Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-07

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.

Flag of Okinawa File:Flag_of_Okinawa,_Japan.svg[edit]

An image of the Flag of Okinawa File:Flag_of_Okinawa,_Japan.svg was deleted with the following reasoning: "The Okinawa Prefecture was established in 1972, after the end of the US occupation. (1) According to Japanese Copyright law, Copyright lasts for 50 years after publication for works published by an organization (2). Flags are, except for some cases, eligible for copyright." There is no Law regulating the flag in this area.

  • The flag itself is a representation of a design set down in law. The law of Japan specifically states here[1] in Article 13 of the Copyright law "(Works not protected)" that nothing issued by the "government, organs of the state or local public entities" is protected.
  • Next: The Copyright law of Japan here[2]in Article 38 "(Performance, etc. not for profit-making)" further goes on to explicitly allow a free license for all non-commercial use.:
  • Next: Article 46[3]"(Exploitation of an artistic work, etc. located in open places)" adds a unique privilege in that it even goes so far as to allow for 'commercial use for profit' of works located in "Public Places".
The flag exists through it's enactment/description/layout in law and is located prominently in "Public Places". There is no basis for deletion/prohibiting the display of this flag. 13:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, you are reasoning that this image could fall under article 13. But the corresponding license template {{PD-Japan-exempt}} tells explicitly: Note: This does not apply to flag and emblem announced by the local governments. In this regard, we accepted the interpretation of this law by the Japanese wikipedia, see here.
Secondly, you are quoting articles 38 and 49. Both of them, however, do not grant commercial use which is a requirement according to our policy.
Given all this, I second the deletion of this image. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I've asked the author of the template to give his opinion on the Okinawa flag. He appears to be grounded in the language, flags of Japan and copy status of said flags. 20:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that the user that wrote the template has commented on this image of the same flag: [4] but only about details of its creation - he did not delete the image on straight copyvio grounds. Is this not sufficient evidence that the grounds for deletion of the image being discussed here are in error and should be reversed? 20:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Nope, Knua tagged this flag as copyvio. He cannot delete this image himself (he is not an admin) and it is common practice, even among admins, to tag images instead of deleting them immediately to have a second check. But thanks for the pointer, I've just deleted it. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional evidence that a misinterpretation exists can be found here, in the images of Okinawan flags uploaded by user:Knua, the creator of the template. Obviously if this basis is true: "The Okinawa Prefecture was established in 1972, after the end of the US occupation. According to Japanese Copyright law, Copyright lasts for 50 years after publication for works published by an organization." Then Knua, the writer of the template, would be in copyvio for uploading these images of Okinawa flags:[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] There are more, but you get the point, you can not prohibit the image based upon the end of American occupation plus 50 years as your basis. It is incorrect. This, coupled with Knua's obvious awareness of the flag here and clear lack of action to speedy delete on sight leaves you with absolutely no reason to delete and a rock solid basis to undelete immediately. 20:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken as the other flags were uploaded by Ch1902. Please do not mix different cases as each one of them can be different as some of them might be old enough to be indeed public domain. I still stand to the analysis I have given. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
If your basis is that Okinawa did not exist before 1972 then how can any of them be old enough to be in the public domain? And how do you address the fact that the template author has already been confronted with an image of the exact same flag and had no comment on copyvio? 21:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Each of those flags, and an image of the flag under discussion, have all been addressed by the author of the template - and none of them were found by him to be a copyvio. This must be addressed. 21:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I understand from the contents of Knua's user page and his recent activities that he is currently in the process of checking all these flags. Hence, more deletions are likely to follow. When we accept Knua's analysis, which has not been challenged so far, I see only one possible argument to keep some of these flags: Are some of these flags ineligible for copyright as some minimal threshold of originality is not met? But I have absolutely no knowledge about Japanese case law and hence I cannot undelete this flag unless we hear informed opinions about how this is seen in Japan. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The one person who appears to claim qualification and who wrote the template wording you are referring to has SEEN THE IMAGE AND CLEARLY CHOSE NOT TO DELETE AS COPYVIO. We cannot ignore the fact that no basis exists for deletion and firm concrete evidence exists for keep. I have to admit I'm bothered that we are ignoring such a crystal clear precedent - it is your authority that has seen the image and already passed judgment allowing it to stay. 00:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Okinawa Prefecture was established in 1879 (Tempolary occupied in 1945-1972). So some flag of okinawa's municipal might be old enough to be public domain. For example, flag of Naha city (capital) is announced on December 19, 1921. I'll check all these flags.
"File:Flag of Okinawa, Japan.svg" was tagged as {{PD-Japan-exempt}} and {{PD-self}}. But you know, this emblem was announced on May 15, 1972. I asked contributor about ineligible for copyright because this flag is very easy design. But He/She had tagged as {{PD-self}} again, and He/She judged that flag had copyright. So unfortunately, This flag was deleted.--Knua (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

To Knua for your message of 06:50, 2May09. Thanks for your informed opinion. To AFBorchert for your message of 20:58, 1May2009 that you inserted back in the conversation out of time order. The image was tagged with a request to claim authorship, it was not tagged with a deletion request. You are free as an admin to do as you please and find excuses to justify your behavior later if called upon it. It doesn't justify your actions. 11:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Okinawa ken flag.jpg was tagged with the {{No license}} template. To cite from the description of this tag:
This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted seven days after this template was added.
The image was tagged on 15:44, 22 April 2009 by Knua who also notified the uploader and I deleted it on 20:47, 1 May 2009, more than 7 days afterwards. This was justified as the image indeed carried no license templates. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

This is of course academic, but if the file was at that time tagged for license, doesn't it mean that it passed the first test of straight copyvio at that time? At least as far as the tagger (Knua) is concerned? Clearly a straight copyvio would take precedence over license. 21:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no precedence here. If there are multiple reasons to delete a file, it is sufficient to name just one of them. Naturally we check if an image tagged to be without license fits obviously under one of the accepted licenses. In this case it can be saved. But the burden of the proof that an image can be kept here usually rests with the uploader. According to our precautionary principle we have to delete images where we have significant doubts about its freedom. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
In general, I'm pretty leery of deleting user-made versions of governmental flags. They are often defined in law, and the text of such laws is public domain. The copyright of any rendering made based on that text would be owned by the artist, not the government, if sufficiently complex to have copyright. So depending on the complexity, I could see copyright being held on individual depictions if there is enough artistic freedom allowed. If an image was directly copied from a government website, I could see that as being a problem, but this was apparently a user-made SVG, which makes it much less clear. Especially this one, which is just the letter "O" on a red circle. I don't think user-created versions of national or subnational governmental flags should ever be speedy-deleted; copyright ownership is always clouded by public-domain definitions (and possibly images, if included in the law) and merger doctrine issues (if there aren't many ways to depict the design, then depictions of the design are often uncopyrightable, or maybe limited to verbatim copying of exact files; see the last paragraph of w:Idea-expression divide). I can't read the justifications on why people think that the Japanese government owns the copyright on all graphic versions of flags no matter who the artist is -- have there been any court cases on that issue? A graphic image is not a derivative work of a written design. I would Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion in this case mainly on PD-ineligible grounds, but I would be interested in knowing what the more general arguments are. (Oh, one other comment -- Article 46 does not allow reselling reproductions of artistic works which exist in public places -- read it more carefully). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I did misread article 46, thanks for the heads up on that. 03:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, {{PD-ineligible}}. –Tryphon 11:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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


I have built, painted and photographed the model by myself. It contains parts from various manufacturers as well as parts designed by myself. Therefore I do not think that uploading a picture of it should be a violation of anybodys copyright.


The explanation provided on your talk page should be sufficient to explain this.  Not done --O (висчвын) 17:19, 30 June 2009 (GMT)

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

Release artwork from nedla detsmlo - user created art[edit]

Hello. The following files all fall under self - copywrite {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}.

Thank You

Closing for now; the rest may be restored when OTRS permissions come in. --O (висчвын) 17:27, 30 June 2009 (GMT)

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


This image was an official symbol per PD-MacaoGov/detail. This image is {{PD-MacaoGov}}. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It was said this image was a copyvio from But the webmaster explicit says this flag was used by Macau, so he cannot claim it's copyright for himself. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Official texts are not copyrighted, but renderings, including flags based from official texts, are copyrighted. To that end, rendered flags are not part of official texts.  Not done --O (висчвын) 18:08, 30 June 2009 (GMT)

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

Why is Retrosharelogo.png a copyright violation ???[edit]

Please explain this to me.

This logo is the logo of a GPL free software, and I'm in the team of its developers.

Could you please tell me what I did wrong there ?

Thanks Cyril — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csolus (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted since "RetroShare svn repository" is not a valid source (You should say were you got it from but also link to the site/software's licensing) and I also checked the tinyeye link which the sites in the results seemed to no longer display the image but doesn't really prove the logo is licensed as GPL. If you're the developer please send an email to COM:OTRS (See the link which gives you more information on what to do), after you've sent the email please post here or on my talk page and I'll restore the image and tag it with waiting for permission. Bidgee (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Requesting file undeletion for this logo, as it's only a derivate work from several medieval fonts, such as Schwaben Alt and mainly Fraktur. Also, the C in the beggining is a simple crescent moon. Furthermore, all that was added for visual style was a blue/black gradient filling, shadow and the use of the "dodge tool" (drawing a lighter line in the middle, horizontally). Regarding that, {{PD-textlogo}} and {{PD-shape}} applies here. Mr.Yah! msg 20:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This case looks like the one about Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-05#File:Castlevania_Aria_of_Sorrow_logo.pngMizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Almost a week later, still waiting. Mr.Yah! msg 23:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm waiting here. And there are other people waiting too. Come on... Mr.Yah! msg 02:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the persistence, but is there anything wrong with my request? Mr.Yah! msg 18:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What's goin on guys? I see you dealing with some cases and this one is freezed here more than a week. We are waiting and in need of some decision. Please, don't make us wait for so long. This is really upseting. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I do not agree that this is no more than {{PD-textlogo}} and {{PD-shape}}. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, please compare it with [15] and [16]. The logo itself is a mix of both fonts that are Fraktur = {{PD-textlogo}}. Then, a moon shaped for the "C" and a rhomb for the "I"'s dot = {{PD-shape}}. That, plus border, a simple 2 color gradient filling (black and blue), and the clearer line in the middle, make the logo. (btw, finally a reply on this). Mr.Yah! msg 16:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Still no conclusion? Man... does a undeletion request always last this much? Mr.Yah! msg 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to just remember you guys of this request here. It's been about 20 days that I'm waiting for this image to be undeleted (or not!). See, I really need it to complete the correspondent article so that it may be featured in the Portuguese Wikipedia. I put a lot of effort in it, and sadly it may just don't be featured because there's no image for it as this one was deleted. If this image is too detailed, what about this little bit simplified version? Mr.Yah! msg 00:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, restored per Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-05#File:Castlevania_Aria_of_Sorrow_logo.png. It would be faster without asking and asking again, that only makes the post longer and disatract to look into it ;) Also a faster way would be to ask the deleting administrator. --Martin H. (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Coat of arms of the Marshall Islands.png[edit]

Requesting undeletion as Marshall Islands apparently has no legislation on copyright as per [17], making this work public domain. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have read the associated DR? The copyright of this coat of arms could rest with or someone else not coming from Marshall Islands as COAs are in many cases artful interpretations of a blazon that are themselves eligible for copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The associated DR says that does not own the rights to any of their images. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The copyright in a work rests with the author -- coats of arms can have many different versions, so there can be many authors and many copyrights (and many "free" versions too). It sounds like vector-images (a Russian company I believe) drew this particular version of the arms, so they would seem to own the copyright, and it would be a Russian "work". They do take submissions from other authors, so those contributors may well retain copyright... still no evidence it came from a Marshall Islander. They were a U.S. territory until 1979; many works may still have valid U.S. copyrights (and the U.S. may well respect their newer copyright anyways, given the special relationship between the two). Their government website has a copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
coats of arms can have many different versions - no, no they can't. There's only one version. Otherwise, it would defeat the purpose. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
COM:COA. --Eusebius (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to delete all other 3,221 images in images (tag have been updated), then. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done --O (висчвын) 18:17, 30 June 2009 (GMT)

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


Please undelete, i would like to transfer images from both Hebrew and English Wiki's to here. Why was it deleted in the first place? Best Regards --kippi70 (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, it was deleted because there were no files in it. Feel free to recreate it after you've uploaded one or two images to go in it. (Note that you don't have to create the category page before adding files to it; the category will just show up as a red link until you do.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
kiitos! :) --kippi70 (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Men of southern Afghanistan.jpg

I requested to keep the above file and have this one (File:Seed vouchers.jpg) deleted but someone did the opposit. It's an image of men in southern Afghanistan so can we undelete mines and have the Seed vouchers deleted? Mines has better name. Thanks!--Executioner (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the other name is better; you wouldn't name this image "Men of northern America", would you? –Tryphon 13:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , the file exists already, with a descriptive-enough name. –Tryphon 12:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Michel trinquier 2 002.jpg[edit]

File:Michel trinquier 2 002.jpg

Permission was received and has been forwarded by email (copy attached) regards --Odilebe (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've undeleted the file, pending final confirmation by OTRS staff. However, I'd strongly suggest that you obtain a formal declaration of consent from Brigitte Scott regarding the use of her photographs under a free license. It is not clear from the message you've quoted above whether she's actually allowing them to be freely licensed or merely consenting to their use on Wikipedia (which is not sufficient). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, but will be deleted again soon if permission does not arrive. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Ragini shetty Pictures[edit]

Please do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaceandlove (talk • contribs) 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, noone even requested deletion on File:Abhijatha umesh.jpg. However, if we already here: You are the photographer? I have the small suspicion, that you only the person who uploaded the image to Flickr and than to Commons. Thats ok, if you are the photographer or holder of all copyrights, but its not ok if you dont own the copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Close. --O (висчвын) 18:39, 30 June 2009 (GMT)

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


konqueror is a free software.licence is gplv2.this file is konqueror's logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiii2006 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done by AVRS: The correct license is GNU LGPL 3+. –Tryphon 13:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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


this file is logo of koffice.koffice is free software ,licence is gpl v2 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiii2006 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Restored and retagged; I don't think this image is eligible for copyright. →Nagy 22:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Portrait with hat good.jpg[edit]

I have full copywrite to use this photo. please restore. Niteflyer (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, The photographer is Edward Norman Jackson (June 28, 1885 – November 11, 1967) [18]. Are you someone from his family? If you own the copyright of this file, please send a permission to COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , nothing else heard. →Nagy 22:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Undeletion request for "Yad Mordechai Main.jpg"[edit]

Hello, as for the deletion of the file File:Yad Mordechai Main.jpg- I'm the owner of the image and it was upload as part of documentation project for Yad Mordechai Apiary history and story. Please return it. thanks. Elad. Eladra (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've undeleted the file, and still negotiating if the copyright holder really want to release the logo, or prefer it to be uploaded to the Wikipedia as fair use. Yuval Y § Chat § 20:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
To make things clearer, we're chatting at the Hebrew Wikipedia. Yuval Y § Chat § 20:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Has been deleted again, despite negotiations. →Nagy 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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


Please restore the image. It does not need a licence since it would be licensed under Template:PD-chem. Thank you --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I restored it. Please provide a description, a source and an author, otherwise it will be deleted again. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done by Yann. –Tryphon 11:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel 2009.jpg[edit]

as well as File:CDU Parteitag Stuttgart 2008 a.jpg and File:CDU Parteitag Stuttgart 2008 b.jpg.
I contacted Mr. Guido Speiser from the CDU-Bundesgeschäftsstelle he is the head of Marketing und Interne Kommunikation. he allowed me to use these pictures for wikipedia. 9002redrum (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

A permission where the use of an image is restricted to Wikipedia is not sufficient. We accept only freely licensed media, see COM:L. If the copyright holder of this image is willing to put this image under a free license, the permission has to be forwarded to our OTRS team. As soon as we receive a valid permission, this image will be restored. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
As I already told User:9002redrum, he needs a OTRS-ticket. --High Contrast (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

 Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Undeletion Request[edit]

Please, this is my own work and I consider it Public Domain File:11a Nelio Guerson Video Forro Dos Cumpadre 1.JPG Any other code please advise me.Thanks ! Nelio Guerson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelioguerson (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2009 June 14 (UTC)

You based your work on copyrighted material from, which means that your work cannot be freely licensed (it's a derivative work). –Tryphon 13:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , derivative work. –Tryphon 11:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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


To Whom It May Concern,

I would just like to Request to Please don't delete my Screenshot of Kris Bernal teaser in All my Life..It has a Copyright Logo now...

Thank you..Please review it soon... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aljurians (talk • contribs) 03:44, 2009 June 15 (UTC)

It doesn't make a difference whether there is a copyright logo or not. We only accept free content, and you are not allowed to publish this image under a free license (because you are not the copyright holder). –Tryphon 05:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 Not done . –Tryphon 11:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Please don't delete the HKP1944.jpg file[edit]

I'm trying again to use the File:HKP1944.jpg file in an article on Karl Plagge and the HKP Slave Labor Camp. This photo was taken by an unknown author in 1944 and is found in various archives around the world. This particular file was obtained from the archives of the Ghetto Fighter's House in Israel. I have their permission to use it and published it in my book "The Search for Major Plagge" published by Fordham University Press in 2005. I tried to use it in the past, but the photo was deleted. I find your instructions regarding appeals of automatic deletions to be difficult to follow and frankly inscrutable! I would appreciate any assistance and plain English instructions on how to keep this file from being deleted.

Many thanks, Michael Good

Hi Michael. Thing is, that most copyright lasts 70 years from date of publication or author's death, so if we assume that's 1944, it won't be public domain until 2014. If it's in several archives around the world, that's all well and good, and if it's used in your book, congratulations. But just because you could use it in your book doesn't mean it's allowed here. Files on commons have to be freely licenced - that means that anyone can use it for any purpose, including commercial use and making derivatives, all without consulting the original author. Unless we have specific permission from the copyright holder - whoever that is - that they release it under a free licence in full understanding of what that means, we can't host it here. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It could help if we would know the photographer, or at least where it was first published. Yann (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , per mattbuck. –Tryphon 10:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Undeletion of Guru Shyamala G bhave page[edit]


I created a page by name Guru Shyamala G bhavededicated to great musical personality, and it was one of my first article on wikipedia. After uploading I learnt that, I would require a written permission from the original site where I took the contents from... and I did that through mail. The mail was sent to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org... and I got a cc mail of the permission mail. Meanwhile due to delay of a day to get the permission, my article got deleted.

I am hereby requesting your to undeletion of the same article, to make the seekers/historians/studnents of music to get benefit from this article. Shyamala G bhave is a child prodigy with lots of awards to her credit as well as lots of concerts around the world. Kindly let me know if any other thing I need to do to get this article oline.

Looking forward to favourable reply...

Few links

Regards, Srinath — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhatjis (talk • contribs) 07:22, 2009 June 21 (UTC)

I see no deleted article by that name here on Commons. I guess you want to ask for undeletion at the (English?) Wikipedia, because on Commons, we only host free media anyway. –Tryphon 08:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

 Not done . –Tryphon 10:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Carlos Aguilar.jpg[edit]

Can you restore File:Carlos Aguilar.jpg, as a derivative work from CC-BY-SA File:Seijun Suzuki and Carlos Aguilar.jpg? --Dereckson (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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


Freely licensed picture of the most famous Brazilian pornstar: pt:Bruna_Ferraz. Admin deleted it saying it's "out of the project scope", but he/she is probably just worried with the NSFW nature of the image (which is not grounds for deletion, let alone speed-deletion). --Damiens.rf 20:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

More censorship here: File:Morgana_Dark@Erótika_Fair.jpg. Famous pornstar (Morgana Dark), file was in use at pt. --Damiens.rf 21:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The second one is not available on Flickr. Furthermore other images from this user are tagged "All rights reserved." Yann (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
You know this is not grounds for deletion. The image was Flickrreviewed by a trusted user. Why did you speed deleted it? And what about the first image? --Damiens.rf 13:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, since no policy based explanation was given, I'll be reuploading this image shortly. Please refrain from misusing your admin tools in the future. --Damiens.rf 13:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't do that. It was deleted because it is out of scope. A portrait would be within scope, but I don't think Commons should host porn, even if the person is famous. Yann (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think is within the scope because it shows how a pornstar is on his/her work. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion of both files. If there is doubt about scope, it should go through a regular DR; speedy deletions for being out of scope should be strictly for very obvious situations, like private pictures of a non-notable subject. Same for copyvio; they both seem to be copyvios on flickr, but it is not obvious without finding the original source, so a DR would be in order. –Tryphon 15:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Restored and moved to a proper DR. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bruna Ferraz 3.jpg. Yann (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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


Picture taken by a PT-Wiki user of a museum interior. Admin deleted it arguing if the painting is visible enough that you can make out what it is (especially if it can be used in an article about the painting!) then it is a derivative work and, therefore, a copyright infringement.

I completeley disagree of this very ackward and somewhat individual definition of what is a copyright infringement (if the painting is visible enough that you can make ou what it is ?! Are we sure of that or is this just guessing?). And I think commons also disagrees, since there are some hundreds (as I checked) or thousands (as I believe) of pictures exactly like that one. Just some examples, related to non-free artworks displayed in museum interiors views wide accepted and used on Wikipedia projects through commons: see [19], [20] [21], [22] [23], [24]. Dornicke (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You are refering to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Abapuru Malba Buenos Aires 07 2005.jpg. I agree with the deletion. One painting is in focus, thats a derivative work of someone else work, and its too much to be de minimis. That it is not deminimis is shown by the fact, that the photo was used or is able to describe the painting. --Martin H. (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
And according to your links: Im unsure about the Jesús Soto Museum of Modern Art photos especially that with Sculptures by Soto - but I dont know of Venezuelan copyright law. File:Ruehende Schiffe (1927).jpg is a copyright violation, Klee died 1940 so his works are in copyright till January 1 2011 (70 years pma), File:Aksel Johannessen - Munch mit dem Porträt von Jappe Nilssen big.jpg is also not ok, also in COM:L#Norway 70 years pma applies, so this is a copyright violation too. --Martin H. (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
As I said, there are hundreds (I do believe in thousands) of the same kind used in many projects. If they're all copyright violation, well, dura lex, sed lex. What we shouldn't do is erase one image amongst one million, pretending that the problem is solved. Soto's works are obviously copyrighted, there's absolutelly no difference at all between the erased image and Soto's ones. What difference could Venezuelan copyright law make here? Was there any Argentinian or Brazilian law checked before erasing Abapuru? I really don't think so. See also these ones[25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]
And many, many others... Dornicke (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Uploaders are instructed to pay attention to any third party rights, of course this is always a problem with photos, not only for paintings and "obvious" artwork like in (most of) your exampels, but also with architecture in some countries. Feel free to nominate images for deletion if you think, they are derivative works of artwork and not covered by freedom of panorama in this country or only de minimis. This particular deletion request was correct and was not intended to clear all copyright problems on Commons at once ;) --Martin H. (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't intend to do so. I was just trying to understand what kind of rules are these ones that allows a picture that is a copyright (?) violation (like Abapuru) to be deleted but at the same time keeps another copyvio of the exactly same kind (like [32], which was already nominated do deletion and kept). So I see clearly that this project is not about rules. Is about personal taste. As what depends on me, all copyright violations largely known, used and tolerated are going to be kept. And from time to time I'll appear here to talk about this when we delete a less popular painter's work because it's an "obvious copyright infringement". Thanks. Dornicke (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course it is based on rules, the first delreq on the Munch photo was because of the copyright status of the photographic work. Dornicke, no one can always remember all rules of 193 copyright jurisdications, all rules of third party rights and all exemptions from it. I now marked this undeletion request as done because the deletion was ok and saying that other photos with the same problems are still on Commons does not affect this deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Patricia Medina-Siren of Bagdad-Promo-Van Pelt.jpg[edit]

I have serious doubts, that the claims of the tagger and the deleter were correct. btw: Here's the reverse 10:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't understand why it was speedy deleted. As you pointed out on Infrogmation's talk page, a regular DR would have been in order, especially considering the number of files involved. The deletion summary in the deletion log is confusing too: it says no license, where clearly there was one (contested apparently, but it's really not the same as no license at all). –Tryphon 12:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support undeletion. If something is conisdered uncertain a deletion request might be appropriate, but I see no reason for unilateral speedy delete to have been applied. -- Infrogmation (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Undeleted for further discussion to take place. Please file a DR if the copyright is in fact in doubt. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Lacquered Liubo Chess Set.jpg[edit]

The photographer have changed its license on Flickr from CC-BY-ND to CC-BY-SA :) --Dereckson (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Restored. --Dereckson (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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

File:200px-Adidas Logo.png[edit]

I request undeletion on Pieter Kuiper's advice. Apparently the logo can be PD-textlogo because Adidas is a German company and their logo is simpler than the walking eye, lower bound of the German threshold of originality. File was previously tagged as PD-textlogo but speedily deleted as a copyvio. --Eusebius (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. –Tryphon 07:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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


Deleting this image broke the attribution path of File:Kyle Lockwood's New Zealand Flag.svg.--Svgalbertian (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted (in 2007) as superseded by SVG... yeah, should undelete. We don't do that anymore. Symbol support vote.svg Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. –Tryphon 08:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

"Why are you deleting my file?"[edit]

Why are you deleting my file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mp242424 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you tell us who you are and which file you are talking about? You can sign your posts with ~~~~. --rimshottalk 19:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , Nothing to undelete (so far). --Martin H. (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ludwig Donath in Gilda, 1946.JPG[edit]

Speedy delete while a DR is running 21:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

 Not done The DR has since been closed as delete, per the speedy. -Andrew c (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Lake Meredith NRA Fish Fry Tournament.jpg[edit]

Got deleted, because the original source could not be found on the NPS-web site anymore. I found it at so the rational for deletion is obsolete. Please restore. --h-stt !? 07:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

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


GFDL permission received in OTRS ticket#2009070610054867. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done-Andrew c (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Atlantis silhouette.jpg[edit]

This image was nominated for deletion, and deleted on July 4th, giving little time for a proper discussion. While it is true that the individual photographer does claim copyright protections on his personal page, the NASA page that it was taken from makes no note of it being protected under copyright [33] [34] (at the time of this request it was image number 51), and shares credit with the photographer. NASA copyright policy [35] clearly states that unless noted all images on its site are considered to be in the public domain, and further states that any claim to copyright protection of a NASA image is unlawful. Given the circumstances it appears to me that the photographer's claim of copyright is superseded by NASA policy at best, and unlawful at worst, and as such I respectfully request that it be undeleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thierry Legault is not a NASA employee. He probably made this image with his own equipment. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
NASA clearly claims joint credit for this image with him though. I am no expert on copyright law, but when an agency of the federal government publishes an image on its website, while claiming credit and not mentioning anything about copyright, I take its word over that of the photographer. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No, but there is still no mention of copyright on that page (source page here). Quite likely that Mr. Legault allowed a lower-resolution version to be public domain (if you see, they don't even have a 1024x768 version there). Compare this, this, and this (and more) where they are careful to note Credit and Copyright, whereas on this they just have Credit. Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion as PD-author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I will Symbol support vote.svg Support the undeletion too, per Carl Lindberg. This shows again that a DR should be open for at least a week. If an admin feels a need to close DR's, there are plenty of old ones in Category:Deletion requests. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but for licensing purposes I still feel this should be classified as public domain because its a work by NASA. If you will note that another difference between copyrighted images that you produced and this one is that beside credit it is NASA/Thierry Legault, not simply Thierry Legault. My reading of this is that its public domain under NASA's copyright policy and the license should reflect that. Regardless of whether my view is right, it is clearly in the public domain either s a work of NASA or as PD-author.TonyBallioni (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Using a PD-USGov tag implies that the U.S. government was the author, which is clearly not the case here. Image credits often mention sources in addition to authors -- maybe someone who scanned it, went to the trouble to make it available, etc. In this case that credit would show the image came from the NASA website and not Thierry Legault's page (where all his images are copyrighted, and he has a lot of them). If NASA required the image (at that particular resolution) to be placed in the public domain in order to showcase it, then that is what we are assuming here -- Mr. Legault chose of his own volition to do that. PD-USGov are for images which are in the PD by virtue of being authored by a U.S. Government employee in the scope of their duties. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion per Carl Lindberg and Pieter Kuiper. Koyos (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. –Tryphon 22:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Files by User:Parisdreux[edit]

This user has seen all this contributions nuked following massive copyvio uploads. He has admitted the copyvio, and also declared that some of the files were truly his own. I formally request undeletion of these files, on the basis of his declaration.

Thanks in advance. --Eusebius (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I downloaded all images, sorted them by date of creation and reviewed the camera type - as the many different cameras where one reason for the final deletion. It looks consistent (by date of creation)
  • 2009-02-18 to 2007-07-28: Sony DSC W5 (#1-8, #13-22, #37 - with most images from 2008-07-17)
  • 2007-02-19 #24 taken with Kodak CX6200
  • 2007-01-24 #35 & #39 with Kodak Z712IS
  • 2006-07-28 to 2005-01-26: Sony DSC W5 (#10-11, #23, #24-34, #36, #38
  • 2004-07-07 and 2004-07-05: Nikon E3100 (#9 & #12)
  • Unknown: Samsung Corelogic (#40 & #41)
I did not review any uploads not listed above. The DSC W5 uploads seems to be ok, the two Kodak cameras in the middle are inexplicably but isolated in this by date review, the Nikon E3100 images are relatively old, the mobilephone camera images fit into the other motives. I agree the undeletion even if i'm unsure about #24, 35 and 39. --Martin H. (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You do that only with the purpose of making me look lazy, right? :-) I've asked the uploader to have a word here about this camera issue. --Eusebius (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, per his word (and my own research, im hard to convince if good faith is once broken) I restore the images. --Martin H. (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Undeleted per request. --Martin H. (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bonsoir, je confirme une nouvelle fois que la liste des photos est belle est bien de moi elles ont été prisent au cour de vacances. Les appareils photos utilisées sont les miens uniquement il n'y a que quelque photos qui proviennent de mon téléphone portable.
--Parisdreux (d) 20:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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


This category is my own work except the images.

Please undelete this category.I'm sure there's nothing wrong in this category, and i think it fits our scope too.

Thank you. 10:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Support: IMHO it was a legitimate cat (or is there any better alternative?), and we have quite some media for it. --Túrelio (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The category page contained nothing but "Constipation is a symptom when difficult to defecate", so you can simply re-create it, but put it in some categories this time. –Tryphon 11:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Category:Defecation might be the best parent cat. --Túrelio (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Probably... but I don't even want to click on this link :) –Tryphon 12:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history of one of the images (File:Verstopping kwam ook vroeger voor.jpg) though, it was not an empty category -- there was at least one image in it. If it was not a member of any other categories, it would be best to simply add them instead of deleting it. Granted, the person who added that category to that one image was the deleting admin :-) Easy enough to recreate of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done as category makes sense, has 1 gallery and already 3 images in it, and was added to a parent cat. --Túrelio (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Clarissa Ocampo.jpg[edit]

My file Clarissa_Ocampo.jpg is completely within the scope of "Educational Material". The woman is a classically trained opera vocalist who is noteworthy both as a musician and an individual. The file documentation was completely accurate and the file was legally obtained and shared. The fact that it is being deleted is completely ridiculous. Whoever did this should reconsider their decision immediatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

I can't see the deleted file, but the source appears to be here. That is a form of Creative Commons license (CC-BY-NC-ND) which is not accepted for files uploaded here; we require that derivative work be allowed (thus no "ND") and also commercial use be allowed (thus no "NC"). CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are the two types of Creative Commons licenses that we accept; it was deleted because it appears to only be licensed under the non-free license (see Commons:Licensing). It may well have been legal to upload it, and it would certainly be in scope, but it does not meet the licensing requirements we have. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Not done - Source doesn't allow commercial use, permission should go to OTRS first. Huib talk 08:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Aoe fuchs.png[edit]

This image was deleted because it was brought from Wiki-en, where it's uploaded under fair use. But the image consists only of typeface with mere ornamentations and two tildes. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done; text-only logo, hence ineligible for copyright. However, if someone still thinks the text is stylized enough to be eligible for copyright, feel free to open a regular DR for wider discussion. –Tryphon 18:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Stockholm vapen bra.svg[edit]

The image is a heraldic svg-illustration created by myself in Inkscape. It is a version of a historical coat of arms for the city of Stockholm, Sweden. The image was deleted for copyright reasons on the basis of "similarity" to the official coat of arms of Stockholm [36]. But the deletion is in error:

  • this version of the coat of arms was entirely created by myself, and is actually not that similar to the official version
  • the official version is itself a derivative of a historical design which dates several hundreds of years back, and which is therefore not subject to copyright

The original design from which the coat of arms is derived, is this statue: EricHolySweden.jpg, made in the 13th century AD. This is the corresponding coat of arms / seal: Stockholms stads tredje sigill.png (from 1376). From this seal, the current official design has evolved gradually in many small steps. For some of this development see: [37].

Moreover, in Stockholm there are dozens (possibly hundreds) of different versions of this coat of arms, on buildings, in print etc, that are very old and none of which are subject to copyright. This svg-version is more similar to many of those designs, than it is to the official coat of arms of Stockholm today. Koyos (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support According to COM:FOP#Sweden, one is perfectly free to make derivatives, also when they are modern, when they are permanently situated outdoors, and a modern representation of the coat of arms can usually be found on the facade of City Hall etcetera. Also, according to COM:LICENSING#Finland, which has the same threshold of originality as Sweden, CoA's are often ineligible for copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there any interest from an administrator in resolving this? This CoA cannot be a "copyright violation" (see explanation above); it was created by me. The image is useful to Wikipedia; could someone please restore it? Koyos (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Correct me if my reasoning is wrong, but this is the way I see it:
Option #1: The COA is copyrighted by the city of Stockholm. That means that the COA is original and different enough from its models. In this case, would not File:Stockholm_vapen_bra.svg also be original (and not derivative!), as it differs from the COA as much as it does from the models?
Option #2: The COA is not copyrighted by the city of Stockholm. That means that the COA is not original and different enough from its models, and it's in public domain like the drawing made by Koyos.
(And I wouldn't mix Finland into this. Finland and Sweden are, after all, two different independent countries.) Samulili (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
You can't really copyright all versions of a COA; only particular representations. An SVG, unless pulled from a vector source like a PDF, is already not a direct copy and the authorship probably is with the uploading user. If the precise outlines were traced and the representation essentially copied, that could possibly be an issue, but I can't see the SVG I can't tell for sure. But yes, the amount of copyrightable expression in a COA is much less than typical artistic works and in most cases I think a user-created SVG should be considered an original work. Directly copying bitmaps from websites is not a good idea, but creating SVGs is an entirely different situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I have - of course - made an original drawing, and have not traced the outlines. The CoA is supposed to show a golden, stylized young mans head with slightly longer hair and a crown on a blue shield. Very simple. There are only so many ways this can be portrayed. My interpretation of the shape is more similar to old PD-interpretations, than to the current CoA of Stockholm. Koyos (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
@Samulilli: Finland and Sweden (and the other Scandinavian countries) have coordinated their legislation in copyright. These countries have in priciple the same thresholds of originality (similar in spirit to Germany). That is why the opinion of the Finnish copyright council is relevant, much more relevant than the opinions of commons administrators. Of course the Finnish opinions are not binding for a Swedish court, but a Swedish judge would probably reach the same conclusions because the laws are the same. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me there is a consensus in favor of granting this request. Koyos (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support That's a convincing argument. +sj + 14:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. A self-made SVG of a CoA, not traced from bitmap, can hardly be seen as a derivative work. –Tryphon 14:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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



Cette image a été supprimée par Sv1xv alors que son auteur indique dans un email que l'image est libre voir Commons:Flying Spaghetti Monster permission to use. Voir également Commons:Deletion requests/Flying Spaghetti Monster. Je voudrais aussi attirer l'attention sur le fait que l'image a été supprimée sans avoir été retiré des pages le contenant sur les projets frères. Pourquoi avoir supprimer cette image alors que cette dernière existe toujours ? Cordialement.

--Pixeltoo (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


This image have been deleted by Sv1xv whereas its author indicate clearly that this image is free see Commons:Flying Spaghetti Monster permission to use. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Flying Spaghetti Monster. This image have been deleted without delink it into sister projects. Why this image have been deleted and this one still exist ? Thanks. --Pixeltoo (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

La permission à laquelle vous faites référence concerne Wikipedia uniquement; or les images qui se trouvent sur Commons doivent être libres pour tout le monde (voir COM:L). C'est pour cette raison que l'image a été supprimée (cf. deletion log), et File:Touched by His Noodly Appendage - Spanish.jpg devrait être supprimée pour la même raison. –Tryphon 11:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The permission you're referring to applies to Wikipedia only; but images on Commons must be free for anyone (see COM:L). This is why the image has been deleted (cf. deletion log), and File:Touched by His Noodly Appendage - Spanish.jpg should be deleted for the same reason. –Tryphon 12:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't understand as I only speak English, but didn't the artist release the image for "pretty much anything" or something to that effect? 12:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
No, his exact words are "Wikipedia is free to use any of my pictures". As for the rest of the world, we don't know. –Tryphon 12:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
All I can find at the moment is Niklas Jansson's website where it says "The Flying Spaghetti Monster which I painted (yeah yeah, Michelangelo too) is pretty much free to use for press and such as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately I do not have a high resolution version of this painting!" Shouldn't this be enough? If not, I am totally willing to talk to the guy about this issue. 12:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to this, but what you're citing is not enough either (pretty much free doesn't tell us which license we should be using). If you contact him, you should ask him to send permission to OTRS directly, using this email template to make sure that the permission is precise enough this time. Thanks. –Tryphon 12:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I contacted the artist and it now looks like at least one of the flying spaghetti monster images has been restored, but not all of them. 22:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Not done , until permission is sent to OTRS. –Tryphon 13:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

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

File:Vatican Altar 2.jpg[edit]

Abigor Huib Sterkebak closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vatican Altar 2.jpg with delete after only a few hours, but i did not see anything copyrightable in the image. Just a photo in Category:Choir of St. Peter's Basilica. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion; I'm pretty sure the architect died more than 70 years ago. –Tryphon 09:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Undeleted No copyright issue. Yann (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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


There was an OTRS permission! As commons licenses are non-revocable, I do not understand that suddenly a copyright violaton has arisen. The person that released the picture now feels differently (and thinks b/w is enough for commons or something like that). I am curious why Abigor ignores the OTRS as well as my comment when deleting. Tekstman (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion; I can't see why this image would be a copyright violation, and the depicted person changing his mind is not a reason to delete the file. –Tryphon 18:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sander-jan-klerk.jpg. Yann (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I assume that permission given to release the image originally is nonrevocable? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It was deleted because it was in a "copyright violations" category; if there was a valid license on the file originally then the deletion was incorrect. Maybe a non-author removed the license and added a no-permission tag because they were depicted, and the deleting admin missed the fact that there once was a license? Just guessing there. It sounds like the DR was about privacy rights, or just a case-by-case request from a pictured person, which may or may not be reasonable (I can't see the photo, or history, or whatever permissions were given). The DR was closed though because the image had been speedy-deleted by another process. If there was a license originally though, then it should be restored and the user request dealt with more normally. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, no evidence of a copyright violation or that the OTRS ticket would be invalid. As for the initial DR nomination, free licenses are irrevocable. –Tryphon 20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)