Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-03

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.

File:OldTellyTime.jpg[edit]

The jpg page in question has been adjusted with new permission added as required by the new wikipedia image useage rules. The actual authors/artists have given written permission to user (Jack Hannibal Smith) for use on wikipedia. Jack Hannibal Smith (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you typed the name correctly? There never was a file with that name and you also don't have any deleted file in your log-history? Anyway: the "use for wikipedia" is not an acceptable restriction. -- Cecil (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose you mean File:Oldtellytimecover.jpg. In that case this undeletion request is denied as the file was not yet deleted more than obviously. People can still see it. That means it still exists, was not deleted, can't be undeleted, is useable, ... -- Cecil (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
"use for wikipedia" is short for in accordance with wikipedia's new usage conditions et al., perhaps my lawyer can explain it more concisely to you. The image in question was tagged for deletion so common sense should dictate a response such as "an Undeletion Request", or perhaps that's just my perception, perhaps I'll take a poll! Wikipedia Of the People, For the People, By the People. Well that's my wish. (Jack Hannibal Smith (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC))
First, as Cecil as said, until the image is deleted, this discussion must take place at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oldtellytimecover.jpg, not here. Anything said here will not be seen by the person who will make the decision to keep or delete the file.
Second, permission for use on Commons must be filed using the process outlined at Commons:OTRS -- your bare assertion is not sufficient.
Third, tell your lawyer, that if the image is to be kept on Commons, "use for wikipedia" is unacceptable. Commons is "a database of 9,754,896 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute." The key words there are "freely usable", which includes many places beyond Wikipedia.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the file has not been deleted, this discussion is closed.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Minimundus117.jpg (Atomium model)[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minimundus117.jpg. Everbody voted to keep this per COM:FOP#Austria, but Jcb deleted it anyway. He even believes that deletion should be obvious. I say that deletion is obviously wrong. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - see my decision comment: obvious copyright infringement, not of the Austrian replica, but of the Belgian original. This is a variant to Flickr washing. If this would be allowed, from now on we could ask our Austrian volunteers to make a replica of any copyrighted object in the world and legally publish a foto of that replica under a free license. I really don't understand how experienced contributors can place a keep vote to such an obvious case - Jcb (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • One may safely assume that the scale model in the Austrian mini-world is licensed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Maybe, but that won't be a license compatible with Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Utterly irrelevant. This is a free photo of a work that is presumably legitimately installed in Austria. If the Belgian collection society wanted to prevent photos of the scale model, they should not have allowed this outdoor construction. Compare also the photos of copies of works in Category:Niki de Saint Phalle. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Please provide the text of the license for the replica. If we don't have, we cannot restore the file. If we have that text, we can investigate if it would be possible. Jcb (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
            • You have not deleted the photos of the statues by the French artist Niki de Saint Phalle yet. Why not? You are horribly inconsistent. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
              • I just process DRs. I'm not tracking around to see what else could be deleted. I almost never start a DR myself. Please tell the Other stuff exists to the people who normally start DRs, I will do nothing with it. Jcb (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
                • Oh my, you really think that the German and Swedish copies of the statues by Niki de Saint Phalle are a case of "other stuff exists"? You are really far out. I know of no other admin here who would think that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unless there is evidence that the replica itself is a copyvio. If it's legal, the photo is legal, no matter what the text of the replica's license says (i.e. we don't need to know the text of the license). Finally jcb, this is another example of an against-consensus deletion that you should have expressed your opinion on to promote discussion of your point, rather than pressing close. --99of9 (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • There must be evidence that the replica is legal and that the copyright owner of the original gave his permission to place the replica in a place where it gets subject to FoP. You present it the other way around. Jcb (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I very much agree with 99of9's advice to Jcb (and it applies to many more DRs than just this one). As for this request, Symbol support vote.svg support undeletion. There's no reason to believe that the replica was made illegally. –Tryphon 00:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are two objects in the photo. The other object is a radio telescope which is considered a utilitarian object. A cropped photo showing only the telescope can be restored immediately. 69.118.24.210 01:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I partly agree with Pieter, if it is placed at an public place in Austria it is allowed to make a photo and that under this light the deletion is incorrect. In the deletion request already the first voter says that it was taken in public space. I dont think this is a public place. --Martin H. (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In Austria, that does not matter for works of architecture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Correct, my fault was to not consider the scaled model a Bauwerk (building). --Martin H. (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Restored. See COM:FOP#Austria. Yann (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


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

File:Big Bird - Library of Congress, Living Legends, Award & Honors, 2000.jpg[edit]

1) This file meets the Wikimedia Commons criteria for inclusion as it comes from a U.S. government public source - the Library of Congress' website - which was properly sourced. As such it is in the public domain.

According to Wikimedia Commons own "Upload Work from a Government Source page":

Countries:

United States: A work by the U.S. federal government is in the public domain.

2) The deletion log offers no explanation for the deletion of this file.


Therefore I request undeletion. Thank you. X4n6 (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Same as below. Although it is not certain that your claim, created by the Library of Congress is true - it might be some screenshot or so, the source page does not describe it as an government work - one may assume that it was a government work. However, thats unimportant. The possibly free photographic work is a derivative work of something that is not free. You may not upload such photos. --Martin H. (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Also same as below. Any copy/vio or derivative work issues are not applicable because this image undeniably appears on the Library of Congress website, in conjunction with a news event: the awarding to Big Bird in April 2000 the Library of Congress Living Legends Award. That makes it a news event. As indicated below, you cannot copyright a news event. That falls under fair use in policy and definition [[1]] and [[2]].X4n6 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Closed, image restored on Wikipedia under fair use. --Martin H. (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


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

File:Mrs. Nixon meeting with Big Bird from Sesame Street in the White House - 12-20-1970.gif[edit]

1) This file is the U.S. Government, and as such is in the public domain. As it's sourcing indicates it was taken by the White House and per Wikimedia Commons own instructions for "Upload Work from a Government Source":

"Some countries have laws that state that certain works created by government employees for public use are ineligible for copyright, and therefore in the public domain."

"Countries:

United States: A work by the U.S. federal government is in the public domain."

2) The deletion log does not explain or address the reason for deletion of this file beyond stating that another file which was a significantly edited version of this file was deleted earlier. Because they are not identical files - nor do they share identical sourcing - the prior file is not relevant. This represents the complete and unedited original file and as it complies with all Wikimedia Commons requirements for files by the U.S. federal government, it is in the public domain.

So I request undeletion. Thank you. X4n6 (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The other file, File:Pat Nixon Big Bird.gif is so different because at that file the non-free part was removed. The photographic work is free, no question, but it is a derivative work of something that is not free. Your file was deleted as a derivative work and therefore as a copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The concerns regarding the copy vio and unfree image are misapplied because any copyright concerns regarding the image I uploaded are addressed and resolved by Wikipedia's Image rule, WP:NFCI [[3]] as well as Wikipedia's Fair Use Policy, WP:FU [[4]]. The historical importance of having the U.S. First Lady photographed in and by the White House with the iconic Big Bird meets Wikipedia fair use [[5]] standards with regard to commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. Also to be very clear, legally you cannot copyright a news event, which is what this image depicts.X4n6 (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
This is Wikimedia Commons, our fair use policy is very simple and written in Commons:Fair use in big letters: "Fair use" media files are not allowed on Commons. The image you uploaded is not free of third party rights, you not have a permission from all parties, you may not uploads such files, see Commons:First steps/License selection. --Martin H. (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Very well. Then I will utilize Wikipedia rules to upload these Wikipedia acceptable files exclusively to Wikipedia. X4n6 (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Closed, image restored on Wikipedia under fair use. --Martin H. (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


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

File:OPAFIRE - Album Cover - 1990.jpg[edit]

"File:OPAFIRE - Album Cover - 1990.jpg"

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK "File:OPAFIRE - Album Cover - 1990.jpg"

I agree to publish that work under the free license {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}: "Copyleft (Multi-license GFDL, all CC-BY-SA)"

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[ signed: March 11, 2011, Zachary Norman Engelleitner ]

Indepthmusic (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Permissions go to Commons:OTRS, not here to the undeletion requests. If OTRS has received the permission they will undelete the file. Note: file was tagged as missing permission 2 months before it was deleted. Therefore closed here and not undeleted. --Martin H. (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Closed. --Martin H. (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


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

OPAFIRE_Press_Kit-_crop-copy.jpg[edit]

OPAFIRE_Press_Kit-_crop-copy.jpg

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK "File:OPAFIRE_Press_Kit-_crop-copy.jpg"

I agree to publish that work under the free license {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}: "Copyleft (Multi-license GFDL, all CC-BY-SA)"

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[ signed: March 11, 2011, Zachary Norman Engelleitner ]

Indepthmusic (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


Closed, same as above File:OPAFIRE - Album Cover - 1990.jpg: Commons:OTRS is the right place. --Martin H. (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Young_Artists_for_Haiti_logo.jpg[edit]

w:File:Young Artists for Haiti logo.jpg (File:Flag of Canada.svg + File:Flag of Haiti.svg + some text) is so simple: Template:PD-ineligible is the right licence. 78.55.108.211 06:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


Undeleted. {{PD-ineligible}}

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

File:002 Lapageria rosea 04 ies.jpg[edit]

Hola, Me acerco aquí para solicitar la restauración de la mencionada imagen. Es una imagen basada en otra también de Meta que utilizaba en mi página de usuario y que considero no contraviene ninguna norma. gracia por prestarme atención. Saludos

[Machine translation - Google Language Tools] Hi, I go here to request restoration of that image. It is an image based on another [image also on] Meta also [which I] used in my user page and I believe does not violate any rules. Thank you for paying attention. Greeting, Nemo (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC) [translation corrected by LPfi (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)]

This was an image for the user page – as the user said when it was nominated for deletion. The sole reason for deletion was "What is this? – Out of scope". I suppose the administrator did not understand Spanish and therefore did not take the user page argument into account (which is unacceptable in a multilingual project).
Pienso que el administrador no comprende español. "Out of scope" no es una razón a deletar imágenes de páginas de usuario.
--LPfi (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Si la comunidad ahora entiende que no transgrede ninguna norma y se repone la imagen, creo que el malentendido se podría dar por solucionado. Saludos, Nemo (Automatic Translation Google Language Tools:) If the community now understands that not violate any rules and reset the image, I think the misunderstanding could be solved. Greetings, Nemo (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - valid for a user page image to me. --Herby talk thyme 10:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

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

File, NM_4 file to undelete[edit]

Dear Sir,

I'm the subject of the picture and the owner of it.

I'd appreacite if you tell me what to do in order to not to have the picture deleted.

All the very best,

Sergio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergom123 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You never uploaded a file "NM_4" - although you try to include it in Wikipedia. You uploaded a file File:NM 1.jpg and lots of similar images/duplicates of that file. While with your first upload you gave an author you later simply claimed the photo your "own work". Looks unacceptable in my eyes. --Martin H. (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done -mattbuck (Talk) 11:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


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

File:Bulkers-flag-state-map-with-top-10.svg[edit]

Hi. Apparently, long ago, the image File:Bulkers-flag-state-map-with-top-10.svg was deleted. From what I can tell, the reason was that someone thought an en:Bulk carrier was the same as an en:Oil tanker. Can this please be undeleted. Thanks. Haus (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


✓ Done I have undeleted File:Bulkers-flag-state-map-with-top-10.svg. You or someone else knowledgeable need to look at the two maps:

Although the two files have different data in the description, the maps are identical, and both show the bulker data -- the tanker data is shown in the description but the bulker data was used to make the tanker map:

  • Liberia should rank #2, is #7
  • Singapore should be 3, is 9
  • China should be 4, is 5
  • Russia should be 4, shown as not in top ten
  • Marshall Islands should be 6, shown as not in top ten, etc.

And all of the ranks shown are the same as on the bulker list.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

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

File:1944 july 17 moscow german pow.jpg[edit]

The file was deleted, despite the deletion-debate has not been solved. It has been merely discretionary closed. Russia is not equivalent with the Soviet Union, so every successor state holds a copyright on the image. --Kl833x9 (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Undelate. Kl833x9 is right. Electron 18px <Talk?> 23:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg keep deleted, files must be free in the country of origin and the U.S., it is unimportant if this file is public domain in an unrelated country (or would be public domain in that country if it is the country of first publication). See Commons:Licensing. This file in question was created in today Russia and is copied from a source from Russia, it was initially licensed as PD-Russia and relicensed by User:68.155.183.233 without any explanationto to PD-Ukraine - obviously in evasion of the problems with PD-Russia. An evidence that the Ukraine is the country of origin was never provided, the deletion decision Commons:Deletion requests/File:1944 july 17 moscow german pow.jpg is in line with previous deletion requests. --Martin H. (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
If it would be considered simultaneously published in a number of countries (very very possible with the breakup of the Soviet Union), then the "country of origin" is the Berne-member country of those with the *shortest* term. So if these were considered as simultaneously published in all the successor nations, then the Berne "country of origin" can indeed change to different countries as copyright terms are changed in some of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
P.s.: You can go through 68.155.183.233 (talk · contribs) contribs and nominate the files for deletion, its the same nonsense all over. sigh. --Martin H. (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S.: @Martin. It is maybe not understandable to you but thats exactly the question I want to be solved. In fact it is not possible to determine the modern country of origin if a work has been created before the dissolution of the soviet union. Thats due to the poor labeling of intellectual property during that time. In general the simple assumption, that all intellectual property of the soviet union is now the exclusive property of the russian federation, would rob the other successor states from a considerable part of their intellectual property. An example: Koroljov, the russian rocket designer, is in fact a ukrainian. In case of this special image is it correct, that it has been taken moscow. But I see the case like Clindberg: You have to consider photographs from the soviet union simultaniously published in all successor states of the soviet union. So I consider the country with the *shortest* term. And thats the Ukraine. And I will continue to argument in this way as long as no clear solution to that question has been provided by law experts. sigh. --Kl833x9 (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The country of origin can be the Ukraine if you provide a publication evidence, not an emotional claim that any image that lays in some today Russian archive is also a work of the Ukraine. I again refer to the file description and the deletion request: All chains was to Russia, there is no connection with the Ukraine. No Ukrainian source, in the whole deletion request the required evidence of publication in the Ukraine was not provided, no Ukrainian author, no Ukrainian license tag except that one added by that IP in abuse. In fact it is not even clear if this photo ever was published before the Russian state archive published it. --Martin H. (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not quite that, although your point about publication is a good one. If it was considered first published in the Soviet Union, and there are now 15 successor nations, then it can be considered "simultaneously published" in all 15 countries. Well, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia do not consider themselves as ever being part of the USSR (but rather occupied), so 12 countries then, 11 of which are Berne members. If that is the legal situation, then the "country of origin" is the country out of those 11 which has the shortest copyright term, regardless if it was produced or published in that region or not, as is explicitly laid out in the Berne Convention. On the other hand, it if was never published during the USSR years, then it is not "simultaneously published", but rather first published in the country of Russia, making a PD-Ukraine tag invalid. And also on the other hand, even if simultaneously published, for URAA purposes the U.S. will use the successor country with the "most significant contacts" with the work, which would likely be Russia. And in that case (and would be for the Ukraine as well), the work was still copyrighted on the URAA date in 1996, so its U.S. copyright is still in force and will be for quite some time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
This photo has been published quite often before the dissolution of the USSR. I will provide some examples. (In historical background it is quite clear, due to the fact, that Stalin has had an interest of showing the might of the Red Army in the public, but okay for the record we should provide some soviet publications of the image.) --Kl833x9 (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Some results. This documentation is using parts of the soviet newsreel from 17th july 1944: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2707811417473584172#. So the image is originally a still of this newsreel. --Kl833x9 (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Ich denke, das damit der Keks wohl gegessen ist. (I think that the cookie is eaten now.)--Kl833x9 (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion --Kl833x9 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
That linked video is a 2005 documentary on Marshal Rokossovsky (focusing on his actions in 1944 it would seem). It does use a lot of war footage, but had that footage been previously published? If there was a dated 17 July 1944 segment, that would probably be enough indication I suppose... how many minutes into the documentary is that? Was there an author for that newsreel indicated? BTW, Ukraine is now 70pma as well, so that tag can't apply anyways. Shortest term would probably be Moldova, which I think has a term of 50 years from publication for audiovisual works. All other successor countries have at least 50 pma terms. The only way it is PD in the US though is if it the authorship is anonymous; that may have meant copyright expired in Russia (likely the country with the "most significant contacts" with the work) in 1996 as being more than 50 years from publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
It is a film made by the ru:Центральная студия документальных фильмов (en:Central Studio for Documentary Film). Unfortunately there is no online database of the productions. --Kl833x9 (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
For the record: This is the copyright information given by the source webpage: " 17 июля 1944 г., Место съемки: Москва, Автор съемки: не установлен, РГАКФД , ед. хр. 0-256353" It says that the author is unknown and it gives us a Number of the russian state archive. Unfortunately there is no information about the publishing history. --Kl833x9 (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done - not enough information to state definitively that it's PD. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


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

{{EU image}}[edit]

Per argument here.

No new arguments. The website copyright notice is still the same, no mention of modifications/derivative works, not clear on commercial reuse, possibly, per this page (Those wishing to use the contents of this site for purposes other than their personal use...) only for non-commercial purposes or typical press license. Not free enough. The template was a copyvio-redirect for 4 years, the deletion of the redirect only follows a possible mixup with other EU related copyright tags (e.g. Anonymous-EU) and confusion why an (assumed) general PD tag leads to a strange copyvio notice related to the European Union website. I however restored the talkpage of the template. --Martin H. (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

 Not done -mattbuck (Talk) 20:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


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

Undelete David Goodall.jpg[edit]

Hi,

This was deleted due to no rights being granted, however I sent an email granting full rights on December 16th, which is the date of undeletion (is that a real word?) - if there is something wrong with the wording, please elucidate. I took and own the photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsugi (talk • contribs)

  • OTRS ticket 2010121610012442
  • You were emailed back with a clarification request. I would probably have interpreted your release as equivalent to CC0, but the volunteer was probably concerned that you understood the nature of the free release being granted and in particular that this meant free release for any purpose anywhere, not just on Commons or Wikipedia. Please reply to the email with something equivalent (or identical) to the statement at en:Wikipedia:CONSENT. Thanks, -- (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


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

File:Dar es salaam montage2.png[edit]

I messed up on the Dar es Salaam montage.png and that is why I edited it and renamed it montage2. I created it on my own computer. Yes, the montage was a combination of pictures from the internet, but I created it myself. Now if you want me to provide the origin of all those pictures separately, then I don't know how that can be done.

Also this is the most important picture because I used this as the new replacement for the old image skyline which in my opinion could have been better. I haven't done anything wrong. You have deleted countless of my other pictures as well, without clearly specifying what I did wrong. These broad terms that you use when deleting people's pictures are not helpful at all. Specifying the issue in clear English helps the person understand what they needed to provide for the picture.

Jnyerere89 (talk)

You are not allowed to copy&paste any image from the internet unless the copyright holder agreed to a free license, a free license is defined in Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_freely_licensed_or_public_domain. So in simple and clear words: You did something illegal. You grabbed someone else work, combined it and declared the result 'entirely your own work', you licensed it under a license allowing anyone to reuse the work for money making purposes wihout having the other copyright holders written permission to do so. --Martin H. (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done -mattbuck (Talk) 19:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


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


File:loveantell.jpg[edit]

The picture loveantell.jpg has been deleted frpm the wikipedia-page of "Love Antell". I am the photographer and i have given my permission of free use of the image. Can you please undelete this image? /alias Daumier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillersberg (talk • contribs)

Original image resolution doesn't support your authorship claim. Please upload image in full resolution with EXIF data. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The website http://www.fokus.se/2009/03/jag-gillar-inte-sentimentalt-tjafs/ has a very different author informtion on the same photo. --Martin H. (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Without weighing in on the merits of this particular case, a person is perfectly entitled to free-license only a reduced-quality version of an image and maintain all rights on a higher-resolution version. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thats right. But it is likely that the photographer belongs to SCANPIX and that fokus.se website (google) while the various accounts editing Love Antell in sv.wp rather look like single purpose accounts related to that band and not to SCANPIX or that fokus magazine. The file was published already with a clear author information and I not see a reason to obscure this author name under some pseudonymes. The authorship clearly belongs to the photographer described in http://www.fokus.se/2009/03/jag-gillar-inte-sentimentalt-tjafs/ and this photographer will have an email account at scanpix or fokus.se, whatever organization he is working for. A permission should come from that email. The file was reuploded already under File:Lawpwk1.png. Personally Im convinced that this has again false author information but its tagged with {{subst:npd}} already, I watchlisted it and im sure it will be deleted because a valid permission from the true copyright holder will never come. Given the reupload and the appropriate 'no permission' tagging we can close this here as not done. --Martin H. (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done. Won't be undeleted in this form, full version can be loaded with EXIF data at this link whenever the user is ready (as per EugeneZelenko).  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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


File:LibyanEE-9.jpg[edit]

I've marked this image as copyvio in en.wiki, and here's the reply:

  1. (cur | prev) 05:26, March 19, 2011 Nyttend (talk | contribs) (43 bytes) (All those pages are newer than this one: it's likely that they used this image) (undo)
  2. (cur | prev) 11:45, March 18, 2011 Yuval Y (talk | contribs) (128 bytes) (http://www.tineye.com/search/28661fd53925cc897e69166e4f07ddf9ab26a854/) (undo)

Yuval Y § Chat § 12:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.armyrecognition.com/News/july_2004/Military_News_July_2004_UK.htm --Martin H. (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done, see above 2004 publication, also delted from en.wp now. --Martin H. (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Franne Golde Main.jpg[edit]

File:Franne Golde Main.jpg was deleted because it did not have license, but we have an OTRS permission for this file now with ticket # as 2011020210000819. Can someone please undelete this image? --Sreejith K (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I just realized that the email was stating that the license is CC BY-NC-ND and so I have requested the uploader to resend the OTRS email with a license compatible with commons. So I am not sure whether you will have to delete the image again Smiley.svg --Sreejith K (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Its better to confirm the contents as valid, for an undeletion request......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem, I deleted it again just to be safe. Let me know if the correct permission comes through. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


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

File:Joel_Resnicoff_EspritShirt.jpg and File:Joel_Resnicoff_Art.jpg[edit]

We have received OTRS permission for the files File:Joel_Resnicoff_EspritShirt.jpg and File:Joel_Resnicoff_Art.jpg. The TT # for reference is 2011020710007769 --Sreejith K (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - Both files have been undeleted, ready for you to add the PermissionOTRS tag. --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


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

File:Thakur nigamananda.JPG[edit]

We have an OTRS email for the file File:Thakur nigamananda.JPG from Nilanchal Swara and he claims he is the copyright owner. The email does not specify the license, so I was wondering whether the image was uploaded by the same user? Can someone please verify? The OTRS TT # is 2011020910004428 --Sreejith K (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Thakur nigamananda.JPG was uploaded by Nilanchalswara (talk · contribs). --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


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

File:Centre commercial angoulême.jpg[edit]

We now has OTRS permissions for the File:Centre commercial angoulême.jpg. OTRS TT # is 2011020910004821. Please undelete this file. --Sreejith K (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done - File:Centre commercial angoulême.jpg has been undeleted. --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


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

File:DJ_Scene_bus_picture.JPG[edit]

If the image File:DJ_Scene_bus_picture.JPG is the same as the one found here ([6]), we have permission to use that in Commons now. The OTRS TT # is 2011021010012112. --Sreejith K (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

File:DJ_Scene_bus_picture.JPG is a 3,872×2,592 pixel uncropped version of [7] without the watermarks. Let me know if you need see the image. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


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

File:Alausa 1870 Bisliu viensodija.jpg deleted long time ago[edit]

I missed the warning, because did not watched the page. It was my photo taken in the state history archve on the 1870 document, which is in public domain as 70 years have passed Liutaurasu Liutaurasu (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


  • ✓ restored. Please update the image description page with information on where and by whom the document was photographed. Powers (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

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

2 files deleted[edit]

I would like to ask for an "undeletion" of two files I put on Wiki namely: logo_ics and Institut-photo I have the rights to use those two files and put them in Wikimedia commons. Can you tell me what I should do now to be allowed to use them again? thanks--Inesnahel (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have restored File:logo_ics.tif and applied the {{PD-textlogo}} template; the logo is in the public domain because it is too simple to be copyrightable. The second image, File:Institut-photo.jpg, is less clear. I have asked the deleting administrator, User:Bapti, to comment here. Powers (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I just took a look at File:Institut-photo.jpg and then deleted it again. It is a photograph of a modern building in France. I do not understand Bapti's deletion as "Copyvio", but modern buildings in France are subject to copyright and, therefore, photographs of them infringe on the architect's rights. The problem is not the rights to the photograph, but the rights to the building. Just as we do not keep photographs of most Picasso paintings, we do not keep photographs of buildings in many countries. Although this probably should have had a {{Deletion Request discussion}}, it seems very clear that we cannot keep it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The second image seems to be taken from the official website of "Institut Charles Sadron" (link). Moreover, there is no freedom of panorama in France.
For File:logo_ics.tif, I am not sure that it is too simple to be copyrightable (there is a kind of circle for instance) but no problem if others think so.--Bapti 20:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I didn't know the building is in France. By the way, James, you know you don't have to undelete a file in order to see it, right? Powers (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done -mattbuck (Talk) 21:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


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

Poet biography[edit]

please released sindhi language poet introduction kind requested —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imrantm1 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please read the message that was left at your talk page. Wikimedia Commons is a repository for media files. It is not a place for textual content such as biographies. LX (talk, contribs) 13:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done -mattbuck (Talk) 21:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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


eco logo.jpg[edit]

this eco logo is finally licensed, and not break a copyright, please understand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferzen (talk • contribs) 2011-02-07T13:52:08 (UTC)

It is probably about this file: File:Emil chronicle online logo.jpg or this File:Eco logo.jpg or this File:07577 key eco l.jpg. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The company should send a permission by e-mail to Wikimedia Commons as I've written you on your talk page. This logo is probably too artistic / does not only consist of simple shapes and text to be ineligible for copyright. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done -mattbuck (Talk) 21:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


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

File:RDB.jpg[edit]

My request is to undelete the files RDB.jpg and CDB.jpg as I have just asked and obtained the authorization to use them by the licence owner (the company CIR group). I have also sent an e-mail with this authorization to the address permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Best regards.

You will have to wait. Now that you have sent a mail to the OTRS-team, somebody of that team will create a ticket and check if all needed information is here. Then the ticket worker will restore the file with the ticket-number or request more information. It is out of the hands of us admins. Only OTRS-people can work on this kind of job. -- Cecil (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done -mattbuck (Talk) 21:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


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

File:Homestead.jpg[edit]

This file should not have been deleted. It applies under the following permission. Please undelete it. -imarkers Imarkers (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

{{Copyrighted free use}}

Its a photo grabbed from http://www.1siliconvalley.com/finding-the-right-public-school/#more-14 , it is NOT "Copyrighted free use" but simply unfree. It was tagged is {{PD-old}} (the photographer died >70 years ago) which is a clear nonsense and shouldnt happen if the uploader uses the preview function or cares a little bit about the result of the uplad. The file is simply unfree, grabbed from the internet, Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. --Martin H. (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 Not done -mattbuck (Talk) 21:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Wikipe-tan_in_swimwear.jpg (restored)[edit]

This picture of Wikipe-tan by Kasuga (original Wikipe-tan creator) was in use in numerous projects, and it was deleted as out of scope. Giving that the file was in use in project space in numerous WMF wikis, it's a pretty confusing and arcane reason. Actually, these Jimbo-style random deletions of in use files as "out of scope" become quite annoying -- apparently Commons admins know better what is good for local projects. Trycatch (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Jimbo-style random deletion" is not an sufficient argument, compared to that long discussion. --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yup, the length of discussion is a great argument, indeed. Trycatch (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow - a drawing of a girl in swimwear. Sure, this has to be deleted - Jimbo did also delete paintings/artwork which showed too much human skin. Good job! Keep on disturbing the community, WMF! --Saibo (Δ) 22:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The image was only being used in Wikipe-tan galleries and to illustrate a couple people's userpages. I don't see any examples of it being used for any other purposes. Kaldari (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
And so what? We allow uploading of small number of pictures for user's personal pages, see COM:SCOPE. For example File:No Israel.svg was in use only on user pages as well, and it was kept numerous times. BTW, it's not even true -- the picture was used e.g. in File:WikipeTan ITACHARI.jpg, but it's not the point. The point is that there should be some real reason to delete a harmless picture that in use so heavily. If we will delete pictures that are in use with random "I don't like it" argument, it would be a bloody mess. Trycatch (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Jimbo did not delete this image or as I know had any part in doing so. Seeing that the image was just being used for talk pages I suggest userfy or have this put into a category on wikipedia. - 205.173.154.21 02:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Restore There was actually no consensus to deleting the image and the closing administrated clearly based on his/her personal views and not those of the commentators. Basically the closing admin state that "creepiness" alone (which is the only reason cited by those who wanted the image deleted in the first place) was enough reason to delete images, regardless of whether COM:CENSOR or COM:SCOPE says otherwise. The image was within the project scope as it was used on multiple pages in different languages and was a reminder to avoid seasonal bias (fall, winter, spring, summer), and was licensed under CC-BY-SA. TheFarix (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


Symbol support vote.svg Support As far as I can tell it was deleted for being "tasteless" regardless of the fact it was in use. That is not a reason for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment File details were 13:01, 29 January 2008 . . Kasuga (Talk | contribs | block) 300×520 (59,395 bytes) ({{Information |Description=Wikipe-tan picture for my ja:userpage |Source=own work |Date=January 29, 2008 |Author=w:User:Kasuga |Permission=GFDL and all CC-BY-SA |other_versions= }} Category:Wikipe-tan [[Category:Works by Kas)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support and I don't particularly give a toss about the image, I just think that the justification by the deleting admin is not supported by Commons:Project scope, which clearly states educational includes
File in use in another Wikimedia project
A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough.
 — billinghurst sDrewth 05:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
A file present only on user pages and in a page about an unofficial Wikipedia mascot is not even close to the same thing as using a file on mainspace educational pages on other Wikimedia projects. I agree with the policy, but it was clearly designed to prevent Commons from deleting images that serve our readers in regular mainspace articles, not errata that isn't used in the main space at all. No reader of Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia project looking for reliable information is underserved because this image was deleted. Compare to File:Lolicon Sample.png, which is potentially more offensive, but actually serves our readers educationally by being used in mainspace articles. Steven Walling 06:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not clear at all. Commons serves not only to our readers, but to our editors and users as well. Actually, your reading not only directly contradicts to the plain text of the policy ("It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects - that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope." -- COM:SCOPE), but equally it contradicts to the well-established practice. For example, we host a lot of photogaphs from Wikimedia meetups, and nobody tries to delete them. Obviously, these photographs have only in-Wikimedia importance, they have no educational value (or any another value) for our external readers. Trycatch (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
If this one is not in scope, neither are any other of the drawings of the character. I fail to see any difference, scope-wise. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Commons admins have to be aware everyday that the purpose of Commons is to be a universal home for images, and that their personal opinions and feelings are not to have impact on other projects. Did we notify the projects using the image, did we invite their opinion? So it was ugly, poorly formed, etc. WHATEVER and SO WHAT, it was seen of value by these projects, and now we have deleted it. We arbitrate their taste? Accordingly I disagree with your interpretation of the policy that it is only about main namespace, it is not their explicitly, and I don't believe that it is should even be their implicitly, and I think that it is dangerous for Commons admins to even think that way. We are here to curate the collection for all the projects, not solely for Commons.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
That is what really bothers me, nobody ever bothers to notify projects when images get deleted, it is like they do not give a damn about what others think. I was lucky to pick up on this and have been looking for images that are used in the anime/manga wikipedia project that do get up for deletion here now, is there a way for projects to be notified from now on? I would hate to see an image being kept in an article one day and a solid consensus on wikipedia to keep it just for someone to go behind the back and delete it here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, for the reasons given above. Some employees of the Foundation seem unfamiliar with our policies, and should abstain from closing DRs. –Tryphon 08:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the personal comment about another person is unnecessary for and should be redacted, and if that is done, please remove this comment.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think my comment is inappropriate and I have no intention of redacting it. –Tryphon 14:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I find the comment highly offensive. I've been a volunteer for Wikimedia projects for years before I happened to join the Foundation, and I was elected to be an admin fairly and openly by the community precisely because I am familiar with policy. Commons work isn't part of my job. I do it because I love Commons. Steven Walling 17:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not questioning your love or dedication to Commons, simply your understanding of some of its policies. It seems to me that "that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope" is fairly easy to understand and doesn't leave much room for interpretation. By deleting this image as being out of scope, you've shown that either you were unfamiliar with this policy, or that you were acting in bad faith; in my comment above, I assumed it was the former reason, which I find much less offensive (not offensive at all, actually) than the latter, but please, correct me if I'm wrong. –Tryphon 18:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope that we can all have your righteous, omnipotence, omniscience and faultlessness. Let us hope that you never mistake, a lapse or some other error. Again, I ask that you remove the comment. I do not ask you to change your opinion, to that you are entitled, I just wish for your comment to be redacted as you do not sit as the judge.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course people can make mistakes, but that's apparently not what happened here. Steven Walling didn't say he deleted the image in error (or for a wrong reason), he stands by his action despite several contributors pointing to a policy that completely voids his deletion rationale.
And I'm not judging anyone, I'm just criticizing his actions. I really don't see what the big deal is; admins should be able to deal with some level of criticism. –Tryphon 09:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image has little educational context (I'm a bit flummoxed at the policy cited above :) the image is used only in WP project namespace on pages about Wikipe-tan and has no real use otherwise) and is poor quality. --ErrantX (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
First -- usage in WP namespace is enough; Commons should not be undercutting projects who want to use it in any way, period. If it's in use at all, obviously it is good enough quality. Bad quality means something far, far worse than this (from what I could tell using Google-cached versions). This is nowhere near bad quality. And scope does not simply rest on the fact it is in use... if drawings of this character are in-scope (and there are a zillion of them), then so is this one. It has just as much potential use as every other drawing of the character, so it has just as much argument as being in scope as all the rest. If this one is being singled out, it's certainly not for scope issues. Nor "quality". Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough reasons to keep it have been given already, but none that would support the deletion by our policies. You want better quality? No problem. I could provide it easily. But for legal reasons the original has to be kept anyways. It also made Wikipe-tan angry: [8] --Niabot (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Non-erotic non-sexualized picture deleted apparently because someone who thinks like a pedophile could theoretically sexualize it. This would be true of any depiction of a child. - Jmabel ! talk 15:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support per Jmabel. What's next, delete File:Summer fountain children body composition.jpg? Wknight94 talk 16:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Kasuga created this as a personal image for his userpage, a specific exemption baked into scope policy, and it was continuing to be used in that fashion albeit by other users. U.S. law requires the removal of obscene sexual images of minors, whether animated or not - but this image does not remotely qualify as obscene under any of the standard tests. The only sexualization occurring is in the mind of the deleter. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
No, Dcoetzee, I'm sorry... but you're wrong. There is sexualization occurring (and offense being taken), as the discussion on the gender gap mailing list has demonstrated. And that statement is patently offensive to Steven Walling, and I think you knew that when you made it. That's horribly uncivil. Philippe (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to call w:WP:BOLLOCKS here as I don't see any evidence that the image is sexaualized or that anyone is actually offended by the image beyond the general scapegoating of Wikipe-tan. TheFarix (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - the policy is intended to protect images that are being used in WP namespace from deletion, with the assumption that they're being used for a legitimate educational purpose. It's not a suicide manual. That policy shouldn't be used to protect images with some sort of blanket proviso, it requires a certain dose of good sense. In this case, the image was used in WP navel gazing only. The deletion was a good call. The interpretation of the policy by some here is wrong, imho. Philippe (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
People are using the policy as it is worded, which explicitly states, "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose" and "that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope." There is no need to interpret such explicit statements. TheFarix (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support It was in use so it is in scope. Tm (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, for two reasons. The formal reason is that the deletion request was closed in (I sincerely hope innocent) violation of Commons policy: Steven Walling claimed that the image was "not necessary or obviously within the educational scope of Commons", in direct contradiction to COM:SCOPE, which states that "It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects - that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope", meaning that an image that is in use in multiple wikipedias' Project: namespace is automatically in scope. The informal reason is that an image of a girl standing in a non-sexual pose while dressed in a conservative one-piece swimsuit is not even remotely sexual for the majority of Earth's population. I truly fail to see how any individual who doesn't want women to force all women to wear the chador would find anything sexual and/or offensive about this particular image of Wikipe-tan. — Tetromino (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

restored

I did read carefully through the deletion discussion for this image and all the comments on this undeletion page.

The reasons for deletion did state, that the image is tasteless and of little educational value. "it doesn't have to be illegal to be poor quality, not useful for educational projects, and even just plain creepy. Files, like this one, that meet all three criteria should be deleted. "

There are two main reasons that lead to my decision to restore this picture:

1) the policy states: "that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope." as described in COM:SCOPE. This image was in use on many pages, used on 7 encyclopedic articles in different languages in the article space.

2) The assumption that a drawing of a girl in a one-piece swimsuit in a standing position is a sexual picture is not to be followed. Otherwise it would not be ok for parents to let kids swim and play in such swimsuits. The question,if the figure of Wikipe-tan is nice, useful or of educational purpose is not important in this aspect.

So I follow the majority of the wiki-colleagus on this undeletion disussion and restored the image.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Weather diagrams[edit]

The following files were deleted recently. These are vector files made by Wikimedians, and based on images probably taken from this website (although they were thought to be works of NASA). However, these are very simple diagrams, they mostly contain information, and they should be tagged as {{PD-simple}} or {{PD-ineligible}}. These are not even verbatim copies of the originals, and if someone feels strongly about the fonts or color choices (neither is copyrightable) that can be easily changed. Regards, -- Orionisttalk 20:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The deleted files are:

Locally uploaded copies at Wikibooks:

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - just because someone mentions a source for the science, that does not mean it infringes on the copyright as a derivative work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Can be undeleted...as its simple design......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 21:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Can we restore these files please? The request has been open for weeks. -- Orionisttalk 00:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Closed, review of these four diagrams shown are built from common knowledge, no exact copyright infringement demonstrated. Undeleted  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20050321171443/http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect14/Sect14_1c.html precedes any 2006 article copyright


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

File:Burj Dubai.JPG to undelete[edit]

I stood astonished after seeing my photography "Burj_Dubai.JPG" selected for deletion. Licensed under the Creative Commons attribution, I've authorized the use of that photo in many magazines and travel guides around the world. I could not clearly understand the reasons for deletion: "No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates" What does it means? It is some sort of protest?

regards, Leandro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lciuffo (talk • contribs)

Aggravating as it is, buildings are often protected by copyright, and in some countries photographs are deemed derivative works. If those photographs are used in certain situations, usually commercial (say postcards), it's possible that the publisher can be sued under copyright grounds by the architect. There have been a couple of successful lawsuits like this in the European Union, though I'm not sure we have concrete evidence for the UAE either way. Commons:Freedom of panorama is our term for the portions of copyright law which, in some countries, specifically exempt photographs like this from being derivative works. Without that, even though you took the photograph, it is still possibly under control of the building's architect, per copyright law on derivative works. I can't see the photo, and if the building is not the primary subject (say a photo of the Dubai skyline) it should still be OK, but others may be problematic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
An explanation of what freedom of panorama (FOP) is and where it exists can be found on the page Commons:Freedom of panorama (COM:FOP). Unfortunately there is no FOP in the United Arab Emirates, see COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. This area of the law is not enforced at all in the UAE, as far as is known, however Commons is very strict when it comes to legal matters. On a side note, it would be very helpful if nominators of deletion requests, when citing FOP, would link to the COM:FOP page for the benefit of newer users. CT Cooper · talk 18:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support - there are more than 10 skyscratcher in this picture. All individual original aspects of those buildings can be safely considered DM - Jcb (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I cannot see this image, but is there a similar image in Dubai that could be added to Commons:De minimis#An example as guidance for uploaders and editors alike? -84user (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC) maybe fulfilling my own request, at Commons:De minimis#Examples I have added a panorama that included the Burj Dubai in the background: the deletion discussion ended in a keep. -84user (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
support While the building is a dominating part picture, it presumably is that way in reality, and would be legitimately putting the building in context to the environs. It would be advisable to pick a name that emphasises the view incorporating the building, rather than to name the building as image name.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Support: This isn't the united arab Emirates. Copyright restrictions regarding freedom of panorama only take effect in that country. Unless the uploader is in the Arab Emirates, wikimedia is not, and this FOP stuff is wishy-washy over the top copyright fear mongering. Some images are copyright in some countries; unless it falls under the Geneva convention it doesn't matter outside of those countries. - Floydian (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
That is not what Commons:Freedom of panorama#Legal status of pictures appears to say. Are you saying it needs to be changed or are you asking for a community consensus that we ignore that part? -84user (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Well... The former in the long-term, and the latter in this individual case. Personally I think we should make a 'rule of lesser restrictions' clause for our freedom of panorama requirements: If a thing photographed is in a country which has more liberal FOP laws than the United States, follow them; if they are more restrictive then follow the laws of Florida. - Floydian (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Undeleted. - per consensus - Jcb (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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

File:MPI.png|Seal of Mid-Pacific Institute , File:Kapiolanicc.png|Seal of University of Hawaii School System - Kapiolani Community College, File:HonoluluCC.png|Seal of Honolulu Community College[edit]

I am trying to understand this whole copyrighted information and permission.

For Mid-Pacific Institute, this is a school seal for an institution in Hawaii that has been around for over 100 years. I see other schools on Wikipedia have their official school seals or pictures on there and was wondering are school seals not public domain to use?

For both Kapiolani Community College and Honolulu Community College they are part of the University of Hawaii school system (which a school seal is on the wikipedia page for the University of Hawaii).

I wasn't sure about what to put when I uploaded the pictures, I assumed from reading that this was ok to upload. I didn't find anything in the archives about school seals. What is the protocol for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaehee1026 (talk • contribs)

Commons:Licensing as a starting place. The images that you have uploaded will have their copyright owned by someone, ie. they are not in the public domain for use, and for that reason Commons cannot host them. The images that you mention are either at Commons as they are in the public domain (various reasons that can be) or they are hosted at English Wikipedia with a fair use rationale.

For Commons to host them they would need to be released by the copyright holder under licence and supported by a statement to that effect.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


Not done, not free content. --Martin H. (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


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

file:Logo_vulcano_3.jpg[edit]

No se por qué han borrado mis ficheros

Firmado

Fernando Vázquez Factorías Vulcano —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factorias Vulcano (talk • contribs) 12:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Por ser una violación de derechos de autor, es el logo de una empresa, si Ud. es el propietario de esos derechos envie un email siguiendo los pasos indicados en COM:OTRS, Atte Ezarateesteban 02:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


Undeleted and tagged as missing permission. --Martin H. (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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


File:Morène Springwater.jpg[edit]

Hello! My name is Tobias Skretting, from Norway. I own a company named Morene Springwater and i had try to upload a picture of my bottles, but they was deleted 2 times. I have all the rights about that by Madrid protocol by Plougmann & Vingtoft. The patent of bthe bottles is owned by me. If you need something or i missunderstood something please contact me.

--Tobiskre (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The poster probably meant File:Morene Springwater.jpg. I suppose we suggest the poster sends an email from morene-springwater.com to Commons:OTRS with a free license? Making sure the copyright owner realizes what such a license allows? -84user (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done, any new upload must contain the correct author and a permission is reuired following the instructions in COM:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


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

File:NunkRockotitlan2005.jpg[edit]

The image already exists...

http://www.esacademic.com/dic.nsf/eswiki/699835 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobomnxs (talk • contribs)

It has been determined that we need to follow the process at Commons:OTRS to host the file. If you are the copyright holder, it should be easy for you to do so.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done/Closed. Missing permission. The undeletion request only includes some weblink to a wikipedia mirror which of course (still) includes the questionable upload. The undeletion request not gives any new information about the permission status. --Martin H. (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


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

File:Socialdemokrat.Veronica Palm 1c301 5882.jpg[edit]

Deleted with invalid reason (Author or uploader request deletion of unused page or file). Probably the deleting administrator misunderstood something. Category:Veronica Palm is now empty. --  Docu  at 12:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This wrongful deletion included a lot of images, listed at COM:AN#Delete/Remove/Purge bad versions of pictures. All should be restored. The discussion was over deleting older versions of the same pictures. Today is the extraordinary party congress, where many of these politicians are present and in the news, so a quick undeletion would be appreciated. --LA2 (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
At least as an emergency matter, I have recovered the requested image. We can look to work out the rest.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Since this looks like a clear human error (complete deletion vs deletion of the old version), I've restored the rest and left a note on Fastily's talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to LA2, apparently the damage in various Wikipedia articles has also been fixed. --  Docu  at 23:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, undeleted. --Martin H. (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


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

Image:Screen_shot_2011-03-26_at_3.40.01_PM.png[edit]

Requesting undeletion of Screen_shot_2011-03-26_at_3.40.01_PM.png

Log shows: 21:32, 26 March 2011 Cookie (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Screen shot 2011-03-26 at 3.40.01 PM.png" ‎ (Screenshot of non-free content: http://www.atheist-experience.com/) (global usage; delinker log)

This is free content under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 license.

From www.atheist-experience.com:

Using our Content
The content of The Atheist Experience, including video and audio downloads and DVDs may be freely copied subject to the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 license. The license enables free use of The Atheist Experience content for those not attempting to profit from the work. Please credit the Atheist Community of Austin as the producer of the work when you use it.

This information was provided with the original file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guytoronto (talk • contribs) 21:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The license is NOT suitable. It must be either CC-SA or CC. --Yikrazuul (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed. A non-commercial license is not acceptable on Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done, Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 is not a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)