Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]

File:Dzisna, Barysaŭ kamień. Дзісна, Барысаў камень (1882).jpg, File:Barysavy kamiani. Барысавы камяні (1890).jpg[edit]

The reason for deletion of these files is not true. Both of them aren't scaled-down duplicates of File:Book illustrations of Dvina or Boris stones - t.05.png and File:Book illustrations of Dvina or Boris stones - t.06.png respectively. Actually they had the same resolution. And initially they even had better resolution and were uploaded from other sources (not from "Сапунов А. П. Двинские или Борисовы камни. — Витебск: Тип. Витебского Губернского Правления, 1890 — таб. 06. — 31 с."). Moreover, because of using .jpg format instead of redundant .png they have the same quality and resolution with much less file size. I believe we should use the server space rationally. So if there is a need to delete some images it should be redundant File:Book illustrations of Dvina or Boris stones - t.05.png and File:Book illustrations of Dvina or Boris stones - t.06.png. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

In addition in my opinion such practice (uploading redundant file from the same source [1], [2] and then adding incorrect speedy deletion request [3]) have to be stopped. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Quran- Chapter 22 v 72. “When Our Clear Signs are rehearsed to them, Thou wilt notice a denial on the faces of the Unbelievers! They nearly attack with violence those who rehearse Our Signs to them. say, "Shall I Tell you of something (far) worse than these Signs? it is the Fire (of Hell)! Allah has promised it to the Unbelievers! and evil is that destination!" QURAN- CHAPTER 22-V 78. “VERILY WE HAVE BROUGHT THE TRUTH TO YOU: BUT MOST OF YOU HAVE A HATRED FOR TRUTH.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed moosa (talk • contribs) 09:24, 17 May 2015‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Putting the two versions side by side, it is hard to choose between them. However, as a matter of policy, Commons prefers PNG over JPG for all images other than those originally created as JPG:
"If you have a choice of file formats in which to save a graphic, scan, or other such thing, save it as PNG..." (Commons:File_types#JPEG).
Therefore, the PNGs should be kept and the deletion of the JPGs was appropriate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
No, but that same guideline does mention that JPG thumbnails are often better (and I think more performant to make), so having copies of both is not the worst idea. That is why we have {{JPEG version of PNG}} and related templates. Deletion does not save any disk space. So... particularly when the contributor wants it undeleted, I Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. It doesn't hurt anything. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
For me this case looks like the following: "However, if the original file is in JPEG, it generally makes no sense to convert it to PNG: converting a lossy compression into a “lossless” format doesn't buy you anything since the “loss” already occurred in the original, and doing so will only increase the file size (any edits, however, should probably be saved as PNG as well as JPEG". The proof of my opinion is that there is no difference in quality between images. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kazimier Lachnovič. From a technical point of view, saving a lossy image (jpg) into a lossless container does not make the resulting image lossless. -FASTILY 00:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
If the PNGs are not original lossless scans, but rather just JPGs converted to PNG, then yes the wrong duplicate was deleted in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

File:孫中山先生.jpg[edit]

這張圖片已經超過版權保護期,所以屬於公有領域。 保護期:澳大利亞、歐盟和新加坡的70年版權保護期為準。中華民國(臺灣)、中華人民共和國(大陸)、香港和澳門 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pillow lin (talk • contribs) 13:01, 20 May 2015‎ (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image in question was a duplication of File:Sun Yat Sen's maturity.png. --Wcam (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support not exact duplicate; may be stored as another version of the photo. Ankry (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Although the subject image is smaller, it is a better copy and more usable for most purposes. If we were to keep only one, I would think it would be the subject image, not the older one. However, there is no reason that we must keep only one in these circumstances. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Blender.svg[edit]

I'm not sure which file was meant, but high probably the file was the icon like this w:de:File:Blender.svg (and the first version of w:File:Blender.svg) then it's free, as you can see on http://www.blender.org/about/logo/ under Desktop icon → Freedesktop – SVG. The Tango styled icon is created by "Jakub Steiner" (Tango artist), the license is there clear given as CC-by-sa/3.0/ (file metadata) and the old files (on DE and EN) had GPL/2.0/!? I mean the commercial restriction is only because it is a logo:

4. The logo is used unaltered, without fancy enhancements, in original colors, original typography, and always complete (logo + text blender).
So probably the desktop icon is here not concrete meant?
5. In case you use the logo on products you sell commercially, you always have to contact us with a picture of how it will be used, and ask for explicit permission.
So commercial use is possible, there are logos on Commons which are more restricted. Probably as {{Trademarked}}?
User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  10:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. That page also is pretty explicit about the copyright: The Blender logo is a copyrighted property of NaN Holding B.V, and has been licensed in 2002 to the Blender Foundation. The logo and the brand name “Blender” are not part of the GNU GPL, and can only be used commercially by the Blender Foundation on products, websites and publications. So it would seem they are claiming copyright as some of the basis of those restrictions, not just trademark. It also seems like the copyright is owned by another entity so the copyright license might have to come from that other entity. The "freedesktop" SVG does have a by-sa-3.0 license in it though, but I wonder if that was just any additional expression added. I can see where the uncertainty comes from. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. So there is a small uncertainty left. Could it be useful to contact the Blender Foundation (and also ask about the license contradiction in the icon files)? If yes, could someone do this with good English!? User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  22:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Stichting Blender Foundation
Entrepotdok 57A 1018 AD
Amsterdam
the Netherlands
Email: foundation (at) blender (dot) org
Chairman: Ton Roosendaal


License by Blender Desktop icon

Hello Blender Foundation,

I've a little question about the logo and the desktop icon: http://www.blender.org/about/logo/ 
The icon there (under Desktop icon → Freedesktop – SVG.) does have a by-sa-3.0 license in it though!?
So is it allowed to upload it under Wikimedia Commons with CC BY-SA 3.0: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or not?

Is this a possible text to send? User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  17:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The main issue is that the Blender Foundation does not own the rights to the logo -- they are merely a licensee and cannot grant licenses. It is a different foundation which actually owns the rights. The freedesktop icon looks like it was done by a third party, who were in the habit of freely licensing their works, and may not have considered the derivative work aspect when they made the file. In that case their license is just for any extra expression added. To me, that is the most likely situation. Asking would not hurt though, as it would at least bring the issue to their attention. Maybe ask "One of the icons there (under Desktop icon → Freedesktop – SVG.) has a by-sa-3.0 license inside of it, which seems to be at odds with the copyright claim on the page. Is that file truly under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or is it still restricted as a derivative work?" Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Mural con BTOY.jpg file undeletion[edit]

Buenas tardes, soy el Director del IES Cartima, José María Ruiz Palomo, y el mural que aparece en la imagen borrada está dentro de nuestro centro educativo. Es obra de la artista BTOY junto con el alumnado del instituto, y es de nuestra propiedad. Además la fotografía ha sido tomada por mí. Por tanto, no existe ninguna violación de ningún derecho de copyright ni ningún otro. Le ruego que anule el borrado de la imagen.

Un cordial saludo. José María Ruiz Palomo Director del IES Cartima. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmruizpalomo (talk • contribs) 12:26, 22 May 2015‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unless each of the artists (or their parents, if they are minors) has executed a formal transfer of copyright to the school, the copyright for the mural remains with the artists and only they can license it here.
The file does not say where the mural is. It is possible that it is covered by an FOP exemption, but we will have to know its exact location -- both the country and whether it is indoors or outside. I see an article at IES Cartima, which you have edited, which places an Institute of that name in Spain. (Incidentally, I know that only because you give a latitude and longitude -- the article did not link the city name or tell us what country it is in). If it is in Spain and is outside, visible from a public street, then it is OK. If it is indoors, it is not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Young Euro Classic Logo 2015.jpg[edit]

PepermintBerlin ist der Urheber des Logos von Young Euro Classic und hat lediglich eine falsche Lizenz ausgewählt. Aus diesem Grund bitte ich um die Wiederherstellung der Datei, damit ich sie entsprechend lizensieren und markieren kann. Liebe Grüße und Danke Pepermintberlin (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Auf www.young-euro-classic.de/presse/pressefotos/ steht, es sei ein gewisser "Simon Seidel". Von dem bedarf es dann einer e-Mail an unser Support Team. Eine höhere Auflösung der Graphik/des Modells würden wir begrüßen. -- Rillke(q?) 22:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Die Freigabe ist jetzt verschickt. Pepermintberlin (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

File:出征兵士を見送る松原神社.jpg[edit]

この写真は、私の祖父を私の祖母が撮影した物で、著作権を受け継いでいます。 どちらも死亡しているため、著作権の提示は困難ですが、現物が手元にあります。 この写真を手に持った写真を送りましょうか? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaztima109 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 23 May 2015‎ (UTC)

This is a picture of my grandmother were taken grandfather. I inherited the copyright. Both also have died, It is difficult to presentation of copyright, This photo has been extant. Shall I send a photo with this photo in hand?

  • この写真は1930年代の松原神社が写った貴重な物です。
  • 著作権の侵害は絶対にありません!
  • 他に著作権を主張する人間は存在しません。
  • This photo is a valuable thing that reflected the Matsubara shrine of the 1930s.
  • Copyright infringement Absolutely not!
  • Man who claims the copyright of this photo does not exist, except for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaztima109 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 23 May 2015‎ (UTC)
  • If the photographer died before 1.1.1946 the photo is PD, but we need a proof.
  • If he photographer died 1.1.1946 or later, we need free license permission from their heir(s).
In both cases, please follow Commons:OTRS/ja instructions. Ankry (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Daft Punk.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted because the website mynewsdesk.se was described as the owner of it. It's been uploaded to that website but the real owner of it is Sony Music Entertainment, which has uploaded it with a proper Creative Commons license. The image, and the license, can be found here.DaftClub (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Your link is to mynewsdesk, and, as was noted in the deletion comment, mynewsdesk has no right to license the image. The link offers no evidence of under what license, if any, that Sony has released the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is clear info that image is under CC-BY-3.0 license ("Licens" in Swedish; see the link shown there) on the page pointed above. @Jameslwoodward: do you doubt that "Sony Music Entertainment Sweden" was authorised to license the image? Could you, please, be more precise concerning your doubts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankry (talk • contribs) 19:07, 26 May 2015‎ (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstand. I assume that mynewsdesk found the image somewhere on the Web and put it on its site with the CC license. If that is the case, then my objection is correct. If, on the other hand, mynewsdesk operates like Flickr, then a third party placed the image and the license on the mynewsdesk site. If that third party was in fact, Sony, then the license is OK. However, that remains to be proven -- as we well know from our Flickr experience, it is common for people to post images under false names and with false license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward, I think you should look more in to what mynewsdesk actually is before making these assumptions. Mynewsdesk is a website where companies, like Sony Entertainment, can post press releases and so on, as well as photos from their own possession. The companies themselves choose the license of the photo. For example, you can see on this photo, posted by Universal Music, which is published with no sort of CC-license, but with an "All rights reserved" marking, that every company chooses how to license their photos. DaftClub (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Before you make broad criticisms such as the one above, please remember that Commons gets more than 10,000 new images every day. About 1,500 of those are deleted for various reasons. 15 Admins do 90% of that work. There are billions of web sites and I have never seen mynewsdesk before. I certainly do not have time to study the operation of a site that I may never see again. I did say above that I might have misunderstood the operations of mynewsdesk and you enlightened me. However, you still have not offered any evidence that person or entity that posted the subject image is actually Sony -- all we know is that it claims to be Sony.
I note that you have uploaded a variety of images from mynewsdesk -- the same problem applies to all of them. I also note that none of those that I looked at have been license reviewed. That is an essential part of the process of uploading third party images from sites such as Flickr and, apparently, mynewsdesk. I strongly suggest that you add the template {{LicenseReview}} to all of your existing and future uploads from such sites. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:BenSiegelInCustody.jpg[edit]

Before I thought that it was just that I had to label the author and the source in order for this picture to not violate copyright laws, but now I realize that I should have labelled it as Public Domain too since it was. I would very much like the chance to redo the licensing if that is possible so that goes well into the laws.--Ellis.Donnie (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

What makes this photograph public domain? --rimshottalk 18:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is the second request for this image. Rimshot's question is right on the mark -- you cannot simply claim that it is PD, you must prove it beyond a significant doubt. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:K2_from_Concordia.JPG[edit]

This image is free from all licensing as i have personally taken this photograph during my K2 basecamp trek in year 2011 and have never sold this image to any one/ institutions. You are therefore requested to un-delete this image and include this in the competition.--Aapkamajid (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The image has been published before, e.g. here, though not in full resolution. @User:Túrelio: did you find a full resolution copy? --rimshottalk 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Vitsebsk Uspenski sabor.JPG[edit]

This church was originally built in 1743-1785. It was completely destroyed in the 1930's, then rebuild identically in 2000-2011 (see this article for more details). In my opinion, the restoration work does not generate copyright, since its aim was to rebuild the church identically, so this image could be restored. BrightRaven (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, the cited article does not say that the new church is an exact replica -- only that it was built on exactly the same place. Second, since the original church was built in the 18th century, it is certain that a great deal of creative work went into the new building. Even if it was meant to be an exact replica, new architectural drawings would have been required. They would have to have been created from photographs and other information available about the building that was destroyed in 1936. The new building could not be an exact replica -- building codes and methods have changed substantially since the 18th century. Therefore, the new building has a new copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:TutorialAgeing.webm[edit]

It says "Derivative works from non-free software screenshots." This is not true. There's absolutely nothing in Commons:Derivative works about softwares. With all the time put into this it would've been nice to be warned before it was actually deleted... MaudeG3 (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You were warned by User_talk:MaudeG3#File:TutorialAgeing.webm on May 7. The file was actually deleted on May 23, so Commons:Deletion requests/File:TutorialAgeing.webm was open more than twice the required seven days. I'm not sure what warning you expect, but "it would've been nice to be warned before it was actually deleted" doesn't seem to fit the facts.
COM:DW leads with
""A 'derivative work' is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted." emphasis added
"Any other form" is very broad and certainly includes software. Your upload infringed on the Google copyright as well as the copyright in all of the WP images you show. You cannot claim "own work" when your work is simply an assemblage of other peoples' work -- you must give credit, even where much of the video came from WP:EN. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Returner bottle image.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This does not infringe the copyright 210.136.105.244 01:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This is package of this liqueur. Developer, Bottler, Copyright holder = Toshiaki Aizu allowed to use this photo on Wikipedia. What point is not good for Wikipedia commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 佐治秀政 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 28 May 2015‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "allowed to use this photo on Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Both Commons and WP:EN require that images be free for use by anyone anywhere for any reason, including commercial use. The image appears on the manufacturer's web site, http://returner.jp/, with a clear copyright notice, "©Retuener Japan Corporation". The fact that the company's name is misspelled in the notice does not change its effectiveness. Policy therefore requires that an officer of the corporation send a free license to OTRS.

I note that this image was reloaded as File:Returner EARL GREY TEA LIQUEUR.png. Recreating a deleted image is a violations of Commons rules and I have deleted it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And still again, at File:Returner bottle.jpg. If you do this again, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This product made and sale by Returner Japan. and I am member of it. Why other guy delete? I cannot understand. What kind of case do you want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 佐治秀政 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 28 May 2015‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The copyright is owned by a corporation. You are an individual and obviously not the corporation. In fact, we have no way of knowing anything at all about you. Therefore, as I said above, "Policy therefore requires that an officer of the corporation send a free license to OTRS."
Also, as I have noted twice above, it is required that you sign your posts and that you stop uploading the image under different names. If you cannot follow our rules, you will not be allowed to edit here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Eurogrand Logo.jpg[edit]

Hi,

I'm working on the company, and I'm allow to use the file, upload it to Wikipedia.

Also is a free image in the sense that anyone can use it for affiliate porpoises without asking our permission.

Please don't hesitate to contact me, --Sebastiansta (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Sebastiansta

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support "I'm allow to use the file, upload it to Wikipedia" is not sufficient -- both Commons and WP:EN require a license that allows use by anyone anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use. Similarly, "anyone can use it for affiliate porpoises" limits the possible uses and is not allowed. It is also clear that it is not "own work" of User:Sebastiansta as claimed in the file description.
However, the logo is {{PD-text logo}}, so it should be restored. The source, author, and license must be corrected..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I doubt that this really is a textlogo. The casino has his head quarter located in Gibraltar which is one of the British Overseas Territories. And as wel all know com:TOO is quite low in the UK. We have deleted far simpler logo's from the UK per DR. Plus fonts can be copyrighted in the UK as well. Natuur12 (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't feel strongly about it, but the font here is a very plain bold sans-serif font without any special features. Both of the examples given at Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_Kingdom are significantly more complex -- the one with extra bars on the "E" and the other with four colored triangles. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the text or the font can get a copyright, but what about the background? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
If it's a standard font, then the logo itself shouldn't get any protection. The ones the UK ruled copyrightable were where the logo designer made some custom alterations to the letters. And while fonts can be copyrighted there, I'm not sure the *use* of the fonts in say a logo are deemed a derivative work. Only if you are creating a competing font, mostly. I can't see the image so I'm not sure either way, but if text in a standard font, the only chance at copyrightability would be the background (if any). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(File:Verbrennungsluft.jpg)[edit]

Erbitte Wiederherstellung der Datei: (File:Verbrennungsluft.jpg)

URL: http://www.ofen.edingershops.de/Verbrennung-&-Verbrennungsluft:_:114.html bzw. http://www.ofen.edingershops.de/images/content/verbrennungsluft.jpg

Ganz unten auf der erstganannten Seite stehen die Lizenzangaben: Das Bild "Verbrennungsluft" haben wir unter creative commons – Namensnennung – Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 3.0 Deutschland (CC BY-SA 3.0 DE) gestellt. Für die Nutzung verlangen wir kein Geld, bitten aber um einen Link auf unserer Seite (www.ofen.edingershops.de) --Kaimu17 (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:ANBWikipedia.jpg[edit]

Hello there, This picture has been shared by El Sur Newspaper to Alejandro Navarro´s Senatorial Office. Therefore there are rights to use it and share it. Please restore it asap.

File:BHKW (4).jpg[edit]

Diese Bild ist auf der Homepage des Flughafens Stuttgart verfügbar und wird dort unter "Pressebilder" der Öffentlichkeit zur Verfügung gestellt.

This file is available for the press on the internet page of the Airport Stuttgart and therefore, everyone is allowed to use it for public purposes.

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nope, the image being publicly available is not enough for us. We need an explicit permission/Free License that allows anyone to use the file for any purpose, including commercial applications. --El Grafo (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Fuelcell 2.jpg[edit]

This file is available for the press on the following page and can be used according to the statement of the Airport Stuttgart.

http://www.fuel-cell-e-mobility.info/fehlende-artikel/f-cell-zeigt-flugzeugen/

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nope, the image being publicly available is not enough for us. We need an explicit permission/Free License that allows anyone to use the file for any purpose, including commercial applications. --El Grafo (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Atmosfair-Station - Kopie.jpg[edit]

This picture is publicly available in the "Umweltbericht 2010" and if the source is given correctly, it is allowed to use this picture for Wikipedia.

http://www.flughafen-stuttgart.de/media/447255/Umweltbericht-2013.pdf (Page 21)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nope, the image being publicly available is not enough for us. We need an explicit permission/Free License that allows anyone to use the file for any purpose, including commercial applications. While it might be legal to use the image on Wikipedia itself, it is our policy that every media uploaded to Commons must be usable by anyone else as well. --El Grafo (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Der Beste - Movieposter.jpg[edit]

I, Rasmus Borowski together with Arne Jysch, own the copyright of this movie poster picture. We made it ourselves to promote our short film Der Beste. We would like to present the poster on the Der Beste-Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Minni (talk • contribs) 15:06, 29 May 2015‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see that Rasmus Borowksi is one of the producers of the subject film. There are two problems here. First, we have no way of knowing that User:John Minni is actually Rasmus Borowski. And second, the film was almost certainly made by a corporation and, therefore, the copyright is owned by the corporation, not an individual. In any case, Commons policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)