Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Related DR's: new section
Aaehasa (talk | contribs)
12 edits
Undeletion request.
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Wikipedia Zero edit
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- PLEASE ADD NEW REQUESTS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE -->
<!-- PLEASE ADD NEW REQUESTS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE -->
I am the owner of this photo. How is it possible to prove it?

={{{requestscaption|Current requests}}}=
={{{requestscaption|Current requests}}}=
{{{note|}}} <noinclude>[[Category:Commons admin backlog]]
{{{note|}}} <noinclude>[[Category:Commons admin backlog]]

Revision as of 18:15, 18 April 2017

I am the owner of this photo. How is it possible to prove it?

Current requests

Files uploaded by MARTA MANCINICons

Mostly scans of photos over a century old. Except one, they all had date/description and sufficient author information, plus a copyright tag. Blatant deletion mistake. Nemo 06:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I disagree. As they stand they could not be kept and the DR was open for a month without the uploader fixing them.

In several cases I looked at, it would be easy to determine the author and, probably, his date of death, that should have been done before upload. The uploader certainly cannot claim "own work" for any of these, as was done without source in several cases. Come back with this request one by one with the necessary information supplied, and we can restore them -- but not en masse. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Some of them already contains required licensing information so they should never be deleted while procession this DR. In some cases the information may be incomplete or incorrect (eg. PD-anon-EU template for a US work), but this was not raised in the DR. As per above oppose, I suggest reopening the DR and continue dispute there. Ankry (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the uploader had a full month to deal with the various problems and made no effort to do so. I don't see that opening an unwieldy DR solves anything. If you have any specific files that you think should be restored, please list them and the community will consider them, but my look over the list suggests that the bulk of them cannot be kept as they are now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jameslwoodward: Note, that:
  1. the UDR request is not from the uploader; so any requirements directed to the uploader are irrelevant here
  2. most of the images already had proper copyright info fixed before they were deleted; so the deletion in the DR process was not correct, IMO. I have restored them: feel free to re-nominate for deletion (en masse, or one-by-one) if you wish
  3. we are all volunteers so we cannot require a specific user will respond in a specified period of time; we should be able to deal with such cases even if the uploader did not respond
  4. assumption that we can delete any image because its uploader did not respond is not the right way, IMO
  5. for few remaining images you are right: more information is required (@Nemo bis: eg. the death date of G[iovanni] Gussoni from Milano) to resolve their copyright status.
I think, we can close this case. Or anything else can be done/said here? Ankry (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely out of process for you to restore these images when there are only two opposing comments on the UnDR. I suggest you redelete them and wait until there is more support for your side of this discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose - none of them had a valid license, the files with a license only had a US PD rationale, and no license on the source country - Jcb (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York seems to be located in US. What source country rationale is expected then?
Anonymous-EU is a valid Italian copyright tag when no author/publisher info is provided on the work itself. (work = diploma form; the written text is purely informative and so not eligible for copyright); AFAIK, in some countries such diplomas can be considered "official documents", not eligible for copyright, but unsure about Italy here.
Italian diplomas with author/publisher info remain deleted. Ankry (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The diplomas are clearly above TOO, so eligible for copyright. Also several pictures of people are involved. To use Anonymous-EU, you have to show that the author actually published the work without disclosing his identity. This is completely different from 'we at Commons do not know the name of the author'. Jcb (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb: Indeed, clear copyright mark: "Mishkin Studio, New York", "(C) H. Mishkin, N.Y." and clearly pre-1923 published. Why they needed to be deleted? Ankry (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of the images seems to origin from the US, so it's not sufficient to only deal with the US copyright situation. (I wrote that earlier, as you can see a few lines above). Jcb (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
False asumption. "Boston Conservatory of Music" is probably a Russian school. And two photos were created in New York near Rome. They were photographed in Italy, but it is irrelevant for definition of their country of origin. Some works are Italian, one is definitely German (also PD) and at least three are US. Ankry (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but what you write is very difficult to understand and very vague. E.g. what is "created in New York near Rome" suppose to mean? And claims like "one is definitely German (also PD)" should come with a file name and a PD rationale. Jcb (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb: This means that you deleted images with valid author/copyright information without even looking at them. Ankry (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boston Conservatory of Music is here. This and this images have clear copyright mark from a New York photographer. How did you find them to be non-US works? this has clear authorship of a German photographer (death date unknown, but active since 1864, so PD-old-assumed is an appropriate rationale). And recent deletion reason is clearly fake for them.
Regarding File:Agide Jacchia 04.jpg, the same photo-card has been published under a CC-by-4 licence by Deutsche Fotothek, so we could either restore this one accordingly or upload the Fotothek image. De728631 (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC) restore it. The autographs seen in Agide Jacchia 04.jpg are not copyrightable and if the photograph is available under CC-by I support restoration. De728631 (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Banyule_Football_Club_Jumper1.png

I also request that these files that I uploaded to the Northern Football League Wikipedia Page be undeleted;

Reasons: These images were drawn by me on Microsoft Paint and therefore not official pictures that were created by the football clubs involved and not under copyright, they can be free to be used anywhere on the internet. It is already common for the jumper designs of football clubs to be uploaded to Wikipedia - for example, if you look at the Goulburn Valley Football League and the Central Murray Football League Wikipedia pages, they have pictures of the jumper design of all of their clubs. The pictures I uploaded completed the missing jumper designs from my league, bringing the Northern Football League Wikipedia Page close to completion and accuracy. The only difference I can see between the jumper designs on the other Wikipedia pages and my own, it is that mine have the Northern Football League Logo on the jumper design. If this is what the issue was, I will remove it and reload the images. I believe that the addition of the jumper designs for teams in the Northern Football League Wikipedia Page adds interest for anyone reading the page.

Thankyou,

--Dpeters1980 (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Duaca.jpg

Estimados

Recurro a uds, con la finalidad de solicitar la restuaracion del archivo File: Duaca.jpg

dicho archivo es de mi autoria, la tome con un iphone 4s, --Duaca (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)es:Duaca[1] adicional soy el creador del sitio Duaca.[reply]

se despide atentamente, y esperando su pronta respuesta

Usuario: Duaca

References

  1. ↑ Duaca

 Comment This image is a collage including File:Iglesia San Juan Bautista Duaca.jpg which was uploaded by Duaca with a full set of Iphone 4 EXIF, so I'm inclined to believe the claim of authorship. Duaca, can you please also upload all the other individual images from this collection, i.e. the statue with the light effects, the road sign, the truck and the image of the road traffic? This way we can verify that you did actually create all these photos too. De728631 (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No answer. --Yann (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Guillaume Fédou officiel.png

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment May be OK, but small image without EXIF, and PNG, so probably screenshot. Could ask for original. Yann (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: So asked.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: I would ask the original image before accepting the permission. Please create a DR if any issue arise. --Yann (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Jose Rosas Aispuro Torres GobDGO.jpg

Template:OTRS ticket alleges permission for this file. Request temporary undeletion to assess the validity of that allegation.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Claimed to be from the Mexican government, doesn't match OTRS ticket. Yann (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per my comment above. Please ask again if more information is provided. --Yann (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Christopher A. Alexander personal photo.jpg

I do not understand why the file was deleted BEFORE double-checking whether it breached copyright or not. A letter from the owner of this photo will be presented in less than 24 hours from now. Meanwhile please restore the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltvilks (talk • contribs) 03:58, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please have the photographer or rights holder contact OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Baltvilks. policy requires that obvious copyright violations are deleted on sight. Commons gets 10,000 new images every day and must delete around 1,700 of them. Most of that work is done by ten Admins, so we have nothing like enough time to give personal service.

You say "a letter from the owner of this photo...". The owner of a paper or digital copy of a photograph does not generally have the right to freely license it -- that right almost always always belongs to the photographer.

If a free license has been sent to OTRS by the copyright holder, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks or more before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ngv design, michele de lucchi, first chair, 1983.JPG

Here this file was deleted with the reason "the photograph were not taken by the uploader as claimed". The photograph was actually shot by me (see more files by me in the category of the museum), and it is an utilitarian object, so no eligible for copyright (see similar case here). I asked the admin to rectify and restore the file, but he did not reply. The policy of Commons is quite clear about utilitarian objects (including cars, furniture, and yes, chairs), so if Jameslwoodward wants to rewrite it, he is free to start a discussion over, but for the moment he should strictly apply the rules, avoiding to apply his personal ideas instead, and wasting the time and the work of other users. Moreover here is a category full of chairs by designers. It makes no sense to delete one out of a hundred. Rules have to be applicated the same way in order to meke it clear to uploaders what they can take pictures of and what not.

The picture was linked to several wikipedias. After Jameslwoodward's unlegittimate cancellation Delinker made his job, so who's going to restore the image presence as before? --Sailko (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is not a question of Commons policy, but of copyright law in Italy. It is clear that this chair would have a copyright in France ans Scandinavia. The question of whether it has a copyright in Italy (its origin) is unclear and therefore COM:PRP applies. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I linked the policy of Commons about objects like this... If we have a policy that is against a supposed copyright law, don't you think we should amend the policy first? Could you please provide any source where it is written that objects like this are copyrighted? If it is so "clear" to you, plase make it clear to all of us too. Do we have to cancel all the images of design furniture, cars and more because someone said they are copyrighted in France and in Scandinavia? By the way the image was taken in Australia. Also I linked a similar case (another design utilitarian object by Memphis), so is it possible to understand what is different between these 2 cases? --Sailko (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also COM:PRP is questionable, see this comment by the admin User:Clindberg: "We definitely want to respect copyright, but we also want to respect the public domain with equal force". --Sailko (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Do we have any legal precedent of furniture being under a copyright in Italy? If not, I would restore this. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Obras de Guillermo Silveira

Category:Artista Guillermo Silveira. --Mperezreviriego (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:QR609347110.png

i was add something in this page, and upload a QR code like this: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:QQ%E4%BA%A4%E6%B5%81%E7%BE%A4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lannsoros (talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Category:QR Code Diagrams has several generic code diagrams that can be used for illustration and this is another one. I think it is in the scope of Commons. De728631 (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Perez Hilton- Issue 1.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is the front cover of Contrast Magazine's first issue and was used in the Wiki article as a reference and the photographer, Jon Seneca has given permission to use. His email is jon@jonseneca.com. 72.216.236.135 01:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Permission for who to do what? Thuresson (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Permissions from the copyright holder need to be sent by email as explained in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Projeto de pesquisa - Karolina Bergamo.pdf

Hello. I have followed instructions that were given at the deletion request decision for this file, and I do believe it is OK now for undeletion.

  1. The file is now mentioned on our research institute website, here (search for Karolina Bergamo). This website license is compatible to the Commons.
  2. The file is also stored directly on our research institute website.
  3. The file was in use on Wikiversity in Portuguese, before deletion, as this file is part of a research group we have on Wikiversity.

A message to the OTRS community has been sent out for this file prior to deletion. I believe this file should be restored, as it complies fully with rules of this project. Thank you. --Joalpe (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: License OK at source. --Yann (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Logo of SMJK Convent Datuk Keramat.jpg

--We request the Logo of SMJK Convent Datuk Keramat be undeleted due to the following reasons:-

  1. We are the original School Board of Governors of SMJK Convent Datuk Keramat and I am the Chairman of the School Board, writing on behalf of the Board, to update the content of the School information in Wikipedia. The old logo was officially replaced some 18 years ago.
  2. As the school will be celebrating its 70th years anniversary on 16th June 2017, we felt that it was necessary to update the information and logo on Wikipedia on behalf of the schools, students and the alumni across the world to see.
  3. For further confirmation of this updated logo, we hereby forward the link to the official website of SMJK Convent Datuk Keramat and our new school's website with the new logo on the school buildings as below:

SMJK Convent Datuk Keramat Website: http://www.smjk.edu.my/school/about.php?schid=13&schidx=289&page_type=pageid&pgid=A

Official Convent Datuk Keramat Website (under construction, newly created on 15.4.2017. The alert from Josve05a sent by wiki@wikimedia.org was two hours ago): http://www.conventdatukkeramat.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionleebh (talk • contribs) 05:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Since we frequently have people here who make false claims in order to upload unfree material, and we do not know who User:Lionleebh actually is, policy requires that for this image to be restored, either (a) an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using OTRS or (b) the organization must add a CC-BY or other acceptable license to the source page. Since OTRS has a significant backlog, the latter will be much faster. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Cena 1863-1945.jpg

"The source for this photograph has now been determined. This photograph has been published on page 92 of the book by Adam Serdeczny, “Morawsko od czasów starożytnych do końca XX wieku”, Jarosław 2006, ISBN 83-86697-63-6 – already cited in the original biographical note Robert Cena. It is argued that the photograph of a known source may now be attributed a free licence due to its age (PD-Polish: above 70 years). If this fulfils the licensing requirements, the request to delete is hereby withdrawn. Regards Henry39 (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)" per this edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some additional information that the discussants might find useful.

Robert Cena was in the last years of XIX century an important leader and deputy representing the Agrarian-Christian Party from the Polish part of Austria in the then Imperial Austrian parliament in Wien. Since 1900, this area (Jarosław, now in the South-Eastern corner of Poland) suffered two world wars and was invaded by Russians, then Germans, and Russians again. It is now (partly only) a part of Poland as it always was before the troubled years. There are very few archives left and available. The Polish archives (the Jagiellonian Library in Cracow in particular) are incomplete. Moreover, there are no successors to the XIX century photographers or publishers. Hence, it is practically impossible to locate the original source of the Robert Cena’s photograph. However, we know a lot about the image. First, it shows Robert as a young man, taken presumably at the peak of his political career. It means that the photo is about 120 years old. Second, the photo published by the local historian Adam Serdeczny (mentioned above) was already a rather poor copy/scan from, it may be assumed, some printed material and it was/is not one of those formal XIX century portraits produced in a photography atelier. Third, the image is that of Robert Cena, as we have the evidence from Adam Serdeczny himself and it agrees with a detailed facial description in an article in newspaper Cracow Daily (30 March 1897) giving the news of Robert’s election. The description, in Polish, is presented in full in reference No. 6 in Robert Cena in the Polish Wikipedia. Adam Serdeczny, the local teacher/historian has passed away (in 2009). Robert Cena biograms have already been written and published independently in both the Czech and the Polish Wikipedias. Regards - Henry39 (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


File:Surb gexard.JPG

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image is from Christian Armenia Encyclopedia which is under cc-by-sa-3.0 (file:Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան Հանրագիտարան (Christian Armenia Encyclopedia).pdf) ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a completely different photo. As noted last time the file was deleted before you recreated it outside of process, the file was actually taken from hy:File:Surb gexard.JPG, which has no source, authorship or licensing information whatsoever. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See the third image. These two images are the same. My (and hywiki) version is just with better resolution.--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ԱշոտՏՆՂ, please be honest to yourself. These are two photos of the same subject, but not two identical photos.  Oppose. Sealle (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the claim doesn't make it any more true. Even if it were the same photo, the licensing claims for File:Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան Հանրագիտարան (Christian Armenia Encyclopedia).pdf and all the images it contains aren't exactly convincing either. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK :(. BTW, can I cut and upload the image (or any other image) from the encyclopedia?. I just want to understand the rules.--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily, you can reuse content that you find on Commons, but as I said, I'm not convinced about the copyright situation for File:Քրիստոնյա Հայաստան Հանրագիտարան (Christian Armenia Encyclopedia).pdf, and I've just started a discussion about that. I wouldn't upload anything extracted from the file unless it is shown that the licensing is correct and applicable to the illustrations used in the file. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Systems Theory 5- Efficiency.webm

I have verified with the original author that this file is licensed CC-by:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fERCNxW0f14&lc=z13avdbhvp3rvvsuw230cbjqdvnjcv1nd.1492187520097441 --Brylie Christopher Oxley 20:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Could you please ask to change the license at Youtube? It is still "Standard YouTube License". Regards, Yann (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

User:Jenotc

Image was uploaded in cooperation with the person himself who owns all the rights. It was given to me to put it in Wikipedia. Mr. Kalnins himself is the sole rights keeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenotc (talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I own all the rights to the photo. The same way I own the rights to my fathers homepage. Please stop all unlawfull actions in denying the ownership rights and undelete the photo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenotc (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 April 2017‎ (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

@Jenotc: Which image or photo are you writing about, of all your deleted uploads? Please have Mr. Kalnins contact OTRS directly to grant permission. Also, please sign your posts and don't top post here.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jeff. --Yann (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:PowerCube (Type B).png

Request for undeletion of the PowerCube Type B image

Hi Veertje, I do not see how this file violates any copyright, since it was made by ourselves. You are most welcome to contact info@allocacoc.com for any queries/confirmation - they will be more than happy to confirm that the file is indeed created by ourselves at Allocacoc.

Greetings

Arthur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alimpens (talk • contribs) 02:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image appears with an explicit copyright notice at https://m.dhgate.com/product/new-power-cube-allocator-adaptor-usb-ports/249419533.html. Therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ingeniero Agustín Carpio.jpg

The file was deleted on the grounds of "unlikely to be own work"; however, I work with the person depicted in the photograph and it was taken by me, digitally enhanced for contrast later. I stated this and never received a proper explanation, yet it was deleted anyway. Please undelete it, as it's the only good photograph we have for this article. An email can be sent to puertociencia@ingenieria.uner.edu.ar for comfirmation that the photograph belongs to us. --DesRug (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The reason the image was deleted is that it is very small. The easiest way to get it restored is to upload the file again, using the same file name, at full camera resolution instead of downsizing it. The alternative is to have the actual photographer send a free licenser using OTRS, but OTRS has a significant backlog, so that will take several weeks or more for the reatoration. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:-KM 30 (canto).jpg

Ni que decir tiene que nada más lejos de mi intención que tratar de subir una imagen cuyos derechos de publicación, verdaderamente, no me pertenecieran. Así, si solicito la restauración del archivo indicado es simplemente porque no alcanzo a entender qué violación de derechos de autor puede haber en el hecho de que haya fotografiado, en este caso el canto, de una moneda de mi propiedad, con una cámara de mi propiedad. Si así ha sido, ruego me indiquen para sucesivas ocasiones qué manera completamente acorde con la legalidad hay de subir este tipo de imágenes.

Un saludo. --Mperezreviriego (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Falla Gayano Lluch 2015

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Falla Gayano Lluch 2015. Mistakenly deleted by EugeneZelenko who ignored Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Coentor.--Coentor (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I don't think he ignored the earlier DR -- he was probably not aware of it. There is nothing in these file descriptions to indicate that these sculptures are temporary and are burned. In fact, you have not said that here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bowers Museum - more reviews

I am talking with someone at the en:Bowers Museum about an image donation to go with the images they already shared at Category:Bowers Museum. There is also private email discussion in Commons:OTRS at ticket:2016121410033994.

I need to sort these images to separate those which depict nonfree works from those which do not. I am unable to examine these images because they are currently deleted and I do not have the originals. I am posting here to either request temporary undeletion, or to request that someone to give an opinion stating which of these images is a depiction of works in the public domain. At this time, the museum is seeking to provide copyright release for photographs, but not for the works in its photographs.

In this first set, by the file name suggested old age (before 1923) I am guessing that these works could have subject matter which is not copyrighted:

  1. file:Brandy Still, c. 1776-1831 Southern California.jpg
  2. file:Basket, c. 1890, Yokuts; California.jpg
  3. file:Lidded Jar, 1796-1820 China.jpg
  4. file:Basket, c. 1900.jpg
  5. file:Standing Female Figure, c. 400-900.jpg
  6. file:Standing Female Figure, c. 300-550 A.D. Remojadas culture; Veracruz, Mexico.jpg
  7. file:Detail of a Carved Tusk, Qing Dynasty to Early Republic of China China.jpg

These titles suggest the museum's own public spaces, and might not focus on any copyrighted art.

  1. file:Norma Kershaw Auditorium.jpg
  2. file:Main Street Entry.jpg
  3. file:Performers at a Family Festival.jpg

By Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Clothing I think these titles suggest clothing which is ineligible for copyright.

  1. file:Woman's Headdress, 20th Century, Akha culture; Golden Triangle Area, North Thailand.jpg
  2. file:Tunic and Skirt, 20th Century Li culture; Hainan Island, China.jpg
  3. file:Woman's Festival Apron with Symbolic Armor Plates; Probably Guizhou Province, China.jpg
  4. file:Gold Ear Ornaments, 20th Century Fulani culture; Mali.jpg

I do not know what these are. These might be of copyrighted works.

  1. file:Metate in Form of a Jaguar with Repeating Parrot Motif, Costa Rica.jpg
  2. file:Scholar's Study, Ming Dynasty Style.jpg
  3. file:Spirits and Headhunters in the Anderson-Hsu-Tu Gallery.jpg

I previously checked some images at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2017-03#Bowers_Museum_-_temporary_undeletion. I listed the headdress in the clothing section above, but the other 4 images in that link are of contemporary sculptures for which a copyright release will not be provided at this time.

I would appreciate either undeletion of all of these so that I can make a review, or otherwise, for anyone here familiar with this sort of thing to advise which images seem to depict free content and could be accepted with a free license for the photos from the museum. Will someone please assist? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brown Fish Owl 2.jpg

Above file was marked as copyright violation but, I have photographed it. So please undelete. I also take copyright seriously and I understand its importance and seriousness. Before deleting, you should let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaval Vargiya (talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhaval Vargiya: Please email permission to OTRS, and include details on your relationship with mokarsagar.org.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:8aaa.webm

please undo deleted my vedio --105.129.219.106 13:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also (same uploader):

please undelted is vedio — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 105.144.196.52 (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose You have given no reason why these apparent copyright violations should be restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almonty Industries and Panasqueira Mine

File:Pe. Leal.jpg

Also:

Good afternoon

I'm Nuno Alves director of mine developmentof Almonty Industries, the owner of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal that is the legal owner of the concession on Panasqueira Mine in Portugal. Please see: http://www.almonty.com/projects/panasqueira/

I published the file Frentes convergentes - Panasqueira.jpg in commons, to update a wikipedia article on Panasqueira Mine.

That file Frentes convergentes - Panasqueira.jpg is from the internal records of the corporation that I represent (Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal) that has all the rights over that photo. It was published by Ing Cláudio dos Reis in an official state publication in 1992 in behalf of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal.

In case of needing additional clarifications please contact me by: nuno.alves@almonty.com

Thanking you in advance

Nuno Alves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuno Madeira Alves (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Because we do not know who you actually are and identity theft is common here, policy requires that an authorized official of the oprganization owning the copyrights to the images must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Produção mineira histórica.jpg

Good afternoon

I'm Nuno Alves director of mine developmentof Almonty Industries the owner of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal that is the legal owner of the concession on Panasqueira Mine in Portugal. Please see: http://www.almonty.com/projects/panasqueira/

I published the file File:Produção mineira histórica.jpg in commons, to update a wikipedia article on Panasqueira Mine.

That file File:Produção mineira histórica.jpg is from the internal records of the corporation that I represent (Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal) that has all the rights over that photo. It belongs to the production record that the corporation keeps updating year after year. It is also published in: http://www.almonty.com/_resources/Panasqueira_43-101_Tech_Rep_Dec16_SEDAR.PDF

In case of needing additional clarifications please contact me by: nuno.alves@almonty.com

Thanking you in advance

Nuno Alves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuno Madeira Alves (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Côrrea de Sá et al 1999.pdf

Good afternoon

I'm Nuno Alves director of mine developmentof Almonty Industries the owner of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal that is the legal owner of the concession on Panasqueira Mine in Portugal. Please see: http://www.almonty.com/projects/panasqueira/

I published the file ] in commons, to update a wikipedia article on Panasqueira Mine.

That file ] is from the internal records of the corporation that I represent (Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal) that has all the rights over that work. It was created and published in 1999 by Beralt. Ing António Correa de Sá is actually chairman of Beralt Tin and Wolfram Portugal and gave all authorizations for the publication of this work also.

In case of needing additional clarifications please contact me by: nuno.alves@almonty.com

Thanking you in advance

Nuno Alves — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuno Madeira Alves (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
I just wrote to this person by email with further guidance on emailing OTRS. That resolves this matter for now. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At ticket:2017041810014761 the user made a copyright release for these images. I cannot see the images but here are their names -
These can go into Category:Panasqueira Mines.
Can someone else process the undeletion at least temporarily, if not the entire ticket? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, undelete this files until resolving the main DR. Thanks.--Ma▀▄Ga 17:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=241296294"