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

Hier kannst Du die Wiederherstellung gelöschter Seiten oder Dateien beantragen. Andere Nutzer können die Anfrage kommentieren, das heißt es findet eine zweite Diskussion über die Löschung statt.

Diese Seite gehört nicht zu Wikipedia. Diese Seite behandelt Inhalte von Wikimedia Commons, einem Archiv für freie Mediendateien, die von Wikipedia und anderen Wikimedia-Projekten verwendet werden. Wikimedia Commons nimmt keine Enzyklopädie-Artikel auf. Zur Beantragung der Wiederherstellung eines Artikels oder anderer Inhalte der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia-Ausgabe siehe die Löschprüfungs-Seite dieses Projekts.

Schaue dir zuerst das Löschlogbuch an und finde heraus, warum die Datei gelöscht wurde. Verwende auch die Funktion Links auf diese Seite um zu sehen, ob die gelöschte Datei in Diskussionen verlinkt wurde. Wenn du selbst die Datei hochgeladen hast, findest du in der Regel auf deiner Benutzerdiskussionsseite Informationen, die die Löschung erklären. Lies bitte auch die Löschrichtlinien, die Richtlinien zum Projektumfang, und die Lizenzregel, um herauszufinden, warum die Datei möglicherweise nicht für Commons geeignet ist.

Wenn die Begründung nicht klar ist oder du sie in Zweifel ziehst, kannst du den löschenden Administrator kontaktieren und ihn um eine Erklärung bitten oder ihm Argumente liefern, die gegen eine Löschung sprechen. Bei Verständigungsproblemen kann dir auch ein Administrator helfen, der deine Muttersprache spricht. Sofern dieses Vorgehen nicht zu einer Wiederherstellung führt, kannst du hier den Wiederherstellungswunsch der Community zur Prüfung vorlegen.

Löschungen, die den Richtlinien zu Löschungen, dem Projektrahmen und zur Lizensierung entsprechen, werden nicht rückgängig gemacht. Vorschläge zur Änderung von Richtlinien können auf deren jeweiligen Diskussionsseiten gemacht werden.

Wenn du glaubst, dass die betreffende Datei weder eine Urheberrechtsverletzung darstellt noch sich außerhalb des Projektumfangs befindet:

• Sollte Dir der Grund für die Löschung nach Lesen der Diskussion nicht klar sein, kontaktiere den löschenden Administrator und bitte ihn, Dir die Argumente für seine Entscheidung nochmals darzulegen.
• Wenn du niemanden direkt ansprechen möchtest, der zuständige Administratur die Wiederherstellung abgelehnt hat oder wenn du weiteren Benutzern die Gelegenheit geben möchtest, an der Diskussion teilzunehmen, kannst du die Wiederherstellung auf dieser Seite hier beantragen.
• Wenn die Datei gelöscht wurde, weil eine Genehmigung des Urhebers fehlte, folge bitte der Anleitung zum Liefern einer Genehmigung des Urhebers. Wenn du dies bereits getan hast, gibt es keinen Grund mehr, hier eine Löschprüfung zu beantragen. Sofern die eingesendete Genehmigung in Ordnung ist, wird die Datei nach einer entsprechenden Prüfung wieder hergestellt. Bitte gedulde dich jedoch, da dieser Vorgang mehrere Wochen in Anspruch nehmen kann. Die Dauer hängt dabei von der jeweiligen Auslastung unserer freiwilligen Helfer ab.
• Wenn in der Beschreibung des gelöschten Bildes einige Informationen fehlen, werden dir möglicherweise Fragen gestellt. Es wird im Allgemeinen erwartet, dass solche Fragen in den folgenden 24 Stunden beantwortet werden.

Dateilöschungen können befristet rückgängig gemacht werden, um entweder eine Löschprüfung zu unterstützen, oder um die Übertragung der Datei zu einem Projekt zu ermöglichen, das Fair use unterstützt. Verwende dafür den Baustein {{Request temporary undeletion}} in der entsprechenden Diskussion und liefere eine Erklärung dazu.

1. Falls die befristete Wiederherstellung zur Diskussion um die Löschprüfung beitragen soll, erkläre, warum es für diese Diskussion hilfreich wäre, die Löschung zeitweilig rückgängig zu machen,
2. oder, falls die befristete Wiederherstellung dazu dienen soll, die Datei zu einem Fair-use-Projekt zu verschieben, gib bitte an, auf welchem Projekt du die Datei hochladen möchstest und stelle einen Link bereit, der auf die jeweilige Fair-use-Regelung des Projekts zeigt.

Dateien können zeitweilig wieder hergestellt werden, um bei der Diskussion zur Löschprüfung Klarheit zu schaffen, falls es für die Benutzer schwierig ist, zu entscheiden, ob eine Wiederherstellung gerechtfertigt ist, aber die Datei selbst nicht zugänglich ist. Sofern eine Beschreibung der Datei oder ein Zitat aus der Beschreibung auf der Dateiseite zur Entscheidungsfindung ausreichen, können die Administratoren stattdessen solche Beschreibungen bereitstellen, anstatt die Löschung befristet rückgängig zu machen. Anfragen zur befristeten Wiederherstellung dürfen abgelehnt werden, wenn der Eindruck entsteht, dass der Nutzen für die Löschprüfung hinter anderen, schwerwiegenderen Faktoren zurücksteht (z. B. die Wiederherstellung - auch zeitweilig - von Dateien, bei denen gravierende Bedenken hinsichtlich von Commons:Fotografien erkennbarer Personen bestehen). Dateien, die befristet wieder hergestellt wurden, um die Löschprüfung zu unterstützen, werden regulär nach 30 Tagen wieder gelöscht, oder wenn die Diskussion zur Löschprüfung geschlossen wird (je nachdem, was früher eintritt).

Anders als die englischsprachige Wikipedia und einige weitere Wikimedia-Projekte erlaubt Commons keine unfreien Inhalte, die sich auf Fair-use-Bedingungen beziehen. Wenn eine gelöschte Datei die Fair-use-Bedingungen eines anderen Wikimedia-Projektes erfüllt, dürfen Commons-Benutzer die befristete Wiederherstellung beantragen, um die Datei dorthin zu übertragen. Solche Anfragen werden im allgemeinen zügig ohne weitere Diskussion bearbeitet. Dateien, die zur Übertragung an andere Projekte wieder hergestellt wurden, werden nach zwei Tagen erneut gelöscht. Falls du eine solche Wiederherstellung beantragst, gib bitte an, zu welchem Projekt du die Datei übertragen möchtest, und verlinke die Fair-use-Bedingungen des jeweiligen Projekts.

Stelle zuerst sicher, dass du versucht hast, herauszufinden, weshalb die Datei gelöscht wurde. Danach lies dir bitte die folgende Anleitung durch, wie der Antrag gestellt wird, bevor du weitermachst.

• Beantrage nicht die Wiederherstelleung einer nicht gelöschten Datei.
• Veröffentliche keine E-Mails oder Telefonnummern von dir selbst oder andere.
• Gib einen passenden Betreff im Feld Subject: ein. Falls du die Wiederherstellung einer einzelnen Datei beantragen möchtest, ist es ratsam eine Überschrift nach dem Muster [[:File:GelöschteDatei.jpg]] zu verwenden (denk bitte an den Doppelpunkt ganz am Anfang des Links).
• Gib die Datei(en) an, deren Löschprüfung du beantragen möchtest, und verlinke sie (siehe oben). Wenn du den genauen Dateinamen nicht weißt, liefere mach bitte so viele Angaben, wie möglich. Anfragen, die keine Informationen dazu enthalten, was eigentlich geprüft werden soll, dürfen ohne weitere Benachrichtigung geschlossen und archiviert werden.
• Nenne den Grund/die Gründe für die beantragte Löschprüfung.
• Unterschreibe den Antrag, indem du vier Tilde-Zeichen eingibst (~~~~). Falls du ein Benutzerkonto bei Commons hast, logge dich bitte ein, bevor du unterschreibst. Falls du die Datei ursprünglich selbst hochgeladen hattest, kann dies den Administratoren dabei helfen, sie zu identifizieren.

Füge den Antrag am Schluss der Seite hinzu. Klick hier, um die Seite zu öffnen, auf der du deinen Antrag stellen solltest. Wahlweise kannst du auch auf den Link "Bearbeiten" neben dem aktuellen Datum weiter unten klicken. Beobachte den Abschnitt mit deinem Antrag auf Änderungen und Ergänzungen.

Im Prinzip werden Diskussionen nur von Administratoren geschlossen.

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]

• @Yann: Undelete File:Артисты МХАТ СССР имени Горького возвращаются из Парижа со Всемирной выставки.jpg. Published in Izvestiya, 1 September 1937. Kges1901 (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done @Kges1901: Please add relevant information in the file description. Yann (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Awards of Rostekhnadzor
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Medals of Rostekhnadzor
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Medals of Ministry of Sport (Russia)
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Awards of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia

Current DR discussions

• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The Russian Federation Investigative Committee medals
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Medals of Ministry of Transport (Russia)

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]

How can we verify its official status? Where and when the decission that established this reward was published? Ankry (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• File:Netflix web page linked from the "Choose a New Plan" button in the Netflix email titled "Choose a new plan now to keep watching", 2024.png (image 1)
• File:Netflix email titled "Choose a new plan now to keep watching", 2024.png (image 2)

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

• Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Fernsprechbuch_der_DDR_K-M-St_-_1990_-_Ortsnetzkennzahlen.pdf
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carta - Anexo.png
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:All India Reporter.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cable ARA San Juan SUBMISS.jpg

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

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

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

Like I said, for image 1, it is pretty much the same text (with three sentences), but slightly changed for each of the four text boxes.

You can think of the text boxes as like "recipes" for making food. And recipes are not eligible for copyright according to the Copyright Office: "A mere listing of ingredients or contents, or a simple set of directions, is uncopyrightable"

It's like if someone wrote a cookbook containing a page with the ingredient lists for four different types of pizzas, with only slight changes in the ingredient list for each of the four pizzas.

And it doesn't matter how many ingredients are listed for each pizza, whether it's three, 30, or even 3,000. There is simply no copyright for listing items with no creative authorship.

Also, in the case that the body of the email in image 2 is judged to be copyrightable, I would like to ask whether I can upload a new version of image 2, but only with the title legible, and the body blurred. The Copyright Office also said that "Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are uncopyrightable..."

The Copyright Office also said that copyright is ineligible for "format" or "layout", so even the format of the email in image 2 is uncopyrightable.

All references to the Copyright Office's judgments mentioned above come from Circular 33: [9]

Complete sentences are not automatically copyrighted in the US, so we have to actually look at the sentences and ask ourselves if they are eligible for copyright.

I'm not sure if you have seen the Hillary Clinton example I posted earlier (Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Hillary_Clinton_2016_DNC_Speech.webm), but the following sentence was judged to be uncopyrightable:

"So it is with humility, determination and boundless confidence in America’s promise that I accept your nomination for president of the United States.”

And the sentence above has way more literary language than either image 1 or image 2. FunnyMath (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: FunnyMath (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think it's worth taking a look at Circular 33 for an example of a recipe that is uncopyrightable:

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

FunnyMath (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please restore the following pages:

• File:PBS 2009 3D.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:PBS2009symbol Blue.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:PBS 1971 No Split.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:PBS2009symbol Green.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:PBS 1971 No Split Flipped.svg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:PBS2009symbol Magenta.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
• File:PBS2009symbol Orange.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: The design is likely above COM:TOO US however per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by SergioCarino the file acually became free through formalities so therefore these qualify for {{PD-US-1978-89}}. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:PBS 1971 id.svg which regards an older variant of PBS's logo, also resulting in keep. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 50.201.40.102 (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I request it because when I uploaded the imagem I didn't have sufficient know to do it and now I have more. I put the wrong license, but I can correct it:

Category:Darcy Ribeiro Category:Anthropology Category:Society

I want that it be valid for use in any Wikipedia, can you too check if this definition can do it?

Thank you so much.

AriranhaRB (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as no permission and deleted as such. Is a digitization of text scheme from a 1972 book by Darcy Ribeiro (1922-1997), ToO in Brazil is high so it could be under that. I'm not sure if this would be in Commons scope as it is text. Abzeronow (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an image file for a modified logo, currently needed for discussion in Arabic Wikipedia (Check this link). And it was not in the user space. I think the criteria for deletion doesn't apply here.--محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader him/herself had requested its deletion ("User requested deletion in own user space"). --Túrelio (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Túrelio But the file wasn't in his user space. It was uploaded to the file namespace, and it is still used in an important discussion in Ar Wiki. محمد أحمد عبد الفتاح (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I've temporarily undeleted it now. --Túrelio (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please temporarily undelete for archiving purposes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrikisa (talk • contribs) 05:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Coat of arms of Fernando Altamira.svg
• File:Coat of arms of Daniel Dolan.svg
• File:Coat of arms of Rodrigo Henrique Ribeiro da Silva.svg
• File:"Marcha Triunfal" (Hino Nacional Brasileiro) em Mi maior.ogg
• File:Coat of arms of the Central African Empire (redesign).svg
• File:Dom Richard Williamson USML.jpg
• File:Coat of arms of Richard Williamson.svg
• File:Coat of Arms Papal States.svg
• File:Brasão Diocese de Guaxupé.svg

Solicito a restauração do referido arquivo, tendo em vista uma autêntica ilegitimidade na reivindicação por sua exclusão, a qual iniciou-se após a remoção de um artigo na Wikipédia lusófona referente à uma personalidade pública. A referida remoção se deu por parte de seus detratores, dentre os quais alguns são wikipedistas. Entendo que todos esses trâmites tiveram por base uma visão parcial da referida personalidade e que, pelo simples fato de haver criado uma página em sua referência, dirigiram-se ataques contra mim e meus artigos e arquivos publicados na Wikipédia e Wikimedia, sendo todos eles de cunho educativo e informacional.

Agradecido, MineEdu (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - the photo can be used by anyone and should not have been deleted. It does not violate copyright violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marissalarkinucsf (talk • contribs) 18:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Not an own work, photo taken from a website. Unless explicitly given a free license, we cannot host it, see COM:L Abzeronow (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Draft rejected at en:Draft:Brian L. Black. Thuresson (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnmazik is a new editor who is struggling a bit with the site, so I am making this request on his behalf.

He has repeatedly uploaded several files from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Johnmazik.

Personally, I'm seeing two issues:

Notability

It isn't clear if the subject is notable.

Copyright

Both were taken from the musician's Blogspot. The OTRS ticket was closed, but, again, the uploader is struggling with the process, so it's possible he did in fact take the photos as he suggests. The subject doesn't seem to have much press, so it seems unlikely to me that OP is yet another adoring fan making a false claim of ownership. Nonetheless, if we determine that the subject is notable, I can try to walk the uploader through the OTRS process.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Seeing the very poor quality, I would say "What's the point?" These aren't good enough to illustrate anything IMHO. Yann (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose per Yann. 2 of the 3 images look to be versions of the same, and all are of poor quality. If they showed something particularly notable or important that might outweigh the poor image quality. However there is no indication that they do. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

=={{int:filedesc}}==
{{Information
|description={{en|1=throwingbottle WuSiyao}}
|date=2024-11-06
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:Greetingfox|Greetingfox]]
|permission={{Permission pending|year=2024|month=November|day=19}}
|other versions=
}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greetingfox (talk • contribs) 15:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Very small animated GIF file. Tagged as "no permission" and copyvio from ttps://tw.nextapple.com/politics/20240518/E656592A6DE88A01AF1BA61D57605E5B by Shizhao. Unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Minami-sushi-logo-- (5) (1) (1).png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: As on official website CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence mentioned for all images this including logo. Also, this image and the page where it will be displayed contain a link and mention of Minami Sushi where this license can be verified. Therefore, I ask you to restore this image. Тарас Мушій (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose CC-BY-NC-ND is not a valid license, see COM:WKL. Günther Frager (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]