Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-05

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

benfleet club logo deleted ?[edit]

Hiya, building our entry and had our logo deleted. We own this so please advise what I have done wrong ? cheers

Karl

The user here is 123kc456 (talk · contribs) and the file is File:Benfleet.running.club.logo.jpg. It was deleted by User:EugeneZelenko for reason "Copyright violation: Sport club logo. Not text only". Karl: if you own the copyright to this logo and wish to donate it so that you can use it on Wikipedia, because it is previously published you will have to proceed through OTRS as described at Commons:OTRS. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

 Not done . Nothing else heard. →Nagy 13:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Libertas-eu Logo.png[edit]

I'm requesting undeletion of this file. It is already in use on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertas_Party. direct link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Libertas-eu_Logo.png and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Libertas-eu_Logo.png I want to use the same logo on the Dutch wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pureboi (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2009 April 19 (UTC)


✓ Restored - ineligible for copyright. →Nagy 13:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Guilders[edit]

Please undelete File:1gulden2001back.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) and File:1gulden2001front.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel). Deletion was just based on a tag on en:1gulden2001back.jpg, but images of coins were always freely used in advertising in the Netherlands. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Commons:Currency#The_Netherlands, these coins are protected. –Tryphon 06:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , per above. →Nagy 14:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


Clavichord[edit]

why does Clavichord page was deleted!!??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.225.147.196 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 2009 April 21 (UTC)

Link, please. We are no clairvoyants. -- Cecil (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


File:Playmobil logo.svg[edit]

This logo isn't original enough to be elegible for copyright. It only consists of simple typface font and geometric shapes. Yann is really going paranoic with logos, deleting each one that goes for deletion without examining them, their description and licenses. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support: This is a logo published in Germany by a German company. Under German law this is ineligible for copyright because it is considered applied art where a significant higher threshold of originality is required. See, for example, this applied art which was declared ineligible for copyright by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done given the higher threshold in Germany. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Castlevania Aria of Sorrow logo.png[edit]

There were no consensus on it's DR and the font used in it is KlausBFrakturis an explicit derivative work from several gothic/medieval fonts like; Germanica, Cloister, Old London, Black Family, Olde English, Teutonic, English Towne, Cuxhaven Times. And he cross in the middle of it us a simple shape. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, a consensus is not required to delete an image when a DR is closed. To quote from the policy:
Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy. If the closing admin is unable to say with reasonable certainty that the file can validly be kept it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' precautionary principle.
Secondly, I support the undeletion request as the used typeface is a Fraktur variant. Fraktur typefaces were widely used in German from the 16th to the begin of the 20th century. Here is a sample scan from a book printed in 1812 which is quite close to the typeface used in this logo. You will find an example for an upper case C in the right column at the end of the second paragraph in the word Cseithe, written with increased space between the letters. The t in the middle of Castlevania is not a regularly shaped t but a dagger, hence {{PD-textlogo}} applies here as well. The use of {{PD-shape}}, as suggested in the DR, is not needed. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, per AFBorchert. –Tryphon 13:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


File:Escudounsa.gif[edit]

I am requesting undeletion of this image. I hereby state the following reasons:

  1. This image comes from a Argentine governamental institution, and therefore, it should be in the public domain. The UNSA (Universidad Nacional de Salta, Spanish: National University of Salta) is a public (free of charge) university.
  2. Osvaldo Juane, the author of the logo, died in 1988. You can read his biography in the following page (in Spanish) Camara de Diputados de Salta
  3. This image was created in 1974 (more than 25 years ago) and therefore, according to Argentine law, its copyright has expired. You can find a further example in the license of the following image: File:José López Rega.jpeg

Regards, --AndeanThunder (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


Closed as the image is not yet deleted but just filed for deletion. The associated deletion request is here. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Undeletion of File:Suissemagazine50ans.jpg[edit]

Hello AS said in th email, I, Philippe Alliaume, aka padsm am the regular owner of the magazine and i grant all rights to public domain for the cover here uploaded.

regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padsm (talk • contribs) 22:40, 2009 May 3 (UTC)


Closed as you have re-uploaded File:Suissemagazine50ans.jpg with {{Otrs pending}}. Please note however that admins can restore deleted images (that is the very purpose of this page) and that because of this it is not necessary to re-upload deleted images. Even more, such re-uploads can be seen as disruptive. I've notified the deleting admin and leave it at that. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Three requests[edit]

Can the following images be undeleted:

They are released under CC-BY-3.0 in OTRS ticket#2009050410011348. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


✓ Done --Eusebius (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Cygx1 spectrum.jpg[edit]

This file was speedily deleted as according to this general page associated with the source site any use is restricted to non-commercial educational and public information purposes. This makes perfectly sense for a large number of images on that site. However, having just seen this particular image (see here at the source), I think that we should perhaps reconsider whether we can keep this image as this simple diagram could fall under {{PD-ineligible}}. Please note that the data that are represented by this diagram come from the Chandra X-ray Observatory such that {{PD-USGov-NASA}} would apply if this is considered eligible for copyright. Otherwise we have just a two-dimensional coordinate system, some scales, a couple of crosses representing the data and some typefaces. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support A simple plot of public data. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I restored it, you are right. I deleted a lot of tagged images from this source without individual review. --Polarlys (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


File:Rockstar London logo.png[edit]

This logo is too simple to meet the Threshold of originality. You can check it here. You know, it's getting bothering to come here requesting undeletion of simple logos. The administrators whom are in charge to delete the files should at least verify carefully the image and the nomination. Especially when they have discussion on their talk page. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


✓ Done, ineligible indeed. –Tryphon 20:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Undeletion of file:DBA.-frontcover.jpg[edit]

Why is this deleted in the first place, I mean, it came from a plublic site..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stientie (talk • contribs) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It is protected by copyright. What makes you think that it should be otherwise? --rimshottalk 06:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not restored. Kwj2772 (msg) 13:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


File:Ngc2442 potw.jpg[edit]

it is not from chandra-observatory, but from ESO, which allows a commercial use according to cc-by 3, refer to {{ESO}}

best regards, --Fabian RRRR (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. Seems it slipped into all those from chandra. -- Cecil (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Phillipbrutus.jpg <sic>. log.[edit]

See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Federicaswilson.jpg#File:Federicaswilson.jpg <sic>. Please don't take this request if you don't have the time to review the evidence. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain, etc. The current situation (which has been the case for months) is a bunch of directly conflicting decisions. Mike Godwin stated that the Foundation has no official stance on this, according to Moonriddengirl. Here's how I see it: If Mike felt the use was permissible, he'd take the stance he took, just to be on the safe side. If Mike felt the use was NOT permissible, he'd say so plainly. So either he didn't decide, or he felt the use was permissible, IMO. --Elvey (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The deleted file is on the English wikipedia, what are we supposed to do about it? –Tryphon 21:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Doh! Some of these are on commons, others on en. Perhaps leave this for someone who's an admin here and on 'en' to address the issue?--Elvey (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_5#File:Phillipbrutus.jpg - FYI. --Elvey

Closed as this case is not related to Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


semen in condom[edit]

only showing on it looks and keeps getting deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.221.90 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no shortage of those. --rimshottalk 06:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Closed as no files were named. --AFBorchert (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The File "A.JPG" Should Not Be Deleted![edit]

It was on the "keyboard" page and needs to stay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abeair (talk • contribs) 00:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


Closed as this image is neither deleted nor is it even tagged or filed for deletion. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Logo IX.jpg[edit]

I do not understand why the image was deleted.It is my own work made from different image so it is my edited creation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Costarea (talk • contribs) 18:04, 2009 April 28 (UTC)

If it is a derived work, then the authors of the original works have rights over your image and you cannot make it free by yourself. --Eusebius (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 Not done . Derivative work, so we would need a release for the individual images it is based on. –Tryphon 07:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Logo-fckonstanz-2009.gif[edit]

EugeneZelenko and I disagree as to whether this is {{PD-textlogo}} or not, so I'd like to get more opinions on this. The logo can be seen here. –Tryphon 16:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support According to German law, this is not eligible for copyright; compare de:Datei:Laufendes-Auge.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion: This is applied art that is not eligible for copyright according to German law as judged by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, see case from 26 January 2005, GRUR 2005, 410 – Laufendes Auge. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
From what I've read of German law, definitely PD-ineligible there, as they have a really high threshold for applied art / trademarked works. Less sure about the U.S. status, but ... interlocking hexagons probably don't reach pictorial creativity. Symbol support vote.svg Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, per above. Germany has a pretty high threshold of originality. –Tryphon 10:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Fox Election.jpg[edit]

Was deleted as a copyvio; received GFDL/CC-BY-SA-all permission at Ticket:2009050610075857. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Restored. --Kanonkas(talk) 08:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Danzig stamps[edit]

Odder deleted loads of Polish stamps with reference to off-commons discussions. He also deleted File:Danzig_Wilhelm_Konrad_Röntgen_25_Pf_1939.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel) which had a {{PD-German Empire stamps}} license. Please undelete that one and other cases. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


The named file was meanwhile restored by Odder himself. The other cases were apparently restored as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Punk_in_Nowosibirsk.jpg[edit]

I am not the uploader, but I spent some time reviewing File:Punk_in_Nowosibirsk.jpg which was proposed for deletion on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Punk in Nowosibirsk.jpg.

Very little debate has taken place, with my objections being left unanswered. Again :

  • There is a Category:Punk on Wikimedia Commons with many files, so it would be wrong to say that the punk phenomenon per se is out of scope. The English Wikipedia, and many language versions of Wikipedia have an article on en:Punk subculture.
  • On the other hand the claim that the picture is a family picture is unsubstantiated. No evidence is provided that there is a family relationship between the uploader and the person on the picture.

Teofilo (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Undelete, per Teofilo. Not out of scope. --GRuban (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Teofilo, have you looked at the image before it was deleted? The only thing that was 'punk' about that image was its filename. The boy on this image has a sunday-church-going-haircut (no mohawk, no color, nothing punkish) and is wearing socks with sandals(!). No piercings, no buttons, safety pins or patches, no spiking, no fishnet, no "destroyed" clothes, no leather, or stuff like that.
I more than seriously doubt that this is how punks look like in Nowosibirsk. There was nothing racist about the deletion of this image. It simply does not show a punk. -- Cecil (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that I agree with Cecil. Samulili (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
He looks a little punk to me. He's wearing an anarchy shirt and has his jeans rolled up. It is a bad example for a punk fashion in general, though. Either way, deletion is not a replacement for renaming. (This is not a vote to undelete as it still may be out of scope). Rocket000 (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
BTW, do you think this is punk? Hehe, silly categorizing bots. Rocket000 (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually this guy is the singer of a hardcore/punk-band, but since some time now he is an active politican. Maybe the image should be moved to some sub-category of punk. -- Cecil (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

 Not done : It was not used, and it does not serve well as an illustration of a punk in Nowosibirsk as pointed out by Cecil. And it was apparently taken somewhere in a forest, possibly in a somewhat private context such that we should consider the personality rights of the depicted person, see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Hence, it looks indeed more like a photograph out of a private album as stated by EugeneZelenko when he opened the DR, a view that was confirmed by Yann when he deleted it. It is remarkable that the uploader neither commented in the DR nor in this undeletion request. At the end it is the responsibility of the uploader, not ours, to show that this is not a private setting, that it does not violate the rights of the depicted person, and that this image has an educational value. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Henri_Royer[edit]

Je n'y comprends plus rien. On me dit que les oeuvres d'un artiste décédé depuis plus de 70 ans sont dans le domaine plublic. Et que les photographies et images numériques d'une oeuvre en deux dimensions ne donnent pas droit à une extension au niveau du droit d'auteur si elles sont le reflet fidèle de cette oeuvre. J'ai des images numériques que j'ai réduites et conservées sous un format différent car mon ordi et ma connection ne sont les meilleurs. Les oeuvres de cet artiste n'étant plus sous droit d'auteur, je suppose qu'elles sont dans le domaine public et que je peux les partager. J'identifie l'artiste, ses dates de naissance et de décès, je télécharge quelques unes de ses oeuvres avec leur date de création. Je ne me rends pas compte avant longtemps qu'elles ont toutes des bandeaux demandant "LA SOURCE", et lorsque je m'en rends compte, une de mes images File:Henri_Royer_Ex-voto.jpg a été effacée. Je précise la source des oeuvres: "Bibliothèque nationale de France", j'enlève les bandeaux et remets l'Ex-voto. Mais je ne comprends plus rien. Je reçois trois courriels dans un très mauvais anglais me sermonnant pour quelque délit que je ne comprends absolument pas. Je navigue, je regarde. Il y a même une catégorie intitulée "Images from Bibliothèque nationale de France" avec plein d'oeuvres provenant de cette source. Cette source, elle est acceptée pour d'autres contributeurs, pourtant.

--Duvillage (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree... why do these need a source? Is there any doubt the images are by the artist named? A couple of them are signed even. It always helps to add the web URL to where the images were obtained from, but deletion (let alone speedy) seems excessive. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Duvillage, we simply need an explanation where the digital images came from. Did you scan them from some catalogue or book? If yes, just specify the bibliographic reference. Did you find a web site with these images? Then give us the URL. Did you photograph the paintings yourself? Then just tell this.

Please consider that the public domain status is not the very only point we are interested in. We need also to know how reliable these images are. Firstly, we need indeed a possible verification that the attribution is correct. Secondly, it is not impossible that multiple digital images of the very same artwork turn up. Then it might be helpful to consider the sources to compare them. Finally, we work like an archive. Any serious scientific work using our images as sources (for example, after a total loss of the original painting) needs a detailed source description to get an estimate in regard to how far they can be trusted. (More about this can be found here and here at fr-wp; interestingly this discipline was developed by two French Benedictines in the 17th century, Luc d'Achery and Jean Mabillon.)

I understand your frustration, though, as this source requirement is not treated very thoroughly in our policy, you will find a short paragraph here:

La source des travaux, de préférence un lien Web ou une citation. Ceci ne s'applique bien sûr pas si vous êtes l'auteur du fichier ou si la première source est Commons, mais ceci doit alors être écrit explicitement.

There is unfortunately yet no separate page explaining the source requirement, giving motivation for it particularly for {{PD-art}} or {{PD-old}} cases, or providing examples. This is an area where we could improve our pages. (In case I have overlooked something: Please link it in COM:L.)

To return to your case: You do not need to re-upload your images. Just tell us how these images were obtained (as explained above) and we could restore these images. Please pardon me for writing in English. I understand written French to some extent but unfortunately I am not able to reply in French. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour, je ne rajoute rien de significatif, mais faites-moi signe si jamais vous avez besoin d'une traduction depuis l'anglais. To the other admins, I'd like to point out an existing conversation about PD-art stuff missing a precise source (only the last four remarks). I also think that if the original source cannot be found but we have reasonable certitude that it is indeed PD-art, the pictures should be ok. --Eusebius (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Äh, there always is some kind of source. You can't create an image out of nothing. If it was scanned from a book, name the book. If you went to a museum to photograph, tell that, if you took it from a website tell the link to that website. You simply can't create PD-Art without not having some kind of original. Or do you really think that he painted it himself and created a quality copy of an old artist? That's simply not possible. -- Cecil (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, generally yes, but 1. If the image is copied from a blog, linking to the source is relatively meaningless, and the source can disappear any time, so 2. Lack of source should not be a reason for deletion, let alone speedy. Yann (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Other possibility, the image can be kept in a personal archive for some time (and the original source forgotten) before being considered for upload on Commons. --Eusebius (talk) 08:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup pour vos contributions.

Lorsqu'on s'intéresse à un sujet, le chemin est parfois compliqué, et de plus on ne passe pas tout son temps à faire des recherches.

Comme vous le dites si bien, non seulement on oublie la source précise, mais souvent les liens disparaissent.

Est-ce que je comprends de vos contributions, que je dois prouver l'authenticité des oeuvres???

J'ai mis une source vérifiable "Bibliothèque nationale de France". Les oeuvres sont référencées dans plusieurs de leurs bases de données. Des photographies sépia sont accessibles, ainsi que des liens vers des sites externes qui possèdent des photographies noir et blanc de certaines des oeuvres. De plus, l'État français possède certaines des oeuvres originales de cet artiste et elles sont répertoriées dans la basede données La Joconde. Cependant un avertissement interdit toute interconnexion directe aux images.

Il y a quelque temps une exposition sur "Henri Royer" a eu lieu et un reportage avec photographies a été publié. Des membres de la famille Royer ont été interviewés. Les articles de journaux publiés sur internet disparaissent après un certain temps, et les liens ne fonctionnent plus. Hélas, je n'ai pas pris en note le nom du journal.

Cependant, je peux préciser que Louis Rançon se prépare à publier un livre sur "Henri Royer" [1]. Comme c'est un expert, il sera une source crédible! Je présume que son ouvrage sera abondamment illustré...

Vous le dites très bien. Les critères de ce que constitue une source sont nébuleux et assez contradictoires.

Merci d'avoir remis l'Ex-voto et d'avoir enlevé quelques bandeaux --Duvillage (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour Duvillage,
Commons a simplement besoin de savoir comment tu as obtenu tes images : si sur un site web, lequel ? si scannées depuis un livre, lequel ? photographiées dans un musée ? etc. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Les images en couleur que j'ai téléchargées proviennent de photos que j'ai prises lors de la récente exposition sur l'artiste qui a eu lieu en France. Vu que ce n'étaient alors simplement que des souvenirs personnels, j'ai sauvegardé le tout dans des formats réduits car mon ordi n'a pas tellement de mémoire. Lors du téléchargement sur Commons j'ai indiqué que les images numérisées étaient les miennes, mais j'ai mis cette annotation sous "Permission" et non pas sous "Source". --Duvillage (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, très bien. Peux-tu ajouter sur la page de description de chaque image : « photo prise à l'exposition X à Y (nom de la ville ou du musée), à <date Z (au moins l'année)> ». Yann (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
C'était en 2006 lorsque j'ai visité la France. Cette exposition s'est tenue en Bretagne. Ce n'était pas dans un musée, c'était un événement. Une fois de retour, j'avais vu qu'un journal avait publié un article sur l'événement, ce que j'avais trouvé intéressant. Mais comme ma vie n'est pas organisée de manière encyclopédique, et que je ne savais pas qu'un jour je désirerais contribuer à Commons - dont je ne connaissais absolument rien - (excusez-moi: ni l'existence!), je n'ai pas pris de notes sur le journal en question. Enfin, ma contribution est de bonne foi. Aujourd'hui je suis au courant qu'un livre va être publié, donc des informations d'expert seront disponibles sous peu.--Duvillage (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. C'est dommage que tu ne te rappelles pas plus de détails. Pour information, dans ce cas, la source c'est toi, pas la BNF. J'ai corrigé les descriptions. Yann (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Boze pravde instrumental[edit]

File:Boze pravde instrumental.ogg was deleted as "duplicate or a scaled down version of File:Serbian National Anthem instrumental.ogg". Well, it's neither duplicate nor scaled down, it's the same anthem played by a different orchestra, it has a clear copyright status, and there is absolutely no reason to delete it. Nikola (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. Separate performance is not a duplicate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Restored — Mike.lifeguard 01:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


UFRaw[edit]

The deleted UFRaw page is not out-of-scope. It won't be an wikipedia article clone, but a collection of w:UFRaw, a raster image authoring tool, related screenshots or samples. It serves the purpose as same as the GIMP page, and will be used by the Template:Made with UFRaw, please consider undeletion. Thanks. Mlogic (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Galleries with no images are out of scope. Please re-create it with images at your leisure.  — Mike.lifeguard 01:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done per Mike as you can easily recreate the page — but please with images as gallery right from the beginning next time. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


Request not to delete Cloud Computing Methodology.[edit]

please dont delete cloud computing methodology page203.191.35.22 10:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 Not done as we are here at Wikimedia Commons, not en-wp where en:Cloud Computing Methodology was speedily deleted on 08:49, 11 May 2009 by fl with the rationale Not enough context to identify article's subject. Please follow the instructions that were posted here. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Penis Comparison.jpg[edit]

this fil clearly had it's sources listed.--Lamilli (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The file didn't have a source for the four photo's. And we have a real lot in the Category:Penis so my opinion is closing it as not done but I would like to hear more opinions. Huib talk 11:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes we have a lot of penises but we also have a lot of cars and birds and flowers and... But that is another discussion because the file was deleted because of missing source. I looked in the history and fond these files File:Human penis both flaccid and erect.jpg an File:Flaccid-erect.jpg and to me they look like the source. --MGA73 (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
That's right, the sources were there until the image got vandalized in August 2008. If the lack of source was the only reason for the image to be deleted, then it should be restored. –Tryphon 12:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Point. If there are enough pictures or not is a whole new story (even though this picture was there before the many picture that you refer to). The given reason for deletion was that this pictures lacks sources - which is just not true.--Lamilli (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, image had valid source, which only disappeared because of vandalism; the reason for deletion is no longer valid. –Tryphon 22:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Kyoto flag[edit]

Please upload File:Flag of Kyoto Prefecture.svg to English Wikipedia if you don't want it here. (This is why I object to moving images to Commons ...) Thank you! Kwamikagami (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears the original uploader deleted his own image, a couple years after uploading it. It was claimed self-made after a bitmap, though he decided that Japanese flags were not exempt from copyright. Seems like it should have gone through a DR, at the very least -- governmental flags are normally defined in law, which is always PD, so they are rarely "obvious" copyvios (especially when not directly copied from websites). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, non-trivial case, which should be discussed in a DR. –Tryphon 20:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Regarding File UnDeletion (File:Konetirayalaswamy.JPG)[edit]

Dear Wikimedia team, I am requesting the undeletion of the above file.I am the author of these images and uploaded them .This was edited in Photoshop.This image was also published in Calender 2009 which is distributed by us locally.This doesnt have any copyrights and is under public use.Its a historical picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithila (talk • contribs) 02:39, 2009 April 25 (UTC)

I saw the image before it was deleted (at the time of posting here, it was tagged {{npd}} but not deleted yet). Normally, for works published elsewhere first which don't have a clear indication of the copyright license, we like an email sent to Commons:OTRS so there is no doubt about what rights the author is relinquishing. The additional question here is the source of the photograph or painting that was the primary element of that cover... when is it from, and who is the author? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , missing essential information. –Tryphon 20:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Request for undeletion of my photo[edit]

I, the author of this, agree to transfer the image to reach the public. This value worldwide.

In the case can not by law: I for all the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless laws have to be conditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huynhtiensinh (talk • contribs) 14:54, 2009 April 25 (UTC)

Can you please give the name of the image you are asking about? Please also sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), which automatically adds a signature to your comment. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , incomplete request. –Tryphon 20:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Four related images[edit]

The images listed below were deleted for not having proper sources. I have found the sources and list them as well:

File:Charles_s_fairchild.jpg

File:Daniel_manning.jpg

File:Charles_j_folger.jpg

File:Summers_Lawrence.jpg

-Rrius (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The first three are restored, since they are either PD-old or at least PD-1923, but the last one is not old enough. And I don't see anything on that page that would make the painting a government-work, only all rights reserved. Everett Raymond Kinstler is an artist, not a government worker. Somebody else should check this one out. -- Cecil (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The page linked above says that the painting was commissioned by the Treasury Department ("his portrait of Secretary Lawrence Summers marked his eighth Treasury commission"). A commissioned portrait is a work for hire, which makes the person commissioning it the author under 17 USC sec. 201. Since the US Government is the author, it is in the public domain by virtue of 17 USC sec. 105. Thus, it should be restored with the {{PD-USGov}} template. -Rrius (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This, I'm afraid, is a common misconception. In general, a commission does not result in a work made for hire. See e.g. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid. Lupo 21:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done for the first three,  not done for the last one, per Cecil and Lupo. –Tryphon 20:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Un-Delete Please[edit]

Explanation of all the images you deleted and why I have the right to use them:

File:Diversity award.jpg - picture taken at our holiday party of the diversity award winner. property of WTS whom I represent and I have the right to use it.

File:Divider.jpg - I created this myself in photoshop

File:Newsletter Title Block 2 copy.jpg - uses WTS logo which is property of WTS - I am WTS communications chair and have the right to use this image

File:Newsletter Title Block.jpg - uses WTS logo which is property of WTS - I am WTS communications chair and have the right to use this image

File:Newsletter Title Block copy.jpg - I created this myself in photoshop - uses WTS logo which is property of WTS - I am WTS communications chair and have the right to use this image

File:Becky Edit.jpg - Picture of one of my colleagues which she took of herself on her cellphone and emailed to me for use in the newsletter

File:Michelle Pourciau.jpg - sent to me by Michelle (who the photo is of) for use in the newsletter

File:Woman and globe.jpg - this is public domain. Its microsoft word clip art. It comes up when you do a clip art search in microsoft word.

File:May 4 Graphic copy.jpg - I created this myself using a template sent to me by one of my WTS colleagues. It was created in Illustrator. It is property of WTS whom I represent and I have the right to use it.

File:June 1 Graphic.jpg - I created this myself using a template sent to me by one of my WTS colleagues. It was created in Illustrator. It is property of WTS whom I represent and I have the right to use it.

File:Date.jpg - I created this myself using a template sent to me by one of my WTS colleagues. It was created in Illustrator. It is property of WTS whom I represent and I have the right to use it.

I did create most of them and the ones I didn't are public domain images. I can see you having a problem with the APTA logo but I had full permission from APTA to use that image. Everything else I created or found in public domain. my organization's newsletter is a mess of un-viewable images which has created a major problem for us. Please re-activate the images at least for the next 30 days so that the URLs will work and the newsletter will be viewable by our members. After that you can de-activate all of them if you want. I will not use this site to upload my newsletter images again. Maeshyne

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is related to Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Maeshyne. Yann (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
"I will not use this site to upload my newsletter images again." Well, you shouldn't have in the first place. Seriously, use your own servers and bandwidth. What you're doing is not providing free images to the community, it's stealing the community's limited resources for your own benefit. Please read COM:SCOPE carefully, and you'll understand why we won't restore those images, even for a few days. –Tryphon 11:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , no proof of release, and utterly out of scope. –Tryphon 20:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Brown swiss cattle ought to be covered.[edit]

Brown Swiss are a breed of cattle. I entered the name in 'search' and your file came back with no results. So I entered some detials. What brought this to my attention was the search for 'Braunvieh' which brought up many photos which are quite visibly Brown Swiss. Although many pics were taken in Switzerland they show the dairy Brown Swiss which was bred in USA. So I entered similar details for Braunvieh and 'Original Braunvieh'. Those points which I thought were at least informative and educational. Rather than have a blank page for your display there should at least be something for each breed and clearly stated and educational. I am interested in your response. Perhaps you may check the details on the web. Andrew Rainsford. Braunvieh breeder since 1975. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.221.166 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 2009 May 13 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, this is Wikimedia Commons, the free file repository and you are here at the undeletion request, where users can request undeletion of deleted images they uploaded and which are deleted for some reason - mainly copyright reasons. For informations about Braunvieh you should go to Wikipedia, w:en:Braunvieh or w:de:Braunvieh. On Commons we only host free images, fortunately some photographers have contributed their photos of Braunvieh here, see Category:Braunvieh (cattle). But: This is only for information, this page is realy not the place to discuss the content of this category. --Martin H. (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There is also an article about Brown Swiss cattle already on wikipedia, which you can expand if you want to. –Tryphon 10:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , out of scope. –Tryphon 13:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

UMBRELLA Consulting[edit]

I just wanted to add the company LOGO here!!!!

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMBRELLA_Consulting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qtgeo (talk • contribs) 13:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind signing your post and telling us the name of the image? Thanks. --rimshottalk 21:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It was an article page at UMBRELLA Consulting. out of scope, as the user was told. -- Editor at Largetalk 23:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done. tsts, the Logo File:UMBRELLA Consulting Logo.jpg was not even deleted - but now for beeing out of scope. Sadly, that some people cant separate between education and marketing. --Martin H. (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , out of scope. –Tryphon 15:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


File:"A".JPG[edit]

This file could have been deleted erroneously, as there is a series of similarly named files "B".JPG - "Z".JPG licensed under GNU FDL. The series can be found at Keyboard#Alphabetical Keys and Category:Keyboard letters. The letter A is the only one missing in the series. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


✓ Done You forget to add the license. I corrected it. Yann (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Jan Werich.jpg[edit]

This image is encyclopedically useful. There is no copyright concern. All graffitis in the category Category:Graffiti have only information "own work". This means that protographer have taken a photo. This is the same with this image. There is no difference with any other images in the Category:Graffiti. --Snek01 (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This image is not a graffiti (the illegal kind), is it? –Tryphon 09:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This portrait was drawn legally by someone anonymous to the building. The author of the grafiiti is unknown as every other author of the graffiti. Does it mean that graffitis illegally drawn by anonymous vandals are allowed to wikipedia and graffitis drawn legally by anonymous non-vandals are not allowed? --Snek01 (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Illegal graffiti are kind of a copyright exception, because we consider that no court would enforce copyrights on an illegal artwork (see COM:CB#Graffiti). But legal graffiti are protected just like any other work (for anonymous works, during 70 years after publication). –Tryphon 13:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, wall paintings that have been made lawfully are not allowed here without the permission of the painter. See Commons:Image casebook#Murals. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , OK, copyrighted, thanks for explanation. --Snek01 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

CPLP animation[edit]

Administrator Shizhao (talk · contributions · Number of edits) ignored the discussion which was ocurring here and simply deleted the animation I made. This image was largelly being used all over Wikipedia and was not the logo of CPLP, but a similar object. In fact, CPLP asked me to use it in their site. But the administrator refused to answer me and seems to be behaving similarly with other users.

I'd like to reconsider the case and put back the animation. Thanks. --Tonyjeff (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I restored the image, but we need sources & a thoughtful discussion to keep it. Right now the restoration is temporary.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 21:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Mitch. How might we start the discussion? In the same page used before? Cheers. --Tonyjeff (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You make the decision. I am helping you get started ;) - Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 16:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Seeing that the discussion was occurring in that page, and it should not be endend before a proper dialogue, I would suggest to continue there. Anyway, the matter is the same. =) Thanks again, Mitch; please, check the way I am going to restart the discussion and feel free to participate. Cheers. --Tonyjeff (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The deletion request for this image was open for more than half a year, giving ample time for a proper dialogue. Please let me quote the relevant policy:

The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy.

This case was quite simple: The DR was opened with the point that this image is derived from the CPLP logo for which no free license is available. All three objecting statements simply told that this image is not identical to the original logo. They ignored, however, the point that a derived work is not necessarily an exact copy of its original. In this case, the shape of that logo was used where we, until proven otherwise, have to assume that it is eligible for copyright. In summary, I second the deletion by the closing admin, shizhao, and ask Mitchazenia to undo his restoration. A restoration is usually a possible result of a closed COM:UDEL process, not of its opening. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


Deleted as no arguments were brought forward which would have allowed us to keep this image. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:GKPress.jpg[edit]

The File GKPress.jpg is his press photo, freely available for download by anyone and as an agent of the company I have had this photo approved as the one we would like put on the site. If I need to change the copywrite info please tell me what I need to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lars1521 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 2009 May 8 (UTC)

If you have permission to release this picture under a free license, you must send it to OTRS (have a look at COM:ET to see what information is needed). But keep in mind that a publicly available press photo is usually not free in the sense we mean it on Commons (which is free as in freedom; see COM:L). –Tryphon 22:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , waiting for OTRS permission. –Tryphon 03:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Chris Leech page[edit]

A page containing information about Chris Leech was recemtly added then deleted, i would like to request undeletion. There was no malice in the article, just factual information which didnt abuse chris leech. Please reconsider and publish this page again. Bring back Chris Leech

Hello, Please read COM:SCOPE. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , per Yann. –Tryphon 00:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

please undelete "File:Liina Brunelle.jpg"[edit]

I really do not understand why you have deleted the image "Liina Brunelle.jpg". I took this picture of my wife myself and I think it would look good on "Liina Brunelle"'s actress page. I am new to Wikipedia and I do not see the reason why you should delete this image. Plus I want to use the same image for "Liina Brunelle"'s page in French and English. Please can you restore this photo or tell me what I have to do? Thank you. Axlsite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axlsite (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2009 May 6 (UTC)

The exact same image is available on http://liina.free.fr/, so we need some kind of proof that you are the author. You can either send permission to OTRS, or put a note on the website indicating that the image is released under a free license. –Tryphon 23:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, permission received. –Tryphon 01:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Spadikam movie poster.jpg[edit]

The poster was created by me back in 1995 why was this deleted?.

As far as I can tell, you don't own the copyright to that image. Please email OTRS if you do own exclusive copyright to that image.  — Mike.lifeguard 01:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , needs OTRS permission. –Tryphon 01:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


File:Yemeni man1.jpg[edit]

this images File:Yemeni man1.jpg, File:Yemeni man2.jpg, File:Yemeni man3.jpg, File:Yemeni man4.jpg, File:Yemeni man5.jpg where taken in 1933 in yemen (1), so {{PD-Yemen}} does apply. but FunkMonk removed it. can you return it --Hisham (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No, PD-Yemen applies not. The images are from http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/troe.htm and published there, according to the book itself, for the first time. The book was not first (and exclusively) published in Yemen. The copyright belongs to the photographer, according to the book this is the author Carlton Stevens Coon. I would assume, that copyright lasts till 2052, but maybe some other US-copyright reasons makes the images public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
2035 (95 years from publication), not 2052, but it's academic. The copyright to that book was renewed in 1967. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Before Hisham came here, he asked me on my talk page. From my response: The main question is here where this image has been published first, not where it was taken. According to this page, the book titled The Races of Europe by Carleton S. Coon was published in 1939 in New York, USA. On this page where you got the image from, this photograph is not credited to anyone else unlike some of the other photographs. This makes it not unlikely that it was taken by Carleton S. Coon himself and that it was not published before. As Carleton S. Coon died in 1981 its PD status solely depends on whether the copyright for this book was renewed or not. According to this database, the copyright was renewed on 9 March 1967 such that we have to wait quite some time until this becomes PD. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , per Martin H. –Tryphon 00:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

my picture of whiskeytown falls was removed in Jun 2007[edit]

Although I cannot cite a reference, this is the true picture of the falls obtained personally by me, when I hiked up to that place during may 2007. It would serve as a good guide as to what to look for in terms of the falls in itself and hence request the undeletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibergemini (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This request presumably refers to File:Whiskeytown falls.jpg, which was deleted in June 2007, apparently due to missing source or license information. (Deletion summary says: In category Unknown as of 7 June 2007; not edited for 8 days.) Assuming that the image was indeed your own work and that you'd simply forgotten to mark it as such or to choose a suitable license, I see no reason it shouldn't be restored. Just remember to add whatever information was missing (and remove the deletion notice) so that it won't be deleted again. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Restored as requested and per Ilmari Karonen. Please do not forget to add a free license to that image. Otherwise it will be deleted again in seven days. Possible license tags are listed here. Please feel free to ask me or others in case of remaining questions. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Buckie_High_from_Queen_Street.JPG, File:Millennium mural.jpg, File:Buckie_High_Badge.jpg[edit]

I am requesting undeletion of these images. The school picture was taken by me, who was rector (head teacher)for 20 years and also gave permission for it to be used. I posted the same image on buckiehigh.com. Similarly, the mural photograph was taken by me. A group of pupils and staff, including me, painted the mural, and as rector I gave permission for it to be used. Finally, the badge has been registered with the Lord Lyon in Scotland (in charge of heraldry) and we have permission to use it to represent the school. Qeqertaq (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done/ Not done /Pictogram voting question.svg Question. The first image is OK. The second needs a permission from all those who created the mural (see Commons:Derivative work). The third one might need to have a permission sent to and and stored at OTRS which explicilty permits all use, but I'm not sure what it means that a "badge has been registered with the Lord Lyon in Scotland (in charge of heraldry)". Samulili (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hrm, not so sure about the second one being a problem (though I can't see the photo) -- not sure what copyrights students would have to the mural. The school may have the rights on that one, same as a company's employees... unsure about UK law there. Seems a bit nonsensical to require the school to keep getting the permission of a multitude of students if they want to do anything with the mural, which is what that would imply. As for the third, I presume it is registered as an official coat of arms (the UK has a lot of formalities around those I think, see here, and there are non-copyright restrictions I would think). Presumably the school has the copyright on that rendering, but keep in mind that uploading images here to Commons means that the copyright is being licensed to anyone to use it for their purposes (though the separate restrictions on coats of arms etc. are not affected), and therefore the license must be made by the lawful copyright owner. We usually like an email to Commons:OTRS from that copyright owner (see Commons:Email templates for examples) so that there is no confusion over what rights are being allowed. Images can also be uploaded to en-wiki under a "fair use" reasoning without licensing the copyright, though there are several formalities to follow there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the photo. Forget the mural. I can see the problem in theory, but there is not much left in schools (apart from buildings), if you cannot show pupils' work. Most UK schools show their badges in Wikipedia (eg Eton College and Harrow School). School badges are not an issue in UK, so long as they are being used appropriately on an article about the school. It would be very different if they were used on some kind of "alternative" website. School badges should be encouraged in school entries as they are well known across generations. Qeqertaq (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


Closed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Attempts at uploads sometimes turned down?[edit]

Hi, I am new at uploading photos from Flickr, and always, the photos are not mine, but in every case, I know the photographer, we discuss the photos to be uploaded, (usually they are from only 4 people); however, one is in Spain, one in New Zealand, and the other two are here on the East Coast of North America. I, and my friends are getting older. I am a friend of some musicians, still working, and in two other cases the photographers are getting older and one now has glaucoma and they care less about sharing their photos now. In every case, they use the "BY" or "BY"-"CC" attribution. Why are my photos being rejected in some cases??

Here are the cases: Screaming Jay Hawkins: [2], Be-bop Deluxe (Bill Nelson): [3] It was later accepted, this is now a duplicate that needs to be removed, how? Kevin Coyne: [4] Again, accepted at another time, this is now a duplicate to be removed. Deborah Harry or "Blondie": [5] Why was this turned down?

I noticed these photos seem to be ones from my friend Jean-Luc Ourlin, and he is picking selective photos for our use from his pro collection. Please, I know they are in black and white. One admin. actually turned down an attempt at a photo of Keith Moon, (and then later allowed it, but at first he was saying he "didn't believe it might be real"... and it really wasn't that good, but these photos are history, and their author now has glaucoma, and can't see well enough to really do anything with his collection, which isn't much more recent than the late 1980s. Please, cut me some slack here. I am newish to Wikimedia Commons, but not new to Wikipedia, and this spot is a mystery to me, really. I hope these problems can be fixed. Lately, I just got really exasperated because of a lack of photos for plenty of biography pages for musicians. I email every single photographer that I do not know personally. The others I know are: Mandy Hall, Carl Lender, Jean-Luc Ourlin, and Antolín Hernandez. The four photographers I mentioned have been very helpful. All others I have emailed, verified ownership of the photos, and uploaded after finding pics on Flickr that we were missing in the Wikipedia and asking for permission after checking attribution. Thank you. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The bot you used failed to upload the images and has been doing this for the last few days. So the images didn't upload and were not deleted. Bidgee (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Closed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Alter ego she dreams 1987b.jpg, File:Alter ego summertime 1986b.jpg and File:Alter ego time 1988b.jpg[edit]

These tree files were tranfered from dawiki to commons but I did not made to translate the text to English before the files were deleted. Files were uploaded to dawiki in December 2007 and were judged to be ok when uploaded. Here is the text in Danish and English for the three files:

Dansk: Cover jeg har layoutet til bandet Alter Ego i 1987. "She dreams like on a sunday" er indspillet i Humdrum studiet af Eddie Simonsen. Musikken er produceret af Hilmer Hassig. Coveret kan frit benyttes. + Single cover jeg har layoutet til bandet Alter Ego i 1986. Alter Ego's debut single "Once upon a Summertime". Sangen er indspillet i studiet "Rock Tape". Kan frit benyttes. + Single cover jeg har layoutet til bandet Alter Ego i 1988. Alter Ego's single "Time" er indspillet i Radiohuset på Rosenørns Allé i Studio 3 af Anders Dohn. Coveret kan frit benyttes.
English: Cover I made the layout to for the band "Alter Ego" in 1987. "She dreams like on a sunday" was recorded in Humdrum studio by Eddie Simonsen. The music was produced by Hilmer Hassig. The cover can be used freely. + Single cover I made layout to for the band "Alter Ego" in 1986. The debut single of Alter Ego "Once upon a Summertime". The song was recorded in the studio "Rock Tape". Can be used freely. + Single cover I made layout to for the band "Alter Ego" in 1988. The single of Alter Ego "Time" was recorded in "Radiohuset" on Rosenørns Allé, Copenhagen, in Studio 3 by Anders Dohn. The cover can be used freely.

Alter Ego was a Danish band, that excised in 1984-1991. Looking through the contributions of the up loader I found nothing that indicated that the up loader is untrustworthy. --MGA73 (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have deleted the images due to copyvio (covers are protected by copyright, you are not allowed to post 'em on wikimedia) . --anro (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
But the uploader states that he made these covers. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


The original uploader on dawiki has added info about the former band members and what happend to them after. Info not easy for the public to find. That indicates that it is in fact a former band member or at least someone close to them. So thats why I found the uploader trustworthy and transfered the images to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a thought while I'm waiting for a hearing on my request below this one. The band was an internationally marketed commercial enterprise on a commercial label. [6] The label, Marilyn Records, currently claims a a copyright on the album covers of their new releases, "© 2008 Marilyn Records". There must exist doubt as to whether the artist owns the rights to work he may have sold commercially - Plus the likelihood that the completed work when converted into the cover with title, names etc.. would likely be the copyrighted work of the publisher means that the artist is not at liberty to legally release/relinquish or restate the copyright on this image. 99.151.168.32 16:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the trick on commons appears to be social networking, start with what you want to do - then create a justification. Here we start with a clear violation of a commercial copyright on a hit album marketed internationally and give it a pass. Below, a flag gets the workover. 99.151.168.32 12:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I get a "File not found." when I click your link. By the way. Notice that there seems to be more than one "Alter Ego". --MGA73 (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Link still works for me, here's a sample of the text that accompanies the video found at NME, same album and video was not just played, but was in rotation at MTV.
  • "ALTER EGO - She Dreams Like On A Sunday - 1987 (Music Video)
...from Denmark. Band: Alter Ego Track: She Dreams Like On A Sunday Year: 1987 Alter Ego: Søren (vocals), Filip (guitar), Flemming (drums) and Thomas (bass). Music produced by Hilmer Hassig at Humdrum Studio, Copenhagen. Video produced by ATS, ... Clothes by ROGER, Larsbjørnsstræde, Cph. Band haircuts: Kipo Kim, Cph. In rotation on MTV 1987, thank you Maiken Vexø. Recorded at Mols Bjerge and ATS studios, Aarhus. Thank you Peter Wigh Magnus for digitalization.
I understand the artists pride and possessiveness over his excellent work, still there's strong circumstantial evidence that he is exceptionally unlikely to have authority over the copyright of such obviously commercial work subject to the laws of numerous nations where it was marketed and distributed. .99.151.168.32 21:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It did not mention the cover as I read it. Just because MTV shows a video does not give MTV the rights for a cover etc. Hope we can agree on that? But I can try to write the uploader for more info. --MGA73 (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
MTV placing it on their rotation and the separate point about international distribution were simply used to indicate the large commercial nature of the hit album.
As it was an internationally distributed hit album we (those discussing the copyright of the album dust jacket) must recognize that it is unlikely that the artist owns the copyright to the work. Commercial entities engaged in investments of this scale are widely known to own and retain the copyright to the album cover.
These points were clearly made. No claim was made or alluded to regarding MTV itself having rights to the cover. No such allegation can be read from, or exists in the previously written posts. 99.151.168.32 13:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The artist who makes the cover owns the copyright. If it was an employee of the record company, than (depending on country) that may mean the record company does own the copyright... but it sounds as though someone associated with the band made the covers. In those cases, I'm pretty sure that record companies just get the right to use the cover in association with any marketing needs it has... I doubt that such copyright is fully transferred (meaning the original artist would still have the rights to license it). I can't see your original link, so I have no idea if that was a notice specifically about the album covers or just a general website copyright notice. Unless it was the former, I would expect the album cover artist to still own the copyright. However... I would question in this case whether the photographs on the album covers (which I saw before they were just re-deleted) were in fact taken by that uploader... they have the look of pre-existing photographs, and even if they got permission to use them on the covers, the ability to freely license the album covers is not very clear. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll just underline the distinction, it was the album cover in its entirety that was uploaded - not just the cover art that was used as the background to the text.99.151.168.32 16:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That is the same distinction I was making. The uploader appears to claim they made the entire album cover. Those are rarely copyrighted by the record companies; the artist making the cover would own the copyright (possibly just as a collective work, arranging other copyrighted works). I was questioning if they really had permission to use those underlying works, and if so, if they had permission to license them this way. Adding text to a photo usually isn't creative enough to qualify as a derivative work (the U.S. at least does not allow copyrights on the arrangement of text on a printed page). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The images are also available on http://www.gaffa.dk/pedia/index.php/Alter_Ego for those who can't see the deleted images. Uploading files on commons is a matter of trust. It is hard to prove that someone did in fact take the images. We could only be sure if we had the metadata and fingerprints on the camera that took the images. And even if we had the camera how can we ever prove that the author did not sell the rights to someone else? That IS impossible. You can prove the rights were sold if you have a contract but the lack of a contract is not a proof.
Please remember the covers were from the 1980's and that not all bands at that time had enough money to get professionals to make the covers. Well at least in Denmark where it is/was hard to earn enough from music making. So in my view it sounds reasonable that one of the band members did make the covers. But as I said it is impossible to prove that he/she did not sell the rights to the cover to someone else. --MGA73 (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I recieved a message with the quistion if I would like to respond here as deleting administrator.
I believe that we can't use AGF when it comes to Logo's or Cd-covers or other things like that. There is a change that the foundation could get in trouble because we have a albumcover under a free license. Every year we have a fundraiser, I hope that we can use that money to develop Wikimedia and not going to use it to fight all kind of legal cases.
Like all other not by the user self made material the permission should go to OTRS, the person should give something to verify that he is really the auther of the cover and that he has the rights to release it under a free license. That way we have archived a permission. Huib talk 17:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds ok to me that high risk images like covers etc. should always require a permission in OTRS. Even if the uploader made the covers himself. --MGA73 (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done in the absence of formal permission to OTRS. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:JMClogo.JPG[edit]

Per [7]. I Symbol support vote.svg support undeletion as the given source was perfectly sufficient and the image is most likely a federal work. Any objections? →Nagy 10:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found a source with the same resolution but at least this low-resolution variant of the Joint Munitions Command. The uploader, JBarati is most likely identical with Jbarati at en-wp who is specialized in US army ammunition facilities and it is not unlikely that he had direct access to the source image. The uploader gave as source simply US Army Joint Munitions Command and used the {{PD-USGov}} license template. All this looks fine to me and I concur with Nagy and support an undeletion. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The source was not sufficient, despite what Nagy says. The purpose of a source is to be able to check if the licence (and also description) is ok. With the kind of source as there was before deletion it is not possible to do that. I would have wondered if AFBorchert would have been able to find the real source, since the US-military-websites are too many and not clearly arranged. But with his link it is at least visible that it is really part of the military graphics. So support undeletion based on the work of AFBorchert and thanks that you at least tried to check out if there is any truth behind "most likely". -- Cecil (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Anyhow...Nagy 11:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Chineese.jpg[edit]

i am requesting for my page to be undeleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexyobsessions (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2009 May 4 (UTC)

This image carried no license. Instead I found a lengthy promotional text which neither mentioned a name of the depicted person nor established any notability by which this portrait could fall into COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , nothing else heard. →Nagy 11:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

IFSGreatSeal.png[edit]

Wouldn't File:IFSGreatSeal.png (on en-wiki as fair use at en:File:IFSGreatSeal.png) be {{PD-IrishGov}}? Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably, and if not, it would still be PD as published anonymously over 70 years ago. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Restored as federal work according to w:Great Seal of the Irish Free State. →Nagy 11:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Ms-pratt.jpg[edit]

It's extraordinary as on wikipedia everyone as an opinion on a subject he doesn't know. I have uploaded a cover with a drawing we specially negociated with Hugo Pratt and there is here someone who neither knows the magazine, nor Hugo Pratt, nor the contract but is able to decide.

Well ..stay on your false believings, and we will keep this work of Pratt out of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padsm (talk • contribs) 22:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Padsm, we act at times not because we think we would know this better than you but we cannot be sure in following our precautionary principle. This cover is a derived work of a drawing by Hugo Pratt. If Hugo Pratt authorized you to print his drawing on the magazine cover he did not necessarily grant you the right to relicense his work under a free license at a time when free licenses like GFDL did not exist yet. In addition, you put that image under a {{self}} license without having added anything to the original drawing that would be eligible for copyright. In summary, we need a permission through an OTRS process that this image may be freely licensed by the copyright holders, i.e. the heirs of Hugo Pratt, or a proof that Hugo Pratt granted you the right to relicense his drawings. We will restore this image as soon we receive such a permission. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done . --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Periodic table templates[edit]

Slomox deleted various templates used in the Period table article under the reason that they "weren't being used." The Periodic table article, however, now looks odd as there are missing pieces to the table's key. There is an accompanying SVG file (on the same page) that demonstrates what the table should look like.

Some of the ones deleted include:

For a more complete list, see Periodic table.

Theunixgeek (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, they just contained simple formatting stuff like 'bgcolor="#ff6666"' and that was it. Wouldn't it be simpler just to add the color directly to page like how it is for the table itself (it seems that only the key is broken)? Actually, that giant table made out of wikisyntax seems redundant to the image right below it. It is a gallery after all. Why not just use an imagemap with the SVG? Anyway, Slomox should have at least replaced the uses before deleting them. I'll let him know. Rocket000 (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, see how I fixed the first one. Is that the desired result? If so, I must be missing something. Rocket000 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at "What links here" when I deleted them and Periodic table didn't show up there. I deleted them for the reason, that they were badly designed. If we want a template-solution for element colors, it should be a single template with a switch and returning just the color value. As Periodic table is fixed now, I see no point in restoring the templates. --Slomox (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , the periodic table has been fixed, and the templates should be easy enough to recreate if they are needed again for something else. –Tryphon 06:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Olla a presion.jpg[edit]

I would like to recover the image Olla_a_presion.jpg. We are WMF and the image is own from us. Please, tell me what I have to send you so that the image does not violate any copyright. Thank you in advance. Miguel Angel Pastor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmfesp (talk • contribs) 08:23, 2009 May 13 (UTC)

You should send an e-mail to OTRS, from your WMF e-mail account, confirming that you are from WMF, own the rights to this image and want to publish it under the given license. --rimshottalk 21:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, permission received. –Tryphon 01:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Montreal North.jpg[edit]

I realize that I did not license the image properly, but I did receive consent to use the image on Wikipedia from the creator on Flickr.

From: meantux
Denis-Carl Robidoux
12 Aug 08, 11.43AM EDT

You asked me the permission to use this picture:

www.flickr.com/photos/meantux/1123381795/ for a wikipedia article.

You do have my permission BUT you have to know that the buildings on the picture are not in Laval but on Gouin Boulevard in Montreal. I had my 2 feet in Laval when I took this picture of the other shore.

--MTLskyline (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

More detail please? Does copyright holder know that can be redistributed freely and commercially?--Kwj2772 (msg) 06:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, you need permission for anyone to use this image for any purpose (not just wikipedia, not just for an article), and the author should also explicitly say which license he/she wants to use. This permission should then be sent to OTRS. Alternatively, the flickr user could change the license on flickr to something that is acceptable here (cc-by or cc-by-sa). –Tryphon 06:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , still non-free on flickr and no permission. –Tryphon 01:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:SPlogo.png[edit]

Hi, I got a message that the illustration SPlogo.png was going to be deleted for "copyright reasons" from the "Studio Proteus" page. As I am the owner of Studio Proteus, and posted on the discussion link that the logo image was permitted to be used, and gave my email address ( studio_proteus@mindspring.com ) for contact and approval. I was never contacted and the logo was deleted. The system is place for dealing with this sort of problem seems inadequate and horribly confusing. The logo no longer shows in the Commons and is not in the list of deletions. There seems to be no one I can contact. There isn't even any contact info given for the person who did the deletion ("Herbthyme"). I guess I'll just reload it into the Commons and try again, although there will probably be another drive-by deletion since I sincerely doubt anyone will read this message.

People (who usually aren't the copyright owners) often copy images here, and we will typically delete any images which already exist elsewhere on the Internet without any indication of copyright license, as presumed violations. It is possible the image talk page was not seen by the deleting administrator, but it is also possible that the permission statement was not sufficient. Commons only accepts "free" images, which means they must be freely licensed to *everyone*, not just Wikipedia. Note that the license is just for the copyright; trademark is unaffected. If you are indeed the copyright owner, you would need to send an email to OTRS (see Commons:OTRS, and Commons:Email templates for example content). This is required because there is no way to know if an uploader truly has permission (or is aware of the rights they are granting). I believe we have also had cases of people creating accounts named after companies or people, and falsely claim ownership so they can tag a license on that. For those reasons, typically Wikimedia requires a separate email (preferably from the same domain where the image is found on the internet) which makes everything clear. If you send such an email, the image will be undeleted (and yes, without the email, the logo is likely to be deleted again). If you do not want to license it, you can also upload directly to the English Wikipedia, and use it under a "fair use" rationale. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , no permission sent to OTRS. –Tryphon 03:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Лого сокольники.gif[edit]

I am the representative of the Sokolniki Culture and Exhibition Centre (Moscow). The file "лого Сокольники.gif" was incorrectly deleted. Our lawyers can provide the logo with all the necessary legal papers. Please, call 007 495 995 05 95 for official comments from Sokolniki CEC. We kindly ask you to undelete the file "лого сокольники.gif" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dana smk (talk • contribs) 07:22, 2009 May 15 (UTC)

Please supply confirmation of the release of these images to COM:OTRS, as you did already for File:Callig-museum-3.jpg. Lupo 07:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done until OTRS permission is provided. –Tryphon 01:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


Unknown image[edit]

Hello,

Please give me a chance to add data who took this picture and who is the owner of it as well as selecting the rigth licenses.

91.114.220.217 08:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Which image are you talking about? –Tryphon 09:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , incomplete request. –Tryphon 01:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

How Can I upload a image made by us?[edit]

Good morning,

I would like to know how I can upload a image (Olla_a_presion.jpg) without any problems. Could you tell me what I have to do step by step, please?.

Best Regards Miguel Angel Pastor

As mentioned above, please send an e-mail to the address mentioned in Commons:OTRS, from your WMF e-mail account, confirming that you are from WMF, own the rights to this image and want to publish it under the given license. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, valid OTRS ticket. –Tryphon 01:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


UNDELETION REQUEST: "CARI"[edit]

Dear Sir or Madam, I'm writing in orden to ask for the undeletion of a file that I uploaded yesterday evening titled "CARI". It has been removed with no explanation and honestly I don't see anything wrong or ilegal in it. Furthermore, it was very useful since its aim was to explain the different uses of the word "CARI" in our language. I would appreaciate it if you could undelete my article or at least send me an explanation to my e-mail: I look forward to hear from you. Yours faithfully, Cecilia Pellegrini. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tan.cari (talk • contribs)

This page was deleted because it doesn't meet Commons scope. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done : This is not the Spanish wiktionary. Please take a look at this page at es-wikt. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

deletion of '77.jpg image[edit]

The picture was taken by me, and I am the artist. Just trying to update my wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glideslikeatiger (talk • contribs) 21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done : None of your image uploaded so far was deleted and this image was uploaded shortly after you posted this request. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

wrongfully deleted[edit]

this animated clip is highly educational. no need for censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.44.105 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done : No image was specified and this request was your very only edit. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

eliminate bakst??!![edit]

i can't find any deletion log so i cannot imagine any possible reason for deleting this important artist.

he designed costumes and sets for the ballet russes for decades in the early years of the 20th century, designing for diagalev and nijinsky; he worked with paul poiret and was featured in the recent exhibition on that subject at new york's metropolitan museum of art. his costume designs are also featured in the australian museum of art, coming soon for its second round of display.

not to mention that his art is really great! an important artist from an important time in design history. his images dance their way off the pages -- WHY AREN'T THEY HERE??! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotusgreen (talk • contribs) 02:55, 18. Mai 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please sign your discussion contributions. Next, what artist are you talking about? None of your contributions were deleted so this way of figuring out whom you are talking about is not possible. I can only find a Léon Bakst who could possibly fit to your description, and there a a lot of images here from him: Category:Leon Bakst, so it also can't be him. -- Cecil (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , incomplete request. –Tryphon 01:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


tablature of the Alternating Thumb Roll[edit]

Hi I draw the tablature of the alternate thumb roll using the software paint. This is a common roll used in the 5-strings banjo.

File:Tab alternate.png

I do not understand why my picture was deleted. I licensed the image free. What I made incorrect?

I ask you to undelete my image, please

Best regards

Ricardo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk • contribs) 00:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, your file is still accessible through File:Tab alternate.png. Please let me know if there are any problems. →Nagy 12:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Closed. Problem dealt with on the village pump. User (re)uploaded the file and there's no current issue. Rocket000 (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Murales Rivera - Markt in Tlatelolco 2.jpg[edit]

It seems that I'd better never have asked the deletion of that file, because it seems that Mexico's copyright law authorize the use of copyrighted works visible from public places.

El ComandanteSkull and crossbones.svgHasta ∞ 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I support an undeletion as we have indeed freedom of panorama in Mexico which also covers murals. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Undeleted. Kameraad Pjotr 21:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Yehua Dennis Wei[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam, The page I posted has been deleted twice. I don't know why you deleted. Could you please leave this page? Thanks a lot.

Wei2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wei2009 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 2009 May 26 (UTC)

Please read COM:SCOPE; Commons is a repository for media files, not articles. –Tryphon 01:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done per Tryphon. Please write encyclopedic articles at Wikipedia, not Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

please consider:[edit]

My lynx page is within scope as it is an article about lynx a deodorant brand. Axe deodorant has an article on here so why can't I have a lynx one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willis0037 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Wikiproject_Xbox_logo.png[edit]

Here is an example of what the logo looked like.[8] The 'X' in the background is a genetric X which is ineligible for copyright which was confirmed by Anetode.[9] The circles are also ineligible because according to this passage. Commons accepts images of text in a general typeface and of simple geometric shapes, even if it happens to be a trademarked logo[10]. Now I'm not the best with images, but I believe this deletion should be reversed. BW21.--Blackwatch21 (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that the overall design is too simple to attract copyright protection. In my view the deletion was correct. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , per MichaelMaggs. –Tryphon 08:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

deletion of images for 2039 Hani[edit]

I am requesting that the images for the entry 2039: hani be undeleted at this time. I am requesting this as I AM the rights holder to the images ( series creator " tora" ) and the article was designed as an " official" wiki entry. I admit perhaps there are a few things I may have done incorrectly, however when I choose the option " entirely my own work" I was being accurate as the images were drawn, scanned, touched up, and posted on-line to the 2039 rebellion ( official site) and also other sites ( such as deviant art, etsy, and others as teasers) 2039 is a publication I offer freely to others, and as rights holder to the series in all forms have made it clear that I have no issues with the use of any image as long as it is properly credited as property of the " tora" pen name, my own name Andrew Harrington, or BMH Entertainment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matronadena (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please email COM:OTRS if you own the exclusive copyright to these images. As far as I can tell, they are owned by the publisher, and are not permitted on Commons.  — Mike.lifeguard 01:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
And make sure that you do not violate any contracts you made with others when you upload the pictures. Most contracts with publishers include, that you assure that you do not publish the work throught other organisations than the publisher's. --Don-kun (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , no permission. –Tryphon 08:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.


Deletion/File:Tempo2.png[edit]

I request to restore the image Tempo2.png used in the German Wikipedia article on the newspaper Tempo: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo_(Zeitung) It has been deleted after a deletion request: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Tempo2.png

The articles visible on this image (a scan of a 1933 newspaper frontpage) are unsigned and do therefore not fall under copyright anymore: "For an unsigned or anonymous article: copyright expires 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or made available to the public. For example, a newspaper published in 1930 is out of copyright in 2001." source: http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelprestype/news/copynews/index.html

Furthermore, when judging the copyright of newspaper articles, the (personal) right of the author does not come into play: "When an article is prepared as part of a journalist's permanent employment, the copyright belongs to the publisher." source: see above

Kind regards,

Johu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johung (talk • contribs)


✓ Done I agree with that. Further more, the text of article is not readable, only the headlines. Yann (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Doutnáč, infotabule.jpg[edit]

File:Doutnáč, infotabule.jpg was deleted by Badseed with the summary: Derivative work: photo of other photos. But this photo displays an informational board which is constantly located at public place, i. e. it fall into "freedom of panorama" in the Czech Republic (Commons:Freedom of panorama#Czech Republic). --ŠJů (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


✓ Done Yann (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Sport Lisboa e Benfica[edit]

This gallery was deleted by Jcornelius on the 21st May. Since there was no reason stated on the deletion log, I asked Jcornelius why this gallery, which had images, categories and a short description, was deleted. Our dialog is here (sorry, it's in Portuguese). In short, Jcornelius reasoned that the page had no images from players, only from the stadium, so they would be better off only in the corresponding stadium category only ("Sport Lisboa e Benfica" refers to the whole football club, not only the stadium). I argued back that categories and galleries are not redundant; furthermore, one could always find in the future more images to add. I don't think the page was deleted with a strong enough reason, it was e.g. linked in several images (like this one), but I'd like to hear third opinions. Thank you, Patrícia msg 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. No ground for (speedy) deletion here. --Eusebius (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
It's okay, I don't have any problems with a restoration of the gallery. Sorry for deleting it. --Jcornelius (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Restored. --Jcornelius (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Richard reid.jpg[edit]

This is a law enforcement booking photo. As a "bare facts" record of Reid's arrest, it should be public domain. The photo appeared in the New York Times on the day following Reid's arrest, credited to "Plymouth County Jail" see: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/us/nation-challenged-suspect-officials-remain-uncertain-identity-suspect-jet.html?pagewanted=all—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.177.113 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 2009 May 5 (UTC)

I assume you meant File:Richard reid.jpg. The Plymouth County Jail is not part of the federal government. I'm sure it is a public record, but there is a difference between those and "public domain". If you have any info on Massachusetts law placing that in the public domain copyright-wise, please post it. Normally state government public records are not quite public domain -- commercial and derivative rights are not necessarily granted. It is a cloudy issue... I do see an attorney claiming on en:Template talk:Non-free mugshot that mugshots are not copyrightable. Commons once did have a tag but deleted it. By copyright law, technically, the state could claim copyright (public record laws would mandate that they provide access and copying, but not necessarily derivative works etc.) Other than Florida though (by way of court decision), I'm not aware of any state explicitly stating that public records equate to public domain copyright-wise. Given the uncertainty, I don't think Commons accepts them. It can always be uploaded to en-wiki and tagged with their {{Non-free-mugshot}} template though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Undeletion request for Mia Couto picture[edit]

Hello! I uploaded a picture of the Mozambican writer Mia Couto [11] which was deleted some days after the upload. I have requested the author to send an authorization to WikiCommons, which he claims to have done. So I ask to have the picture undeleted. Thank you! -- Wolfhardt (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see anything in the OTRS system (though the search facilities don't always seem to work so I can't be absolutely certain). Could you check with him and find out exactly when the email was sent and exactly what the subject line was ? (If the subject line is confidential you can email me that information). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello MichaelMaggs! The author of the picture sent me his confirmation that he has sent his authorization on 12 march. I however don't know, if that is exacly the day he sent the authorization-mail... I have asked him to send the mail once more and to send my a copy. Hopefully it is going to work this time. Thank you! -- Wolfhardt (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. It might help me find it in the system if you could forward the email to me by clicking "Email this user" in the toolbox on the left, when you are on my userpage. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS received. Image has since been undeleted (not by me). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)