User:D-Kuru/archiv/dr/2008

This page is an archive! You aren't allowed to edit this page. If you want to talk to me use my dicussion page.

deleted Images

hiya, i don't use wikis much, but i uploaded some content once i think you deleted. on my user page i discussed that each ogg encoding was of my own creation or downloaded from a public-domain-serving website. i knew the copyright-expiration dates to be near public domain, but wasn't certain. another user commented further on my talk page, finding two to be special cases, but otherwise the rest ok. i don't know how (nor will i visit this enough) to tag up the files properly, maybe you can with this information. everything should be searchable via "charlie patton" --evilmousse

I deleted your Images, because you only set {{PD-old}} and some Categories (wich was very well done), but:

• You didn't give any source information (wich you have to do or at least should do, because you have to show everybody that the picture you uploaded is in the public domain (for {{PD-old}}) or that the picture/media or whatever was taken by you and therefore that is possible to be in the pblic domain.
• You don't give any other information (Author, Description (not essential) and the date of creation)

You may should think about using the {{Information}} template so that you can be sure that you don't miss any infomation you can give.

Do not use {{PD}} as licence! If the picture is in the public domain through age use {{PD-old}} - if you've taken the image use {{PD-self}}.

Because I don't have enough time to have a look at your uploads I will ask another admin to do so.

hf --D-Kuru 08:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Book-Cover

Why do you delete that book-cover? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Gradshteyn_Ryzhik_5ed.jpg It is not possible to scan a cover for illustrating a page? --Skraemer (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not allowed to upload images of bookcovers, because that would be fair use. As the headlline on COM:FU says: "Material under the fair use clause is not allowed on Commons"

If you want to illustrate articles in wikipedia projects with fair use pictures you can upload it in that wikipedia project (of course only if it's allowed - as it in on en.wikipedia.org .

Commons is made only for images wich are totally free (f.e. pictures licenced under GFDL, CC (without cc-by-nc cc-by-nd or mixes with the nc or the nd retriction), CL, PD and other free licences.)

--D-Kuru (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Das klingt sehr kompliziert und ich kenne mich da überhaupt nicht aus. Ist es also ein Problem des US-Rechts bezüglich commons? Also kann ich das Bild auf de.wikipedia hochladen? Das Problem ist sehr sperrig, der Autor des Buches wird das Covers seines Buches kaum selbst hochladen (Eigenwerbung) und auch keine Zeit hat sich hier einzuarbeiten. Wie ist das mit den Covern bei ? --Skraemer (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Es ist nicht speziell ein Problem des US-Rechtes. Hier ein Zitat aus der von der deutschen Wikipediaseite von Fair Use: "Als Fair Use (dt.:„Angemessene Verwendung“) bezeichnet man eine Rechtsdoktrin des anglo-amerikanischen Copyright-Systems, die bestimmte, nicht autorisierte Nutzungen von geschütztem Material zugesteht, sofern sie der öffentlichen Bildung und der Anregung geistiger Produktionen dienen." Meiner Meinung nach schließt diese klausel allerdings eine komerzielle nutzung, bzw. (starke) veränderung des Inhaltes aus (Auf die veränderung des Inhaltes wird ein paar zeielen weoter unten eingegangen). Das was auf in der Hilfeseite von "FAQ zu Bildern" beim Punkt Welche Lizenzen sind frei für die Wikipedia? steht kann man eigentlich fast eins zu eins auf Commons übertragen.

Der Unterschied zischen deinen Bildern und denen die im Artikel Buddenbrooks zu finden sind ist dieser Brief. Dieser Brief stammt vom S. Fischer Verlag welcher schreibt: "Von unserer Seite besteht kein Einwand gegen eine Abbildung der Erstdruckumschläge in Ihren Wikipedia-Beiträgen". Wenn man genau ist müsste man eigentlich noch einen Brief/Mail schreiben indem nachgefragt wird, ob die Bilder komerziell genutzt und verändert werden dürfen. Wie H.-P.Haack richtig geschrieben hat: "Die Zusage der S. Fischer Verlage betrifft Wikipedia, doch kann stillschweigend unterstellt werden, dass sie auch für das Schwesterprojekt Wikimedia Commons gilt, das als Bild-Archiv für Wikipedia genutzt wird." Ich bin nicht ganz genau der selben Ansicht. Allerdings vermeide ich solche Konfrontationen aus zwei Gründen: Wo kein Kläger da kein Richter (-> Wenn sich niemand aufregt, dass das Bild komerziell genutz wird, bzw. verändert wird ist alles im grünen Bereich) und abgesehen davon hab ich viel mehr zu tun als nur danach zu suchen, dass Buchumschläge richtig lizensiert werden.

Da der Autor (so scheint mir) seine zustimmung zur veröffentlichung zu den buchcovern nicht geben hat, galube ich nicht, dass es erlaubt ist sie auf de.wikipedia hochzuladen. Du kannst dem Autor (oder besser dem Verlag) einen Brief/Mail schreiben und fragen, ob du die Bilder hochladen kannst. Du solltest aber explizit darauf hinweisen, dass - wenn man die Bilder unter einen freien Lizenz veröffentlicht - man die Bilder dann komerziell nutzen und verändern kann. Damit sich das ganze nicht so drastisch anhört kannst du es mit beispielen abschwächen. Z.B. komerzielle Nutzung heißt auch eine Zusammenfassung in einem Magazin, dass du am Zeitungsstand kaufen kannst, wo dieses Bild drin abgedruckt ist. Verändert wird das Bild auch, wenn man das Bild mit anderen Buchcovern auf eine Seite bzw. zu einem neuen Bild zusammenfügt um etwa das Lebenswerk des Autor chronologisch aufzulisten oder das Buch mit anderen Büchern zu vergleichen.

Ich hoffe die situation is jetzt etwas klarer für dich, trotz des etwas längeren Textes.

--D-Kuru (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hello. You deleted my recent upload of the image File:Champix.jpg with the reason cover of medicine-bock by pfizer. I assume this is not a free image for some reason that you could explain to me perhaps? Cheers. -- Longhair (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right this image is not free, because it's a derevativ Work of a copyrighted cover of box for medicine. Two other examples: en:Image:Xboxarcadesku.jpg and en:Image:Xboxelitepackage.jpg. This images musn't be uploaded to Commons, because their content is a copyrighted package for the X Box 360.

I don't deny that you can't star a quite long discussion if this image is ineligible for Copyright ({{PD-ineligible}}) - in my opinion it's not and that is the reason why I deleted your picture.

edit: I discovered a typo: The bock in the deletion reason should be box.

--D-Kuru (talk) 08:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I understand your reasoning. The law is an ass :) -- Longhair (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The law isn't an ass - the commons admins decisions to strictly interpret the law rather than reasonably or liberally interpret it is the real pain in the ass Trödel (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Trödel. May you want to read Commons:Licensing#Material_under_the_fair_use_clause_is_not_allowed_on_Commons and {{Logo}} before you miss interpret the deletion of a logo. I don't knwo how you can "strictly interpret the law". The law on Commons says no logos exapt {{PD-textlogo}} such as Microsoft wordmark.svg. This is too simple to be copyrighted.

@ Longhair: Commons:Licencing#not_OK says "Photographs, drawings, scans and other reproductions of objects that are copyrighted" are not OK, because they're derivative works

--D-Kuru (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Code Blocks logo.jpg

(deleted)Borrado en Commons por D-Kuru. (copyvio - logo (programm is GNU GPL, but the logo not))) I find your reason not logical. Being a GPL program, the logo must be obviously licensed to protect it. Almost any program, being public domain or GPL or any similar license, will have their logos copyrigthed to protect them from intrusism. Thats mean i cant use it as a logo for something of my own. But im using it in a wiki page related to the program Code::Blocks itself. If this is your position, go ahead, you can start deleting logos al around wikipedia, cos is fullfilled with them. I can make a list if you want. By the way: english version of the wiki page about Code::Blocks (it has the same logo) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code::Blocks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgarcia109 (talk • contribs)

You don't understand my reason of deletion, because you don't know the project scope of Commons. You should also read Commons:Licensing (especially Commons:Licensing#Material_under_the_fair_use_clause_is_not_allowed_on_Commons)

If you click on the logo on Code::Blocks (Image:Code_Blocks_logo.jpg) you will see that the picture is tagged with {{Non-free logo}} which is a template which shows that this logo is only usable under the fair use clause.

Logos are only allowed if they are ineligible for Copyright (the are too simple to be copyrighted - see {{PD-ineligible}}). For example: Microsoft wordmark.svg, Gnaa-logo.png or Petalogo.png

Please sign you comments with --~~~~

--D-Kuru (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Now im really lost. So that image is tagged as non-free logo and that makes it right. And where i tag it this way?. Im not here to masterize Wikipedia/media, just wanted to improve spanish Code::blocks page a bit. When i was uploading this image ive seen a bunch of licenses, ive readed a bit around and seems to be even more type of licenses that the ones that appeared on the upload form. How is supossed me to know what type of license i have to choose, no idea. Do i have to do a course on wiki and licenses to upload one image? make no sense. I bet this solves lots of trouble to wiki, by delegating it to people of course. Sure wiki is getting a bunch of money with this from contributions/donations. Clever guys, they dont want any trouble, just get the bill. From my point of view ive lost enough time with this. I wont upload nothing and i wont have any trouble. You know what, if wiki want info they can go to dig it themselves. Not tagging --~~~~ just to go against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.216.157.17 (talk • contribs)

Non-free images are allowed on THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA, because of the fair use-caluse. I know that it's very annoying to read all that stuff you should read before you start contributing. Template:Welcome tell you in many languages what you can do. Even some links are only available in english you have the right pages to read.

Even it's stupid that you have to upload logos to every wikipedia there is no other way (since yet) - I also don't think that this is a good idea.

I don't think that wikimedia gets more money if there are more contributions (wikipedia is - as I know - advertising free). Please don't start with that you lost time! May you think about persons like me who have to edit/delete you image, because you aren't able to read simple headlines. For example Commons:Licensing#Material_under_the_fair_use_clause_is_not_allowed_on_Commons on Commons:Licensing which is already linked from Template:Welcome. It's up to you if you stop contributing. May you think about it.

PS: "Not tagging [...] just to go against" You don't go against, you just bore me, because I have to add {{Unsigned}}

--D-Kuru (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Another lost image and irritated new contributor because no one tried to help him find a way that the image could be used an edit I couldn't avoid making on commons, the place where admins 02:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trödel (talk • contribs)

I try to assume good faith, but if user (no matter if newbie or pro) upload a new files which is copyrighted they don't read anything. You will find on Commons:Upload many templates to upload a file. Nearly every template says that derevativ works, fair use and CC nc or nd files are not allowed (Of course not every page shows the same). In every language there is a link like "I need help figuring out what the license is"

"When i was uploading this image ive seen a bunch of licenses, ive readed a bit around" So what. I know that Commons's tutorial pages aren't good for newbeies, because they are much too large and they discourage new user. However, there are many new user who read some parts of the tutorials and they do not upload fair use files.

I'll tell you if a newbie who's logo/unfree screenshot got deleted contacts me so that you can help him out. Hope thats in your mind.

--D-Kuru (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:XRomix доклад2008 check tags1.png

Hi. It's my own program (user script for Wikipedia!), not a screenshot of any other program. Please restore it? X-romix (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done

--D-Kuru (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Tramvia di Firenze

Excuse me, why did you have delete the images of "Tramvia di Firenze"? (Tramvia_Firenze_linea3.jpg Tramvia_Firenze_linea2.jpg Tramvia_firenze_linea1.jpg Tramvia_firenze_sirio.jpg) All contents of the site [1] are released with GFDL, autorizzazione. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freepenguin (talk • contribs)

I don't see any proof that your images are licecend under GFDL. You aren't allowed to licence them under GFDL only, because you've uploaded them. Only the author is allowed to licence the self made work under a free licence. Moreover there is "© Comune di Firenze - Palazzo Vecchio" written on the bottom.

These images also aren't usable under the fair use clause, because Commons doen't allow fair use images.

--D-Kuru (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you go to the Firenze Project: [2], and you read the section "Fonti utilizzabili", you see that indication. (I've uploaded those images because I've read that section).--Freepenguin (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

On it:Progetto:Firenze there are ORTS tickets included. May you should integrate them too.

However, you should use another category, because - even Commons is multi lingual - the categories should be named in english. I would suggest Category:Tramways in Florence categorised in Category:Transport in Florence. Do not include {{Free screenshot}}, because this is made for free software. Change {{GFDL-it}} to {{GFDL}}, becuase it's the standart template. Don't forget to include the ORTS ticket.

I've undeleted them. Please modify your images as written above so that your images don't get deleted for beeing wrong licenced.

--D-Kuru (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

edit: contact me if you need some help.

--D-Kuru (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've modified them. I don't know if it's perfectly correct, you can check, thanks.--Freepenguin (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:McDull on ice.jpg

I am a bit mystified by the deletion of an image I posted here yesterday. The image in question is one I took myself on my own camera as may be hinted on by the photo metadata. I am particularly curious how this would be considered a 'derivative work'. Thanks, Ohconfucius (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't know how this image can be a derevativ work, because you didn't read Commons:Derivative works. In a nutshale: Even you've taken the image with your own camera, the pig as such is not your own work. The pig is not simple enogh to be ineligible for copyright and I don't think that you have the permission of the author to upload this file under a free licence. The important part of Commons:Derivative works: "You cannot upload pictures of a sculpture by Picasso, you can't upload photographs of Mickey Mouse or Pokemon figures." And yes this pig is equal to a pokemon figure.

--D-Kuru (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was not aware of the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deleted images

Hi. I notice you speedy deleted two images I uploaded more than 2 & 1/2 years ago with no notice. I certainly realize that I, like anyone else, can make mistakes, but I think giving me some notice on my talk page would be a reasonable courtesy for a regular contributor like myself (if such courtesy can't be generally extended).

Per discussion about US parade floats on Commons:Licensing since those were uploaded, I'm not challenging one of the deletions. The other one I have restored for the time being and listed for deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:NaginWetDreamBlancoCenterfold.jpg; perhaps guidelines of when parade floats in the US can or can't be photographed can be clarified. Thank you. -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've started discussion at Commons_talk:Licensing#Floats. Please contribute your perspectives there if you wish. Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You Deleted MY Photos

Today, I discovered that all of MY photos were deleted by YOU. These photographs are totally MY property. I shot those photographs. I edited and enhanced those photographs. I own all rights to those photographs. I voluntarily contributed those photographs to Wikimedia Commons. In addition, you left me the following message: "Hello Paparazzo Presents, You have uploaded several images that are copyright violations and you have done so despite our requests not to do so, and despite our instructions. If you do not stop uploading pictures that are not free, your account will be blocked. See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons. You may also find Commons:Image casebook useful. Please leave me a message if you have further questions. --D-Kuru (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC). You owe me an apology. P.S. I would also like to mention that such TOTALLY UNWARRANTED accusations of copyright infringement, stated in a public forum, damage my personal and professional reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paparazzo Presents (talk • contribs)

My message was just the text of {{End of copyvios}}, which I placed on your userpage, because usually it's useless to place {{Copyvionote}} for every image, because uploaders of copyviofiles don't care about anything. Thereby it's explained why there was no message before "you have done so despite our requests not to do so"

I'll care about your appeal. Please sign with --~~~~

--D-Kuru (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Images Pochette apocalypse imminente.jpg and Pochette chiens.jpg

Hello, The author of these images is a friend. I have the copyrights for these images. Why did you deleted? Thanks

These images were used in an article on, if I'm right, fr.wikipedia. The description of Pochette apocalypse imminente.jpg was "Pochette du deuxième album des Cosmonautes Lunatiques: Chiens." which is "Cover the first album of lunatics Cosmonautes"^translation in english. The description of Pochette chiens.jpg was "Pochette du premier album des Cosmonautes Lunatiques." which is "Cover the second album Cosmonautes lunatics: Dogs." ^translation in english.

Both images were albumcovers and thereby only usable under the fair use clause which is NOT ALLOWED on Commons (see Commons:Licensing#Material_under_the_fair_use_clause_is_not_allowed_on_Commons). Furthermore I don't think that you have the copyright for the images. You can be allowed to upload images under a free licence or something like that, but you can only own/have the copyright if the image was created/taken by you.

--D-Kuru (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Avril

Por quê vc tirou minha foto???--Vitor mazuco (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC) por favor coloque a denovo pois eu fiz tudo certo!!--Vitor mazuco (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand you. Please use english or german (maybe simple italian) to tell me what you want to say.

Even I don't understand you I think I know whats your question about: I deleted your images for being a copyright violation. You just copied the images and placed {{OTRS pending}} at for the permission. Please upload such images only if you already have an OTRS ticket, because usually you don't get the permission for such images. I know some logos tagged with that template and there was no OTRS ticket for a very long time. So please reupload your images (or ask me for undeletion) if you have an OTRS ticket.

--D-Kuru (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Photos film Saga Mesrine (France)

Hi,

The 2 photos which you deleted on November 19 (L'Instinct de mort (film) MG 8424 & L'Ennemi public n° 1 (film) MG 2798.jpg) are free of rights (photos on this page [3]). I asked the production company La Petite Reine (Christopher Robba/Moteur! 75008 Paris, France, presse@maiko.fr, phone 33 1 42 56 95 95). They are intended to be published by the French film Production Company by indicating its name and the photographer Roger Arpajou.

Talk 19:48, 20 November 2008 Kursiver Text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airair (talk • contribs)

Even if I don't think that they're (as you said) "free of rights" the could be licenced under a free licence. However, I hope that you understand that I can't believe what you tell me, because everybody could tell me the same. The best way to confirm that these images are free is an OTRS ticket.

Have a look at this page and try to get an OTRS ticket. Don't forget that commercial use and rebuilsing this work must be allowed.

edit: Please sign with --~~~~ --D-Kuru (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

--D-Kuru (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Winnie-the-Pooh_Bulgarian_book_cover.jpg

Dear D-Kuru, I'm writing for the Bulgarian Wikipedia and I'm still quite unused to the licenses regulations at Commons. I'm writing an article on the "Winnie-the-Pooh" book at the moment so I need to illustrate it with a photo of the book cover. I wrote a letter to the publishing house which has published the book in Bulgaria and they gave me their permission to use the low resolution picture of the cover (from their website). So yesterday I uploaded the photo Winnie-the-Pooh_Bulgarian_book_cover.jpg. I sent an e-mail to permissions-commonswikimedia.org in which I forwarded the mail giving me the permission. However, I haven't received any answer. Please, tell me what should I do because I have the permission to use this photo. Do you think that I should ask the publishing house to fill out this form (and to whom should I present it afterwards)?:

To permissions-commonswikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [    insert link    ].

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [   choose at least one    from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses ].

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

 DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER     

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyplace (talk • contribs)

That would be much better.

Be sure that the publishing house does include (or doesn't remove) that everybody is allowed to use the bookcover in comercial ways and is allowed to modify the bookcover. "Free for Wikipedia" is not enough!

--D-Kuru (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiregion logo

Entschuldigen Sie mich zum Schreiben (die deutsche Sprache nicht sprechen), habe ich zu, haben Sie ein paar Fragen: 1. Warum nicht Sie berichtete über die Diskussion über das Löschen einer Datei die ich heruntergeladen habe, oder WikiCommons diese Formalitäten abgeschlossen sind nicht getroffen? 2. Warum Datei gelöscht worden ist? Die Tatsache, dass das Logo, es war kein Geheimnis. Es wurde in der Beschreibung der Datei. Die Essenz von dem, was dieses Logos. Es besteht aus einfachen geometrischen Formen, auch die Inschrift nicht Multinex ist eine eingetragene print (wie im Fall von Coca-Cola, zum Beispiel) und besteht aus den gleichen Sticks. Warum dann entfernt wurde? Wie unterscheidet es sich von anderen Dateien in dieser Kategorie? Wer entscheidet, ist entsprechende Datei Vorlage PD-textlogo oder nicht? - NKM (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I downloaded the new version of the file, now in svg (for easy visibility figures). I do not know as yet to explain what this logo is with only (!) simple shapes (as indicated in the description), and that he had no "unique creativity of simple objects", all facilities located on the diagonal grid at an angle of 45 degrees (if want to check this with a line:)). I hope that misunderstandings between us will no longer arise. - NKM (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

About removal of a photo of The Merry Wives of Windsor

I'm not certain why you removed "RIVERSIDE_GREENSHOW_MERRY_WIVES_FINAL_1983.jpg", which you had said, "it has been deleted from Commons by D-Kuru because: copyvio - bookcover." This was a picture I took, I have the contact sheet, etc., and the poster that was put on this site I also created, both of which I documented in my notation. I felt it was an important contribution to the site, and to the Wiki Commons, as it documents an early performance of this very important actress. Can you clarify? Weimar03 (talk)

This is the image is a derivative work (Even you have taken the image, the image's content (the poster) is not your own work) of a poster (as the description says). This image would only be usable under the fair use clause which is not allowed on Commons (see Commons:Licensing#Material_under_the_fair_use_clause_is_not_allowed_on_Commons)

--D-Kuru (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture Mocnin funkcia 2.gif

Hi, I have found out, you deleted my uploaded picture. It was a part Mocninová funkcia of my article at Slovak Wikipedia and this is "best-article" candidate. What was the reason? There's a serious problem, because a month ago I deleted it of my computer so I can't upload it again. Thank you for looking into.--Lukaszh (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I deleted your image on 2008-11-30, because there was no licence since when you uploaded it (2008-11-17) and was tagged with {{Nld}}. Per {{No licence}} the image can be speedy deleted after seven days (usually the image is kept longer). The image was deleted, because Commons can't keep images which's licencestatus is unknown.

If you tell which licence you would have chosen I can undelete the image and add the licence.

--D-Kuru (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I drew that picture. There's no license, it is my own work.--Lukaszh (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you didn't get a very important point which is one of the crucial points in the whole wikimedian system. Everything you upload has to be licenced under a free licence (excapt fair use which is not allowed on Commons). Your contributions to Wikipedia for example are (deadfully) licenced under {{GFDL}}. There is no deadful licence on Commons. You have to choose a licence for every picture. I, for example, usually licence my files under the Creative Commons licence version 3.0 Attribution-Sharealike Austria ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0-at}}).

Every image you upload has to be tagged with a licence so that the people know under which conditions they can use your images (again: fair use is NOT allowed (I just say that again, because many user don't get it); {{Noncommercial}} and {{Nonderivative}} is also not allowed). You tagged every of your images (excapt the deleted one) with {{PD-self}} which means that you released all your rights without any restriction (maybe your images ineligible for copyright, because they are too simple. In that case {{PD-ineligible}}) would be the correct licence).

However, If you want to know more about the different licences have a look at Commons:Licensing. This page says "All description pages on Commons must indicate clearly under which license the materials were published, and must contain the information required by the license (author, etc.) and should also contain information sufficient for others to verify the license status (source link) even when not required by the license itself or by copyright laws." which explains why your image got delted.

If you have any question don't hesitate to contact me or someone else at the village pump.

If you want to licence the deleted file also under {{PD-self}} tell me and I will tagg it for you. Of course you can also choose a different licence. You may also can improove the descriptions.

--D-Kuru (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Only what I want is undelete this picture. I want it back. --Lukaszh (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just saying that you want your image back without reading my text doesn't satisfy anybody!

If I undelete the image it will be tagged again with {{No licence}} and will be again deleted, because there would still be no licence. May you want to read the text I wrote above and tell me which under which licence you want to publish your image.

--D-Kuru (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)