Commons:Undeletion requests

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

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

Other languages:

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

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

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 0 timestamps • 0 reasons • 2 subpages) • 0 malformed
5 copyvios • 8 selfies • 17 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

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

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

Appealing a deletion

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

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

To assist discussion

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

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

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

Projects that accept fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

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

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

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

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

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

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 ([1]) 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]

✓ Done: per discussion. License reviewed. --Abzeronow (talk) 19:11, 9 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 and 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]

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]

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]

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

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 front 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]

Related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with 31411679@N08. This is this picture. Yann (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the first page of this Flickr user's voluminous Flickr presence (276 pages) -- almost all of the images are obviously ads, but I am inclined to believe that this is actually his work. Note that while this is a concept car, it apparently was fully operational, so it does not have a copyright. (Most concept cars do not have drive trains). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Non-stop.jpg

It's my personal work. Why is Kadı deside to delete my work ? BlackStar1991 (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Even if you took the picture yourself, this is a derivative work. Please see also COM:PACKAGING. Yann (talk) 10:49, 9 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]

File:Sanjeevan Premkumar.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: "CSD F10 (personal photos by non-contributors)" - I plan on having a bio on Wikipedia for Sanjeevan Premkumar - how can I be a contributor in order to keep the picture on Wikipedia Commons? Sanjprem (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Wikipedia doesn't host personal biographies, unless you are notable. Yann (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Submission declined at en:Draft:Sanjeevan Premkumar. Thuresson (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arman the Chotobhai.jpg

Delete My File Arman the Chotobhai - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arman the ChotoBhai (talk • contribs)

 Not done not an undeletion request. Ankry (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:FIFA 99.jpg

The reason to require the undeletion of that file is because the deleted file is an extracted image of:

File:Sepp Blatter at announcement of Brazil as 2014 FIFA World Cup host 2007-10-30 1.jpg

Therefore, it doesn't justify the deletion.

--Babelia (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is clearly a violation of the copyrighted logo. I think the larger image is also, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sepp Blatter at announcement of Brazil as 2014 FIFA World Cup host 2007-10-30 1.jpg. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ibn Ali.png

--Arman the ChotoBhai (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No reason given to keep this personal photo of a non-contributor. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File: My Hirsuties papillaris penis.jpg

Es handelt sich hierbei um ein erklärendes Darstellungsbild aus der Rubrik „ Hirsuties papillaris …“ und ich weiß nicht warum ich es nicht posten darf. Es gibt schließlich weitere Bilder in dieser Kategorie mit durchaus schlechterer Qualität! Bitte nicht endgültig löschen, bzw. bitte das Bild wiederherstellen. Vielen Dank! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc66 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 9 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Support As the uploader says, the photo has possible educational use. Abzeronow (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:US House 213-0-219 (3V).svg

I originally uploaded this image from Parliament Diagram Tool not realizing that it was an exact replica of the main current image of the US House at the time. So I requested speedy deletion of it and it was redirected to the to the main image. However, the composition of the House is different now and I would like for the image file undeleted because of it. Wei-On Yeo (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to his argument Ahmad Syidi Sudur Mahabbah (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

‎File:填詞人梁栢堅和前灣仔區議員梁柏堅合照 202109 - 梁栢堅.jpg

This image is a cropped version from File:填詞人梁栢堅和前灣仔區議員梁柏堅合照 202109.jpg and follows the same licensing. There is another cropped version File:填詞人梁栢堅和前灣仔區議員梁柏堅合照 202109 (cropped).jpg (focus on the person at right) too. However, only my cropped version (focus on the person at left) is deleted due to copyright violation, which should be a mistake. Either all photo versions have copyright violation, or none of them has.--XRTIER (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: This should never have been deleted. The CC BY license is literally watermarked in the original image. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adya Novali Menjadi Juara Dunia Arnold Classic 2015 di Amerika Serikat.png

The Picture was not in any Copyrights Violation as the Picture was authorized to be used in the article by Adya Novali, the man in the picture himself.

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=840982298"