কমন্স: মুছে না ফেলার অনুরোধ

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Outdated translations are marked like this.

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

Other languages:

এই পৃষ্ঠায়, ব্যবহারকারীগণ মুছে ফেলা পৃষ্ঠা বা ফাইল (এরপরে, "ফাইল") পুনরুদ্ধার করতে চাইতে পারেন। ব্যবহারকারীরা তাদের যুক্তির পাশাপাশি 'মুছে ফেলুন' বা 'মুছে ফেলুন' র মত মন্তব্য রেখে অনুরোধগুলিতে মন্তব্য করতে পারেন।

'এই পৃষ্ঠাটি উইকিপিডিয়াটির অংশ নয়।' এই পৃষ্ঠাটি উইকিপিডিয়া এবং অন্যান্য উইকিমিডিয়া প্রকল্পগুলির দ্বারা ব্যবহৃত ফ্রি মিডিয়া ফাইলগুলির ভান্ডার উইকিমিডিয়া কমন্সের বিষয়বস্তু সম্পর্কে। উইকিমিডিয়া কমন্স এনসাইক্লোপিডিয়া নিবন্ধগুলি হোস্ট করে না। ইংরেজী উইকিপিডিয়া সংস্করণ থেকে মুছে ফেলা একটি নিবন্ধ বা অন্যান্য সামগ্রী মুছে ফেলার অনুরোধ জানাতে, সেই প্রকল্পের মোছার পর্যালোচনা পৃষ্ঠাটি দেখুন।

অপসারণ (অপসারণের নিয়মাবলী)
(Missing: কপি লঙ্ঘন • প্রতিলিপি • ০ subpages) • ০ malformed
কপি লঙ্ঘন • ১০ selfies • অন্য কারণ
দে • আ • স

একটি ফাইল কেন মুছে ফেলা হয়েছে তা সন্ধান করছেন

প্রথমে, মুছে ফেলার লগ চেক করুন এবং ফাইলটি কেন মোছা হয়েছে তা সন্ধান করুন। Special:Whatlinkshere। সব লিঙ্কগুলি এখানে বৈশিষ্ট্যটি মুছে ফেলা ফাইলটির সাথে সংযোগ আছে কিনা তা দেখতে ব্যবহার করুন। আপনি যদি ফাইলটি আপলোড করেন তবে দেখুন আপনার ব্যবহারকারী আলাপ পৃষ্ঠা মুছে ফেলার বিষয়ে ব্যাখ্যা করে কোনও বার্তা আছে কিনা। দ্বিতীয়ত, ফাইলটি কেন না হতে পারে তা জানতে দয়া করে আবার মুছে ফেলার নীতি, প্রজেক্ট স্কোপ নীতি এবং আবার লাইসেন্সিং নীতি পড়ুন কমন্সে অনুমোদিত

যদি প্রদত্ত কারণটি পরিষ্কার না হয় বা আপনি এটিকে বিতর্ক করেন, আপনি মুছে ফেলার প্রশাসকের সাথে যোগাযোগ করতে পারেন তাদের মুছে ফেলার কারণটির বিপরীতে ব্যাখ্যা বা নতুন প্রমাণ দেওয়ার জন্য। আপনি অন্য যে কোনও সক্রিয় প্রশাসকের সাথেও যোগাযোগ করতে পারেন (সম্ভবত আপনার মাতৃভাষা বলছেন এমন একজন - বেশিরভাগ সাহায্যে খুশি হওয়া উচিত, এবং যদি কোনও ভুল হয়ে থাকে তবে পরিস্থিতি সংশোধন করুন।

একটি মুছে ফেলার আবেদন করা

বর্তমান কমন্স:অপসারণ নীতি, প্রকল্পের সুযোগ এবং লাইসেন্সিং নীতিগুলির উপর ভিত্তি করে যে বিলোপগুলি সঠিক তা বাতিল করা হবে না। নীতি পরিবর্তন করার প্রস্তাবগুলি তাদের আলাপ পৃষ্ঠায় করা যেতে পারে।

আপনি যদি বিশ্বাস করেন যে প্রশ্নযুক্ত ফাইলটি কপিরাইট লঙ্ঘন নয় বা বর্তমান প্রকল্পের বাইরেও নয়:

  • ফাইলটি মোছা প্রশাসকের সাথে আপনি আলোচনা করতে পারেন। অপসারণকে সমর্থন করার জন্য আপনি প্রশাসকের কাছে বিশদ ব্যাখ্যা বা প্রমাণ দেখাতে পারেন।
  • আপনি যদি কারও সাথে সরাসরি যোগাযোগ করতে চান না, বা যদি কোনও পৃথক প্রশাসক যদি অবমূল্যায়ন প্রত্যাখ্যান করেছেন বা আপনি যদি আরও লোকদের আলোচনায় অংশ নেওয়ার সুযোগ চান তবে আপনি এই পৃষ্ঠায় অপসারণের অনুরোধ করতে পারেন।
  • যদি ফাইলটি কপিরাইট ধারকের কাছ থেকে অনুমতি প্রমানের প্রমাণ হারিয়ে যাওয়ার জন্য মুছে ফেলা হয় তবে দয়া করে অনুমতি প্রমাণ জমা দেওয়ার পদ্ধতি অনুসরণ করুন। আপনি যদি ইতোমধ্যে এটি করে থাকেন তবে এখানে অপসারণের অনুরোধ করার দরকার নেই। যদি জমা দেওয়া অনুমতি ক্রমে থাকে তবে অনুমতিটি প্রক্রিয়া করার পরে ফাইলটি পুনরুদ্ধার করা হবে। দয়া করে ধৈর্য ধরুন, কারণ বর্তমান কাজের চাপ এবং উপলব্ধ স্বেচ্ছাসেবীদের উপর নির্ভর করে এটি কয়েক সপ্তাহ সময় নিতে পারে।
  • যদি মুছে ফেলা চিত্রের বিবরণে কিছু তথ্য অনুপস্থিত থাকে তবে আপনাকে কিছু প্রশ্ন জিজ্ঞাসা করা যেতে পারে। সাধারণত ২৪ ঘন্টা পরে এই জাতীয় প্রশ্নের উত্তর দেওয়া হবে বলে আশা করা যায়।

অস্থায়ী অপসারণ

ফাইলগুলি 'অস্থায়ীভাবে' মুছে ফেলা হতে পারে ফাইলটির অপসারণ আলোচনায় সহায়তা করার জন্য বা ন্যায্য ব্যবহার অনুমতি দেয় এমন কোনও প্রকল্পে স্থানান্তর করার জন্য temp প্রাসঙ্গিক অপসারণের অনুরোধে {{অস্থায়ী অপসারণের অনুরোধ করুন}} টেমপ্লেটটি ব্যবহার করুন, এবং 'ব্যাখ্যা সরবরাহ করুন' ।

  1. যদি অস্থায়ী অপসারণটি আলোচনায় সহায়তা করতে হয় তবে 'ব্যাখ্যা করুন কেন' আলোচনার জন্য ফাইলটি অস্থায়ীভাবে মুছে ফেলা উচিত, বা
  2. যদি অস্থায়ী অপসারণটি ন্যায্য ব্যবহারের প্রকল্পে স্থানান্তর করার অনুমতি দেওয়া হয়, তবে আপনি ফাইলটি স্থানান্তর করতে এবং প্রকল্পটির ন্যায্য ব্যবহারের বিবৃতিতে লিঙ্ক করার কোন প্রকল্পটি চান তা উল্লেখ করুন।

আলোচনায় সহায়তা করার জন্য

ফাইলগুলিতে অ্যাক্সেস না করেই মুছে ফেলার অনুরোধ মঞ্জুর করা উচিত কিনা সে বিষয়ে সিদ্ধান্ত নেওয়া যদি ব্যবহারকারীদের পক্ষে সিদ্ধান্তের পক্ষে সহায়তা করতে অস্থায়ীভাবে মুছে ফেলা যায়। যেখানে ফাইলের বিবরণ পৃষ্ঠা থেকে ফাইলের বিবরণ বা উদ্ধৃতি যথেষ্ট, সেখানে প্রশাসক অস্থায়ী অপসারণের অনুরোধটি না দিয়ে এটি সরবরাহ করতে পারেন অনুরোধগুলি প্রত্যাখ্যান করা যেতে পারে যে যদি মনে হয় যে আলোচনার উপযোগিতা অন্যান্য কারণগুলির দ্বারা অতিক্রম করা হয়েছে যেমন সাময়িকভাবে পুনরুদ্ধার করা, এমনকি অস্থায়ীভাবে এমন ফাইল যেখানে কমন্স: চিহ্নিতকারীদের ছবি সম্পর্কিত যথেষ্ট উদ্বেগ রয়েছে আলোচনায় সহায়তার জন্য অস্থায়ীভাবে মুছে ফেলা ফাইলগুলি ত্রিশ দিন পরে আবার মুছে ফেলা হবে, বা যখন মুছে ফেলার অনুরোধটি বন্ধ হয়ে যাবে (যার মধ্যে যত তাড়াতাড়ি হবে)।

অন্য প্রকল্পে ন্যায্য ব্যবহারের সামগ্রী স্থানান্তর করার অনুমতি দেওয়ার জন্য

ইংলিশ উইকিপিডিয়া এবং কয়েকটি অন্যান্য উইকিমিডিয়া প্রকল্পের বিপরীতে, কমন্স ন্যায্য ব্যবহার বিধানগুলির উল্লেখ সহ অ-নিখরচায় বিষয়বস্তু গ্রহণ করে না। যদি কোনও মুছে ফেলা ফাইলটি অন্য উইকিমিডিয়া প্রকল্পের ন্যায্য ব্যবহারের প্রয়োজনীয়তা পূরণ করে, ব্যবহারকারীরা ফাইলটি সেখানে স্থানান্তর করতে অস্থায়ী অপসারণের জন্য অনুরোধ করতে পারেন। এই অনুরোধগুলি সাধারণত দ্রুত আলোচনা করা যায় (আলোচনা ছাড়াই)। স্থানান্তর উদ্দেশ্যে অস্থায়ীভাবে মুছে ফেলা ফাইলগুলি দু'দিন পরে আবার মুছে ফেলা হবে। অস্থায়ী অপসারণের অনুরোধ করার সময়, দয়া করে জানান যে আপনি কোন প্রকল্পটি ফাইলটি স্থানান্তর করতে চান এবং প্রকল্পটির ন্যায্য ব্যবহারের বিবৃতিতে লিঙ্ক করবেন।

যে প্রকল্পগুলি ন্যায্য ব্যবহার গ্রহণ করে
* 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.

একটি অনুরোধ যোগ করা হচ্ছে

প্রথমে নিশ্চিত হয়ে নিন যে আপনি # একটি ফাইল কেন মুছে ফেলা হয়েছে তা সন্ধান করছেন the ফাইলটি কেন মোছা হয়েছে তা খুঁজে বের করুন। এরপরে, অনুরোধটি যুক্ত করার আগে দয়া করে কীভাবে অনুরোধটি লিখবেন তার জন্য এই নির্দেশাবলীটি পড়ুন:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • মধ্যে Subject: ক্ষেত্র, 'একটি উপযুক্ত বিষয় লিখুন' 'আপনি যদি একটি একক ফাইলকে মুছে ফেলার অনুরোধ করছেন তবে এর মতো একটি শিরোনাম [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] পরামর্শ দেওয়া হয়। (লিঙ্কের প্রাথমিক কোলনটি মনে রাখবেন)
  • আপনি ফাইল (গুলি) 'সনাক্ত করুন যার জন্য আপনি অপসারণের জন্য অনুরোধ করছেন এবং চিত্র লিঙ্কগুলি সরবরাহ করুন (উপরে দেখুন)। আপনি যদি সঠিক নামটি না জানেন তবে যতটা সম্ভব তথ্য দিন। কী মুছে ফেলার বিষয়ে তথ্য সরবরাহ করতে ব্যর্থ অনুরোধগুলি পরবর্তী কোনও বিজ্ঞপ্তি ছাড়াই সংরক্ষণাগারভুক্ত করা যেতে পারে।
  • 'অনুরোধযোগ্য মোছার কারণ (গুলি)' "'বলুন।
  • চারটি টিল্ড অক্ষর ব্যবহার করে 'আপনার অনুরোধটি স্বাক্ষর করুন' '(~~~~). কমন্সে আপনার যদি অ্যাকাউন্ট থাকে তবে প্রথমে লগ ইন করুন। আপনি যদি প্রশ্নটিতে ফাইলটি আপলোড করেন তবে এটি প্রশাসকগণকে এটি সনাক্ত করতে সহায়তা করতে পারে।

পৃষ্ঠার নীচে অনুরোধ যোগ করুন। [লিঙ্কটি এখানে ক্লিক করুন] পৃষ্ঠাটি খোলার জন্য যেখানে আপনার অনুরোধটি যুক্ত করা উচিত। বিকল্পভাবে, আপনি নীচের বর্তমান তারিখের পাশে "সম্পাদনা" লিঙ্কটি ক্লিক করতে পারেন। আপডেটের জন্য আপনার অনুরোধের বিভাগটি দেখুন।

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

সংরক্ষণাগারগুলি

বন্ধ অপসারণের বিতর্কগুলি প্রতিদিন সংরক্ষণাগারভুক্ত হয়।

বর্তমান অনুরোধ

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 এবং 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: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]
The collar is different, but look at the ear on the left side of the image. The sketcher turned the face partially, but that ear and side of the face are in the same plane as the photograph. —Tcr25 (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, per above. Notice that the photo is said to be from the 1970s and the pencil sketch from 1969. Thuresson (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (135).JPG and File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (17).JPG

The above files were deleted in error, due to a misunderstanding about British law and about the identity of the photographic subject. These deleted items were part of a now-resolved dispute about photographic copyright in the context of scarecrow festivals in the United Kingdom. The dispute has now been resolved and fully explained at great length here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Storye book. You will need to read through the latter discussion in order to fully understand the situation, but here is a very brief summary: Photographing scarecrow festivals in public-access places in the UK, and publishing such photos on Commons, is legal in the UK.

Re toys:

  • Objects which may look like toys in scarecrow festivals are not toys; their creators' intention is part of the scarecrow festival creation. Toys are defined normally as children's (or sometimes adults') playthings, but stuffed animals in scarecrow festivals are created as part of the scarecrow festival tableaux, e.g. farmers with sheep, Cruella de Ville with dogs, the Pied Piper with rats, and so on. The stuffed animals in scarecrow festivals are home made. They are not commercial objects, and that point matters in British courts. Also, British courts do not inflict punitive damages in copyright cases; it is the US punitive damages which give rise to the million-dollar damages awards that we hear about; that does not happen in UK courts.
  • This matters in copyright law in the UK, because only the designer's printed pattern, and the designer's own (usually unique and single) hand-made example are copyrighted. home-crafters who buy designer's patterns for home craft purposes and make a stuffy have not made an object copyrighted by the designer. I know that because I am a knitting pattern designer myself. The language and photographs in my written designs, and my own hand-made examples, are under my own copyright, as are my own photos of my own work. But my customers' creations are not under my copyright at all. No designer would want that, partly because no customer is going to make it in exactly the same way, but mostly because a lot of customers make an embarrassingly awful job of the sewing-up. As far as I am aware, no case has ever been brought to court by a home crafter who has knitted from a knitting pattern using e.g. a new colour, and then their neighbour has knitted from the same design and used the same new colour, etc. etc. Storye book (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Related DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (135).JPG and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minskip 2 September 2023 (17).JPG. Yann (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose These are copyrighted in the UK and the USA. The facts that they are plush and were made for a festival are irrelevant to the basic fact that they are created works of art and do not have a utilitarian use and therefore are copyrighted in both countries. The fact that no case has been brought or that the UK courts do not award substantial damages are also irrelevant. The fact that they are not commercial objects is also irrelevant.
The 1988 Copyright Act is quite clear:
1 (1) Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work --
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
(snip)
4 (1) In this Part "artistic work" means --
(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality
(b) ...
(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.
One might argue whether these are sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship, but it is clear they are one or the other, or both. Note that there is no requirement that they be commercial works or, indeed, that they have any artistic quality.
Therefore, we cannot keep images of them on Commons without the explicit permission of the creator. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, we have already been through this, and you lost the case (see above link to discussion). I have discussed this with the relevant solicitors, as I described on the abovementioned discussion. British courts do not define works of art and they do not define artists, because the definition of art is a moot point. You are wasting your time talking about art, artists and sculpture.
It is intention which is taken into consideration in British courts. The intention here is to create a temporary tableau for the scarecrow festival, and these items were part of a tableau of silly non-artistic objects made of clumsy bags of straw and intended for imminent destruction. The non-commercial aspect does matter, because in British courts on this subject, it is the potential gain or loss of money which is quantifiable, and it is that which is taken into consideration. Thus, if the items had been made for sale (which they have not), there would have been potential for quantifiable gain or loss (which there is not). Unlike in the US, British courts do not inflict punitive damages, as I have said above. Therefore there would be no basis for a court case regarding my photography of these scarecrow tableau objects.
When these photographs were deleted, that was the point of loss for the villagers who made the objects, because they no longer had access to photographs of their now-destroyed works. If the photographs were still available online, they could still be using those same photographs to advertise the next scarecrow festival, and they could still be using those photographs for their own records.
I strongly recommend that from now on you save your efforts for matters regarding US law, and leave British law to those who are in the know. It is obvious that the objects in the photograph are not graphic works or collages. We have already established in discussion that a scarecrow is not, and never can be, a sculpture. Please now step back and let others discuss this. Storye book (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Wikimedia Commons is hosted in the United States, and files hosted here must be allowed to be used by anyone for any purpose. These objects are copyrighted, it does not matter one whit if the objects are non-commercial or not, there are works that has been fixed in a tangible medium of creative expression. Since the display is not permanent, they don't benefit from FOP. Abzeronow (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be condescending -- it just makes the target angry and doesn't get you anywhere. I think you are wrong on British law as these are clearly artistic works, but the point is moot. It is perfectly clear that they have a copyright in the USA and therefore the images cannot be kept here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not copyright in the USA as the objects are traditional effigies, which in this case are not sculptures. That means that they are utilitarian. Effigies can be scarecrows in a field, which are utilitarian as bird-scarers. They can be guys in British Fireworks Night, where they are children's money-raisers for the purchase of fireworks, or (at Lewes, for example) dressed up to mock famous people. Traditionally, they were used in dimity rides, as described in Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge, where (again) they were dressed up to mock or embarrass people who had committed a social faux pas. They can be voodoo dolls, i.e. symbols of enemies, which some people used to stick pins in, in the hope that the enemy would feel pain. These examples are all utilitarian, in that they are used to symbolise something, for some further purpose, In the case of festival scarecrows, they bring the inhabitants of a village together for fun, and are used to attract visitors who may then pay money for charity, for a trail map, and usually also for tea and snacks. As for the art, that is in my ph9togrpahy. There is no Commons rule demanding the deletion of photographs such as this File:Rababou 2006.jpg, and I would like to know how my photos of festival scarecrows are a different case from that photograph (and all the other thousands of photographs like it, on Commons). Storye book (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ハピネスアリーナ、浦上川側ロゴ看板.png

このファイルが https://x.com/KazVelca/status/1797253769207697733/photo/1 ここのファイルと同じものなので著作権侵害であると判定されたようですが、このTwitterアカウント(KazVelca)も私で、 私自身が撮影した写真をアップしたもので、他人の著作物ではありません。大江万里 (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This file https://x.com/KazVelca/status/1797253769207697733/photo/1 seems to have been determined to be a copyright violation because it is the same as the file here, but this Twitter account (KazVelca) is also mine. This is a photo that I took myself and is not the copyrighted work of someone else. (machine translation)大江万里 (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting the following comment as proof that it is mine. Please cancel the deletion. https://x.com/KazVelca/status/1800016286862450740 大江万里 (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting the following comment as proof that it is mine. Please cancel the deletion. I have revised the content of the post and reposted it. https://x.com/KazVelca/status/1800102330341446128 大江万里 (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per discussion. I've amended the source and added permission section to reflect that this is not a copyvio. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Andrew Barclay 0-4-0 Crane Tank Glenfield No.1 at the Statfold Barn Railway.jpg

I created the uploaded file 'Andrew Barclay 0-4-0 Crane Tank Glenfield No.1 at the Statfold Barn Railway.jpg' from my own photograph taken in June 2023. I can find no identical image by a google search. There is a similar copyright picture on the steamlocomotive.info website which may have triggered the violation. However they are clearly different images (mine contains the WD tank on the left for example). I therefore request that my image is reinstated. --Robin84F (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


 Support I agree that the images are similar but not identical. I also note that the other was taken by Robin R Beck whose name is similar to your username.

It's an interesting little beast -- there do not appear to be any outriggers, so I wonder how stable it is lifting to the side? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per Jim. --Abzeronow (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lentilky, 28g.jpg

The picture File:Lentilky, 28g.jpg was deleted without any discussion citing COM:PACKAGE. But the pictured package depicts product which was introduced in 1907 (i.e. 120 years ago) so there is no copyright protection anymore! --Honzula (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The original packaging may be in the public domain, but this is a recent one, and it has certainly a new separate copyright. 1907 packaging was not in color pictures like this one. Yann (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See above. --Yann (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Official Portrait of Dr HJ Jaikrishna.jpg

Dr Jaikrishna at his clinic in Koramangala

This was a photo that I had personally captured on my smart phone. Not a pirated photo or any kind of image that violates the copyrights policy.

--Draco2103 (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Draco2103: What is the educational use of this picture? Yann (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While writing an article about a renowned person, I think it's wise to attach his image as well, so that people see who he is. There are many articles like that on Wikipedia.
Here are a few:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mahatma-Gandhi,_studio,_1931.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Florence_Nightingale_(H_Hering_NPG_x82368).jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mother_Teresa_1.jpg
I hope this makes my point clear to you.
Thanks,
Draco213 Draco2103 (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose First, the image appears at https://dentaldiagnosticcentre.com/aboutus.php with an explicit copyright notice. Second, I can not find any indication that the subject is notable in the sense required here. This might be reconsidered if and when an article on him is accepted on one of the Wikipedias.

I find the examples given above difficult -- surely you do not think the subject is in a class with the three luminaries you name above.

Also note that it is a violation of Commons rules to reload images that have been deleted. It wastes resources and Admin time. If you do it again you may be blocked from editing here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:National Library Ljubljana 2010.jpg

Image of building by Joze Plecnik, who died 1957. Please undelete it, for now in Slovenia is limited freedom of panorama, allowing noncommercial use of images showing copyrighted buildings. Michalg95 (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Macklemore-Lollapalooza-timlukask.jpg

File:Macklemore-Lollapalooza-timlukask.jpg File:Machine-gun-kelly-lollapalooza-timlukask.jpg File:Nina-chuba-lollapalooza-timlukask.jpg File:Casper-lollapalooza-timlukask.jpg

Please revert all the deletions of the outlined images and the changes made with these images. These pictures are my copyright and were taken as press at various festivals. Deleting them on the basis of the argument of missing copyrights and attributions is wrong from my point of view. Thank you for your help! Timlukask (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Tagged for lacking source, deleted for lacking a license. However there is a license and a source. High resolution, EXIF data copyright claims match the uploader's username, so no basis for deletion. --Yann (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AKL Poster.jpg

I'm the producer of the film 'Agathokakological' and I own all the copyrights of the film.

The copyright violation claimed here is from a streaming platform which has copied the contents from our IMDb site - https://www.justwatch.com/in/movie/agathokakological. You'll find the same poster in different social media, that doesn't mean everyone has the copyrights.

The poster is a theatrical release poster and is available in the public domain. This poster can be used freely by anyone for publicity purposes of the film.

Its my maiden venture and its disappointing to see such acts. Kindly allow me to use the poster owned by me.

Warn such users who make such claims without proper research.

For your information I'm providing other links, where the same poster has been used.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31598768/?ref_=rvi_tt

https://www.instagram.com/p/C4moThFBDzI/

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=928894179244406&set=a.928895259244298

https://www.movierulzfree.life/agathokakological-2024-malayalam/download-movie-watch-online-free-977.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicd24 (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose This poster can be used freely by anyone for publicity purposes of the film. The image doesn't belong on Commons if it can only be used to as publicity for the film. This isn't an advertising platform. Per COM:SCOPE Commons contains "content that can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose." --Adamant1 (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ghanem Al-Hajri picture 2.jpg

I hereby forward a request to undelete the file Ali Ghanem Al-Hajri picture 2.jpg, the said file came from the public relation office of Ali Ghanem Al-Hajri who appears in it, and also holds the copyright. The picture was taken by his official photographer in 2023 and cropped for fair use on Wikipedia. Thanks. Alimustee (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alimustee: Fair use is not allowed on Commons. Only files under a free license or in the public domain are accepted. If you have such a permission, please ask the copyright holder to send it via COM:VRT. Yann (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antoni Kozakiewicz - Kataryniarz w Miasteczku.jpg

This file was deleted as copyrighted in US per URAA. Its author, Antoni Kozakiewicz, died in 1929, on URAA date Poland had 50pma, so works by Polish authors who died before 1946 were PD on the URAA date, and thus remained free in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michalg95 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 12. Jun. 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Rosenzweig τ 10:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:UCO Bank Jodhpur.jpg

File:UCO Bank Jodhpur.jpg This is entirely my work and you are too much harsh to delete it repeatedly

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/bn&oldid=756610874"