Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]

File:Map of South Asia.svg [edit]

This file was deleted because "it is not correctly rendered by the software here". This is not a valid reason for deletion, or at least I don't find anything like that in the deletion policies. The file is in the scope of Commons because it contains vector map source for several bitmap maps used on Wikivoyage. We store all language versions in one svg file and later export png files in individual languages. This is made very explicit by mutual links between the png files (here and here) and the svg file (now deleted). The svg file must be restored because it is needed by the Wikivoyage community. --Alexander (обсуждение) 22:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support — Without the contribution history of this SVG file, the derivative PNG files are potentially in violation of their CC-BY-SA licenses. In my opinion that is reason enough to undelete this file. —RP88 (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I am the deleting Admin. None of this was made clear in the DR. I freely admit that I don't understand the technicalities here -- only that this image is essentially invisible to the ordinary Commons user -- it shows only a portion of Alaska and Canada and nothing anywhere near South Asia.
It seems to me a violation of fundamental WMF principles for us to be storing images used on the project in a format that is not generally accessible. Wikivoyage is by no means the only project of WMF that requires maps in multiple languages -- how do other projects handle this? As for the opening sentence above, we delete such files whenever we see them -- there's no policy on the subject because it is obvious -- for a file to be kept on Commons it must be "freely usable" -- "freely" goes not only to the license but also to its actual usability. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
If the map shows Alaska, it may be useful as a map of Alaska, regardless of what the filename says. This is a simple argument beyond all technicalities and copyright issues already mentioned.
Wikivoyage (Wikitravel) is using multilingual svg - single-language png maps since 2003, which is, well, at least the same time period as locator and navigation maps developed on Wikipedia. I will not explain at length here why the mechanism used on Wikipedia is far from ideal for a travel guide, but, again, a simple argument is that hundreds of maps are created this way, and nobody will spend effort on changing them.
Finally, deletion of images is a very general issue that concerns all WMF projects. Therefore, deletion policies should be as clear and precise as possible, and they should be followed in a transparent manner. Something that is "obvious" for you is by far not obvious for me. --Alexander (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The Alaska image which shows is not useful - it is only part of Alaska in solid blue and part of the Yukon in solid magenta with gray ocean at the edge of a map projection which distorts at the edges.
Your other arguments make sense though, particularly the "grandfathering" of this old system, but I still think we should not be storing images that are not visible here. I'll stay Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral on the question and see what our colleagues think. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

File:JeffreyVance2011.jpg [edit]

I have all the rights to this Image as I own it. I appreciate wikipedia for wanting to follow copywrite laws but in this case there is a mistake that was made. Please, communicate how you would like me to prove that this Image was indeed uploaded legally and within my rights. Thank you!

--Wool3linen (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the only mistake here is yours. At the image is shown as "Photo by Manoah Bowman - © 2011 Jeffrey Vance". Since you cannot be both Manoah Bowman and Jeffrey Vance, either the image is not "own work" as you claimed or you do not have the right to license it. Since the image has been posted previously on a copyrighted Web site, policy requires that the copyright owner send a free license to OTRS. Note that the e-mail must come from a domain that is traceable to one or the other. GMail and similar anonymous e-mails will not be accepted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

All pictures were declared as free2use[edit]

The first three pictures are based on scans, that's right. But all of this pictures are originally part of the Collection H. Grün with a handover to the Rodena Verein and set to a free-to-use licence. Rodener Notkirche.jpg is a scan from a photo given from the Rodener Pathfinders to the Rodena Verein and set to a free-to-use licence too. After rescanning the copies and photoshopping, to use this images into a book publication/postcard, i uploaded the pictures to the commons too. --Okami-san (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. In the image description, you claimed these photographs were taken by you. That is obviously not the case. They were taken recently enough so that they are probably still under copyright. It is,of course, possible that the photographer donated the images and the copyrights to the Rodena Verein, but that would require a written agreement, not merely giving a copy of the photos. In any case, in order to restore them, we will need evidence that they are free to use -- either a web source that shows them that way, or an e-mail from the copyright owner, see OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Fidel Leon Cadavid.jpg [edit]

el archivo Fidel Leon Cadavid no viola las normas no estoy robando derechos de autor por que especifique que era de otro creador

Jhonest001 (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As you said in the image description, you took the image from Facebook. Since you are not the photographer, you have no right to freely license the image here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Bill Clinton & Deelip Mhaske.jpg[edit]

This profile who requesting all my picture deleted is fake, and claiming fake deletation requests

Please check the proifle credibility before delteing my pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello six seven eight two seven seven one eight three. Since you're so concerned with credibility, you might want to sign into your account, so we know who we're talking to. Once you've done that, you might want to start addressing the reasons the file was deleted rather than attacking the people involved. For the record, Tokyogirl79 is not "fake" (whatever you mean by that in this context) and (with 45k edits across eight Wikimedia projects since 2006) has plenty of credibility.
A valid argument might have been that File:Bill Clinton & Deelip Mhaske.jpg could not have been copied from, because the file here on Commons was uploaded seven months before the American Bazaar story and had a resolution that was close to 32 times higher.
That said, it looks like the file in question was a crop of File:Bill Clinton and Deelip.jpg, of which you claim to be the author. However, it's clear that the real author of that photo is Beatrice Moritz, and presumably, you're not Beatrice Moritz.
And on that basis, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion. LX (talk, contribs) 10:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image was deleted by Yann after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bill Clinton & Deelip Mhaske.jpg. It was uploaded by User:Humanhorizon who is blocked indefinitely on WP:EN:

"Reason: Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia."
The image is all over the web and very unlikely "own work" as claimed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Aloysius Pang Profile Picture.jpg[edit]

Request for undeletion.

For the above picture that I've uploaded, I'm the rightful image copyright ownner.

--Dasmond Koh (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you uploaded the image at 3744x5616px strongly suggests that you didn't just take it off the web, but since the image has appeared in many places, policy requires that the copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


Hello, well this picture wasn't just downloaded of the Internet, but given to me by the author, to extend an article I requested Mayor's office to provide me of photos, I have the contact details and info if an admin wants to know. Balthasar02 (talk)

Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposePermission to use the image "to extend an article" is nowhere near sufficient for use on Commons or WP:EN. Both require that an image be free for any use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use. Policy requires that third party permissions be sent directly to OTRS by the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


About this file, I am the copyright owner, it's mine, it was taken originally in an interview in 2008, I am a reporter, I have taken many of the pictures of local politicians you can find on the Internet, the image was edited and used for different tasks since then, the white background is the first of these editions, thanks for your time. Balthasar02 (talk)

For images that have appeared elsewhere without a free license, policy requires that the copyright holder send a license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:John Ausonius.jpg[edit]

I'd like a review of this deletion. Towpilot has been a long-term, communicative and established contributor. They're not particularly active anymore, apparently because of numerous deletion discussions from people doubting their authorship claims (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Desmond Llewelyn 01.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:I Rossellini A Hopkins.jpg etc. and User talk:Towpilot). As stated on sv:Användare:Towpilot, Towpilot has worked as a professional photographer. While such claims are commonly false, I personally find Towpilot's claims credible.

In the deletion closure, Ellin Beltz stated that predated the upload on Commons and was larger. However, the Commons upload was made in 2007, and the blog post was published in 2010 (hence the URL). Last time I checked, 2010 happened after 2007. The size of the file is also not much to go by, since has obvious upscaling artefacts. The blog post somewhat vaguely attributes the photo to Nyheter24 – presumably it was grabbed from, which claims that the photograph was created by Privat (which just means "private" – a lazy non-attribution typical of today's Swedish journalistic professionalism). LX (talk, contribs) 17:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think you are right, but for professional pictures which copies (even smaller) are available on the Internet, a permission would be best. I think a general ticket saying that he works(ed) as professional and that all images he uploads on Commons are his would fix any doubt, especially for old pictures scanned from argentic. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
That's already been suggested by User:LtPowers. Since that hasn't happened yet, I don't it will. Nor do I think it should be required for undeletion. An e-mail wouldn't really add anything in a situation like this. We're not dealing with an online source published before the Commons upload, and there is no online source attributing an author whose identity an e-mail could help confirm. LX (talk, contribs) 19:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentYup & oops, you're right 2010 is after 2007; my bad. I think I transposed that 07 for July month to year incorrectly. I did see the @nyheter24 and also the "foto:private", but if the uploader is the photographer, why is the copy here so small? 167 bytes is really small, but most of his other uploads are just slightly larger which may be one of the reasons he has such trouble convincing people that these are his images. If I was wrong to close this the way it was closed, please feel free to reverse the deletion. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Siam Burma Death Railway Documentary Film.jpg[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have uploaded a image into Wikipedia for the below movie link. I am the owner of the image. But the image got deleted. Please help to undelete the image.

Thanks and Regards, Rajsankar. PH : 6329 7381

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajsankar (talk • contribs) 02:04, 22 December 2014‎ (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The name RAJSANKAR appears on the poster as an Associate Director. If User:Rajsankar is the Associate Director, that does not make him "owner of the image" -- the owner would be the movie company. In any case, policy requires that for images that have appeared elsewhere before being uploaded here, that the actual copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


Have permission for the same. And is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. --Creativediary (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And Commons does not host content published under licenses restricted to noncommercial uses. Please read Commons:Licensing – or at least the box at the top. LX (talk, contribs) 10:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Roudaki Hall Opera.jpg[edit]

I am requesting undulation of this file: File:Roudaki Hall Opera.jpg I received this image from the FOUNDATION OF LES BALLETS PERSANS in order to illustrate my dance related article. The image is from the archive of the foundation but its copyright appears to has expired since the photography is taken before 1979. A declaration of consent has been sent to by a representative of Les Ballets Persans (Taban teyhoo) from the email address of Mittimoe (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Photographs in Iran become PD at the earlier of 30 years after publication or fifty years after the death of the author, or if the author died between 1950 and 1980. A 1979 photograph is PD only if it was actually published before 1985 -- it is up to you to demonstrate that beyond a significant doubt. If the image is not PD by age, then in order to restore it here (but see the next paragraph), you will need to show how and why the FOUNDATION OF LES BALLETS PERSANS owns the copyright to the photograph and the Foundation will need to provide a free license for any use anywhere by anyone, including commercial use, not just one "to illustrate my dance related article".
More difficult is the fact that the building portrayed in the photo appears to be modern and is still under copyright unless its architect died before August 22, 1980. Unless the building itself is PD, the photograph infringes on the architect's copyright and the image cannot be restored without a license from the architect or his heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Memorial Stamp for Roudaki Hall Opera in Tehran.jpg[edit]

I am requesting undulation of this File:Memorial Stamp for Roudaki Hall Opera in Tehran.jpg I received this image from the FOUNDATION OF LES BALLETS PERSANS in order to illustrate my dance related article. The image is from the archive of the foundation but its copyright appears to has expired since the photography is taken before 1979. A declaration of consent has been sent to by a representative of Les Ballets Persans (Taban Teyhoo) from the email address of Mittimoe (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We do not have an entry for Iran at Commons:Stamps/Public_domain, so I can only assume that stamps follow the same rules as other works. If that is the case, then the stamp itself has a copyright which is still in force unless the author died before August 22 1980. It is up to the uploader to prove the date of death.
There is also the same problem as above -- the image on the stamp infringes on the architect's copyright for the building, so unless he died before August 22, 1980, we also need his permission or that of his heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Mirza Khair ud-din.jpg [edit]

This is the source of the image. This relates to history.

File:Gebruiker gerelateerde concepten.png[edit]

I would like to copy this file to Timboliu (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)