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

在此页面，用户可以请求恢复一个被删除的页面或文件（下文主要介绍文件）。用户可以在请求上评论附带上标记，例如保持删除或恢复，并附加相关原因。

此页面不是维基百科的一部分。此页面是关于维基共享资源的内容。维基共享资源是维基媒体基金会各个项目的公共媒体文件库。维基共享资源不收录百科全书条目。 如您要请求恢复中文维基百科中被删除的文章或其他内容，请前往该项目的存废复核请求页面。

首先，检查删除日志并找出文件被删除的原因。 并且通过链入页面检查是否有链接到页面上的讨论。若您上传了该文件，则请查看您的讨论页是否有任何关于删除的消息。 然后，请再次阅读删除方针、项目范围方针和许可协议方针以了解图片是否适合共享资源。

如果删除原因含糊或您认为其有争议，您可以联系执行删除的管理员并要求他们解释删除的原因或向他们提供反对删除的新证据。 您同样可以联系其他活跃的管理员（或许是会说您的母语的管理员）。他们将乐于提供帮助，并在删除出错时纠正该错误。

基于目前删除方针、项目范围和授权协议而执行的无误删除不能撤销。但可在这几项方针的讨论页中讨论改进事宜。

如果您认为被删除的图片既不侵犯版权又不超出目前的项目范围：

• 建议您先与删除文件的管理员进行讨论。 您可以要求管理员提供详细的解释或显示证据以支持恢复文件。
• 如果您不希望直接与任何人联系，或者某个管理员拒绝恢复文件，或者希望有更多人参与讨论，则可以在此页面上请求恢复文件。
• 如果文件因无法证明获得了版权持有者的许可而被删除，请参照提交授权许可证明的程序。 如果您已经这样做了，那么��有必要在此处请求恢复文件。如果提交的授权许可文件符合规定，在处理授权时，文件将被恢复。请耐心等待，因为取决于当前的积压工作量和志愿者的数量，这可能需要几周的时间。
• 如果被删除的文件中的“描述”一栏缺乏部分信息，您可能会被询问一些问题。一般来说，您回复后志愿者会在24小时之后回复。

出于协助讨论恢复请求，或是允许其他用户转移图片至其他允许合理使用的项目的目的，文件可能被临时恢复。请在相关的恢复请求中使用{{Request temporary undeletion}}模板，并给出您的理由。

1. 如果临时恢复旨在协助讨论，请解释为什么临时恢复文件对恢复请求的讨论有帮助，或
2. 如果临时恢复旨在转移文件至一个允许合理使用的项目，请说明您打算将文件转移到哪个项目站点，并给出该项目的合理使用声明。

如果用户在看不到文件的情况下很难决定是否应批准恢复请求，那么文件可以被临时恢复以帮助讨论。如果对文件的描述，或一段文件描述页面的引用已经足够，管理员可以提供这些信息并拒绝临时恢复请求。 某些情况下出于某些其他因素（例如，恢复可能引起问题的可辨识的人物照片，哪怕只是临时），即使临时恢复图片有助于讨论，管理员可能依旧会拒绝请求。除非删除讨论被关闭，出于协助讨论的目的恢复的文件将在至多30天后删除。

与中文维基百科和其他一些维基媒体项目不同，共享资源不接受合理使用的非自由内容。 如果被删除的文件符合另一个维基媒体项目的合理使用要求，用户可以请求临时恢复该文件，以便将其转移到那里。这类请求通常可以无需讨论而迅速得到处理。 出于转移的目的而临时恢复的文件将在两天后再次删除。在请求临时恢复文件时，请说明您计划将文件转移到哪个项目，并提供对应项目的合理使用声明。

首先，确保您阅读了文件被删除的原因。其次请在添加申请前阅读下列指导：

• 请不要请求恢复一个未被删除的文件。
• 请不要向公布自己或他人电子邮件地址或电话号码。
• 在Subject:字段中，请输入适当的对象。如果仅申请恢复一个文件，建议使用[[:File:删除的文件.jpg]]格式。（请记住链接中应以半角冒号开头。）
• 鉴别你所申请的文件，可如上提供文件链接。若你不知道准确名称，则请尽可能多地提供该文件的信息。无法提供足够信息的恢复申请将会不经提示而被存档。
• 为恢复申请说明理由。
• 使用四个半角波浪号（~~~~）在申请中签名。如果您在共享资源上拥有账户，则请先登录。若您是原图片的上传者，这将有助于管理员找到这些图片。

请在页面底部加入申请点此进入您应添加申请的位置。同样你可以通过点当前日期下的击“编辑”链接提交申请。请监视您的申请一节以获得更新。

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]

 Comment To me, these two files differ from some of the original effigies mentioned because they apparently utilise toys that have copyright, rather than creations that in themselves would appear not to cause copyright that the requestor identifies. The images mentioned both have clearly identifiable toys that are not de minimis and while may be effigies still essentially look like shop-bought toys, and there is no clear evidence that they are not shop-bought (PCP).  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst：​ I cannot see the pictures because they have been deleted. I uploaded hundreds of festival scarecrow pictures, as you know. Are they dalmatians (white dogs with black spots) or are they the weird stylised yellow and black bees out of the Winnie the Pooh story? If they are the dalmatians, then I accept that you cannot see whether they are shop bought or not, although I can, because I used to make them when I was a child. If they are the bees, then they are definitely hand made for one of the festival tableaux - the bees are far too scruffy and far too large to be toys (bigger than a toddler). One of the bees, if it is a re-used commercial item, then it was almost certainly made as a footstool, being very roughly hemispherical and about 1.5ft long and about a foot high - so never a toy. If they are something else, then please tell me. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Storye book：​ The first is a "bee", the second is of two white with black spots dogs. Yann (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Yann. Then, in that case, the bee is definitely an exhibition item made for that purpose. I really don't see how it can be seen as a toy. Too big, too scruffy, unsaleable as a toy. The bee with the scary mouth is 2-3 feet long, and would be unsuitable and unsafe for toddler handling, anyway, and the hemispherical one is almost certainly made as a footstool. As for Disney copyright, well, Disney lost copyright for Winnie the Pooh some time ago. That fact was reported in the Guardian newspaper. Storye book (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether it can be used as a toy or not -- and some toys are very big, and toys are not limited to toddlers. It also doesn't matter whether is was a one-off made by an individual or one of hundreds coming out of a factory and sold in shops. It has a US copyright as a sculpture and almost certainly a UK copyright as well, notwithstanding the claims above. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been established in another deletion request started by you here, that UK courts do not recognise artistic identity as a legal argument in copyright cases, and that scarecrow festival exhibits are not sculptures. These items at issue here do not have US copyrights; this is a UK issue, whether this is a US platform or not. Regarding the existing perspective of this US platform: if British photographs taken in the UK under UK laws are not subject to US laws (which they are not) then we have to deal with this under UK law. If our photographs were really subject only to US law, then this platform would not be taking into account our 70-years-deceased law for creative copyright of 2D artworks (which it does), or our Freedom of Panorama (which it does). Storye book (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made those claims in other deletion requests. British photographs taken in the UK under UK laws are subject to US laws in the US, and have been for over a hundred years, a point only emphasized by the US signature of the Berne Convention that the UK was one of the founding creators of. Commons also pays attention to UK law for UK photographs; it's not just one or the other. COM:L says "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media ... that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." (Italics in the original.) While this is a rule often ignored, it's still a rule. Freedom of panorama is a whole different can of worms.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, Prosfilaes. I was only replying in general terms to a distracting comment by another editor. The point here is that the bees at issue here are not definable as toys in any country, because they were not made as toys, and cannot be used as toys. They are filled with unhygienic straw, for a start, and would quickly break apart, which is why festival scarecrows in the UK are routinely destroyed or dismantled within days of creation. If you try to overwinter them in the garden shed, they fill with insects and other wildlife due to the straw content. The 2024 BBC Springwatch programme featured one of them which was overwintered in a shed, and by spring it had acquired a robin's nest in its head, complete with eggs and sitting robin. Also, because Disney has lost copyright to Winnie the Pooh, the bees in that Winnie the Pooh tableau are not affected by Disney copyright. That is the information that pertains to the bee picture, according to the law in both countries. Storye book (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, whether or not they are toys is completely irrelevant, as is whether or not they are derivative works of a movie character. Each of them certainly has its own USA copyright as a sculpture and, notwithstanding the claims made here, almost certainly has a UK copyright as well. This is black letter law folks -- this should have been closed a long while ago. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been told by a number of people that festival scarecrows are not sculptures. Storye book (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again, you make that claim without any evidence. The copyright rules are very broadly interpreted -- a computer program is "literature" and sculptures made of butter, ice, and sand, as well as more traditional media all have copyrights. Why, somehow, does a festival scarecrow not have one? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that certain people do interpret copyright rules broadly. But in law, words do have to be defined.

For example: toys. Toys are defined as human-designed objects originally intended as toys. Thus a plastic water pistol in the shape of a gun is a toy gun, but a real gun is not a toy. If a toddler takes his mother's real gun out of her handbag (purse) and has fun playing with it and ends up shooting her with it (as has happened, sadly), the real gun has been misused as a plaything but has never been a toy. From that we can see that an object used as a plaything but originally intended for another purpose is not a toy as defined in law. The manufacturer of the deceased mother's gun will not be prosecuted for creating a lethal toy.

Similarly, if a villager creates a straw-stuffed scarecrow bee for their scarecrow-festival tableau, the bee is an effigy for temporary exhibition purposes. It is not a toy (even if the kid next door grabs it and kicks it around as a football) and it is not a sculpture, because it was not designed as a toy or sculpture.

The law in the UK and the US both take original intention into consideration. Killing is a good example of intention being taken into consideration. The serial killer with his known modus operandi (MO) and his car-full of gaffer tape, poisons, ropes, hunting knives and guns may fairly be accused of intention to kill. But the horrified mother who has accidentally backed her car over her child when witnesses confirm that she believed the child was inside the house, is unlikely to be accused of intention to kill.

Therefore, to answer your question, if a sculptor creates an ice sculpture for the ice festival in Ottawa, then that is his intention, and that is a sculpture. If a kid plays with the food on his plate and temporarily makes it look like a face, before eating it, it is not a sculpture. That is because the sculptor is intending to made a sculpture, but the kid is using his food as a plaything, or as a way of winding up his mother. Regarding the issue here, if a villager makes a scarecrow effigy, that scarecrow by definition is supposed to be a badly-made effigy because that is what a scarecrow is. The whole point of a scarecrow is that it is not intended to be a sculpture or any other kind of art, and it is certainly not intended to be a toy. Storye book (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again, you keep making the claim that they are not sculptures, but have not and cannot cite either statute or case law to prove your point. Carl would you comment here? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any written law which cites what things are not. There would be an infinite list of nots if they tried. Anyway, aren't you bringing this discussion off the point? The above two files were deleted on the grounds of being toys. Any argument for deletion or undeletion of those files ought to be about that. Storye book (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in undeleting something to just start a DR on it, so we have to look at the whole picture. In general, toys fall under sculpture in copyright law, because copyright law is pretty general. I don't see any reason why these wouldn't fall under sculpture as well, as three dimensional constructions for artistic purposes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prosfilaes：​ Your "whole picture" is not the whole picture. I accept that the dalmatian dog picture can be mistaken for toys, although they were not made for that purpose. I accept that that one may remain deleted. I have already said that. But the bees are very large, and if you were there you would have seen that they are scruffy bags of straw and totally unusable as toys. They were never intended as toys, sculptures or any kind of artworks. They were intended as destructible scarecrows. A scarecrow by definition is an object carelessly thrown together as a temporary effigy. The whole point of them is that they are not an artwork, and are intended as a non-artwork. It is the camera work which is artistic. The real problem that we have in this discussion is that only one or two people have been able to see the original pictures. So all those who have not seen the original pictues are talking out of their hats. I repeat, the dogs can possibly be mistaken as toys, fair enough (if that is the picture that I think it is?). But the bees cannot be mistaken as toys. I did not photograph any bees which look like toys, or which could be used as playthings. You couldn't even kick them around the yard, because they would fall apart. Storye book (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about toys. They're sculptures. If a kid plays with the food on his plate and temporarily makes it look like a face, it's sculpture. It might not qualify for copyright under the “perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than a transitory duration” rule, but the US Copyright Office specifically lists "Edible materials, such as a molded chocolate rabbit or a frosting design on a cake" as eligible, right below "“Soft sculptures,” such as stuffed animals and puppets" Compendium of Copyright Practices (section 704). Note there's no section about toys; section 910 is called "Games, Toys, Dolls, Stuffed Animals, and Puppets" and starts "This Section discusses certain issues that commonly arise with toys, dolls, stuffed animals, puppets, and other sculptural works." When you build something and put it on display as an effigy, it likely falls under the category of sculpture, provided there was human input and it's not a useful item.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "likely" is significant, then. It means that the subject is up for doubt and discussion. Also, please explain to me why only my photographs have been targeted for deletion, and why only my photographs have been targeted now. It is illogical to say that only the photographs at issue in this discussion matter, and it is illogical in the context that none of the thousands of other effigy and scarecrow pictures on WP (which to my knowledge have never been disputed since WP started) have been targeted for deletion. Therefore this discussion gives the impression that my work on scarecrows is being targeted for vexatious reasons.

That leads me to wonder why you are discussing this without showing us what you are discussing. If you were to reveal the bees picture, your statements about toys and sculpture would be less convincing.

It is not the case that WP respects only US law when judging copyright violation on Commons. If you believed that US law overrides UK law in all cases, then you would not have allowed UK panoramafreiheit, and you would not have allowed the UK's 70-year death rule. UK courts do not inflict punitive damages. Judgements on copyright cases in the UK consider only specific financial losses, which are quantitative. That is to say, if an advertiser were to use my photographs of a scarecrow to make money, then the judgement would be about any moneys that the scarecrow-creator could have made with the scarecrow, but cannot make due to advertiser-behaviour. Because these scarecrows are in themselves non-commercial, then it is doubtvul whether any scarecrow-creator could ever have made money which amounts to more than court costs. Also, UK courts do not define art, artists or sculpture because art is a moot point, which can never be resolved and is not quantifiable like money. That is why I am disputing your arguments. Storye book (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:L says works must be PD in the US and their country of origin. You're arguing instead of listening, and arguing with the world experts on Commons license policy on that subject is silly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whom one disputes with is not a premise on which to judge an argument. What we have here is a number of attempts to delete my photographs on new grounds, which have never (to my knowledge) been used on the many thousands of similar photographs which have been uploaded to Commons since Commons began. I asked above what is the difference between much older, still-existing, photographs of effigies, scarecrows, etc., and my photographs of scarecrows. And I received no answer. It is not enough in this circumstance to say that we only consider the photographs at issue here. A parallel in civic life might be that up to now no man has been indicted in any court anywhere for simply looking at another man's wife, then suddenly, without any change in the law, non-lawyers are able to indict or imprison one particular man for looking at another man's wife. To put it another way, there is no precedence for what you are doing here. So please explain what is the difference between my photographs and all the other photographs of scarecrows, and why only my photographs, after all these years, have been singled out for deletion on grounds which (in your terms) would fit thousands, if not millions of pre-existing photos on Commons? Storye book (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I have always thought that considering these very simple objects as sculptures with a copyright is farfetched. Now I don't know how this translates to legal arguments, but Storye book made one above. If these objects are not considered copyrighted by UK law, why should we do so? Yann (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always had a problem when certain people are considered artists and get copyright respected for every little thing, but the average person is just making "very simple objects". I question whether Storye book's interpretation of the UK law is correct. Certainly in the US these would have copyright, and that is the law that the WMF would be sued under. Also, we have several people well versed in US law; it doesn't seem we have anyone nearly as well versed in UK law, so trying to use the UK law solely makes it harder here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what is worth, we sometimes deny copyright to claimed "artistic" works. A recent case from memory: Category:On Kawara. I agree that there is no reason to use a different standard for famous artists and other people. Yann (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann：​ Hehe, yes, that example is something a lot of us would like to judge as non-art. I think that comes from the old definition of art as specific skill(s), rather than the more recent infinity of interpretations. That is why British courts decline to define art - because there could be no conclusion to it all - today it is all about opinion. But, back to the subject at hand, here. A British court would weigh up the question of who would lose what, and who would win what, if the court dismissed the case, or if it awarded something to plaintiff or defendant. In this case, if British village scarecrow-festival images were deleted, the creators of the scarecrows would lose out, because (1) they would no longer have good-quality available and shareable pictures of their creations for free, and (2) they would no longer have ditto photographs to use in promotion of the next scarecrow festival. It would be a long stretch to imagine that advertisers and other moneymakers would bother to use the images for money, or that they could make more money doing that than the cost of a court case, but if they did, they would be doing no harm to the creators, so who cares? Because British courts (unlike US courts) do not inflict punitive damages, there would be no case to answer, so a British court and/or lawyers would not pursue such a case. People are wasting their time here, on this subject of British scarecrow festivals. Storye book (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No protected 1960 interior as krd errorously tells. Photographer is the organ builder himself, iirc. Discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pipe organ of Lambertikirche Aurich --Subbass1 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pipe organ of Lambertikirche Aurich was closed on the statement that the pipe organ is protected. The architecture seemed to not be an issue. Abzeronow (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote: Photographer is the organ builder himself, iirc. Besides that on commons an organ case is never protected and is shown thousands of times. --Subbass1 (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted in the DR, the problem here is not the organ itself, but the church architecture, which is modern and likely copyrighted.  Oppose unless we have a free license permission from the architect also or an evidence that the church architect died more than 70 years ago.

If the images are cropped / altered to show the organ only and the church architecture in the background / surroundings is not shown at all or minimized, the photos may be OK. Ankry (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The church architecture is not "modern". Try reading the german Wikipedia article. --Subbass1 (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It is from 1830s, I withdraw my comment. Ankry (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I think Abzeronow has it right -- perhaps User:Ankry should read the DR again. The problem here is that the design of the organ case goes way beyond utilitarian and therefore has its own copyright. If, as claimed above, the organ builder actually took the pictures, then a note to VRT from an address at https://www.orgelbau-ahrend.de/ should be easy to get (The other named builder, Gerhard Brunzema, died in 1992). .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The VRT team of course already has a permission from Hendrik AHrend for the pictures. For the organ case itself it's not necessary (but here included..), in common use on Commons. --Subbass1 (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the DR, we have the photographer's permission per ticket:2023120810006959. If that photographer and the organ builder is one and the same person (which I did not know until User:Subbass1 wrote it here, and which was not mentioned in either the previous undeletion request or the deletion request), that ticket should be re-evaluated to see if the permission also covers the organ itself. Else a new permission which explicitly covers both the photographs and the organ design should be sent. --Rosenzweig τ 14:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again: it's NOT necessary to have a permission for organ cases on commons. Just keep doing so to scare away the last people who provide pictures. In this case, unfortunately, even the "superintendent" had to deal with the claim of a "modern church design". Ridiculous. --Subbass1 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly the situation, these photos of the organ are offered under a free license by the copyright owner of both the organ and the photos. Therefore, there is no problem of copyright violation with these photos. These photos of the organ are fine and free to use and have all the permissions necessary. The organ itself does not need to be offered under a free license. There is no need to force the organ builder to allow his competitors to build identical organs. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support As discussed in the first round at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2024-04#Aurich, the only goal of sending these files to a deletion request was to clarify the status of the church architecture, and on that point the closing administrator of that DR agreed that the church architecture is not a problem. The VRT permission 2023120810006959 from Hendrik Ahrend for the photos of the organ was not disputed. The organ is attributed to the organ building business [1]. It was built when the father of Hendrik owned the business. Hendrik Ahrend is now the owner of the business. (Hendrik himself also worked on the organ in 2022/2023.) He free licenses his photos of the organ. That's sufficient. We don't need to require that he sends another email to spell out that as the owner of the business he's giving the permission to himself to show the organ in his own photos, nor that his 94 year old father send an email as former owner. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  never ever Ahrend has to prove anything further. I don't wish that he is contacted from hee again, ok? Instead some persons here should overthink their behaviour (and knowledge) and inform themsleves better before making others lots of unnecessary work. --Subbass1 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Work by the federal government. No copyrightable elements. Anything else but the quote itself is PD-simple--Trade (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contains a Twitter disclaimer that the tweet breaks the site rules, and Twitter is not owned nor was ever owned by the federal government. Abzeronow (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that the disclaimer is above threshold of originality in the US? @Jmabel：​--Trade (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea, and quite frankly would rather stay out of this. - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Trump's remark is more political than presidential, so it could be argued that it does not fall under the exemption for works created by Federal employees in the course of their Federal duties. However, that question is moot, because the two sentences written by Twitter clearly have a copyright belonging to Twitter. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Trump's tweet may be in the public domain (as most of his tweets during his presidency) but as Jim says the Twitter one is doubtfully PD. Maybe a compromise would be to restore only Trump's tweet? Bedivere (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd be OK with just restoring Trump's tweet. The circumstances of Twitter disclaiming the tweet can be paraphrased in the description. Abzeronow (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's debatable if such a short and generic disclaimer somehow gets to benefit from copyright protection Trade (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It's from his personal account. The office of the President has its own account. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DOJ said in 2017 that tweets from that account were official presidential statements. https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/government_says_trumps_tweets_are_official_presidential_statements This year, SCOTUS also ruled that officials use of social media could be state actions: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-outlines-officials-can-sued-blocking-people-social-media-rcna135128 So it's not clear cut if this was a personal statement or a presidential one. Abzeronow (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. These tweets are in the public domain as the work of an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the US, made as part of his duties. Also, as a work of the US federal government, these tweets are in the public domain. Bedivere (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, I don't think it is clear that Trump's remarks are PD. While anything he does acting as President certainly is PD, things he does as a candidate for office --in this case his running for reelection in 2020 -- are personal and not PD. This looks to me more political than presidential. Note that the SCOTUS decision says they "could be state actions", not that they always are state actions. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but at the time of the posting he was still a president, and if you check their tweets all over his presidency, they are very much alike that one. That's why I'm inclined to consider this one PD. Bedivere (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The focus in this photo is very clearly on the cosplay, not the plushie itself--Trade (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Restore I agree with Trade on this one. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I agree that the plushies are de minimis, but the two masked characters in the center of the image have copyrights -- the masks remove the costumes from being utilitarian. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jim, but I think censoring out the masks would still make it a useful photograph so I'd  Support a censored version. Abzeronow (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Afsaneh-Salari-scaled.jpg was deleted a few weeks back per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Afsaneh-Salari-scaled.jpg. The same image was subsequently uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as en:File:Afsaneh-Salari-scaled.jpg under an acceptable CC license based on the discussion at en:User talk:Mr.izadpanah#File permission problem with File:Afsaneh-Salari-scaled.jpg. It appears that a free license declaration has been added to the photo's source website. If this is sufficient enough for Commons, then perhaps this file could be restored to allow the local file to be deleted per en:WP:F8. For reference, I didn't ask the deleting Commons admin about this at User talk:Minorax#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Afsaneh-Salari-scaled.jpg last week, but they might just be busy with other stuff and haven't had the time to respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There is no author listed at the named site, so the CC-BY license is not valid because a user cannot give the required credit. It also appears without a free license in a variety of other places. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward：​ Thank you for taking a look at this. I've let the uploader of the image know about this on their English Wikipedia user talk page, and suggested they comment here if they want to try to clarify things. If this file can't be restored for the issues you laid out above, then the English Wikipedia local file probably needs to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly, I am not expert on WP:EN rules, but I would not assume that the image must be removed there. Check the Fair Use rules. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

​This wouldn't be allowed to be used as non-free content on English Wikipedia because the subject of the photo is living and non-free photos of living people are pretty much never allowed except under certain conditions, none of which could apply here. I will suggest to the uploader that they try to get the copyright holder to email their COM:CONSENT to VRT. Would you still be opposed to the file being restored if VRT is able to verify its licensing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes -- now that you mention it, I remember that rule. Sorry for the distraction. And, yes, of course, if VRT gets a valid license, the volunteer there will either restore it or if they are not an Admin, bring it here to be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, I found this image on the website of the Embassy of India, Washington D C, USA and tried to upload it onto Wikicommons. Then I got a warning that the same file had been deleted several times because of no license. I assumed GODL-India applied to this file because the embassy is plainly a subordinate of the central Government of India.
I have found a lot of controversy about this template and I am hoping someone could provide an explanation here as to whether or not it is accepted to import photos from these Government of India websites. 源義信 (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The Copyright policy of the source webpage is quite clear:

This contents of this website may not be reproduced partially or fully, without due permission from Embassy of India, Washington DC. If referred to as a part of another publication, the source must be appropriately acknowledged. The contents of this website cannot be used in any misleading or objectionable context.

Günther Frager (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but I don't think this would help, since there seems to be something unclear about whether documents created by the government of India are accepted here.

If you please, refer to Template:GODL-India and the related discussions:

Following the mandate of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) of Government of India that applies to all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various agencies of the Government of India, and subject to the conditions listed under section 4 and 7 of this document, all "user" are provided a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, adapt, publish (either in original, or in adapted and/or derivative forms), translate, display, add value, and create derivative works (including products and services), for all lawful commercial and non-commercial purposes, and for the duration of existence of such rights over the data or information.

源義信 (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GODL license applies to some datasets published under NDSAP not to all data generated by the government, you can read the discussion in Commons:Deletion requests/Media in Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India. Notice also that ee have Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India for a reason. Günther Frager (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DEU Augsburg COA.svg

Someone deleted the Coat of Arms of the City of Augsburg, Germany. This image is used on 1000+ pages on Commons alone, and it was used on a lot of wikis until CommonsDelinker went on a deleting spree and removed them all. This is currently causing quite a bit of a ruckus, so please restore the image and revert the CommonsDelinker deletions. -- 2A02:908:122:55C0:468A:5BFF:FECC:62BA 10:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The problem is apparently that the original file File:DEU Augsburg COA.svg was moved to File:DEU Augsburg stylized COA.svg and shortly afterwards a new version was uploaded. This new version was a duplicated and was deleted because of that. I created a file redirect that probably won't stop Commons Delinker, but it would help in case its actions are reverted. FYI, @Doc Taxon：​ as you moved and reuploaded the file. Günther Frager (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other languages:

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Cymraeg
• Deutsch
• English
• Nederlands
• Ripoarisch
• dansk
• español
• français
• galego
• italiano
• magyar
• polski
• português
• sicilianu
• svenska
• башҡортса
• русский
• українська
• اردو
• العربية
• فارسی
• پښتو
• हिन्दी
• বাংলা
• 中文
• 日本語
• 한국어

 Done: I corrected the problem now on all wikis – Doc Taxon • Talk • 16:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

All Welcome Rotonda images

All images:

• File:01336jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 02.jpg
• File:01336jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 03.jpg
• File:01336jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 06.jpg
• File:01336jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 14.jpg
• File:01336jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 15.jpg
• File:01340jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 01.jpg
• File:01340jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 02.jpg
• File:01340jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 03.jpg
• File:01340jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 04.jpg
• File:01340jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 07.jpg
• File:01340jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 08.jpg
• File:01340jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 09.jpg
• File:01340jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 10.jpg
• File:01340jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 11.jpg
• File:01340jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 13.jpg
• File:01365jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 04.jpg
• File:01365jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 05.jpg
• File:01365jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 09.jpg
• File:01365jfWelcome Rotonda Quezon City Avenue E. Rodriguez, Sr. España Extension Barangaysfvf 10.jpg
• File:Mabuhay Rotonda.JPG
• File:Welcome Rotonda.jpg

The above-mentioned files were deleted through Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Welcome Rotonda, on the no-FoP claim. However, being in 1948, this structure meets {{PD-Philippines-FoP work}} as a pre-1972 work. There is no evidence of its registration (as most registrations during the period were for literary and audio-visual works, very rare for public art). Another proof that it existed before 1972: this old 1960 image in a Manila nostalgia-related Facebook group. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it does not contain any sculptural-like elements, just a structure with combined monolithic and arch properties. So unlikely to be granted protection by registration before 1972 as it is not a sculpture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

Other languages:

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Cymraeg
• Deutsch
• English
• Nederlands
• Ripoarisch
• dansk
• español
• français
• galego
• italiano
• magyar
• polski
• português
• sicilianu
• svenska
• башҡортса
• русский
• українська
• اردو
• العربية
• فارسی
• پښتو
• हिन्दी
• বাংলা
• 中文
• 日本語
• 한국어

 Done: @JWilz12345：​ Please add the template. --Yann (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo-wiki-olympic-2024.png

I request the restoration of the image because it is the logo of a Wiki project, and I designed it using Figma. --Kod B (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose File was deleted as a copyvio, logo above COM:TOO. 185.172.241.184 10:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

Other languages:

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Cymraeg
• Deutsch
• English
• Nederlands
• Ripoarisch
• dansk
• español
• français
• galego
• italiano
• magyar
• polski
• português
• sicilianu
• svenska
• башҡортса
• русский
• українська
• اردو
• العربية
• فارسی
• پښتو
• हिन्दी
• বাংলা
• 中文
• 日本語
• 한국어

 Done: PD-textlogo anyway. --Yann (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Actually, the rings were copyrighted, but it has expired. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the following pages:

• File:Nonny Ntlahla Portrait.png (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Reason: I requeted this be undeleted a few days ago. It was deleted again by the same admin a day later. Sigh. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've messaged User:Gbawden at their talk page. Hopefully this can be resolved soon. Abzeronow (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Die Datei war ursprünglich mit falschen Urheberangaben online. Nach der Löschung habe ich die Datei mit den passenden Angaben wieder hochgeladen. Danach gab es keinen Grund mehr für eine Löschung. Dennoch wurde ohne Prüfung per Schnelllöschung gelöscht, da es sich um einen Reupload einer gelöschten Datei handelt. ToniDSC (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EN: The file was originally online with incorrect copyright information. After deleting it, I uploaded it again with the correct information. After that, there was no longer any reason to delete it. Nevertheless, it was deleted without checking using quick deletion because it was a reupload of a deleted file. ToniDSC (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Uploading a file a second time is a violation of Commons rules and a waste of time and resources. Please do not do it again. It is also a violation to recreate a file when it has been deleted. Only Admins should do that and only after an Undeletion Request.

The Threshold of Originality is fairly low in Germany, so this logo probably has a copyright. The page from which it was taken has an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose as it is a duplicate of File:Arminia Bielefeld Logo 2021–.svg.

 Info The description of the abovementioned image suggests that the logo is PD in Germany due to expired copyright and below ToO in US. Ankry (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I request the restoration of these images:

• File:Logo-wiki-olympic.png
• File:Logo-wiki-olympic-without-background.png
• File:Logo-wiki-olympic-2024-without-background.png
• File:Visuel-presentation-wiki-olympic-2024.png
• File:Visuel-prsentation-wiki-olympic-2024.png
• File:Visuel - porte-drapeaux ivoiriens - JO de Paris 2024.png

because they are logos and visual presentations of the activities of a Wiki project. I designed these images myself using Figma. --Kod B (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For File:Visuel-presentation-wiki-olympic-2024.png, what are the sources of the background images (Eiffel Tower, etc) and the athletes images? Also on the last one, Paris 2024 logo is possibly above the ToO of France. Abzeronow (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]