig visuell ab dieser Zeit abbilden; genau das liegt exakt im erklärten wissenschaftlichen Forschungs-Interesse des Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen @(Christian von Plessen, so denke ich. Beste Grüße --Gordito1869 (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)--Gordito1869 (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC) --- ps : es liegt leider die absolute Vermutung nahe, wir könnten es hier mit einem Hochstapler der PLESSEN zu tun haben, der sich als vorgeblicher Rechtsanwalt in eigener Sache mutmaßlich widerrechtlich ausgegeben haben könnte, so denke ich (nach meiner sehr validen Kenntnis familiärer Zusammenhänge ist CvP kein (!) Rechtsanwalt ... und auch niemals Rechtsanwalt gewesen, so denke ich. - MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC) ... ps II. - ich denke, die aktive Untätigkeit des Vorsitzenden der Plessen - @(Christian von Plessen - resp. Rechtsanwalt (?) Dr. jur. Christian von Plessen - könnte als passive Zustimmung zur Freischaltung der historischen- & familiengeschichtlich besonders wertvollen Dokumente ausgelegt werden. Vielleicht kann mit der Freischaltung des ersten Dokuments begonnen werden, das den Vorsitzenden des Familienverbandes der Plessen sehr persönlich angeht ? - MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ... ich denke, CvP liest - wie eigentlich immer - vollständig hier mit; wenn nunmehr auch noch eine e-mail Anfrage des support teams an @(Christian von Plessen ohne Reaktion verläuft, sollte m.E. freigeschaltet werden. Die unvollständige & absolut beschönigende resp. wahrheitswidrige Plessen-Saga des Edelherren Christian von Plessen muss unverzüglich geschichtsfest fortgeschrieben werden, so denke ich. - Ich habe ein aller-letztes Mal persönlich versucht, mit familiären & sehr persönlichen Worten, diesen offenbar völlig "abgetauchten" User "aus der Reserve" zu locken. - Alle entscheidenden familiären Zusammenhänge waren dem Vorsitzenden der Plessen bekanntlich leider bisher nicht bekannt, das sollte sich durch Freischaltung der hist. und enzyklopädisch wertvollen Familiendokumente aller Plessen sicherlich ändern können, so denke ich. --- Wie vermutlich einige (deutschsprachige) User bereits festgestellt haben werden, haben wir es mit dem widerwärtigsten und ehrlosesten VERRAT in der 1000-jährigen Geschichte der Plessen zu tun; Wiki-Commons ist m.E. der würdigste Ort, Geschichte enzyklopädisch und familienhistorisch korrekt zu schreiben resp. zu dokumentieren. - Wikipedia und Wiki-Commons sind "Orte", die sich der Wahrheit verschrieben haben und deren User/Benutzer nicht käuflich sind (ich selbst war und bin als Mensch und Bundebeamter niemals im Leben käuflich) : nur deshalb war ich lange Jahre Wikipedia Autor (158-Artikel & Listen) ... und bin seit ewigen Zeiten Wiki-Commons-User. Geschichte muss immer & überall auf UNSERER Welt auf nackter & ungeschönter Wahrheit beruhen, so denke ich ! - MfG Michael Pfeiffer alias --Gordito1869 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)--Gordito1869 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ... ich denke, wenn @(Christian von Plessen keinerlei "Lebenszeichen" mehr seit nunmehr 3-Jahren - als vormals sehr aktiver Commons-User & hochtalentierter Wikipedia-Schriftsteller - von sich gibt, ist das sicherlich kein gutes Zeichen. (Bei Wikipedia gibt es für diesen Fall eigens die "Liste der vermissten Wikipedianer". Eine Anfrage unter dessen hinterlegter e-mail Adresse wäre vor Aufnahme in die Vermisstenliste - rein aus Fürsorgegründen - dringend geboten, so denke ich. Auch die durch Herrn Rechtsanwalt Dr. jur. Christian von PLESSEN vor 3-Jahren bereits angekündigte enzyklopädische Fortschreibung der "Plessen-Sage" darf m.E. nicht auf unbestimmte Zeit ausgesetzt werden, so denke ich. --Gordito1869 (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guten Abend + kurz nachgefragt : Spricht etwas dagegen, die enyklopädisch- und insbes. familiengeschichtlich- resp. historisch relevanten Dokumente in anonymisierter Form (wie z.B. hier : geschwärzt) ggf. neu hochzuladen ? - H.E. steht nicht mehr zu erwarten, dass der mannigfach "angepingte" User einer Publizierung zustimmen wird; ich denke, die Gründe dafür sollten hinlänglich bekannt sein. Das Anonymisieren von Akten ist allgemein üblich - ohne die zu dokumentierenden Fakten auszublenden. MfG --Gordito1869 (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Louise Carrin.jpeg

I hereby affirm that I, Louise Carrin, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:

content attached to this email. This photo is a selfie of my self.

The file is : File:Louise Carrin.jpeg

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Louise Carrin

30.01.2024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelfilm (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 January 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

For scope, a filmmaker with at least some modest notability (grand prize of Oberhausen) may not meet completely the notability for a Wikipedia article but a photo can be useful for the public and be in scope for Commons. (Apparently, on Wikipedia, the deletion request of the article was decided as keep in 2017 before a new deletion request was decided as delete in 2023.) For copyright, considering the claim that the photo is a self-portrait, does that mean that the claim was found to be false or not believable? If that claim is not disputed and if the VRT correspondance establishes the identity of the person, is it ok? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: VRT agent confirms permission below, photo is in scope per Asclepias. --Abzeronow (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A different file with a similar name was on the ticket below. Reopening UDR Abzeronow (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Theriologia Ukrainica cover volume 18.jpg and File:Pts15-cover1-RGB.jpg

These files uploaded by @Zag: were deleted by @Fitindia: as missing permission. However, these are covers of a journal that a) is entirely open-access and under a free license, b) the uploader is an editor and designer of the covers of. You can check here a page with this covers and a license cc-by-sa: the whole journal is available under a Commons-compatible CC license. The fact that the uploader is also the editor-in-chief can be confirmed here and he also confirmed on his Wikipedia talk page that he designed these covers himself. If the official website of a journal already shows a free license, this is already an acceptable permission for Commons. Here in addition the images were uploaded by the editor-in-chief himself, so I don't see what other permission we might need — NickK (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support peer NickK, I checked the page and have a license (Google translator) AbchyZa22 (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Tarjeta electoral Partido Regional Progresistas Merideños Independientes.jpg

Buenas, necesito que algún administrador restaure el Logo del Partido Regional Progresistas Merideños Independientes, en mi opinión se trata de un {{PD-textlogo}} el Logo contiene texto como indica en (https://twitter.com/PartidoPMI) como en la mayoría de categoría los logos de partidos políticos en Venezuela son de texto (Category:Logos of political parties in Venezuela) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbchyZa22 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC) (UTC)Reply[reply]

License says, that "Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector" are ineligible for copyright. Is the political party part of public sector? Taivo (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Buenas Taivo con respecto a "License says, that "Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector" are ineligible for copyright. Is the political party part of public sector?", te voy a responder, si forma parte de un partido político del sector público AbchyZa22 (talk)
Not done, per Ruthven. Also, File:Logo de la Unidad.jpg is not public domain. Thuresson (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Popeye

Hi, The Popeye character is already in the public domain, as its first appearance in 1929 was not renewed. See Commons:Character copyrights and the talk page for details. So the following files can be undeleted. Yann (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Hm. As Prosfilaes noted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Popeye 4th of july.png, the initial comic strip with Popeye from early 1929 was renewed, R164887 under King Feature Syndicates, claiming as proprietor of a work for hire. That may have not been enough to create a character copyright, but the possibility of a derivative work on a simple drawing basis may remain. And as additional elements can be added to the character later, creating a derivative work of that character, you'd have to make sure that later versions don't reproduce those copyrightable increments. If there were no other renewals until the 1933 cartoons, I may wait a year then undelete 1929-1932 versions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for this, Carl. My apologies in not finding that. I really appreciate this. Sorry to @Yann as well for this miss. SDudley (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: OK, let's wait until next year. --Yann (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chilean TOO files

Hello there. I want to ask for the undeletion of some images from Chile that have been deleted as a result of the misleading effect a now-removed phrase included on the COM:TOO Chile had. Per my reasoning at Commons:Deletion requests/File:AbcdinLogo.svg, these files are not copyrighted in Chile as they are way too simple, and the former claim that the "Estamos bien los 33" was copyrighted was not correct, there was a "presumed copyright" which has since been disputed in court.

Some of the files include:

  • File:Primera dama logo.png
  • File:MegaDementeLogo.jpg
  • File:Estación Vivaceta.png
  • File:Mega.png
  • File:Logotipo de Teletrece (1994-1995).png
  • File:Logotipo de Teletrece (1970-1972).png

--Bedivere (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was your statement in that DR a ruling by the court, or just an argument by one of the parties? Not sure we can take an argument by one party in a court case as evidence that they will win on that argument. That all said, if the authority that registered the phrase earlier did not have any obligation to determine if it was above the threshold of originality in the first place, then not sure the registration can be taken as evidence for their being a copyright (unlike the U.S., where a copyright registration comes with that determination, so if published as a registered work there, it's likely above the threshold). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's correct. The registration authority just complies with registration requests without actually pronunciating or determining the registered work is or not copyrightable, that's what I've called presumed copyright. The court case is still ongoing (has been for several years for causes unrelated to the actual Leitmotiv). Sernageomin's position (to my knowledge of Chilean law, and as a graduate) is entirely correct, but it just helps (within the DR comment) to illustrate why giving the "Estamos bien..." registration as the cause for deletion of files such as those I've mentioned is not prudential, as the registration does not imply a copyright was actually generated, and including it in the TOO Chile page was not helping. You've understood the whole point though Carl. Just a close look at the pertinent law clears up the whole picture Bedivere (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:SASKATCHEWAN 1922 ---EMBOSSED LATE ISSUE PASSENGER BASEPLATE (4574441701).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A resized version of this image (File:Saskatchewan License Plate 1922.jpg) is now in use on en:Vehicle registration plates of Saskatchewan, so I don't think this is out of scope. The version currently in use is inferior because it's been resized down. I think we should restore this image and redirect the new one here. Alex Cohn (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both images are of the same plate. Is there any reason why you can not download the version from Flickr and overwrite this image? Thuresson (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The warning message I got when I attempted to do that (MediaWiki:File-deleted-duplicate) told me to request undeletion instead of reuploading a previously-deleted image if I disagreed with the original deletion rationale. Alex Cohn (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Alex Cohn: , please cleanup categories a little. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Logo Alcaldía Municipio Blvno Angostura (2021-2025).jpg

Buenas,necesito que algún administrador restaure el logo (busque en instagram la cuenta oficial de la Alcaldia),por que esta en el Dominio Público ({{PD-VenezuelaGov}}) esa Alcaldia forman parte del sector público como indica la licencia en Venezuela. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbchyZa22 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 3 February 2024‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{O}} Initially declared at upload as {{PD-textlogo}}: but it contains also images, not only text. Moreover, {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} applies only to "texts of laws, decrees, official regulations, public treaties, judicial decisions and other official acts.", it does not apply to images. Mayor's Office is not a legal act. Ankry (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment The last paragraph of license says: "Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector or financed through public funds that generates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, while maintaining the authors' rights to public recognition." And this is CoA of local government. License seems plausible. (Google translator) y otra cosa más la Alcaldía (Mayor Office) forma parte del sector público (public sector) por eso que esta en el Dominio Público. AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Taivo:Buenas, este logo de la Alcaldía esta en el Dominio Público ({{PD-VenezuelaGov}}) porque forma parte del sector público?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which exactly exception in Venezuelan copyright law states this? No such information in ({{PD-VenezuelaGov}} or COM:Venezuela. The only exception we know applies to legal texts only. And copyright law has to be interpreted explicitly. Ankry (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ankry:Te explico,en Venezuela el sector público está constituido por Legislativo, Ejecutivo, Judicial, Ciudadano y Electoral.Excepto el logo de un partido político no es un sector público si no un privado, según la legislación venezolana (todo que se relacionado con el sector público eso está permitido agregar el {{PD-VenezuelaGov}} osea los logos relacionados con el sector público tanto nacionales como estatales y municipales (por ejemplo el Logo de la Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela (La Asamblea nacional de Venezuela es el Poder Legislativo Nacional):File:Logo Asamblea Nacional.svg) AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AbchyZa22: Do you refer to the last paragraph of the template ("La producción intelectual generada bajo relación de trabajo en el sector público, o financiada a través de fondos públicos que origine derechos de propiedad intelectual, se considerará del dominio público, manteniéndose los derechos al reconocimiento público del autor o autora.", English: "Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector—or financed through public funds—that generates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, while maintaining the authors' rights to public recognition.")?  Weak support then as we do not know if the author was an employee or how the cration of the logo was financed. But the most likely from public funds. Ankry (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ankry:Para mi opinión es  Support ,el alcalde lo creó el logo pero como forma parte del sector público (osea tiene que estar relacionado con política ejemplo:Ejecutivo,etc.) eso está en el Dominio Público (osea está OK),pregunta al Usuario Taivo ,o Wilfredor?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Please remember that the article that you invoke (LOTT, art. 325) requires "manteniéndose los derechos al reconocimiento público del autor o autora". Therefore, the identity of the author should be researched and credited. Which also has the good effect to help determine if that person was an employee of a public entity and if their "invention, innovation or amelioration" was financed. We must also keep in mind that "art. 325: Inventions, innovations and ameliorations in the public sector" ("Artículo 325 : Invenciones, innovaciones y mejoras en el sector público") is restricted to inventions, innovations and ameliorations. That notion is defined in art. 323 and applies both to the public sector (art. 325) and the private sector (art.326). Art.323: "Will be considered inventions, innovations or service improvements, those made by workers employed by the employer for the purpose of researching and obtaining different means, systems or procedures." ("Artículo 323 : Invenciones, innovaciones o mejoras de servicio : Se considerarán invenciones, innovaciones o mejoras de servicio aquellas realizadas por trabajadores contratados o trabajadoras contratadas por el patrono o la patrona con el objeto de investigar y obtener medios, sistemas o procedimientos distintos.") It must be something by workers in the course of the employment for the purpose of researching and obtaining different means, systems or procedures. That seems meant for research and development (for example in the petroleum industry and other enterprises). It might seem a bit of a stretch to apply that to a municipal logo. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment @Asclepias:Buenas por ejemplo (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alcaldía BMUracoa (2021-2025).jpg) según el Usuario Taivo (Admin of Wikimedia) indica que el Logo es plausible. AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, With a half-dozen separate discussions about the same topic scattered over different pages and sections, it's not surprising to have various comments. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias:Ok,Cual es tú opinión restaurar la imagen ( Support) o oponerse ( Oppose)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Wall of sorrow at the first exhibition of the victims of Stalinism in Moscow.jpg

I request to restore this file, because the uploader verified his another deleted file here File:The overthrow of the monument to Dzerzhinsky in front of the KGB on Lubyanka in Moscow.jpg.--FlorianH76 (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose The permission in ticket:2024013110000181 has not been accepted, yet. If the ticket contains a valid permission for the abovementioned file, the image will be undeleted after the permission is verified and accepted by a VRT volunteer. No action by you is needed here. Ankry (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: 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) 14:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:The Finn 2000 NYR 09368 0148 000(011217).jpg

out of process deletion - The Finn by Andrew Wyeth (b. 1917). published "B. O'Doherty, R. Meryman and E.P. Richardson, The Art of Andrew Wyeth, Greenwich, Connecticut, 1973, p. 103, illustrated" [2]. no notice, no renewal, therefore PD-US. maybe you should stop warning people about US copyright. --Frypie (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Frypie: If you added this information at upload instead of pre-1929 publication declaration, then the image would probably not be deleted. And per policy, it is up to you to provide proper copyright-related information, not up to others to search for a PD rationale.
But now, how can we verify that the declared publication is indeed without copyright notice? If the book is PD, it can be publicly available and also its scanned version can be uploaded to Commons. Ankry (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moreover, Google finds multiple books under the same title published in 1973 by Wanda M. Corn. They are not available for download, so most likely copyrighted. How did you verify that the initial publication of this image was without copyright notice? Was the one mentioned by you earlier than the others, or only this one contains this image? Ankry (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Template:PD-US "This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1929, and if not then due to lack of notice or renewal. See this page for further explanation." what is the standard of practice to indicate PD-US, since the license with the plain statement was ignored? would any amount of evidence avoid a speedy deletion, since the rationale was "The artist died in 2009" ? the extensive publication history is strong evidence it was published without a renewal. what evidence would you accept?
if you have questions about US copyright, leave a message on talk, but do not speedy with EU retionales. --Frypie (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not good that some took the PD-US tag to only mean publication before 1929 -- that tag it is rather when the precise reason is unknown (i.e. the precise publication date is unknown, but is known enough to be sure that a renewal would have been needed and does not exist, something like that). The tag is sometimes used by upload bots on collections of known-US-PD works so that the precise reason does not need to be identified in a bulk upload.
However, I'm not sure we know this one is PD-US. It was certainly published, yes -- it was exhibited starting in 1970 given your link, but that was not necessarily publication. It was published in that 1973 book, but did that book have a copyright notice? If so that would cover any images within (i.e. it would not lose copyright by being in that book). And in fact, that book did have a copyright notice.[3] If a work was exhibited in public before 1978 without any attempt to say stop photography, it may have been published then, and a notice would have been needed around the painting somewhere. We deem many old public statues public domain for that reason. "Publication" of paintings is unfortunately very difficult to determine, especially more recent ones, and if not published by 1978 it got even harder to do (especially losing copyright due to it). Basically, after that copies have to be actually distributed without a notice, so we would need to be able to show such actual copies (other than the painting itself) without a notice. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US for some of the complications on this. A 1970 work did not need a registration or renewal to keep its copyright, so the lack of them also does not prove anything. Basically, we need to identify an act which was deemed publication by the courts at the time, and which also had no copyright notice with it. You identified a 1973 publication for sure, but that had a copyright notice. Any other books it was in were likely to have a notice. It sounds like it was in a catalog for a Boston exhibition in 1970; if that publication had no notice we may have a chance, but I would guess that is unlikely. So PD in 2066 at the latest, but we may need some more concrete evidence of it becoming PD earlier than that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Art of Andrew Wyeth is in the 1973 Catalog of Copyright Entries, see [4]. Per the page at Christie's, it was exhibited at Washington, DC, The White House, February-March 1970 and Boston, Massachusetts, Museum of Fine Arts, Andrew Wyeth, July 1970, no. 169, pp. 162-3, illustrated. --Rosenzweig τ 18:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1970 Boston exhibition catalog, titled Andrew Wyeth, is in the 1970 Catalog of Copyright Entries, see [5]. --Rosenzweig τ 18:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Microsoft Surface Pro (2017).png

File was tagged "copyvio" for containing the Windows 10 default wallpaper, and I had since uploaded a blurred version. But it was still deleted, probably because the thumbnail was not updated in time and the administrator did not notice the blurred one. So, please restore the blurred version. Thanks 0x0a (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: See above. I fixed the author and source. --Yann (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Lisa Shtormit.jpg

Can you please check [Ticket#2023110810005167]. Photographer and artist portraiyed in the pictured both have signed the agreement.

 VRT agent: The permission is fine, but it seems to be a problem with the file itself. I see permission for File:Lisa_Shtormit_by_Victoria_de_Rocco.JPG. That file doesn't exist in Wikimedia Commons. When I tried to upload it, the software says that file is the same as File:Lisa Shtormit.jpg. When I click that file, I only see this edit. I'm unable to solve this problem. --Ganímedes (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ganímedes: , I undeleted the rest of File:Lisa Shtormit.jpg. Abzeronow (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done by Abzeronow, marked with permission ticket by the VRT agent. Nothing more to do here. Ankry (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel.jpg

Image was deleted in "speedy deletion" process but from discussion I understand that permissions were not explained well enough. There was the claim that "there's no reason to believe this—or any of the miscellaneous disparate photos used on his wanted poster—are the works of the FBI or US federal government". Actually there is a reason because this photo did not appear only on his wanted poster but also as a saperate image in FBI Multimedia database here: [6].
The footnote of the main page here - [7] - clearly states "These images are for your use in publicizing the FBI and may be used without cost or permission. Please credit the FBI or the appropriate individual/organization listed in the description field." There is no additional information on in description field so we have actual claim from federal agency that this photo is free to use and there is no reason to distrust it.

 Comment Parallel discussion of a point raised in the DR is also being discussed at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#%22Booth_Pictures%22_and_U._S._Threshold_of_Originality. DR is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bhadreshkumar Chetanbhai Patel.jpg. Abzeronow (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support as I said, this should be {{PD-ineligible}}. Yann (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose Yann argues that this is a booth picture and therefore has no copyright. That may be true, but it is certainly unproven. The image is very poor quality and is probably a crop from a much larger image, not a booth photo. As noted in the DR, the subject has never been in US custody, so it can not be an FBI photo. The FBI's claim is probably based on Fair Use or simple ignorance of copyright law. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Jim, By the look of it, this is certainly a booth picture. See my detailed arguments on COM:VPC.

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

File:Artur Puzio.jpg

There is a proper agreement of copyright owner sent to VTRS. See ticket:2023092710009097 Polimerek (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done: @Polimerek: , please update permissions. ─ Aafī (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:The Mad Doctor (1933).webm

The short was deleted under the unfair statement that Pluto appears and this is not true because i edited all the scenes he appears so this must be inmediately undeleted The New Foxy (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notifying Racconish. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It seems obvious to me Pluto is not the only issue and the previous consensus on Mickey's character is not affected by the expiration of the Steamboat Willie copyright, since this is a more modern version of it. Nevertheless, on second thought, I would agree this is not a matter of speedy deletion and there is room for a community discussion to confirm the matter. — Racconish 💬 18:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It could still be derivative of intermediate modifications to Mickey Mouse, if those increments were enough for a copyright on their own. There were some comments in Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Mad Doctor 1933 Mickey Mouse Sound Cartoon.webm and elsewhere on that matter. Unfortunately, each film or short which adds a copyrightable amount of expression to a character creates an ongoing derivative work really, and so the character will expire bit by bit. The initial expiration has happened, but if there were copyrighted movies in 1929/1930/1931/1932 which added enough expression, then copying that expression later in this movie could still be derivative. We would probably need a list of what intermediate films were renewed, and try to see beyond a significant doubt if nothing has been added in those, which is present in this one. It is unfortunately messy and open to a lot of argumentation. I have seen some sites which show some drawing changes to Mickey in 1929. I still think we should avoid restoring anything after 1928 for that reason, though the analysis may be more possible next year once those 1929 films expire. None of this is easy and there is little court precedent so far to help us. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Oppose peer Carl Lindberg AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per above & previous. Editing out scenes with "Pluto" character IMO dubious. Just wait 5 years for it to be clearly PD. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Ricardo Montero Allende 2023.jpg

This photo is already used as a Twitter profile photo, so its rights have been released. Please undelete.

This photos is already used at https://twitter.com/Rmontero_. Please undelete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashvak (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose Commons is for free licensed media only; see COM:LICENSE. That someone puts a photo on twitter or other social media has nothing to do with the copyright status. You falsely uploaded it with a claim that the photo was your "own work" (meaning you were the photographer and copyright holder). Please be accurate and honest with uploads, and know that most media online is not free licensed unless there is some specific statement that it is. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=840982298"