Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests
Picture is public domain, as source is NTSB. The picture can be found in an NTSB report (see page 8 of original report AAR90-01, superseded by page 9 of AAR92-02.pdf). In a previous discussion, I quoted AAR92-3.pdf as a source, which does not contain the picture in question. Thus it was deleted. Took me some time to find the initial NTSB-report. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 12:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Question The page references you provided seem to show a photo that differs from the deleted image here on Commons (a bot hard to tell, granted, since the sources appear to be photocopied). Are those the correct page references? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Also includes File:ArcSoft Image103.jpg and File:Suprapubic Catheter Image 02.jpg in the same case. Yann (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This image were nominated by Jim (talk · contribs) and therefore deleted by Steinsplitter (talk · contribs), argumenting than ArcSoft is the copyright holder due to a copyright notice in the EXIF. I opened a thread in the Village Pump to discuss this huge copyright problem.
So please restore this image inmediatelly until the discussion closes, because an imaging company can't take the copyright of the images made by end users using their products, that is ridiculous. --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Support The camera manufacturer is certainly not the copyright holder. Yann (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose How is it that you are both so sure that the camera manufacturer is not the copyright holder? Camera manufacturers take pictures with their equipment to use in their advertising all the time. ArcSoft clearly appears in the EXIF as the copyright holder. It's hard for me to believe that the camera manufacturer makes any attempt to claim copyright on images that don't belong to it -- customers would not allow that.
- Absolutely no evidence has been offered by User:Amitie 10g that this was, in fact, taken by User:Terryyes15, as claimed. Although we usually assume good faith, when a user's only uploads are marked in the EXIF as copyrighted by someone else, we drop that assumption. Also, the uploader, Terryyes15, has used at least one sock in this effort, another reason to doubt his good faith. Terryyes15 has not appeared here or at the DR in support, even though he had been active on Commons in the last week.
- Finally, this was obviously taken in a medical setting. If ArcSoft does not own the copyright, then who does? As in the case of medical X-rays, it is not clear whether the technician who pushed the button or his employer owns the resulting image.
- . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Jim, the evidences are in the thread in the Village Pump opened by me. There is exposed various images that has been used inm ArcSoft products used by end users. Also, a little research in Wikipedia answers them, too. Amitie 10g (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Jim: Although I agree that "camera manufacturers take pictures with their equipment to use in their advertising", I really think that it wasn't the case here. These are certainly not images that could be used as advertising because of the subject. Beside, I find the quality really poor for professional works used as advertising. It is IMO very much probable that the default setting has ArcSoft in the EXIF data, and the photographer was not aware of that. Mind you most people who own a camera don't know what is EXIF data, and much less how to change the default settings. Did you see these? File:ArcSoft Image344.jpg, File:Image196_finanzas.jpg. These are certainly not advertising pictures. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- OK, that makes sense, particularly the last two pix you cite. However, that still leaves us with an uploader who uses at least one sock and who has not bothered to respond here or at the DR, as well as the question of who owns the copyright to images taken in this kind of setting. Under the circumstances, I am very much disinclined to assume good faith and accept that these are actually Own Work. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, Suprapubic catheter is most probably a sock (was it formally checked by a CU?), but this gives little information for or against the assumption that Terryyes15 owns the copyright. I think asking once more may be useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I checked it and although we can never be absolutely sure about socks, this is as strongly indicated as any I have seen.
- To summarize, we have a user with 93 edits on Commons, 48 of which have been deleted for one reason or another. He has used at least one sockpuppet. He has not responded to this DR or UnDR. All of his uploads are suspect first because in a medical setting it is not clear who owns the copyright and second because of his record. I see no reason to assume good faith and accept that he both actually took this image and that he actually owns the copyright and has the right to freely license it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Please could you undelete the file Corrida poster spain 1955.JPG, deleted yesterday around 23:30 UTC by the user named Steinsplitter. The quoted reason for deletion is No license since 2014-07-15.
Reason for asking: yesterday around 18:45 UTC I have tagged the file with a license which I think is proper (CC BY-SA 3.0). I do not understand why the person who deleted the file wrote "no license", since for 5 hours the license had been there.
All right, I am not sure the license is appropriate (twice I have sent e-mail to OTRS permissions forwarding a permission from the image holder - with no reply, I have logged an issue on helpdesk (and than applied the advise suggested), I have explained the issue on the image talkpage). In this case, I would understand we would have a discussion on the license itself and if my license is found inappropriate and no alternative appropriate license is identified, the file gets deleted.
- Oppose Please understand that Commons gets around 10,000 new images every day and that around 1,600 images are deleted every day. Ten administrators do most of that work and they simply do not have time to have detailed conversations about deletions. OTRS is, like all of WMF, staffed by volunteers. There are not enough of them either, so OTRS often runs a backlog of several weeks. It would, of course, be better to offer more and quicker communication to uploaders like yourself, but without more people that simply isn't possible.
- The source site, bibliotecadigital.carm.es, is apparently down at the moment, so I can't see what license is on the site. However, there is no reason to believe that a poster from 1955 is in the public domain. Spain was 80 years pma until recently, which means that any work later than 1934 must be under copyright and any work later than 1875 is suspect.
- There are, of course, circumstances under which the library could own the copyright -- if the creator of the poster had explicitly deeded the copyright to the library in writing, but that is not usually the case for this kind of material. Even if that is the case,
- "its usage on wiki has been explicitly permitted in an e-mail note, forwarded to the OTRS permissions"
- is not sufficient on two grounds. First, "usage on wiki" is not sufficient. We require a free license to use images anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works. Second, we do not generally accept forwarded permissions. It is, unfortunately, too easy to counterfeit a permission and send the result to OTRS, so we generally require that the license come directly from the source of the image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Please restore the following pages:
- Oppose All recent images have a copyright and this is no exception. This image appears -- reversed -- at https://www.facebook.com/luiz.biajoni so Commons policy requires that the actual photographer send a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I've had some portaits of comic-book authors deleted without any explanation! It's the case of this file, the whole set (more than 20 photos!) of Resaca a València and even a photo of the Tennis player Marcel Granollers. Some of those photos were even in use in articles in some chapters of Wikipedia! What the hell happened!? Please, someone check the Fastily historial becaseu he could have mistaken, but for sure he deleted some photos he didn't had to!. They're sportspeople and artist with articles in some chapters of Wikipedia. Miguel Gallardo even has a national price of comic-book in Spain!!! Please check, I don't know how many files have been deleted, but are quite a bunch.--Coentor (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- If someone doubts: All the files were taken by me with my cell-phone, the Samgsung I've use to upload most of my photos. Maybe some of the deleted files were cropped and edited with the cellphone tool, which could have altered the info in it, but at least the "Resaca" fileset has all the information. I'm the author, that's sure!--Coentor (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, due "theorical" Fair-use, I've deleted some logos which should be allowed in Commons. They are simple geometrical forms so no Copyright elygibility at all should be considered. The PSPV Logo is just a romboidal form in yellow and red, and the UPV logo is similar (a circle or a square, depends on version). Files are File:Logo PSPV 1977 (xicotet).jpg, File:Logo PSPV 1977.jpg, File:Unitat del Poble Valencià.png and this one who could have more doubts about its admissibility, but a message in my discussion could have been OK: File:Esquerra Nacionalista Valenciana.gif.--Coentor (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)