Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]

File:The Cool Clouds of Carina.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted as a copyright violation (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Cool Clouds of Carina.jpg). Huntster said: As the two sources cannot be separated, this composite is non-free and should be deleted. But in metadata of this file you can see line Usage terms: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. Metadata refer to the composition (full file), not to the ESO portion only. Otherwise it would be somehow specified in the Usage terms line. /St1995 17:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It is not unreasonable to expect that whatever image editing system the ESO uses would automatically insert that copyright statement, since all ESO works are intended to be freely licensed. Further, ESO's copyright page says "Unless specifically noted", and I would consider a specific mention at the source of a copyright entity (NOAO/AURA/NSF in this case) to be such a specific note. Huntster (t @ c) 22:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You don't right. "Image editing system" of the ESO wouldn't automatically insert the licence. For example: File:Gamma-ray burst buried in dust (artist’s impression).jpg (this file comes from ESO website, but credit is NAOJ). For this reason in metadata of this file no Usage terms line. /St1995 18:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. NSF images in PD as a work of the U.S. federal government. See {{PD-USGov-NSF}} /St1995 13:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Quoting per the fine text at the NOAO website: "NOAO is the national center for ground-based nighttime astronomy in the United States and is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA), under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation." This does not make NOAO a part of the NSF, and certainly does not guarantee that the file was created by an NSF employee. And see NOAO's own image copyright page: http://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/copyright.html. Huntster (t @ c) 23:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • 1). The first line in the source: The materials created, authored and/or prepared by NOAO are copyrighted in content, presentation, and intellectual or creative origin. Use of NOAO/AURA images constitutes acceptance of these guidelines. As I understand it, it says that NOAO/AURA images are copyrighted. But about pictures, created by NOAO/AURA/NSF does not say anything. In authors of this image specified NSF also. It is a guarantee that the file was created by an NSF employee too. 2) If this file is protected by copyright, in its metadata surely there would be marks "CC-BY-SA". And I'm inclined to believe ESO employees. /St1995 15:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
        • That's a rather significant assumption to make, saying that they are distinguishing between photographs and graphic images without any evidence. As far as I'm aware, all NOAO images use that credit line "NOAO/AURA/NSF". That is not necessarily saying that the authors are NSF employees...again, an assumption on your part. It is a third assumption that the metadata would reflect anything other than the ESO copyright. Again: "Unless specifically noted" covers this, where an outside organisation that uses all rights reserved is credited alongside ESO. Huntster (t @ c) 21:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

+ Commons:Deletion requests/File:M101 hires STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg /St1995 22:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Reasonable and clear arguments why this file is copyrighted did not shown. Can someone restore this file and close the request? /St1995 15:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • In your opinion. I still stand by what I've stated, and believe this is a clear-cut example of where our Commons:Precautionary principle should come into play. Huntster (t @ c) 04:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Huntster, have you read this DR? And this? Аnd this? /St1995 13:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, and I disagree with those closures in the strongest possible fashion. Huntster (t @ c) 15:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • And per this reply - your argument (about COM:PRP) is wrong because I sure that nominated file is free-licensed. COM:PRP says: The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted. If I had any copyright-doubts on this file, I didn't start this discussion. Also credit ≠ authorship. Regards /St1995 00:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3790 stamp (Head of Goddess Guanyin, Korea).jpg[edit]

This file was deleted as a duplicate of the file file:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3790 stamp (Head of Goddess Guanyin, Korea).png in PNG-format. But it isn't exact copies or scaled-down, deleted file have another format JPEG. PNG- and JPEG-files aren't identical from the point of view of assignment: JPEG-files are more intended for use in Viki (they in miniatures are usually best of all displayed, is sharper), PNG-file as providing the best quality, - it is more for external users. --Matsievsky (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have examined the deleted jpg files, compared them to their respective png versions, and found the png versions to be sharper and of superior quality. We have a policy regarding duplicates, and seeing how png and jpg files are raster images, there's literally no point in keeping a crap jpg version. -FASTILY 21:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support See COM:VP#Pngs and jpgs of the same images. And Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive#File:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3788 stamp (Turkmenian Drinking Horn).jpg. Fastily examine is a crap. --Matsievsky (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that makes a lot of sense, you want these files in the live database because you uploaded them and are keeping some silly imagined score of some sort. If you're going to make poor quality (crap) contributions, then don't get upset when somebody else comes along and makes a better version. This is a community wiki after all, and if you're going to foolishly insist ownership over everything you've uploaded, then perhaps you should consider leaving the project. -FASTILY 21:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Stop acting up and you don't judge on yourself. If I advanced my images, would upload PNG. --Matsievsky (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Fastily: Could you please clarify, which versions did you examine: those in full resolution, or the ~220px thumbnails generated from them (if there is such a possibility for deleted files)? Because the primary question is (see the linked discussion), whether the thumbnail would be sharper for jpg. If not (and you're sure of that), then yes, there's no need to restore the file... YLSS (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
And the policy you link to says: Care should be taken when the format is different: For example, it is common and useful to have both a PNG and JPEG of the same image, since (due to a long-standing issue with the thumbnailer), JPEGs thumbnail is better. However, JPEGs aren't lossless images, so progressive editing of a JPEG will destroy the quality, whereas a PNG does not have this problem. Hence, a PNG for (further?) editing, and a JPEG for display is often necessary. Is this one a different case? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Correct, that is applicable to different formats of the same image; in this case, the jpg versions appear to be derived from a different, inferior source, and are of sub par quality when compared to the png versions. I've generated thumbnails for the jpg and png files and compiled the following table for comparison:
Name Original PNG Version Original JPG Version PNG Thumbnail (~250px) JPG Thumbnail (~250px)
The_Soviet_Union_1969_CPA_3790_stamp_(Head_of_Goddess_Guanyin,_Korea) here here ([1]) [2] [3]
The_Soviet_Union_1969_CPA_3791_stamp_(Bodhisattva_Statuette,_Tibet) here here ([4]) [5] [6]
The_Soviet_Union_1969_CPA_3792_stamp_(Ebisu_Statuette,_Japan) here here ([7]) [8] [9]
-FASTILY 21:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a difference in quality. Unless colors of PNG files burned out from time slightly more. Over time yellow and green shades usually turn pale and stamps become more blue. --Matsievsky (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyway deleted "duplicates", duplicates not being. --Matsievsky (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

So, now is unquestionable same quality, cause they are the same image as I downloaded, compressed in high quality JPEG, and for the mentioned reasons, well know reasons, we can and we are encourage to keep png and jpegs... but, as they are not same image, as you said, deleted saying that they are same, is paradoxical, to not say you're lying for the community to do whatever you want. -- RTA 05:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

RTA, you upload these 3 JPEG files from PNG files. Do you know it's better? --Matsievsky (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting... the JPG and PNG versions do not appear to be duplicates at all, but separate scans of different stamps (the printing offset is different between them, and the serrations are different, so they are not of the same physical stamp). The JPG versions seem to show the individual halftone dots; the PNG scans seem to more smear those areas into being a smoother solid color, yet have some odd pixelation in places, but are sharper in others. Is that indicative of a different printing process of the two stamps of the same design (one halftone one more inkjet-like), or just an artifact of the scanning process? Personally I actually prefer the JPG scans -- they seem more accurate to the actual source. But if the stamps were printed with different processes, it would definitely be good to have versions of both. Since they are not exact duplicates, they should not fall under the speedy deletion guidelines. At the very least they should go through regular deletion request to see what others think. I would strongly lean towards keeping both. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion as philatelist PNG-stamps slightly faded. But such stamps too are important for show. Therefore I left PNG stamps and added new JPEG stamps which practically didn't fade. Question: in this case is it necessary to transfer PNG and JPEG formats to the same scan? --Matsievsky (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The files above are already undeleted. Anything more to do here? Yann (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Yann They was not undeleted actually... -- RTA 09:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
RTA, you upload these 3 JPEG files from PNG files 29.01.2015. For what? --Matsievsky (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Jules Guiart-portrait en 1930.jpg, Image:Ileana of Romania 1909.jpg, File:Patriarch Iustin of Romania.jpg[edit]

All three images seem to be pre-1986, making them fall under {{PD-RO-photo}}. They should be restored and re-tagged if needed.--Strainu (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Special:Log/Alden.harbi[edit]

Ticket:2015012210018482 confirms he represents http://www.moxiepictures.com/ The producers of Ice Cold Gold are listed at http://www.moxiepictures.com/contact too. So if moxiepictures is the copyright holder, I think we can restore them. But he is not representing animal planet if they are the copyright holder. Jee 08:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC) More info: [10] Jee 08:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Glowing Lines.jpg, File:Rainbow Station.jpg and File:Van Gogh Fietspad.jpg[edit]

File:Glowing Lines.jpg, File:Rainbow Station.jpg and File:Van Gogh Fietspad.jpg should not be deleted. They are photos I received from Daan Roosegaarde himself with permission to upload them to the Wikipedia page. There is no copyright breach, the photos are free of use.

Regards,

Charlotte de Mos Office Manager Studio Roosegaarde --2001:981:A147:1:FC7F:47FF:E49A:DBC8 11:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC) 30-01-2015

According to the deletion notes, the information in the images points to pimhendriksen.com. In any case, the true copyright owner (Daan Roosegaarde, Pim Hentriksenm, or whoever) has to send in an e-mail according to the instructions here. This serves to confirm the permission and to ensure that the owner understands what "free to use" really means. Anon124 (+2) ( ) 17:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

File:The Extraordinary Ordinary Life Of José González.jpg[edit]

Please undelete File:The Extraordinary Ordinary Life Of José González.jpg

I (Mikel Cee Karlsson) and our production company Plattform Produktion own all rights to this work and the film "The Extraordinary Ordinary Life Of José Gonzalez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plattformen (talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 January 2015‎ (UTC)

File:Guifi avatar.png[edit]

The file was a part of my own work. I'm a member of en:guifi.net

Why was deleted? I request the undeletion asap. --Arpabone (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Click on File:Guifi_avatar.png, the deletion reason should be shown in your language, quote: "If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to publish the file, please email our OTRS team to get the file restored". –Be..anyone (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)