Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]

Three files by Baumberge[edit]

There is no valid reason for the deletion. There are no documented copyright violations against this file. The license of the file corresponds properly to the GFDL. The authorship of the claimant is clearly noted in the image description. MagentaGreen (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

These three files were all uploaded by User:Baumberge and all three DRs were started by him. While we do not usually delete files at the request of the uploader, if the images are unused on WP, the decision rests with the closing Admin.

Since these were all deleted 16 months ago, I do not understand why you are raising the issue now or, indeed, how you know that "The authorship of the claimant is clearly noted in the image description." .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This is certainly only a guess, but it behaves exactly as with the other pictures he has posted. He has his photos provided with a signature that has been removed from various editors rightly. However, he wanted to fight back with the deletion request. He put the request in the same way for many of his paintings without ever specifying a reason. This applies also to the above-mentioned three images.
The examples demonstrate both the type of signature as well as the relatively high quality of the images. They should not be deleted without a previous discussion. I think this should also apply to the three already deleted files. Regards, MagentaGreen (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
P.S. It makes no sense to me to edit these images, if they were then deleted without reason and only due to the caprice of a single admin.
MagentaGreen (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose These were deleted via uploader request. The uploader is an adult and I see no reason why the deleting admin shouldn't have respected his wishes as he did. The first two are images of the uploader himself, and the third has his copyright watermark intact. If he wants these images restored he can request it, but I don't think we should reverse deletions requested by the uploader without his input or agreement. INeverCry 18:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The first two are indeed of the uploader; as unused images of a non-notable person, they would have been subject to deletion on COM:SCOPE grounds regardless of the user's request. The third may also have scope issues. It is indeed of the Longinusturm, but at a somewhat bizarre angle that partially obscures (and distracts from) the tower with out-of-focus vegetation. File:Longinusturm-sommeransicht-2007.jpg is far superior for educational use (i.e., illustration of the tower), so I see no reason to restore the image in the absence of a compelling reason for retention and contrary to uploader's request. Эlcobbola talk 18:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Shadow puppet of Bima, Java, Indonesia (17th-18th century).jpg[edit]

This is a puppet consisting of a small set of 2D objects which has been deleted in potential contradiction to the official policy of Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. There is a single small rod which can be either ignored under COM:DM or masked out. The closure uses the rationale that the official policy is not good enough, as the WMF and existing Commons community consensus does not take into account that the original Bridgeman decision was for oil paintings, not for other types of 2D works. This has not been our past convention for interpreting the view on scans and photographs of 2D vs. 3D artworks. If an administrator wishes to act beyond official policy, I would expect them to propose that change to the community rather than deleting images outside of policy to set an effective precedent. In such a proposal we might consider other cases such as the wire-framing decision of Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. a case that intrinsically provides alternative shadows and re-texturing for an original artwork and yet was not considered to introduce sufficient new creativity to produce a copyright.

Considering the precedent this could set, this deletion request should have more than one opinion, especially when the one opinion I gave was to keep, in contradiction to the close. Examples of future deletions on these grounds would include photographs of old or even ancient 2D artworks that are not flat paper or oil paintings, and have potential for trivial shadow lines or reflections, such as paper cut-outs, paper templates, tile cuts, large flat crochet work, copper etchings, scrapbooks, glazed or enamelled surfaces, ancient frescos, etc. Consequently raising for UNDEL discussion as the DR has already been closed. -- (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I was the closing Admin. Note that one other user felt that the delete was appropriate, so Fae's summary above is not entirely accurate. As I said at the DR, Bridgeman covered only Old Master paintings. I think WMF's extension to all 2D works, including drawings, etchings, wood block prints, and the like is appropriate. Our current policy is very careful, however, to exclude works that are nearly flat, such as coins, carvings, and the like. I also agree with that.
I do not believe I am changing policy with this deletion. In fact, I think it is Fae that is trying to extend our PD-Art policy to a work that is not 2D. The subject work is not flat -- it consists of sticks (slats) of wood that have depth. The image is not a "slavish copy" (Bridgeman words), but required considerable care and skill to photograph without having distracting shadows. In that respect, the image is similar to an image of a coin or a carving, which we do not include in PD-Art. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, the image was not of "sticks (slats) of wood". This inverts the case. As I recall there was one small rod, which could be masked if not covered by DM. The other elements are a small number of flat pieces of wood, not sticks, which by design were intended to be extremely flat as the work is intended to be seen as a silhouette, being a shadow puppet intended to be seen as a 2D projection. -- (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jim and per Meshworks. Fae's invocation omits consideration of the finding that "to the extent a photograph reflects the photographer’s decisions regarding pose, positioning, background, lighting, shading, and the like, those elements can be said to 'owe their origins' to the photographer, making the photograph copyrightable" and, in quoting Nimmer, that "the photographer is entitled to copyright solely based on lighting, angle, perspective, and the other ingredients that traditionally apply to that art-form.” The decision against the computer models was based on the finding that "Meshwerks did not make any decisions regarding lighting, shading, the background in front of which a vehicle would be posed, the angle at which to pose it, or the like." As Jim noted, this image is not a slavish copy as contemplated by Bridgeman. Rather, it has a particular background, a particular lighting, a particular angle, etc., all elements identified by Meshworks as "ingredients" that may give rise to copyright. Эlcobbola talk 15:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Sure, however can you explain why we should not put the precise same rationale in new DR requests for all photographs on commons of old crochet work or plates for etchings that we currently host as if they were 2D works, both of which have choices for lighting, shading, positioning, background etc.? In fact the same logic actually applies to old oil paintings as careful choice of lighting will show brush-work more distinctly than flat on lighting. This choice appears to be overturning our standard Commons interpretation. -- (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Tonic_Breed_2014.jpg [edit]

I'm the owner of this photo.

--Survivethis (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Patrik Svendsen 19/09-2014

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image previously appeared here and numerous other places on the web. COM:OTRS requires additional evidence of permission/authorship to be submitted using the process therein in this circumstance. Эlcobbola talk 15:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done : OTRS permission required. INeverCry 17:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ben Howard.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The name of the uploader and the author suggests that they are the same, plus the file looks original (high quality) and there is EXIF data... I don't see why this file had to be deleted. Trijnsteltalk 15:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done - File has valid EXIF, has been here for quite some time and the files is used by reusers.Uploaders accountname and the author match. I cannot find a copy of the file from before 11 October 2011. If anyone thinks that this file should be deleted it should face a full DR and not a semi-speedy procedure. Natuur12 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Milad Tower in Tehran City.jpg [edit]

Please note that this structure is one of the main symbols of the Tehran City, this photo shows only a portion of this structure, and the photographer has given us the permission to use this photo. Besides, yes, there is no law issued in this regard (Freedom of Panorama) in Iran, but this does not mean that they have issued a law against taking these pictures. So I think that in this case, we should refer to the common law in the world. Please reconsider about deleting this photo. Thank you. Arvid Qasemy (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close This file has not been deleted; there is nothing to undelete. You may enter your comments at the ongoing DR. Эlcobbola talk 15:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Dana Mead.jpg [edit]

Please undelete the image Dana Mead.jpg that was removed on Sept. 10, 2014 by user CommonsDelinker as user Thomas E Leonard sent requisite written permission via email to on Sept. 3, 2014 in email with subject line "Photo Permission Request" from

--Thomas E Leonard (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)