Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-08

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

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Files uploaded by Annette Friedrichs[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received in Ticket:2013061910006414. XenonX3 (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Please add the OTRS ticket to each image. INeverCry 17:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Dresden, Altar aus der Kreuzkirche von Hans Walther (1574—79), später Annenkirche in Dresden.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following page:

Source : Blätter für Architektur und Kunsthandwerk. 1. Jahrgang 1888, Verlag: Berlin, A. Braun, 1888 , Tafel 30 a
Author Unknown
Permission pd

--Messina (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:partida_miau [edit]

no entiendo porque se borró, no viola ningún copyright, es más, la foto fue realizada en mi casa por mi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfjquique (talk • contribs) 12:28, 31 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you're referring to File:Partida de Miau 2013-06-07 19-34.jpg. The deletion reason is in the deletion log, which you can see if you click the link to the correct file name. As you can see, it points to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Partida de Miau 2013-06-07 19-34.jpg, where you can see why it was nominated for deletion. You need to read Commons:Derivative works/Commons:Trabajos derivados. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done derivatives of non-free content is prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 19:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Divine_Brown_mug_shot.jpg[edit]

What's the difference between this file and ca. 400 others in Category:Mug shots? 91.66.153.96 17:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was missing adequate evidence of permission. If permission to publish this file on Commons has been granted by an authorized party, then that needs to be confirmed through COM:OTRS. -FASTILY 19:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Actor Dylan Neal.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I work for the Actor Dylan Neal and that cropped image I created myself from a picture that he himself gave to me and belongs to HIM. Please tell me how you wish to receive proof of this.

Thanks! AF Donohue Afdonohue (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is very simple. The picture belongs to HIM, therefore you can't upload with permission (You are not the owner of the image and the copyright). For permission please see the OTRS sections here: Com:OTRS. Hope it helps. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Coffret-boat-Runabout.jpg [edit]

File is made by us and has no copyright, can be used by anyone, for any purpose. I am the CEO of Frederique Constant SA and have uploaded to Wiki Commons, Peter Stas Pcstas (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

rodrigo_gracie.jpg [edit]

This is Rodrigo Gracie's photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo Gracie (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, you're referring to File:Rodrigo-Gracie.jpg. You need to provide a reason why you think the deletion was wrong. In this case, since the file was deleted as a copyright violation grabbed from http://www.onzuka.com/news_2005sept2.html, that means you need to explain why you think the file was not a copyright violation. Describing what the file depicts (which was already pretty clear from the file name) does not accomplish that. Please read the instructions before attempting to make an undeletion request again. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyvio. INeverCry 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Laura[edit]

File:Laura y Paolo en el chime for change.jpg

No creo que debería ser eliminada la imagen, y se me informo que no se sabe si el creador dejo que la imagen se publique libremente, si se puede publicar libremente ya que como pueden observar, Laura publico la foto desde su sitio oficial de Facebook, para que la pueden publicar. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by CamiloSanchezz (talk • contribs) 16:01, 3 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Negativ. If you want to upload this image here, you need to have the permission of the owner of the image. You are not the owner, so you can't decide to just upload it here and call it good. How on earth did you come up with the idea to license and image you don't own as CC-by-sa? Right now, your upload is a copyright violation. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyvio. INeverCry 14:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:المعجم الطبي الموحد1.JPG[edit]

The photo was deleted despite my discussion of the reasons not to delete it. The deletion is a bias.--Ashashyou (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "the deletion is a bias" is supposed to mean, but I'll note that File:المعجم الطبي الموحد1.JPG was kept after a deletion discussion in 2012. I really would expect to see more than boilerplate in the deletion summary when overturning a previous deletion discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support As a matter of process, I agree completely with LX -- a file should not be speedied when it has previously had a DR and been kept unless new facts have come to light (I should note that I was the Admin who closed the November 2012 DR as kept).
As for the file itself, I think I was correct in keeping it last November -- there is nothing eligible for copyright.
I think Ashashyou owes us an apology, however. There is no evidence of any bias here and such accusations hurt Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done No bias, just a mistake on my part. My apologies to Ashashyou. INeverCry 14:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:KZ Atzuma.jpg[edit]

An OTRS permission was received Ticket:2013080410002111. Thanks Hanay (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 14:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

funny page[edit]

I thought Category:Wikilove was a funny page/redirect, seemed ok to me, did it have a discussion before it was deleted ? I noticed it has been deleted, I'd like to know what other people think about it. This award linked to it, seems to suck a bit more with a link to a plain category, so like, if everyone doesn't like the redirect, I'll have to change the award page, which is cool, but you know, sucks a bit for the recipient I guess. Penyulap ☏ 08:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved to Category:WikiLove but not explicitly redirected, apparently. --O (谈 • висчвын) 23:06, 29 July 2013 (GMT)

✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't after the redirect actually, my query was basically what was wrong with it that it needed deletion without discussion, it was a nice little stop on the journey to the wikiLove category. I figure, well sure, some people hate humor and it usually makes their nose bleed when they see it and can't compute it. They're just like <Penyulap makes a blank open mouth staring face>. But as it is on the journey to the wikilove cat, well, they are probably the kind of people who are OK with that sort of thing so I figured it was ok. It's not really possible to discuss with anyone the merits of keeping it or deleting it on the category talk page if they can't see the little picture and caption and so on, so I figured to ask for it to be restored so that it can be discussed. I wouldn't call it a speedy or that sort of thing, sure, the humor is bad, but I don't think it's that deadly. Re-creating deleted content somewhere else always seems inappropriate to me, as well as difficult as I can't recall the text or filename. Penyulap ☏ 05:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. I think Lol, for some peeps its true, nose bleed and such. Don't think anyone could get through with a DR on Wikilove or WikiLove or whatever. Probably ends in a block party. :) So, how may I serve you in this matter? Would you like the redirect back? I personally HATE it, when I have to write capital letters in the middle of a word. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps you can rephrase so that whatever you are trying to say is easier to understand Hedwig. Penyulap ☏ 17:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Need more coffee. Would you like to have the redirect back? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you think I would do that ? Penyulap ☏ 16:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By saying: Yes, I think the redirect is useful, it should be restored. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're very confusing, but I think your saying I should ask about it, but you're not saying where I should do that. Doesn't it need to be done in the right place ? Penyulap ☏ 05:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't play games with me. This is the place and especially you know it. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well then don't start games that you don't want to play. You started playing "ask questions that are as polite as they are stupid" by asking me " So, how may I serve you in this matter? " that is where YOU started it. So what game is it that you DO want to play ? How about "Ignore the implicit request by asking for an explicit request" do you want to play that one ? what's your favorite game to play ? Hmm ? Penyulap ☏ 22:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you don't like polite people. And don't call me stupid, I deserve better. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what do your comments and games have to do with the request ? If you'd like to talk about your feelings that's all right, if you want to tell people what you deserve that's fine too, but I must warn you. I'm not a trained therapist and my comments are for information purposes only. So, what do you feel you deserve ? Penyulap ☏ 23:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong place for this, as you know. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong place for what, or who ? I made an undeletion request. I think it's in the right place. You seem to want to play games and talk about your feelings. Where does that go ? plus, why do you bring this stuff to me ? What have you ever done for me that I should let you feed me lines as if you feel I am special and not like everyone else on this page, feeding me lines to say, like I was some telephone sex operator for $4.95 a minute. I don't see you instructing anyone else oh say this to me, say that to me oOoOohhhHh. On English wikipedia the admins block people for kicks and demand textual hand jobs as a condition of unblocking. I don't see anyone else in this venue being told Ohhhh say this to me, Say that to me. People stick a request here, about any page or file and it gets answered without demands to play games. If you need your ego stroked then you should try someone who is into that sort of thing, or do something useful for a change. I give out awards, actually, according to most, I give out the BEST awards. If you can't click a button without getting a handjob first I'm thinking you've come to the wrong place, or asked the wrong person, or wait, both.
You started trolling by asking, at the undeletion request board, "how may I serve you in this matter?" being as polite as it is stupid. Go winge to someone else 'oh Peny was so cruel to me because I wanted to ask stupid questions, I was so polite and they were so not interested in giving me a ****job, this is so not fair, I'm an admin I deserve a ***job, I really do, look, I have buttons! I deserve a ****job'. Well, what have you done here except waste time and demand to talk about your feelings and demand to play games. huh ? what have you done. Nothing. Penyulap ☏ 05:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems harmless enough to me. Go ahead and recreate it. Code is appended in comments below. Just click edit this page to see them. -FASTILY 23:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Stgoyuri.jpg [edit]

La pagina a la cual se "cito" para realizar el borrado, estaba claramente identificada en la foto, y claramente explicado que la pagina en la cual salia la foto era un foro libre, donde subi mi fotografia con mi usuario en ese foro, claramente indentificado tambien. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex12345yuri (talk • contribs) 22:34, 4 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:EvgeniyaFilonova.jpg [edit]

File is original. Alexmarina 5/08/2013Alexmarina (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Rijeka Korzo Dani Sv Vida 090610 2.jpg[edit]

Above file is deleted which is utter ignorance of facts, please see image deleted:

Admins should be more careful and answer to all complaints regarding keeping an image, not act rashly. More than one reason was stated to keep the image, and all need be deemed not true to delete photo. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but there is no evidence that the flag is not a modern still copyrighted work. --Eleassar (t/p) 19:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you maybe intentionally blind? Please check all three pictures again, thank you. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a look at this flag and don't see by what evidence do you claim that it is not a modern (or relatively modern) still copyrighted work. You may call this 'intentionally blind' if you wish. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was the picture taken in Croatia? They have FOP... "permanent" might be a bit argumentative here but it would appear those copies were pretty much just made to show above the streets like that, and it's not like it's a singular work of art just on temporary display. I'd be inclined to restore it. No way is it a derivative work of the linked stained glass. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what does "permanent" refer to. It's clear that these flags are not permanently on display in this street in Rijeka. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose  Neutral Carl, I do not understand your comment. It seems to me that the flags must have copyrights of their own, no matter whether they are original art or are copies of art work -- Bridgeman does not apply to works unless they were created entirely mechanically, which seems unlikely here. FOP does not apply because the flags are clearly not permanent. Therefore we cannot restore this unless we have a license from the creator of the flags. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I should have explained a bit more.  :-) Really, I think this is a case where the letter of copyright law gives a different result than common sense. From what I can tell, the base image itself is of St. Vitus, in a depiction carrying a palm in one hand, and the city of Rijeka in the other. It is apparently derived from a carving on a stone pillar in Rijeka (see here, fourth picture down, which gives a date of 1509 for the carving). The banners appear to be decorations put out for an annual parade around St. Vitus' day... mid June or so (this picture is from 2010; here is one from 2013). The other Commons photo linked above shows a similar depiction at the main door of the Rijeka (St. Vitus) Cathedral in June 2012. I have not been able to find any history of that depiction itself to know how old it is, but at the very least it seems a fairly traditional depiction used in many places during those celebrations. It is likely copyrightable in and of itself, though a lot of the expression is from that 1509 carving. The banners themselves though appear to be made specifically to be put up in public every year -- from a certain point of view, their entire existence is meant for public display at that time of year, which might be considered "permanent" of a sort. The "permanent" provisions of the law are typically meant to protect sculptures, paintings, etc. from losing some of their normal economic rights just for being on temporary display. On the other hand, the "permanent" FoP provisions are there for works which are part of everyday public life to limit those economic rights; those are a different situation where the usual economic rights intrude too much on others. To me, these banners are much closer to the latter case -- they are sort of permanent fixture every June, from the looks of it, even if not the rest of the year (though it would not surprise me if some copies of that image are on more traditional permanent display somewhere). Courts have shown some flexibility in the definition of "permanent" such as in the case of ice sculptures; this could very well be another case like that, especially as it would seem these banners are put out by the city government. I just think it strains the letter of the law too much to delete on "derivative work" grounds in this particular case, rather than looking more at the law's intent. If I'm completely missing something (e.g. it turns out to be a private modern painting licensed by the city) it might be different, but given what I can find I think I lean towards  Support undeletion here. More information on the base image is always appreciated of course -- I don't speak the local language at all so my English-based searches may be missing something. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the full explanation. As I said above, I don't think it matters how old the depiction of St. Vitus is -- Bridgeman covers only mechanical reproduction and only in the USA, so even if the banners are good copies of an old work, I think that they have a copyright that will be in force for the next few decades in any case.
I find your "permanent" argument interesting. I think you are correct that the spirit of the law would support you, but the letter probably not. We had a similar case of some Japanese festival works that ultimately were deleted because the community felt that one month (or whatever it was) per year was not permanent. So, while I'm not convinced, I'll change my vote to neutral and see if anyone else can add to our thinking. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mechanical reproduction should not be copyrightable anywhere; those are copies and do not give a new copyright. If it turns out that the 2D image is say from the 1850s, then I don't think the banners are copyrighted at all and there would be no issue. If there was a minor additional copyright based on how the copy was made (maybe it required an additional engraving or something), it would likely be so small as to not be reproduced in this photograph. Bridgman was more about whether a photograph of a painting amounts to a mechanical copy; in the U.S. it does but it may not elsewhere. Something like a scan would be different -- those are always mechanical copies. That would be the difference between Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. I'm not going to make that assumption though -- it could easily be a modern painting in a old "style". And while a lot of the expression is clearly in the 1500s sculpture (such that the basic design, and even the form of some of the elements, are no longer copyrightable) it certainly adds enough of its own to carry an additional copyright. Without knowing the age of the 2D depiction then, you're correct the main reason to vote keep here would be the interpretation of "permanent" in the FoP provision of the law in this context. In many other photos the banners would be de minimis or at least incidental to the main focus of the photo, but this one does focus in on them so those arguments can't hold (though it at least does show them in their public context, so the FoP provision would hold if they are subject to that, which is based on that "permanent" interpretation). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Apparently ok, per above -FASTILY 06:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Дом Советов - фасад donor.tiras.biz.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The only image left from the approved bulk undeletion request //  Gikü  said  done  Monday, 5 August 2013 23:24 (UTC) 23:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 06:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:SchengenVisaNewType.JPG[edit]

Request temporary undeletion to move back to enwiki, where it is linked to from two pages. Link to enwiki's NFCC. Ignatzmice•talk 03:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: [2], [3] -FASTILY 06:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Affiche de Qui est-il?.png[edit]

The uploader is the director-writer of this short film, so I don't understand why it was deleted. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess nobody knew about it. File needs permission via OTRS to be safe and sound. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Hedwig. Please contact COM:OTRS -FASTILY 21:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Roman de gare.jpg[edit]

I think this file was included in the OTRS permission by Les Films 13 like this file and others. Les Films 13 is the production company of Claude Lelouch, the famous French director-writer-producer. Moreover, we could also say that this poster is not really copyrightable. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact Com:OTRS and if the file was included in the permission, they restore it. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Hedwig. Please contact COM:OTRS -FASTILY 21:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Gary Thomas (Author).jpg Requesting undeletion[edit]

This picture is listed on his official author as No Rights Reserved. This is a common thing for authors because they want to give people the freedom to use some of their pictures to add to their own blog posts, promotions, or whatever. It is actually for the purpose of putting pictures and stuff to wikipedia pages.

I even asked the author himself about the no rights reserved/some rights reserved/ability to be used on wikipedia page--he said it is completely kosher to be used on wikipedia. (But don't take my word for it, just read the paragraph above) I would really appreciate it if this picture was undeleted and added back to the page I made.

http://garythomas.com/media/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookspowell629 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 6 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I cannot find "no rights reserved" or any words to that effect anywhere on http://garythomas.com. I do see an explicit copyright notice at the bottom of every page. Also, note that "ability to be used on wikipedia page--he said it is completely kosher to be used on wikipedia" is not sufficient -- both Commons and WP:EN require that images be free for all use by anyone, including commercial use and derivative works. I suggest you get the actual photographer -- not Thomas, the subject -- of the image to provide a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Gary Thomas Speaking.png Request for undeletion[edit]

This file was said to not be a work of my own. It wasn't. It was a picture taken by the Church I work for from a conference that we held when Gary spoke here. It was emailed to me to be used on wikipedia page. It SHOULD be considered as my own work, as I am part of the media team here at Second Baptist Church. I just wasn't the original person to take the picture and upload it.

I ask that it be undeleted and added back to Gary Thomas (author) page.

Thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookspowell629 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

A photo "to be used on wikipedia page" cant be uploaded to Wikimedia projects. Files must be free for use by anyone, anywhere for every purpose. For that reason the copyright holder has to publish the file under a free content license allowing free reuse perpetually. See Commons:Licensing and Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. Two restrictions are allowed: Redistribution only under the same free conditions (share alike) and attribution. For that reason you should not be considered the author because you cant claim credit if you not own any copyrights. --Martin H. (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Agreed. Copyright law is very particular about licensing. Unless the actual photographer has licensed it to you in writing, you have no right to sublicense it. Also, as Martin says, "to be used on wikipedia page" is insufficient for Commons or WP:EN -- we require a free license for all uses. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Pierre Auger Observatory-logo.svg[edit]

May I infer why this file has been deleted? I am a member of the Pierre Auger Collaboration and author of the svg file and we have all the permissions to upload this file. What went wrong? What proofs and certifications does an image need to get kept in Wikimedia? Based on what it was decided to be removed? Look, we are scientists and are trying our best at performing outreach. Already a fact that the Pierre Auger Observatory was financed in full from public funds should be enough for the derived works to be considered free, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko.veberic (talk • contribs) 17:33, 6 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because it appears at http://www.auger.org/index.html. While that site does not have an explicit copyright notice, it also does not have any indication that anything on the site is freely licensed, so the law requires us to assume that it is the intention of the site's owner that all material be covered by copyright. There is no exemption from copyright in Argentina for government works, and no exemption anywhere that I know of for works that are simply financed by a government, so that fact is not relevant here.
In order to restore the image to Commons, please have an officer of the corporation send an e-mail giving a free license using the form and address at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Dutch Mountains logo.jpg [edit]

This file has been deleted because of an automatically generated suspicion of copyright offence. I don't blame these mechanisms; the only thing I would want to know right now is what has to be done in order to get the picture allowed. The picture has been posted with full permission from the board of the association; even better, the author will join the board as from next month.

I would gladly hear from you. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxJanssen91 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 7 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Voidusammas590.jpg[edit]

... and File:TallinnWarMemorial2009.JPG

per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Independence War Victory Column. If undeleting is OK, then you may want to add {{Vabadussõja võidusammas}} on permission field when removing deletion tag. Thanks! Pikne 18:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be a clear-cut case, so UD probably isn't the best place to discuss this. I'd recommend taking this to COM:VPC so that a wider community discussion can take place -FASTILY 21:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Peyote2.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the source of the image was http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/prevention/iprcpics.html (archive; [4]). It states: All of the photos linked below are in the the public domain. This means that they are not protected by copyright and may be used freely. They are either U.S. government photos available through the National Archives, or original photography by IPRC staff that have been placed in the public domain. The IPRC photos are identified by a "#" sign at the end of the listing. The image is not marked with a '#'. Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done seems legit. -FASTILY 21:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Uversa Press Urantia Book.jpg[edit]

Dear Wiki Admins,

My name is Paula Thompson and I am the Executive Director of The Urantia Book Fellowship (hereinafter called the Fellowship). Uversa Press is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Fellowship. We are a legitimate publisher of The Urantia Book having first published our edition in 1996. We have published our book consistently since 2002, when the copyright of the English book was declared invalid. We are the original social fraternal organization of readers and believers in this book. We have as much right as Urantia Foundation to have our books represented on the Wiki page about The Urantia Book, especially so since we are mentioned in the main article on Wiki. I am the representative of The Urantia Book Fellowship and hence Uversa Press, this can be verified at www.Guidestar.org. The image I submitted for publishing is not a violation of copyright and I can offer any proof you may need. I believe that the image of our book (which was on the wiki page for years until "someone" took it down) was taken down for questionable reasons and such creates an unfair prejudice toward the Urantia Foundation. I think in fairness, Wiki should have an image of both books by legitimate publishers of The Urantia Book, or of neither. Our book is a splendid edition, that features universal referencing, a double column format, and a complete index. It's the best study edition ever. To exclude a depiction of it is unfair and not in the true spirit of Wiki.

Thanks!

Paula Thompson The Urantia Book Fellowship Fellowship@urantiabook.org www.urantiabook.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulapatatia (talk • contribs)

 Not done It doesn't matter if anyone has any picture in any article on any wiki. This here is Commons Wikimedia, see Com:Scope about what we do. In order to publish anything here, an orderly license is needed. Please refer to Com:L for further information. From what I saw, you uploaded the image claiming ownership and copyright. This is in fact a copyright violation, since you are not the copyright holder and not the creator of the image. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Greg O'Neill Thumbnail.jpg [edit]

This image is owned by my company and it is free to be used anywhere

This file is owned by our company is free to use anywhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahotchkin (talk • contribs)

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File: BonnieBernsteinHeadshot.png [edit]

Hello, I am requesting undeletion of File:BonnieBernsteinHeadshot.png This image is owned by Bonnie Bernstein and was put up at her request onto this wikipedia, I have email proof of the request.Myself, acting as her wiki liaison, and Ms Bernstein would very much appreciate the undeletion of this file. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goalielocks (talk • contribs) 14:26, 8 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the format given here. Permission must be sent from an email address linked to where your content was originally published. The file will be restored as soon as permission is confirmed. If you would like to inquire about the status of your email in the OTRS system, please ask on the OTRS noticeboard as only OTRS members can view the email. MorganKevinJ(talk) 21:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have submitted a request via email. --Goalielocks (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is now being handled at COM:OTRS -FASTILY 01:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Files uploaded by Mimamumo[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Forgot to include license tag, but it's not possible to re-upload files (error message: There was another file already on the site with the same content, but it was deleted).

I am the owner of those files. Mimamumo (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go here, and check the box for "Ignore any warnings" -FASTILY 01:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Salon agriculture 2009 Saucisson.jpg[edit]

Bonjour, cette photo est bien de moi, j'ai apparement oublié de mettre une licence quand je l'ai uploadé (oups !). Donc vous si vous pouvez la restaurer je me ferais un plaisir de la licencier. Merci bien ! KoS (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to reupload the file, but be sure to include a license tag -FASTILY 01:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Coucou Cabaret.gif[edit]

coverc of the program of the theater. The date is 1920. Edited by the coucou cabaret.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phc115 (talk • contribs)

The deleting admin stated that there has been no source. Without a source the file can't be on commons. You may reupload if you add all the details to the file description. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Hedwig said -FASTILY 01:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Flag of the United States Secret Service.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Background: This file, depicting the official flag of the United States Secret Service (USSS), was deleted because there was some concern that the subject in question did not really exist and was fictional. After some inquiries, I have found out that it is in fact real.

Reason One: A clear, high-resolution photograph of the subject can be found on the official website of the United States Secret Service here and here.

Reason Two: An official notice, dated 30 July 2003, from the United States Department of Homeland Security's Management Directives System, found here, specifies that the flag is in fact real.

Reason Three: The flag is public domain as it is a derivative work of a free work, as it simply consists of an 1870s United States Secret Service badge (which is definitely public domain due to "PD-USGov-DHS"/"PD-USGov-Treasury", and "PD-US"/"PD-old") with a triangle and two rough trapezoids (public domain due to "PD-shape" and "PD-geometry").

In conclusion, this file is free, under the "PD-USGov-DHS" licensing template (the United States Copyright Office (USCO) also shows no copyright listing, which it shouldn't, as it is a U.S. governmental work). I urgently beseech you that this file be restored as soon as possible, thank you very much and best regards. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Thank you very much! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Tropical Wave Dorian (2013).jpg [edit]

I created the image from Google Earth on my computer, by taking a snapshot, using Google Earth to save the image to my computer. Therefore, I believe that the image does not violate copyrights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueHypercane761 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 10 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The copyright status on satellite imagery from Google Earth is not permissible here. --O (谈 • висчвын) 08:42, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

 Not done Copyvio -FASTILY 10:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

I submitted notice of explicit authorization from the copyright holder: File:Janet Jackson at the 2010 Essence Music Festival.jpg [edit]

Permission of the copyright holder Janet Jackson was provided by her management team and I submitted this in writing to Wikipedia. Borntodeal (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have such written evidence, send it to OTRS. --O (谈 • висчвын) 22:26, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

Please email COM:OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 22:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Multiple Karsh photo porttaits[edit]

Seven photos by Karsh were deleted with a somewhat light rationale that does not fit with any typical guidelines. I'm requesting some other reviewers examine the copyright status of the deleted photos. The rationales given for deletion seem to rest on personal opinion and speculation:

  • The editor simply gave an opinion that he doesn't think the copyright information is correct, but without saying why. However, there were numerous links to prove the source of the photos and their copyright status in the U.S.
  • They noted a different shape of the photo as a rationale, yet that reasoning implies that the photos were the same except for cropping. I generally crop photos to fit the page or infobox. The editor made no inquiry into why an identical photo, with one apparently cropped a bit, should make any difference.
  • They noted that the Hemingway photo was not exactly the same as one linked, which was only for background about the photographer. Yet the purpose of the link was to show other similar photos by Karsh, not to provide the source of the photo deleted. Also, the magazine published many photos of Hemingway, on the inside and reverse. In any case, the photos are essentially identical, a fact that was simply ignored.
  • For a photo taken as a staff photographer for a U.S. magazine, which is now in the public domain, it would go against the Commons precautionary principle to simply delete a photo based on the unsupported comment that it was not necessary to register a copyright in Canada in the 1950s.

Karsh's apparent PD photos would be of great benefit to WP, so I'm hoping some other editors will review these and possibly undelete them. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, WP could benefit from many pictures. The problem on Commons is, we have to be reasonable certain about the (c) status. You'll need to come up with more / better evidence, rather than repeating your reasoning from the DR. Under this circumstances I'd not be able to restore any of the images. No, I am not asking any questions, you need to provide the answers without being asked. I'll leave this request open, maybe someone has a good idea that will enable us to keep the images. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I am the deleting Admin. I made my decision on several factors, but principally on the simple reason that the Hemingway photo I deleted was not the same image that appears on the cover of Wisdom -- see http://collectingoldmagazines.com/2967/wisdom-the-magazine-of-knowledge-and-education/ for the actual photo. Since the rationale for PD was based largely on the fact that the seven images first appeared on the cover of the magazine, the fact that at least one of them did not fit that rationale seems persuasive.

As for the shape, the images I deleted are larger, vertically, than the cover images, so they are not crops from the cover, but are either different (as in the case of the Hemingway), or at least contain additional material. Copyright is fairly literal -- the cover images are probably PD, but similar photographs or even the same images before they were cropped for the cover are not covered by the PD status of the covers.

"In any case, the photos are essentially identical, a fact that was simply ignored" is simply wrong. "Essentially identical" doesn't cut it in copyright law. However many images Karsh took of these seven people, only the actual image or images that appeared in the magazine, in the same crop as they appeared in the magazine, are probably PD. Other, essentially identical images, are still copyrighted.

These images are not scans of halftones, so wherever they came from, they did not come directly from the magazine. I think the best thing here would be for those who want to keep these to give us an actual source that shows the deleted images as printed in Wisdom. The link I gave shows Hemingway -- research can probably show others. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some info. to that talk page about one of his most famous portraits, of Einstein. As for Hemingway, I just checked the actual Wisdom magazine and the deleted photo is the lead photo of the article, page 4. As for the obvious cropping of his original photos, on the magazine cover they had to be cropped squarish to fit the formatted space. I don't remember the actual source of the photos since they were deleted. But for this one issue, there were a total of 17 different photos of Hemingway, posed and candid, in the article. That same number of photos is typical in the other issues focused on notables, such as Jonas Salk. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the deleting admin states above, "I think the best thing here would be for those who want to keep these to give us an actual source that shows the deleted images as printed in Wisdom," which has now been done, along with the fact that number of major bio articles are lacking a lead image, wouldn't it be best to restore these? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand "which has now been done" above. Wikiwatcher has given us no links, not even the Hemingway, and I don't get the impression that he or she has actually compared the deleted images with images in Wisdom. I'd be happy to restore these -- they are great pictures -- but until we can see that the deleted images actually appeared in Wisdom cropped as they were in the magazine, I don't think we can do it..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Just tell me how to provide a direct scan or photo of the page or pages that a photo in question is on. Wisdom is not available online, but I have direct access to all issues. Another way is for you to restore a photo, like Hemingway, and I'll upload the magazine page over it, and then undo the upload so both copies are viewable. I think that will work. Then you can do the others one at a time if you want. Also, I wasn't aware that AGF was not a policy on the Commons.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done We're done here. Verifiable source links/references have been requested from the uploader, who appears to have ignored that query. Since files whose copyright status cannot be determined in certainty are deleted, these files shall stay deleted. -FASTILY 19:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reopened -- we're not done, as Wikiwatcher's last offer solves the problem. Scans of the actual Wisdom pages would be great -- I think we are all satisfied that the magazine did not renew its copyrights, so that the images from it are PD. They can certainly be uploaded using the same file names as above. The deleted images will, however, remain deleted. As I said above, copyright is very specific. The images as printed in Wisdom are PD -- other versions, even prints from the same negative, are not, unless they are identical in size, resolution, and crop.

As for AGF, I always assume good faith, but only to a point. Since Wikiwatcher used "essentially identical" above as an acceptable reason to justify keeping these, it seems reasonable to assume that he or she does not completely understand the applicable law. I think it was appropriate to ask that the community be able to see for themselves if the images were actually identical and not merely very similar. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and upload the images above directly from the magazine. Since the magazine is a large format, 10 1/2" x 13", I won't be able to do a direct flatbed scan (max 8 1/2" width) and will have to revert to taking a photograph of the page. I've done that before with some stills, such as File:Betty Hutton.jpg, although the quality will be affected, since trying to get even lighting without glare and keeping the image in focus at all 4 corners with a close-up lens and a hand-held camera is harder than scanning. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded four so far. Since Wisdom is not indexed, I don't know if the other three came from inside some issues and don't know what the original image sources were. I also renamed them since I kept getting a warning message when I tried to use the old file name. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as a stale request. Also, it appears the files have been re-uploaded -FASTILY 22:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Streisand - agency photo.jpg[edit]

Neutral input is requested as to why the image was deleted. First, I don't think that an editor whose only edits for the last two weeks have focused on deleting my images can be considered neutral. In any case, the image which is supported with verifiable evidence as to its apparent PD status, is tagged as having "No evidence" and "guesswork," and deleted without comment. Whether the deletion is arbitrary, without basis, or non-neutral, can someone offer any meaningful feedback? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need to go into who may or may not be neutral. The closing admin said only one word ("Deleted"), so I have to assume they agreed with the nominator, but I can't see why. Your arguments (about how and when it was published) seem strong enough to justify keeping it. While the nominator did object to them, including how one of your points was worded, you addressed those objections clearly and IMO convincingly. (Your argument contained one minor error, I think; Streisand was still represented by Solters' firm at least until 1988,[5] although this isn't critical as it was no longer known as Solters and Sabinson in 1978.[6])
There might be some uncertainty about the details, but that alone doesn't seem put the free status of the file into significant doubt. So unless some details challenging the free status of the file come to light (e.g. that the photo had a copyright notice printed on its back), I think it should be undeleted. --Avenue (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your out of copyriht argument is based on en:Film still#Public domain, but all I read there is basically “it might be out of copyright, but don’t rely on that assumption”. Looking at Alan Hale, Jr next to that Wikipedia paragraph I see something like “please smile, I’d like to take a photo”. The Streisand photo on the other hand has some more artistic value like a model shot.
Bottom line: Too many maybes and assumtions, too few hard facts. -- 32X (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not it at all. It has nothing to do with any artistic value (and actually, that has little relevance to copyright in any case). The photograph was undoubtedly copyrightable; however U.S. law said that any published, distributed copies had to have a copyright notice on them. This was very, very often not done with publicity photographs (which were not film stills, but rather separate works which were not derivative), and therefore those particular photos entered the public domain as soon as they were distributed by the movie studios. I can't see the files in question, but if the upload has evidence of being physically distributed itself before 1978, and it shows front and back and there is no copyright notice, then that is evidence enough. If it is apparent that publicity shots were in fact created by a movie studio or other publicity office, and those physical copies show signs of being in someone else's possession (i.e. distributed) in the right time frames, there is generally enough evidence. Photos distributed before 1964 had the additional requirement of being renewed 27 or 28 years later, which is another avenue they could have fallen into the public domain. Photos which stayed in the movie studio's archives very well may not have been distributed, so those would not be OK, and there are other difficult cases (for example, you would not expect a notice on a wire photo, since the physical printed copy at the other end was not itself distributed -- not sure of the rules entirely there, but the lack of notice at the other end most likely would not serve to end copyright). So... any argument for keeping, or deleting, should be about the evidence seen on the physical photo itself (ones which lack a back side are often problematic). One can't make a general rule about all publicity photos, but the specific evidence for each photo should bring the status into sharper focus. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who initially nominated this file for deletion, I assure you that 1) the uploader provided no actual evidence regarding the date or circumstances of the image's original publication or distribution; 2) the image upload did not present the back of the image; and 3) nothing about the physical photo itself provided any information about the date or manner of the original publication, or that (as was typically the case for publicity photos) the image was distributed for the purpose of further publication. Indeed, there was no evidence that this form was the original publication of the image, which might easily have been previously published with a copyright notice. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but one point -- it would not matter if had been earlier published with a copyright notice; once copies were distributed without notice then copyright was lost. Notice had to be on *all* published copies, not just initial ones. If there was a case where relatively few copies were without notice, sometimes the copyright was ruled kept, but in general it had to be on all copies. So, looking at the evidence on the actual upload is usually enough. Sometimes uploads have the back or uncropped versions in the earlier file revisions. It was also not required that the copies be distributed specifically for further publication -- that first distribution was publication in and of itself and required notices. But yes, not showing the back (or not having the back available on the web somewhere) would be an issue -- a notice there would likely be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, the back of the image has not been uploaded, and I acknowledge above that this could be a weak point in the case for keeping it. However, printed along the bottom margin of the photo is the following text: "BARBRA STREISAND Press: Solters & Sabinson, Inc. 62 W. 45 St., NYC". This seems a natural place to put the copyright notice, if there was one.
You don't seem to have followed my point about the name of her press agent's firm, and what this means about the date this photo was produced. Solters was part of Solters & Sabinson Inc during the late 1960s and early 1970s, but by 1972 was operating as Solters / Sabinson / Roskin Inc.,[7] and by March 1975 though 1980 as Solters & Roskin, Inc.[8] Together with the notation on the photo, this means that the photo was produced by 1972 at the latest, i.e. well before 1978.
I believe it doesn't matter whether this was the original publication of the photo or not, only that it was an authorized publication.
I'd be happy to temporarily undelete the photo for the purposes of this discussion, if people think it's necessary. The uploaded image does look very similar (and possibly identical, as far as I can tell) to the photo for sale here (although it was a high resolution scan of the original, not an oblique photograph as shown on that website). The similarities extend to the placement of her signature and the two brown splodges near the upper edge. The signature suggests to me that the original was at least intended for distribution, probably around the time of its production.
While I'd agree we don't have an absolutely cast iron case that this image is free, where there are uncertainties (over publication and copyright notice), the evidence we do have suggests that the photo is free. Personally I'm not seeing strong grounds for significant doubt. --Avenue (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, this copy of the photo says she was 24 when it was taken, so that would be in 1966/67. --Avenue (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "evidence we do have" is grossly insufficient. What we're being asked to decide here is whether a photograph found on an auction site, without any direct evidence as to the date or manner of original publication, should be presumed to be a free image simply because the lion's share of such images are free. (Much of the discussion here ignores the doctrine of "limited publication" (see [9], and note the treatise's comment that "the courts have pushed the limited publication doctrine to its farthest reaches to avoid a forfeiture of copyright"). That presumption would not be a rational one to indulge in terms of the WMF policies regarding free content for reuse by third parties. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your source supports the opposite conclusion about "limited publication" for publicity photos. The examples given are for unpublished manuscripts given to the trade for criticism or review, architectural plans given out to contractors for bids, or advance copies of a speech before it was presented. Of course such confidential materials would be "limited." Then consider a more relevant legal source, such as Warner Bros. Entertainment v. X One X Productions, (2011), where the court affirmed that publicity stills were in the public domain because they had not been published with the required notice or because their copyrights had not been renewed, and that the mere dissemination of such photos constituted a "general publication" without notice. And this fits the basic definition of publication per the U.S. copyright law, that "publication does take place if the purpose is further distribution, public performance, or public display."
As Nimmer states, "Most studios have never bothered to copyright these stills because they were happy to see them pass into the public domain, to be used by as many people in as many publications as possible." It's another reason why some of your latest deletion requests are erroneous. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per above, there appears to be a general agreement that the evidence we have proving the file is free is grossly insufficient. It's been over a week and the uploader has failed to produce credible & verifiable citations explicitly naming the file as free. -FASTILY 22:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Minecraft cube.svg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file was previously kept at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minecraft cube.svg as being PD-shape; indeed, the deleting administrator closed the linked-to deletion request as "Kept: Looks like PD-shape to me". FastLizard4 (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear, I've changed my opinion on the matter since the the April 2013 DR. I believe the file does not meet the criteria for PD-shape because it is simply too complex (consists of too many artistically placed shapes & gradients) to be easily recreated. We've deleted files much 'simpler' than this in the past for the same reason. -FASTILY 08:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What if the uploader had named the file, say, Cubic meter of dirt with growing grass from isometric perspective vector drawing.svg? Additionally, how does this differ from images like File:(in)homogen.svg or File:13th Street Universal HD.svg (it could be argued that the slanted text and positioning is clearly artistic)? File:7-up Logo.svg seems to be a clear copyright violation, as well, by applying your point about artistically placed shapes and gradients. --FastLizard4 (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, other stuff exists. Files for deletion on Commons are judged on their own merit and not in comparison to others. I repeat, this file exceeds the threshold of originality for Commons, so we simply cannot host it. -FASTILY 21:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am very familiar with Wikipedia's policies, and I would appreciate it if you would kindly stop patronizing me. Foremost, you have yet to actually answer any of the points I've raised here, instead relying on redirecting the argument. The very page you link to indeed indicates that, in some cases, comparison-based arguments are valuable. Certainly, if you honestly believe that Minecraft cube.svg exceeds the threshold of originality, you can explain why, say, 7-up Logo.svg doesn't meet the threshold. Indeed, I feel it is arguable - and I am going to argue - that many of the images listed on COM:TOO are more complex and "original" than a simple isometric cube; the Best Western logo I feel is a prime example of that. --FastLizard4 (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not, because OSE is not a valid argument, and because you're continuing to make comparisons between two incomparable items. -FASTILY 01:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now it seems like you're making a tautological argument; that the two items cannot be compared to each other because they're incomparable. So why are they incomparable? --FastLizard4 (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done We see a green square and two identical brown squares with some green pixels on it, all of them stretched in a way that they appear as an isometrical cube. It is not a screen shot nor a derivate of the game Minecraft, it just appears to the viewer as one because the file name claims it. (Adding a toothbrush moustache to people's photos doesn't make them derivates of Charlie Chaplin or A. H.) The same goes for the older version of that file: Adding a random noise pattern does not create a derivate work of the game. -- 32X (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Author_Pavan_Choudary.jpg [edit]

This photographed is clicked by me and all the copyright remains with me. Being a new contributor I am slightly confused how to put copyright information. Pls. assist...

--Tarunkaran78 (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, the deletion request had nothing to do with licensing, but rather about scope. Is this a picture of you, and if so, do you intend on putting this on your user page? --O (谈 • висчвын) 08:38, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

If you're going to use this photo on your userpage, you may re-upload it -FASTILY 22:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Freedom fighters in Sare Jahan Se Accha.jpg[edit]

Pls. note that all these photo are taken by ME by MY Sony H2 camera and I am sole copyright holder of these images. I am a photographer I am quite aware about the copyright rules.

Apparently not, because derivatives of non-free content (or without the explicit permission of the author/copyright holder) is prohibited on Commons, no exceptions -FASTILY 19:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Rod Taylor - Birds.jpg[edit]

This image I uploaded on 4/7/13 simply disappeared today without a trace. Can someone review this? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as copyvio. Maybe because of the ebay - source? (just a guess). --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No verifiable source information, no reverse side or other citations proving the file is free, likely copyvio. -FASTILY 19:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Henri Caffarel.jpg [edit]

Es una foto de archivo del fundador de la organización "Equipos de Nuestra Señora", la cual nos permite la publicación de esta foto como personas pertenecientes a este movimiento.

Ensourense (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Turkish Journal of Biology.jpg [edit]

Non copyrighted freely awailable picture... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgeckil (talk • contribs) 22:54, 12 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose
  1. "Non copyrighted" is not correct -- everything is copyrighted.
  2. "freely available" is irrelevant -- many copyrighted works are freely available, but that does not change the fact that they are copyrighted. We cannot keep images unless they are either freely licensed by the copyright holder or in the public domain for some reason. This is neither.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guess he didn't understand your answer: File:Biy-b.jpg... --Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done copyvio -FASTILY 07:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:FUCAFF.jpg [edit]

The owner of this Logo said it is okay to use the Logo, trust me! I did not put it up for selfish reasons, just following the charitable spirit of Wikimedia. Besides, this original design is not exactly what is used...thanks!

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Shahrzad headshot BroadbandTV.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I misunderstood how copyright attribution should go. This file is the personal file of a friend - Shahrzad Rafati - who requested that I upload it on her behalf.

I would like to specify its licence as: Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license.

Thank you. Reignfall (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:JohnCarloStefano.jpg [edit]

This is not copyrighted. This is just their album.

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 17:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:SkeptiCamp Ash Pryce does a demo of psychic surgery on Keir Liddle.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is now gifted free of copyright from the photographer. Joolzzt (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:MSL selfportrait 600.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The Photo and information posted on the FlexCraft page both came directly from a NASA Advance Concept presentation "Deep Space Habitat Configurations based on International Space Station Systems" by David Smitherman NASA Marshall Space Flight Center on 14-MAR-2012 Reinoffire01 (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:MSL selfportrait 600.jpg is at File:PIA16239-MarsCuriosityRover-SelfPortrait-Rocknest-20121102-HiRez.jpg. File:DSH FlexCraft.jpg cannot be restored unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license. Otherwise, we simply cannot host the file on Commons -FASTILY 09:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Commons:Deletion_requests/Not_official_materials2[edit]

The following files

were deleted within a large batch under Commons:Deletion_requests/Not_official_materials2. The reason was that they were tagged as {{PD-SerbiaGov}}, which was lately interpreted restrictively, and a number of files originating from Serbian government websites subsequently deleted.

However, I think that these three files (can't see the history, unless temporarily undeleted) were incorrectly tagged with {{PD-SerbiaGov}} in the first place. I have local copies, and they're all derived works from http://www.maps-for-free.com/ relief layer, with additional labels added in an image-processing program. Nothing indicates any origin from the government websites. No such user (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who proposed the files for deletion because they had wrong licenses. But, now I realize that these files are actually freely licensed, but had wrong tags. I completely agree with the undeletion request. Vanja / Вања (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per Vanjagenije -FASTILY 09:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Raymond Pierre Paul Westerling.jpg [edit]

Please keep this file - the picture has been taken between 1945 and 1947 in Dutch-Indonesia. The copyrights have expired as 1) the anonymous image was taken over 60 years ago 2) the image has been used many times in all sorts of publications, most recently in an article announcing the news that a film is being featuring Westerling as a prominent character - all on the grounds of a 'fair use policy'

 Not done Fair-use is strictly prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 09:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Aria_Sole_Terra_Mare.jpg [edit]

Sono la titolare del Copyright dei file, chiedo l'immediato ripristino!

--Linda Valori (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done copyvio -FASTILY 09:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Central Serbia relief map.png[edit]

Uploaded by myself; speedy-deleted by User:Fastily, citing copyright violation. We had an unpleasant conversation at User talk:Fastily#Commons:Deletion_requests/Not_official_materials2. The image was based on relief layer of http://www.maps-for-free.com/, licensed under GFDL 1.2, and didn't use any copyrighted layer (Google maps or contour layer). There are numerous images of the same type in Category:Maps-for-free_images. Therefore, I think that the deletion was made in error, based on wrong assumption on the nature of the file source. (The "Powered by Google" logo at http://www.maps-for-free.com/ apparently indicates that the site uses some of Google's contents and/or web engine, but the renderings are free, as the license clearly says). No such user (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the image, the conversation was only 'unpleasant' as you say, because you made unsolicited sarcastic comments and ad homenim attacks. I spent the entire time responding calmly and informatively while you were nothing but rude, useless, and disrespectful. -FASTILY 09:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, I do get a bit irritated when an incompetent administrator first speedily deletes file with honestly quoted source [10], then, when confronted, misinterprets the license [11], then gets evasive, quoting "powered by Google" logo as the ultimate proof [12], and then plays crybaby [13], and then plays crybaby again in an unrelated forum such as this. I don't mind being called a dick, so you didn't have to redact that, but I do mind when my work gets lost by your incompetence and immaturity. And yet again, you don't have anything substantial to reply to the substance of the matter. No such user (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the source, and the image does not include the label layer, contour layer, or the Google satellite or terrain layers, it should be OK. It sounds like the main relief layers from that site are GFDL 1.2. The fact that Google's tools are used to display them does not matter. The label layer might even be OK (even though the layer as a whole is copyrighted) depending on how much is used -- it could easily be de minimis and there is at least one court case where adding state names to a map was not considered a copyrightable addition. I can't see the image though, so I can't verify. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Temporarily undeleted MorganKevinJ(talk) 20:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that seems fine. It is just using the Relief, Waterbodies, and Countries layers on that site, which are all in the list of GFDL-1.2-licensed layers per the site's licensing page.  Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done per Carl -FASTILY 06:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:DM Tenue.jpg [edit]

I've uploaded 2 pictures, of which both have been deleted by now. The first one (Dutch Mountains Logo.jpg) I was granted permission from the copyright holder, the second one (on which this appeal is aimed for) has been a picture that I made myself.

On both pictures, I did not apply the required reasons in order to prevent deletion. I hope I will be able to do this anyway as soon as these pictures are undeleted. If not, I would gladly hear an alternative tot upload the pictures mentioned.

Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxJanssen91 (talk • contribs)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 00:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Monza at speed.jpg[edit]

This photograph and all the others posted on my page were owned by my late Father and are now in my possession. If anyone has any problem with their provenance kindly contact me before arbitrarily removing them! Dreaduk (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dreaduk, "ownership" of a photo-print does not equal copyright-holdership. Who is the photographer? Surely not you, contrary to your author-entry. Besides, they were not "arbitrarily" deleted. Instead, they were subject of a formal deletion-request, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dreaduk, about which you had been notified. --Túrelio (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they were taken by his father, it's reasonable to put himself in the author field, as more of the copyright owner (though it's best to specify the actual author, and when they died). But yes, if these were scans of prints merely owned by the family (and not taken specifically for them), with the photographer being someone else, then they are copyright problems. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are all scans of prints that look to be done by pro photographers. @ Carl - it's really too bad you can't have a look at these and others. (hint, hint) INeverCry 00:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of a copy of a photo does not grant you the copyright to it. If, however, copyright has been granted to you and/or your father, AND if you have written/tangible evidence to prove that fact, then please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them (if everything checks out, they will restore the file for you). Otherwise these files are not suitable for Commons. -FASTILY 00:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Leistungsabzeichen für Reservisten.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: source was present all the time, but not visible, because wrong description template was used. After the deletion was requested, I changed the template, that all nessasary information was displayed correctly. Flor!an (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I fixed the source as well. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:FMTM 10 830 - 11143.pdf[edit]

Essential source information which must be easily accessible for people wishing to use other files (see list at Special:WhatLinksHere/File:FMTM 10 830 - 11143.pdf). Unless this file is restored, then all files in Special:WhatLinksHere/File:FMTM 10 830 - 11143.pdf have to be deleted as lacking evidence of permission from the Swedish military forces. See {{Flygfoto}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Could the file be filed at OTRS, and have all those files use an OTRS tag? Might be a useful backup in case of deletion again, which seems like it was just out of project scope. Still, it's probably best to have the permission be public anyways, so  Support restoration as the most expedient path. Some equivalent way of documenting the permission needs to be provided if someone really wants to delete it, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's illegal to use Swedish satellite photos without permission from the Swedish military forces, and it's much easier for people to verify that permission has been granted if it can easily be accessed on Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 00:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

List[edit]

Please undelete these and insert {{OTRS|2013062210006113}}. Thanks.

Willy Weazley 23:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I've restored these, but there's no licenses, so you'll have to add that and the OTRS ticket. INeverCry 23:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Damon Matthew Wise Profile picture.jpg[edit]

Picture of Damon Matthew Wise is own picture, publicly available from Damon Matthew Wise facebook page and other social networking sites. It is publicly available. It was one of a number of photographs commissioned and rights bought for use in Election materialise and only. It is freely available all over the internet for use in relation to information and materials on him and was being used and placed on his wikipedia listng, which he and his family and helping and giving us access to material to ensure that it is fare and balanced representation of his activities and achievements. It has been edited and provided for him for purpose of this page, and he has the right to give away permission on his image which he and he alone has the rights to release in relation to any online content of him. He fought a battle against Facebook to be allowed to use his own copyrighted image of himself n his own profile a number of years ago ... do not try and provoke him to take legal action to freely give his exclusive rights away for public information on himself.

If you will search images at Google.ie on "Damon Matthew Wise", you will find many such copies of his image used on social media and public information sites, including Yahoo!, Google, You Tube, Flicker, Twitter, My Space, Bebo, Skype, and his International Who's Who achievement page.

Feel free to use any of the social media link in his information page on wikipedia to confirm same - or look online - as a public figure he is readily available.

This particular image was given to us to use from his campaign website Damon Matthew Wise (dot) info

http://www.Facebook.com/Damon.Matthew.Wise.Ireland/ https://www.facebook.com/Damon.Matthew.Wise.Ireland/media_set?set=a.1004466129720.314.1766892240&type=3

Already submitted undeletion. We are working with the family on the project and previously had messages about restoration, but these seem to have disappeared.

These images are freely available on many social media and information pages and this images is from his campaign page

If you need confirmation his information page on wikipedia references many online content on him - so you can contact him via any number of his online profiles and e-mail.

He is a public figure and has the right to assist in the public awareness.

He fought Facebook for over 9 months to allow him to use a similar edit of his election photo album, which he commissioned and bought the rights to be able to share and reproduce as needed the masters of which are both on flicker and Damon's facebook.

We would like to add the descriptions Aspies Asperger's Disability

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 10:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Please release them! Damon Matthew Wise (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC) I did fight Facebook to protect the right to use my own image, to which I have the right to give permission to use - that profile image is one of those here too, which you have deleted against my express consent to allow it. Damon Matthew Wise (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Escudo Girardot Aragua.PNG [edit]

Andrés González (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)For a beggining the file was deleted without previous discussion, just gone, I wasn't given time to offer a licensing file or to argument my case. My arguments is as follows:[reply]

1 - This is a simbol of a subnational entity of Venezuela which is not protected under Venezuelan copyright laws.

2 - I drew the file myself is not a copy and paste from any other file on the web.

3 - I could acknowledge the original designer given time, I wasn't given time.

4 - The sister file of this file wasn't deleted and could be under the same circunstances, why this file was deleted, that sister file is: File:Banmaracay.gif. I'm not asking it to be deleted I only ask a reasoning.

5 - If is necesary for fair use or educational purposes I could upload it in a lower resolution, since no copyright infringement is intended and I only want to show the coat of arms and not intend it to be reproduced or copied or reprinted.

 Not done You should have added a true license in the first place. The license provided was incorrect. You did not make the CoA yourself, somebody else did. You made a derivate of it, please see Com:DW for more information. No matter if or why another file is not deleted, your file did not match the requirements for Commons. After over 1.000 edits you should know by now that fair use is not allowed on Commons. Your intention doesn't matter, because any image hosted here is free to be reproduced or printed. You can't restrict the use. I suggest that you check with local wikis and upload the ORIGINAL coat of arms there. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Musician Allison Crowe on the red carpet for "Man of Steel" World Premiere, Lincoln Center, New York - June 10, 2013.jpg[edit]

Hello ~

I have received the following message - and below it is the message I sent earlier to permissions-en@wikimedia.org

I am the photographer of an image of Allison Crowe, whom I serve as manager, and I posted the photo for which I control/hold all rights to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons with the intention that it could be used freely by people.

For some reason or reasons I don't understand - my photo has been deleted.

Please help, thank you!

Adrian

Original Message -----

From: "MediaWiki Mail" <wiki@wikimedia.org> To: "Rimbaud22ca" <********@*******> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 4:15 PM Subject: Wikimedia Commons page User talk:Rimbaud22ca has been changed by Diannaa


Dear Rimbaud22ca,

The Wikimedia Commons page User talk:Rimbaud22ca has been changed on 19 August 2013 by Diannaa, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rimbaud22ca for the current revision.

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rimbaud22ca&diff=next&oldid=99154971 to view this change.

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rimbaud22ca&diff=0&oldid=99154971 for all changes since your last visit.

Editor's summary: -

Contact the editor: mail: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Diannaa wiki: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Diannaa

There will be no other notifications in case of further activity unless you visit this page. You could also reset the notification flags for all your watched pages on your watchlist.

Your friendly Wikimedia Commons notification system

-- To change your email notification settings, visit http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences

To change your watchlist settings, visit http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:EditWatchlist

To delete the page from your watchlist, visit http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rimbaud22ca&action=unwatch

Feedback and further assistance: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents


+

my earlier email to Wikipedia:


Original Message -----

From: "Allison Crowe Music" <********t@******> To: <permissions-en@wikimedia.org> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 4:06 PM Subject: permission to use my image files uploaded to Wikipedia+


Hello ~

I have uploaded to Wikipedia several image files for which I am photographer and/or creator and hold all rights and it's my intention to freely grant them to users on Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons.

Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

I am user Adrian22 and user Rimbaud22ca. I uploaded and identified these files in the way that I understood to be correct for a free use license:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Musician_Allison_Crowe_on_the_red_carpet_for_%22Man_of_Steel%22_World_Premiere,_Lincoln_Center,_New_York_City,_June_10,_2013.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Musician_Allison_Crowe_on_the_red_carpet_for_%22Man_of_Steel%22_World_Premiere,_Lincoln_Center,_New_York_-_June_10,_2013.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AllisonCroweNewfoundlandVinylalbumfrontcover.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SpiralAllisonCrowealbumcover.jpg

However, I have received notifications on these images that states, in part:

"This file is missing evidence of permission. It is attributed to someone other than the uploader, or to an external site which the uploader claims to represent or own, and while a licensing tag has been applied, there is no proof that the author has agreed to release the file under the given license."

I say that is confusing - as I am, indeed, the uploader and the pic is attributed to me. I shall keep looking at these notices - but, on reading this, I am unclear as to why someone or aomething would think that I am not the photographer and uploader. Any explanation is welecome, thank you. And in accordance with what I believe is required now, I attach the following letter granting you permissions for the free use of these files:

+

I hereby affirm that I, Adrian du Plessis, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following linked works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Musician_Allison_Crowe_on_the_red_carpet_for_%22Man_of_Steel%22_World_Premiere,_Lincoln_Center,_New_York_City,_June_10,_2013.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Musician_Allison_Crowe_on_the_red_carpet_for_%22Man_of_Steel%22_World_Premiere,_Lincoln_Center,_New_York_-_June_10,_2013.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AllisonCroweNewfoundlandVinylalbumfrontcover.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SpiralAllisonCrowealbumcover.jpg

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

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

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

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

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

Sincerely,

Adrian du Plessis

Canada V8K 2V9

Copyright-holder August 19, 2013

Please be patient. Once OTRS processes the email you sent, they will restore the file -FASTILY 03:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. ticket:2013082010003232 --Alan (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Common Flat Lizard 2354858631.jpg [edit]

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Common_Flat_Lizard_2355693508.jpg and annotations at File:Common Flat Lizard 2355693508.jpg (should have been moved, not deleted) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose it be named to? -FASTILY 01:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, should be tagged with {{Rename}} -FASTILY 02:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Azamara from the streets of Koper.jpg[edit]

I'm requesting undeletion of File:Azamara from the streets of Koper.jpg per this discussion: the rough consensus seems to be that the deletion without a precedent case has been premature and the image should be kept. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 02:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:ThanosSamaras.jpg [edit]

Dear sirs,

Please undelete the image ThanosSamaras.jpg, we have written permission from the photographer Alessandro Albert to use online, with credit.

regards, Dave8023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave8023 (talk • contribs)

Please contact Com:OTRS. If everything checks out, the file will be restored. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Hedwig. INeverCry 17:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Tunshill[edit]

This was an empty category for a hamlet in 2011 when it was deleted, but there are now ~20 images which should be part of the category and there is a wikipedia page for the hamlet - w:Tunshill. Scillystuff (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 17:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Martin Huja.jpg[edit]

There is permission in OTRS for this file (ticket:2013082010008755 in info-cs queue). --Harold (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 17:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Damon Matthew Wise Profile picture.jpg[edit]

Proofs of rights to use image in article on the subject and e-mails sent to confirm have been posted on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AspieNo1

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Please release them! Damon Matthew Wise (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:East Kimberley Regional Airport new terminal.JPG[edit]

I wrote to the owner of this image and told him why I wanted this image and purpose via the internal Flickrmail service. I soon received a reply from the owner that I was free to use this file for the purpose of adding it to the Kimberley Airport article. I even stated of this on the page in question, when I posted the picture. So while I am being honest in saying that the picture is not my own work, I have done everything I could to ensure that I had permission to distribute this image.

Now there is no box to tick or menu item to select for a file that I did not take myself but have been given permission to distribute for the purpose of helping a wikipedia article.

So if anyone is willing to see, I can show the email exchange I made with the file owner or your can certainly contact them to clarify that the exchange took place.

Livewireshock (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph in question is File:East Kimberley Regional Airport new terminal.jpg, the photograph's page on Flickr states "All Rights Reserved" (see COM:L). If you have permission from the photographer/copyright holder, the permission will need to be forward on to COM:OTRS. Bidgee (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Bidgee. Also, permission "for the purpose of adding it to the Kimberley Airport article" would be insufficient. The author must give permission for the file to be used under a CC license that allows commercial use and derivatives. (see COM:L). INeverCry 17:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

3M images[edit]

This photo is property of 3M, it illustrates an innovation that the texte refers to. --Lafacto (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You said it yourself: Property of 3M = not free. If you can convince 3M to donate the images, follow the procedure on Com:OTRS. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Dog Clothes from Whirly Dog Supplies.JPG[edit]

I never thought I'd be defending a photo of a dog in pyjamas, but here I am. This image was deleted on the basis that it is promotional, and therefore, out of scope. Yes, it is an image of a dog modelling some dog clothes. As annoying as some people may find the concept of clothes for pets, however, the pet industry in the U.S. alone accounts for $52 billion worth of economic activity, and any visit to a pet store will demonstrate that pet clothing is a growing market segment of that industry. An image of a widely available and seemingly popular product is obviously in scope. In reviewing category:Dog equipment, we only have 2 or 3 other images of dog clothing, one of which is very low resolution. Given that we have an entire category devoted to Category:Doggles (goggles for dogs), I think the point at which Wikimedia Commons can hold its nose up at a photo of a dog in pyjamas has long past.

As for the issue of inappropriate promotional content, the text was certainly promotional, but it is easily edited to remove the links and the sales pitch. The promotional text is not an excuse to delete the image. There does not seem to be anything promotional in the photo itself - no sales text, no logos, no url, etc. I think this image should be restored. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that I ought to have given Hedwig, who deleted the image, a heads up of my concerns. I will do so now, belatedly. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scope is not the real issue here. The file lacks evidence of permission and needs to be confirmed via OTRS. [14], [15] -FASTILY 02:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem when OTRS confirms ownership. The reason for deletion wasn't the promo content, I didn't remove that reason given by whoever tagged the file. I simply forgot to do so. In hindsight I should have tagged no permission. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, why wasn't it tagged No Permission? How was the uploader have known what was necessary? It appears the uploader responded (poorly) to the scope issue, and was not given any indication that scope was not the issue and there was a whole other process to follow. It's bad when we start deleting images without any explanation to the uploaders and giving them no opportunity to remedy the problem. In this case, the uploader seems to have mistaken Commons for a promotional vehicle, so perhaps this is not great loss. But where someone determines that a file lacks evidence of permission, that file needs to be tagged No Permission, regardless of an existing (in this case unsupported) deletion discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore my comment. I initially read Hedwig's comment to be that the deletion ought to have been on the basis no permission, when in fact she said she ought to have tagged it no permission, making my subsequent comment completely unnecessary. Sorry. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, we all shoot too fast sometimes. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing left to do here; this is clearly a matter for COM:OTRS. If permission is received, someone from OTRS will restore the file -FASTILY 07:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Gartcosh.jpg [edit]

Hi

I am username Naked Assassin who has edited the "Gartcosh" entry on Wikipedia.

I am also the account holder/user of the Flickr account "Graeme Bird".

I had 3 of my images deleted from the Wiki Commons media for copyright violation. The photos were ones I personally took, uploaded on my Flickr although they were marked there "all rights reserved".

I have now amended the Flickr page to show them as Creative Commons non commercial.

Can Gartcosh.jpg, BeardCrescent.jpg and JohnstonLoch.jpg all be undeleted and restored on the Gartcosh Wiki Page?

Regards, Graeme Bird

NC is forbidden on Wikimedia Commons.--Steinsplitter (talk) 10:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done All rights reserved, NC, and/or ND licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 07:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:ThanosSamaras.jpg [edit]

Dear sirs,

Regarding the deleted photograph for the page of Thanos Samaras, we have permission from the photographer Alessandro Albert, to use it. He emailed us yesterday, once again stating his permission. His email aa@alessandroalbert.com, if you would like to check with him directly.


On Aug 21, 2013, at 6:00 PM, alessandro albert wrote: yes! no problem for the pic in wikipedia. you can use it.


Please would you be kind enough to reinstate the photo.

best regards, Dave

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Christoffer Fagerström.jpg[edit]

No copyright violation as I have permission from the photographer to publish this picture.

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:TorosRoslin statue.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file has been deleted in 2012 because of no FoP in Armenia at that time (see the Deletion request). In April 2013, Armenia amended its law and adopted FoP (see Commons:Freedom of panorama#Armenia). As this file is about a sculpture in an open place, I request its undeletion. Sardur (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 05:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Alfonso XIII on boat.jpg[edit]

Alfonso XIII on boat.jpg was deleted and I have a legal and correct source.

--EeuHP (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 05:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Súñer en Alemania.jpg[edit]

This image was deleted without reason, because I have a legal and correct source:

--EeuHP (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY 05:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:DPK Pillay critically injured.jpg [edit]

Why has this image been deleted?--Rohansingh.31 (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is given in the deletion log, see File:DPK Pillay critically injured.jpg . The deletion is based on the input to the discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:DPK Pillay critically injured.jpg. Its a cover of a magazine, the uploader scanned it maybe but it is not the uploaders own work. --Martin H. (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. Question answered, no valid reason given to undelete. -FASTILY 10:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Classshearsupp.svg [edit]

It was deleted because of a missing licence. But this is entirely my own work. I will add a licence tag. - Afg genzel (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So please feel free to re-upload the files then -FASTILY 10:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Clava cairn (Balnauran of Clava) 02.JPG and others[edit]

I don`t know why they were deleted, these pictures are my own work (they are a group of 35 pictures). Thank you in advance. --Nachosan (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Read Commons:FOP#United_Kingdom for 2D art. --Alan (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Jerome-cranach-vienna-infrared.jpg[edit]

Per the DR itself, the subject is PD. Looking at the source link, it does seem to be a slavish copy of a 2D subject. (I can't see the deleted version) --Jeremyb (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, someone should go through Special:Contributions/Cranach Digital Archive and make sure nothing else has been deleted :) --Jeremyb (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A complaint was sent via OTRS stating that the image depicted a specialized view of the painting. I don't think it is wise to simply ignore that fact. [16], [17] -FASTILY 02:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does the use of an IR-camera change the PD status? IMHO it is still a DW of something in the PD. Should be restored with credit given to Stiftung Museum Kunstpalast, Düsseldorf / Cologne University of Applied Sciences, 2013 --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is European law may sometimes protections for specialized views of PD objects, whereas US law does not, barring artistic originality in the derivative (which is not present here). -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 04:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how an infrared view of a painting that is in the public domain is expected to be eligible for copyright according to German law. Allow me to quote from a judgement by the LG Berlin of 6 May 1986, Az. 16 O 72/86:
Erst ein Überragen der von durchschnittlich befähigten Gestaltern durch "handwerkliche" Tätigkeit geschaffenen Darstellungen durch eigenartige Prägung, individuelle Geistestätigkeit und einen erheblichen ästhetischen Überschuß über die Zweckform hinaus begründet die Urheberrechtsschutzfähigkeit. Die rein handwerkliche Leistung, die jedermann mit durchschnittlichen Fähigkeiten ebenso zustande brächte, mag sie auch auf anerkennenswertem Fleiß und auf solidem Können beruhen, liegt außerhalb der Schutzfähigkeit (ständige Rechtsprechung; vgl. BGH GRUR 85, 1041, 1047 "Inkasso-Programm"; v. Gamm, Urheberrechtsgesetz, § 2 Rdn. 16; Hubmann, Urheber- und Verlagsrecht, 5. Aufl. 1984, § 15 I 1).
In other words, technical expertise, considerable effort and costs alone do not make a work eligible for copyright, i.e. the sweat of the brow doctrine does not hold in Germany. A work must reflect characteristic traits of its creator to be eligible for copyright. I do not see how this is supposed to be achieved by faithfully reproducing a work of art just with unusual technical equipment and expertise. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An additional remark: I've read the whole correspondence of the associated ticket. The main point in regard to these uploads is the complaint that the uploader supposedly violated the usage restrictions of the source site. This is, however, not a problem of Wikimedia Commons. The other most recent reason refered to a specialized view of the painting without giving any indication how this is expected to make the image eligible for copyright. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The core concept is originality. If there is the object 2-D, an x-ray or IR or somewhat reproduction isn't protected according German and US law. BTW: I cannot see that there is enough originalty to protect coin reproductions in the US and would be grateful to court decisions which explicitely state this for the US --Historiograf (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Priyadarshini Raje Scindia by Soulsteer, November 2012.jpg [edit]

I am the sole owner of this picture. I have also sent an official email to OTRS but there is no reply. Any suggestions what should I do? Shobhit Gosain (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can try asking about it at the OTRS noticeboard. INeverCry 17:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why was it deleted? What is the rational? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://soulsteer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Poetry-of-the-Senses-Mr.-and-Mrs.-Scindia.jpg. INeverCry 06:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Once the OTRS process is completed, the file can be restored. INeverCry 16:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Portrait of Norwegian industrial designer Peter Opsvik.jpg [edit]

When the file was originally uploaded it was done with a permission from the company that bought the photo and its rights. We now have obtained a permission from the original photographer, Michelle Arcila. I enclose the text of that permission below hoping that it is sufficient to undelete the file and make it accessible. As you can see the e-mail of the photographer Michelle Arcila is also enclose in case you would like to check with here if the permission is valid.


Fra: Michelle Arcila-Opsvik <michellearcila@gmail.com> Dato: 21:06:30 CEST 5. august 2013 Til: Anita Skogheim <Anita@opsvik.no>


The enclosed image showing the Norwegian Industrial Designer Peter Opsvik is owned by me, Michelle Arcila, and falls under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL.)


Regards, Tellef Ogrim Oslo — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

The person is supposed to be the photographer, from the initial description. That is typically the intellectual property owner. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 16:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Gevelsberg - Brinkstraße - Saugatter 02 ies.jpg[edit]

As already explained in the delition request this image is part of a permanent sign at a public place in Germany. An image of the entire sign is File:Gevelsberg - Brinkstraße - Saugatter 01 ies.jpg. And as already explained this image is (both images are) covered by {{FoP-Germany}}. Nevertheless the image was deleted due to an "Unclear copyright status".

So what is unclear?

The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted. As there is no reason for such doubt in the current case kindly undelete the image. -- Ies (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support. Germany is one of six countries (Germany, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland) whose FOP is very broad -- it includes all copyrightable works, even text. Since this map appears to meet the other requirements, it should be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 16:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

request for undeleting File:BorislekElephant.jpg [edit]

hi this is painting by Boris Lekar I Own this painting and took this picture --Cmagan02 (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Chen Magen 26/08/13[reply]

 Not done The author died in 2010 so it can't be Public Domain; unless you own the copyright as well the image can't be hosted on Commons. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose In almost all cases, ownership of a painting does not include ownership of the copyright. Unless the artist explicitly transferred the copyright to you in writing, his heirs will have the copyright for a long time (probably until 2080). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 16:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Samper, Ricardo.jpg[edit]

This image belongs to the archive of the newspaper Las Provincias. Was taken in 1934 and the name of the photographer is not mentioned. --EeuHP (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link: [18]

  •  Oppose According to the Spanish copyright law, you should use the term in the old law if the author died before 1987. The old law lists the copyright term as 80 years after the death of the photographer. No separate term is listed for anonymous works, so I can only assume that the copyright to an anonymous photo expires 80 years after the death of the anonymous photographer. For a photo taken in 1934, there is a high probability that the photographer died before 1987. As the photo is less than 80 years old, the photographer can't have been dead for 80 years yet. Additionally, the photo fails {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Stefan4 and Jim. INeverCry 16:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:JELE_Jeanette Lennartsdotter.jpg [edit]

Hello,

I have uploaded a file wich I have the full copywright for/to, so please put i back. If you have any questions, please sen me an email at jeanette@glassroom.se.

Best regards /Jeanette--Jeanette68 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please follow the instructions here: OTRS. Thanks --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:StLouisSiam.jpg [edit]

Hello,

Regarding this specific photo File:StLouisSiam.jpg, St. Louis church reprents less than 50% of the surface of the picture, therefore it is not a copyrigh violation under French law. To my opinion, it is an unfair deletion. I therefore demande the restoration of this picture.

Best regards

--Monsieur W (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The question of whether a building or other work is de minimus is not a matter of measuring the area covered, but of deciding whether or not the copyrighted work is an important part of the image. In this case the church is the principal subject of the image -- the buildings to the right are not notable and the image would clearly be out of scope if it did not include the church. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. There is no COM:FOP in France, and the principal subject of the image is the church so claiming De minimus is incorrect. -FASTILY 19:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:JELE anemone1 KHVC.jpg.jpg [edit]

I have previously wrote about this image, and four others that have incorrectly been deleted by Wikipedia. It also happened so fast, I didn´t see it and have time to respond before the discussion was closed. Please take in considereation that new beginners not act as fast as you Wikipedians do. Give us time to respond please!

I have the soul and olny copywrite of all of the 5 images I have uploaded. Three of the pictures are works where I have collaborated with someone, but the work is mine, I have tha sayso over the works and how they should look and be made, and we are in agrement on me owning the soul copywright for the works. These three images that has been done in collaboration are

JELE karaff KHVC1.jpg JELE samlingsbild bjorn webb.jpg Jeanette Lennartsdotter.jpg

The other two is made by me completely alone. JELE anemone1 KHVC1.jpg JELE sistamaltiden webb.jpg

I also have an agreement regarding photobyline or not with the collaborator, and since the work is mine, I don´t have to put the collaborators byline there, but when I see it can benefit the collaborator, to enhance him and his participation, I´m free to do so. When and if writing a photobyline we only put one namne there, for practical reasons, since photogaphing not is my main worksource and my name is so long, that should we write both it becomes inpossible.

If you wish to argue these facts, please give me a factbased arument, or please, reenter these images.

I will correct the source that is given for-as you call it- Copyvio?, since it seems to be causing confusion.

Sincerely /Jeanette--Jeanette68 (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The files in question appear to be
Except for the first image, there are two copyrights to be considered -- the copyright of the photograph and the copyright of the artistic works pictured. In order to restore the images, we will need a license from the creator of the works pictured (whether or not it is you), using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
There is also the question of whether the artist is notable. Please help us with that by providing a little information on him or her -- we do not keep images of works by artists that the community does not think are notable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Maxwell Portfolio Shot.jpg[edit]

Please undelete. {{OTRS|2013082610016244}}. Thanks.Willy Weazley 18:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 18:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Xbox One Console.jpg[edit]

Xbox One Console.jpg I had recieved permission to upload this image and it is awaiting OTRS Permission.--Crazyboy279 (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Crazyboy279 19:30 27/08/2013.[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:BorislekChurch.jpg [edit]

hi. this is painting by Boris Lekar. I Own this painting and took this picture --Cmagan02 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Cmagan02 27/8/13[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 19:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Yes 8711 rada.jpg [edit]

This personal file

 Not done see reason for deletion: (Copyright violation: copyvio via http://vsenovosti.in.ua/news/1022102 (2012, © 2010-2011. Интернет-газета «ВсеНовости».) = http://vsenovosti.in.ua/sites/default/files/imagecache/550x400/photos/ipyyf6riqta.jpg) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Флаг победы 01.JPG [edit]

This personal file

 Not done see log:
  • File:Флаг победы 01.JPG (File page with no file uploaded: content was: "This personal file {{speedy|No file}}")
  • File:Флаг победы 01.JPG (Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Флаг победы 01.JPG)

--Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Акция протеста у Администрации Президента Украины против пропаганды гомосексуализма 4.jpg [edit]

This personal file

 Not done Other uploads are copyvios, reasonable doubt of own work claim. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Tessera - Legion de María.jpg[edit]

Favor reconsiderar el borrado de la imagen "Tessera - Legion de María.jpg". Para la misma he enviado en su momento el correo correspondiente a permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Asimismo, la usuaria Cookie coloco el aviso de OTRS pendiente. Sin embargo, la imagen ha sido borrada. En el correo he adjuntado la autorizacion del dueño del copyright. La autorización es la misma que la aplicada a los archivos aprobados: Archivo: Alfonso Lambe.png y File:Frank Duff.png debido a que se ha tomado de la misma página: http://www.legionofmary.ie ( http://www.legionofmary.ie/zinc/images/legionofmaryemblem.jpg ). Muchas gracias, --Thor1962 (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done According to the history of the file OTRS is pending for over 6 weeks. You might want to contact OTRS and check if something went wrong. If everything checks out, the OTRS team will restore the file. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

ali abu khumra.jpg[edit]

File:ali abu khumra.jpg

hi i add this picture and it's free picture have no right .. and i know this personally he is my friend ..

thanks Firasalbadri (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The file in question is File:Ali Abu Khumra.JPG (note that capitalization is important in Commons file names). Almost all images have a copyright unless it has expired -- none of the possible exceptions apply here. The copyright is usually owned by the photographer, not the subject, so in order to restore this to Commons we will need a license from the photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per Jim. Please email COM:OTRS if you have written permission from your friend to upload the file -FASTILY 21:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Logo ODAS.jpeg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have myself created this logo for my organisation. They already use it altrough their websites and publications. By the way, it's hard to prove that is my own work. What i need to prove the evidence ? http://odas.net/ NicolasCah (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Whether or not you created the logo, at the very least you must have licensed it to ODAS in order that they may use it. It appears on the ODAS web site without any license that is acceptable to Commons. Therefore, in order for it to be restored here, an officer of the organization must provide a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Please do not upload it a third time -- that is a violation of our rules. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Samper, Ricardo.jpg[edit]

Esta obra es anónima, pues el nombre del autor no se menciona en la fuente originaria (la foto pertenece al periódico Las Provincias). La fotografía se publicó en 1934 y, al ser anónima, sus derechos caducaron en 2004, pasados 70 años, no 80.--EeuHP (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose First, the Spanish law of 1879 applies to works by authors who died before 1987, which is likely in this case -- it calls for 80 years, not 70. In any case, however, the work was clearly not PD in time for the 1996 URAA date, so it will be under US copyright until 2029 (see Commons:URAA for details). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Additionally, the Spanish law of 1879 doesn't list a separate term for anonymous works, which may mean that the copyright expires not 80 years after publication but 80 years after the death of the anonymous photographer. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This will be covered by copyrighted until 2029 -FASTILY 23:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Giant Wheel Wildwood NJ.JPG[edit]

Appears to have been incorrectly deleted. It says that it was unused and recently uploaded. COM:CSD says that a file is recently uploaded if it was uploaded less than 7 days ago, but this was uploaded last year. There is also a dispute about whether it was unused at User talk:Fastily#Giant_Wheel_Wildwood_NJ.JPG. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, done -FASTILY 23:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:ICPD Launch 11th March 1999.jpg[edit]

Proof of rights and origin given AspieNo1 (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Ludwig Strauss.jpg[edit]

I hereby affirm that I, Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [the wiki article Ludwig G. Strauss and of the uploaded image, "Ludwig Strauss giving a presentation, which is my own, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_G._Strauss. I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License.] 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. Antonia Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss, MD email removed August 20th, 2013 best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrakopoulou (talk • contribs)

 Not done Please refer to OTRS for proper procedure. BTW: You can't claim sole copyright/ownership for the article. FYI only. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Hauer Trope scheme 1948 transl.jpeg[edit]

The file was marked and deleted due to invalid copyright tag (?). I created the file myself using notation software and would like to tag it under GFDL|/CC (self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all). --Boocan (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Please add a license and categories. Thanks, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Accroches-Toi.jpg [edit]

This picture was put by the group concerned on Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150567857747407&set=a.10150567857247407.368677.94475937406&type=1&theater

I think that all pictures that are available on Facebook are free. --MoroccanMuslim (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done That's technically incorrect. No explicit statement of publication under a commons-compatiable license -> unacceptable for Commons. -FASTILY 20:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Hdchico.jpg [edit]

File is/was in use in Template:DistordedAspectRatio. Editor neglected to check global use before deleting. -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Typo: {{DistortedAspectRatio}}. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Dschwen (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Bündnis 90 Die Grünen.svg[edit]

 Not done

Would you please evaluate an undeletion of File:Bündnis 90 Die Grünen.svg per Com:TOO#Germany? IMHO deleting was the correct decision then, but undeleting would be the correct decision now. Note that I'm filing my request here rightaway, because the deleting admin has not been active for three years. --PanchoS (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored to take a peek. IMHO still not free. I removed the speedy tag, maybe we should start a regular DR? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. I think it's above the US threshold, but probably below Germany's. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source link is dead. --Dschwen (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the source is dead. It is an old logo btw, used in the 1990's (dunno exact dates). Shall we open a DR to move the discussion away from here? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

− +

Yep, the source is dead. It is an old logo btw, used in the 1990's (dunno exact dates). Shall we open a DR to move the discussion away from here? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source would not matter with a threshold argument; there is no license to verify. A DR might be a good idea though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bündnis 90 Die Grünen.svg --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2013-08&oldid=113107648"