Commons:Undeletion requests

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.

Please read the instructions below, before requesting undeletion.

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

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.

Temporary undeletion of fair use content

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). Temporarily undeleted files 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: bn | be | ca | cs | el | en | et | eo | fi | fr | he | hr | id | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | ms | pt | ro | ru | sr | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−
• Wikinews: en | pl | +/−
• Wikibooks: en | +/−
• Wikisource: +/−
• Wikiversity: en | +/−

Note: the list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content. (this page last updated: November 2011). Note2: als, mk, 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:

• In the Subject/headline: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:Image: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.

Instructions for administrators

Use common sense. If, for example, a file was deleted for missing a source, and the requesting user is the photographer, the file can be undeleted without further discussion. If the user wishes to tag a file with a certain license, you can do that for him or her if you want to, or leave it to him or her to do it. However, it is important that you remove any speedy deletion templates from the file.

In general, try to comply with the requests of well-intending users. Files can, for example, be undeleted for the requesting user to look at without the request itself having to be closed.

The deleting administrator may undelete the file if compelled by the arguments or information provided. The deleting administrator may also participate in the discussion. The deleting administrator should, however, not close contentious requests as "Not done."

When a debate is settled, close it with a remark such as "Not done" or "Undeleted" and add the template {{udelh}} above the header and the template {{udelf}} below your own comment. (The templates are short for "undelete header" and "footer.") Closed requests are automatically archived.

When undeleting a file, reference the discussion (for example "Per http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=nnnnnnnn#Heading").

Temporarily undeleted files should be tagged with {{temporary undelete}}. This places them into Temporarily undeleted files, a subcategory of Candidates for deletion. Temporarily restored files should be deleted again after two days.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:British Israelism.jpg

The image was created in order to illustrate the WP article British Israelism. A few months later, it was removed from the article, with the edit comment "Removed photoshopped image: completely contrived and uniformative, not encyclopedic." I didn't notice the edit, and recently it was deleted from Commons. Administrator James I Woodward, who deleted the image here, argues that it is personal artwork and, hence, out of scope on both WP and Commons. In my opinion, it is a good illustration of the article and improves it. I want to contest the removal of the image from the WP article, and request that it is undeleted temporarily, so that I will be given the opportunity to argue for it on the WP talk page and editors involved with the article can voice their opinion as to its usefulness. --Jonund (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment - Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Israelism.jpg is not about any copyright concerns but the same image is used at http://silenced.co/tag/british-israelism/ /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
• I am going to  Oppose on a few grounds. First, more related to the Commons, the license is wrong and we cannot host it here under it. One of the images it was derived from, File:London-lion.jpg, is licensed under a Creative Commons license. You can make PD into Creative Commons, but not the other way around. In this case, the deleted image is PD while File:London-lion.jpg is under Creative Commons-Attribution. The upload here was first in 2009; the post pointed out by Pieter was done in July and August of this year. So while it is not a copyright violation from that blogpost, the license must be changed if the image is restored by this discussion. Second, it is a juxtaposition of various images. For those who cannot see the image; it is a lion with a Union Flag backdrop with a Bible quote (Isiah 24:15) in Hebrew. This is not an historic image and was specifically designed to decorate the article, which was removed in March of 2010. Now if it was a user image that was used in a userbox for their own personal purposes, I see no issues with it. Yet, it was specifically designed for an article and, using our policies on COM:SCOPE as a guide, the users do not want this photoshopped image in the article and was never reintroduced since March 2010. I don't see how having it on the Commons would benefit us or any other project since it was more of a user creation to make an article have some kind of image. Now if we find something historic relating to this, then by all means lets use it. But this, no. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I think. We don't have an automatic ban on self-made art, as far as I know. Lots of icons would fall under that. We don't want to be an online repository of someone's art they are just trying to showcase, but creations like this to represent a subject I think are fine. It's the kind of thing a TV news station would use as a background to indicate a particular topic, maybe a book cover for some related topic, or projects could use as an icon for some British-in-Palestine-related stuff . Maybe Wikinews could use it, or Wikibooks, or a WikiProject, or things like that. I'm not sure it's a good idea on the Wikipedia article, since there is no real significance to the image itself from the sounds of it -- I would tend to agree that it is not encyclopedic. However, Wikimedia has many non-encyclopedia projects, and even Wikipedia has some potential uses outside of actual articles. This type of thing is in scope, I think. The licensing issue mentioned by Zscout370 should be addressed, but is not a reason for deletion. A CC-BY license does *not* bind derivative works to use the same license (CC-BY-SA does), so the author of the remaining work can license the rest how they want. However, the attribution section needs to mention that the lion portion is *not* PD, but rather CC-BY, and it must mention the author of the original. The same would go for the author of the flag image, which is also CC-BY. Those two original authors need to be attributed on the image page, and the uploader as well (if they wish, which I assume they would, even if PD). This is a situation where removal from Wikipedia should not result in deletion from Commons, I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment I think it's fit for the WP article. Images make articles nicer and more attractive and readable. Not least the lead section is served by an image, and it should be something that covers the subject and not merely a small aspect of it, like one of the people mentioned in the article. It's custom to use images that are not directly informative in any strict sense, but captures the subject. For instance, Present, Past, Future, Humanities or Pleasure have illustrations that make us none the wiser. WP policy says that anything that improves WP is accepted, so if the article is better with the image, it should be there. But this is, I think, something the WP editors should be given opportunity to decide about. The removal went unnoticed; if the attention of many editors are drawn to the image, we will know their opinions. As for the licensing, I'd be happy to license it under whatever license which is appropriate. --Jonund (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • With self-made images like this, you run into WP:original research issues on encyclopedia articles, I'd think. Most of the images you link to are encyclopedic on their own, and were chosen as being representative. Finding an illustration from an old book would be better I'm guessing. But yes, that is a discussion for en-wiki. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The rationale for original images seems to be that they should not "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". --Jonund (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose, as stated in the original deletion nomination, this image was created for soapboxing, and Commons is not a web hosting site for self-published political banner designs. Such designs do not magically become educational by arguing that “it could be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on X”, where X happens to be a subject such as British Israelism, Mandate Palestine,the Lion of Judah or The Bible. Jonund is free to upload this file at Wikipedia under fair use rationale in any case, but I will bet it will be rejected for soapboxing there as well. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment As I said, I have no sympaties for British Israelism. Apparently, you think I'm a liar. I find such an accusation outrageous, and however you assess the value of the image, you should be able to see that it can be used for other purposes than soapboxing. I'm not able to upload the image to WP, since I deleted it after I uploaded it to Commons. But maybe an administrator can hand the image over to me? --Jonund (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment In fairness to me, I am not accusing of anything; I am merely commenting on the strong political sentiment which the image projects. Lets be honest with each other, and agree that when this image was created, it was intended to arouse political sentiment of some sort, for where I come from, the combination of the Union Jack and the Southbank Lion would interpreted as symbols of nationalism. If we also consider the file British lion and Union flag.jpg, we can see that you have created this file at an earlier date for use with the userbox BritishNationalism. Lets be clear, I am not making a personal accusation, I am merely commenting on the content of the image and the purpose to which such an image could be put, which in these two cases could only be soapboxing. I have put the other file up for deletion on the same grounds: Commons is not a hosting site for soapboxing, regardless of whether it is for or against a particular cause. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment I have explained that my sole purpose for creating the image was to illustrate the article British Israelism, which is about a subject I found exotic and entertaining, and I have no sympaties for British Israelism. Yet you persist in claiming that it was created for soapboxing. I fail to see how I could have been soapboxing without lying when I explained my motives. Now, I'm also expected to admit that "it was intended to arouse political sentiment of some sort" in order to be regarded as honest. I never had such intentions, however. I have no connection to Britain nor to its empire. To a foreigner, the combination of the Union Jack and the Southbank Lion is a national - not a nationalist - symbol. Until now, I thought that you were accusing me of religious, rather than political, soapboxing. British lion and Union flag.jpg was an earlier version intended for the British Israelism article. The userbox wasn't created by me, but by Mender one and a half year after I uploaded the image to Commons. I assume good faith, but you seem to have difficulties listening to others. That is manifest in your inability to see that there are other possible uses than soapboxing. As you have been banned from WP (a significant part of the reason being your zeal to delete articles without sufficient reason), I think you should seriously reconsider your attitudes. --Jonund (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Your intentions may be good, but clearly we will have to agree to disagree on the purpose to which this image could be put. I suggest you put your money where your mouth is (so to speak), by uploading the image into Wikipedia under its existing licence, and embed it in an article there. If you succeed, your arguements that it is educational will be vindicated, and mine will have been shown to be mistaken. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• It is already proven that the file is "realistically useful for an educational purpose", in this case, illustrating w:British Israelism. If Wikipedia will prefer to use another image instead this would not change the potential usefulness of this file. --M5 (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• No, "self-published political banner designs" are okay on Commons as long as they are realistically useful for an educational purpose. For example, images in Category:Montages of war are self-published and political. Moreover, we have competing composite images on the same subject: File:1960s decade montage.png File:1960s montage.jpg File:1960s montage.png; each "intended to arouse political sentiment" in different ways, and some can argue for one image over the other, but such discussions have no place in Commons per COM:NPOV: "Examples of subject matter disputes that are not appropriate here include:... Photographs: “This is propaganda”". --M5 (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Support "We don't keep personal art here" rationale in Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Israelism.jpg is wrong, we keep a lot of composite art in Category:Montages including political, see examples above. Allegations of "political soapboxig" should not be discussed here per COM:NPOV. File can realistically be used for illustrating British Israelism article (which proved by its past and current usage) which is enough to keep it per COM:SCOPE regardless of its future usage in Wikipedias. --M5 (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

File:PA00088801_-_Tour_Eiffel_vue_depuis_le_Palais_de_Chaillot.jpg

Previous discussion at:

• Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-12#File:PA00088801_-_Tour_Eiffel_vue_depuis_le_Palais_de_Chaillot.jpg

It seems to have been not undeleted as it would be part of a lightshow. AFAIK, it's just a reproduction of static lighting acceptable per Category:Eiffel Tower at night. --  Docu  at 12:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Except the judge's ruling seemed to indicate that even the static lighting display constituted a "work of the mind". There is a discussion on Category talk:Eiffel Tower at night which followed your earlier one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that, but there was a similar discussion there before. The problem with your extrapolation is that it could apply to most night views of France .. --  Docu  at 18:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The judge's ruling was cour d'appel a souverainement retenu que la composition de jeux de lumière destinés à révéler et à souligner les lignes et les formes du monument constituait une "création visuelle" originale, et, partant, une oeuvre de l'esprit. That does not sound specific to the light show, unfortunately, and the previous discussion really didn't touch on that aspect. It sounds to me like the complicated lighting job they do, choosing which parts of the structure to emphasize and not, constituted a copyrightable work in France at least in that case. No, I don't like the ruling, and no I would not extrapolate it to someone sticking up some floodlights, but... it's the ruling. And the judge was ruling on the specific lighting on the Eiffel tower itself, so it's not much of an extrapolation -- the ruling involved the exact work in question -- unless I'm misreading the ruling (having to go through translators). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it does and so seems to think the author of the description at Category:Eiffel Tower at night. --  Docu  at 08:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That was a recent edit, and the discussion which led to it focused on the court's description of the photographs in question, and not on the actual conclusion in the ruling, as described in the second part of the discussion on the talk page. I don't see any further discussion as to why the general conclusion in the court case would not apply to the normal nighttime lighting setup. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to close the review of your own closure yourself. You haven't even bothered to comment on the arguments brought up. --  Docu  at 18:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I said before it was a copyright violation; Clindberg already had stated such. There were several other reviews of similar images and we have court cases that state as such. Until that court decision is reversed, there is nothing we can do at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me repeat it:

• It's not appropriate to close the review of your own closure yourself.
• You haven't even bothered to comment on the arguments brought up.

In addition: If you write "we have court cases that state as such", can you provide links to these "court cases". It appears that you might not even understand the issue at hand. --  Docu  at 18:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The court cases linked on the category page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I must be blind. Current version of the category page is Special:Permalink/62594865. It includes just one link to a court case about a light show. --  Docu  at 18:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

File:PA00088801MG_7339_Tour_Eiffel_by_night.jpg

This needs the same undeletion. (Listed previously at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-01#File:PA00088801MG_7339_Tour_Eiffel_by_night.jpg and closed by an admin participating in the discussion but failing to explain his POV). --  Docu  at 08:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Drina'-1 Tapai.jpg

Brisana slika 2011, November 29th

Nekateri pravijo, da je moja angleščina slaba; verjetno tudi moja nemščina ni dosti boljša. Tisti avtomatski Googlovi prevodi v slovenščino so pa celo pošastni. Zato menim, da je najboljše, če napišem v slovenščini. Kar pišem angleško ali nemško, tako nihče ne upošteva. Torej: Brisana slika File:Drina'-1 Tapai.jpg Ima dovljenje za prosto uporabo ne le na Wikipediji, ampak tudi povsod drugod, kot tam piše v madžarščini. Avtor nima niti računalnika niti e-majla, zato sem njegovo dovoljenje skeniral in ga postavil noter. Prosim, da izbrisano sliko obnovite. Hvala

Dovoljenje za sliko od avtorja Drinskih mučenk.

(Slowenisch - Wrote in Slovenian language)

Brisana slika 2012

Today is already date 2012, February 3rd, but on 29th November 2011 I sent a letter for undelete the file File:Drina'-1 Tapai.jpg to volunteers-otrs-de@wikimedia.org I received an answer, that I am welcome there, but other nothing. One picture was undeleted, from Lojze Grozde, and here thank you very much. I wrote than in Slovene, now in English, for one other picture or file: Picture File:Drina'-1 Tapai.jpg has all proprieties for undeletion. 1. Painter or author drew this picture for me 2. He donated picture to me. He wrote permission to me for free license to use picture overall 3. So I bring all rights for this work 4. I will, that it will be used on Wikipedia and overall with free license. 5. I please, restore file 6. Thank you for restoring, your user Stebunik --Stebunik (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You sent it to the wrong email; that is if you wanted to Volunteer for OTRS (specifically for the German language). Please resent that email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and we can sort it out there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We got the email at 2012020310009129 but Slovene is a language I am not good at. I let someone know that it needs a Slovene speaker for this email. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Olongapo city hall 01.jpg

This file was taken from the site: http://www.zamboanga.com/z/index.php?title=File:Olongapo_city_hall_01.jpg According to the website (footer), all of its contents are published under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 , which I believe grants the permission to copy and distribute this image either commercially or non-commercially as stated on Section 2 of the said license. --War1addict (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That page says "Image source by: DOT Region III". I see no reason to conclude it's under the general site license. Wikis should always be taken carefully; people upload other's photos to Wikis all the time, and few of them are terribly careful about licenses.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, the image source was released by the Department of Tourism (Philippines) in Region III and it is a government agency of the Philippines.
According to the Philippine Copyright law, Section 176: No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines.
I believe that the copyright laws of other countries also applies to Wikipedia and Commons. --War1addict (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit." We cannot host their works because it is non-commercial in nature and works must be available for commercial reuse. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems incredibly self-contradictory. If no copyright subsists, how can they set conditions on reuse? - Jmabel ! talk 16:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I really wish I had an answer for that, but that is part of their copyright code and it makes no sense to me. We currently have PD-PhilippinesGov redirect to non-commercial. I have been dealing with this issue for several years and it still hasn't became clearer in those years. I honestly feel it is about time we really need to set this issue straight by asking the WMF legal counsel. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. {{PD-PhilippineGov}} is not a redirect, and was kept per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippineGov. Best we could tell, the other restriction is a non-copyright restriction, with a special right created by that section of the law. It would apply inside the Philippines, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Because http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:PD-PhilippinesGov&redirect=no redirects to the non-commercial template. Though, if the work is non-free inside the source country, then how can we include such images on the Commons or are we making an exception for this case? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Because they may be Commons:Non-copyright restrictions? The "free" vs "not free" part of that is difficult, to be sure. The non-commercial restrictions do not exist for "statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character", at least per the letter of the law, so the tags should exist at least for those items. Note that the template I linked is different than the one you link -- no "s". So, that is a template which is in use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the templates so it will read with the "S" (but still not redirect to the non-commercial template). I agree that "statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character" is public domain and has no issues about that. It is the photographs and other works with the non-commercial clause I am still confused over. It reminds me a lot of the New Horizon images I am dealing with now is that even though it is a NASA mission and project, a non-commercial copyright claim was made (I know it is a different issue, but still the same problems). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely confusing. I'm sure it's confused some of their judges as well ;-) It seems, technically, to be an additional right that the government gave themselves. It was added by Marcos in the early 1970s, so he may not have really cared about the legal niceties, but it's still in the law today (they had previously inherited the U.S. lack of copyright on government works). Whether that moves it to being "non-free"... that is yet another discussion, and more of a Commons or WMF policy thing. I don't think it is enforceable via international copyright, though I suppose the Philippine government could still attempt to make a foreign copyright claim despite the lack of their own copyright (as the U.S. has occasionally claimed the same right, though I'm not sure they've actually ever tried, and it's dubious particularly in countries which have the rule of the shorter term). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, going back to the main point, is there a website you can site from the DOT about this image? Until we know that for sure, I do not trust other wikis when it comes to saying where images come from. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:BengtWarne2.jpg

I don't understand why the image/file was deleted and I want to do a undeletion request Thank You--Corfs (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)corfs2012-02-10

Are you sure the file was there? I can't find any deletion log for it. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 10:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted for not having a license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There are two problems:

• It did not have any license.
• The named author is not the uploader and there was no evidence that the author had given permission for the image to be freely licensed.

If you can explain the second and tell us what you want for a license, it can be restored.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Spice Pink Shirt.jpg

This is a personal photo of me that my husband took. I own it and have the legal right to post or use it wherever I want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spicewc (talk • contribs)

These images come from http://ifightformylife.com/spice-williams so we need a formal written permission. See COM:OTRS for details. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Restauración de dos fotos propias

Los archivos anteriores fueron subidos por el usuario Miguel Iglesias, músico y dueño de sus derechos, en el artículo Preciados (Grupo musical y han sido borrados por falta de fuentes. Pues bien, ambas fotografías forman parte del archivo propio del grupo y fueron realizadas por Leticia Díaz con motivo de la publicación de su disco. Rogamos, por esta razón, la restauración de ambas.

We own the rights of these images, what we exactly have to send to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org?

That you own the rights and what license you chosen for the images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Toldos el Parque

hi MMXX, the image that you deleted it is logo of a company and i have specific permision of the owner to use it also it is a graphic design made by me... in other words my "own work" and as i haven't been paid, and yes, allowed by the owner to use his brandmark, in terms of copyrighting the image belongs to me still, if you need any proves or request further information do not hesitate on contacting me.. thanks so much.

Please read COM:OTRS and send a specific statement of permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:New_Horizons_Jupiter_flyby.png

The administrator who deleted this file willfully ignored a clear statement in the applicable image use policy: New Horizons is a NASA mission and adheres to the space agency's guidelines for image use and reproduction. Visit the NASA website "Using NASA Imagery and Linking to NASA Web Sites" for more information. This file is in the public domain. He is just crusading to delete any file on the flimsiest pretense he could find. Ruslik (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid ad hominem arguments. Based on the concluding statement at Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Horizons Jupiter flyby.png, Jameslwoodward clearly did not ignore the statement.

Your grandstanding aside, I think that if File:New Horizons Jupiter flyby.png looks anything like the still existing vector version File:New horizon jupiter flyby.svg, it's not really eligible for copyright protection regardless of who made it, because it doesn't really contain any original authorship. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oof, that is kind of a tough one. Technically, PD-USGov-NASA is for works actually created by U.S. Government employees. This seems to come from a non-NASA website, so in all likelihood was not done by government employees, so a different rationale may be needed. It is entirely possible that the contracts stipulate there is no copyright on such things, but it would depend on that contract. The "non-commercial" wording on the website suggests that there may be some rights control. Has anyone contacted JHU/APL to ask about the copyright status? I do see this document (same overall project, but different contract to a different entity) say that There are no proprietary data rights for the New Horizons mission. Selected uncalibrated (CODMAC Level 2) data, particularly image data, will be publicly released by the New Horizons project over the Internet in close to real time. So, it seems fairly clear that any data sent back from the spacecraft is fine. That does not necessarily mean a lack of copyright on other materials, though the Appendix D portion of that document may indicate a wider scope. Hm. On the linked NASA page, I do see the section: If the NASA material is to be used for commercial purposes, especially including advertisements, it must not explicitly or implicitly convey NASA's endorsement of commercial goods or services. If a NASA image includes an identifiable person, using the image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the person. That may indicate that the "non-commercial" wording on the jhuapl.edu page is really a reference to those sorts of rights, which are separate from copyright -- they may just not want to imply that those rights may be released in any way. We have a laser focus on the copyright, but a general "image use" statement for the wider public may be more circumspect about the term "commercial use". I do see that jhuapl.edu uses basically the same statement with the Messenger and CRISM (Mars) projects. I may lean towards undeletion, actually, under the presumption that "non-commercial" really seems to more refer to publicity and trademark rights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Where I found the non-commercial statement is at http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/gallery/imageUsePolicy.php where it says "New Horizons images on this website are generally available for non-commercial educational and public information purposes, so long as their use does not convey NASA's, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory's or Southwest Research Institute's implicit or explicit endorsement of any goods or services. " I know there are restrictions about the usage of the image in the terms of endorsement, but that was not the concern when I brought the image to deletion. The requester does state about the NASA image use policy and it does say "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, NASA material may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA." In this case, I content, this specific image has a copyright that is expressed by NASA and partnering agencies and this copyright excludes use for non-commercial purposes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood -- this really all hinges on what the "non-commercial" phrase means on their image use policy page, whether it is in regard to copyright, or other rights not related to copyright. The very page you cite has a specific link directly to the NASA page which I quoted in part, with the plain instructions to visit that NASA page "for more information" -- i.e., the content there is germane to the New Horizons image use policy, to me. JHU/APL has several NASA project pages which use the identical phrasing. I was actually less interested in the part of the NASA page which states NASA material is generally not covered by copyright, but I was interested if it would shed any light on the meaning and intent of "non-commercial" as used on the jhuapl.edu site. To me, my above-quoted phrase seems to indicate it is more related to the non-copyright aspects, and does not represent a non-commercial copyright claim. The uses they cite ("educational and public information purposes") are generally ones which won't cause any trademark or publicity rights issues, so that is fairly safe to allow with a blanket statement. The NASA page seems more targeted to being careful with advertising, which is squarely in the publicity rights and trademark area, and not so much copyright (the term "commercial use" means very different things, depending on a copyright vs trademark/publicity context). They don't even ask for permission for commercial use, just to make very sure that such use does not violate trademark, privacy, or publicity rights (as is also the case with NASA-authored images). I was originally going to agree with the deletion based on the description, but after reading those two pages in more depth, I'm leaning more towards undeletion now. I just don't think the "non-commercial" wording is truly in regards to copyright, that's all. It would definitely be best to contact JHU/APL to get a clarification, if possible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

When I think of non-commercial, I just think of it in a stricter manner maybe than some others do. I always think of it as a copyright sense, but with these images I agree there is a very fine line that I personally do not have the answer for .However, I agree that JHU/APL should be contacted for clarification. I am not able to contact them at this time, so if someone else could I appreciate it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not only did I not willfully ignore the "clear statement" in the applicable use policy, Ruslik has made this accusation before and discussed this issue before at great length. I think it is disingenuous to bring another UnDR about a closely related image without mentioning the first one, which can be found at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-02 File:New_Horizons_trajectory_(2011-07-14).jpg. I suggest that all who read this UnDR start by reading that one, particularly the closing comment by Ruslik.

This is the same issue we frequently see with National Laboratories and other government contractors such as Johns Hopkins -- that their work is generally subject to copyright and often released under more restrictive terms than the PD-gov.

For me, the bottom line is simple, the web site on which the image appears has a clear statement restricting use to "non-commercial educational and public information purposes". It is true that it goes on to mention NASA's less restrictive image use policy, but the rules of construction clearly require us to pay first attention to the more restrictive local statement than to the referenced statement.

I do not see therefore, how Ruslik can argue (twice) that the "applicable use policy" is something other than the one I cited.

I don't agree with Carl's parsing of the non-commercial use clause as a non-copyright restriction. The clause goes on to preclude use other than for education and public information -- that seems to me clearly a copyright based restriction, unacceptable here.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I don't see any Ruslik comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:New Horizons trajectory (2011-07-14).jpg. The original reason for the DR was using the jhuapl.edu general copyright statement, which I don't think applies for the more specific New Horizons pages, which have a separate usage policy. But then yes, after that the DR became identical to the one in question here. Anyways, I sent an email to the jhuapl.edu New Horizons webmaster; we'll see if I get a response. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Ruslik comment to which I referred is on the UnDR, in the archive. -- I don't know how to give a direct link to an archived UnDR, so I showed the archive page and the filename above.

I do not understand:

"The original reason for the DR was using the jhuapl.edu general copyright statement, which I don't think applies for the more specific New Horizons pages."

The original reason for the DR, which ZScout370 quoted in the nom, was the image use policy at http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/gallery/imageUsePolicy.php, which is titled "Using New Horizons Images" and which begins:

"New Horizons images on this website are generally available for non-commercial educational and public information purposes..."

I will say again that I do not see that any other image use policy can be relevant. This policy clearly states that it applies to "this website" -- the source website of the subject image.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah sorry, OK, Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-02#File:New_Horizons_trajectory_.282011-07-14.29.jpg (why do we have NOTOC set on those archives? seems like it would be most helpful there). Yeah that comment was pretty uncalled for. (My original comment was for the initial DR, not the UDR). I think it's clear that images sent back from the actual spacecraft are fine, but yes, the image policy you cite is the correct one for these images. However, that policy explicitly incorporates NASA's image policy as well, or at least parts of it, and links to it -- so to me that is directly relevant as well. To what extent is the question. It really hinges on the contract, but it's entirely possible that NASA has mandated no copyrights (as in the other document I linked -- it says "there are no proprietary data rights for the New Horizons mission", seeming to mean data coming from the spacecraft, but the full data use policy in Appendix D says it may cover "the pre-flight, post-launch, and data analysis activities of the New Horizons Mission Science Team and associated scientists"). But without actually seeing the terms of the contract, it's hard to say. But when the jhuapl.edu terms explicitly say "New Horizons is a NASA mission and adheres to the space agency's guidelines for image use and reproduction" and gives a link to those terms "for more information", that does mean they are relevant as well. I am presuming that the jhuapl.edu terms were written with the NASA terms in mind, so to me that expands on the intended meaning of "non-commercial", since the NASA terms use the same terminology ("You may use NASA imagery, video, audio, and data files used for the rendition of 3-dimensional models for educational or informational purposes") and its use of the term "commercial" is more clearly in regards to not implying NASA endorsement or violating publicity rights of any individuals -- we know it can't possibly refer to copyrights in that case. The jhuapl.edu policy mostly reads to me as a rewording of the NASA policy but just adding the additional organizations to avoid implying endorsement from, but may have blurred the issue with copyright since it didn't mention it explicitly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of being a broken record (does anyone here know what that means anymore?), I say again, the Rules of construction require us to give much more weight to the lead sentence of the web site's image policy than to the NASA policy statement which it references -- where two clauses in documents conflict, the more immediate one always controls.

BTW, I think that the NASA terms overreach -- material actually created by NASA is PD, by law, and while you cannot use it in ways that implies endorsement, they can not limit it as in the sentence you quote above.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you point exactly to the rule that you use? I actually know another rule:Every part of an act is presumed to be of some effect and is not to be treated as meaningless unless absolutely necessary.. In your opinion a clear reference to the NASA image use policy is to be treated as a meaningless statement, a virtual nullity. Ruslik (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Jeremy Shaw.jpg

Hi there,

I am about to submit an entry involving a musician, and my photo was just deleted.

I can speak for the photo myself, because I took it back in 2006 during an interview with the artist. It is my property.

Thanks very much,

bmawson

If you got documentation for that, please send it to the email address located on COM:OTRS and it will be handled from there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS undeletions

Please undelete the following:

• File:VIA6506calg1982.jpg (#2011110310000211)
• File:LaurenJHenry.jpg (#2011101810000891)
• File:17078 103884876300691 100000375385197 97095 1976144 n.jpg (#2012011410009502)
• File:Katerena Depasquale.jpg (#2012011810012741)
• File:Szydzik Jozef 3.jpg (#2012011910010894)
• File:Hara-Logo-Seal-1.png (#2012011910014211)

Thanks! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

PFS Logo

File:PFS Logo small.png (It's my own work!) --Sirwaji (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

File:PFS Logo large.png --Sirwaji (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This page is for requesting the undeletion of files that have been deleted, so this is off topic, but here we are. Until now neither of these files had been deleted. I deleted the first because we do not keep two copies of the same image in different sizes. Wiki markup makes it easy to set an image in whatever size the editor chooses, so it is not necessary to keep smaller versions.

The remaining image falls into one of two places, Either

• it is, as you say, your own creation and is, therefore, personal artwork that is out-of-scope because it has no reasonable educational use, or
• it is the logo of an organization which you have copied without permission, and therefore cannot be kept without permission. This would apply even if you has actually created the logo since you would have transferred the copyright after completion.

So, unless you can show that it is the logo of an organization that has an article in one of the Wikipedias and that the organization has given permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS, then it will be deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"File:Oleq.jpg"

File which was deleted and found on http://news.day.az/open/309314/?http://img.dayazcdn.net/_fotosessii_/309314/0a/10/05.jpg - is my own photo, and I gave it to press when this website wrote the article about me. Please, cancel the deletion. Best regards.

Please read COM:OTRS and follow the directions there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)