Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-02

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:Juliogonzalez.jpg[edit]

This drawing has been handmade by User:Giov from a free interpretation of photo shot in the 30's (see the link that was provided on the page). TMO, this drawing was clearly not a copy of the picture (compare both : on one hand you've got a photo of an entire man in its atelier surrounded by his works, and the other hand only the face of him), which was solely used as a model, has been erroneously deleted on Sept 24th 2011 due to an excess of interpretation of copyright rules. I request the restoration of it. Thanks.--LPLT (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo is not out of copyright, the creator Rogi André died 1970. The link was not provided at the file description, you mean the link provided at fr:Discussion_utilisateur:LPLT/Archive_16#Illustration_pour_Julio_Gonz.C3.A1lez possibly (date 1936). I had a different link in the deletion request. A link that I found in similarity search because both pictures are the same. The drawing is a tracing of the photo and thats derivative work. If it is even a drawing and not just an image manipulation created with drawing style editing in photoshop or so. --Martin H. (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes for the link ; thx I was unable to re-find it. I think that there is « pure derivative » and « pseudo-derivative work ». The drawing was handmade according to Giov, not photoshop reworked, and the photo was used for model, the result being radically different, objectivelly if one compares. That's the reason why I strongly support this undeletion.--LPLT (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Derivative work issues. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Restaurant Week 2010 Collage.JPG[edit]

As was the case previously. This logo too has been deleted despite me having sent a mail authorizing its use to "permissions@commons.wikimedia". Requesting undeletion of the said file File:Restaurant Week 2010 Collage.JPG. Varunr (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

May I ask why this image is within the scope of this project - what is the wiki page it will be used on? As a collage we would need to source and licensing for each individual image too. This applies to the request below as well. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. The article for this image is currently at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Varunr/Bangalore_restaurant_week. I just need to tweak it a bit more so that I can submit it for review by Wiki authors across the globe. The image is kind of intrinsic to the page and not having it dilutes / takes away sheen (aesthetically speaking). Varunr (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Haven't heard back from anyone about this. Requesting an undeletion. Varunr (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
What connection do you have to http://bangalore.explocity.com/restaurant-week/ and the organizers of the Restaurant Week? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Restaurant-Week-Events.JPG[edit]

Another file has been deleted, despite me having sent an authorization mail to "permissions@commons.wikimedia". The said file is File:Restaurant-Week-Events.JPG. Requesting its undeletion. Varunr (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The article for this image is currently at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Varunr/Bangalore_restaurant_week. I just need to tweak it a bit more so that I can submit it for review by Wiki authors across the globe. The image is kind of intrinsic to the page and not having it dilutes / takes away sheen (aesthetically speaking). Varunr (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Haven't heard back from anyone about this. Requesting an undeletion. Varunr (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
If you have sent permission to OTRS, it will be processed eventually, but it can take some time if all the volunteers are busy. Please be patient. Prof. Professorson (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Tuvalu 2011.jpg[edit]

The Dutch Support Tuvalu have given me authorisation of handeling all of theire dates (fotos included) on Wikipedia. They have mailed this to Wikipedia through a OTRS-procedure... So we are waiting on the procedure to be processed... and the OTRS-ticket is given. --Klant01 (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me what ticket number OTRS gave you as a reply? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
OTRS #2012010210020762 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
http://www.vriendenvantuvalu.nl/pages.php?page=40 --Klant01 (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done with this image but others need to be looked at from ticket 2012010210020762. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


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

Works of Maurice Ravel[edit]

Hello,

According to this page, the works of Maurice Ravel are in the public domain in France, since the decision of the French Supreme Court in 2007 (Cour de cassation). I think these files were deleted following a wrong interpertation of French copyright law. This request includes the files listed below (and possibly more). Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support - the French "Cour de Cassation" leaves no ambiguity : Ravel is in the PD in France. :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm... not entirely sure. The European directive and French law did say that existing terms were not reduced if they were already beyond 70pma; and the court did rule that that the EU directive could not be used to extend anything beyond 70 pma which previously was not. I guess the question then is what does "longer terms which started to run prior to July 1, 1995" mean -- terms where the date of the death of the author was known, or terms which were already beyond 70 years past death on that date? Musical compositions are a bit messy; those were extended from 50pma to 70pma effective January 1, 1986, by this law, and the wartime extensions were presumed valid on those -- so Ravel's terms would have seemed to be 70pma + wartime extensions. It does not seem as though that law was retroactive, but presumably it extended any existing copyrights, correct? (The transitional clauses of the law do not specify.) If so... the 70pma + wartime extensions term would seem to be valid for his works, unless somehow that longer term was deemed Also, any of his musical works published 1923 and later would still be copyrighted in the U.S., provided the 1986 law did extend existing copyrights. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
What the French CC means is "if the work was still in the 70 years period when the EU text was applied, then 70 is the maximum"... it is only if the work had already entered the "war prolongation period" in 1997 that they continue to apply... - in 1997, Ravel had been dead for "only" 60 years, so its work was in the "70 years period" - that is commonly accepted jurisprudence in France and Europe now, since the two 2007 decisions of the Cour de Cassation - i.e. Ravel was DP on 1/1/2008 ... --Hsarrazin (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the Court of Cassation was merely repeating the language used in the French 1997 law which implemented the EU directive, which is here. That says (Article 16, part II): The provisions of Title II of this Law [which made most terms 70pma] may not have the effect of shortening the term of protection of copyright and neighboring rights that started to run prior to July 1, 1995. That in turn mostly repeated language contained in the 1993 EU directive (Article 10, part 1): Where a term of protection, which is longer than the corresponding term provided for by this Directive, is already running in a Member State on the date referred to in Article 13 (1) [July 1, 1995], this Directive shall not have the effect of shortening that term of protection in that Member State. So you are saying that, even though Ravel's estate expected to have a copyright term of roughly 78 1/3 pma for his works on July 1, 1995, that term was shortened by the 1997 act because 1995 was less than 70 years after he died? By that rationale, even Spain's 80pma terms would have been reduced for any authors who died later than July 1, 1925. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
What I say is, in France, the "normal" protection was 50 years, then 70 years, and that the "war prolongation" (which was an "exception", not linked to the author but to the works date of creation or edition) only started to run "after" the normal term... and what the Cassation said is that, if that "prolongation" has started to run, it continues, but if not, it was intended to be "merged" in the 70 years protection issued from the EU directive :) - it was applied to Monet, and to others... And Ravel is one of them :) - this exception has now disappeared, because "the intention of the legislator was to "unify" legislations, not to maintain a French exception ... --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Very interesting, thanks. Does that mean the note at w:The_Internationale#Original lyrics and copyright is incorrect then? That expired in 2003 in France? Good to know. I guess that wouldn't affect Spain's 80pma terms then, by that logic. And the wartime extensions on musical compositions may still have effect for U.S. URAA restorations, though since the 1986 law was not retroactive, then the terms were effectively 60pma + wartime extensions on the URAA date, which in practice would be close to 70pma for most works. Thanks ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
However, I think any of Ravel's works from 1923 and later would have been restored in the U.S. So I'm not sure they should all be undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, URAA is a different issue, of which the result is very much undecided. I think the URAA issue should not influence this discussion. Yann (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
If they are restored then, all post-1922 works should have the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag added. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, OK with that. Yann (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
So, what is the conclusion? I am going to restore these if there is no opposition. Yann (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you should restore the files from your own undeletion request; let someone else deal with it. Prof. Professorson (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no issues if Yann restores the files, since few admins come here and I do not have the time to restore them all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Restored All files restored. I completed the descriptions, dates, author, and licenses, which were incomplete. Actually all works are pre-1923, so PD in USA, except Bolero. Yann (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Joey_Ortega-_Behind_The_Yellow_Tape_Host.jpg[edit]

I got a notice that the photo removed because of a rights issue. I am confused as I own the rights to this photo and am certain I have specified such during the upload process. Are steps that I missed that needs to be completed to rectify this? --Sbeyeforhire (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you own the rights and the image was removed only because copyright violation you can just follow COM:OTRS and it will be swiftly restored. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

File:BTYT Promo Shot.jpg[edit]

I got a notice that the photo removed because of a rights issue. I am confused as I own the rights to this photo and am certain I have specified such during the upload process. Are steps that I missed that needs to be completed to rectify this?--Sbeyeforhire (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you own the rights and the image was removed only because copyright violation you can just follow COM:OTRS and it will be swiftly restored. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Both are not on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


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

Basho-logo-small.gif[edit]

This is the official logo of my company, Basho.

A formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for details. Yann (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Nothing on OTRS User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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


File:My-Ruin-New-Album-Cover-Art-2011.jpg[edit]

I have permission from the artist My Ruin and image owner Mrs Tairrie B Murphy. The album is a free to download album and the band has requested that it be shared and distributed among the public, this includes the artwork.

"Dear Friends, We are proud to present,our new 7th album "A Southern ℜevelation"for your listening pleasure. Download our new album for free and invite your friends to do the same. For those of you who have written us asking what you can do to help support our band and have offered to contribute to our DIY cause, we have set up a “donate” button on our blog at www.myruin.net and we appreciate your continued rock love and support of our music and art."[1]

Miruinaporvida (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, "for free" is not the same as "under this free licence: ____" 15:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
We need a license for the album cover; you can look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses and email COM:OTRS what they have chosen. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. http://myruin.bandcamp.com/album/a-southern-revelation

 Not done Nothing on OTRS User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


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

File:SK.jpg[edit]

I would like to ask for this picture to be undeleted. I did not have the information of who took the photo, but now I have obtained it. The photo is of Stephen Koch by Marco Prezelj. The photo was obtained from Stephen Koch. Please let me know if an authorization is necessary. Thank you.

Yes; the steps to obtain that permission can be seen at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Perko-Grozde_1992.jpg[edit]

File:Perko-Grozde_1992.jpg may be undeleted, because exist all permissions for free license: from painter Tomaž Perko and from photograph Blaž Jelen. I will that this file will be undeleted.


Original Message -----

From: Blaž Jelen To: Janez Jelen Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:55 PM Subject: Dovoljenje


Dne 13. VI. 2010 sem v Celju na Evharističnem kongresu fotografiral sliko, ki jo je narisal Tomaž Perko. Na njej je naslikan blaženi Lojze Grozde. Dovoljujem, da se ta moja fotografija in vse, ki sem jih napravil na evharističnem kongresu v Celju. uporabijo na Wikipediji in tudi v druge poštene namene. Blaž Jelen, 27. julija 2010.

File:License Perko-Grozde 1992.JPG
License from painter Tomaž Perko for picture of Lojze Grozde he painted in 1992

Here are however all permissions from free license, I give it too. Pleas, undelete picture File:Perko-Grozde_1992.jpg --Stebunik (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

So does this mean public domain or a Creative Commons license. Also, if possible, could an email permission be sent to COM:OTRS stating this and the license he chooses? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

We do not understand the difference between these licenses. Let you choose that, which you think to be better. Thank you very much.--Stebunik (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The one you picked was good, image was restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:USAJOBS Home Screen.PNG[edit]

This is a screen capture of a government website, it is freely accessible to the public and is not a commercial product or service. U.S. Government websites can be referenced. There was no comment by the original deleting person (motopark). The image is simply an illustration of what the USAJOBS website looks like. I object to the deletion.

Copyright was not an issue, but scope. There is an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAJOBS so a screenshoot could be useful there. I see no issues with restoring the file. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


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

(File:Intellectum08 exofyllo small-web.jpg)[edit]

Mr Tsilonis, the chairman of Intellectum, which is the copyright owner of all Intellectum covers, sent an e-mail directly to Wikimedia Commons, which allows me to upload this as well as any othe cover of the journal.--Agnostosgnostos (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 Not done The permission is for non-profits and for Wikimedia only; that is not an acceptable licensing. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


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


don't delete my picture and page[edit]

My name is Melanie Tipton and the pic I uploaded is just a personal pic that was made of me. No need to delete it...I use it on my facebook page and on a website. All the information I gave about myself on your Wikemedia page is true. Here is the link of my pic...I don't understand how to upload it...so, I'm going to copy and paste the link. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Melanie_Tipton.JPG Thank You, Melanie Tipton


 Not done This is for undeletion requests if the image is removed. Your image has not been deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Chumphon typhoon damage 3.jpg[edit]

Haven't seen the deletion note in time, photo had source (as far as I recall), like the related photos File:Chumphon typhoon damage 4.jpg I got from the same photographer, allowed to upload here by him. andy (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It was before the days of OTRS, so this is enough permission for us. Restoring. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


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

Restore of deletet images for template fix[edit]

It is explained here but Fastily is away and I want to fix it. Its all my own work. I dont know yet what went wrong. -- Portolanero (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As LX told you in the link you gave above, be sure to name the files and state the intended license. Prof. Professorson (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The names are:

File:Pinax-Drake Passage.jpg, File:Antarctica 1531-Modern.png, File:Antarctica 1531-Modern Tracks.png, File:Marinus of Tyre Pinax.png.

The Template should be:

| Source = Own work | Author = Portolanero | Date = 2011 | Other_fields = Credit line |Author = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3APortolanero | Other = Wikimedia Commons |License = CC-BY-3.0}}

I had to remove the "

" to display it here. I know the Author link was not working but is now and I dont know why. -- Portolanero (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Prof. Professorson, the license was stated in the image but people were too blind to see it and still tagged it as no-license instead of taking the time to fix the templates. I am not certain how the by-lines work but these deletions were stupid. A license was stated, but just not in the way people just see it easily. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Boody books and Cote d'Azur 003.JPG and many more[edit]

ALL these photos weretaken by myself and are ALL my own work!

Signed,

G.G. Weiner of Lalique 11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalique11 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 1. Feb. 2012‎ (UTC)

Most (if not all) of these glass sculptures are to be considered as art. Who is the original sculptor? --Túrelio (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Image not deleted yet. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Ieropigi.jpg [edit]

This is my own photo!!!--GOOR (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you BENAX on Panoramio? If so, please change the license of http://www.panoramio.com/photo/56868925 on Panoramio to a free one (it's currently listed as "all rights reserved"). If not, how do you explain the existence of the image there? LX (talk, contribs) 13:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Finished --GOOR (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, the file is now listed as CC-BY-3.0 on panoramio. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:FAHRENHEITºFR©.jpg[edit]

I was quite concerned when I realized that the image I uploaded was deleted, I have the permission from both, the artist and Wikimedia Commons (OTRS), I have suffered several times from this, and all the times I have to explain it. My mistake was writing the © in the title, but I can fix it erasing the © but not the archive, additionally, the following related files were deleted. If you can see the files are the same (just in Spanish, English and French), I hope there can be considered my situation and re-located soon because two related pages are without images: File:FAHRENHEITºEN©.jpg File:FAHRENHEITº©.jpg File:LINEADETIEMPO©.jpg Thank you in advance. --Fahrenheitº (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There has been nothing received at OTRS regarding these images. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


There were not deleted only 1 but 4 images (3 of them are almost equal, they change just a little, the words are in Spanish, English and French). My question is for the all of them, at least for: FAHRENHEITº©.jpg, FAHRENHEITºEN©.jpg, FAHRENHEITºFR©.jpg. I uploaded the first of them: FAHRENHEITº.jpg, on September and I did the request of OTRS then, I supposed that I had not to do the request again because the image was the same. At that time I received from "Permissions - en español " <permissions-es@wikimedia.org> the Ticket#2011082210010751 Permiso de reproducción Then there is not reason to have lost the 3 archives (and now to have lost my other 2 questions), if I have to do request for each image (although they are just equal(, I prefer just having one, but I want to recover the file FAHRENHEITº©.jpg, I hope you can orientate me how to fix it: 1. Requesting each permission. THIS IS ALSO A DOUBT: DO I HAVE TO REQUEST PERMISSION EACH TIME THAT I UPLOAD IMAGES? 2. Just preserving the Spanish version IN ANY CASE I NEED TO RECOVER THE ORIGINAL FILE. Hoping to hear from you soon Best, --Fahrenheitº (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, we got the Ticket and permissions at 2011082210010751, but it was only for the text for an article at the Spanish Wikipedia. There was no OTRS email for the permissions of images, and we must have a similar email for permissions for the images. What I have seen done is a person gets permission for four images initially, then if more images are added then just resend an email to add accepted images. We can do image redirects too. If you can send an email to OTRS about the images, we can take care of it from there. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm understanding now. I have this question, do I have to upload the images again and immediately after sending the request for permission to OTRS? When I received that mail I assumed it was about the image and I also assumed that I didn't need to do the request again? It was not a sort of slyness, it was maybe a misunderstanding. If I have to upload the images again, I would like to advise you that I will delete the © because it was my mistake at the very beginning but I never found the tool to fix texts. I hope you can orientate me and I will proceed just as it has to be. Best. --Fahrenheitº (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You won't need to re-upload. Nothing has been removed from the server, it's just been suppressed from public view. Once the OTRS is sorted out, it can be made visible again. - Jmabel ! talk 08:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, and I guess I have to refer to OTRS the archives with the old name, then they will notice which are. Thanks. --Fahrenheitº (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


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

JivamuktiFounders.jpg, Futurearts.jpg and Sharon namaste Guzman280.jpg[edit]

Hi. I have permission for this image from both the photographer and the subject. I may have done the licensing wrong, and I am new to this. There is no danger of a copyright violation. How am I supposed to supposed to categorize the licensing if I have permission by both parties involved?Vixhenry (talk)

@Vixhenry, see here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robatconsole.jpg what you have to do first. --Túrelio (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) You should put whatever license the photographer gave on the image. Note that permission to use on Wikipedia is not enough; the copyright must be freely licensed for *everyone* to use. It is also probably necessary for the photographer (or whoever the copyright owner is) to send the permission directly to Commons via the procedures documented at COM:OTRS. You could forward any correspondence you have to that address, but it's definitely better to get the mail directly from the copyright owners if possible. Note as part of that, the photographer must choose their license (only the copyright owner can license a work). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Permissions received at OTRS, but have not been processed. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Images undeleted, but many issues still remain with the images. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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


Graffitis[edit]

Hello,

Please undelete the following files. I think that {{Non-free graffiti}} applies to them. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Illegal graffitis? I doubt. --Martin H. (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
How do you define Illegal graffitis? How could the artist claim a copyright here? I don't see the differences with File:Bullet Kiss.jpg, File:Black Lady.jpg, or File:0027 - Milano - Graffiti - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 22-Aug-2005.jpg. Yann (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The main issue with the DR's is that, question the motives of why it was started all you want, but there is an FOP issue. We know people are not going to claim work because if they do, they would get a new cellmate named Bubba. Plus many go under tag names and I am not sure how the Commons treats pseudonymous works like this. I have no opinion either way. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I started this request because of this file: File:Graffiti-IMG 5792.jpg, which is not even anonymous, because it is signed. And I was told here that Commons does not care about the artist's copyright, because it is a graffiti. Yann (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Oof, not sure about that one. Does that really show its public context? I guess illegal really means if painted on someone else's property without permission -- hard to tell from that image. And per some of the previous discussions, the legal justification is probably stronger in common law countries than civil law, but not sure. There is a {{non-free graffiti}} tag which some images use; probably should have that at the *very* least. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Plus, in some areas, there are walls or places where people can graffiti without fear of law enforcement. Just a lot of unknowns with this one. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
See also this page where someone sent a cease and desist letter to a Commons photographer. The deletion request nevertheless ended in keep, although the closing admin might not have seen the blog post. The blog post has a good point: due to prescription, you can't be fined for graffiti you made 20 years ago, but copyright still applies. But as stated at COM:PRP, "the copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to". --Stefan4 (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The closer said that free licenses are irrevocable and you cannot change your mind in 5 years and revoke the free license. Though I wonder if the uploader and photographer are the same for that image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The issue in that case is not the photographing task (which was done by the same person as the uploader according to the blog). The issue is that fr:Société des auteurs dans les arts graphiques et plastiques sent a cease and desist letter on behalf of the graffiti artist (who is a different person). --Stefan4 (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. What's even more interesting is that this blogger speaks about a prescription ([le graffiti] a été réalisé il y a vingt-six ans et tombe donc sous le coup d’une prescription.) Anyone knows what is this presciption about? Because the graffitis of my photos are at least 15 years old. See also Jastrow's blog on this issue. Yann (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
If you paint graffiti on someone else's wall, you commit a crime, and you may be fined if you are caught, so you need to keep your identity secret. For that reason, it is unwise for a graffiti artist to sue a photographer for copyright infringements, since it would require the graffiti artist (Miss Tic) to reveal her identity, making it possible for the wall owner to sue her. However, the act of vandalism is subject to prescription, so if the artist painted the graffiti on the wall a long time ago, the wall owner can no longer sue her, making it possible to sue a photographer for infringing copyrights. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Understood. So we can keep a graffiti if it is recent, but we need to delete it after the prescription applies... and then we can undelete it after the copyright expires. I cannot even list the new problems that would create. Yann (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
My head hurts from trying to figure out. With the issues that Stefan4 brought up, I am not so sure if these are even restorable. Thoughts? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
I think that it may be necessary to revise the graffiti policy, but this should probably be at a more visible location. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, so your guess is to hold off on the restoration until our policy is fixed? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that was what I meant: postpone the decision of this request until after a policy discussion. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Adm verge and wife Martha.jpg[edit]

Please undelete this photo so i can add the needed permissions. sorry i'm still new to this. Chippowell (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

With this image, you will need to know if the paper either did not have a copyright notice or if there was a notice, it was not renewed. PD-Art was not the right license to use for this image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

File:USS STEWERT in Shanghi China circa 1927.jpg[edit]

Please undelete this photo so i can add proper source information. Chippowell (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The image was uploaded with {{own}} so a source was provided in the image, but will need to do some digging later. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Photo of William Verge at the Naval Academy.jpg[edit]

please undelete this photo so i can add the proper source information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chippowell (talk • contribs)

This was tagged as an own work. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Source was not provided (he uploaded the scans, but no idea who took the original scans, dates and publication information). He was also asked to email the Commons for permission statements and none were done. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Roar_Ruus_Finsås.jpg[edit]

Please undelete this picture. It's mine and I allow any use so whatever.

Please send an email to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS to confirm this. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Basile_1966rac.jpg[edit]

File:Basile_1966rac.jpg was deleted although the picture was taken in 1966, so more than 20 years have passed according to Public Domain Law in Argentina [2]; Art. 34 states that "For photographs, the length of copyright will be twenty (20) years since the photo was published for the first time" (translated from Spanish), not specifying whether photo consist on a cover magazine or other publication format (poster, newspaper cover, et cetera).

Administrator who deleted the file (User:Jameslwoodward) stated that "This is not a photograph, it is a magazine cover. Only photographs have the shorter term"... but in this case, the cover magazine does consist of a photo, so his argument is unclear for me.

So if this file remains deleted, most of the images contained in Category:El Grafico should be deleted too... In fact, I uploaded a lot of El Grafico covers apart from Basile's, so all of them are going to be deleted?.... Thanks in advance Fma12 (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am going to say Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose restoration. According to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Argentina this is not a strict photograph. Sure a photograph is a basis for a magazine cover, but it has to be the main photo itself for it to be public domain. This work would be public domain in 2017. On a side note, while this photo is deleted, there are others we cannot catch immediately. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't see the cover, so can't directly comment -- but a photo placed on a cover is still a photo. If this was a drawing made from the photo, or other artistic enhancements were made, then I'd agree. I'm not sure the placement of the magazine title really would count as an enhancement... though if anyone knows of any court cases or clarifications from Argentina, that'd be appreciated. Most of the covers in that category look OK to me at first blush. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
This is the cover deleted, as seen of El Grafico magazine website: [3]. The reasons for what it was eliminated are still unclear for me. Fma12 (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I think I'd Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion on that. While I have no specific idea about if Argentina considers that a photograph, I would still have to consider that a photograph more than any other type of work. Argentina doesn't seem to have the "simple photo" vs "photographic works" distinction -- it reads as though the term is the later of 25 years from creation, or 20 years from publication, regardless. I don't really see anything about the cover which changes that, to me. Note that the lines would be created before 1971, and published before 1976, in order for its U.S. copyright to not have been restored by the URAA. But this seems fine there as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Carl is right; I retract my earlier opposition. I now Symbol support vote.svg Support. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Riemann Hypothesis and Robin Inequality.pdf[edit]

Please undelete this file. This file was created by my own research work. This is a third last file for the proof of the famous Riemann hypothesis. If one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue, then it is not right. Because the Riemann hypothesis is still unsolved yet, but my file shows the complete proof of the Riemann hypothesis. I have used a new idea in this proof. I hope that my file would give the valuable help to who would like to prove the Riemann hypothesis. So I allow any use so whatever.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.47.9.133 (talk • contribs)


 Not done Was deleted out of scope; we do not host papers like this. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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


File:An_Optimization_Problem_of_a_Certain_Exponential_Function.pdf[edit]

Please undelete this file. This file was created by my own research work. This is a first file for the proof of the famous Riemann hypothesis. If one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue, then it is not right. Because the Riemann hypothesis is still unsolved yet, but my file shows the complete proof of the Riemann hypothesis. I have used a new idea in this proof. I hope that my file would give the valuable help to who would like to prove the Riemann hypothesis. So I allow any use so whatever.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.47.9.133 (talk • contribs)


 Not done Was deleted out of scope; we do not host papers like this. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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


File:The_Estimate_of_Some_Quantities_with_Prime_Number.pdf[edit]

Please undelete this file. This file was created by my own research work. This is a second file for the proof of the famous Riemann hypothesis. If one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue, then it is not right. Because the Riemann hypothesis is still unsolved yet, but my file shows the complete proof of the Riemann hypothesis. I have used a new idea in this proof. I hope that my file would give the valuable help to who would like to prove the Riemann hypothesis.

So I allow any use so whatever. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.47.9.133 (talk • contribs)


 Not done Was deleted out of scope; we do not host papers like this. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Kit body jako green uppersnake on black.png[edit]

Template for Kit Body, used several times.--Undeviginti (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support In use on at least three wikis. I don't understand the original deletion reason, either -- its use should have been apparent. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, there should have been a DR in this case, and had there been one, I'm sure it would have ended up being kept. Prof. Professorson (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Borisovo (Moscow Metro) 2 dec 2011.jpg[edit]

According to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Borisovo (Moscow Metro) 2 dec 2011.jpg, I request for undeletion since the closing admin Jameslwoodward seems to have ignored keep arguments and failed to make clear what makes the object depicted in the file a work above the architectural threshold of originality. Besides, the starter of the request completely failed to make clear in which way in her opinion "the architects think different" since the cited user page contains no further opinions on this particular object (rather than on Moscow Metro objects which actually have an individual level of architectural work). - A.Savin 17:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Do not undelete. A.Savin clearly fails to distinct concrete blocks from architectural design. Artem Karimov (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I think, yur opinion on this topic is not surprising and your ad personam argumentation indeed not really helpful. A.Savin 17:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
But what can I say if you fail to see an obvious difference? Artem Karimov (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, you should take a look at wikt:obvious before. What is "obvious" to you is not necessarily same for someone else. A.Savin 20:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read my introductory comment in the UnDR above. With it understood that I see no basis for any originality test for architecture in Russia, I will grant that this case is less obvious that the one above. We have a plain white (or perhaps gray) arched ceiling, with elliptical cutouts around complex lighting fixtures. Because the ceiling is curved in section, the elliptical cutouts form an interesting curve in three dimensions. The lighting fixtures, undoubtedly specified by the architect, consist of large (~2 metre diameter) glass cylinders centered on the foci of the ellipse closer to the center of the platform. The cylinders contain smaller cylinders which, in turn, contain lamps. So, while less complex than the one in the UnDR above, this ceiling is still a very complex and interesting design. In this case, the side walls behind the tracks are also arced rather than flat, with a different radius and center than the ceiling, and have a very unusual surface finish which contrasts with the ceiling and adds to the overall striking effect of the space.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 Not done The original decision was correct. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Manoir de Moulin Mer.jpg[edit]

I own this photo and also own the copyright, please undelete it --Xanao (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted because you claimed to be the photographer, which is obviously not true, given the age of the image. Please remember that owning a photographic print -- a paper copy of the image -- does not make you the owner of the copyright. If you believe that you do, in fact, own the copyright, please explain who took the photograph and when and how it is that you are now the owner of the copyright.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
This photo was taken by my great-father shortly after he built this house circa 1927 --Xanao (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Same one that died before 1942? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
yes --Xanao (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Иван_Милованов_1.jpg[edit]

Hello.

I would like to report that I am the author of the deleted file. ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD_%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2_1.jpg ) Also, pages: http://www.sports.ru/tribuna/blogs/mfcviz/193302.html (Blog of VIZ-Sinara MFC) and http://www.indoril.com/ipgallery/1305736488/gallery_5_221_674838.jpg (Photo) also belongs to me and created by me. So I (as an author of these works) would like to share this photo on the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

BR, Keman Keman (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Keman is a famous sports photographer in my city. I asked him to upload his photos here. Most of the photos that he has uploaded, are not from his blog and any other website. But obviously all this photos made by one person. I think it is good proof of his words. Knutulhu (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
A formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for details. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have send it on email. Keman (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

So any changes yet? BR, Keman (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing at OTRS yet. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have send a email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org at 21.01, and also resend it right now. Please check it. If I have to do something else instead of this, please tell me. Keman (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

We got it, it is at Ticket #2012012110007303. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Riemann_Hypothesis_and_Robin_Inequality.pdf[edit]

Please undelete this file. This was created by my own work. But I don't require the copyright of this file. I waive it. Therefore I allow to use freely this file. 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Was this published in a peer-reviewed publication elsewhere? If not, it is probably not inside the COM:SCOPE for the project. Perhaps wikiversity would be a more appropriate project. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Not in scope; closed a similar request recently due to this issue. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Joanna Shields 2011.jpg[edit]

This image was deleted under "copyright violation." I took the image and uploaded it to wikimedia commons. Please undelete. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RKWallace (talk • contribs)

Hello, This image has EXIF data saying that the copyright owner is Matt Prince. Please explain how you claim to have taken this image. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


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


File:Marinera trujillo.jpg[edit]

Hello, I've seen that that file was upluaded to wikimedia commons in year 2008 by one user, I don't remember user's name. and little time ago another user requested delation because he said was in copyright violation because the same picture was uploaded in another web site but el 2011, so if the file was uploded first to wikimedia commons in 2008, probably someone else took the pic from wikimedia commons and upload to the other website. Verify the data if it's possible. thanks.

We were first, so restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Samson and Delilah 01.jpg[edit]

Cover of comic book "The Samson and Delilah spetacular Feature" of Fox Feature Syndicate, I have uploaded the full story and algunas pages advertising and an adapted text of Daniel in the Lions' Den, the title is hosted on the website Digital Comic Museum, site hosts comics in the public domain, the Denniss administrator deleted all the pages of history and cover, left only the last pages File: Samson and Delilah 31.jpg File: Samson and Delilah 32.jpg File: Samson and Delilah 33.jpg and File: Samson and Delilah 34.jpg ~ ~ ~ ~

Why is it in the public domain? Can you link to the original source of the comic? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, page 2 of your deleted comic does list Copyright 1950, but do you have proof that it was not renewed? That is the only thing that I need to know before we can think about undeletion. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The source page here states they have done research on it, and deem it public domain. I didn't find a renewal with a quick search, which should have come in 1977 or 1978. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it could be restored (along with the other comics, but I cannot snag them all due to time). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I undeleted all files "Samson and Delilah" from Special:DeletedContributions/Hyju. Anything else? Yann (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thank you very much.Hyju (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:TripleH-Pedigree.jpg [edit]

OTRS Wikimedia

The permission to use this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. Full documentation is available only to OTRS volunteers as ticket #2011101110000304. If you wish to reuse this work elsewhere, please read the instructions at COM:REUSE. If you are a Commons user and wish to confirm the permission, please leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard.

Ticket link: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2011101110000304

 Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:L59 Rueckkehr.jpg[edit]

The copyright tag was false Please use this one {{PD-1923}}

Foto was taken 1917, so long ago before the 1923 deadline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzosft (talk • contribs)

{{PD-1923}} is specifically for US works, which this appears not to be. See Commons:Licensing for an overview of copyrights for different nations. This appears to be from a European country where information such as date of death of the photographer is needed to determine current copyright status. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
you are right, use this one. we have a special EU tag : {Anonymous-EU}--Gonzosft (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
What evidence can you provide for anonymous publication? What >70 years old publication can you provide as a reference? --Martin H. (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If no >70 years old publication exist, {{PD-1923}} doesn't apply since {{PD-1923}} requires publication before 1923, which was slightly more than 70 years ago. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done No evidence was provided for any license presented. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:SMS Goeben Stapellauf.jpg[edit]

The copyright tag was false Please use this one {{PD-1923}}

Foto was taken 1911, so long ago before the 1923 deadline--Gonzosft (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

{{PD-1923}} is specifically for US works, which this appears not to be. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
you are right, use this one. we have a special EU tag : {Anonymous-EU}--Gonzosft (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The caption in Turkish is the launching of this craft on 28 March 1911 in Hamburg. Though the source just said "Turkish Navy" and this has to be a German work at least. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done No evidence was provided for any license presented. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Daniel Logan HS.jpg[edit]

This is Daniel Logan's management. He owns this image, it is his head shot. Why was it deleted? Others have put pics of him on the Wikipedia page that he has not approve. He would like to have his official head shot used on that page, not some image a fan selects. Please explain why his picture, that he owns, is deleted when other terrible looking photos are not.

Thanks, Daniel Logan

Was the file released under an acceptable free license? Did you send permission to OTRS? Regarding its use on Wikipedia, be aware that editors usually don't take too kindly to subjects that want to take control over the content of the article about them; so even if the image is undeleted on Commons, there's no guarantee it will be used instead of another one. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The fan photos was chosen because they taken and released under an acceptable free license. For the Wikipedia policies on biographies, if a person is living and still acting, having a copyrighted photo used over a free one cannot happen. So if you follow the steps at OTRS and give us a license to use, then we can restore it. However, as Prof. Professorson stated, the photo could be restored but it is up to the editors to decide on which photograph to use (but many will chose a professional photo over a fan photo 90% of the time). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Nothing on OTRS User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Logo velopark br.jpg[edit]

This image is the logotype of the Velopark race track and has been liberated to be used in Wikipedia by Velopark themselves. Please, undeletede the file.

Daniel R. Dreyer 02/03/2012

--Danieldreyer (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

For these and the below images, please have Velopark email their permission at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Autodromovelopark.jpg[edit]

Please, undeletede this image. It has been liberated for use by the Velopark race track, owner of the rights who gave full permition for the free use of this media.

Daniel R. Dreyer 02/03/2012 --Danieldreyer (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Kartveloparkpista.jpg[edit]

Please, undelete this image. It has been liberated for use by the Velopark race track, owner of the rights who gave full permition for the free use of this media.

Daniel R. Dreyer 02/03/2012

--Danieldreyer (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 Not done Email not sent to OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:New_Horizons_trajectory_(2011-07-14).jpg[edit]

This file was wrongly deleted. The copyright statement cited does not apply to the New Horizons project. The correct statement is here: New Horizons is a NASA mission and adheres to the space agency's guidelines for image use and reproduction. The latter guideline states that NASA images are not copyrighted. Ruslik (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand the comment above, which cites exactly the same copyright statement that I cited in closing the DR. It reads:
"New Horizons images on this website are generally available for non-commercial educational and public information purposes, so long as their use does not convey NASA's, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory's or Southwest Research Institute's implicit or explicit endorsement of any goods or services. No fee or written permission is required for their use, but please credit images to NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute (unless otherwise noted in the image caption)." [emphasis added]
Since it prohibits commercial use, it is clearly unacceptable here, as I also said in the closing comment.
It goes on to say, as quoted above,
"New Horizons is a NASA mission and adheres to the space agency's guidelines for image use and reproduction."
That does not mean that this image is a NASA image and therefore PD. The NASA guidelines are that NASA images are PD, but that images from other organizations which NASA may use are not PD and those copyrights must be respected.
In addition, the rules of construction require us to honor the specific statement made in the local copyright statement before anything which might be contradictory in the referenced statement. So, even if the NASA policy did contradict the Johns Hopkins statement (which it doesn't), we would be forced to honor the Johns Hopkins policy.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
What you are saying is just silly. The page has clear title: Image Use Policy. Its purpose is to set conditions under which the images can be used, not to state that APL itself follows them in their own image use. And you have failed to provide any evidence that images can not be used for commercial purposes. Ruslik (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
"New Horizons images on this website are generally available for non-commercial educational..." seems pretty clearly a prohibition on commercial use to me.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done It is a NASA mission, not a component of the agency itself. Many organizations are working with this mission so their images are not public domain and are non-commercial use only. Plus, it says at this page that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use." and it was noted that this image, along with other works from that website, are protected by copyright. So, no restoration. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


With respect to Zscout370, I have reopened this discussion. Our colleague, User:Ruslik0, is a steward, and therefore is expected to be well versed in Commons policy. Although I think that the position that Zscout370 and I have taken here is completely correct, I would like to give Rulik0 a final word before closing -- perhaps he has seen something that Zscout370 and I have missed.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done It seems that only thing you are able to do well is to delete something. So, happy deleting. You can begin with this one. I do not think that this silly discussion deserves any further attention from me. Ruslik (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


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


File:LomorSmoth.jpg[edit]

This was a more recent photo of Lamar Smith, Not a parody. It has been wrongly deleted. File:LomorSmoth.jpg. The image in question (LomorSmoth.jpg) has not been modified.

I have run it through a website to check if it has been photoshopped, Here are the results: http://img1.uploadscreenshot.com/images/orig/2/3700272047-orig.jpg

If you do not believe me fair enough, the world is full of censorship and I accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SorryRoss69er (talk • contribs) 14:31, 7 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Yes, the image has been modified. No, your antics are not amusing. Yes, Lamar Smith is an evil person and deserves to be ridiculed, but this is not the right place, and that's got nothing to do with censorship. Now please go away and stop wasting everyone's time. LX (talk, contribs) 15:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
PSKiller.com is a lousy tool for detecting photoshopping. I ran three of my uploads through it, and in all three cases, it missed the fact that the image had been heavily modified. --Carnildo (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done LX pretty much summed it up. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Chilean_Pia.jpg and File:Vestas_Labret_piercing.jpg[edit]

deleted for no good reason. images have appropriate licence--Lamilli (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What happened was that no one went to the Flickr page and actually looked at the files. I am in the process of checking the second image now, File:Chilean_Pia.jpg was restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Both images check out; the problem was that when it was uploaded as a crop, the bot marked it as size not found and place it for deletion. A human review was what was needed to see the images worked out. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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


Template:PD-Arab[edit]

I looked for Template:PD-Arab because the edit summary of the edit that created Template:PD-Kuwait said "Kuwait is now out of PD-Arab". I wanted to compare the two templates. I can't because it has been deleted. The deletion log entry says it was deleted because it was "obsolete". Fine, but surely I could have been redirected somewhere useful, allowing people to examine its revision history? Geo Swan (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The template contained a list of countries with link to that countries copyright law and a year for copyright duration (without refering to what kind of work it covers). The line for Kuwait untill it was removed when PD-Kuwait template was created read [http://www.arabpip.org/arablaws_kwt_authr.htm#2 Kuwait] — 50 years starting from the end of the publication year. There is not much to undelete, all relevant information is in the law. --Martin H. (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Geo Swan, I pasted the entire contents of the template on your talk page. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Contents given to requestor and here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Ramesh Nibhoria.jpg[edit]

This photo is of Ramesh Kumar Nibhoria whose pictures are already available over web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.109.172 (talk • contribs)

There is no such file, and "available over web" has nothing to do with free content, see COM:PRP, points 4 and 5. --Martin H. (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Innocent Arfa Karim.jpg [edit]

Deleted for no good reason. images have appropriate licence. --Yamaaan (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. You simply found a non-free photo on the Internet and attempted to license launder it using your own Flickr account. That's a very good reason to delete it. LX (talk, contribs) 16:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:DDGoldenAge5.jpg[edit]

Comic painel in public domain.Hyju (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


✓ Done but please add a working link to the source image, since it has gone dead since deletion. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:UniversidadAntenorOrrego.jpg [edit]

Hello, I uploaded that file given me by the author of it to use freely. That author is called Trujillo_Rocks and he uploaded and published the image on a web site called skyscrapercity at date April 10th, 2011, 11:53 PM. and some days ago one user requested deletion because he said I took the pic from another web site, wich is false, and he said it was in copyright violation because the same pic was uploaded in that web site he said, but in that website he said was uploaded in date enero 12, 2012, 05:50:05 pm probably by another user that took the fic from skyscrapercity and uploaded there.I have the authorization of the author.Please verify the data and undelete the file if it's possibly. thanks.Eagle c5 (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 Not done Copyright violation. You said it was an own work, now you don't. You uploaded the image here Jan 22nd; the image was on the site January 12th. I don't believe you. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:SEALNetLogo.png[edit]

This file was wrongly deleted. It is a logo for the non-profit organization "Southeast Asian Service Leadership Network" also known as "SEALNet, Inc." I am the creator of this image and a board member of SEALNet. This logo should be licensed under "PD-TEXTLOGO." If this description is not sufficient, please let me know the appropriate license type and information needed to approve undeletion. Dancgreer (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Not sure if it is simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}. It would be better that you send a permission. See COM:OTRS for details. Yann (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
It is certainly far too complex to be PD-TEXTLOGO and, therefore, will require a license. I see that there is a Daniel C. Greer on the organization's Board, so it seems likely that this is OK from a copyright POV. However, since we do not know that User:Dancgreer is in fact the person on the Board, we will require a license from sealnetonline.org using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
There is also the question of whether this image is in scope. I note that it is not in use on sealnetonline.org, so I question if it is actually in use as a logo, or simply a private creation of Mr. Greer.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The triangle logo is indeed used on the site (it is also the favicon of the website) and elements of this logo is used on the official Twitter of the organization (specifically the map). I agree with the others that COM:OTRS permission is certainly needed and that image is not PD-TEXTLOGO. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, I have followed the instructions on the OTRS page and released permissions as appropriate under my authority. Email sent from @sealnetonline.org domain for further verification—and yes, this is our logo, yes, I am the Daniel Greer on the Board of Directors Dancgreer (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done OTRS 2012020910011249 confirmed. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Krantmlverma 2.jpg[edit]

TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY BE CONCERNED

Earlier I had uploaded a file in the name of File:Krantfacebook.jpg which was deleted with the reason "The copyright stands with the face book". Later I saw another file on Wikicommons it was probably taken from Hindi wikimedia and it was freely licenced. I uploaded this file but it was again deleted. I dont know why? If the administration of wikicommons does not want any user to upload any file then why should I or any other user should waste his valuable time. So far as I think this file must be sincerely reviewed by the administrative staff and it should be KEPT or UNDELETED. With humble regards.----Awadhesh.Pandey (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

We want users to upload files they created entirely themself. Or users upload files that the copyright holder voluntarily published under a free license. We not want people to take images from random websites such as facebook and upload them here with untrue claims that the file was published under {{GFDL}} or other such licenses that the copyright holder never agreed too. --Martin H. (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The image from the Hindi Wikipedia in question, http://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0:Dr.Krant63.jpg, seems to be self-published work. I also checked his Facebook and it is this photo that is used for his personal profile. At best, it is going to be a user photo for one project and that is it. But, as far as I am concerned, the licensing is indeed correct. I am going to work on restoring it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Tabe-Mikako.jpg[edit]

this file is not (Copyright violation)


 Not done Yes it is. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Fazura Duta LUX.jpg [edit]

Uploader has changed the Flickr License to cc-by-sa-3.0 (after I tagged the en-wiki one with no permission) http://www.flickr.com/photos/avriliza/5464375550/  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Selim Giray violin.jpg[edit]

Please restore the file Selim Giray violin.jpg. I have the signed release from the photographar. Please let me know which e-mail to send it. Giray22 (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC) giray22

permissions-commons@wikimedia.org User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Selim Giray Conductor.jpg[edit]

I have the required documentation for this file. Please let me know where I can send the photographer's release for the undeletion process. Thank you Muzikarastirmacisi (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Muzikarastirmacisi

permissions-commons@wikimedia.org User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Selim violin 09 for wikipedia.jpg[edit]

I have the documentation to prove rights to this file. Please let me know which e-mail address to sent it. Thank you, Muzikarastirmacisi (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Muzikarastirmacisi

permissions-commons@wikimedia.org User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done OTRS 2012021010013191 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:FranciscoMartínez.jpg[edit]

Es una foto hecha por mí, por lo que tengo todos los derechos sobre la imagen.--Pablobetes (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saxensemblecastro.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos de la imagen para poder publicarla con la licencia de Creative Commons--Pablobetes (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File:FranciscoMartínez.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saxensemblezulema.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saxensembleviajecircular.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saxensembletrescantos.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saxensembletomasmarco2.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saxensembletomasmarco1.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saxensembletomasmarco.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saxensemblesixteenyears.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saxensemblejovenescompositores.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saxensemblehalffter.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saxensembleentornoaluisdepablo.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saxensembleelectroacustic.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saxensembledenisov.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saxensemblecompositoras.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saxensembleclaudioprieto.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saxensembleaniversario.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Saxensemblecastro.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:FranciscoMartínez.jpg[edit]

Tengo todos los derechos sobre esta imagen--Pablobetes (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 Not done All of these photos are watermarked, album covers and just random images from random sources and all to be related to saxophonists. The user is NOT the owner for all of these photos or even have the rights to these photos. Some photos were also edited to removed watermarks. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Shipilovskaya (Moscow Metro) 2 dec 2011.jpg[edit]

According to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shipilovskaya (Moscow Metro) 2 dec 2011.jpg, I request for undeletion since the closing admin Jameslwoodward seems to have ignored keep arguments and failed to make clear what makes the object depicted in the file a work above the architectural threshold of originality. Besides, the starter of the request completely failed to make clear in which way in her opinion "the architects think different" since the cited user page contains no further opinions on this particular object (rather than on Moscow Metro objects which actually have an individual level of architectural work). - A.Savin 17:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Do not undelete. A.Savin clearly fails to distinct concrete blocks from architectural design. Artem Karimov (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I commented on only one of the two Moscow DRs, since my reaction to the two is identical. As far as I know, there is no case law on the level of originality required for an architectural copyright in Russia, therefore, I applied my general knowledge of the subject, which begins in the USA, where all architecture is copyrighted, even the most basic and simple. Therefore, I see no basis on which any building in Russia can be claimed to be too simple or unoriginal for copyright. That is, applying any originality test in Russia for architecture has no basis in statute or case law.
With that said, however, I think this subway platform would pass the originality test even in difficult places such as France. I see in this image a very complicated and interesting ceiling design, with wide diagonal rectangular section arches supporting an arched ceiling. The space between the arches is filled with a drop ceiling of beadboard, with a reveal all around. This may be one of the most original and interesting subway platforms I have ever seen, and, as you will see at User:Jameslwoodward/Travels, I have seen many.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems, as already mentioned in both DR's, rather a product of technical design which is no artwork. Also, it is inacceptable that a user whose main purpose while making the DR's is wikihounding against certain users from RU.WP, has a platform for this behavior here and "trusted" admins who satisfy every DR she starts. There were two topics about it on COM:ANU recently, but it seems not to interest any admin here. Perhaps, you should have read this in detail before feeding multiply blocked trolls from Russian WP? A.Savin 21:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
This is trolling and disruptive behaviour. And you stray off the topic. Artem Karimov (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I think, everyone who will look at your WP block log will realize who is rather trolling here. And of course I may take your behavior in Russian WP into account to analyze your real motivation doing deletion requests. One year ago, you were even an opponent of FOP deletions, now you slander and threaten users who have an opinion in this issue which is other than "all Russian architecture that is not PD must be deleted". Additionally, it looks like the Russian user Florstein whose files you nominated for deletion as well, had formerly some conflicts with you in the Russian WP. Now, don't tell me that it's random that your DR concerns just Florstein whereas there are some hundreds of thousands images on Commons which may be nominated for deletion for the same reason. This has nothing to do with following civil codes or project policies, this is pure wikihounding. - A.Savin 00:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
And this again has nothing to do with licensing issues and policy. Are you trying to wiki-stalk me or what? By the way, considering the problems of ru.wp adminship someone's block log from there means nothing. Artem Karimov (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's wait for the answer from the architects, for I plan to ask them in January.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Stale request; if a reply is received from the architects, then bring it back here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Buchcover der Taschenbuchausgabe 1998 des Romans Microsklaven.jpg[edit]

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung des oben genannten Objekts. Es ist mir nicht ganz ersichtlich, weshalb die Datei gelöscht wurde - schließlich wurde das komplette Bild von mir selbst erstellt. Ich würde auch die entsprechende E-Mail einsenden, in der ich die entsprechende Nutzungsfreigabe erteile - jedoch wurde das Bild vorher bereits gelöscht. Oder würde ich noch die Erlaubnis des Verlages benötigen? Dreschner (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Du bist also der Grafiker, der das besagte Buchcover komplett erstellt und auch die Titelillustration gezeichnet hat und außerdem noch die kompletten Rechte daran hat (keine an den Verlag abgetreten oder so), habe ich das richtig verstanden? Dass solche Personen hier ihre Werke einstellen, ist eher selten, wenn auch nicht unmöglich. Eine bestätigende E-Mail wäre da sicher hilfreich. Gruß --Rosenzweig τ 19:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Stale request. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:OneTax Flyer.jpg[edit]

The file File:OneTax Flyer.jpg is a photograph of a flyer that is covered by Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0. Related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:OneTax Flyer.jpg.

The original pdf for printing can be found here: http://www.killyourtaxes.com/files/one%20tax%20flyer.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.202.131 (talk • contribs)

What use would this even have? Plus, the website link is 404. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Scope not defined, license also not confirmed for the poster. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Huck31.jpg[edit]

To Whom it may concern,

I wish to request the undeletion of the file named above. The image is owned by The Church of London, who publish Huck magazine, and we wish to use it on our Wiki page for Huck.

If there are any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me on andytweddle@thechurchoflondon.com

Kind Regards,

Andy Tweddle--TCOLondon (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just send that, from the @thechurchoflondon.com address, to the email listed at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS and we will take care of it from there. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Being handled at OTRS 2012021010007573, but will probably not be reuplaoded due to copyright concerns. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


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

Niccolo cosme 01.jpg[edit]

Niccolo cosme 01.jpg this is my property and I have understood and agreed on the rules 02/14/12 --Tls2012 (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 Not done Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


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

The Brotherhood of Men[edit]

The Brotherhood of Men

this is my property and i have given wiki commons the rights to upload and use this image

--Tls2012 (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

02/14/12


 Not done Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Bill McLeod Jacobsen.jpg[edit]

This is a none-copyright photo i taken by photographer Álvur Haraldsen who has granted permission to use this photo on Wikipedia

This means you uploaded it with false information (own work by Rolantwaagdam). Not upload files with wrong information. Permission for use in Wikipedia regretably is not a sufficient permission, see Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Martin H summed it up. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Curtis Lovell II and Paris Hilton.jpg[edit]

Dear Wikipedia

I am writing on behalf of Curtis Lovell II a wikipedia page about him and I am getting text and photos from him, with his permission. This picture is his property and I have gotten permission to use it. Both the copyright e-mail addresses to ask questions don't seem to be working. How can I add photos that are his property and he is allowing me to use in the wikipedia page???

Thank you --Thor0407 (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 Not done It is not his property; it belongs to that of the TV show producers of "The Simple Life." We cannot have screenshots of television on the Commons at all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


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

Chinese Hard-line group [edit]

Hard-line group in China is really there! check on the Internet:Li Xiannian dies or Wang Zhen dies or Peng Zhen dies,you'll see that everywhere it says that they were hard-liners.Please don't delete this page!Also please unblock me on Wikipedia so I could edit, I want to improve your writings on President Li Xiannian. Please unblock me!


 Not done We don't host articles or advocate for cross project unblocking. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Aerea Limeira.jpg[edit]

This picture is under the license of Limeira´s City Hall. It was taken by one of its photographers. My father is the mayor of Limeira and allowed me to put the picture in wikipedia. By the way, the picture is already in the internet because of us. There is no reason for deletion. Please, undelete it. If you need any information of the its license, just let me know and I will help you get the answer that you need to put this picture again on Wikipedia Commons. Thank you very much.

Muriloberbert (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 Not done Yet you said it was an own work. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:PA00088801_-_Tour_Eiffel_vue_depuis_le_Palais_de_Chaillot.jpg[edit]

Previous discussion at:

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

Except the judge's ruling seemed to indicate that even the static lighting display constituted a "work of the mind". There is a discussion on Category talk:Eiffel Tower at night which followed your earlier one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that, but there was a similar discussion there before. The problem with your extrapolation is that it could apply to most night views of France .. --  Docu  at 18:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The judge's ruling was cour d'appel a souverainement retenu que la composition de jeux de lumière destinés à révéler et à souligner les lignes et les formes du monument constituait une "création visuelle" originale, et, partant, une oeuvre de l'esprit. That does not sound specific to the light show, unfortunately, and the previous discussion really didn't touch on that aspect. It sounds to me like the complicated lighting job they do, choosing which parts of the structure to emphasize and not, constituted a copyrightable work in France at least in that case. No, I don't like the ruling, and no I would not extrapolate it to someone sticking up some floodlights, but... it's the ruling. And the judge was ruling on the specific lighting on the Eiffel tower itself, so it's not much of an extrapolation -- the ruling involved the exact work in question -- unless I'm misreading the ruling (having to go through translators). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it does and so seems to think the author of the description at Category:Eiffel Tower at night. --  Docu  at 08:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
That was a recent edit, and the discussion which led to it focused on the court's description of the photographs in question, and not on the actual conclusion in the ruling, as described in the second part of the discussion on the talk page. I don't see any further discussion as to why the general conclusion in the court case would not apply to the normal nighttime lighting setup. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not appropriate to close the review of your own closure yourself. You haven't even bothered to comment on the arguments brought up. --  Docu  at 18:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I said before it was a copyright violation; Clindberg already had stated such. There were several other reviews of similar images and we have court cases that state as such. Until that court decision is reversed, there is nothing we can do at all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me repeat it:
  • It's not appropriate to close the review of your own closure yourself.
  • You haven't even bothered to comment on the arguments brought up.
In addition: If you write "we have court cases that state as such", can you provide links to these "court cases". It appears that you might not even understand the issue at hand. --  Docu  at 18:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The court cases linked on the category page. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I must be blind. Current version of the category page is Special:Permalink/62594865. It includes just one link to a court case about a light show. --  Docu  at 18:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Kept deleted. --Dereckson (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:PA00088801MG_7339_Tour_Eiffel_by_night.jpg[edit]

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


Kept deleted. --Dereckson (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


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

OTRS undeletions[edit]

Please undelete the following:

Thanks! King of ♠ 00:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
I restored these files. --Dereckson (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:The largest territory of the Ottoman Empire.png[edit]

The last deletion request was closed with the following comment : We do not take sides. The problem is that this map does not represent the point of view of any "side" even the most extremist Ottomanist irredentists do not display such a biased cartography. So even for historiographical matters, this map is inaccurate. Nobody ever claims that Tamanrasset, Addis Ababa or Oman. Therefore, if someone knows why this map is useful here on Commons, please tell me.--Kimdime (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You are looking for http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests. This only deals with images that have been deleted and need to be restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This is the place for Undeletion Requests. You may open a new Deletion Request on the subject map, but this is not the place to discuss the merits of that.
Obviously the creator thinks the map is useful. Therefore he or she is the other "side" of the argument. In many discussions of the accuracy of territorial maps, both sides believe that the other side's arguments are ridiculous, so the argument you make is one we have all heard many times over many different maps. Often it is impossible to decide which side is correct -- we are not experts on the subject -- which is why we have a firm rule that we do not take sides in such discussions and will not delete maps such as this one.
Aside from that policy, I note that the map is in use in three places. We never delete files that are in use on other WMF projects.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
All right, sorry for the inconvenience, would you help me with the creation of the correct request? I did not really get how all those subpages work. --Kimdime (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
To Jameslwoodward. I see your point. Could you give me a link indicating the possible rationals for deletions? That would help me. Thanks for your time.--Kimdime (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
To start a new DR, go to the page you want to nominate and click on "Nominate for deletion" in the left margin, and enter a reason. That will do all of the work for you. Note, however, that if you do that on this map without a new good reason (a copyright violation, or something similar), it will probably be a speedy close, for the reasons I gave above. And, no, I can't give you a link, because the only reason we delete in-use images is copyvio, which is obviously not the case here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, actually, you could have pointed this link : Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view]] which summarizes what you said. As a (mainly) Wikipedia user, I'm not aware of those specific policies, time to learn :) Regards--Kimdime (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't cite that because you asked for "a link indicating the possible rationales for deletions?" COM:NPOV is just the opposite.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong location. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Mapa Scotland from the air.jpg [edit]

I was hoping to use this image on a page I am preparing on a new subject for inclusion on Wikipedia. It has, however, been deleted from my Sandbox because no licence was stated. I have been to Google via the Google Earth website, answered a series of questions and, if I have understood their instructions correctly, am allowed to use the image as long as I display the attribution in an approved form. However, I would not know which licence to choose from the Wikipedia list (Attribution 2.5 or 3.0?). I would appreciate advice on this and, if it is judged a legitimate procedure, would like the file to be reinstated.

Here are the instructions from the automated Googel page after answering their questions:

Unless mentioned in your results, Google does not need to provide you explicit permission to move forward with your project and no contact with Google is necessary so long as you follow the requirements mentioned.

•Attribute Google (e.g. © 2011 Google) •Make attribution readable to the average reader or viewer (e.g. avoid micro-sized letters) •For screenshots, the Google or or Google Maps logo is not required but attribution must always be present.

Google Maps are copyrighted and not under an acceptable free license and never will be. The main thing is never upload a map or image from Google Maps. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
You can find the (completely non-free) terms of Google Maps here. LX (talk, contribs) 10:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Unfree Google Map. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Lars Mikael Åkerfeldt.jpg[edit]

Description
English: Akerfeldt Performing at Maldives capital city Male'.
Date
Source http://www.flickr.com/photos/xcripted/6851704125
Author xcripted

Why was the photo deleted? it was taken by me on 07th February 2012 in Male' Maldives — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammu21 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 18 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Because the photo is marked as non-free (© All Rights Reserved) on Flickr, and Commons only accepts free content (that is: content that can be used with or without modifications by anyone for any purpose, including commercial purposes). If http://www.flickr.com/people/xcripted/ is your account and you're willing to publish the file under a free license, you need to apply a free Creative Commons license (Attribution or Attribution Share-Alike) to the file there. LX (talk, contribs) 11:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Copyrighted on Flickr as ARR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


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


File:Ottokoch.jpg - see talk page for OTRS permission received[edit]

File was deleted for missing source/permission, but permission is now received. Edoderoo (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:British Israelism.jpg[edit]

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

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Israelism.jpg is not about any copyright concerns but the same image is used at http://silenced.co/tag/british-israelism/ /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I am going to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose on a few grounds. First, more related to the Commons, the license is wrong and we cannot host it here under it. One of the images it was derived from, File:London-lion.jpg, is licensed under a Creative Commons license. You can make PD into Creative Commons, but not the other way around. In this case, the deleted image is PD while File:London-lion.jpg is under Creative Commons-Attribution. The upload here was first in 2009; the post pointed out by Pieter was done in July and August of this year. So while it is not a copyright violation from that blogpost, the license must be changed if the image is restored by this discussion. Second, it is a juxtaposition of various images. For those who cannot see the image; it is a lion with a Union Flag backdrop with a Bible quote (Isiah 24:15) in Hebrew. This is not an historic image and was specifically designed to decorate the article, which was removed in March of 2010. Now if it was a user image that was used in a userbox for their own personal purposes, I see no issues with it. Yet, it was specifically designed for an article and, using our policies on COM:SCOPE as a guide, the users do not want this photoshopped image in the article and was never reintroduced since March 2010. I don't see how having it on the Commons would benefit us or any other project since it was more of a user creation to make an article have some kind of image. Now if we find something historic relating to this, then by all means lets use it. But this, no. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think. We don't have an automatic ban on self-made art, as far as I know. Lots of icons would fall under that. We don't want to be an online repository of someone's art they are just trying to showcase, but creations like this to represent a subject I think are fine. It's the kind of thing a TV news station would use as a background to indicate a particular topic, maybe a book cover for some related topic, or projects could use as an icon for some British-in-Palestine-related stuff . Maybe Wikinews could use it, or Wikibooks, or a WikiProject, or things like that. I'm not sure it's a good idea on the Wikipedia article, since there is no real significance to the image itself from the sounds of it -- I would tend to agree that it is not encyclopedic. However, Wikimedia has many non-encyclopedia projects, and even Wikipedia has some potential uses outside of actual articles. This type of thing is in scope, I think. The licensing issue mentioned by Zscout370 should be addressed, but is not a reason for deletion. A CC-BY license does *not* bind derivative works to use the same license (CC-BY-SA does), so the author of the remaining work can license the rest how they want. However, the attribution section needs to mention that the lion portion is *not* PD, but rather CC-BY, and it must mention the author of the original. The same would go for the author of the flag image, which is also CC-BY. Those two original authors need to be attributed on the image page, and the uploader as well (if they wish, which I assume they would, even if PD). This is a situation where removal from Wikipedia should not result in deletion from Commons, I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it's fit for the WP article. Images make articles nicer and more attractive and readable. Not least the lead section is served by an image, and it should be something that covers the subject and not merely a small aspect of it, like one of the people mentioned in the article. It's custom to use images that are not directly informative in any strict sense, but captures the subject. For instance, Present, Past, Future, Humanities or Pleasure have illustrations that make us none the wiser. WP policy says that anything that improves WP is accepted, so if the article is better with the image, it should be there. But this is, I think, something the WP editors should be given opportunity to decide about. The removal went unnoticed; if the attention of many editors are drawn to the image, we will know their opinions. As for the licensing, I'd be happy to license it under whatever license which is appropriate. --Jonund (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    • With self-made images like this, you run into WP:original research issues on encyclopedia articles, I'd think. Most of the images you link to are encyclopedic on their own, and were chosen as being representative. Finding an illustration from an old book would be better I'm guessing. But yes, that is a discussion for en-wiki. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The rationale for original images seems to be that they should not "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". --Jonund (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As I said, I have no sympaties for British Israelism. Apparently, you think I'm a liar. I find such an accusation outrageous, and however you assess the value of the image, you should be able to see that it can be used for other purposes than soapboxing. I'm not able to upload the image to WP, since I deleted it after I uploaded it to Commons. But maybe an administrator can hand the image over to me? --Jonund (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In fairness to me, I am not accusing of anything; I am merely commenting on the strong political sentiment which the image projects. Lets be honest with each other, and agree that when this image was created, it was intended to arouse political sentiment of some sort, for where I come from, the combination of the Union Jack and the Southbank Lion would interpreted as symbols of nationalism. If we also consider the file British lion and Union flag.jpg, we can see that you have created this file at an earlier date for use with the userbox BritishNationalism. Lets be clear, I am not making a personal accusation, I am merely commenting on the content of the image and the purpose to which such an image could be put, which in these two cases could only be soapboxing. I have put the other file up for deletion on the same grounds: Commons is not a hosting site for soapboxing, regardless of whether it is for or against a particular cause. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have explained that my sole purpose for creating the image was to illustrate the article British Israelism, which is about a subject I found exotic and entertaining, and I have no sympaties for British Israelism. Yet you persist in claiming that it was created for soapboxing. I fail to see how I could have been soapboxing without lying when I explained my motives. Now, I'm also expected to admit that "it was intended to arouse political sentiment of some sort" in order to be regarded as honest. I never had such intentions, however. I have no connection to Britain nor to its empire. To a foreigner, the combination of the Union Jack and the Southbank Lion is a national - not a nationalist - symbol. Until now, I thought that you were accusing me of religious, rather than political, soapboxing. British lion and Union flag.jpg was an earlier version intended for the British Israelism article. The userbox wasn't created by me, but by Mender one and a half year after I uploaded the image to Commons. I assume good faith, but you seem to have difficulties listening to others. That is manifest in your inability to see that there are other possible uses than soapboxing. As you have been banned from WP (a significant part of the reason being your zeal to delete articles without sufficient reason), I think you should seriously reconsider your attitudes. --Jonund (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Your intentions may be good, but clearly we will have to agree to disagree on the purpose to which this image could be put. I suggest you put your money where your mouth is (so to speak), by uploading the image into Wikipedia under its existing licence, and embed it in an article there. If you succeed, your arguements that it is educational will be vindicated, and mine will have been shown to be mistaken. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It is already proven that the file is "realistically useful for an educational purpose", in this case, illustrating w:British Israelism. If Wikipedia will prefer to use another image instead this would not change the potential usefulness of this file. --M5 (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No, "self-published political banner designs" are okay on Commons as long as they are realistically useful for an educational purpose. For example, images in Category:Montages of war are self-published and political. Moreover, we have competing composite images on the same subject: File:1960s decade montage.png File:1960s montage.jpg File:1960s montage.png; each "intended to arouse political sentiment" in different ways, and some can argue for one image over the other, but such discussions have no place in Commons per COM:NPOV: "Examples of subject matter disputes that are not appropriate here include:... Photographs: “This is propaganda”". --M5 (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support "We don't keep personal art here" rationale in Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Israelism.jpg is wrong, we keep a lot of composite art in Category:Montages including political, see examples above. Allegations of "political soapboxig" should not be discussed here per COM:NPOV. File can realistically be used for illustrating British Israelism article (which proved by its past and current usage) which is enough to keep it per COM:SCOPE regardless of its future usage in Wikipedias. --M5 (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have no interest in the article nor the illustration, but I don't see any reason to delete this image. I also note that it appears to have been restored to the wn:wp article as a local upload, and has been tagged by a bot as a suggested move to Commons. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done It has been reuploaded to en.wp and was indeed used on the article, so scope has been defined. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Drina'-1 Tapai.jpg[edit]

Brisana slika 2011, November 29th[edit]

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

(Slowenisch - Wrote in Slovenian language)

Brisana slika 2012[edit]

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

You sent it to the wrong email; that is if you wanted to Volunteer for OTRS (specifically for the German language). Please resent that email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and we can sort it out there. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
We got the email at 2012020310009129 but Slovene is a language I am not good at. I let someone know that it needs a Slovene speaker for this email. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I left a reply about the issue on my talk page. — Yerpo Eh? 08:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 Not done The discussion at User talk:Yerpo#Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Drina.27-1_Tapai.jpg turned out that the image does not have sufficient permission for the Commons, so it will not be restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:BengtWarne2.jpg[edit]

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

Are you sure the file was there? I can't find any deletion log for it. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 10:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It was deleted for not having a license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There are two problems:

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

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


 Not done No decision was made about a license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Spice Pink Shirt.jpg[edit]

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

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

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


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

Restauración de dos fotos propias[edit]

File:Preciadoscaras.jpg File:Preciados.jpg

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

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

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

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


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

Toldos el Parque[edit]

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

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

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


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


File:Jeremy Shaw.jpg[edit]

Hi there,

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

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

Thanks very much,

bmawson

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

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


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

[edit]

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

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

This page is for requesting the undeletion of files that have been deleted, so this is off topic, but here we are. Until now neither of these files had been deleted. I deleted the first because we do not keep two copies of the same image in different sizes. Wiki markup makes it easy to set an image in whatever size the editor chooses, so it is not necessary to keep smaller versions.
The remaining image falls into one of two places, Either
  • it is, as you say, your own creation and is, therefore, personal artwork that is out-of-scope because it has no reasonable educational use, or
  • it is the logo of an organization which you have copied without permission, and therefore cannot be kept without permission. This would apply even if you has actually created the logo since you would have transferred the copyright after completion.
So, unless you can show that it is the logo of an organization that has an article in one of the Wikipedias and that the organization has given permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS, then it will be deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Oleq.jpg[edit]

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

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

 Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Noma Victim2.jpg[edit]

I am creating a wikipedia entry for the charity I work for (on behalf of it), the pictures ive aploaded are from the official website of the charity, therefore the charity has got all the copyrights. can you please undelete them? and why the wikipedia commons would not let me appload any more pictures? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daliafacingafrica (talk • contribs) 12:48, 16 February 2012‎ (UTC)

You claimed that you were the photographer:
source = own work
author=Daliafacingafrica
but we found the image at http://www.morocco-travel.com/morocco/FacingAfrica/ where it has a copyright notice. In order to restore the image here we will need a license from the copyright owner using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
As for this question:
"and why the wikipedia commons would not let me appload any more pictures?"
you have not been blocked. Some of your images have been deleted for the same reason as the one above. You are free to upload more images, but in every case you must pay attention to copyright.
Are you actually the photographer of File:Progression of noma6.jpg? If not, you must follow the OTRS procedure for it and any like it also.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Nothing on OTRS User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Logo-swissinternationalhotels.png[edit]

This is an undelete request for the picture 'Logo-swissinternationalhotels.png'. The picture was uploaded incorrect and therefore has been removed. The picture has been copied from the official website of the company and is used in the article to identify the the organization Swiss International Hotels & Resorts, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article. The persmission to upload this picture to wikipedia has been received from Swiss International Hotels & Resorts.

Please advise for my future work with commons how this picture should have been marked in order to be uploaded correctly.

EkaterinaTerentyeva (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about the logo at the top of this page, I'm quite sure {{PD-textlogo}} applies, so no permission is required and it should be restored. Prof. Professorson (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Although I see now that en:Swiss International Hotels & Resorts has been deleted a while back, so I'm not sure it would be in scope here. Prof. Professorson (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The upload was fine itself; you can always change the text once the image is uploaded. Though if there is no article for it on Wikipedia, then what use would it serve here on the Commons? Also, I believe {{PD-textlogo}} could work for this image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done If the article comes back on the English Wikipedia, please come back here and we will reconsider the undeletion of the image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


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

cryxthine Evora[edit]

--Cryxthinevora (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)cryxthinevora

No. The pages you created with your name/username aren't going to be undeleted. You are welcome to edit User:Cyxthinevora within reason, and you may upload a limited number of images for your user page here and on other Wikimedia projects, but you may not start a gallery in mainspace about yourself.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


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


Buttanutt[edit]

File:Full file of Buttanutt including all pictures .jpg I have permission from Tanya Kabore to use the photos

(Buttanutt (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC))


 Not done No such image, user never uploaded such image and could not find anything in the deletion log. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


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


File:TTHSBulldog.gif[edit]

I'm requesting the undeletion of TTHSBulldog.gif for the following reasons: First, I created the image based on an image originally created for a government institution. Second, I work for said government institution and created the image as part of my job duties. --Yayfrogs (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The institution is Green B. Trimble Technical High School in Fort Worth, Texas.
The Federal institutions (and the Florida ones) are indeed in public domain. But this is a Texas school. --Dereckson (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done A derivative of a clipart image at http://cacprintwear.com/Artwork/Mascots/Bulldog%201.jpg User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Wanless.jpg[edit]

Hello, Can File:Wanless.jpg be undeleted, please? The file was originally uploaded to en.wikipedia on October 2, 2010. It is used in the article William James Wanless on en.wikipedia. A copy of the file was uploaded to Commons by a bot on February 17, 2012. It was deleted from Commons on February 18, 2012. The deletion comment was "Uploader requested deletion of unused file". Of course, technically, the en.wikipedia article still uses the local en.wikipedia file until that local file gets deleted there because it duplicates the Commons file. When the en.wikipedia file gets deleted, the article will use the Commons file if it exists. The description page of the en.wikipedia file has a "now on Commons" tag saying that the file is now supposed to be on Commons and that, for that reason, the local en.wikipedia copy can be deleted. If the en.wikipedia file gets deleted there because the file is supposed to be on Commons, but if at the other end the Commons file has been deleted because technically the Commons file was not used before the en.wikipedia file got deleted, then it will be an absurd situation where the file will not be available at all. Anyway, even if that file was unused on a Wikimedia project, that would not seem to be a reason to delete it from Commons, as it has a potential educational interest. It can also be noted that this file shows a larger portion of the original photograph and that another file on Commons, File:Sir Wanless.jpg, is a cropped and retouched version of the same original photograph. That would seem another reason to keep the file, which is closer to the original. Thanks in advance. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


✓ Done What happened is one of the templates copied from en.wikipedia was seen as a call to delete the image on here; the templates there and here are completely different. I restored the image and fixed what seemed to be the problem templates caused by the bot upload. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Stade Louis Michel.jpg[edit]

I request the undeletion of this file, Stade Louis Michel.jpg, because I'm the autor of this photo, and I autorize wikipidedia to use it.

The reason for deleted this photo is that it is on this website (http://www.fcsete34.online.fr/ligue2_2005) but, it's normal because, it's my photo on this site ...

Can you restaure this photo please ?

Sincerely


 Not done Copyright violation: the website said the work is from 2006 and you just took the photo now? I don't believe you. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Olongapo city hall 01.jpg[edit]

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

That page says "Image source by: DOT Region III". I see no reason to conclude it's under the general site license. Wikis should always be taken carefully; people upload other's photos to Wikis all the time, and few of them are terribly careful about licenses.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, the image source was released by the Department of Tourism (Philippines) in Region III and it is a government agency of the Philippines.
According to the Philippine Copyright law, Section 176: No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines.
I believe that the copyright laws of other countries also applies to Wikipedia and Commons. --War1addict (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
"176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit." We cannot host their works because it is non-commercial in nature and works must be available for commercial reuse. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
That seems incredibly self-contradictory. If no copyright subsists, how can they set conditions on reuse? - Jmabel ! talk 16:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I really wish I had an answer for that, but that is part of their copyright code and it makes no sense to me. We currently have PD-PhilippinesGov redirect to non-commercial. I have been dealing with this issue for several years and it still hasn't became clearer in those years. I honestly feel it is about time we really need to set this issue straight by asking the WMF legal counsel. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. {{PD-PhilippineGov}} is not a redirect, and was kept per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippineGov. Best we could tell, the other restriction is a non-copyright restriction, with a special right created by that section of the law. It would apply inside the Philippines, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Because http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:PD-PhilippinesGov&redirect=no redirects to the non-commercial template. Though, if the work is non-free inside the source country, then how can we include such images on the Commons or are we making an exception for this case? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Because they may be Commons:Non-copyright restrictions? The "free" vs "not free" part of that is difficult, to be sure. The non-commercial restrictions do not exist for "statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character", at least per the letter of the law, so the tags should exist at least for those items. Note that the template I linked is different than the one you link -- no "s". So, that is a template which is in use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and merged the templates so it will read with the "S" (but still not redirect to the non-commercial template). I agree that "statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in meetings of public character" is public domain and has no issues about that. It is the photographs and other works with the non-commercial clause I am still confused over. It reminds me a lot of the New Horizon images I am dealing with now is that even though it is a NASA mission and project, a non-commercial copyright claim was made (I know it is a different issue, but still the same problems). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It's definitely confusing. I'm sure it's confused some of their judges as well ;-) It seems, technically, to be an additional right that the government gave themselves. It was added by Marcos in the early 1970s, so he may not have really cared about the legal niceties, but it's still in the law today (they had previously inherited the U.S. lack of copyright on government works). Whether that moves it to being "non-free"... that is yet another discussion, and more of a Commons or WMF policy thing. I don't think it is enforceable via international copyright, though I suppose the Philippine government could still attempt to make a foreign copyright claim despite the lack of their own copyright (as the U.S. has occasionally claimed the same right, though I'm not sure they've actually ever tried, and it's dubious particularly in countries which have the rule of the shorter term). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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


 Not done There are a lot of copyright concerns; the uploads here the user claimed as an own work and yet pointed to the Wiki once caught. Plus, we do not use Wikis as sources for images because of the instability of the sourcing. I have checked online to see if this is a DOT images and there is no independent confirmation of this. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Pampaphoneusbiccaifolha.jpeg[edit]

This picture was made by the São Paulo newspaper called Folha de S.Paulo. I sent the email to them asking for permition to use the picture and they allowed me to. They said that the picture is to public domain and can be used on wikipedia with no problem. But they wanted to be indicated as source and owner of the picture, that´s all.

I sent and received an answer from Susana Singer, in this email: ombudsman@uol.com.br If it is need, I can provide their authorization from the last email. As consequence, there is no need for deletion of this picture and I request its undeletion.

Thank you very much. Muriloberbert (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Forward that email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. We also need to have a license for that image from them. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Nothing on OTRS User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


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

Solicitud de restauracion de la imagen 1-Balboa.jpg ----de 1 balboa moneda de panama que no aparese en la web[edit]

cesar2039

solicito que se untilice una imagen que e proporcionado de libre uso dada a wikimedia de un balboa de Panamá........

firma Cesar2039 (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Good evening,
According Commons:Deletion requests/File:1-Balboa.jpg, the image has been deleted because the uploader claimed it were photographer, which is apparently false, given an user found the same picture here.
If you need it for your personal use, you can download it on this page.
If you need it for a Wikimedia project, you could send a mail to the only mail still in activity on their site (it seems they disabled their contact form recently) - advertising@colnect.com - to request an OTRS permission. More details on Commons:OTRS/es.
If you've further questions, I will be glad to assist you. --Dereckson (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
It was the same image uploaded twice by two different users in the same year; the first was missing permission and the other was a copyright violation. Plus, the image is of a coin from Panama, and from looking at their copyright law, currency images cannot be uploaded. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Copyright issues User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Talib budget 2011.jpg[edit]

The screenshot is taken from a public video that is recorded from a tv channel was aired and not listed as private.
Also, the usage of the content, Talib budget picture is for the profile of the same person.
Kindly undelete at your earliest.
Thanks.

Good evening,
This video is copyrighted, because it's an original work. The fact it's a public channel isn't relevant on this matter. You'll find more information about copyright on en:copyright or on hi:प्रतिलिप्यधिकार. --Dereckson (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Copyright issues User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


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

Five flickr files[edit]

  1. File:UP_Diliman_Oblation_Plaza_in_2011.JPG
  2. File:UP_Carillon_Tower_and_Carillon_Plaza.jpg
  3. File:UP_Diliman_Sunken_Garden_in_2012.jpg
  4. File:National_Science_Complex.jpg
  5. File:Melchor_Hall.JPG

The licenses of all these files are now in free license at source. Requesting undeletion. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done. --ZooFari 04:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Followup. I created Category:University of the Philippines Diliman and a DR for the Oblation statues, Commons:Deletion requests/Guillermo Tolentino statues. --Dereckson (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Research- alternative crops.jpg[edit]

OTRS 2012011810011788 - I undeleted the en-wiki image and then the "now commons" was revealed. I'll delete the en-wiki one again when this one is restored.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


Restored. --Dereckson (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:My work ntr.jpg[edit]

i have already sent a request to wiki team and i have stated that it was my own picture taken by myself when ntr attended a pressmeet i have also sent a permision regarding

We are better with File:Jr-NTR-As-Malabar-Gold-Brand-Ambassador-Stills-13 (1).jpg which is the same photo, which not contains all this "my work" blabla, and which preserves the exact original filename from http://thebollywoodgallery.com/jr-ntr-as-malabar-gold-brand-ambassador-stills/ ..... Given that filename: you DID copy it from that website. --Martin H. (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Copyright violations User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:one man,one desire!.jpg [edit]

can't upload new images. --Arghya Roy (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 2012-02-25

And thats ok. What happened: You copied an image of some toy, see facebook, to your own flickr account http://www.flickr.com/photos/75457184@N03/6781899958/. Now you try to claim that the file is free because it was published on flickr under a free license. Regretably the uploader on flickr, namely you, isnt allowed to upload this content to flickr nor is he allowed to publish it under any license. Thats an attempt of flickr washing or license laundering. --Martin H. (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Martin H pretty much said it all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Alcatraz logo 2012.jpg [edit]

I believe this work is freely licensed — Preceding unsigned comment added by لطرش احمد الهاشمي (talk • contribs) 09:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The scene is a view of Alcatraz island, with the water in foreground. There is "ALCATRAZ" written on the island.
As a photography, this is above the threshold of originality. Do you have any other element (e.g. a proof the island footage is in public domain)? --Dereckson (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
You believe wrong. See http://www.fox.com/terms.php. LX (talk, contribs) 10:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Copyright violation User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Alcatraz (TV series).jpg[edit]

I believe this work is freely licensed — Preceding unsigned comment added by لطرش احمد الهاشمي (talk • contribs) 09:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The scene is the same of the one described above, with in incrustation, the series cast.
What makes you think it's freely licensed? --Dereckson (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done It is not. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


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

File:FarumCatsShield.png[edit]

The shield is made by Troels Ottesen, chairman of the Farum Cats Australian Football Club and is used by him and myself on several websites, such as http://farumcats.dk. As I am the webmaster and board member of Farum Cats, I believe that I know when and where the club logo can be used. The likeliness of the shield to the shield of the Geelong Football Club is due to the two clubs strategic agreement of 2002, where the Farum Lions became the Farum Cats, as described here: http://www.dafl.dk/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=17 . Since 2002 the Farum Cats club shield has always been an alteration of the Geelong Cats club shield, and that is why we should be allowed to display the logo on Wikipedia!

With the Commons, logos are generally not allowed on Commons because they are copyrighted. We do not accept any copyrighted pictures, even if they are going to be useful. Please see Commons:Fair use. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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


One Time India[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali432 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please undelete my page it is not having any problem if it was having any problem you must add a template i would solve the problem but you directly deleted it

Hi,
This kind of article One Time India is to be published on Wikipedia (if their notoriety requirements are met), not on Wikimedia Commons. --Dereckson (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Articles are not welcome on the Commons; please use Wikipedia if you want to make or edit articles. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Press Release - Hitavada (Future Supplement) 3rd August 2010.jpg][edit]

I hereby affirm that OCTAVE Business School (www.octavesbm.in) is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of all articles published in local daily the Hitavada at Nagpur ( India) - https://picasaweb.google.com/114984096348999142407/AtriclesInHitavadaNewspaper https://picasaweb.google.com/114984096348999142407/ArticlesInTimesOfIndia#5625837465459464914 This undelete request is for these particular image files which is a part of all publications above ( link): 1. (File:Press Release - Hitavada (Future Supplement) 3rd August 2010.jpg) 2. File:Times of India (Education Times) - Brand and Branding in simple words.jpg I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. 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 claimed to have been made by 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.\

Akbar Kamal (akbar@octavesbm.in) Director OCTAVE Business School (www.octavesbm.in/team.html) 27th Feb 2012

OTRS 2012022710008041 (for those who are able to deal with it today). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
OTRS ticket 2012022710008041 is a CC-BY-SA-3.0 release, however these are apparently press releases and can still be argued as out of scope for Commons. I suggest undeletion and then there can be a sensible discussion about how to migrate the content if necessary. -- (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done and marked with OTRS pending. User:Zscout370 (Return fire)


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


Greenpeace images[edit]

I rang Greenpeace and they said that their images can be used for Wikipedia. Their Copyright rules are very clear. How dare someone delete images from Greenpeace based on a bogus copyright agreement which does not even exist!! I am very upset that these images have been deleted for no reason. They are Greenpeace1.jpg and Greenpeace2.jpg. Please restore them and the pages that they were used on. I don't want a debate about this. There is no debate. Thank you.

By the way, Greenpeace will write officially to Wikipedia and inform Wikipedia that can use all Greenpeace images. So I do not expect this sort of treatment again against Greenpeace or me. Wallie (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Our copyright rules are also very clear. Permission for Wikipedia only ({{wikipediaonly}}) is not sufficient for a file to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. Commons only accept content that can be used in modified or unmodified form by anyone for any purpose, including commercial purposes. That is not permitted by Greenpeace's terms. So indeed, not much to debate. LX (talk, contribs) 16:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done The terms at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/Help/copyright2/ forbid commercial reuse. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)