Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]

Shortcut: COM:UDR · COM:UDELC · COM:UNDELC

Files uploaded by VoidWanderer[edit]

Several files of mine were deleted, and I have reasons why they should be restored.

1. I've received a permission by Pavel Netesov, the author of the Blokpost Pamyati exhibition {{PermissionOTRS|2018040410013134}}:

2. Large batch of files are exhibition plates, and are falling under {{PD-text}}, because simple geometrical shapes, logos and tiny pictures may not be considered as copyright violation:

“The depicted text is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it is not a “literary work” or other protected type in sense of the local copyright law. Facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface or basic handwriting, and simple geometric shapes are not protected by copyright.”

--VoidWanderer (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose

1) These must wait their turn at OTRS. When they reach the head of the queue there in about 50 days, if the license is acceptable they will be automatically restored.
2) I looked at about half of these and all of the ones I looked at have photographs and/or drawings which have copyrights and all have far more text then is necessary for a copyright. I don't see how we can restore them without a free license from the copyright holders. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward, all of the photos in a nomination are taken by me personally. OTRS ticket was aquired for the exhibition as a whole, not the pictures whose author I am already. So no one will mark them on OTRS queue, they're literally not queued.
Are you really saying exhibition plates that I took photo of are violating the copyrights? --VoidWanderer (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

1) I understood your comment to mean that the creator(s) of the works portrayed had sent a free license to OTRS. I have now looked at them, and in every case that will be required. In some cases, there are photographs, text, and other copyrighted works in the images, so the copyrights for those will also have to be freely licensed.

I do not understand "So no one will mark them on OTRS queue, they're literally not queued." OTRS Ticket 2018040410013134, which you cite above, is in the OTRS queue. It will be read and acted on by an OTRS volunteer when it reaches the head of the queue, which will be around June 1.

2) Yes. All of the images that I examined infringe on the copyrights for the drawings, photographs, and the texts shown in them. While I did not look at all of them, I doubt very much that any of them can be kept on Commons. This should not surprise you. Sealle, Christian Ferrer, and I, all experienced Commons Admins, all reached the same conclusion -- that they are all far above the threshold of originality anywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward, I mean how would those photos be possibly restored, if I have no guarantee OTRS Ticket even have those exact pictures mentioned? I suppose there's only the author's permission to take pictures of his exhibition. So I doubt volunteer will be even notified there're deleted photos that require to be restored. --VoidWanderer (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jim, if the permission is valid then the images will be automatically restored. When you take a photo of something then you own the copyright on your photo, that is true, but if the thing depicted is protected by copyright (which is the case as soon as there is creativity) then the copyright holder of the depicted thing has also some rights on the publication of your photo, and in such cases it is required that we have his permission to publish here the photos. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Ticket 2018040410013134 has permission for the Exhibition "Блокпост Пам'яті" from Pavel Netesov. It looks OK for me. But I do not know what pictures are from this exhibition.--Anatoliy (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Ahonc: You can restore the files and add the template {{OTRS received}} while you check which files have been authorised. I've left you a note in the ticket, and we can continue the discussion there. Cheers --Ruthven (msg) 12:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Mass TechCrunch restore request[edit]

Please restore all images deleted in the following DRs and the following individual images:


I've pulled this request out of the archive since Yann received a response on Ticket:2018041510004936 that indicates that the images in question are indeed under a free license and that the copyright holder has agreed to put them under said license. I'd like to restart my request to undelete these images in light of the OTRS ticket. The original discussion is included above in the collapsed section for referral purposes. Also pinging Jameslwoodward as they opposed the original request. --Majora (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All we have in the OTRS correspondence is "Yes you may publish and credit TechCrunch". Nothing more. There is no explanation of how TechCrunch came to have a license that allows Tech Crunch to freely license Getty property and not even a signature. We have no evidence at all that whoever wrote the message had the authority to do so. I also note that the message was forwarded to OTRS, which we do not ordinarily accept, although since the forwarder is Yann, I'm OK with it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for here. The question asked by Yann was "Could you please confirm that the copyright holder have allowed to publish the images under a free license". The response to that specific question was an unequivocal yes. The response came from an official TechCrunch account that is confirmed to belong to them via their website. The account is the "events" account that would deal with these events and therefore know the circumstances behind their photographers. The response is short, yes, but it answers the question posed in a way that indicates that the license on Flickr is correct. If you want something more perhaps Yann can unlock the ticket so you can get whatever working you want out of them. --Majora (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Technically it's not needed that the ticket owner unlock the ticket. If you press 'quick close', it will no longer be locked. Jcb (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - without some more explanation we cannot take their statement for granted. We do not even know whether the person responding has a proper understanding of copyright regulations. Any OTRS agent is expected to be aware that a lot of statements from customers are mistaken and that we have an active role in helping them sorting things out. Jcb (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Majora, well, for one thing I expect a signature of a person with at least the apparent authority to give away their employer's property. The OTRS files represent a legal record of the licensing of an image and without a signature, we have nothing. But, as Jcb suggests, I also expect an explanation of how it is that TechCrunch thinks it has the right to freely license images whose copyright is apparently owned by Getty Images. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

File:VSF - Jim Edgar - 1978-1.jpg[edit]

I request a review of this photo of Jim Edgar and others that I have added to both the Forests Commission Victoria and Victorian School of Forestry pages that have been deleted.

These photos form part of a large collection that have been donated over many years by members to the Forests Commission Retired Personnel Association (FCRPA)

They are on public display at the association museum at Beechworth or on their new webpage https://www.victoriasforestryheritage.org.au/

Many are out of copyright and in the common domain because of their age. Some are very old newspaper photos. I have identified the original donor where possible.

In many cases I edited the photos to improve their quality before I uploaded them.

I hope I have now added enough information on their source so they can be kept

Other photos are

Thanks DBHOB (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, why would a 1978 photo be public domain in Australia? Template:PD-Australia does not seem the obvious choice for a copyright license. Thuresson (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@DBHOB: Were the copyrights to these photos originally given to FCV or VSF?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there All these photos were freely donated to the Forests Commission Retired Personnel Association (FCRPA) over many years for their use They are all freely available from the FCRPA collection either online or at its museum. Some came from the Forest Commission and some came from Victorian school of Forestry The School of Forestry merged with the University of Melbourne in 1980 and everything was thrown out. The Forest Commission ceased to exist in 1983 and they had a big clean out too. The one of Jim Edgar was taken at the Victorian School of Forestry which was then managed by the FCV in 1980 Is there another form of release that I need to use I want to do the right thing with these photos. It means a lot to the FCRPA, Thanks for your help Cheers

DBHOB (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are two questions here. Did the people who donated the photos to FCRPA collection actually own the copyrights? Please remember that owning a paper copy of a photo does not give you any rights to the copyright -- that is almost always held by the actual photographer or his heirs. Second, even if they did, did the donation include a formal, written, transfer of copyright? I think the answer to the first question is "perhaps, in some cases". The answer to the second is almost certainly "No" and unless the FCRPA can produce copies of the relevant documents, that will be the end of it.

In order for the image to be restored, it will up to you to prove beyond a significant doubt (the Commons standard of proof, see COM:PRP) that the answer to both questions is "Yes". .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

hello again. Im sorry but maybe I didn't explain myself properly. Nearly all these photos belonged to the Forests Commission of Victoria or the Victorian School of Forestry. Both were Government organisations not private individuals. So the copyright was always owned by the Government of Victoria. Some are newspaper photos (Gerraty and Code). I understood they are available to use because the copyright has expired. is this not the case ? Cheers DBHOB (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I have give an explanation of each photo below.

DBHOB (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


Again, ownership of a photo does not give ownership of the copyright. At the time a photograph is taken, the copyright belongs to the photographer. If the photographer has a work for hire agreement with an employer, then the copyright belongs to the employer. If that applies to any of these, it is up to you to prove it.
If a photograph was first published anonymously in Australia more than 50 years ago, then it is PD. However it is up to you to prove that it was actually published and that the publication was actually anonymous -- the fact that we do not know who the photographer was does not make it anonymous. Generally, you must show the published photo in situ without a by-line.
So, here are several groups:
Those that are clearly not PD:
Those that might be PD as government works, but both the date and place of publication and the fact that it is a government work requires further proof. Note that the Australian law requires publication for the clock to start, so the fact that a photo exists proves nothing unless you can prove it was published more than 50 years ago:
Those that might be PD if published anonymously, but where the anonymous publication must be proven (see above):

.     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again

I can't do anything about the first group. They should be deleted. I agree with you. I miss understood the rules But I have added links to original newspaper sources from Trove for A.V Galbraith, W J Code and F G Geraty. They were all well before 1955. E J Semmens is a crop headshot from the 1946 school football team photo which is published in the University of Melbourne museum. https://omeka.cloud.unimelb.edu.au/cchc/items/show/5819. Im looking for a source for E J Semmens (2)-1 The photo for A V Galbraith comes from an obituary written about him in Australian Forestry journal. It shows him sitting at his desk as Forests Commission Chairman. Gailbriath retired in July 1969. So the photo is 50 years old. Cheers DBHOB (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Personal photos from albums[edit]

http://shanson-e.tk/forum/search.php?searchid=6037678 - Personal photos from albums — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ненашева Татьяна (talk • contribs) 22:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ненашева Татьяна: Does this concern one or more of the redlinks in this log?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:59832923@N02 -hastemplate:delete[edit]

It's probably better to see what comes from Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:huntingtontheatreco before we start deleting a few dozen randomly nominated files. I suspect File:Tristano and Matteo in The Miracle at Naples.jpg was actually https://www.flickr.com/photos/huntingtontheatreco/6762342679/ so this probably wasn't even a list of really obvious copyvios.

I've been meaning to organize that mess a bit, but was holding out to hear from the digital content manager from Huntington. - Alexis Jazz 23:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Elektrische-zigarettenstopfmaschine-speedo-4.jpg[edit]

Liebes Wikimedia-Support-Team,

ich bitte um Wiederherstellung der Datei. Eine Freigabe für die Datei wurde an permissions-de@wikimedia.org geschickt (Ticket#: 2018041810008123).

--Aurelie1986 (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 60 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.

If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will 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. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Decibel1979.jpg[edit]

The file above was removed assuming a copyright violation reported by a unknown (to me) subject. I state that the picture was shut by my husband and, with his full agreement, the property belongs to the both of us. Simona Tuccimei --Simotuc63 (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A larger version of the image appears on the web at http://www.tntvillage.scambioetico.org/archivio/index.php?s=f9cc178425bb97feae815dcf83d0ab13&showtopic=210714 with an explicit copyright notice. In the file description, Simotuc63 claimed to be the photographer. Now she claims that her husband was the photographer. Making incorrect claims of authorship is at best a nuisance and at worst a serious violation of Commons rules. While it is policy to Assume Good Faith on the part of uploaders, that does not apply where the uploader has made incorrect claims.

Given the circumstances, it would be best if you rescanned a paper copy of the photograph at considerably higher resolution and uploaded it again with the correct attribution. That would definitively prove that you did not simply grab the digital image off the Web. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:30, 23 April 2018 (UT


 Not done: as per Jim. --Yann (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Nina Kennedy.jpg[edit]

There is some confusion as to which photograph is in this file. If it is the one of the subject standing next to her poster, then yes, it is my own work. Permission is granted to use this photo. Nina07011960 (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It's that picture, but permission from the author of the poster will also be needed. See DW. Jcb (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The photographer was hired to take the promotional photo. The picture was taken in 1987. The photographer (of the portrait, which was taken in 1985) cannot be found. Nina07011960 (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Photographers often retain the copyright on their work. If there is no evidence for a rights transfer, we have to assume that the photographer is still the copyright holder. Jcb (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed. The copyright to photographs is almost always held by the photographer, even when the photographer is paid for the work. Unless you can produce a formal, written license or transfer of copyright, the image cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Matthew Kennedy directing the Fisk Jubilee Singers.jpg.[edit]

Also:

The executrix for the Estate of Matthew Washington Kennedy has granted permission to Wikimedia Commons to use this photograph. Nina07011960 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Such a permission can be sent to OTRS. If the permission is valid, an OTRS agent will take care of undeletion. Jcb (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are several problems here. Since the copyright to photographs is almost always held by the photographer, even when the photographer is paid for the work, it is unlikely that the estate has the right to freely license the photographs. Even if it does (and that must be proven), executors do not generally have the right to make gifts of estate property unless directed to do so by the will. That right belongs to the heir. Finally, "permission to Wikimedia Commons to use this photograph" is insufficient. Commons requires that images be free for any use by anybody anywhere. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I am the heir, as well as the executrix. The Last Will and Testament was sent to Wikimedia Commons. Photographs were taken in the 1940s. The photograph of Matthew Kennedy directing the Jubilee Singers was taken in the 1970s and was given to him by the photographer, who is deceased. All of the other photographers are deceased. It is my intention that the "images be free for any use by anybody anywhere." Nina07011960 (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Kai Tietje April 2018.jpg[edit]

Hallo, ich, Jan Tietje, erkläre in Bezug auf das Bild »Kai_Tietje_April_2018.jpg«, dass ich Inhaber des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts bin. Die Fotografin des Bildes »Kai_Tietje_April_2018.jpg« ist meine Schwester und heißt Svenja Kähler-Obermann. Ich habe sie gebeten, das Foto bei einem Familientreffen extra zur Freigabe in Commons anzufertigen. Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz »Creative-Commons-Lizenz „Namensnennung – Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0 international“«. Ich genehmige somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch kommerziell oder gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann. Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die freie Lizenzierung nur auf das Urheberrecht sowie verwandte Rechte bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, auf Grund anderer Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen. Gleichwohl erwerbe ich keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft in Wikipedia oder einem ihrer Schwesterprojekte eingestellt wird. Vorgangs-Nr. 1783-522e217039e70a04. E-Mail versendet am 15.04.2018 [Ticket#: 2018041510007013]. Viele Grüße, Jan Tietje (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 60 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will 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. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The Infobox at my talk-page reads "Additionally you can request undeletion here," Thats why I put it here. Jan Tietje (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Arielle Adda.jpg[edit]

Bonjour, Suite au signalement de la photographe de la dispaition de son travail, merci de bien vouloir restaurer ce fichier supprimé. Cdlt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Znprweb (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has (or these images have) appeared on the Internet without a free license prior to being uploaded here (or appear(s) to have based on the small size and lack of EXIF metadata), and was (or were) thus deleted by an Administrator. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which is almost always the photographer or image designer, must send a free license directly using OTRS. Also, please note that it is a serious violation of Commons rules to upload an image a second time after deletion as you did here. It wastes your time and that of other Commons editors. If you do it again, you may be blocked from editing on Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Kevin Reilly at Turner's 2017 Winter TCA session.jpg[edit]

Permission/consent was sent to Wikimedia via email to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" on Friday, April 20th, 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurnerBrandCentral (talk • contribs) 00:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 60 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will 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. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.  — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Undelete request 3 files All 3 are public domain[edit]

According to the description on the image gallery, "Image of Tammie jo Shults taken by Tom Milne in 1992 when he was a Navy Photojournalist"

http://abc30.com/disasters-accidents/fresno-california-photographer-captured-images-of-tammie-jo-shults-pilot-of-ill-fated-southwest-airlines-flight-1380/3363694/#gallery-4

This is also confirmed on this facebook post by the photographers official business page: We’re pulling from the archive today to honor Pilot Tammie J. Shults, who landed Southwest #flight1380 to safety Tuesday. During his time in the Navy, Tom had the opportunity to photograph Shults while doing a story on women in aviation in 1992. https://www.facebook.com/Milne.Photography.Fresno/photos/a.149389874428.108948.133356579428/10156419287559429/?type=3&theater

Here is the original Naval Aviation magazine page 14, where you can see one of the 4 images in this series - with th same name of the photographer as well: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/nhhc/research/histories/naval-aviation/Naval%20Aviation%20News/1990/pdf/so92.pdf the PDF is from this official Navy website: September/October issue 1992: https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/naval-aviation-history/naval-aviation-news/back-issues/1990/1992.html

Although those images have watermarks, they are still public domain according to this Commons policy, and no OTRS should be required.

This below image file by the same original uploader is not deleted, and I kindly request that all 4 of them should be marked as a verified public domain image by commons admins, and available to the public.

Note: I didn't upload the files, they were uploaded by user:Aviatrix8704, I just want to make sure public domain files will be available to the public. Thanks

Thanks! --Bohbye (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree. The photographer clearly tells us that he was a USN photographer at the time he took these. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


✓ Done: as per above. There are higher resolution available without a watermark which should be uploaded. --Yann (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Naim Iorden Soul in a Vase Front Cover.jpg[edit]

I am the artist and I made this cover. It is mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlengoasa (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tlengoasa: Please follow the process indicated at COM:OTRS. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 18:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Isabelle Kaif has got a beautiful smile.jpg[edit]

i request you please dont delete this please please --Taufeeq312 (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That is not a valid reason to restore this image, which appears to be a copyright violation. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 Not done: Obvious copyvio. --Yann (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Photos by The Boss 1980[edit]

Hello,

Flickr user Hugo Cotnoir uploads many of his good ice hockey photos on Flickr. He is also Wikimedia user The Boss 1980. He recently uploaded a few of his photos to Commons, under a CC-by-sa 4.0 license. They are used to illustrate Wikipedia articles about hockey players. Another Commons user tagged his files as "no permission" and they were deleted.

Hugo Cotnoir's photos on flickr are usually under all rights reserved, but for each photo that he uploaded to Commons, he specifically adapted the license of that same photo to CC-by-sa 2.0 on flickr. Which, I think, is already evidence that he is the same person.

Also, Hugo Cotnoir has an established internet presence, e.g. on facebook, twitter, and of course flickr. I contacted Hugo Cotnoir's twitter account and this also confirmed that he is indeed the same person. However, although Hugo Cotnoir's photos are very good, he is not a professional photographer and does not have a traditional website with a public business contact address. For this reason, the existing confirmations through his public internet accounts are probably better evidence than would be OTRS mail from a private address.

There are two possible rationales for the undeletion of his Commons photos. If you are convinced, as I am, that there is sufficient evidence already that photographer Hugo Cotnoir is indeed user The Boss 1980 on Commons, then it is the best solution because this would allow him to upload any of his photos to Commons under any free license of his choice and with the attribution of his choice, e.g. CC-by-sa 4.0 and author=The Boss 1980, which is what he actually did on Commons (instead of CC-by-sa 2.0 and name Hugo Cotnoir as he did on flickr).

Alternatively, if you are not convinced of the identity of the user, then the files could be restored and linked to the corresponding flickr copies and we can change their license on Commons from CC-by-sa 4.0 to CC-by-sa 2.0 and the name from The Boss 1980 to Hugo Cotnoir. For example, this is what was done with File:MarcoCharpentier3R.jpg. Given that the flickr copies are under CC-by-sa 2.0 there, then anybody could have validly uploaded them from flickr to Commons with the same license and it does not matter that they were actually uploaded to Commons by the photographer himself. I can't look at the deleted Commons files right now because I'm not an admin, so I can't list each flickr file matching each Commons file. From memory, I remember this one on flickr, which I think was the one that matches "File:NicolasCorbeil.jpg.jpg" on Commons. Anyway, it can be done for each file once they are undeleted.

I hope we can help this photographer. Thank you in advance. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


✓ Done: as per above. @Asclepias, The Boss 1980: The Flickr version should be uploaded when it is of a higher resolution, and/or has metadata. Also please fix the categories. And a version without watermark would be best (that's why the files were tagged as "no permission"). --Yann (talk) 04:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ficheiros sobre a Estação Varginha dos anos 90[edit]

Peço por gentileza aos pares presentes na Wikipédia o desbloqueio do arquivo sobre a antiga estação varginha, por ser uma das unicas imagens disponíveis na internet sobre a antiga estação e está servir como complemento e referencia ao artigo principal da estação.

File:Varginha-1990-plat.jpg
File:Varginha-1998.jpg

NickBr956 (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Иллюстрация_к_главе_5.jpg[edit]

Почему мой файл удален? Без суда и следствия, без анализа ситуации, без того, чтобы даже уведомить меня об этом! Данная иллюстрация, как и все остальные рисунки данной книги, была выложена создателями в открытый доступ и с удовольствием распространяется в любых СМИ и на любых сайтах. Для меня, равно как и для вас, совершенно не проблема получить прямое согласие создателя рисунка! В чем проблема? Можно было просто выйти со мной на связь и уведомить о том, что такое согласие необходимо? Восстановите рисунок! Он важен для статьи (собственно, поэтому, как я понимаю, кое-кому и режет глаз). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pesennik (talk • contribs) 08:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Deeptisati.png[edit]

this is my own work!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivakrishna149 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)