Commons:Undeletion requests

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


Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎polski • ‎پښتو • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎中文

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Commons deletion (policy)

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:Image:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch Edit


File:Griselda Blanco.jpg

IMHO, deletion of this file is absolutely ridiculous. It was originally deleted because there was no evidence of permission. However, the uploader had specified it was his/her own work and provided an appropriate license. Therefore, permission had been granted. After approaching the admin responsible for deletion, he restored it and nominated it for deletion. In the deletion discussion, not a single, valid justification for deletion was put forward, only speculation, some of which was stretching the bounds of reality. The original nomination seems to imply that the uploader might come to some physical harm for uploading the photo, even though the subject had been dead for 14 months at the time. Another reason was that "we need documented proof that this is the uploaders own work", but that is not something we normally demand. The other reason was "it could easily be from a newspaper", despite the quality being much better than we expect from a scanned newspaper image. However, the discussion was closed as delete because "per cmts". No actual evidence has been provided that this image was not the uploader's own work and, as I pointed out in the deletion discussion, I haven't been able to find that image anywhere. I've come here in frustration because I just cannot see any valid reason for deletion. --AussieLegend () 05:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, I think, per COM:AGF. I was also not able to find a version which predated the upload here. It sure looks like a crop from a digital photo. Normally, we need to show some actual evidence of it being available somewhere, or some other concrete reason why we believe the uploader is not the copyright holder. I don't see where that was done. If the uploader was the one requesting it be taken down, that would be different, but... sounds like the uploader did want it uploaded still. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Firstly, the image appeared here in 2011 (page's metadata: "datetime="2011-10-14 01:54:36 -0300"), well before its November 2013 upload to Commons. Secondly, COM:AGF is about intent only; many users, for example, are unfamiliar with the concept of derivative works and therefore believe that by cropping an image, they own the copyright on the crop. Assuming good faith means only that they did not intend to deceive, not that are correct about authorship claims or that we should abandon common sense or the requirements of COM:EVID. An SPA uploading a private/intimate setting image of a highly infamous "Queen of Narco-Trafficking" is possible, but highly extraordinary. As COM:EVID requires "appropriate evidence" (appropriateness necessarily implying consideration of context), we absolutely would need at least an OTRS ticket with a more complete version of the image to demonstrate authorship. Эlcobbola talk 22:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, if we find an earlier version on the net, that would change things for me. However, the caption under that image references an event in 2012, so I don't think that part was written in 2011. Also, that version is lower resolution than the uploaded image. The article was most likely updated years after it was first written. The main question is if there was another source somewhere. Yes, sometimes COM:EVID is a gut feel, so I can't argue with you (or others) on that. It could certainly be that a family member or friend wanted a more positive picture than a mug shot after her death so uploaded it -- would make sense with an SPA, and wouldn't be all that extraordinary. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
      • 2012 is also before the November 2013 upload. Yes, it could be a family member, but it could also be a drive-by uploader who found the image on the web, which is why we require "appropriate evidence," not speculation. To think the two scenarios are equally likely is in my view to be divorced from reality. Эlcobbola talk 14:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
        • It shows it was edited later, not necessarily in 2012. If it was someone who found it on the web, usually it's possible to find an earlier source, and I spent a while yesterday trying to find one and couldn't. That usually has me suspecting that the Commons upload was the first one. It does not appear to be scanned, and the resolution was pretty high. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
          • Per COM:EVID, it is incumbent on you, who wishes to retain the image, to provide evidence. We have a web page with 2011 and 2012 dates. Perhaps the image was added after November 2013, but we have no reason to believe that. It is high resolution, but it's also highly distorted; it has clearly been enlarged. Give me any picture from the web and two minutes and I'll give you whatever resolution you want. Changing the resolution may be why the uploader felt s/he had copyrights per my example of not being familiar with derivative works. This is clearly a COM:PRP issue. Эlcobbola talk 14:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
            • The server file date on that image on that page is November 2014. That to me is when it was most likely added. The images earlier in the article have a server date of October 2011, the same date the article was originally put up. So I don't think that page is evidence that the image existed before 16 November 2014 on that site, a year after upload here. I can't see the Commons image directly, but this appears to be a straight copy -- I see no evidence of distoration or enlarging or pixellation; there are some small dust-like details, a little blurry, which do not seem distorted. It looks to me like a crop from a wider photo, taken in lowish light from an earlier, not-great-quality digital camera. The EXIF info shows Microsoft Photo Viewer, which might make sense for a crop (though no camera info). Normally with self-claimed own work, we will accept the information unless we find evidence of earlier publication -- that would indeed change my mind, but I have not found any, and I don't think the link you found is one. So, based on gut feel, you are imposing a higher standard for this image in particular (which is OK -- but it's not automatically PRP either). There is no other track record of the uploader, good or bad. Normally we accept "own work" claims with no evidence to the contrary, so this would have to be different for some reason -- and while I can understand suspicions, I haven't seen anything to make me change my opinion, yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
              • elcobbola is correct that the image appears here but elcobbola is not correct that it appeared on that page "well before its November 2013 upload to Commons". If you look at the image code with a text editor, almost at the very beginning is "File source:". Clearly, the image had to have been added to the page some time after the file was uploaded here. --AussieLegend () 05:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, what would showing a wider crop demonstrate? To me that only makes sense if we know this crop was circulated somewhere else first. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm interested in a response to that myself. I must admit to being somewhat confused as to how reversions by other editors at wikis are relevant. The reversions at appear to be because the image was added to the wrong field. It was later added to the correct one.[1] The addition was reverted once. It wasn't reverted again. --AussieLegend () 13:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Internationale melody

After asking about an edit on English Wikipedia, ThurnerRupert answered me: 'hans beierlein was the worldwide copyright holder, and he states in this interview: "Mir hat dieses Lied einfach immer mehr gefallen als alle anderen – die Zahlungen dafür allerdings auch. Inzwischen besitze ich die Rechte nicht mehr, 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Komponisten gehört es der Allgemeinheit." which translates to "i always liked that song more than the others - the payments for it as well. as of today i do not own the rights any more, 70 years after the death of the composer it is common property."'

I am unsure if Hans Beierlein would be aware of French wartime copyright extension for pre-war musical works, but the interview would suggest his renunciation of any remaining copyright. I would like to ask any disinterested administrator, preferably German speakers, to determine if this copyright renunciation may undelete one template and seven files. If granted, I would like to improve the template as a better copyright license. If denied, we would just wait for October 2017 to undelete. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

He also may have been referring to losing the rights in all countries (including Germany which was likely the target audience for the interview) which had a 70pma term on it, as opposed to just within France where the term is longer, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
hans beierleins business was and his companies business is to earn money from copyright. he had an office in paris, and earned money from songs published in france. you can be 100% sure that he is aware of every law and its effect concerning copyright in france. additionally, if the owner states "it belongs to the public" than it is a statement by itself. i tried to find a reference for this copyright extension to check if it survived the harmonization, but could not. Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/France refers to a dead link. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the general consensus was that harmonization did not lengthen any terms beyond 70pma, but if there were longer terms already existing, they were kept. France was mostly 50pma before harmonization, and added some wartime extensions to that. However, in the 1980s, they extended the term for musical compositions to 70pma. The real question is whether the previous wartime extensions applied on top of that new 70pma term. If it did, then harmonization did not reduce it, and they are still under copyright in France, I think. But if there is an argument that the wartime extensions did not apply to the extended musical compositions terms, that would make a difference. I'm not sure if that has been legislated or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
the french wikipedia article says: "Le cas des œuvres musicales .... Mais au 1er juillet 1995, date de référence pour apprécier l'existence d'un délai supérieur, ce régime n'existait plus depuis trois ans. Même pour les œuvres musicales, il n'était plus possible à cette date d'ajouter la durée de protection de 70 ans (introduite par la loi Lang de 1985), et les prorogations de guerre et la prorogation visant les auteurs morts pour la France (loi du 3 février 1919, loi no 51-1119 du 21 septembre 1951, loi du 27 avril 1916), parce que ce régime de superposition, qui avait été rendu possible par la rédaction de la loi 85-660, avait de toute manière été supprimé par la codification de 1992. " which translates to: no extension beyond 70 years. the extension to 70 years was abolished 3 years before the harmonization. the abolition made it 50 years + wartime extension, the harmonization made it 70 years. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
That's... interesting, hadn't seen that, but... given Google Translate, it looks like that 1992 law was simply replacing references to older laws with references to the corresponding section of the new Code of Intellectual Property, then repealing the old laws. In other words, that sounds like a technical change but no actual change in the law... the wartime extensions made by the old laws are still in the Code of Intellectual Property in articles 123-8 and 123-9. If they were truly repealed, why are the terms still in the text of the law? The 2007 court rulings also seemed to imply they existed just fine, just that they could not be added to the new EU terms. According to the discussion at Commons:Batch_uploading/Works of Maurice_Ravel, the 2007 ruling even mentioned that the extensions were added on to the musical composition terms (as an example of an existing term which could have been longer than 70pma). However, that was not a substantive part of their ruling (i.e. they hadn't really considered all the facts surrounding that issue) so it's not a binding ruling. But that page mentions there is still uncertainty on the status, given the statement. In reading the exact text of the 123-8 and 123-9 extensions, it explicitly says that the terms are added onto the rights given by the law of 1866 (which was 50pma) as opposed to say referencing the rights given in Article XXX earlier in the law which they could have done, or even something like "law of 1866 as amended", which you could seemingly use to argue that the extensions therefore were not additive to any additional rights given since 1866. But if that is the case, why did the court mention that they were additive? It does sound like it's still an open question, as I'm not sure there was an explicit ruling on this aspect anywhere (which is a little surprising). I'm far from an expert though, so the question is if there is any other legal commentary or opinions, or failing that should we be conservative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how France has implemented this, but according to Article 10.1 of EU Directive 93/98/EEC, the directive didn't have the effect that any pre-existing copyright terms were shortened. In Sweden, the directive was implemented so that pre-existing works with longer copyright terms (mainly films and unpublished anonymous works) keep their original copyright term. Assuming that France implemented the directive in the same way, you'd calculate the French copyright term based on the old rules (70 years pma with war extensions for music, 50 years pma with war extensions for everything else) and compare this to the copyright term according to the new rules (70 years pma without war extensions) and use whichever is longer. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Right, but that is the question -- was the musical works term really 70pma plus extensions, or was it just 70pma? The extensions were originally applied to 50pma terms, and it's unclear if they actually were also applied to the 70pma musical works terms. If they were additive, I agree, the EU directive didn't affect them. But it sounds like it's unclear if it really was any longer than 70pma to begin with. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
with the internationale everything is clear. 1992 the 70 years were abolished, the internationale was still covered by the standard 50yrs+wartime extension valid until 1996 or so. 1995 70 years came into place which prolonged it until 2002. if this is wrong all the cited article on the french wikipedia would be wrong. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
No, the 70 years were not abolished in 1992. Here is the new (in 1992) Code of Intellectual Property which France promulgated, to consolidate and update all the previous laws. The 70 year term for musical works is still there in article 123-1. The law that you linked to simply replaced all references of the old Article 21 to the new Article 123-1, then repealed the old laws (since there was a new law which held the relevant text going forward). Articles 123-8 and 123-9 are the wartime extensions; the text still says they extend the terms from the law of 1866 though, which is the question -- read closely, it would seem the extensions still only extend the old 50pma terms. But then we have the 2007 Court of Cassation mention that the wartime extensions did extend the 70 year terms, which adds the doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
here the article about shortening, in case it would be applicable. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

File:THC Logo weißer Hintergrund.png wieder herstellen

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

ich beantrage hiermit, dass das im Betreff genannte Bild wieder auf den Artikel "Thüringer HC" hochgeladen wird. Das gegenwärtige Vereinsloge auf dem Artikel ist stark veraltet. Daher möchte der Verein das aktuelle Vereinslogo auf dem Artikel hochladen. Der Urheber dieses Logos ist der "Thüringer HC Sport GmbH".

Freundliche Grüße Der Vorstand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handballma (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Handballma, danke, aber Bilder auf Commons muss freien Lizenzen (siehe diese Seite), und der Nachweis erforderlich ist, dass dieses Logo wird dauerhaft freigegeben für alle, die aus irgendeinem Zweck ohne Lizenzgebühren oder eine Anforderung, um die Erlaubnis zu bitten. Wenn dieses Logo wurde auf diese Weise freigegeben wurde, können wir Ihnen helfen, diesen Beweis zu zeigen. Sehen Sie bitte Commons: Forum, wobei (im Gegensatz zu auf dieser Seite) jeder Deutsch spricht. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Lloyd George arms.gif

Please view Mabelina for avoidance of repetition but suffice to say that this coat of arms has every right to be displayed on Wiki. More information available if necessary. M Mabelina (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I also see it at . As per Commons:Coats of arms, each individual drawing of a coat of arms can have copyright, so modern images found on the web are likely under copyright and cannot be copied without the artist giving a license. Drawing it from scratch following the blazon is OK (if licensed), as is finding old representations where the copyright has expired. What license tag would apply to this image? Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Carl Lindberg for your prompt reply and the matter of Wiki's legal understanding of the law of arms very much needs to be clarified. Let me advise you that in this instance (and others where I have uploaded COAs), the so-called artist, ie. or whoever has no more right to display this coat of arms than anybody else, SO FAR AS the arms are displayed correctly and the image relates to a relevant family member (ie. entitled to bear these arms under the law of arms in England and Wales). Armorial bearings are not even owned by the bearer of such images, since they are held via royal prerogative. Hopefully no need for a further lecture about the right to bear arms, but available upon request! M Mabelina (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
PS. Commons:Coats of arms needs to be reviewed qv. High Court of Chivalry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabelina (talk • contribs) 04:24, 01 November 2015 (UTC)
Those are Commons:non-copyright restrictions. The concept of "free" is strictly confined to copyright, and not other forms of intellectual property like trademark or laws about bearing arms. Obviously we would not want an incorrect emblazonment, but as many different drawings can still conform to the blazon, each of those emblazonments can have a different copyright status. It is the copyright which we care about, so the license tags need to document why the copyright is either expired or has been explicitly licensed. If we can't, then the files will get deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Again thank you Carl & it is good to liaise with someone who understands the subject. I recently had difficulty with my own family COA re Wiki, and as someone who used to work at the College of Arms I don't know with whom to broach the subject. Let me know how best to advise Wiki with regard to Commons:non-copyright restrictions solely in relation to coats of arms - Wiki's self-imposed policy is too restrictive (certainly at least within the bounds of English Law). Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
PS. the point to be realised is that the so-called (from Wiki viewpoint) copyright holder of COA images does not in fact "own" the rights to that image no more than the bearer of those arms (they are "held" under royal prerogative and can only be subject to legal challenge if they are incorrectly displayed (but in my cases there is absolutely no doubt the arms are the correct ones, in all respects, whether appropriation, blazon, depiction etc...)). M Mabelina (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
PPS. I trust you understand that my sole purpose here is for Wiki to achieve the correct policy, which would apply to all COA images under the laws of England and Wales (I can also advise regarding other jurisdictions, but let's deal with this one first?). Looking forward to hearing. M Mabelina (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
While coats of arms long predate the existence of copyright and have their own traditions, the fact of the matter is that emblazonments (usually anyways) do qualify as artistic works under copyright law, and thus are also protected by the full force of copyright. The rights in that area are owned by the artist; the right to bear the arms is orthogonal but probably only affect use in England & Wales (and perhaps Scotland though they have separate courts for that). Copyright on the other hand is governed by international agreements and such rights are therefore enforceable in almost every country, so we can't ignore them. Commons is a "free" image repository; that concept is based around copyright (see ) since those rights are quite restrictive (also covering derivative works, such as for example another COA using a copyrighted element from another one). The "free" movement began as a reaction to the rapidly escalating reach of copyright and the lengthening of terms (which in many places, including the UK, last the artist's entire lifetime plus 70 more years). If there are any UK court cases which limit the reach of copyright when involving coats of arms, that would be of interest -- but failing that, we have to track each work's copyright status the best we can. Outside of copyright, we basically just want to make sure Wikimedia's own use is legal, but we generally use US law for that, which has no concept whatsoever of the "right to bear arms". As such, any deletions outside of copyright reasons would be either courtesy deletions, if the community feels there are particular circumstances which warrant removal, or where there is no educational use for an image (which would be outside our scope). But copyright will trump most everything else. Similarly, trademark and copyright can also overlap on an image, and the respective rightsholders can be completely different entities. As long as Wikimedia's own use does not violate trademark, we will host a trademarked image as long as the copyright is not an issue. But for works where the copyright also exists, we will delete them. There are probably some COAs (just like trademarks) which are below the Commons:threshold of originality and as such are not protected by copyright, but the threshold is quite low (particularly in the UK) so we would presume that copyright would cover the majority of emblazonments. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yours is a very good explanation of Wiki's thinking in this regard for which many thanks Carl. I shall certainly look into whether there have been any examples of UK Court judgements, if any, regarding copyright claims over COAs. Also I appreciate that American laws (in their various forms) do not stipulate about heraldry, so whilst gleaning further understanding of the application of the law of bearing heraldic arms under Federal Law please meantime see (just in case it helps). It should be noted that no copyright was claimed by the so-called "image creators" of File:Lloyd George arms.gif, so where does that leave us: acceptable or non-acceptable for this type of COA image - will it be accepted? M Mabelina (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Copyright is automatic -- it does not have to be claimed; it always exists. Therefore, we cannot take copyrighted images off of websites, be they coats of arms or other types of works. Any modern work (last 70 years at least for the UK, often more like 120) is copyrighted. If you draw a coat of arms yourself, then you would own the copyright and could license that as "own work" (there are many examples uploaded). If you find a very old picture of a coat of arms such that the copyright on that representation has expired, that can be uploaded as public domain (which we use to mean "no copyright", though of course the separate bearer's rights never expire but get inherited). For every work, we have to identify why the copyright does not exist, or is licensed by the author. For images which are previously published on the internet, we even have authors follow the COM:OTRS process to make sure they understand what they are licensing (and also to make sure permission comes from the real rightsholder). Unfortunately, there is no real way around all of that -- so do not upload unless you know the copyright status specifically. Of course, it's always possible to draw your own (or base it off of other free coats of arms drawings which have been uploaded). For similar reasons, Commons does not have a copy of the official Canada coat of arms drawing (it is Crown Copyright there; it is uploaded to the English Wikipedia at en:File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg and used under fair use); but we do have File:Coat of arms of Canada rendition.svg which is a different drawing (and therefore a completely separate copyright) of the same blazon. Obviously, the right to use either drawing in Canada can be separately restricted, but that does not change copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@User:Clindberg - yes I wholeheartedly agree with your correct understanding of the Crown copyright of the Canadian arms & I could add many more similar such cases, but this is irrelevant/inapplicable (because the Government of Canada specifically copyrights usage of these arms) to my thesis (pertaining to armorial bearings created by Letters Patent in England and Wales) in the matter at hand. M Mabelina (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to reload this image but I have yet again encountered a stumbling block (& have no idea how to remedy), and would much appreciate your guidance - snapshot of page so far as follows:

<Copy&past removed by Steinsplitter. (View)>

M Mabelina (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  • This is the latest (but have requested assistance, so please help!):
English: COA of the earls Lloyd-George of Dwyfor
Author Arms and history of the countries of Europe - blog
Other versions

User talk:Clindberg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabelina (talk • contribs) 06:49, 01 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Have I been invited to reload this image (as it would appear) or ??

A file of this name has been previously uploaded and subsequently deleted. You should check the deletion log before proceeding to upload it again. A file identical to this file (File:Lloyd George arms.gif) has previously been deleted. You should check that file's deletion history before proceeding to re-upload it.

Please advise M Mabelina (talk) 06:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Carl - I trust that this is not one-way traffic? Is it OK to upload the family COA of the Earls Lloyd George of Dwyfor or not? Many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

For a modern representation you found on the internet with an unknown author, no it is not OK to upload -- it is under copyright. For a version you draw yourself, then it can be uploaded if licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
OK so be it, but me thinks there are double standards being applied here - if you would like I shall draw up a longlist of coats of arms which should be deleted from Wikipedia's pages forthwith? My intention is far from being difficult but quite the opposite (ie. to assist making Wiki the most relevant encyclopaedic source of info); so, perhaps and if agreeable, could you advise to whom I can either speak (by 'phone) or correspond (via email) if it really is the case that "For a modern representation you found on the internet with an unknown author, no it is not OK to upload -- it is under copyright. For a version you draw yourself, then it can be uploaded if licensed" is Wiki's authorised policy accordingly? Await yours, but I stress that Wiki's policy on COAs really does need to be sorted out (because right now it seems a complete muddle). Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
PS. your adjudication that the Lloyd George family arms are copyrighted is wrong : the unknown author did indeed post the image on a free public blog and I agree their arms are modern (granted 1945), but perhaps you could give me a more considered judgement in the fullness of time? The arbitrary and haphazard apparent verdict you just gave only serves to add to a view that Wiki's COA policy is ill-considered. Till soon. M Mabelina (talk)
The arms are not copyrighted -- anyone can make their own drawing of the blazon, and each artist would own copyright in their particular version. If one author puts a free license on their work, we can upload that but not the other one. They can't stop anyone else from making a drawing of the same arms, just copying their specific representation. So you would have to find a version of George's arms where the copyright has expired (if you find a copy in a book from the 1800s that is probably uploadable). Or find someone to do a new drawing of the blazon, and upload that. We have many, many coats of arms authored by Commons contributors which are fine. I'm sure there are a few which are copied off of websites without permission -- if someone notices and nominates them for deletion, they should get deleted. There are also some countries where there is a specific copyright exception for official coats of arms (for cities, etc.) so we may have some copies of those. It's all about the copyright status for us, which can indeed be frustrating. Wikipedia is the "free encyclopedia" -- and they do emphasize the free part, which sometimes does come into conflict with the encylopedia part. It makes it much harder to severely limit the amount of fair use material, but that is the goal of the project. Commons is not allowed to have any fair use material at all, so we have to chase the copyright status (even if in normal usage that seems secondary with coats of arms). Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Much clearer - thank you Carl - so we agree that those arms aren't copyrighted, it's just that they're now not deemed "free", although forgive my curiosity but they were published on a free web blog - I am pleased to get to the bottom of this because it will avoid any doubt as to what is and is not acceptable for future purposes. Please advise - many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
PS. I suggest that any purported differentiation between arms and image in heraldic matters would not be upheld by any court of law, UNLESS it could be demonstrated absolutely clear in law that the resultant picture could be construed as being the artist's own work, otherwise, frankly, any heraldic painter so blatant (and possibly misguided!) as to claim that such heraldic art was his/her own work would more likely open him/herself to legal challenge (NOT the other way round, as I understand you believe might be so)....
PPS. and, I don't know whether to expand on this since surely it obvious that any such artwork would have to be really quite different to have any realistic claim of being original, AND this is simply not the case with the images I have uploaded. Please do let me know further about Wiki's rationale on this matter - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Have we got to the stage where it would be easier to admit that I was wrong in some cases and you guys were wrong in others and just reload the ones which are okay and forget about the others - otherwise we're gonna waste too much time... What do you think? Cheers M Mabelina (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The differentiation between the arms and an emblazonment would not matter in heraldic court, no -- the bearer would have the only rights to display them, per bearer's rights, regardless of who drew them. But in a copyright court the difference would matter a lot. You might be very surprised to see how little a person needs to customize a work to create a valid copyright. Something basic like the Scrope arms would not qualify, but if you are drawing say a lion from scratch -- that will always be copyrightable. There was a UK court case where the logo for en:Edge (magazine) was deemed to have a copyright because of the modification of the "E" letters. That would not be the case in the US, but the threshold is still very low -- anything even a little pictorial would have a copyright, unless it was copied from somewhere else. In most places, trademark and copyright can "overlap" -- the rights of both can apply in full, and the rights can be owned by different people. A use can be both a copyright and a trademark infringement, or one but not the other, depending on the circumstances. I don't know if UK copyright law would change the normal scope of rights in images of arms -- I don't think anyone here has brought such a copyright case up so I'm guessing they overlap -- but in the rest of the world, it would just be the copyright which matters. As such, Commons cares about who actually draws the arms -- we can't just take any representation we find on the internet; we have to know how old the drawing is, or who drew it. It is the same as any other drawing. Copyright makes a distinction between an idea (in this case, the design or blazon) and an expression of an idea (in this case, the exact representation). Ideas are not copyrightable, but you can have multiple expressions of the same idea, each with their own copyright. It is the specific lines drawn which create the copyright. Making copies of expression attributable to a particular author is when infringement can occur. The en:Idea–expression divide goes over this some, though it's not the best article. We would love to have a free version of the George arms uploaded -- but that particular version must either not be copyrighted, or the copyright needs to be freely licensed. For the version of the George arms on the website, it appears that is a modern drawing and thus someone would own the copyright. If someone can demonstrate a much older drawing where that was copied from, that could make a difference -- but sometimes even small differences can mean the newer work has an additional copyright on those new additions, like the "Edge" case. The details of copyright law can be really frustrating, but we can't get around them. There are many, many court precedents on such things. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Carl - I really am most grateful for your spending time explaining this matter and I am learning a lot - I hope you are too? Scrope vs. Grosvenor is the classic case always recited by Heralds to this day - largely because the Grosvenors lost but became the richest aristocratic landowners in Britain whilst the Scrope family (which was rich back then) won and now doesn't even have an hereditary peerage to their name... Nonetheless, with regards to this vexed matter of copyright, your example of en:Edge (magazine) doesn't prove anything about the law of arms. How to explain this? because I totally understand what you are saying but we are talking at cross purposes.

In a nutshell, there are many make-believe armorial images floating around globally, some of which look the same and are legally valid under different jurisdictions. In such cases, so far as the arms have been used correctly I cannot see how your image rights issue comes into play; I say this because any heraldic artist to be named would be well aware that their artwork was a reproduction of someone else's coat of arms. If there were no grant of arms for the image they created, then naturally it could be deemed as original artwork, but where there is a legally granted and proveable coat of arms how would you suggest this said artist could win such a case? The "E" in Edge is well understood, but when Letters Patent come into play (& I know this is a far-fetched and remote possibility) what type of court would disregard them (in any jurisdiction)? The type of arms I am talking about are ones which have the full weight of the Law behind them, not just some made up pretty picture - which of course would get crucified if the rightful bearer of such arms took objection to such display. M Mabelina (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Answered at my talk page... Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
and which, for the sake of good order and your information, please read further discussions accordingly. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Bangalore Civil and Military Station

Category:Bangalore Civil and Military Station was deleted with the following log

08:22, 3 November 2015 Hedwig in Washington (talk | contribs) deleted page Category:Bangalore Civil and Military Station (> Bangalore Cantonment, Roland zh (Diskussion) 23:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC))

Bangalore Civil and Military Station was the British controlled Bangalore under the Madras Presidency and existed till 1949. Bangalore Cantonment refers to the section of Bangalore, which was the erstwhile Bangalore Civil and Military Station. However, the term Bangalore Cantonment is still used, while the Bangalore Civil and Military Station was in use only till 1949. Hence request undeletion and restoring of files that existed under that category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestCoastMusketeer (talk • contribs) 01:54, 06 November 2015 (UTC)

@WestCoastMusketeer: Hi,
It would be useful to give a list of files you want to be restored. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

If all the files that existed within that category before deletion could be restored. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestCoastMusketeer (talk • contribs) 01:54, 09 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestCoastMusketeer (talk • contribs) 03:33, 09 November 2015 (UTC)

@WestCoastMusketeer: Deleted files in commons can be identified by their filenames, not by a category they belonged to. Please, give us a list of files to proceed. And please, sign your messages. Ankry (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I had requested a category which was deleted to be restored Category:Bangalore Civil and Military Station, files were not affected

The following files to be included under this category

Regards "WestCoastMusketeer (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)"

File:הלובר פרמידת הזכוכית.JPG


I would like to know if this picture can be "rescued" from deletion Face-smile.svg. It appears that on Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Louvre_Pyramid#Files_in_Category:Louvre_Pyramid_7 it was the only one picture kept (on the last section), because the Louvre Pyramid was considered as De Minimis and it illustrated tourists in Paris. But on Commons:Deletion requests/File:הלובר פרמידת הזכוכית.JPG the pyramid has been considered as not De Minimis, and the fact that the picture could illustrate tourists in Paris (for example with a partial cropping of the Pyramid, not a complete deletion of it) was not considered as useful nor in scope. Because there was two different and opposite decisions concerning this picture, I would like to get other opinions, if this picture could be undeleted or not. Thank you very much for your help. Jeriby (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't have a problem with the Pyramid, but I don't think the image should be restored. First, it's not a good illustration of the subject Tourists in Paris -- we have much better illustrations for that and it's not a subject that needs much illustration anyway. Second, and much more important, it shows identifiable people. Although Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#France gives several exceptions to the general rule that you can't take or publish pictures of people in public places, there are only five people here and they are clearly the central focus of the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

image:Onda de Choque.png No originality, simple representation of a sonic boom

Request temporary undeletion necessary of argument This image should not be deleted. Its a diagram of sonic boom. Its composed of a symbol for the air plane which is PD-ineligible and the symbols for sound waves which are PD-shape If airplane is considered to be original so then should the people in the nikkon logo in Commons:Threshold of originality. Both are simple, common representations. The combination of the pd-shape and pd-ineligible are not original in a depiction of sonic boom. Rybkovich (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose

  • The file has no license.
  • The image depicted does not actually appear in the cited source
  • The image certainly has a copyright. The argument that combinations of simple geometric shapes cannot have a copyright is incorrect. All artworks are combinations of simple things. You would not argue, for example, that File:Tableau I, by Piet Mondriaan.jpg did not have a copyright. Note that Commons thinks it did -- it was allowed here in January 2015, immediately after the expiration of pma 70.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Re copyright -the nikken logo of two people in a box is not copyrightable while just as simple representation of an airplane in a circle is? The Mondriaan is a complex combination of shapes and colors so the originality argument comes from how the complexity of the combinations. This complexity is not present in the Nikken on Commons: Threshold of originality. Seriously without knowing that Nikken was ruled uncopyrightable would you think it was under your standards?
I understand the source issue but why license if the image was considered uncopyrightable?
agree to disagree Rybkovich (talk)

The trouble with all ToO arguments is that they are very subjective and, in my opinion, the USCO is very inconsistent. The Nikken case is clear, but look at, both of which have copyrights. I think the Nikken logo is more original than these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, the copyright registrations for the 'no soliciting' signs include the wooden frames. Note that the titles, as appearing in the register at, are identical to the file names on that website. Looking at COM:TOO#United States, the United States Copyright Office seems to be a lot more permissive when it is text and a lot less permissive when it is not text. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan2: I agree but I can come up with a good argument why it should be copyrighted based on word placements relation to word meanings. PS do we automatically delete an image if its registered? Rybkovich (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jim. Re sonic boom argument. If you see the case excerpt below for my maps undeletion request. The case's decision is made on the grounds that an image depicting existing physical characteristics of a building site including its shape and dimensions, the grade contours, and the location of existing elements is not an original. It is just that a set of facts. It is a representation without originality. The same reasoning applies to basic illustrations of scientific concepts - the uploaded image of a sonic boom is as basic as one can get. I don't see how this is not straightforward and how us playing safe applies in this case. The image depicts a scientific concept, it is very basic, there is a .00001 percent likely hood that someone would claim to be an author of it and file a case. If we balance this against it being a scientific image that does have a role in education and likely will be used as an example of sonic boom. How can we balance the two and go with the minimal copyright concern? PS In this case the temporary undeletion will really help with evaluating the request. Here is a similar one It would be considered an infringing derivative if the one in our case is copyrightable? Rybkovich (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks to me to be likely to be so simple it's ineligible for copyright. Except for the airplane icon (which is almost certainly too generic to copyright) it's just a simple graphing of some pretty basic physical facts. - Jmabel ! talk 22:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Aurel Barglazan 1.jpg

An OTRS ticket (#2015062210006575) showed up, this image may actually be free.—Andrei S. Talk 17:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

{{o} I don't think so. The Google translation of the ticket reads (parts redacted for privacy):

"I, [X] holder of the copyright to the photograph "AurelBărglăzan 1.jpg" article published on Wikipedia box "Aurel Bărglăzan" available online at: http: // Bărglăzan htm [..] declare that release the photo, whose source is the family archive, licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0". Can be contactatla mailing address [X], or by e-mail at [X]"

The problem here is "the family archive". The owner of a photograph rarely owns the copyright -- that is almost always held by the photographer or his heirs. Therefore the owner of the copyright to a photo in a family archive is not the owner of the archive, but the heir of the photographer. Mr. [X] almost certainly does not have the right to freely license this image. This is a 1940 image, so it is very unlikely that the photographer has been dead for 70 years as required by Romanian law. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Given that it is a rather formal portrait, it probably was not taken by a family member. - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure on Romania, but in some countries there used to be a presumed transfer of copyright for some commissioned works (such as the UK -- the 1911 Act had where, in the case of an engraving, photograph, or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration in pursuance of that order, then, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom such plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright.) Modern laws have trended towards the photographer owning the rights absent an agreement but that was definitely not always the case 60-100 years ago. Also, Romania apparently never made their copyright restorations retroactive, so there are all sorts of odd clauses in their old laws (and shorter protections) which may still apply -- see {{PD-Romania}} and {{PD-RO-photo}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
It might be worth a Romanian speaker's reading the old laws, but I think it's a long shot. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
You'd need a United States copyright tag too. If it is from a family archive, then it is presumably unpublished - and the copyright term for unpublished works is quite long in the United States, see {{PD-US-unpublished}}.
In Sweden, the law used to state that the person who requested the creation of the photograph was the copyright holder, but the law was changed in the mid-1990s. No idea what Romanian law said at that time. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Мikhail Grigoryevich Solovyov.jpg

media comes from [4], created by a Red Army photographer --Kges1901 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Why is the file name a mixture of Cyrillic and Roman letters? --Stefan2 (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see any Cyrillic in the file name. --Kges1901 (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The first letter (М) is a Cyrillic letter. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The original file name was a mixture -- it was changed. I don't see a source (except WP:RU), an author, or a date. Without some evidence that this is in fact PD-OLD, we can't keep it on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  • but there is a source here [5], because he died before 1944, it is PD-OLD since photo cannot have been taken when he was dead Kges1901 (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
No sorry, that is not correct. The 70 years starts with the death of the photographer, not the creation of the image. The photographer could still be living.
If the photographer intended to be anonymous, then the 70 years starts with the first publication of the image, but in order to use that, you must show both that the image was published more than 70 years ago and that the photographer intended to be anonymous -- merely being unknown to us is not sufficient. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Sophie Tilson Headshot.jpg

I do not understand why this file was deleted. I read through wiki's rules on images specifically related to images hosted on Flickr and made sure the right, right's permissions were checked by the subject. If I am missing something, I would appreciate someone telling me rather leaving vague messages and deleting. Mathieas (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mathieas: The indicated source on Flickr is now marked as CC-BY-SA, but at the time it was deleted it was apparently marked with a NC (or non-commercial) license, whihc is not allowable on Commons, and why it was deleted. The change to a CC-BY-SA license would be fine, and let us undelete the image, except.... the image has been published various places on the internet for over a year now, and was uploaded to Flickr at the same resolution back in January by a photographer who claims an 'all rights reserved' copyright. Given that, we really need a verification of the permission per COM:OTRS, to make sure that you actually own the rights needed to license the image. Revent (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. The file was uploaded by the person in the photo, who I believe owns the rights as it is a commercial headshot used for publicity, for use in the article. I don't know what else I can do to satisfy wiki requirements. --Mathieas (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

File:GMD B12 FTC SALV-ABPF 6001.jpg


o arquivo em questão possuía OTRS enviado pelo autor, e cadastrado por administrador, e ilustrava artigos na Wiki PT.Meloaraujo (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The OTRS messages are from a g-mail address and are therefore suspect. I think we need to play this one safe and not restore them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

alguns destes arquivos a autorização foi enviada em 2009, com confirmação de recebimento pela equipe do Commons, outros posteriormente, e alguns agora. Prezado (Jameslwoodward) todo mundo usa e-mail do gmail. Meloaraujo (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
For an OTRS permission to be valid and accepted, it must be possible to trace the e-mail address to the sender. This is often a corporate or institutional e-mail address. If the copyright holder has a web site, and the gmail address appears on the web site, then that is also OK. Otherwise, because we get too many fakes, we cannot accept e-mail from gmail or other anonymous addresses. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
OK. but never sent fake e-mail, most of the contributions were made from photos of friends, initially shared via discussion groups (yahoo groups) on railway. Most photos uploaded was sending permission for my friends, but many ended up not being registered by the system. Some just certainly not sending permissions, given people's situations my will. All these deleted photos were asking the court authorizations. Meloaraujo (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
outra consideração... tenho contribuições desde 2007, desde 2007 envio fotos de amigos, e eles confirmam enviando a permissão, muitos das permissões não foram cadastradas (algumas desde 2009). Se fosse para criar e-mail´s falsos, como passe que estou sendo acusado, não seria mais fácil ter enviado todas essas imagens como sendo de minha autoria, como muitos fazem? se verificarem as autorizações partiram de muitos, muitos e-mail´s diferentes, alguns notáveis fotógrafos ferroviários, como Setti da Memoria do Trem ( Meloaraujo (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Nokia Lumia 920 white.JPG

It's my own image. Why has anybody deleted it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoloveiYegor (talk • contribs)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Deletion request: derivative work of non-free software (Windows Phone operating system).. Read our derivative works policy. Alan (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: could we possibly put a strong Gaussian blur over the copyrightable graphics, and restore that? - Jmabel ! talk 22:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


Commons:Deletion requests/File:38th Parallel.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Panmunjeom from South by pcamp.jpg were deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:070401 Panmunjeom3.jpg, but the case referred was reversed later. I don't have access to those two deleted files but it might worth checking again. Liangent (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Monique de Kermadec.jpg

I request the un-deletion of the file File:Monique de Kermadec.jpg as I can confirm that I own the copyright for this work. There is therefore no violation involved whatsoever. --Noodlings217 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It appears here: with "(c)DR". Therefore policy requires that DR send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, @Jameslwoodward:, and thanks for looking into it. I can confirm that this image is licensed under a Creative Commons license. This links to the author's own site as you can see from the domain. --Noodlings217 (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Helpful but not sufficient. The CC-BY license called out there requires attribution. The photographers' names are not given, so it is impossible to use any of the images in accordance with their license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Thank you, Jim, for your reply. I have asked the copyright holder to send an email according to the OTRS procedure so that the issue can be clarified. I believe it has been sent. The CC "By" license requires that the name of the holder be mentioned, and that name appears clearly on the site. I hope this will help, please let me know otherwise. I take copyright as seriously as you do and hope we can work through this. --Noodlings217 (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstand you, but CC-BY requires the name of the author, the photographer in the case of photographs, not "that the name of the holder be mentioned". Therefore we need to know the name of the photographer, which I did not see at the link you provided above. The OTRS message is ticket #2015112110006218. I have responded to the e-mail with the same request. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Hello again, Jim. I appreciate your looking into it. The site appears to have been updated since it mentions the name of the photographer, and in fact it may be in reply to your ticket already. In any case, since you can confirm there is a ticket open, it's probably better if I bow out at this stage so as not to confuse the issue. But of course let me know if there is anything I can do. --Noodlings217 (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the image. Note, please, Noodlings217 that claiming someone else's work as your own, as you did here, is a serious violation of Commons rules, and wastes a lot of time. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Jim, I appreciate your help. Be kind to a newbie who did a lot of work to provide the necessarily licensing information, got in touch with the original holder and worked behind the scenes to comply with community rules. As you saw, the image was always properly licensed for publication, it was a matter of surfacing the proper references. I promise I shall strive to do better next time, but I find your rebuke unnecessary after I spent so much of my time running around to contribute content to Wikimedia Commons. The time you spent handling this issue is greatly appreciated, so let's be friends, please. --Noodlings217 (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess I take a simple view of things. Even a newbie ought to understand that it is wrong to claim that you created an image when, in fact, you did not. That being understood, my comment was as gentle a rebuke as I can imagine. Your effort in the cleanup is certainly appreciated, and I think next time you will get it right from the start. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Thank you, Jim. There is a lot to learn when getting started on Wikipedia and I got confused. There was certainly no intention to misrepresent my ownership of the work, and I am glad we settled this. I edited the file File:Monique de Kermadec.jpg with new licensing information, hoping to atone for my sins. I hope the new information is correct and follows community guidelines. Let me know if there is anything further I need to do for the file to be re-instated fully without fear of re-removal or re-deletion by another admin. --Noodlings217 (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
We actually edited the file description at the same time and I kept my version, not yours. It should be fine now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: A million heartfelt thanks, Jim! I will now unfollow this page since this is all fixed. Feel free to get in touch any time, needless to say. --Noodlings217 (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I actually happened to run across it at roughly the same time, and had the edit window open, so I *also* had an edit. Feel free to undo my change if you like. —RP88 (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Queen Elizabeth Flats - before demolition 1.jpg and File:Queen Elizabeth Flats - before demolition 1.jpg

Here is an e-mail from the photographer, Donald Booth:

Dear Edward

Please find photos attached. They were taken in 1993, shortly before the blocks were demolished.

I used to drive these buses on that route past the blocks, hence why I took the photo.

"I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licence: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International."

When you’ve added them, can you send me the link so I can see how they fit into the page.



This e-mail has been forwarded to Please can both images be restored. Thanks. edward (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Once the OTRS people process it, the images should be restored. That may take as long as a month: they always have quite a backlog. - Jmabel ! talk 07:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Files uploaded by RichardTE

Reason: Photos of historic Main Street, Ellicott City, Maryland by John L. Beck. Dating back to the 1970s, Beck still lives on Main Street (his house is in the pictures), as do I, user:RichardTE, who submitted them to WikiCommons. Obviously there is a copyright/licensing issue. How can we get these authenticated for Mr. Beck & restore his 60 photos? Thank you. RichardTE (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Several problems here. First, it is not at all clear to me that these are in scope -- they are small, not particularly good quality, and although the community is the county seat, it is not particularly notable. Second, the image source is listed as "original collection of John L. Beck, Historic Ellicott City". That suggests that Beck is not the photographer, although some of the images say that he is. Some of the images name other photographers. In order to restore these to Commons, first, our colleagues will have to agree that they are in scope. Second the actual photographer of each image must send a free license to OTRS (one e-mail and license per photographer, not per image)..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

[moved the following from my talk page]

"Hi Jim, Ellicott City / Historic District on the Patapsco River, is one of the best preserved historic Main Streets in the region, home to many 19th-century buildings, and designated an official Maryland Main Street. John L. (Latchford) Beck has lived there and photographed the town since the early 1970s. He archives thousands of negatives in library boxes, with scanned prints of some of his work. All photographs are his, except for one (I believe) aerial photo by a friend of his. I live in Ellicott City also, where I'm a web volunteer for the town. We can complete the OTSR process for all images, or possibly re-scan the images at higher resolution. I'm not sure how to proceed or if I should be writing to you. Thank you, user:RichardTE"

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Certainly better quality would be better. In any case, whether you upload higher resolution scans, or keep the existing ones, we will need an OTRS license for all of Beck's images from Beck and for other people's work from them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Files uploaded by SGKozlova

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permissions collected from all owners ticket:2015091710004821 Максим Підліснюк (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't understand. I don't read any of the Cyrillic languages, so I can't comment in detail here, but I see one OTRS license from a person at a scientific institute. Among the images above,

  • we have many newspaper clipping from the 1980s and 1990s that appear to be from different newspapers. They will require licenses from at least one newspaper publisher -- as many licenses as there are newspapers.
  • we have formal photographic portraits which will require licenses from each photographer.
  • we have a painted portrait, which will require a license from the painter.

How can these all be licensed by one person? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Why do you suggest that the permissions come from a single person? It is oviously not true for this ticket and ability to read cyrillic alphabet is not necessary to verify that. Note, that lack of ability to understand a language is not a valid argument in Commons. Symbol support vote.svg Support as I think we should believe the OTRS agent to make their work properly. If after they complete their work, there are still doubts, then we may request deletion again. Ankry (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I would not for a minute argue that because I cannot understand the language that somehow that makes my point of view valid. What I attempted to say, not, apparently, clearly enough, is that the UnDR covers a wide variety of images from a wide variety of sources and while I did my best to dig out licenses for all of them, including a license from the painter and the portrait photographer,I did not find them. That doesn't mean they aren't there -- Google translate can only take me so far -- but it does suggest that another OTRS/Admin who reads the language make sure that all of the long list above are in fact covered. As for assuming that Максим Підліснюк got it right, I don't know him or her at all, so no offense intended here, but I see that he or she has limited experience on Commons, and almost none outside of the File namespace. I have seen far too many mistakes coming out of OTRS to assume that it is correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Bob's big boy statue burbank 2013.jpg

Although the argumentation is logic, I still think this renewed trademark registration include the design of the artwork. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is most of what I posted at Christian Ferrer's page. His link is to the trademark registration which includes drawings of the Big Boy character. These (incuding drawings) are trademarks not copyrights.

A filed copyright exists but is meaningless for reasons given below.,3&SC=Author&SA=Big%20Boy%20Restaurants%20International%20LLC&PID=D4FO0hh2TZoXEj3Iv_0BM1Y6CPzF&SEQ=20151123091127&SID=10

The essence of my reasoning is that the statues were published before 1978 without a prominent copyright notice and this removes the copyright. Once gone, Big Boy cannot later enforce a copyright claim despite any later copyright filings. The statues were not created in 2003 but already existed for 45+ years. Look here and note the date: (see statue under sign too),127012&hl=en

This file was deleted on 29 October 2015. Since no notice of the deletion request was posted on the talk pages of either the Big Boy Restaurants or Bob's Big Boy articles, I was unable to defend the photograph. I have no idea how AN-NOY judged this photograph to be a derivative of a copyrighted work (the statue itself) since the work did not meet the conditions for US copyright. The so called copyrighted statue can only possibly refer a version created about 1978 where the figure is not holding a hamburger; this occurred because the American franchisees wanted to change focus beyond hamburgers and because the Japanese affiliates discontinued selling hamburgers on a bun. The older statues with the held hamburger (as in the deleted photo) did not meet the pre-1978 US rules and thus forever lost US copyright eligibility.

The deleted photograph of the Big Boy statue (here and below referring to statues holding the hamburger) should be restored. The photographer's placement in the public domain is valid because these statues themselves are in the public domain.

  1. The Big Boy statues originated about 1956 but no later than 1958.
  2. The statues are castings from (molds of) original master statues (several sizes were reproduced between 1956 and 1977).
  3. The statues are of a 3-dimensional design owned (not copyrighted) and used by Big Boy, then known as Robert C. Wian Enterprises.
  4. The statues ("reproductions") were made available by Big Boy (through the contracted fabricator or fabricators) to Big Boy franchisees ("a group") for "public display". Thus they were "published".

    "When the work is reproduced in multiple copies, such as in ... castings of a statue, the work is published when the reproductions are ... offered to a group for ... public display." (page 1, Circular 40, US Copyright Office,

  5. Publication occurred prior to 1978.
  6. Publication (public display) existed because the statues functioned as a sign displayed to be seen by the public and particularly visible to travelers on public streets, roads and highways. Such publication made the statue free to copy. (Free to copy obviously includes free to photograph, since a photograph is treated the same as the sculpture itself.)
  7. Publication (public display) occurred without prominent, if any, copyright notice. (Show me one.)
  8. Such publication of a statue without a prominent copyright notice, in this period, places the statue in the public domain.
  9. Therefore, under US copyright law, the Big Boy statues (holding a hamburger) are in the public domain and so there is no copyright to convey to photographs. (This is supported by the fact that Big Boy statues are publicly traded on ebay, and Big Boy has taken no action to confiscate and destroy those statues as permitted by US law.)
  10. Re COM:TOO, I do not know of any court or other authority's judgment about the statues being ineligible for copyright protection, however this is immaterial given the facts above. (If this is a requirement, it is very problematic: Why would Big Boy legally act (causing a court ruling) if this statue were not eligible for copyright?)
  11. The Big Boy character itself is currently a registered trademark (service mark) and use of the statue in a commercial manner which creates public confusion damaging Big Boy would be prohibited. This has no bearing on issues of copyright of these statues or photographs of these statues; since Commons only enforces copyright, the image is permitted. COM:LIC (This distinction is supported by the fact that Big Boy has taken no action against the many photographs of the statues, but gave immediate legal notice when a Big Boy statue was publicly displayed with a Shoney's sign, in a memorial in Charleston WV. Shoney's is a former Big Boy franchisee. Because Shoney's currently operates restaurants, the display would create public confusion and infringe on Big Boy's trademark. Big Boy acted per trademark issues, not copyright issues.) The statue is an important icon and discussed at length in the Big Boy restaurants article.
  12. The deleted photograph of the Big Boy statue should be restored to WikiMedia and deletions from effected articles should be repaired. (Viz, Big Boy Restaurants and Bob's Big Boy.)

Comment & proposal When similar concerns about images are asserted that could reasonably lead to their deletion, notice should be given on the talk pages of articles in which the image is displayed. This will prompt interested parties to participate in the process and defend the image if desired. Respectfully, when only those enforcing policy are involved, or when those interested in effected articles are left ignorant of deletion proposals, resulting actions will possibly be too conservative—err too greatly on the side of policy. This process is not optimal, but can be detrimental to the quality of the encyclopedia. It is also contrary to Wikipedia policy encouraging the use of talk pages in the articles themselves.

Placing notices on the talk pages of effected articles is reasonable and should be a policy. — Box73 (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

So Let's ask the deletion requester for their rationale: @AN-NOY: could you elaborate why did you claim the work is copyrighted, please? Ankry (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose

First, we delete about two thousand files every day. We have about 25,000 editors who act on Commons during any given month. Asking them to do the extra work necessary to place the notifications you request is both unreasonable and, as a practical matter, impossible. We do, as required by policy, notify the image uploader. Since most images are nominated for deletion by clicking on the "Nominate for deletion" button in the right column, I imagine it would be possible to add further notifications to that script, but there is a long backlog for such changes. In any event, a major change in policy would require discussion and a vote on Commons. Since it would also affect some 250 other WMF projects, I would imagine it would require votes elsewhere as well.
Second, as you say, trademark is not an issue for Commons. We ignore trademark when deciding whether to keep an image.
Third, the essential question here is whether there was notice on the sculptures installed before 1989. So far, you have asserted, but offered no evidence that any of the sculptures were without notice. A photograph won't do it -- the notice does not have to be visible in a photograph of a six foot sculpture -- it need only be legible to the naked eye. Notice a tenth of an inch high (7 point type) will satisfy the requirement. Although not required (and not sufficient if notice was absent), there was a copyright registration for a sculpture which sounds like this one in 1955, GU251314.
Therefore, if the images of this sculpture are to be restored, you need to convince your colleagues here that there was no notice on at least one statue that was installed with the permission of the copyright holder before 1989. In your point #7 you say "show me one". It is not up to us to prove that there was notice on all of the relevant sculptures. The burden of proof lies with those who want to keep an image, so you must prove that at least one did not have notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Couple of notes... though they are mostly quibbles; @Box73 's main points stand. For point 4, the definition of publication you cite has only been in effect since 1978; there was no definition in law earlier. In the current law, public display does not count as publication -- it is the distribution of copies which does, though as you note, these statues meet that definition too. Before 1978, courts decided that public display with no attempt to prevent photography (generally true for permanently placed statues) could count as publication, and there were multiple copies distributed of these anyways. See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US for more information. For point 9, copyright law does not give owners the right to destroy physical copies -- only those copies which were reproduced illegally. If a copy was made legally, then it can be sold (but such sale, obviously, does not affect the copyright -- you can't make further copies). Same as a copy of a book. For point 10, not sure what this has to do with COM:TOO -- of course the statue was eligible for copyright protection. The DR did bring up COM:FOP, which is about photographs of copyrighted sculpture -- some countries have an exception which make such photographs OK, but the United States does not for sculpture (they do for buildings). However, the statue does need to be under copyright to make it a derivative work of course. BTW, the copyright registration noted (VA0001697822) is for photographs of the statue taken in 2003; it is not a registration for the statue itself. Photographs are separately copyrightable, but that is only for those specific photographs and not for other photos anyone else takes. Given that this was published before 1964, a renewal would have been required, and none appears to exist per that search -- therefore even if copyright notice was present, copyright should have lapsed anyways. There is a June 1955 registration for a statue, GU25134, by Davis Sign Co., author Robert Karler, with the copyright owned by Bob's Inc. However, that was not renewed. As for notifying affected articles... I believe that is up to the individual projects. There did use to be a en:User:CommonsNotificationBot; maybe that could be resurrected. Even longer ago, there was m:User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker which projects could opt into, but that hasn't worked for a long time. Such a service would be a very good idea, but as always, it's up to volunteers to write and maintain them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per Carl. Yann (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Irene Chrysovalantou.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hi,

When uploading this icon of the Saint, I was not able to find who is the iconographer and I've normally seen Orthodox icons being fair use. Unfortunately I'm not sure who is the iconographer. Giooo95 (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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


The deleting administrator says, "you seemed to have countered the original argument for deletion" but won't restore the image.

(I think this image should also be restored on the same basis: Image:Perry.jpg )

See the following from

You deleted an image by Ella Guru here:,_Quentin_Crisp.jpg

on the basis there was no statement of permission. The page has gone now, but I believe there was a link from it to the Stuckism site where permission is given for this image. See:

A similar situation applies to other Guru images e.g.,_The_Bride.jpg

There are two links given. The second is to Guru's site (as stated on your deletion page for the Crisp image) but the first is to the Stuckism GFDL page giving permission, ie.

Summary from permission =

See this page for a lot of images released under GFDL:

This situation has arisen before. See higher up on the same wikipedia page where the Crisp image warning was posted for more examples of images that were threatened with removal from wikipedia:

Also higher up on that page is a deleted image Perry.jpg which I believe refers to another Guru image "Grayson Perry" also released under GFDL at the bottom of this page.

Perhaps someone could make a note of all this somewhere so that this situation does not keep on occurring.

The problem seems to be that there are two links under the image on the wikipedia page. The second goes to the artist's site (where there is no permission given) but the first goes to the Stuckism site (the group which the artist belongs to) where the permission is given. Administrators on wikipedia seem to see the second link but not notice the first link.

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seestucksite (talk • contribs)

   Dear Seestucksite,
   I did notice the link but the problem is that the link states the following: GFDL applies to this file only, not the original image.. You can't release just release the low res version of a file and not the high res version but if you believe I was to stricky you are free to ask for a second opinion at com:UNDEL. Natuur12 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Surely you should follow official policy as at this page:

Gold seal policy v4.svg This page is considered an official policy on Wikimedia Commons.

It says:

"It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that everyone should follow. Sometimes, authors wish to release a lower quality or lower resolution version of an image or video under a free license, while applying stricter terms to higher quality versions. It is unclear whether such a distinction is legally enforceable, but Commons's policy is to respect the copyright holder's intentions by hosting only the lower quality version."

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seestucksite (talk • contribs) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

       To be honest, I am not sure if the policy is correct and the addition seems to be quite recent. (That's probably why I missed the update since it was discussed in a VP instead of using a RFC and I don't remember seeing a notice at an administrators noticeboard). Before this update closures could either be delete or kept. Depending on how the deleting admin interprets com:PCP. I can't stand behind this policy change and I think there was not enough consensus to implement it. I would have just left the DR for someone else if I knew about this change but I will not undelete them. Please make your request at com:UNDEL or just ask any other admin to restore it but I will not preform admin actions I don't agree with.
   And yes, based on this newly provided info you seemed to have countered the original argument for deletion but stuff like this can be prevented by adding all the relevant info to the permission field at a file page. Natuur12 (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC) 

Seestucksite (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I think. We had always allowed the low-resolution thing, and the Creative Commons FAQ even said that was a common practice, but then someone brought up the question in depth to them and they now have a FAQ answer which indicates they don't think it's legally possible to do that. Their position makes absolutely no sense to me, and if authors want to do it, I don't see a reason to disallow it, particularly when it comes to non-CC licenses like the GFDL. Although I don't think there is any language in the CC licenses that would make it special -- they claim their interpretation is simply based on copyright law itself. I don't understand that -- authors should absolutely be able to license only a portion of a work, which is what the low-resolution portion amounts to. Authors, I'm pretty sure, have always been allowed to slice and dice their licenses as they see fit (by geography, by type of use, whatever). I don't see where (in the law) they are restricted to licensing all or nothing. I think the interpretation is about the term "work" -- but if there is any copyrightable expression in just a portion, that to me is still a "work". So if authors think they can under copyright law, I do think we should allow and respect that. The only question here is if the license given on the non-author's site is genuine, but I don't see a real reason to doubt that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  • For the record, I don't oposse undeletion. Natuur12 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support given that the file is covered by the copyright statements on this page. Many licences use the word 'work' which is a term defined in copyright law. For example, paintings are 'works' while sound recordings are not. Photographs are 'works' in some countries but not in other countries. If the copyright holder includes a specific statement that a licence applies to 'this file only, not the original image', then it would appear that the copyright holder has licensed all material contained in the file to which the copyright holder holds the copyright (whether a 'work' or not) but that other material is not licensed (whether part of the same 'work' or not). The licensed material seems to be freely licensed to me.
Note that this appears to be {{GFDL-1.2}}, not {{GFDL}}. The page only writes 'GFDL' without specifying a version number, but links to version 1.2 of the licence, so we will have to assume that the material is available under version 1.2 only (and also {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}). --Stefan2 (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. Yann (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Request by User:Waswürdelysistratatun

I got an information, that the picture/ the file will be deleted because of missing license, but the license was sent a week ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waswürdelysistratatun (talk • contribs) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

  • This request was posted at the top of the page. I'm moving it to the bottom of the page. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Yasser Hareb.jpg File:YHareb.jpg File:Avatar-hi-res-300x255.jpg

These files are under Category:Media by source Also Yasser Hareb, the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work of has sent previously an email to Also he has agreed to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. Could you please check it out and advise? If that email sent by Yasser Hareb is not enough, please provide me with the format and I will provide it to you. Awaiting for your feedback. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badis1988 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Querweltein Unterwegs Schweißen Verbindet.jpg

On 24.11.2015 the copyright holder Stephan Thiemonds, submitted an aggreement to OTRS to share the file under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. --Mobdreid (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Querweltein Unterwegs Eine Radreise voller Gegensätze.png

On 24.11.2015 the copyright holder Stephan Thiemonds, submitted an aggreement to OTRS to share the file under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.--Mobdreid (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Querweltein Unterwegs Berufsalltag oder Alltagsflucht.png

On 24.11.2015 the copyright holder Stephan Thiemonds, submitted an aggreement to OTRS to share the file under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. --Mobdreid (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Querweltein Unterwegs Eine Radreise voller Gegensätze Neuauflage.png

On 24.11.2015 the copyright holder Stephan Thiemonds, submitted an aggreement to OTRS to share the file under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. --Mobdreid (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Querweltein Unterwegs Seemannsgarn oder Sabotage in der Antarktis.png

On 24.11.2015 the copyright holder Stephan Thiemonds, submitted an aggreement to OTRS to share the file under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. --Mobdreid (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi! I read Commons:Licensing and there was a point:

Wikimedia Commons only accepts media: that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work. This picture is in the public domain and the Mintos gave me permission to use this photo. Please don’t delete this picture. What else can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinsone (talk • contribs) 11:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)



I Am Florimon Rousseau and I make an undeletion request, beacause i work for Ombres Production, the production studio for The Big Everything Movie. I dont understand why all my modifications are deleted, on the French page we haven't any problem.

Please, undelete my picture and authorize me to make my job.

Thanks. --Ombresproduction (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ombresproduction: Hi, Please send a permission to COM:OTRS, then the file can be undeleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)