Commons:削除撤回依頼

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 85% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.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:

このページでは、削除されたページやファイル（以下、まとめて「ファイル」と呼ぶ）の「削除の撤回」（復帰）を依頼できます。一般の利用者は削除撤回依頼に、理由を添えて削除維持（keep deleted）あるいは削除撤回（=復帰、undelete）の賛否コメントを入れることができます。

このページはウィキペディアの一部ではありません。 ウィキペディアや他のウィキメディアのプロジェクト群において用いられるフリーのメディア・ファイルの保管庫であるウィキメディア・コモンズの内容についてのページです。ウィキメディア・コモンズは百科事典記事を提供しません。 英語版ウィキペディアにおける記事やその他の内容の削除撤回の要請は、英語版の削除のレビュー (deletion review) にて行ってください。（同様に日本語版ウィキペディアの記事等においては日本語版の削除の復帰依頼を利用して下さい。）

削除メニュー (方針)
(Missing: 40著作権侵害 • 1重複ファイル • 0広告) • 0自分撮り
40著作権侵害 • 1重複ファイル • 3その他…
v • d • e

ファイルが削除された理由を見い出す

始めに, 削除記録 (deletion log) を確認し、ファイルが削除された理由を見つけ出して下さい。 リンク元 (What links here) を参照し、削除されたファイルについて、どのような議論があったかを確認して下さい。もし、あなたがアップロードしたファイルであれば、あなたのトーク（会話ページ）に削除についての説明がないか確認してください。 次に、削除の方針、プロジェクトの守備範囲及びライセンシングを再度確認し、コモンズにおいて、そのファイルが許容されないかもしれない理由を調べてください。

削除された理由が明白でない場合、あるいは削除理由に異論がある場合、削除を行った管理者に連絡を取り説明を求めたり、削除理由を否定する新たな事実を示してください。 実行した管理者本人以外でも、活動中の管理者（管理者リスト（言語別））へ連絡を取っても構いません、もし間違いで削除されていた場合は、事態を修正してくれるでしょう。

削除に対する不服申し立て

削除の方針、プロジェクトの守備範囲及びライセンシングに正しく基づいた削除が撤回されることはありません。諸方針の修正はそれぞれのノート（議論ページ）で提案することができます。

そのファイルが著作権侵害案件ではなく、現在のプロジェクトの守備範囲をはずれてもいないと信じる場合：

  • そのファイルを削除した管理者と議論を希望することができます。その管理者に詳しい説明を求めたり、復帰を支持する証拠を示すことができます。
  • だれにも直接連絡することを望まない場合や、連絡した管理者が復帰を断った場合、あるいはもっと多くの人に議論参加してほしい場合、このページで削除撤回依頼を出すことができます。
  • そのファイルが、著作権者によるライセンス許諾の証拠がなくて削除された場合、許諾確認プロセスに従ってください。 すでに許諾確認のプロセスを進めている場合、ここで削除撤回を依頼する必要はありません。もし許諾が規則にかなう形で行われた場合、許諾が確認できた段階でファイルは復帰されるでしょう。現在の案件数とボランティアの人数の関係で、何週間かの時間がかかるかもしれませんので、しばらくお待ちください。
  • 削除された画像の説明に一部の情報が足りない場合、いくつかの質問されることがあります。 通常、このような質問には24時間以内に回答することが期待されます。

一時的な復帰

削除撤回議論を支援するために、あるいはフェアユースを受け入れるプロジェクトへファイルを転送するために、ファイルが一時的に復帰されることがあります。そのような場合は、{{Request temporary undeletion}}（一時的な復帰の依頼） のテンプレートを使って 説明してください。

  1. 削除撤回議論を支援するための一時的復帰の場合、一時復帰が議論に有用な理由を説明してください。あるいは
  2. フェアユースを受け入れるプロジェクトへファイルを転送するための一時的復帰の場合、どのプロジェクトにファイルを転送しようとしているのかを述べて、そのプロジェクトのフェアユース・ステートメントのリンクを貼ってください。

議論の支援のため

一般利用者がファイルを見ないと削除撤回依頼を認めるべきか決めかねる場合、議論を支援するためにファイルを一時的に復帰することができます。ファイルの説明ページ、あるいはその引用で足りる場合は、管理者はファイルの一時復帰を認めないで、代わりに説明ページまたはその引用を提供することがあります。 一時復帰が議論にもたらす有用性よりも他の要因が重要であると感じられる場合は一時復帰依頼が拒否される可能性があります（たとえば、ファイルを一時的にでも復帰することに識別可能な人物の写真に関する相当な懸念がある場合など）。議論を支援するために一時的に復帰されているファイルは、30日後、もしくは復帰依頼が閉じられたとき（のどちらか早い方）に再削除されます。

フェアユースを受け入れるプロジェクトへの転送を可能とするために

英語版ウィキペディアやそのほかのいくつかのウィキメディアのプロジェクトと異なり、コモンズは、フェアユース(Fair use) のようなフリーでないコンテンツを受け入れません。 削除されたファイルが他のウィキメディアプロジェクトのフェアユース要件を満たす場合、そちらへファイルを転送するために一時的復帰を依頼することができます。通常、このような依頼は（議論なく）即時復帰の対応が可能です。 転送目的で即時復帰されたファイルは二日後に削除されます。一時復帰を依頼するときは、どのプロジェクトに転送するるつもりかを明らかにして、そのプロジェクトのフェアユース・ステートメントをリンクしてください。

フェアユースを受け入れているプロジェクト
* 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.

依頼の手順

まず、ファイルが削除された理由を確認してください。次に、以下の依頼提出方法を読んで、それから提出してください：

  • 削除されていないファイルの復帰を依頼しないでください。
  • メールアドレスや電話番号を書かないでください、あなたのであれ、ほかのひとのであれ。
  • Subject:（見出し） の箇所には, 適切な件名を入れてください。 単一ファイルの削除撤回依頼の場合、見出しに[[:File:削除されたファイル名.jpg]]を入れることが推奨されます（リンクするには　Fileの前にコロンが必要です）
  • ファイルを特定する あなたが削除撤回依頼するファイルを特定して、イメージリンクを提供してください。正確な名前を知らない場合あ、できるだけたくさん情報を出してください。なにを復帰させたいかについての情報を提供できていない依頼は通告なくアーカイブに移動させられます。
  • 理由を述べる 復帰を行うべき理由を述べます。
  • 依頼に署名する - 4つのチルダ(~~~~)を使って依頼に署名します。コモンズにアカウントを持っているなら、先にログインしてください。問題のファイルをアップロードした本人なら、ログインすることで管理者がファイルを特定する手助けになります。

ページの下部に依頼を追加してください。ここをクリックして開いたページに依頼を書いてください。 または、以下の現在の日付の横にある「編集」リンクをクリックすることもできます。あなたの依頼のセクションの更新を注視してください。

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

アーカイブ

終了した依頼は毎日アーカイブされます。

現在の依頼

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)[]
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)[]
 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)[]
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)[]
 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)[]
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)[]
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)[]

 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)[]

@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)[]
@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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]

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)[]

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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]
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)[]

Files from Ticket #2024052210003759

All those files have to be restored, as there's no copyright involved (old architecture) or it's no "art" (eg organ console). The deleting admin "krd" knew that, as I had wrote him (besides that everyone can see that at one glance). The permission itself by the author is there since weeks. --Subbass1 (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Apparently no permission was confirmed within one month after it was received, hence the deletion (which is quasi-automatic after that time). This looks like there was a problem with the permission. Someone with access to Ticket:2024052210003759 might want to have a look. --Rosenzweig τ 13:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[]
could someone finally take care of this? Thanks, --Subbass1 (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

File:Coat of arms of russia 1856.png

Could you all undelete the coat of arms that I uploaded since unlike other people say it wasnt traced and its a original photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by CTGonYT (talk • contribs) 23:21, 25 June 2024‎ (UTC)[]

Hmm. I think the wings are similar but not identical to those at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GP7SY05WYAAHO_X?format=jpg&name=small. However, you say "its a original photo" -- what do you mean? A photo of what? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

File:Witold Frydrych.jpg File:Mieczysław_Hańderek.jpg

Both these pictures are retirved from official documents of Kraków Academy of Fine Arts. As it is state Academy the content of the documents including pictures are in public domain based on polish law. According to Article 4, case 2 of the Polish Copyright Law Act of February 4, 1994 (Dz. U. z 2022 r. poz. 2509 with later changes) "normative acts and drafts thereof as well as official documents, materials, signs and symbols are not subject to copyrights".

Polimerek (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

File:Marek Mietelski - Rabka 1935.jpg

This picture seems to be PD, as it was taken by owner of "Photo Janina" worhshop from Rabka Zdrój, Poland, who according to the information of Museum of Photography in Kraków, died before 1945: https://zbiory.mufo.krakow.pl/artist/foto-janina/ Polimerek (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

File:Oropher.jpg

Hello👋,

I would like this AI image to be restored because it brings a utility for the Oropher page on French Wikipedia. As described, it was created only on Tolkien's description since no images of Oropher exist.

Thank you 🙏,

Alexandar au Arcos (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Didn't French Wikipedia ban AI images? I seem to remember something like that. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[]
The French Wikipedia does not recommend AI images but does not prohibit them. Alexandar au Arcos (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

 Oppose We do not keep personal art from artists who are not notable -- AI or not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

File:月雲よるs.jpg

この写真は、私が撮影した写真であり、著作権はカメラマンである私自身が所有しております。 また、肖像権を所有する月雲よる本人より、ウィキペディアの作成依頼を受けており、著作権のみではなく肖像権に関しても許諾を得ております。

File:KPXJ 2024.svg

Now in use on air; see https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/393992581467471883/1256342272320995388/20240628_151452.jpg?ex=66806b6b&is=667f19eb&hm=acd7e6c5e8857bdcc2c51d4f7558aa87788d903e54b4a4fa337f76cd3737a4e8& Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/ja&oldid=756610940"