Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-09

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:OCEANA Live.jpg and File:OCEANA Live @ Festival Rock En Seine.jpg[edit]

Please undelete per OTRS permission in ticket:2012010410008461. --Krd 16:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 19:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


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

Purple Johnz.JPG This is not a copyright violation![edit]

My name is Stefano Righi and my stage name is Johnson Righeira. I am a musician, part of a duo called RIGHEIRA, well known in the 80's for a couple of international hits as VAMOS A LA PLAYA and NO TENGO DINERO. So I don't understand why an image posted by me and regarding a portrait of myself could be a copyright violation. Anyway you can contact me at info@righi.name, mob +39 393 3377097. Please let me know ASAP. Thank you and best regards.


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 01:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Мой Кордай.jpg [edit]

--ArmanManap (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 Not done No reason provided. Yann (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Tiffany_Doorn_Miss_Washington_USA_2006.jpg [edit]

Hi -

I would like to request that the file below be undeleted. I won the Miss Washington USA 2006 competition, and as part of winning this pageant I acquired the rights to this image. Prior to uploading this new image, you had another image up there that came from a party unknown to me (and that did not resemble me very well honestly), so I would like to update this picture with one that looks more like me and that I have the rights to. Please send me an email at tiffdoorn@gmail.com if you would like to discuss in more detail or have additional questions. Thank you,

Tiffanydoorn (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


✓ Done, but with a important request: please send an email to COM:OTRS and tell them what you told us so that we can keep a record of your consent to host this photo on Commons (otherwise, the file might be re-deleted as missing formal evidence of permission). Thank you for taking the time to donate this image! -FASTILY (TALK) 07:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

File:TCON poster.jpg[edit]

Well, I am the owner of the file whoever deleted. I even made it and would therefore request to undelete it. I do appreciate the fast reaction in one direction i do hope that it will be also as fast in the other direction. Thank you.--Colorcaptain (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Get in touch with COM:OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 20:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Cynthia pinot.jpg undelete[edit]

File:File:Cynthia pinot.jpg

I need your help to "undelete" photo. I own the copyright. I am Cynthia Pinot. the reason listed was my website, it is my website.--Pinot7 (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please get in touch with COM:OTRS so we can confirm that you are Ms. Pinot and confirm licensing. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 20:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Meera Nanda.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was given to me by Meera Nanda herself. I uploaded it on her own request to help change the pic. Antochris (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 20:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Reverse-cowgirl-animation.gif [edit]

I'm requesting undeletion of the file referenced in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reverse-cowgirl-animation.gif, because the deletion was not according to official Commons policy. The administrator who deleted the file noted "gif extracted from porn movie". That appears to be true, but it's not grounds for deletion under official Commons policy.

The administrator who deleted the file then inferred: "Obvious copyright violations from this uploader", but that inference was invalid. The file's uploader has stated: "I own the copyrights on the images I've uploaded.... I am the copyright-owner on that video, and I am committing no copyright violation." (User talk:Sex-position-demonstration)

There's no reason to assume that the uploader doesn't hold the copyright. 150.135.161.183 18:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If he is indeed the copyright holder, he can get in touch with COM:OTRS. Plus, from looking at the two images, they are of different actors, different sizes, and I would guess different cameras. There are a lot of concerns with these images, and even if the uploader says they are the holder, there are plenty of times where it did not turn out to be the case. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done What Zscout370 said. If these files are to be restored, the uploader needs to contact COM:OTRS provide evidence of some sort indicating that they are the copyright holder/authorized to upload the file. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


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

Please restore the nearly 200 photos![edit]

17 August 2012 have been removed almost 200 of my photos. After all, each refers to a specific page, or even a few pages. In the exif-e as copyright I wrote or the address of the site, or the address of my Live Journal. On my page on Wikipedia, I clearly says the address of my website and blog (Live Journal). When I was registering on Wikipedia have the same mailbox that is specified at the bottom of this page.

That is simply comparing the mailbox at registration, with storage compartment on the above page - must divide any doubt as to who I am. But if the administration has any doubts, let me write a letter, and I'll answer it.

Check out my permission to publish images under a free license for Wikipedia (Wikimedia Commons) you can here.

Perhaps some of the expressions were poorly translated into English. So below I will provide the same tex only as Russian. So I ask to restore the following pictures:

17 августа 2012 были удалены почти 200 моих фотографий. Ведь каждая из них ссылалась на определённую страницу, а то и на несколько страниц.
В exif-е в качестве авторских прав я писал либо адрес своего сайта, либо адрес моего Живого Журнала.
На моей странице в Википедии я чёрным по белому написал адрес моего сайта и блога. При регистрации на Википедии я указал почтовый ящик тот же что указан внизу этой страницы.
Т.е. просто сравнив почтовый ящик при регистрации, с ящиком на вышеуказанной странице - должны пропасть любые сомнения по поводу того кто я. Но если у администрации возникнут сомнения, то пусть мне напишут письмо, а я на него отвечу.
Ознакомиться с моим разрешением на публикацию изображений под свободной лицензией на Википедии (Викискладе) вы можете тут (раздел мои фотографии).
Итак я прошу восстановить нижеперечисленные фотографии:
To all the defenders of copyright. My photos and their license

In my LiveJournal I wrote a post about the authorship of my photos. I hope no one will be no more questions and suspicions about the authorship of my photos!

Russian: Для всех защитников авторских прав. Мои фотографии и их лицензия
В своём Живом Журнале я написал пост об авторстве моих фотографий.
Надеюсь ни у кого больше не будет вопросов и подозрений по поводу авторства моих фотографий!
Symbol support vote.svg Support The entry on the livejournal.com site makes clear that the author there is associated with the uploader here, so if there were valid licenses on all those uploads, they should be fine. No need for OTRS (though that always helps). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to recover my deleted pictures (188 pieces)? Or is it too late? Донор (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2012

✓ Done >.> -FASTILY (TALK) 21:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Reverse-cowgirl-animation.gif [edit]

Which specific official policy requires getting in touch with COM:OTRS? I have found no such policy.

Here is a blog stating: "I hold the copyright on these images. I oppose the ban reported at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sex-position-demonstration." The blog includes a video, with a copyright notice and watermark; and the blog also contains the image under current discussion, with the caption "I own the copyright on this image, and I authorize its use at Wikimedia Commons. I hereby affirm that I am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of this image. I agree to publish that work under the free license “Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0” (unported) and the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.3 (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."

So much for the administration's claims about "obvious copyright violations". So much for the administration's rationale for banning the uploader. This smacks of religious persecution, and degrades the integrity of wikimedia.

150.135.161.183 22:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to trust that page to be a legitimate source for the works on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
But what reason is there to trust that there was a copyright violation? Are we simply to trust the judgment of the administrator who in this case blatantly violated the Official Policy regarding blocking? (See User talk:Sex-position-demonstration)
The only evidence proffered has been the statement "You might want to look at this link as just one example of where this image is already available on the internet. Oh, the uploader could be the creator of the animation, but experience suggests that they are not." (from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reverse-cowgirl-animation.gif) But when you actually look at the link, you find "I oppose the censorship and ban enacted by Wikimedia Commons." How can that possibly be construed as evidence of a copyright violation? 150.135.161.183 00:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Have the uploader go through the channels at COM:OTRS; the tumblr page shows no authorship and just seems to be a random collection of gif images (and very little on tumblr has anything listing authorship or source). There are a lot of issues and until we go through OTRS, myself and other administrators will not feel comfortable restoring these images. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


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

Files by User:Supervht[edit]

Many files uploaded by User:Supervht were signed with {{No permission}} although they was uploaded and clearly licensed by their author and the stated source web is their own and also contains a clear confirmation that some texts and photos are provided by the authors to the Wikipedia.

The {{No permission}} spamming was discussed on the page of 1Veertje (announced at Village Pump on August 17) with a conclusion that "no-permissions" should be undid. Previous discussion was cs:Diskuse s wikipedistou:Supervht#dotaz aprosba in 2007 and the authorship of the uploader was proved at that time also.

However, on 25 August 2012 between 0:00 and 0:06 Fastily deleted several tens of photos by User:Supervht. Please, check and restore them. I suppose, this were again some rash proposals and rash deletion.

The footer text of the website contains the text "Všechna práva vyhrazena. Kopírování textů či fotografií je zakázáno bez svolení autorů." ("All Rights Reserved. Copying of texts and photographs without authors permission is forbidden"). However, the same footer confirms that some of the photos and texts from mountains are freely provided by authors to the free encyklopedia Wikipedia (i. e. they are not "without authors permission"). This way of authorship confirmation was discussed in 2007 and the additional statement in the footer can be considered as credible evidence that the uploader is identic with the webmaster. --ŠJů (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

{{Notdone}} Duplicate post. See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-08#Files by User:Supervht -FASTILY (TALK) 05:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I hate to undo a closure here, but ... there was a comment at that previous (closed) request which was not responded to, so it may help if someone takes a more careful look here. The purpose of OTRS is to verify permissions done by an uploader here; we generally assume that someone who can edit the source website is the author (or is acting with permission), so any licenses added on the source website then mean the files are OK here without OTRS. Correspondingly, if someone makes edits to the website which simply verify that the uploader here has been acting with permission, that should also remove the need for OTRS and validate all permissions given by the uploader, as we have the independent link. There is no requirement that an author be consistent as to licenses at different distribution points; that is their choice. So long as the edits on the website seem to confirm the uploader permissions, the files should probably be undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Another look is more than reasonable. Anything that isn't valid can be re-deleted within the week. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Shoreismagicshow2012.jpg[edit]

I am the creator of the file. I uploaded it. I sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with details, before that could even be actioned this file was deleted, without warning! Totally ridiculous. Undelete the file which I have full permission to use.


✓ Done OTRS 2012083110005882 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


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


File:2010NZmagicconvention.jpg[edit]

I am the creator of the file. I uploaded it. I sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with details, before that could even be actioned this file was deleted, without warning! Totally ridiculous. Undelete the file which I have full permission to use.


✓ Done OTRS 2012083110005882 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Capture d’écran 2011-09-05 à 12.57.08.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This picture is of me and was taken by my friend. It os copyright free. Davysard (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 18:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Riya Sen at Lakme Fashion Week 2007.jpg[edit]

It was uploaded from Bollywood Hungama.com under the OTRS system, using ticket #2008030310010794 (ticket link). Aditya (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done The Bollywood Hungama link you provided as a source is dead. If you wish for this to be undeleted, please provide a current link to this image on Bollywood Hungama. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The image is not from parties and events of BollywoodHungama. OTRS ticket is only valid for party and event photos from BollywoodHungama. See {{cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} --Sreejith K (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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


Trevor Moore 1.png :Name of the file to undelete.jpg[edit]

This is a scan I took from a magazine. It is my own work. I am asking to please erase the speedy delete order. Thanks. --Fxz100 (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

First off, if it was deleted before, it is very poor form to upload it again without coming through here first. Second, get in touch with COM:OTRS about this and the below photo to figure out if you are really the author and also the licensing (since we cannot accept anything that does not allow modifications and/or commercial use). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done derivative work of non-free content -FASTILY (TALK) 05:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Zach Cregger 2.png Undeletion request[edit]

This a photo I took of the actor Zach Cregger this last July I enanced the photo with an artistic post look. I uploaded both my images at my flicker page I have them both under common atribution. This user wants to erase it: ‎Ytoyoda. It is confusing as I just uploaded this how can this user be already certain for deletion? Can you help me please thanks.--Fxz100 (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

[[1]]

It is a derivative work of this photo by Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images North America; we would need OTRS permission from Mr. Rodriguez. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 05:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:John Cougar Mellencamp-Uh-Huh (album cover).jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: J'ai trouvé ce fichier sur Wikipedia EN, j'estime donc qu'il est également autorisé sur la version française! Damiens1026 (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Bonjour,
Le fichier est sur le Wikipedia en anglais sous fair use. Ce document possède un droit d'auteur restreint, aussi il n'est pas autorisé sur Commons. Voyez sur le Wikipedia en français. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Fair use. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


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

Image:Schloss Weissenstein Pommersfelden.jpg, File:Passau Dom Sankt Stephan.png[edit]

Revision of 73470935

(copied from User talk:Filnik)

Ich habe bei beiden Bildern lediglich eine modifizierte Version (minor improvements) hochgeladen, für die die ursprüngliche Lizenz nach wie vor gilt. Eine Genehmigung des Urhebers ist deshalb nicht erforderlich. Ich bitte deshalb das gelöschte Bild wieder hochzuladen und das andere nicht zu löschen. --Schubbay (Diskussion) 10:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please restore both pictures because I made only minor improvements. The original licence is still valid. --Schubbay (Diskussion) 19:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

License plates 2[edit]

A request to restore about 15 files that seem to be PD on their face, and 15 more of questionable status, from Commons:Deletion requests/License plates 2 from 4 years ago, if possible. (I found this while looking for Wyoming license plates, but those turned out not to be the problem here.) From what I can see, a group of U.S. license plates, from lots of different states and decades, came up for deletion; the arguments for keeping and deleting were mostly unhelpful on both sides (including having erroneous statements of what is public domain in the U.S.); and it appears that the closure made no distinction between different groups of plates. Basically, the whole thing appears to have been a mess, and there would probably be a different result today.

Just based on filenames, I see the following groups of files that are likely to be public domain. These are just the ones I noticed off the top of my head — there may be others that are also PD based on the design for that state+year, but I didn't look at all of them:

  1. Published prior to 1978 at least once (and probably always) with no assertion of copyright notice and/or copyright registration ({{PD-US-no notice}}):
  2. Published between 1978 and March 1989 at least once (and probably always) with no assertion of copyright notice and no evidence of copyright registration ({{PD-US-1978-89}}):
  3. Plates mentioned as not meeting the U.S. threshold of originality in the deletion request itself ({{PD-ineligible}}):
  4. Plates whose state+year combination imply that the design wouldn't meet the threshold of originality ({{PD-ineligible}}):
    • File:HI 2007.jpg — It appears that Hawaii plates from 1996 forward have only a simple rainbow.
  5. Plates whose designs cannot be determined from filename; the files should be undeleted so that they can be reviewed:

Normally I wouldn't question things in group #5, but the deletion closure made no distinction between files, and it seems clear to me that a lot of PD images were deleted, so those in the last group may have PD images that weren't considered individually before deletion. I'd be glad to speedy-tag (or nominate for deletion again) the ones that are post-1989 and meet the threshold of originality once they are visible to be inspected. --Closeapple (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


✓ Done So you can have a look at them and save the files which are suitable for Commons. In the mean time, I've replaced every page with {{subst:nld}} so that potentially ineligible files may be deleted within the week. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Bird Thongchai 1.jpg[edit]

File:Bird Thongchai Mcintyre.jpg
File:Bird Thongchai.jpg
File:Bird Thongchai 1.jpg
File:Bird Thongchai KPN.jpg
File:Bird Thongchai Siamdara.jpg
File:Bird Thongchai song for King.jpg
File:Bird Thongchai concert2.jpg
File:Bird Thongchai Byrdland.jpg
File:Bird Thongchai concert.jpg
File:Bird Thongchai 2.jpg

Please don't delete this file All file is my own photo I'm take by my salf,
I think it not small and it's clear for see who is in photo.
Please don't delete it. --KanavaroT (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 22:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Epsilon-Indi.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I've been asked by epsilon indi music band to create their own wikipedia page. We have seen that has already been created by a fan, but we want to change it. I uploaded this picture with their consent. What can I do to be able to use it? Epsilon Indi (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Have the photographer -- not the band -- send permission for its use using the procedure at Commons:OTRS .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done What Jim said. See COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 20:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


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

File:David Ashton.jpg [edit]

The above image has been deleted. Both the photographer Robert Lawler and the subject David Ahton are happy for the image to be used under CC-by-3.0 and I thought I had applied for that license but Wikimedia Commons thought otherwise.

--Timclifford100 (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Tim Clifford 4 September 2012


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send evidence of this consent in an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 20:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Nofel album launch in India.jpg [edit]

Hello, I would just like to request for undeletion of the image. The photo has indication that it is been release under a Creative Commons license. See it here [2].--1st Filipino Infantry Regiment DUI.png Renzoy16 | (Talk) 19:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 20:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Oceana My House.jpg[edit]

per OTRS permission in ticket:2012010410008461. --Krd 14:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you verify the COM:EI and licencsing are ok on the restaured version. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Done, thank you. --Krd 16:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Seems like this not happened. The album cover claims copyright by Embassy of Music, thats a german lable, so the copyright belongs also to the person who created the work, the photographer because their is no copyright transfer in germany. Sounds very unlikely that anyone can reuse this work for commercial purposes with attribution only to "CodySiren". --Martin H. (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It happened by being addressed to the OTRS submitter. We can fallback to OTRS-received for the image if you prefer, but waiting one day to give the copyright holder a chance to answer seems an acceptable solution to me, as there is no doubt that the answer will arrive shortly. --Krd 17:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done for now. I've tagged the file with npd; if this isn't resolved within the week, the file will simply be re-deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 20:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Gordana Magaš - Ohridska legenda.jpg [edit]

The woman is still here, this is stupid, you can view her on: http://bs-ba.facebook.com/gordana.magas

Same pictures are there from her archive. Please bring that back, somebody is jealous I think...

Thanks in advance, best wishes.


 Not done I have no idea what you mean by "jealous", but that's not a valid undeletion rationale. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Gordana Magaš - FIS.jpg [edit]

http://bs-ba.facebook.com/gordana.magas

Same pictures are there from her archive. Please bring that back, somebody is jealous I think...

Thanks in advance, best wishes.


 Not done I have no idea what you mean by "jealous", but that's not a valid undeletion rationale. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:GMdms.jpg [edit]

http://bs-ba.facebook.com/gordana.magas

Same pictures are there from her archive. Please bring that back, somebody is jealous I think...

Thanks in advance, best wishes.


 Not done I have no idea what you mean by "jealous", but that's not a valid undeletion rationale. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Gordana Magaš files[edit]

Please bring that back, somebody is jealous I think... Thanks in advance, best wishes.


 Not done I have no idea what you mean by "jealous", but that's not a valid undeletion rationale. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Metropolitan Archbishop Jonathan Ansar.jpg[edit]

Sir,

This is a request for undeletion of [File:Metropolitan Archbishop Jonathan Ansar.jpg]. This picture is not bound by any copyright laws as far as the knowledge I have. And this picture can also be found on Facebook under the user about whom an article is published. We need this picture of His highness Archbishop to be available and will be used for article only. Please help in undeleting the image/file or suggest any alternatives by which the picture is made available for article alone.

--Moparthi (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done We need tangible, written evidence proving that a file is indeed free before we can host it on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 07:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Mars_Direct_Base.jpg [edit]

Mars_Direct_Base.jpg

I have explicit written permission from Mars Society executive director Susan Holden Martin to use this image in the Wikipedia Mars Direct article. Here is an image of the request I made and the reply: http://i.imgur.com/4DUpK.jpg

The mail in text format:

Hi [name removed] Permission is granted. Please credit images to The Mars Society.

Thanks for working on the Wiki. Are you using text from 'The Case For Mars' as the source for improving and expanding the Wiki?

Regards, -Susan.

Susan Holden Martin, MBA, JD Executive Director The Mars Society 603-828-8891 www.marssociety.org

Doctorheredoctor (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There are two problems here. First, the image was created by Robert Murray, so the permission must come from him. Second, permission for use in a WP article is not sufficient. We require permission to use the image anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use. In order to restore it, will need a license from Murray using the procedure described at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done What Jim said. See COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 20:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Anomium.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo was taken my me myself and is my property and I want it to be on wikimedia and no one can claim it is not free. I uploaded it because it was taken by ME. Please undelete this file. RaoufAthar (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that your image infringes on the copyright in the Atomium. While, as you say, your image is your own work, the Atomium is not your work and therefore your image is not free..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Copyright violation -FASTILY (TALK) 20:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

As imagens encontram-se no site acima referido. Porto, 5/9/2012 Alberto Cunha


Not an undeletion request? You may be looking for COM:DR -FASTILY (TALK) 21:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Dustin Moskovitz Headshot.jpg[edit]

This is a photo of me. I uploaded this file to wikimedia and manage the copyright for it. Someone requested deletion on the basis that it appears in a Forbes article, but I granted license to them to use it, rather than the other way around. The credit on the image there is "Courtesy of Asana". I am the CEO at Asana, so have the right to manage use of the photo.


--Moskov (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 9-5-2012


 Not done In that case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and tell them what you told us. Once you've explained your situation to them, if everything checks out, they'll restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 00:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Rebeco-5.jpg[edit]

Please undelete File:Rebeco-5.jpg per OTRS permission in ticket:2012042010006211. Thank you. --Krd 16:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What license did the copyright holder specify? Unless I'm missing something, I saw no agreement to use any CC license in the ticket. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
See #11, third attachment. -- King of ♠ 00:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Nice -FASTILY (TALK) 01:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Poet Baban Kirkuki, Utrecht.jpg [edit]

I took the image myself and it hasn't been previously published. CAM.A (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 6-9-2012


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 22:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Heilbronn, Gotisches Steinhaus, Kaiserstraße 18 a, Hinterhaus (UKP Nr. 357 a) Steingiebelfront nach Osten (Archäolog. Stadtkataster BW, Bd 8, HN. Landesdenkmalamt BW, Stuttgart 2001, S. 104-105, Nr. 49) Ausschnitt.JPG[edit]

  • die Informationen wurden nachgestragen, das Bild ist über 100 Jahre alt --Messina (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Being over one hundred years old is not a safe age for keeping most images. A photograph taken in 1900 by a person born in 1880 would be under copyright until 2030 if the photographer lived to be only 80. If he lived to an age of 100, it would be under copyright until 2050.
The fact that we do not know who the photographer was does not make it "anonymous" -- many old photographs have become separated from their attributions.
Therefore, in order to keep this, we would need to know that either the photograph was actually published anonymously or that the photographer died before 1942. We know neither. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done What Jim said. Unclear copyright status -FASTILY (TALK) 08:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Tren Loco Logo.png[edit]

Quiero solicitar la restauración de este archivo. Era el logo de la banda Tren Loco, no creo que haya motivo para borrarlo.

Si borran dicho logo, ¿por qué no borran también el logo de Metallica o el logo de Nirvana?


Saludos cordiales. Autorojo (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done Copyright violation. Fair use is prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 08:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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


FILE: Seeking Mr X The Book and The Movie by Belinda Elkaim.jpg [edit]

I own 100% copyright and all rights to "Seeking Mr. X" The Book and also The Movie. I am the author of the novel, the screenwriter of adaptation, the producer, director and lead actress. All photography work uploaded are of MY image. Any and all screenshots are from the movie that I OWN.

There are NO copyright infringements. I OWN all rights.

Sincerely, Belinda Elkaim. Published Author, Screenwriter/Producer. belinda.elkaim@gmail.com www.seekingmrx.com


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 08:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Jerusalem-T-shirt.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I need to specify a reason why not to delete a media file that I created that is of good quality and is satisfactorily categorized and commented? Orrlingtalk 19:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Was it derivative of (e.g. focusing on) the T-shirt design, meaning distribution in some circumstances could be controlled by the copyright owner of that design? See Commons:Derivative works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I admit I have little-to-nil knowledge about this wide legal theme. I've now posted the picture at my personal contents page so ppl can view it and be all wiser. You can see it here and comment then. Orrlingtalk 21:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Textbook non-free derivative work. I'm afraid this file isn't permissible on Commons. Sorry, FASTILY (TALK) 05:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

How disappointing. Orrlingtalk 07:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

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


Request to Undelete File: 125th_Reg_Color.jpg[edit]

Ref.: Ticket#2012090710005961 from Stephen Philbrick at Permissions

Expressed written permission, to the satisfaction of Stephen Philbrick on the referenced ticket number, has been received from the Capitol Preservation Committee. File source is http://cpc.state.pa.us A copy of the release follows:

> Date: 09/07/2012 10:25 AM > Subject: 125th Low Res image > To whom it may concern: > > I hereby affirm that I, Jason L. Wilson, am an authorized representative of > the Capitol Preservation Committee, the sole owner of the exclusive > copyright of 125th_Reg_Color.jpg, a low-resolution image of the 125th > Pennsylvania Infantry's battle flag. > > I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons > Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and the GNU Free Documentation License > version 1.3 (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. > > Jason L. Wilson, Historian {private information deleted}

Stephen Philbrick's response to me contained the following, somewhat confusing instructions:

The permission statement looks fine, but I do not see that the image has been uploaded.
1. If it has, and I missed it, please respond with a link to the image
2. If it hasn't and you want to upload it, see below for upload instructions
3. If it hasn't and you want me to upload it, let me know.

Which seem to toss responsibility for undeletion back to me. He may not have understood that the file existed on WikiCommons previously and was deleted.

Please undelete the file at your earliest convenience. Thank you--Donaldecoho (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The file was at File:125th_Reg_Color.jpg and was deleted on September 6 for having no source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have both obtained permission and stated the source ( http://cpc.state.pa.us ), website of the Capitol Preservation Committee.--Donaldecoho (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 05:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Azerbaijan Liberal Party Leader Prof. Dr. Lala Shevket.jpg[edit]

My full name is Sidqi Shevket and I am Prof. Dr. Lala Shevket's son. As such I hold a copyright to the photo in question, which has been deleted.--Sidgi (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 21:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha.jpg[edit]

Looks like File:Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha.jpg was deleted by accident together with File:BarbarossaHayreddin Pasha.jpg. The former is in use in many articles. tomtefarbror (Talk | contribs) 9 September 2012


✓ Already done -FASTILY (TALK) 21:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Vince Cable.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The deleting admin was quite mistaken: this is indeed automatically under the OGL, and there is no such thing as a "noncommercial OGL": see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vernon Coaker.jpg. —innotata 21:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This confused me, so I didn't close it. Maybe I can shed a little light:
There were two uploads:
  • Original, by Slythering Around, which is 427 x 640
  • Later, by Innotata which is 1,575 x 2,362
The file description and the DR refer to two sources:
"You are free to:
copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information;
adapt the Information;
exploit the Information commercially for example, by combining it with other Information, or by including it in your own product or application."
I don't know where the 1,575 x 2,362 image came from -- what am I missing?
With that in mind, it appears to me that the 100 x 140 image is OK, but we have no good license for anything larger. Although I don't know that there is any case law on the subject, it seems to be accepted here that a license for an image at a given size covers all smaller versions, but does not allow you to find a larger versions somewhere and use it freely under the license. We explicitly suggest that photographers can freely license images here and offer higher resolutions, see Commons:User-specific_galleries,_templates_and_categories_policy#Acceptable. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
No, this is automatically under the OGL because it was created by a Crown body and doesn't fall under the exemptions to the OGL, as I've pointed out before—see the DR I linked above (which was closed wrongly by the same admin) and Commons:UK Open Government Licence. —innotata 17:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You assume all Crown Copyright stuff is auto-OGL, I assume Crown copyright stuff offered only with noncommercial restriction is auto-noncommercial-GL. The higher resolution is another issue, while the smaller version may be OGL or not, the highres version must not be OGL if it was never offered under Crown Copyright or made avaibale to the public. You (again) assume the image was made by the Crown Body but that must not be the case as well. He or his party may have paid for the image so it would not fall under OGL. --Denniss (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You're just making the stuff about the NCGL up as far as I can tell, look at the OGL page James has started writing. It isn't a matter of what you think, it's a matter of what the policy is, and under the policy most crown copyright works are under the OGL. Crown-owned copyright works are treated the same as crown copyright works in the UK government licensing framework, and the places this photo is used say it is crown copyright or do not mention it being owned by a third party as they would. —innotata 20:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Marking as  Not done . I was going to close it as no consensus, but it looks like someone went ahead and reuploded the file >.> -FASTILY (TALK) 19:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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


Images released by JMSDF[edit]

I request undeletion of 29 files which I myself had requested deletion 8 months ago. The discussion here suggests that these files are indeed acceptable at commons under the license{{Attribution}}. Since the reasons of the deletions were simply uploader's request, I revoke my initial decision and hereby re-request for undeletion. These files are useful for educational purposes.

--トトト (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason given above that these are not copyvios -- the source pages, for example
http://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/formal/gallery/ships/dd/asagiri/154.html
have clear explicit copyright notices "Copyright (C) JMSDF. All Rights Reserved.". .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment All Rights Reserved at the bottom of the page does not necessarily mean that the image shown is unacceptable at commons. This may sound ridiculous but it often happens in most of the websites.
Example 1: This image and its source. - There is an explicit notice "© 2012 Digital Garage, Inc. All rights reserved. " at the bottom but it does not affect the image's copyright status or the compatibility with commons.
Example 2: This image and its source - "© NHN Japan Corp. All rights reserved." at the bottom but it does not affect its compatibility with commons.
Example 3: This image and its source. - "Copyright © 2012 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved." at the bottom, and even By-nc.svg immediately bellow the image but it does not affect its compatibility with commons.
The above examples show that "All rights reserved" is valid if and only if there are no other conditions mentioned elsewhere. JMSDF's this statement(ホームページ利用上の注意), which is linked from the top page, is obviously clarifying the conditions of exemption of its own copyrights. --トトト (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
While a copyright notice is not inconsistent with a CC-BY license, "All Rights Reserved" directly contradicts any free license, so the combination must be construed in the most restrictive fashion -- that is, unfree.
In order to move this along, please either provide us with the relevant text in Japanese and a translation or recruit a Japanese speaking Admin to close this. We have only three, none of whom is very active, see Commons:List_of_administrators_by_language..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
"All Rights Reserved" doesn't contradict anything. I'm not sure it's much more than legal tradition, though the w:Buenos Aires Convention comes into play, but it is solid legal tradition that for a solid copyright notice that "all rights reserved" is necessary. That's all it means, that this work is copyrighted and may not be copied except with reference to any licenses that might permit it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done No clear evidence that the copyright holder has published the files under a Commons-compatiable free license. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual evidence indicating that these files are indeed free, we cannot host them on Commons. Sorry, FASTILY (TALK) 00:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Karolos Trikolidis Conductor 2.png[edit]

Although this image is found on the website of the Athens State Orchestra under http://www.koa.gr/?i=koa.el.koa_artists.239, it was used only by permission of the conductor Karolos Trikolidis. However, after the image was deleted, we contacted the Athens State Orchestra, which agreed to submit the declaration to publish the work under free license (the image was given to them for use by the conductor without granting any copyright though). However, given that the image is not found online anymore on Commons, no URL could be given in the declaration e-mail, although the photo was attached to it. It is no trouble to reupload the image, but since this cannot be done, the file must be undeleted and the declaration must have a respond by Commons. Luciosarandi (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done Just reupload the file. Go here and check the box for 'Ignore any warnings' -FASTILY (TALK) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Avendi 1.jpg et al[edit]

Please restore the following files:

Reason: OTRS 2012091010008238 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaf Kosinsky (talk • contribs) 10:15, 11 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Consolidated the 15 requests above for convenience. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket does, in fact, cover these images, and many others, a total of 61 images of Seminaris Hotels. While we seem to have permission for them, I wonder if they are in scope, or if they violate COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Rebeco-2a.png[edit]

Please restore:

by OTRS permission in ticket:2012042010006211. --Krd 11:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I note that while the photographer of these images has his own web site and e-mail address, the OTRS permission came from an anonymous e-mail address with the photographer's name. I am inclined to ask the photographer to send us an OTRS e-mail from his own domain. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean you are going to handle this ticket further? --Krd 12:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
No, just a comment that I think there is a significant chance that the message did not come from the right person. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done What Jim said. Please confirm that this email does indeed belong to the photographer, then we'll talk about restoring. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Atopica logo wiki 2.png[edit]

I am requesting undeletion because I have the permission from the atopica website to use the images. I personally know who realized them and he gave me permission. Same thing for these other files: File:Atopica effects.jpg File:Atopica logo wiki.png File:Atopica concept.png File:Atopica logo.png


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Files by Supervht (3)[edit]

Previous discussions:

Many files by Supervht were groundlessly tagged with {{no permission}} and deleted, although they were clearly licensed by the author. As apparent from the 2007 discussion, the webmaster of the related web clearly proved that he is identic with the uploader and confirmed that some of the images from the web are released for wiki projects (with appropriate free licences). Vrba, myself and Clindberg consider such proof as sufficient - but Fastily ignores all arguments again and again.

Such wilful mass deletions of properly licensed useful images are very demotivating. Isn't here somebody which would be able to stop Fastily's destructive obsession? --ŠJů (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to prevent anybody from opening a Commons account in the name of a website. Therefore, it is well established policy that we do not assume that Commons User:XYZ is the same person that runs www.xyz.com. Such uploads always require a permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. I know that that seems like a tough attitude, but the dark side of Commons has many false claims. We assume good faith when XYZ uploads an image as "own work" when it does not appear elsewhere, but when it does appear elsewhere, we require confirmation.
A Google translation of the 2007 discussion in Czech says that User:Supervht is the owner of http://www.supervht.com./, but we have nothing to confirm that from the other side. Without such confirmation, we need OTRS. This is not hard -- a simple message from an e-mail address at supervht.com can deal with all past and present uploads..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done I cannot even begin to count how many times you've been told by me, and other administrators to get OTRS confirmation for these images. Unless we have written/textual evidence explicitly indicating that these files are licensed under a Commons-compatiable license, we cannot host them on Commons. In other words, find/secure permission and we'll talk. Repeated forum shopping such as this is highly disruptive and does nothing to help your case. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


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


File:Meksika-Ljubljana.JPG[edit]

Request temporary undeletion I'm requesting temporary undeletion to publish this image in the corresponding article of the Slovene Wikipedia under the "fair use" provisions (see sl:Wikipedija:Avtorske pravice#Politika izjem). File:Meksika-Ljubljana.JPG will be used in sl:Meksika, Ljubljana. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done Here you go: [3], [4] -FASTILY (TALK) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:K0DPW.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image was supposed to linked to my talk page; administrator flagged it for deletion and deleted it all in the same day without time limit for discussion (isn't that supposed to be 7 days) -- what is going on here !!! Please do not mess with my pages !!! K0dpw (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done See COM:SCOPE. Iff you intend on using this image immediately, please feel free to re-upload it -FASTILY (TALK) 00:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Vince Cable.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The deleting admin was quite mistaken: this is indeed automatically under the OGL, and there is no such thing as a "noncommercial OGL": see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vernon Coaker.jpg. —innotata 21:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This confused me, so I didn't close it. Maybe I can shed a little light:
There were two uploads:
  • Original, by Slythering Around, which is 427 x 640
  • Later, by Innotata which is 1,575 x 2,362
The file description and the DR refer to two sources:
"You are free to:
copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information;
adapt the Information;
exploit the Information commercially for example, by combining it with other Information, or by including it in your own product or application."
I don't know where the 1,575 x 2,362 image came from -- what am I missing?
With that in mind, it appears to me that the 100 x 140 image is OK, but we have no good license for anything larger. Although I don't know that there is any case law on the subject, it seems to be accepted here that a license for an image at a given size covers all smaller versions, but does not allow you to find a larger versions somewhere and use it freely under the license. We explicitly suggest that photographers can freely license images here and offer higher resolutions, see Commons:User-specific_galleries,_templates_and_categories_policy#Acceptable. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
No, this is automatically under the OGL because it was created by a Crown body and doesn't fall under the exemptions to the OGL, as I've pointed out before—see the DR I linked above (which was closed wrongly by the same admin) and Commons:UK Open Government Licence. —innotata 17:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You assume all Crown Copyright stuff is auto-OGL, I assume Crown copyright stuff offered only with noncommercial restriction is auto-noncommercial-GL. The higher resolution is another issue, while the smaller version may be OGL or not, the highres version must not be OGL if it was never offered under Crown Copyright or made avaibale to the public. You (again) assume the image was made by the Crown Body but that must not be the case as well. He or his party may have paid for the image so it would not fall under OGL. --Denniss (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You're just making the stuff about the NCGL up as far as I can tell, look at the OGL page James has started writing. It isn't a matter of what you think, it's a matter of what the policy is, and under the policy most crown copyright works are under the OGL. Crown-owned copyright works are treated the same as crown copyright works in the UK government licensing framework, and the places this photo is used say it is crown copyright or do not mention it being owned by a third party as they would. —innotata 20:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Marking as  Not done . I was going to close it as no consensus, but it looks like someone went ahead and reuploded the file >.> -FASTILY (TALK) 19:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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


Images released by JMSDF[edit]

I request undeletion of 29 files which I myself had requested deletion 8 months ago. The discussion here suggests that these files are indeed acceptable at commons under the license{{Attribution}}. Since the reasons of the deletions were simply uploader's request, I revoke my initial decision and hereby re-request for undeletion. These files are useful for educational purposes.

--トトト (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason given above that these are not copyvios -- the source pages, for example
http://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/formal/gallery/ships/dd/asagiri/154.html
have clear explicit copyright notices "Copyright (C) JMSDF. All Rights Reserved.". .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment All Rights Reserved at the bottom of the page does not necessarily mean that the image shown is unacceptable at commons. This may sound ridiculous but it often happens in most of the websites.
Example 1: This image and its source. - There is an explicit notice "© 2012 Digital Garage, Inc. All rights reserved. " at the bottom but it does not affect the image's copyright status or the compatibility with commons.
Example 2: This image and its source - "© NHN Japan Corp. All rights reserved." at the bottom but it does not affect its compatibility with commons.
Example 3: This image and its source. - "Copyright © 2012 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved." at the bottom, and even By-nc.svg immediately bellow the image but it does not affect its compatibility with commons.
The above examples show that "All rights reserved" is valid if and only if there are no other conditions mentioned elsewhere. JMSDF's this statement(ホームページ利用上の注意), which is linked from the top page, is obviously clarifying the conditions of exemption of its own copyrights. --トトト (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
While a copyright notice is not inconsistent with a CC-BY license, "All Rights Reserved" directly contradicts any free license, so the combination must be construed in the most restrictive fashion -- that is, unfree.
In order to move this along, please either provide us with the relevant text in Japanese and a translation or recruit a Japanese speaking Admin to close this. We have only three, none of whom is very active, see Commons:List_of_administrators_by_language..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
"All Rights Reserved" doesn't contradict anything. I'm not sure it's much more than legal tradition, though the w:Buenos Aires Convention comes into play, but it is solid legal tradition that for a solid copyright notice that "all rights reserved" is necessary. That's all it means, that this work is copyrighted and may not be copied except with reference to any licenses that might permit it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done No clear evidence that the copyright holder has published the files under a Commons-compatiable free license. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual evidence indicating that these files are indeed free, we cannot host them on Commons. Sorry, FASTILY (TALK) 00:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Flag-map of the Kingdom of England.svg[edit]

Closing admin apparently didn't understand the main point, that File:Flag map of England.svg is a flag map of England as a constituent "home nation" within the current United Kingdom, while File:Flag-map of the Kingdom of England.svg is a historical flag map of the Kingdom of England as an independent sovereign nation-state from ca. 1282-1603 A.D... AnonMoos (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

For reference: [5], [6] -FASTILY (TALK) 22:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
And the UnDR requester apparently doesn't understand history. Mann was never part of England. Wales relationship with England is incredibly muddled, but to say that it was a part of England just as any other county is incredibly foolish. The map was inaccurate, the DR was appropriate, Fry1989 eh? 22:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
It was ruled as part of the independent sovereign nation-state of the Kingdom of England from ca. 1282-1603 A.D. AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Technical jargon, nothing more. Fry1989 eh? 22:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Er no, historical accuracy, from the sounds of it. From en:Kingdom of England: At its height, the Kingdom of England spanned the southern two-thirds of the island of Great Britain (including both modern-day England and Wales) and several smaller outlying islands; what today comprises the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. Wales was not part of England, but it was part of the Kingdom of England (just like today it is part of the United Kingdom). You may have a point on the Isle of Man though. It was under the English crown for long stretches, but I don't think that's quite the same thing. File:Kingdom of England.png does not include the Isle of Man. But, that should be tweaked on the undeleted map. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Er yes actually. "at it's height" is an incredible qualifier, showing that the borders changed all the time. To suggest that the map's borders were constant for 321 years is irrational. Fry1989 eh? 00:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
They did not change with respect to Wales. That has been part of the Kingdom of England (and later the United Kingdom after the union with Scotland; same idea) for hundreds of years. Frankly, the inclusion of Wales is the primary reason that the "Kingdom of England" is a separate entity than just "England". It was formally annexed in the 1530s it looks like, with representation in Parliament. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The Kingdom of England's borders were actually rather stable between 1282-1603. (The overseas areas under the control of English monarchs fluctuated, but these were not directly annexed to England, but treated as being under Aquitaine, the Kingdom of Ireland, etc.). Certainly the English monarchs' control over Wales was not seriously contested, except during a relatively brief period at the beginning of the 15th Century. -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
If I may, I'd like to clarify my reasoning when closing this discussion. After discarding the !votes from Дмитрий-5-Аверин (blatant personal attack - not commentary on the file) and Beta M (a tangential comment that did not address the matter being discussed), I carefully examined the discussion between Fry1989 and AnonMoos. Fry1989 argued that Wales is not in fact a part of England presently (which, to my knowledge, is factually correct) and that the map was flawed in that it represented Wales as a part of England. AnonMoos retorted from a mostly irrelevant angle, citing the Wales and Berwick Act 1746 (where it is stated Wales was incorporated into England for some time, until 1967, in which this act was repealed) as rationale for the present accuracy of this map. AnonMoos continued to press this position, repeatedly asserting that Wales was a part of England today, eventually regressing to inflammatory remarks and Ad hominem attacks when he could not find any other way to forward his position. Unless I'm missing something, nobody recommended this map be retained as a 'historical reference' of some sort (which even then is a stretch; we many maps from this time period that are of higher quality and detail, and don't have a Union Jack messily sprawled across the British Islands), which, frankly, I see as the only way this discussion could have conceivably resulted in a keep. However, I digress; we are here to discuss the merits of the arguments presented in the debate and not what could have or should have been said. With all that said, given the strength and superiority of the arguments presented by Fry1989 and Fred the Oyster in this discussion, I endorse my closure and am Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strongly opposed restoring. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
That's not what I said or what I meant. My two points were 1) Wales was part of the independent sovereign state of the Kingdom of England from ca. 1282-1603. 2) As revealed by the Wales and Berwick Act 1746, Wales was often spoken of as being part of England at least from 1746 to 1967 (not necessarily that it was substantively fully part of England, but that it frequently was terminologically subsumed under England at that time). I went on at much greater length than I intended about the Wales and Berwick Act 1746 (and than the importance of that topic deserved) because Fry1989 pulled one of his typical annoying maneuvres, simply blatantly ignoring whatever evidence was inconvenient to his preconceived position...
Also we have more than 200 historical flag maps. If you feel that we shouldn't have any, then start a mass deletion nomination on them, but as things now stand, being a historical flag map is not a valid criterion for deletion. And the flag in "Flag-map of the Kingdom of England.svg" is not the Union Jack. AnonMoos (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
P.S. It's perfectly acceptable to me if the file were to be restored as File:Historical flag-map of the Kingdom of England.svg, rather than to its old name, if that would defuse any objections... AnonMoos (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay look - a) Would you please stop attacking Fry1989? It's starting to get really annoying. b) I presume the only reason you suggested that the map be retained as historical was because I suggested it above. That, however, was not an argument presented in the debate. COM:UD is not DR parte deux, it is a place to request a community re-evaluation of the points raised in the discussion. Unless you can provide me with an adequate analysis detailing how and why your arguments in the discussion are successfully refute and/or are superior to those raised by Fry, I will not be changing my mind. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Whatever -- I really have no idea what you're talking about, because I made the historical point in my comment of "23:21, 26 February 2012" at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag-map of the Kingdom of England.svg. It wasn't the first point that occurred to me, but it ended up being the most important. And you criticize me for going on at length about the Wales and Berwick Act 1746, but I actually would have merely alluded to it rather briefly if I hadn't found Fry1989's rhetorical strategies intensely annoying. I think relevance is supposed to be weighted higher than counting words when it comes to closing a deletion nomination. AnonMoos (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

strong restore historical accuracy is not a valid reason to delete: file description is the place to describe documents not DR or UNDR. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is. Fry1989 eh? 18:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
If an image presents clearly factually false information or is a mere malicious hoax, that can certainly be a reason to delete it from Commons -- but if an image presents one side in a legitimate debate, or an interpretation which is supported by some respectable sources but disputed by others, then that's not a reason to delete it. Our role here at Commons is to host a range of images that might be useful for Wikipedias and other projects, so that they can choose which to use -- it's not to pre-decide things which should be left up to those projects. AnonMoos (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
PS: I'm expecting with the same logic we should delete all wrong white balance picture (Good luck everyone!) --PierreSelim (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
restore; there's no copyright claims, and there's at least a prima faciae claim that it's useful; why are we wasting time arguing over it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done Just fix the map; it is SVG, it is not that hard. DRs should only be used if fixing said map is not going to solve any issues whatsoever. However, I do suggest for sources to be applied to show the historical boundaries of England from this period (or whatever period that is settled on upon discussion). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Karolos Trikolidis Conductor 2.png[edit]

Although this image is found on the website of the Athens State Orchestra under http://www.koa.gr/?i=koa.el.koa_artists.239, it was used only by permission of the conductor Karolos Trikolidis. However, after the image was deleted, we contacted the Athens State Orchestra, which agreed to submit the declaration to publish the work under free license (the image was given to them for use by the conductor without granting any copyright though). However, given that the image is not found online anymore on Commons, no URL could be given in the declaration e-mail, although the photo was attached to it. It is no trouble to reupload the image, but since this cannot be done, the file must be undeleted and the declaration must have a respond by Commons. Luciosarandi (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done Just reupload the file. Go here and check the box for 'Ignore any warnings' -FASTILY (TALK) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Avendi 1.jpg et al[edit]

Please restore the following files:

Reason: OTRS 2012091010008238 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaf Kosinsky (talk • contribs) 10:15, 11 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Consolidated the 15 requests above for convenience. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket does, in fact, cover these images, and many others, a total of 61 images of Seminaris Hotels. While we seem to have permission for them, I wonder if they are in scope, or if they violate COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Rebeco-2a.png[edit]

Please restore:

by OTRS permission in ticket:2012042010006211. --Krd 11:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I note that while the photographer of these images has his own web site and e-mail address, the OTRS permission came from an anonymous e-mail address with the photographer's name. I am inclined to ask the photographer to send us an OTRS e-mail from his own domain. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean you are going to handle this ticket further? --Krd 12:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
No, just a comment that I think there is a significant chance that the message did not come from the right person. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done What Jim said. Please confirm that this email does indeed belong to the photographer, then we'll talk about restoring. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Atopica logo wiki 2.png[edit]

I am requesting undeletion because I have the permission from the atopica website to use the images. I personally know who realized them and he gave me permission. Same thing for these other files: File:Atopica effects.jpg File:Atopica logo wiki.png File:Atopica concept.png File:Atopica logo.png


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Files by Supervht[edit]

Previous discussions:

Many files by Supervht were groundlessly tagged with {{no permission}} and deleted, although they were clearly licensed by the author. As apparent from the 2007 discussion, the webmaster of the related web clearly proved that he is identic with the uploader and confirmed that some of the images from the web are released for wiki projects (with appropriate free licences). Vrba, myself and Clindberg consider such proof as sufficient - but Fastily ignores all arguments again and again.

Such wilful mass deletions of properly licensed useful images are very demotivating. Isn't here somebody which would be able to stop Fastily's destructive obsession? --ŠJů (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to prevent anybody from opening a Commons account in the name of a website. Therefore, it is well established policy that we do not assume that Commons User:XYZ is the same person that runs www.xyz.com. Such uploads always require a permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. I know that that seems like a tough attitude, but the dark side of Commons has many false claims. We assume good faith when XYZ uploads an image as "own work" when it does not appear elsewhere, but when it does appear elsewhere, we require confirmation.
A Google translation of the 2007 discussion in Czech says that User:Supervht is the owner of http://www.supervht.com./, but we have nothing to confirm that from the other side. Without such confirmation, we need OTRS. This is not hard -- a simple message from an e-mail address at supervht.com can deal with all past and present uploads..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done I cannot even begin to count how many times you've been told by me, and other administrators to get OTRS confirmation for these images. Unless we have written/textual evidence explicitly indicating that these files are licensed under a Commons-compatiable license, we cannot host them on Commons. In other words, find/secure permission and we'll talk. Repeated forum shopping such as this is highly disruptive and does nothing to help your case. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


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


File:Meksika-Ljubljana.JPG[edit]

Request temporary undeletion I'm requesting temporary undeletion to publish this image in the corresponding article of the Slovene Wikipedia under the "fair use" provisions (see sl:Wikipedija:Avtorske pravice#Politika izjem). File:Meksika-Ljubljana.JPG will be used in sl:Meksika, Ljubljana. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done Here you go: [7], [8] -FASTILY (TALK) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:K0DPW.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image was supposed to linked to my talk page; administrator flagged it for deletion and deleted it all in the same day without time limit for discussion (isn't that supposed to be 7 days) -- what is going on here !!! Please do not mess with my pages !!!

It is my own image, how can there be any copyright issues ? If nothing linked to it, then someone had to unlink it !!!

Fastily says "if you intend to use this image immediately, then re-upload it; so apparently there were no issues with the image other than for some reason nothing linked to it. That is the issue here -- how did that happen ? I have better things to do than re-upload images because they are arbitrarialy deleted at random or by some bot. Please explain why the specified time limits were not observed before actual deletion -- it was here this morning, and when I got time to check it this evening to find out what the problem was, it had already been deleted. If I am mistaken about the time limit rules, please explain; otherwise please follow the expected time limit rules.


File in use in another Wikimedia project

An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace) of another project, but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed.

File in use on Commons only

An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page or in a category on Commons, nor solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace), but by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page on a Wikimedia Foundation project is allowed. Files relating to projects or events of the Wikimedia Foundation are also allowed (e.g. photographs of user meetings).

This image hardly constitutes a "collection" of personal images; it was ONE image for use on personal talk page. I don't see any violation of rules here !!!


K0dpw (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done See COM:SCOPE. Iff you intend on using this image immediately, please feel free to re-upload it -FASTILY (TALK) 00:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Birdwing.svg[edit]

The original deletion nominator's suggestion seems to be based on a recent paper which I did examine and made some adjustments. There is however a significant lack of consensus on the definitions used but it seems that although there is no evidence for attachment of the tertial to the humerus in the specimen that was examined, it seems unlikely for it to have any other kind of origins given the evolutionary situation with primaries and secondaries. Apart from these minor facts, I am not sure if deletion policy is appropriately applied here. If the person concerned had an issue, it should merely have been not used on the relevant article. Shyamal (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


✓ Done Meh, okay -FASTILY (TALK) 05:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Palokangas_Jouni.jpg [edit]

Following pictures have been undeleted on my updates and I can´t understand why. I have took those pictures as Finnish national vollyball team press manager and have rights to those pictures. Please tell me what to do about this matter.

   File:Ojansivu Olli-Pekka.JPG
   File:Hietanen Matti.JPG
   File:Esko Mikko.JPG
   File:Tuominen Jari.JPG
   File:Siltala Antti.JPG
   File:Oivanen Mikko.JPG
   File:Lehtonen Jukka.JPG
   File:Tervaportti.JPG
   File:Oivanen Matti.JPG
   File:Kunnari Olli.JPG
   File:Mäntylä Jesse.JPG
   File:Shumov Konstantin.JPG
   File:Kaatrasalo Aleksi.JPG
   File:Roininen Tommi.JPG
   File:Palokangas Jouni.JPG

Toni Flink, Toniflink


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 08:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


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

File:José Alberto Reis.jpg [edit]

This is a photo of a portuguese singer who I'm starting to work. My job is to create and manage his online presence wither on Facebook, youtube, my space and so on... I though it is important a page on Wikipedia for him with all his information bit I'm having a lot of problems with licensing his pictures.

I'm new to Wikipedia and Commons, and I find the documentation way to complicated and to complex for a newbie to understand. Can I ask you some kind of guidance on this? Looking to other artists on Wikipedia, I see dozens of different kinds of copyright tags and it confuses me :/ So, to add a copyrighted photo of a singer and his cd covers, how do I have to licence the pictures?

Please help me here because I'm getting crazy with this.

Kind regards, Luis Pedro Ferreira


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 08:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Rebeco-2a.png … (2)[edit]

Please restore:

by OTRS permission in ticket:2012042010006211. (See also same section above, now with new information in the ticket, to be checked if sufficient.) --Krd 09:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 09:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


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

File:J36 alpha.png etc...[edit]

English: I request for an undeletion because i'm the author of these pictures which are made with photoshop on my computer.
Français : Je fait une requête pour récupérer des fichiers supprimés car je suis l'auteur de ces photos qui ont été faites avec photoshop sur mon ordinateur.

Cordialement, Jitrixis (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That may be, but they strike me as out of scope -- no useful purpose. Generally we do not keep personal creations from people who are not notable artists. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done What Jim said. See COM:SCOPE -FASTILY (TALK) 19:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:West Bluff summit view, 1933.png [edit]

Photo should not have been deleted. Permission was granted through OTRS, but apparently not confirmed. The photo is part of the "Paul LaVanway Collection" owned by Paul LaVanway and published in LaVanway, Paul (2010) "Photos" in The Brockway Mountain Drive Story (2nd ed.), Copper Harbor, MI: Keweenaw County Historical Society, p. 9 ISBN 9780982345108. Permission was granted to use a CC-BY-SA license in the e-mail submitted to OTRS. I uploaded the photo, yet I was not notified on either my enwp or commons talk pages that the photo was tagged for possible deletion. The only way I knew that a Featured Article on enwp could lose photos was when it lost photos. That is unacceptable. Imzadi 1979  02:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not forum shop, it is disruptive and does nothing to help your case. I've already explained to you, multiple times, why the images cannot be hosted on Commons without adequate evidence of permission. Since Mr. LaVanway did not specify an exact license tag to use in otrs:2012053110005842, the files are at best missing evidence of permission, and thereby eligible for deletion as such. Unless Mr. LaVanway responds to the email sent to him by OTRS, we cannot continue to host the files on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 03:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
New reply from Mr. LaVanway sent into OTRS. Photos should now be undeleted as confirmed as CC-BY-SA 3.0 per his, "please use CC-BY-SA 3.0. Kind Regards, Paul LaVanway". Once again, had proper procedure been followed, and I had been notified a week ago per directions, this would never have come up for deletion. Imzadi 1979  18:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done There now, was that so painful? I swear I feel like I'm pulling teeth when I'm trying to uphold policy around here... -FASTILY (TALK) 19:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:007 - copy.jpg [edit]

i don't think this picture will violate any copyright rights . because the person's flickr account from which i had upload this photo is not the copyright holder himself . The photo i'd upload is an photograph of eminent odia/oriya writer who had died long ago . so his photo should be copyright free .--ଶିତିକଣ୍ଠ ଦାଶ (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done See Commons:License laundering. The flickr user is accountable for providing accurate licensing and source information. If we cannot verify that, then we cannot use the file on Flickr. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File: Petrides with Orchestrette Classique.tif [edit]

This appears to have been deleted for no OTRS permission received. The author has asked me to check (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronhjones&diff=next&oldid=512158251) - I have found the OTRS permission at Ticket 2012052810008177 - it was for a set of eleven images - ten of which still remain at Category:Frédérique Petrides. Maybe the OTRS permission got missed off this one - the uploader has had no message about the deletion on her talk page User talk:Mx96WCO. Please restore and add correct OTRS ticket number. Thanks.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 02:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:RafaleMflottille12F.jpg[edit]

Hi,

You have objected to my upload of an image of the Dassault Rafale M.

May I point out that the image is part of a collection by the same author Stephan L'Hernault, which is already part of the Wiki Media commons and has been accepted by Wikipedia.

Other pictures of this same collection feature prominently on the German Dassault Rafale Page

Please see: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale#Standard and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale#Verb.C3.A4nde

You will notice that all these pictures are of the same style and contain the same copyright notice.

My upload was merely intended to complete the German Wikipedia entry. The entry for the Rafale M had a broken image link. In my view it makes no sense to disallow this one particular image and permit usage of the other ones. The image also is GNU licensed as per the source I have indicated.

Regards, Christian Benesch --Christian.benesch (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 23:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:PJWB.jpg [edit]

Ce logo étant celui du Parlement Jeunesse Wallonie-Bruxelles, créé par mes soins, uploadé sur ce site pour illustrer la page du Parlement Jeunesse Wallonie-Bruxelles, j'aimerais pouvoir annuler sa suppression, s'il-vous-plaît.

This is the Parlement Jeunesse Wallonie-Bruxelles's logo, made by me (president of the association). So, I would like to use it to illustrate the wikipedia page of the Parlement Jeunesse Wallonie-Bruxelles. Thank you.

--ArnoRMK (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 23:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg [edit]

J'ai inséré il y a quelques années la photo de mon père, Gilbert Brustlein, dans l'article qui le concerne sur Wikipédia, après l'avoir inscrit sur Commons. Il a été effacé le 5 septembre 2012, je me demande bien pourquoi, par "Fastily" ( (Retrait du lien Gilbert_Brustlein_à_20_ans.png, supprimé sur Commons par Fastily ; motif : Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fb58). Cette photo m'appartient, il ne peut donc être question de droits d'auteur; elle illustre l'article puisque mon père avait 20 ans pendant la Résistance, et c'est cette photo qui a été publiée par les journaux: elle est donc publique. Je demande à ce que cet effacement soit annulé. Fb58


 Not done Please make a new request and link the image in question -FASTILY (TALK) 23:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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


File: Sapp Pub Photo Primary.jpg [edit]

Yes, the photo in question is on the Warren Sapp Facebook page as well. I own the photo and my company manages Warren Sapp. Our team also manages his social media and we uploaded the photo in question to facebook... Again, I own the photo as it is my photographer that took the picture. The current picture on the Warren Sapp Wikipedia profile is unacceptable and a very unflattering image and that is why we are now trying to change it. Please advise on how we go about doing that. I can also be contacted at ignition@theclcgroup.net or 424-354-9429. Clarcgable (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 00:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Irish Referendum Lisbon Treaty 2 Vote No.jpg [edit]

I see no reason why this file has been deleted. I own the copyright. I released it for use on Wikimedia. The photo was taken during the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign in Ireland and I wonder whether there is a political motive behind its deletion. Especially considering that the subject matter concerns Libertas, the anti-EU lobby group. Another similar pro-Lisbon treaty photo wasn't deleted. The photo itself does contained a copyrighted image - the poster itself. However, it appears in a public setting. And is sufficiently obscured. Please consider this photo for undeletion.

Thanks,

--Daniel.finnan (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image was deleted because it infringes on the copyright of the poster which occupies virtually the whole image. The fact that it appears in a public setting is irrelevant under Irish law, see the introduction to Freedom of Panorama and, specifically, Commons:FOP#Ireland. The case was so obvious that our rules allowed it to be deleted on sight, without discussion.
As for your suspicion of the motives behind this deletion, it was nominated for deletion by Firespeaker, an American and deleted by Túrelio, a German. I am also an American. Between us, we have over 400,000 actions on Commons -- we don't have time for or any interest in being political here. Although occasionally newbies have political arguments on Commons, usually about maps or place names, the thought that an image would be deleted for political reasons is just silly. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
To be slightly more specific -- it almost certainly does not actually infringe copyright by being on Commons, as educational uses such as Wikipedia and related sites would likely be protected by fair use or fair dealing. However Commons does not host works which could potentially infringe if used directly, including when used in a commercial context (say, selling a postcard of your image). In such cases, the copyright of the underlying work becomes much more of a concern, unless there are specific legal exceptions to those rights, such as the "freedom of panorama" mentioned above (which does exist in Ireland but only for works which are permanently placed in public, such as public sculpture or buildings). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done per above. No consensus to undelete. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Lovoš_pohled_od_Čížkovic.jpg [edit]

File was deleted, then restored after my request and confirmation that I am really the author and then deleted again. I have never received a deletion warning. I have noticed the deletion by chance. I wonder how many my (and, much scarier, others') files have been deleted in this way so far. Please restore. Miraceti (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done The files were deleted as missing clear evidence of permission. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 20:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Festival Internacional de Benicàssim, ZENDOME.150 - © ZENDOME.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2012082210006719. King of ♠ 00:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 00:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Global broiling.jpg [edit]

Please undelete this file. There is no other name given to elevated levels of solar UV-B radiation reaching the surface of our planet.

Cannabis scholar 16:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Projectpeace (talk • contribs) 16:09, 16 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Please sign your entries with your actual user name. No file by that name has ever existed on Commons, and you have not uploaded any files to Commons under this user name. LX (talk, contribs) 17:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done per LX. Nothing to undelete. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Kavitha cinema theatre - ernakulam.JPG[edit]

This is the picture of a movie theater in India. It would be next to impossible to take a picture of the theater without including a poster. May be we can blur the posters and make the posters de-minimis. I think the picture deserves to be kept here. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


As the closing admin, this proposal is acceptable to me. Feel free to restore and make the necessary changes. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Lodge Lane Rgeneration Zone Sign.jpg[edit]

The debate was still going on the presumed copy right holder had been asked for their stance but had as yet not responded. The location they where given to responded was the area this mod has closed down. Very Very rude.--JIrate (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't understand the comment above. The image was a clear violation of the copyright of the sign that is the only thing in the image. By our rules, it could have been deleted on sight.
Instead, it had a DR, placed by Rodhullandemu, a very experienced editor. Irate, the uploader, also an experienced editor, objected. There were no other comments and no "debate". Eight days later, Fastily, a very experienced Admin, deleted the image. This is not "rude" -- it is simply routine. Please remember that we delete over 4,500 images very day. We have a significant backlog, which is shrinking only very slowly. Obvious copyright violations are going to be handled quickly.
I also note that the sign has four photographs on it. It is very likely that these are stock photos that were licensed for use only on the sign -- it is very unlikely that the sign owner actually has the right to license them in the form that Commons requires. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Blatant copyvio -FASTILY (TALK) 23:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Wolfgang Oberroeder.jpg[edit]

File:Wolfgang Oberroeder.jpg request undeletion. Please undelete the file. Wolfgang Oberröder took the Photo himselves and gives the permission to publish it under the creative commons law. Under http://www.pilgerreisen.de/prof-dr-wolfgang-oberroeder you find a already published simmilar version with less quality. Thank you --IWikiWi (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 23:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Image:Szymon lenkowski portrait 2.jpg [edit]

Kind Sirs, For no reason, today someone named Masur removed my own picture from my wikipedia profile. The file name is Szymon lenkowski portrait 2.jpg The picture depicts myself. it is my own face - my portrait, which i am using for my personal profile biogram at wikipedia. The picture was taken with my own camera, by my anonymous friend, on my request some time ago. the entire copyright is mine. the picture belongs to me. there are no copyright infrigements, no violations, it is not copyrighted, i did not download it from the web. it is my picture.

I am a cinematographer. I make films for a living. the picture shows me behind the camera. For my professional life it is important to be present at the wikipedia, and have a portrait there, stored at the wikimedia. Please kindly do help me put my own portrait back online.

yours,


Szymon Lenkowski Sh11 (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)sh11


✓ DoneThere actually was a good reason for the deletion. As a rule, we require that when an image appears elsewhere on a copyrighted page, the copyright owner must send us a confirmation using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. That was the reason given (albeit cryptically) in the edit summary for the deletion: "(Copyright violation: http://www.filmpolski.pl/fp/index.php/1155080)". However, I think that in this case we can assume good faith. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Logo PvdD.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: toestemming van mevr. L. Keller, directeur Partijbureau PvdD voor gebruik op wikipedia Ger247 (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 23:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:MuseoHuacasDeMoche.jpg[edit]

The author of the original file "uranio" has given the licence Licence CC- BY-SA-2.0 in his publication in the url http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1289403 to use his work for the file MuseoHuacasDeMoche.jpg and so I don't understand why the file has been deleted. Please I request undelete since it is clearly seen that there isn't any reason to delete the file or any Copyright violation because the author himself is giving permission to use his work for any purpose so there's no reason to deletion of the file. Thank you.--Spanchrash (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


File hastily deleted after incorrect tagging with "no source" (whatelse is new). Someone suspected a copyvio, and instead of starting a DR, abused the "no source" tag. There is no reason to suspect the license is wrong, since from the EXIF the photos were posted in the skyscrapercity thread just one day after being taken. Apparently the uploader digitally removed the watermark, which may have enlarged the file, but whatever has been done to the original file is immaterial here since the license is CC-BY-SA-2.0. Restored and reviewed. You may upload the rest of the photos of that collection if you wish, they seem very useful to the project.--- Darwin Ahoy! 22:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:PlazuelaIquitos.jpg[edit]

The author of the original file "Trujillo_Rocks" has given the licence Licence CC- BY-SA-2.0 in his publication in the url http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1453253 to use his work for the file PlazuelaIquitos.jpg and so I don't understand why the file has been deleted. Please I request undelete since it is clearly seen that there isn't any reason to delete the file or any Copyright violation because the author himself is giving permission to use his work for any purpose so there's no reason to deletion of the file. Thank you.--Spanchrash (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image was deleted for not having a source and, as noted in the editor's summary, the image on Skyscraper City is 799 x 550px, while the image deleted from Commons is 1500 x 1033px. It's obvious that Skyscraper City is not the source of the image. We have no way of knowing that Trujillo Rocks is actually the author of the image -- this may well be a case of Flickrwashing. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support It's not obvious at all that Skyscraper City is not the source of the image. I scaled up the Skyscraper City image to the size of the one uploaded here, and I can't tell one from the other, it's the same thing. Furthermore, the image was posted at Skyscraper City three days after being taken, according to the EXIF, and was taken with the same Canon PowerShot as all the others in that thread by "Trujillo_Rocks". I don't understand why one would try to see zebras when hooves are heard, when there are very simple explanations available (scaling up, in this case).
Besides, the image was deleted without due process due to incorrect "no source" marking. The "no source" tag is so abused, and there is so little revision on what is marked, that if one lunatic queues Caravaggios to that trashing machine, even if they have a source, there is a good probability that they'll got deleted from here. It's not nothing that has never happened, anyway (in this case it was the license missing, but the blindness is the same). In this case a source was presented, and to the best of my knowledge it's the correct source. If there are doubts on it's validity, a DR should have been opened, not abusively tag it with "no source", which as things are now, is equivalent to vandalism. --- Darwin Ahoy! 15:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that {{no source}} is widely abused -- I'm not sure why we have it and {{no permission}}. I think they are supposed to strongly suggest that the uploader take action, but if he doesn't, perhaps the result should be an automatic DR, not a deletion.
I also agree that the image could well be an upsample of the SkyscraperCity image. If that's the case, then Spanchrash should say so. The upsample may put it out of scope, as we don't usually want such things.
There is also the fact that SkyscraperCity claims copyright on everything on its pages. I could not find its terms of service, but its claim suggests that the CC license shown in the caption is not effective. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
They can't claim copyright in something that is not theirs. In that case, the image has an author and a license, it's copyrighted to Trujillo, not to anyone else. And it's not even hosted in Skyscraper City, only the link is there.
I do not agree that the upscaled image is out of scope, since (IMO) the overall quality improved, to the point that I had to match one over the other to believe that it was indeed exactly the same image with the same basic quality, only upscaled.
I do agree that "No scope", "no permission" and "no license" should not be subject to automatic clean up, but rather sent to DR (with the exception of obvious cases, of course). I've recently restored a group of PD-Old maps which were deleted because permission was asked to a cartographer that died about 90 years ago.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Before to upload the image here in wikimedia I contacted with Trujillo_Rocks to be sure he is the author of the work. He told me that he took the pic with his own camera so I trusted it was true and then I increased the resolution of the pic to be able to appreciate better the image and I uploaded the photo.Greetings to all of you.--Spanchrash (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Spanchrash, for the explanation. In the future, please do not upsample images, as it does not improve the viewing quality and takes more storage.
@Darwinius. "They can't claim copyright in something that is not theirs." Actually, it depends entirely on their terms of service -- there are web sites that require that you grant them a license, even an exclusive license, when you upload images. However, given that their terms of service seem to be missing, we have a good explanation from Spanchrash, and good arguments from you, I have removed my opposition above. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 21:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


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


File:Human androgen receptor and androgen binding.svg [edit]

This image was deleted because it was deemed to be too similar to the image on which it is based (i.e., it was deemed to be a derivative image).

To remedy this, I have obtained permission from the creator of the original image, Dr. Marianne Sadar. This morning, I sent a copy of the email exchange I had with the author to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

Dr. Sadar has requested to be credited as follows: "Figure is based on an original drawing by Dr. Marianne D Sadar (Meehan KL, Sadar MD. Front Biosci. 2003 May 1;8:d780-800)."

If need be, I can post the email exchange that I had with the author here (I imagine it was probably sufficient to send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org)...

Thanks

Jonathan.Marcus (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


Restored and {{OTRS-pending}} added to the file.--- Darwin Ahoy! 18:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


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

File:RicardoMontano.jpg [edit]

The photo that was deleted was an official photo of an elected politician. Photos of such elected officials are considered part of the public domain, and not subject to copyright law. I followed the same uploading convention that was used for biographies of other politicians, including New York State Assemblyman Sheldon Silver (File:SpeakerSilver.jpg, uploaded by user Nyer42), and Suffolk County Legislator William J. Lindsay (File:WilliamLindsayHeadshot.JPG, uploaded by Lordadimar). Please undelete the photo (RicardoMontano.jpg) of Suffolk County Legislator Ricardo Montano.

--Justinbelkin (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Photos of such elected officials are considered part of the public domain" is not true; the works of an employee of a US state government are copyrighted by default. The other images you refer to are labeled as being the work of the people who uploaded them, and not official photos.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
As a general rule the copyright belongs to the photographer. That is often the case for official photos of politicians. In fact, even the official White House portraits of several presidents are not on Commons because their painters hold the copyright. There is nothing in New York state law which would suggest that this ought to be PD -- unless you can show that it has a free license, it cannot be restored.
Also, please note that {{own}} and {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} are reserved for cases where you actually took the photograph. Please do not use them on other people's work. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Basically per what Prosfilaes said. Unless we have written/textual evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a commons acceptable license, we cannot host the file -FASTILY (TALK) 21:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Vince Cable.jpg[edit]

This image was legally released under the Commons:UK Open Government Licence and Crow Copyright, the editor innotata supported allowing this image to stay as he knows about the OGL, as does the Administrator James F. who knows alot about the OGL, however it was subsquently deleted by Denniss who does not understand how copyright law works in the United Kingdom, even though we had provided evidence to support our case, he ignored it all and proceeded to delete the image.

In the Coaker deletion discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vernon Coaker.jpg, the editor Innotata said "The relevant rights owner here is the Crown (as opposed to a local government body), whose rights as the cited page mentions are managed by HMSO. It says "The Controller offers information which is subject to Crown copyright and Crown database right, or to copyright or database right which has been assigned to or acquired by the Crown (Crown information), for use under the terms of the Open Government Licence" and according to User:Jdforrester, who works at TNA, this means all crown/crown-owned copyright content that doesn't fall under exemptions is under the OGL (this has been added as a note to {{OGL}}). As for the FOI request not mentioning the license, it was made two years ago, probably before the Controller of HMSO's Offer. —innotata

The Administrator Jdforrester wrote "A published work of a Crown servant by a Crown Status body without a waiver from HMSO; there is no way that this can legally be anything other than OGL". James F. (talk)

Denniss then deleted the image and his reason was "noncommercial restriction = noncommercial OGL", which caused an Administrator to write on his talk page "Your deletion justification for this file is not supported by any of the documentation that was linked to during the discussion. It looks almost as if you just made up a reason, which is clearly not the case. Could you please amend the deletion discussion to the evidence for your determination that an HMSO-directed body can now magically use a licence not otherwise available to it (note: this would generally need a new, enabling Act of Parliament; feel free to link to said Act)." James F. (talk)

Therefore I believe this image should be undeleted as a discussion was held for it to be kept and yet Denniss ignored it and abused his power by deleting it, even when other Administrators had said it was fine.Slytherining Around32 (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hutton and Hoon images were deleted as they are of unknown source, only a very small res version was available under the given sources. There's no verification the larger version was ever available under Crown Copyright or OGL. Uploader was asked multiple times to provide an exact source but ignored this. Stating the exact source is a requirement for OGL license, see [9]. We do not know who made these images, neither do we know if the official websites were only permitted to post the low res version while the photographer retains full copyright over the larger images. There's still the question whether Crown Copyright + noncommercial usage restriction becomes unrestricted OGL or restricted noncommercial GL.
I should have indef blocked this sock right after noticing en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Marquis_de_la_Eirron/Archive#17_June_2012 but decided against it, this now backfires on me and other admins wo had to delete several uploaded images or block further socks. Note: you should restrict your sock accounts to en wiki, if you create another sock account here you'll most probably receive an indef here as well, either by User:Martin H. or me. I'm referring to your newer sock accounts like User:English Picturio for example. --Denniss (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You say they were of deleted because of an unknown source, but I provided the sources on both = here is Hoon's http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081119115450/http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/ministers/geoffhoonmp and here is Hutton's http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20071104143301/http://berr.gov.uk/about/ministerial-team/page40212.html. As the editor Innotata has stated before the images were taken by their respective department and were released under the OGL no matter what the resolution since it is the same image. We do know who made these images actually otherwise under british law these image would not have been allowed to be released to public, so they were taken by the government departments. You try and mention non commercial usage once again but in one one of the deletion discussions this was said:
"Unless of course it's Non-Commercial Government Licence, which covers the exact same material as OGL and isn't unlikely since the release says it can't be used commercially. One Night In Hackney (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, your fears are nonsense. It can't remotely be under the NCGL because DfE (DCSF as was) does not have the legal competence to decide what the licence is, and isn't granted a waiver by HMSO (the list is here). If it was under NCGL, it would need to explicitly cite it. Please stop reading a licensing text that was written before the UK's law was changed as valid now; it isn't. :-) James F. (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
No, they are wholly valid. I never even mentioned DfE, it's HMSO who have the power to licence the image under a variety of different licences, one being the Open Government Licence and the other being the Non-Commercial Government Licence. Per HMSO the OGL covers "information where the relevant rights owner, or Information Provider which has authority to license the Information for use, make it expressly available for use under the terms of the OGL". No source has been provided that shows the high res image(s) in question has been *expressly* released under the OGL. I love the way you say that anything that is NCGL requires explicitly citing as that, while ignoring that HMSO say everything that is OGL also requires an explicit cite. You can't have it both ways!! One Night In Hackney (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
James F. by the way is an expert in matters regarding the Open Government Licence so I think he knows more about british law then you do and you mentioning non commericial government licence is incorrect as http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/non-commercial-government-licence/ and if you will go on this link you will see its stored away in the National Archives because this law is out of date as of 2010 and has been replaced by the OGL, so your arguement is based solely on a piece of legislation that no longer exsists. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, a lot of what you've (SlytheringAround32) said above is wrong, but I won't go through it.
James has explained the copyright issues (and I've repeated this): HMSO decides. The departments that claim noncommercial restrictions (most of which say they use the OGL, contradictorily) or that the OGL has a limited scope, are wrong. Take a look at Commons:UK Open Government Licence for some more details. What basis do you have to say James is wrong? What SlytheringAround32's done is not relevant to the copyright on these images. —innotata 01:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I will say why SlytheringAround32 is wrong, and hilariously so. If the Non-Commercial Government Licence is out of date as of 2010, perhaps he'd like to explain why it wasn't even introduced until mid-2011? I say James is wrong based on what HMSO say about the OGL, namely that anything that is OGL requires an express release, rather than a blanket "everything produced by the government is automatically OGL" claim which isn't supported by HMSO themselves, who control it in the first place. One Night In Hackney (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll ask James to respond (again). HMSO does not say everything produced by the U.K. government is under the OGL, and indeed the wording on the website is not very clear. But it certainly does not clearly say explicit permission is needed for each work either. —innotata 22:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: I had to indef block the sock because he/she/it created even more socks to upload these images, also edit-warring at en wiki to get these images installed. More or less the same set of images was locally uploaded at en wiki and most of them got deleted. --Denniss (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Closing as  Not done - no clear-cut consensus to restore once again. As always, if anyone should uncover any new, tangible, textual/written evidence suggesting that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons-compatiable license, a new request should be made -FASTILY (TALK) 07:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


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


File:05 04 21 Gas the Arabs.jpg [edit]

  • This file was deleted following the discussion Commons:Deletion_requests/File:05_04_21_Gas_the_Arabs.jpg.
  • The reason provided was "Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 02:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)"
  • The file comes from CPT's site http://cpt.org/index.php?q=gallery&g2_itemId=2454
  • CPT's site states "CPT pictures are free for use according to a Creative Commons 3.0 license." See here.

Thanks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


I restored the file for now. If there is still an issue, please reopen the DR. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Post-1922 paintings of Nicholas Roerich[edit]

Some of this works were first published in the Russian Empire before 1917. See Template:PD-RusEmpire. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, all Roerich works not listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Post-1922 paintings of Nicholas Roerich have to be undeleted in order to be reviewed. --Ghirlandajo (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done these. It seems I was under the mis-impression that the entire category was up for deletion. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


--Shakko (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't check every date in deleted images, should be before 1917.

--Shakko (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


✓ All done -FASTILY (TALK) 18:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Afghanistan arms 1973-1974.svg [edit]

File File:Afghanistan arms 1973-1974.svg is derived from File:Afghanistan arms 1931-1973.svg, by deleting 4 letters and is otherwise virtually identical. File:Afghanistan arms 1931-1973.svg was derived from File:Flag of Afghanistan.svg which was downloaded from OpenClipart website with CC-zero license. File:Afghanistan arms 1973-1974.svg was caught in the Commons:Deletion requests/Afghanistan coat of arm files of files incorrectly using {{PD-Afghanistan}}. I agree that {{PD-Afghanistan}} was a wrong license, however the correct license is {{PD-user-w|en|wikipedia|Orange Tuesday}} for derivative work and {{PD-OpenClipart|url=http://openclipart.org/detail/24112/flag-of-afghanistan-by-anonymous-24112}} }} for the original. See also Commons:AN#No_permission discussion on the subject. --Jarekt (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


✓ Done meh -FASTILY (TALK) 19:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File"Nexon.jpg[edit]

Please undelete. The picture was provided by Dan Nexon himself for free usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Kite (talk • contribs) 13:47, 21 September 2012‎ (UTC)

The image description shows the source and author to be Georgetown University. Please have an officer of the University provide an appropriate license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Without such permission, we cannot restore the image. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done What Jim said. Please send an email to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 19:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Rossi Rossi46 05-06 v001.png[edit]

This file was deleted because it "infringed the copyright of the original designer" according to the explanations given by the nominator. I request the undeletion because I only see simple geometric shapes on the helmet, with no original art which deserves to be copyrighted. Fma12 (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done This is definitely not simple enough for pd-shape. Textbook copyright violation -FASTILY (TALK) 19:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File: 01john mahama new president.jpg [edit]

This is a official picture of the president. It's the same picture you can see in every Ghanaian Embassy in the world. The current picture on the Ghana president wiki page is just a normal and unprofessional picture. On the US President wikipage you dont see a picture of obama entering a building as the official president portait? --Sankento123 (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The file is not free, its copyrighted and not published under a license that allows us to reuse it inside of our project scope. In opposition the official portrait of the U.S. president is free, thats why we have it here. --Martin H. (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Blatant copyvio -FASTILY (TALK) 19:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Rajesh Khanna during the shooting of film Roti.jpg[edit]

This photo which I had taken from a camera while watching the film on-screen has been removed.There has not been any copy-right violation. Instead of showing a good picture of young Khanna while he was working as an actor (that is any image of his from 1966-1991, currently aged Khanna's photo has been put).Request you to upload that image once again.Onceshook1 (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem with this file. You are not the copyright holder, because you are not the photographer or the cameraman, and therefore you may not put it here under a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Textbook non-free derivative work. Simply taking a photo of a creative work does not give you licensing rights over it -FASTILY (TALK) 08:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


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

File:Sandhamns lotshus.jpg[edit]

A new file depicting the proper pilot house was already uploaded under this name afther the old image has been moved to File:Sandhamns lotsstation.jpg. /ℇsquilo 08:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


Er, ✓ Already done? -FASTILY (TALK) 08:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Messier 74 ULX.jpg[edit]

The reason for the deletion request is "This contains material from NOAO, which is unfree and not covered by the Hubble licenses. TheDJ (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)" {{[[Template:cite journal |cite journal ]]}}</ref> }} Additionally, it is stated, "Not all images at NASA are free, this one contains work of other organizations and NOAO does not permit commercial use without permission. BTW NASA links back to the site listed as image source. --Denniss (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)"

I sent an email to Dr. Todd Boroson at NOAO requesting permission (PD status) for use of the NOAO portion of the above file. He transferred my email to Kathie Coil, a NOAO Public Affairs Program Coordinator. Her response is "You may use the image/data at no charge. The original image is located at http://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/html/im0509.html just in case you need better resolution. We would appreciate it if you would include the credit for the optical portion as Todd Boroson/NOAO/AURA/NSF."

I will be happy to email this exchange of emails to whomever needs to see them under the condition that my name outside WMF is kept confidential as is my outside email. The exchange of emails with NOAO constitutes a legal document so NOAO is bound by the content. All I need is an email here at commons to send this exchange to.

Sincerely,

Marshallsumter (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


And that's why we have COM:OTRS. Send the emails to them, and if everything checks out, they shall restore the file -FASTILY (TALK) 21:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, but while Fastily was closing this, I was restoring the file to mark it as missing permission, so our actions conflicted. I've restored it based on good faith, but if you believe it is appropriate, then delete it again.
Marshallsumter, please follow the instructions in your talk page, and please be sure that what you got is a license to use it in any way, commercially included), and not a Wikipedia-only license (or Commons-only, it's the same).--- Darwin Ahoy! 22:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Puthuppally Jn.JPG [edit]

This file is belongs to our place Puthuppally, so please undelete this file


--Kevedxb (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 19:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Amanda Pullinger, together with Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.JPG[edit]

Could you actually read the discussion under the nomination for deletion.

Here is a link to the page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Amanda_Pullinger,_together_with_Prince_William,_the_Duke_of_Cambridge_and_Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge.JPG

You will see that i have full copyright.

thank you,


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 22:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Ragini khanna as bride.jpg[edit]

This is my own creation & i uploaded to other web site & its completely free work (onjoly)


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 22:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Ilya Siomkin - 9.2011.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello. This photo has been deleted. How I can prove, that author of this photo don't have something against of placing? I personally acquainted with author. Mihail.zhernov (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 22:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Der Stürmer[edit]

there is no reasons to have deleted these images:

  • the majority was for KEEP in the deletion request
  • According to the Zeitungszeugen court case, the ownership of Hitler and nazi documents, papers, newspapers etc... are owned by the State of Bavaria. The 70 years termination for the copyright is valid if the article has not been signed.

The case states also about risks of NS propaganda coming with the diffusion of entire nazi documents. This is not the case with the photos of the front page of the Stürmer; --FLLL (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

After the DR, I pointed out to the closing admin that the files still did not have valid licenses on them, so he removed the incorrect licenses and added {{nld}}. As I pointed out in the DR, it was not true that these were anonymous works; at least one of the illustrations was signed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Please check this article of Blomberg: Early Nazi-Era Newspapers May Be Reprinted, Munich Court Says; By Karin Matussek - March 25, 2009 - Regards --FLLL (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It talks of publisher's rights running out after 70 years; it says nothing of the copyright of the artists and authors running out. At least some of the images are clearly not anonymous.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict you: if you read carefully the article you will see:

  • Bavaria has acquired the property rights of Third Reich propaganda material. (it is not limited to publisher)
  • The court gave authorization to publish the Zeitungszeugen which included inflammatory cartoons (see article) and photos. In the case of the nazi propaganda, the rights of the artists and authors are owned by Bavaria and free after 70 years of the publication as per court decision.

I repeat: Why do you want to be more royalist than the king, if the court considers the Nazi propanganda material to be free of copyrights after 70 years of publication.--FLLL (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It talks of publishers rights, not authors rights. according to [12] the court says, because of lack of creative input the publishers (Hitler, Goebbels) gained no copyright, and if they gained copyright the copyright for the publication before 1940 is expired. For articles this is different, the State of Bavaria not provided evidence that they own the copyrights on the articles, therefore the court did not follow the States request. Anonymous articles may be public domain, others may be not. --Martin H. (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus to undelete. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host them on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 20:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


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


File:Flag of German Democratic Republic.svg and File:State arms of German Democratic Republic.svg[edit]

Consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of German Democratic Republic.svg is to keep the file. At Commons:Deletion requests/File:State arms of German Democratic Republic.svg there is one editor asking for deletion on the basis of personal dislike, and one editor asking for retention on the basis that the file is correct, sourced, properly licensed, in use and usable. See also File talk:Coat of arms of East Germany.svg. DrKiernan (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support. Unless the border color is defined in the blazon (highly unlikely), then any artist can choose their own representation and still have it be a "factually correct" version of the arms. There is absolutely no reason to only have only one representation present on Commons; additionally there is no need to show "documentation" that other border colors were "allowed". You'd have to show that the drawing violated the explicit definition of the arms. I can understand not wanting to upload over the main in-use graphic with a change like that, so the reversions on the other graphic were appropriate, but when such an image is uploaded under a different name because someone thinks it's preferable, then Commons keeps *both* versions and lets editors at other projects decide which is best. Deleting alternate versions should never be done, and the deletion reasons were incorrect. Saying one version was deleted "in favor of" an alternate version is a very big red flag that the deletion was inappropriate. It would only be appropriate if the work clearly violates the blazon, and if fixing it would then result in an identical work to something else we have. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. Deletion of the file was requested by one Canadian user that doesn't understand German at all. There is consensus about the official colours, but the Canadian user thinks he knows better. This Canadian user managed to delete the file that he didn't like. --Bouwe Brouwer (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
That's definitely not an objective reason. (Although this Canadian user is well known for knowing everything and knowing nothing.) -- πϵρήλιο 03:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. If there is consensus about the colours then it should only be this version. -- πϵρήλιο 00:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support - per Carl Lindberg, if it is a possible alternate version, then it should be kept, despite personal opinions. Such kind of conflicts should be left for the Wikipedias.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
If possible Commons has rubbish for every opinion!? Let us each family deny conflicts in his own world to grow up!? So there is no factual conflict!? Despite personal opinions, is that not the scope of Commons. Have we here more as one reliable representative source? -- πϵρήλιο 03:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Commons should stay out of disputes like this. One-true-fileism needs stomping out.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Restored as per above. Yann (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Japanese magazines.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I believe that all copyrighted work here is {{de minimis}}. - Darwin Ahoy! 03:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. The two magazines held by the man are not de minimis. Certainly the whole point of the image is to show the magazines, hence they cannot be DM. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg request withdrawn - I agree with Jim's reasoning.--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Gráfico Martínez Alfara.jpg [edit]

It is a {{PD-AR-Photo}}.--Coentor (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose -- It is a cover of the magazine El Gráfico which was Argentine, not Spanish, but the subject, Martínez Alfara, was a Spanish boxer. If this was the first publication of the image, then it is, in fact, {{PD-AR-Photo}}. However, it looks to me like a publicity photo of Alfara, probably taken and used in Spain before El Gráfico used it..     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Is a photo taken in 1938, if not mistaken. (februray, it seems.) By those dates, Martínez was already expratiate in Argentina, where he would fix his residence after the Spanish Civil War, as an exiliate. El gráfico was an important magazine, so it doesn't seems weird to me that they took a photo of him for the cover.--Coentor (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 20:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Almanac La Traca 1932.jpg [edit]

Unsigned (Anonymous) work published in december of 1931. It has been in Public Domain since January 2012, 80 years after its publication.--Coentor (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No such luck. As COM:L says, it must be out of copyright in both the US and its source country, and it's not out of copyright in the US until 95 years have passed since publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, the fact that this image is unsigned does not make it anonymous. There may well have been a credit on the facing page or elsewhere. In order to use "anonymous" you must, as a minimum, show that there was no credit given wherever it was first published. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I can't prove at 100% it was anonymous, as long I don't own a copy: but that magazine, due its content, had most of its work published under pseudonyms or published unsigned. My source, which is an important spanish comic-books database, shows the work as anonymous (Carceller, 1931, being Carceller the surname of the editor, he is not a cartoonist).--Coentor (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)--Coentor (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Commons is a place for free files, and not possibly free files. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 20:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyogenesis[edit]

Please Undelete:

File:1991 Ignis Creatio.jpg

File:PyogenesisMexico1995-Poster.png

File:Pyogenesis1991.png

File:Pyogenesis2002.png

File:1995 Twinaleblood.jpg

File:Pyogenesis Unpop.jpg

File:Pyogenesis-Poster1.png

File:Moskau Pyogenesis.png

File:Pyogenesis Broken Car.jpg

File:Pyogenesis Breeze2003.png

Quelle: http://hamburgrecords.com/j/de/bands/70-pyogenesis Schriftliche Verfügung ist abgeschickt.

--MikHe (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the Google translation. http://hamburgrecords.com/j/de/bands/70-pyogenesis has an explicit copyright notice. If they have sent permission, it must go to Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done What Jim said. If they have given you permission, it needs to be forwarded to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 20:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Antrag zur Wiederherstellung der Datei [[:{{{1}}}]][edit]

Guten Tag,

ich bitte um Wiederherstellung der Bilddatei [[:{{{1}}}]]. Es handelt sich um das Logo der SportRegion Stuttgart, deren projektbezogener Mitarbeiter ich bin. In meiner Funktion bin ich u. a. für die Einrichtung und Betreuung der Wikipedia-Seite der SportRegion Stuttgart e. V. (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SportRegion_Stuttgart) zuständig. Hierzu gehört bei der Gestaltung auch die Verwendung unseres Logo, welches nun gelöscht wurde. Somit handel ich im Auftrag der SportRegion Stuttgart, was jederzeit auch bei Geschäftsführer Michael Bofinger nachgefragt werden kann (michael.bofinger@sportregion-stuttgart.de).

Möglichweise habe ich beim Upload der Datei nicht ausreichend Informationen zur Datei ergänzt. Das möchte ich hiermit nachholen und folgende Vorschläge zur Kennzeichnung machen:

1.) Licensing: Da es sich bei der Datei um unser Logo handelt, unterliegt es dem Marken- oder Namensrecht. Es müssen bei der Weiterverwendung diese Schutzrechte beachtet werden. Die Datei darf ausschließlich zu enzyklopädischen Zwecken und in mit dem Logo im Zusammenhang stehenden Artikeln verwendet werden. Dies ist durch das Impressum der SportRegion Stuttgart, in deren Auftrag ich handel, gedeckt: http://www.sportregion-stuttgart.de/index.php?tacoma=webpart.pages.TacomaDynamicPage&navid=4053&coid=4053&cid=0&tacomasid=7v6ttpuabtc486je3h7eqp06v4 2.) Description: Deutsch: Logo der SportRegion Stuttgart; English: Logo of SportRegion Stuttgart 3.) Date: Unknown date 4.) Source: http://www.sportregion-stuttgart.de (mehr Infos zum Logo unter http://www.sportregion-stuttgart.de/index.php?tacoma=webpart.pages.TacomaDynamicPage&navid=4044&coid=4044&cid=0&tacomasid=7v6ttpuabtc486je3h7eqp06v4, letzter Abschnitt) 5.) Author: SportRegion Stuttgart

Ich bitte Sie, aufgrund der oben dargestellten Gründe, um die Wiederherstellung des Logos.

Herzlichen Dank und mit freundlichen Grüßen Christian Keipert




SportRegion Stuttgart e.V. Christian Keipert Fritz-Walter-Weg 19 70372 Stuttgart

Tel.: 0711 / 28077-391 Fax: 0711 / 28077-394

E-Mail: christian.keipert@sportregion-stuttgart.de Internet: www.sportregion-stuttgart.de YouTube-Channel: http://www.youtube.com/srstuttgart Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sporttalk

Geschäftsführer: Michael Bofinger Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart Registernummer: VR 5909 im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Stuttgart Steuernummer: Finanzamt Stuttgart 99059 / 28578

--Christian Keipert (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 20:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Gene Dante and The Future Starlets.jpg[edit]

This image is free content.


 Not done Blatant copyright violation -FASTILY (TALK) 20:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Strandarvegur[edit]

Why was the photo deleted? Reykholt (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


See COM:SCOPE. Commons is not Wikipedia. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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


File:Seigenthaler effect.gif[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image appears to have been deleted solely because the nominator did not agree with its premise. Prior to deletion, it had been used in several talk page discussions of Wikipedia history, where it served as a useful graphic. Even if the premise is flawed (which I'm not sure of), the graph itself is completely factual and serves as interesting food for thought. I don't see how the image qualifies for deletion other than the fact that one person didn't like it. Kaldari (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While I question the validity of the assumptions behind the graph, it is firm Commons policy not to take positions on such matters. We leave that to the editors at various projects who may or may not choose to use the file. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Restored as per Jim. Yann (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

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

I own the copyright to my own personal headshot File:Peter DeLuise Headshot.jpg and request its undeletion immediately thank you.[edit]

File:Peter DeLuise Headshot.jpg

I wish for the undeletion of the above file as it is my own personal headshot and I own the rights to that photo.

--PeterDeLuise (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There are two problems here, both of which have the same solution.
First, when an image has been published elsewhere, we require that the copyright owner give formal permission for its use, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
Second, we do not allow user names that are names of notable people (see Peter DeLuise) unless they prove that they are, in fact, that person or another person with the same name. That can also be accomplished by the message to OTRS. Note that a message from gmail or other anonymous source will not be acceptable -- in order to allow you to use the name, we want to be sure that you are, in fact, Peter DeLuise. While this is a nuisance, I think you will agree that you would rather have a nuisance than have someone impersonating you on Wikimedia projects. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
See also my reply/statement on my talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done What Jim said. Please send permission to COM:OTRS. If everything checks out, the file(s) will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 08:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:ConlaSeleccion.tif[edit]

Esta fotografía la he donado yo, es mia propia, y no se ha debido borrar. --Harelllan (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean File:ConlaselecciónEspañola.tif. The image appears on Flickr as "All Rights Reserved". It also appears at http://www.rfef.es/index.jsp?nodo=8&ID=2893 with an explicit copyright notice. Note that owning a copy of the image does not give you the right to license it here. If you are the actual photographer, please send permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done What Jim said, please send permission to OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 08:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:I-sopod Flotation Tank.jpg[edit]

Please undelete this image.

I own the copyright on this image.

My name is Peter Bell and I am a manager at www.floatworks.com and www.i-sopod.com. We also own the flickr page that has been referenced as the original source.

On the 20th September I sent an email to 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org':

Dear Sir / Madam I am Wikipedia/media user ‘Floatguru’ I hereby affirm that I am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://www.i-sopod.com/floatation-tank/photos / http://www.flickr.com/photos/47600577@N02/4364344365/ (see attached image – This is the same image as I uploaded to Wikimedia commons) I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.3 (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. [SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS Peter Bell Bsc

The Floatworks - now with 9 tanks / 7 days a week / 10am - 10pm 1 Thrale Street London SE1 9HW England +44 (0) 20 7357 0111 peterb@floatworks.com / peterb@i-sopod.com [SENDER'S AUTHORITY : Copyright holder [DATE] 20/09/2012

Floatguru (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 08:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Piscina de Río Mar.jpg[edit]

I took this photo and it is available for public use.

--Panamaexpert (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This image appears at http://www.viviun.com/ad_images/185523-12/, which has an explicit copyright notice. If you are the actual photographer and still own the copyright, we can restore it if you send permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done What Jim said. Please send permission to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 08:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Aerial View of Panama Pacifico.jpg[edit]

This image was taken to show the location of Panama Pacifico (the article it was originally uploaded for) in relation to the Panama Canala and Panama City. It is available for public use and was taken for that exact purpose. --Panamaexpert (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done Blatant copyright violation -FASTILY (TALK) 08:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Annaliseinaphotoshoot.jpg[edit]

This is a file that has been given to me by the owner.

Thanks

Liz Felix 26 September 2012

The license is not on the website and I have not received an email from you yet on OTRS about this image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 08:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


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

File:MaybellineGemPC.JPG [edit]

The photo at question has not violated any copyright rulings, as it was taken by my personally. --Steph cm (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 22:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

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


Der Verkehr in der Guten Gesellschaft (118 files)[edit]

Files to be undeleted: File:Der_Verkehr_in_der_Guten_Gesellschaft_001.JPG ... File:Der_Verkehr_in_der_Guten_Gesellschaft_118.JPG Complete list of filenames can be found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tischlampe/dvidgg

Reason: These are book scans which were deleted back in 2008 for being copyvio since author Alban von Hahn had only died in 1942. Now that full 70 years have passed I believe the work can be regarded as being in the public domain. Therefore I kindly request undeletion. --Tischlampe (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: It would be very convenient to have the Category back, too. Thank you. --Tischlampe (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Not public domain yet, January 1 2013. Bitte nochmal de:Regelschutzfrist, 4. Absatz, lesen wie man die Regelschutzfrist nicht berechnen darf. --Martin H. (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thx! Obviously I have to withdraw the request on these grounds. --Tischlampe (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done, added your usergallery to the undelete category. --Martin H. (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Evgeniya Baranova.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this file does not violate anyone's copyright and used with permission of its author. Galeas (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thats impossible. You said that you not even know the author. --Martin H. (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right, I uploaded wrong file. Close this request, please. Galeas (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn -FASTILY (TALK) 22:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:InfoPath2013icon.png[edit]

File was incorrectly deleted for lacking permission, while it was still being discussed if a permission was needed or not, and then the associated DR closed as a fait accompli. This is not the proper way to do things, otherwise DRs are useless. Please restore the file and reopen the DR, or at least close it with a reasonable justification based on what has been discussed there.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


So, er, then just restore it? I'm not sure why this requires a UD request. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Fastily, I think that Darwin's remark is right, and you answer is not helpful. Either you provide a reason for deleting the file out of the process, or you restore it. I restored this file, but not the others of the same DR, and I reopened this undeletion request, so that further discussion can take place. Yann (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
My answer was, as the deleting admin, an endorsement of restoration and a reopening of the discussion. I'm really not sure what caused you think otherwise. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I think that we expect that the deleting admin restore the image unless he does not agree. Yann (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Gola Castle.jpg to undelete[edit]

Dear,

I have all the rights and autorisation to publish any content from website www.gola.pl. See copy of autorisation below. This was also sent to permissions-pl@wikimedia.org. Hence, I would like to publish below picture: File:Gola Castle.jpg Could you please undelete this?

Wikipedysta mgendaj Mathieu Gendaj 27/09/2012


From: c.gendaj@mcdiam.com.pl To: mgendaj@hotmail.com CC: permissions-pl@wikimedia.org Subject: RE: Wikipedia - Zamek w Goli Dzierzoniowskiej Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:58:44 +0200

Szanowny Panie,

Bardzo dziękujemy za uzupełnienie treści nt. Goli Dzierżoniowskiej i jego Zamku.

Wyrażamy zgodę na wykorzystanie wszelkich materiałów (w tym teksty i zdjęcia) z naszej strony www.gola.pl

Pozdrawiam, Cedric Gendaj Fundacja Zamek w Goli


From: Mathieu Gendaj [13] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:05 PM To: gola@gola.pl Subject: Wikipedia - Zamek w Goli Dzierzoniowskiej

Szanowni Państwo,

Nazywam się Mathieu Gendaj i jestem jednym z twórców Wikipedii (http://www.wikipedia.pl).

Zwracam się z prośbą o wyrażenie zgody na wykorzystanie tekstów zawartych na stronie http://www.gola.pl/ .

Przykładamy ogromną wagę do poszanowania praw autorskich. Jeden z użytkowników (Wikipedysta:mgendaj) umieścił w encyklopedii w artykule http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamek_w_Goli_Dzier%C5%BConiowskiej materiały z Państwa strony. Treść ta została oznaczona jako podejrzana o naruszenie praw autorskich. Ze względu na to, że czasami autorzy treści zamieszczonych na własnych stronach, publikują je również w Wikipedii, zwracam się z prośbą o wyrażenie zgody na pozostawienie tego materiału w Wikipedii.

Nasze zasady mówią, że materiały można umieszczać w Wikipedii jedynie wówczas, gdy autor wyrazi zgodę na publikację, ich późniejszą modyfikację i dalsze rozpowszechnianie w innych miejscach (komercyjnie i niekomercyjnie), zgodnie z licencją CC-BY-SA 3.0 i GNU FDL 1.3, na których publikujemy artykuły. Jeśli wyrażą Państwo zgodę, tekst zostanie objęty licencją CC-BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.pl\) oraz GNU FDL (GNU Wolnej Dokumentacji http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_FDL) a informacja o pierwotnym autorstwie materiału znajdzie się na stronie dyskusji artykułu.

Więcej na temat praw autorskich w Wikipedii można znaleźć na stronie: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Prawa_autorskie.

Jeżeli nie zgadzają się Państwo na opisane warunki proszę o informację, a bezzwłocznie usuniemy ten materiał ze stron Wikipedii.

Wikipedia tworzona jest przez wolontariuszy, którzy za swoje działanie nie pobierają żadnego wynagrodzenia.

Z góry dziękuję za odpowiedź.

Pozdrawiam serdecznie,

Wikipedysta mgendaj

Mathieu Gendaj

Someone has already restored it, but you might want to make sure you provide the correct authorship information next time. Unless I'm mistaken, you had listed it as your own work, when actually it was the work of Fundacja Zamek w Goli (http://www.gola.pl). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Already done by Wpedzich -FASTILY (TALK) 20:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Masacre_de_San_Patricio_-_los_cuerpos_-_4-JUL-1976.jpg [edit]

This file is public domain in Argentina per {{PD-AR-Photo}}, and is not listed in the files for deletion under Commons:Deletion requests/Montoneros. Hgrosser (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not, however, out of copyright in the US, which does not have the rule of the shorter term, so we can't host it. For URAA purposes, it left copyright 25 years after 1976 in Argentina, so it was under copyright in 1996.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Apparently not out of copyright in the US. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:MuseoHuacasDeMoche.jpg[edit]

The author of the original file "uranio" has given the licence Licence CC- BY-SA-2.0 in his publication in the url http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1289403 to use his work for the file MuseoHuacasDeMoche.jpg and so I don't understand why the file has been deleted. Please I request undelete since it is clearly seen that there isn't any reason to delete the file or any Copyright violation because the author himself is giving permission to use his work for any purpose so there's no reason to deletion of the file. Before already happened the same with this file see here, it was detaled I requested undelation then it was restored and now has been deleted againg. And the same happened with this other file File:PlazuelaIquitos.jpg see here. So I request undeletion of both again. Thank you--Spanchrash (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


Both undeleted, this has already been discussed before...--- Darwin Ahoy! 05:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Ts12sur.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All content shown in my screenshot is either shareware or freeware. Furthermore, if this screenshot is copyright infringement why hasn't this file (File:Trainz screenshot - Grimesthorpe.jpg) been deleted? 108.91.138.12 17:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Freeware or shareware is not the same as Free Software. On Commons only screenshots of en:Free software are allowed. The screenshot en:File:Trainz screenshot - Grimesthorpe.jpg is uploaded localy on English Wikipedia under a fair use rational. It is copyrighted and unfree and therefore showing the copyrighted content in Wikipedia is only allowed because its covered by fair use. On Commons fair use is forbidden. --Martin H. (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done By definition, shareware != free content, making this image unacceptable for Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 20:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Coat of arms of the United Kingdom.svg[edit]

This file was deleted because of this deletion request for a separate file. The only mention of the file in question is that it was "superseded," which on its own is not a valid reason for removal, and no further rationale (other than the aside comment in an unrelated request) was given for its deletion. --Ibagli (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support We don't delete "superseded" files (Commons:Superseded images policy). For that matter, unless it was a rendering of the SVG itself, i.e. an exact duplicate, File:Theknightsoftheproverbialtable.png should probably be undeleted as well. If they are different renditions, they should all be kept -- even "near-duplicate". Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... File:Theknightsoftheproverbialtable.png really is just a rendering of the SVG, just with some errors introduced. That may not be enough to keep. But yes, the other SVG most definitely needs to be kept. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Vivace Album Cover.jpg[edit]

I have ownership over this file, as well as all applicable copyright rights. I would like the photo put up again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdanieloh (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 September 2012‎ (UTC)

It is a copyrighted album cover, therefore, unless you can get permission from the record label using the procedure at Commons:OTRS, it cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done What Jim said, please see COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 23:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


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


File:Songs for Muddy.jpg Copyrights have not been violated[edit]

I have explained the reasoning behind my request. The files are used with the permission of Bunker Graphics, I have the email that gives me permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monorail11261 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 29 September 2012‎ (UTC)

It is a copyrighted album cover, therefore, unless you can get permission from the record label using the procedure at Commons:OTRS, it cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done What Jim said, please see COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 23:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Verka demo.jpg [edit]

I would like to ask for help with the licensing of the picture, I have the source, I don't know where to state the source on the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackest Eyes (talk • contribs) 09:41, 29 September 2012‎ (UTC)

It is a copyrighted album cover, therefore, unless you can get permission from the record label using the procedure at Commons:OTRS, it cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 Not done What Jim said, please see COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 23:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

File:Archipiélago de las Salomón.png[edit]

For me and I think for everyone, this photo does not affect the copyright, it is a picture taken for all to expose it, see it and enjoy it. So I do not see any problem on it that could harm copyright. This photo is not of those in which people steal them and then make the false copyright, this is made for use freely, but I do not consider myself the author, I think their booth and give my congratulations to the creator photo. So I give the petition to restore this photo that have not been violated copyright. Many photos if they violate copyright, but not in this case. --37.14.224.54 14:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Franco 310397


 Not done Blatant copyright violations -FASTILY (TALK) 23:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)