Commons:Löschprüfung

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Undeletion requests and the translation is 100% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Undeletion requests and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

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

Other languages:

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.

Löschen (Löschrichtlinien)
(Missing: 89 URV • 18 Duplikate • 1 subpage) • 0 malformed
89 URV • 18 Duplikate • 53 selfies • 67 Andere
v • d • e

Finde heraus, weshalb eine Datei gelöscht wurde

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.

Eine Löschprüfung beantragen

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.

Befristete Wiederherstellung

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.

Unterstützung bei Diskussion zur Löschprüfung

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).

Zur Übertragung auf ein anderes Projekt

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.

Projekte, die Fair use erlauben
* 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.

Einen Antrag stellen

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.

Diskussionen schließen

Im Prinzip werden Diskussionen nur von Administratoren geschlossen.

Archiv

Abgeschlossene Löschprüfungen werden täglich archiviert.

Offene Anfragen

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

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

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

@Ruthven: @Friniate: for their Italian language skills and Italian copyright expertise. Abzeronow (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, in 5.2 they state that BCS is not a license : "Beni Culturali Standard (BCS) : Questa etichetta non è una “licenza” bensì si limita a sintetizzare il contenuto delle norme vigenti in materia di riproduzione di beni culturali pubblici, definendone i termini d’uso legittimo." -- Asclepias (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asclepias, OK, but if isn't a license, then how do we keep the photograph? It's clearly a modern photograph of a 3D object, so we need a license in order to keep it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the file deleted, it's hard to know what other info was provided by the uploader. Is it a picture taken by the uploader? Is it from a museum? {{PD-art}} wouldn't apply since it isn't a 2D object, but does another valid license cover a photo of an ancient 3D object? —Tcr25 (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tcr25: source is https://catalogo.beniculturali.it/detail/ArchaeologicalProperty/1100094920#lg=1&slide=1 Abzeronow (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I keep coming back to the BCS algins with NoC-OKLR 1.0 (No Copyright - Other Known Legal Restrictions). It doesn't appear that there is any assertion of copyright over the photo itself; the Catalogo generaledei Beni Culturali's terms and conditions mentions CC by 4.0 and the need to comply with BCS. (There is a mention of Law No. 633, but there's no indication of who the photographer is, implying that it is the property of the stated museum. If the "Data di Compilazione" (1999) is the date the image was created, then the museum's 20-year copyright would have expired, leaving just the non-copyright restriction in play. —Tcr25 (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: Your conclusion seems correct. But I am not an Italian speaker either. The whole long document should be read in its entirety. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tcr25 on the reading of the BCS license. The link to the NoC-OLKR statement contained in the BCS license is broken, but we can read it here (english version here), and it begins with Use of this item is not restricted by copyright and/or related rights. So it seems to me that the BCS license is a non-copyright restriction, since in the text of the BCS license is said that it complies to the NoC-OLKR. Adding the {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} should be sufficient for what regards the copyright on the object.
I'm much less sure about the copyright on the photo though. The terms and conditions mention indeed CC-BY-SA 4.0 (actually that is something that is valid for the entirety of the Italian Public Administration) but they also contain a specific exception for the photos, for which is clearly said that is necessary to obtain an authorization from the owner of the object (in this case the Soprintendenza Archeologica delle Marche), which will concede it with the same conditions that are applied for the photos of the object taken by other people (these). You can try to obtain an authorization from the Soprintendenza, asking if you can use these images with the Mibac-disclaimer, they may agree. Friniate (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I forgot to address the issue of the date of compilation. Yeah, it seems likely also to me that the photo was taken in the same occasion, but it's not clearly stated either... Friniate (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I actually nominated the file for deletion because of the NoC-OLKR statement (something close to {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}). But, if it is just a request, and not a copyright statement (in fact, in the very same page it is written that BCS applies to public domain artworks), we should consider the file/photograph as published under CC BY 4.0 license, like the whole website [1]. --Ruthven (msg) 12:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The general terms of use (which mention the CC license) begin right at the start with the familiar statement that it applies only "Dove non diversamente specificato", i.e. "Where not otherwise specified". The specific terms of use of this photograph clearly do specifiy otherwise with the BCS. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that's the Catch-22, the BCS says it's not a license, but if it isn't a license then the default license seems to be CC by 4.0 albeit with BCS as a non-copyright limitation on use. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CC license is excluded by the specific terms of use statement. Not every work is under a license or another. (And if a work was not copyrighted anywhere, it could not be licensed.) If the BCS tag means that the image is not copyrighted in Italy, either because this type of image is uncopyrightable under Italian law or because a 20-year copyright has expired in Italy, the question for Commons is if and how could that unlicensed image be used in the United States? A photo published after February 1989 is directly copyrighted in the U.S. (If the URAA is added, the photo would need to be from before 1976.) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"And if a work was not copyrighted anywhere, it could not be licensed" but that's part of the issue. The Italian cultural law, as I understand it, specifically looks to allow monetization through licensing of cultural artifacts that are no longer covered by copyright. It's not that a specific photograph requires a license, but any photograph of a cultural artifact would require a license. There is a current court case regarding the validity of this rule involving a German puzzle maker and Da Vinci's Uomo Vitruviano. Under Commons:NCR, "non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia." I'm not sure where the right line is here, but I don't think that we can say there is a clear copyright-based reason to exclude the image. If the image, like other parts of the website is CC-by-4.0 with the BCS limitation, wouldn't that be the baseline for the copyright status, not an unasserted U.S. copyright? —Tcr25 (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing is certain, it is that the image is not under CC BY 4.0. The photo might be in the public domain or it might be non-free, but it is not CC BY 4.0 because CC BY 4.0 is explicitly excluded by the website for such photos.
  • The nature of the BCS statement has some similarities with a "Public Domain Mark" (PDM) statement, plus non copyright restrictions. Commons accepts that the PDM can be considered as an equivalent of a release to the public domain by the copyright owner, if the PDM is issued by the copyright owner and if it is clear that the intention is to release the work in the public domain.
  • The problem with the source website Catalogo generale dei Beni Culturali is that it does not specify the initial origins of the photos, the photographers and who owns, or owned, the copyrights, including copyrights in countries other than Italy. The photos were possibly made for the respective museums. Depending on the contracts, the copyrights may have been owned by the photographers, the museums, or someone else. It is unclear how the BCS statement in the Catalogo can be interpreted. A possible meaning is something like "this photo is old enough to be in the public domain in Italy". But without details, it is not much use for Commons. If the ministry of Culture was not the owner of the copyright, the BCS cannot be interpreted as a release to the public domain by the copyright owner.
  • However, if we assumed that the ministry of Culture had somehow acquired the copyrights, we could consider the BCS as a release in the public domain worldwide. It is tempting to do so and to say that if they don't give details it's their problem. It is not very solid, but I would not object to that interpretation if there is a consensus for it. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asclepias here it's said that the entity which classified the object (and almost surely made also the photo) was the "Soprintendenza Archeologia delle Marche", which, although local, is part of the state administration. Here we can have more informations: we learn that the card was drafted by D. De Angelis for Consorzio Skeda under the supervision of G. Baldelli, likely an employee of the ministry.
    But I agree with you that the whole claim remains not very solid. Friniate (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that it is safe to assume that one organism (e.g. a regional Soprintendenza) of the Italian governement was the owner of the copyright on a work, then if another organism (the ministry of Culture) of the same government marks that work with a BCS statement, and if there is no contradictory evidence and no stated copyright restriction, it may not be unreasonable to consider the public domain aspect of that BCS statement as applicable worldwide and equivalent to a release in the public domain in countries where copyright might otherwise have subsisted. At least, they would be in a bad position to complain that readers interpreted it that way. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd like at least to know which was the contract between Consorzio Skeda (which is, as we can read here, a private company) and the Soprintendenza. The Soprintendenza probably supervised the process, but I think that we would need more informations in order to say that it's safe to assume that we can use the photo under US law. Friniate (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Friniate: There is no question about the free nature of the object. The question is indeed about the nature of the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asclepias Similar limitations as the BCS apply to all photos of objects classified as italian cultural heritage, also if you go to the museum and take one, for example. That is the reason why the Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer is embedded within all the photos taken within WLM Italy. Friniate (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such photos taken by Commons contributors are not a problem because contributors necessarily release them under free licenses. Such photos by Wikimedia Commons contributors are even mentioned in section 2.4.1 of the Linee guida per l’acquisizione, la circolazione e il riuso delle riproduzioni dei beni culturali in ambiente digitale. But the photo in discussion, File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg, is not a licensed photo by a Commons contributor, but an unlicensed photo from an external site. The problem for Commons is not the Italian BC directive. It is the absence of license and the U.S. copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make things clear, since if the BCS license is interpreted as a copyright restriction, that would mean the deletion of all the photos on almost every italian cultural object.I let other people more expert than me in the US copyright judge if according to the US law the image is ok or not. Friniate (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I was not implying that we should keep the image for what you are saying, I only said that if commons deems as unacceptable hosting objects covered by non copyright restrictions as the BCS or the Codice Urbani, that means deleting the photos of almost all italian cultural objects. It's a fact, not an opinion, everyone can decide what to do with this fact. By the way, I was not even saying that in order to argue for undeleting this image. Friniate (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per COM:GVT Italy, According to article 52, paragraph 2 of the Digital Administration Code, data and documents published by Italian public administrations without any explicit license are considered "open by default" (with exception of personal data). In this case, data and documents without explicit license can be used for free, also for commercial purpose, like CC-BY license or with attribution. Since the photo is a work of the Soprintendenza Archeologia delle Marche, the COM:GVT Italy statement would seem to apply. If the BCS considered a copyright restriction, despite its language, then this does become a wider problem, as Friniate noted. Regardless of the decision around this specific image, I think there needs to be broader consideration of how the BCS limitation is considered/handled. Also, this discussion, once it's closed, should probably be attached to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reperti archeologici S. Ginesio - Elmo di San Ginesio 01.jpg to update/expand the deletion rationale. —Tcr25 (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this matter we have finally a verdict on the lawsuit of the Italian Ministry against Ravensburger for the usage of images of the en:Vitruvian Man, which has clarified that restrictions as the Codice Urbani or the BCS are non-copyright restrictions which can not be applied outside Italy. Friniate (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again (third time) -- if the BCS is not a copyright license, then we have no license for the photograph. Apparently it is not a copyright license. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you parse the COM:GVT Italy statement that such images can be used without an explicit license? —Tcr25 (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reference for that part of the page is a broken link. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a Wayback machine link for that reference: [2] I believe the pertinent part is on page 84: "In conclusione, ai sensi dell’art. 52 del CAD, la mancata indicazione di una licenza associata ai dati già pubblicati implica che gli stessi si ritengano di tipo aperto secondo le caratteristiche principali sancite dall’art. 68 del CAD, già richiamato nell’introduzione delle presenti linee guida (principio dell’Open Data by default)." The guidelines were updated in 2017 [3] and the executive summary seems to be stepping back from that broad statement, but I don't trust my Italian enough to understand the full thinking. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A brave administrator will have to decide this difficult case one way or another. For consistency, the case also has the potential to impact many other files. A possibility can be this: Unless there is reason to believe otherwise, when a photograph is tagged by an organism of the Italian government with the tag "Beni Culturali Standard" (BCS), it is assumed that the organism has the legal right to make the public domain statement included in the BCS tag and that the public domain statement is meant to apply worldwide (i.e. equivalent to a release in the public domain by the copyright owner, if necessary), while the non-copyright restriction also included in the BCS tag does not prevent the hosting on Commons. It could be expressed, as the case may be, by the use of existing templates, such as "PD-copyright holder" plus "Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer", (or PD-Italy when clearly applicable), or by the creation of a new template specific for the BCS tag. Another possibility can be to decide that such photos cannot be hosted on Commons because of the precautionary principle. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was the original copyright tag for it in the United States and was or is it assumed to be valid? (I assume CC-BY-SA 4.0 but it doesn't seem clear from the conversation if the license actually applies or not). --Adamant1 (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request has been open for 48 days. The topic did not attract comments on the Village Pump/Copyright. In the broader context, in which this file is one among many, the easier solution would probably be to undelete this file, instead of launching a massive investigation to delete other files. It would be better if the ministry was explicit about why the images are in the public domain. In short, do they know what they're doing? But maybe we were too cautious. After all, people can hardly be said at fault for believing the statement when the file is explicitly tagged copyright-free at the official website of the ministry of Culture. Must we assume that their statement might be wrong unless we corroborate it? Must we investigate each image that they state copyright-free? It's good to do more research when possible, but it may be acceptable to assume that their statements are correct unless proven incorrect. If this file is kept, the remaining question, which applies to other similar files, is what status tag can be used on Commons, in such cases where we're not sure what reason explains the BCS statement. The files could probably be tagged for what they are, with a template for the BCS statement. I suggested this possibility for a possible "Template:BCS". Maybe someone who is good at creating templates can do something with it. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asclepias We have already Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer, that I'd say covers the issue pretty much. Friniate (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Friniate: "Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer" adresses only the non-copyright restriction, it does not address at all the copyright status of the files. The purpose of the first part of "Template:BCS" is to address the copyright-free aspect of the BCS statement. As you can see in my draft suggestion, "Template:BCS" would include integrally "Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer" as its second part. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asclepias Ah, my bad, I had misunderstood sorry. Friniate (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This (allowing the image with a BCS template caution) is the solution that makes the most sense to me. The sandboxed template looks good to me too. —Tcr25 (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like to know what license would be valid in the United States for these files since a BCS template caution wouldn't work on it's own because we need both. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be the BCS statement "No copyright" for the United States as well. The official BCS statement explicitly links to the "No copyright-OKLR" statement of the International Rights Statements, designed by cultural institutions of the United States and Europe for international use. To schematize: [BCS] = ["No copyright" but "MiBAC non-copyright restriction"], which in standardized terms is [NoC-OKLR] = ["No copyright" but "other known legal restrictions"]. We prefer an explicit public domain rationale when possible, but Commons accepts, as valid tags, the statements of "No known copyright" by various institutions. As mentioned in the documentation of the International Rights Statements, a statement telling that there is "No copyright" is even stronger than a statement telling that there is "No known copyright". In principle, unless specified otherwise, an institution that issues a "No copyright" statement that explicitly refers to the standardized rights statements can be expected to mean "No copyright" including in the United States. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: although a possible creation of a specific template for BCS could be useful in the future for many such files hosted on Commons, that is not necessary right now for a decision about the undeletion or not of this particular file. If the file is undeleted, the existing templates such as PD-because + MiBAC can do. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:JDC 2024 ESL Pro League Season 19 by BIG CLAN.png

This file got uploaded with a screenshot based on the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJhuFF-tvQ&ab_channel=BIGCLAN with the licence "Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed)". I am not sure if I made a mistake, but previous uploads from the same source with the same license are still available. For example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Xantares_in_2020.jpg WikJonah (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikJonah: You provided another video ([4]) as a source. It is not under the CC license. Ankry (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. I also recognized that not all videos from this channel have a CC license. I think I just copied the wrong link after uploading the picture, but the uploaded picture is definitely from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJhuFF-tvQ&ab_channel=BIGCLAN with the licence "Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed). WikJonah (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The deleted image appears at about 4:14 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghJhuFF-tvQ. There is a YouTube CC-BY license attached to it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TabukGold.jpg

Hi, it seems the file File:TabukGold.jpg has been deleted, according to reasons stating "A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license." However, the source of which the image was taken and uploaded to commons from the following: https://www.deviantart.com/marcusburns1977/art/TabukGold-1050089119 is actually visibly licensed as 'Creative Commons 3.0" and is thus in fact, free to use under those terms. Who-ever opted for its speedy deletion request probably did so mistakenly, possibly not having seen that written license. Paraxade13 (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade und Krd: Any reason not to believe that the license has been granted by the author / copyright holder? Ankry (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a real weapon or an AI creation? If it's an AI creation, it is out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image is a different angle/perspective, but it appears Saddam Hussein had a gold AK-47 that is similar in appearance. Whether this is an original photo of that or an artistic rendering of it is unclear to me. —Tcr25 (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tcr25, @Jameslwoodward - This appears to be art/ AI, but not is not real. --Ooligan (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Deviantart is full of stolen photos. I don't believe the same Deviantart user owns the copyright both to this photo and and to the technical drawings of the F-4 Phantom. Thuresson (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though the site status regarding IP ownership between users may sometimes be questionable, it shouldn't be discounted that there indeed still exist many real users, even notable ones, who do indeed upload and keep, original artistic works there. Acknowledged user Thuresson's opinion against is made in good faith, but doesn't seem to provide much objective information as to the particular IP status of the work currently in discussion, outside of just a blanket generalization? Paraxade13 (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tried a reverse-image search via Google Lens for any duplicate or near-duplicate images that may exist online prior to the given image source's upload date, and there currently doesn't seem to be any. The image source & accompanying license may very well likely be original, be it a painting, photograph or otherwise? unless anyone users should present evidence for the contrary? HanyNAR (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With no further context it seems unlikely that a random DeviantArt user should have dozens of rare and obscure firearms totaling a worth of more than 100k laying around just to photograph Trade (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. However judging by other contents within that DeviantArt account user's profile, seems many (if not all of them) are either original 3D rendered computer generated imagery, lined drawings and/or even paintings(?), might not necessarily even be photographs? Of course its not very likely some deviantart user (or anyone else in particular) would realistically have more than USD$100k+ worth of such rare items to photograph. Attempted to emulate some reverse-image search results as put forth by user @HanyNAR. This is some of the ('similar') results found from other published sources. Some of them are also indeed drawing's/paintings, but not necessarily objective indicators that those artist themselves has physical access/ownership of that item to draw/render/paint from? Paraxade13 (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avril, by Byron Randall.jpg to undelete please

My reasons for requesting that you undelete Avril, by Byron Randall file are below: I hereby affirm that I, Laura Chrisman, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work: content attached to this email 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.

Laura Chrisman 2024-06-02 Allimoneo78 (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Originally uploaded in 2016 under another name, moved in 2019. Same question as for the other files: is this file already covered by the 2012 OTRS ticket #2012091710000929 or by another OTRS/VRT communication? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spine, by Byron Randall.jpg please undelete

My reasons for requesting that you undelete Spine, by Byron Randall file are below: I hereby affirm that I, Laura Chrisman, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work: content attached to this email 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.

Laura Chrisman 2024-06-02 --Allimoneo78 (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that it is the file originally uploaded under the filename File:Byron Randall, Woody Guthrie 12.jpg in 2016 by User:Rootbeerlc, who also says to be Laura Chrisman. So, was this file covered by the wording of the 2012 OTRS ticket #2012091710000929 for the works of Byron Randall? That is also the question asked in 2019 in Commons:Help desk and that apparently remained unanswered there. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Byron Randall, Back.jpg

My reasons for requesting that you undelete Byron Randall, Back file are below: I hereby affirm that I, Laura Chrisman, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work: content attached to this email 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.

Laura Chrisman 2024-06-02 --Allimoneo78 (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allimoneo78: Hi, The permission has to be sent by email via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Originally uploaded in 2016 under another name, moved in 2019. Is it the same work as File:Byron Randall, 'Back', 1968 Woodcut.jpg uploaded in 2019 or a different work? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is the same work. Ankry (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Content Warning Gameplay 1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: As a copyrighted image, I requested that the copyright holder release the image under a free license. They accepted, so I directed them to the VRT generator to email the foundation. Multiple weeks passed and the VRT team never verified the image copyright. I emailed the copyr holder back and they never responded after almost another week, so I requested speedy deletion. Turns out, a day after the images were deleted, the copyr holder responded back saying that the generator didn't work. . . since the images were deleted. I need the images back now. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If permission has been received at VRT, the files will be restored. Apparently no email has been received yet. Perhaps someone could confirm? Bedivere (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misspoke somehow? When I directed them to the generator, they never sent the email after multiple weeks. It was a few days ago when they tried the VRT generator when they couldn't send the email because the images were deleted, so I need the images back for the copyr holder to email the VRT team. TheWikiToby (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just tested: the generator works fine with a name of deleted file. No problem. Moreover, using the generator is just an option. There is also an email template below the link to the generator: it can be used as well. Ankry (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arezoo Tajnia.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: i own the image Parpapox (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Parpapox: Ownership of an image does not grant you any rights to publish or license it. Who is the author/copyright holder, which license did they grant for the image and where? Ankry (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:LogoJavad.gif

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is a historical coat of arms. Source and reference also available. Sword313 (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:KAIT 2023.svg

Not a fanmade logo; in actual use Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support It is the logo of the TV station, see https://www.kait8.com/programming/. As only alphanumeric, it is ineligible for copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:GeneralalbertMilloy.jpg

This is an official DOD photo of MG Milloy, taken by JUSPAO. Does this fall under fair use? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.139.18.129 (talk) 4 June 2024‎ (UTC00:13)

 Oppose Wikimedia Commons does nit accept Fair Use. We need an explicit free license. Ankry (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Assuming it really is a DOD photo taken by the Joint United States Public Affairs Office, it should be public domain ({{PD-USGov-Military}}). "Fair use" wouldn't be a consideration. The deletion request looks like the issue was an improper license on the file, which should be a correctable problem assuming a clear source for it is available/provided. —Tcr25 (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{Temporarily undeleted}} in order to fix the missing license/copyright template. Ankry (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. There's a Facebook ID code on the picture. It looks like the proximate source was likely this post from RC-East Combined Joint Task Force-10, which is an official US Army account. This post on a page memorizing Milloy has a copy of the same photo, which he signed for Rob Street who appears to manage the page. Both of those were posted to Facebook around the time of Milloy's death in 2012; subsequent uploads to Find A Grave and various forums seem to have happened after the image first appeared on Facebook. Given his helmet has two stars on it, this would have most likely been taken in Vietnam around 1970 1968/69 (I can't find the exact date of his promotion to major general, but it seems to have been around 1970 late 1968 by which time he was in the field). It's possible a friend took the image, but an official Army photographer is more likely. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This does not look like a formal portrait done by a government photographer -- I think it is at least 50/50 that it was privately made. That's well above the "significant doubt" that is our test. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just located a copy of the US Army magazine Danger Forward that has a pencil sketch by an Army staffer that is likely after this image (his perspective is turned slightly but otherwise the expression is quite similar). That Milloy appears to have had copies to share and sign and that it seems to have first appeared on Facebook on an official US Army account, and this pencil sketch seems to push it towards more likely US Army work than not in my mind. —Tcr25 (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the pencil sketch is very different from the photo --the collar is different, his eyes are different, and the sketch is, as noted at a different angle. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:US, ROK bilateral engagement (50480192866).jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Image focus on the secretary of defense of USA and ROK, plus the floral tribute. The sculpture behind is secondary and falls under de minimis. If someone feels not OK about the sculpture, a tigher crop can be performed. A1Cafel (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a Gaussian blur of the memorial on the left, and maybe of a few of the sculptures near the politicians. Tigher crop doesn't eliminate the issue of the sculptures. @Jmabel: Abzeronow (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to see what I can do with a Gaussian blur if we can get consensus to go ahead in that direction. - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that is fine, I'd support that. But I think it could be de mínimis given that the sculptures are not the main focus of the photo. Bedivere (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very close call. I'd be OK with a very light blur on both sides of the Korean. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Colonia Rosa Maltoni Mussolini

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

All these images were deleted after this DR in 2013. They all depict the it:Colonia Rosa Maltoni Mussolini, a summer camp built for the children of the railway and postal workers, commissioned by the Ministry for Communications to en:Angiolo Mazzoni (see here and here for more informations), who, as already pointed out in three previous UDRs (see here, here and here) at that time was chief engineer at that Ministry. It was therefore a work for hire for the national Ministry, and since the works were finished in 1935, it fell under Template:PD-ItalyGov at least since 1956. It is a building built before 1990, so no issue with US copyright.--Friniate (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

tritapa.jpg

--Sumitmula7 (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Info Probably concerns File:Tri Tapa.jpg. Reuploaded as File:TRITAP.jpg. Thuresson (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: If it is Own Work as claimed, then it is a personal image and out of scope. If not, it is a copyvio. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rural settlements of Russia with the population over 10 and share of Ukrainians over 25 percent, 2002 census.png

Could you please tell me if it's possible to renew this file? I cannot find it on my laptop to upload it again and to add the missing info which was the reason of its deletion, but I'd like to make necessary changes if the renewal is possible. Thanks. --Andrijko Z. (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red backgroung with text.jpg

i have edited and designed that phto and also there is no any company which has a trademark like that. so please undel the photo so that i can host it on my web page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivonyking777 (talk • contribs) 7 June 2024‎ (UTC08:51)

 Oppose If, as you say, there are no companies with this as a logo then the image is of no educational use and is out of scope. Commons is not a Webhost. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abdulqawiyusuf.jpg

File was deleted because of a copyright violation of some random tweet. The file originated from the ICJ website---not a tweet---so it is copyright exempt. See [5] and [6]Blindlynx (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The copyright exempt from the first link states "material is made available to the press, schools and universities free of charge for editorial use (copyrights exempt).", and the second one states "Publicly accessible material produced by the Court may be used free of charge for educational and editorial purposes, provided that its source is clearly cited, credit is given to the Court, and the material is not used in a way that alters its original meaning.". These are no free licenses. They should allow the usage to anyone not only educational institutions and the material should allow derivative works. Günther Frager (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marc Tedeschi in 2004.jpg

Please undelete this file. A copyright release has previously been provided to Wikipedia for this image, by the photographer Frank Deras Jr., on 3 May 2024, by email, using the "Wikimedia VRTS release generator". See copy of email below:

Begin forwarded message:

From: (Redacted) Subject: release of Marc_Tedeschi_in_2004.jpg Date: May 3, 2024 at 2:27:08 PM PDT To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

I hereby affirm that I, Frank Deras Jr., am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:

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.

Frank Deras Jr. 2024-05-03

[generated using relgen.js]

Frank Deras Photography

(Redacted)

http://www.frankderas.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndmmeyhhsn (talk • contribs) 22:07, 7 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose When VRT agents handle the ticket, they will request undeletion with appropriate ticket info. DMacks (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: done by Krd per VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:"Beautiful Erect human penis".jpg,File:00 human erect penis.jpg,File:00 human penis erection.jpg,File:Penis erection 877.jpg,File:" human male Pre-ejaculation".jpg

These pictures reveal the anatomy and the structure of human penis. They contribute to the understanding of human genitalia. These pictures contains some other penises of Asian. Wikipedia Commons has many pictures of penis but the most part of them are White's. Pictures I uploaded have unieqness and they contribute to the knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dom-dom fi-fi (talk • contribs) 02:58, 8 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep deleted I find nothing special about these photos and we already have lots of penis images. Asian, White, Latino or Black, the penis is still a penis. --Bedivere (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swaroopinii Narayan.jpg

The image used, is from a photoshoot of the actor, for whom the Wikipedia page is being created. The image is available for usage by anyone, as it belongs to the actor herself, and doesn't involve any copyright issues. Usage of the image will enhance visibility for the actor's page as it is much needed in showbiz. Hence, request you to please undelete the image.


Ebook1190 (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose We need an explicit permission from the photographer via COM:VRT. Photographs are protected by copyright and that it is available in Facebook doesn't make it in the public domain. Günther Frager (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ensign_of_the_post-ANC_South_African_Defence_Force.svg

This flag exists on Deviantart (link below)

https://www.deviantart.com/alexander517/art/1061489638 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander517 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 8 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Info "Published:10 mins ago" at deviantart.com.
 Oppose Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Alexander517. Thuresson (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Meelick, County Clare

This category has now 4 files, so is no longer empty as stated in 2016. The Banner (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

== File:1994 Dodge Venom Concept Car.jpg ==

The Picture has been deleted because "some of these print ads may have fallen out of copyright but most are too recent (as recent as 2010)." The picture here is no "print ad", its from a photographer who has uploaded his pictures to Flickr and made them also available to transfer to Wikipedia. In this case its especially strange, because there are two pics of the Venom, one from the fornt and one from the back, but only the one from the front has been deleted. Therefore I request to undelete the file Same could be said about the Chrysler/Dodge Aviat picture. Greetings --Grünkohlaktionär (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/de&oldid=756610890"