Commons:Undeletion requests

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

Shortcut: COM:UNDEL · COM:UR · COM:UD · COM:DRV

Other languages:
العربية • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎magyar • ‎日本語 • ‎Ripoarisch • ‎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 [[:File: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.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.


Please don't delete the picture beacause the picture of this man is not so much and we only using this picture on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bukti.khan (talk • contribs) 23:22, 08 December 2016 (UTC)

Current requests

Watch Edit

Mexican football soccer logos

I found the following files:

tagged for Speedy, but, as football soccer clubs from Mexico (as "recognized organizations" from Mexico), I tagged them with {{PD-Coa-Mexico}}. However, them has been deleted as Fair use, where clearly does not apply. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Which is the copyright status in the United States? Thuresson (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Does this matter? These logos are from Mexico, and as the football soccer clubs are considered as "recognized organizations", these logos are ineligible for copyright in Mexico. It was already discussed in the Village Pump. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I did not ask about the copyright status in Mexico, thank you. Thuresson (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Above is the answer: The Copyright Law of the United States has nothing to do with the logos of "recognized organizations" from Mexico. As them are in the PD in Mexico according to the Mexican Copyright Law, then, them are also in the PD in the U.S (Threshold of originality in the U.S. apply only to logos of organizations from the U.S.). --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Could you remind me of the discussion where it was decided that football clubs were "recognized" organizations. I seem to remember thinking that it meant something like "governmental", but if the community thought it meant football clubs, I'd like to be reminded of the rationale. Storkk (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : The wording in the law is "emblemas de organizaciones internacionales gubernamentales, no gubernamentales, o de cualquier otra organización reconocida oficialmente". I think this list hints at organizations that are more than "just" a sports club, unless someone with actualy knowledge of Mexican law comes forward. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Reopened, considering that there is already DRs of mexican sports clubs resolved as Kept. There is concensus already, and admins shouldn'ty take different actions for the same subject; if you really believe that the sports clubs aren't considered as "recognized organizations", it should be discussed at the Village Pump, because it will affect not just three files, but several other where their future has been already decided. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g:, can you please show us what other cases you are mentioning? Also, for the Mexican law, what are "recognized organizations"? --Ruthven (msg) 21:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I started this thread at the Village Pump. Should be better to discusse this issue there. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: For future reference, it is not okay to reopen an UnDR once a decision has been made. In case you think something has been missed, please raise the issue with the closing person or on other suitable forums like you have done here. In this case, I will let the discussion continue here, but please do not repeat that behaviour in the future. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Performance met naakten.jpg (photographer)

Works by Sicking - I hold all rights:

Exhibition of Sicking last november, I took the photo's

Please undelete the above files that are part of the wikipedia page Joost Sicking. The artist himself left this life 30 years ago and I hold all licenses to his work by heritage. Some of the images may have been cropped to remove backgrounds etc. It is important to show the work of an artist for people to be able to see who he was and what he did. I appreciate your concern for copyrights, but in this case there is no need for it.

Thank you, Caro Sicking (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, I assume you are the widow, daughter, or sister of Joost Sicking. Unless you are actually unrelated to him, your editing on WP:NL is in violation of WMF global policy on Conflict of Interest. There is a summary of the rules at WP:COI. In particular, you should declare your conflict on your talk pages both here and on WP:NL. You should also restrict your editing to correction of factual errors made by others.

Second, I am afraid that your assumptions about copyright are incorrect in most of the cases above. As a general rule, except in the case of 2D artworks, the photographer holds the copyright to images. Therefore, you do not, on the face of, have the right to freely license most of the images above, except, perhaps, the art work of Joost Sicking. I have noted on each file above the person who holds the copyright. In order to have them kept on Commons, each of the copyright holders must send a free license to OTRS.

As for Joost Sicking's own works, if you are his heir, then you have the right to license them. However, because we get many fans and vandals who pick a username in order to give fake permissions, we require that in these circumstances the heir must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS.

Note to my colleagues -- the blue links above all have {{No permission since}} or {{Delete}} tags placed by Natuur12 so we might as well discuss the whole package here rather than in several different places. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Miss Lindsey Abudei's request

Please undelete. The image said to be deleted for copyright reasons is a picture I took myself and have posted on my social media accounts: www. twitter.com/misslind_sea & www.quebecbrown.tumblr.com

I do not understand why it supposedly violates copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Lindsey Abudei (talk • contribs) 16:45, 04 December 2016 (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

You have had three images deleted. Which one is this request about?

Note that image that have appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license require your sending a free license using the procedure at OTRS. Note also that if any of these are restored, you must add useful categories or they will be deleted again. We have more than 30 million images on Commons and without categories an image is lost in the mass.

Finally, I would not restore the first image in any case -- it amounts to personal art, which we do not keep on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Plasy, Královská kaple, oltářná menza.jpg

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dobroš says "This user has uploaded images taken from Google and Getty Images, as well as uploaded images attributed to different names and taken with different cameras in the EXIF metadata. 3 of which has been deleted as obvious copyvio already." This file confirms that judgement as it is indeed a copyright violation. I agree that it is, as you say, a crop from File:17 celkový horní prostor 2.JPG -- the pattern of the sunlight in front makes that clear. However, it is a copyvio because Dobroš claimed "own work", as he or she apparently did on at least 70 other files that were the work of others. It is actually the work of User:Filip.vyska.

It could be restored here with proper attribution. However, I see no reason why the cropped image of the altar is in any way better than the larger image which puts the altar in context. Anyone who wanted to examine the altar more closely can simply pull up the 4272x2848 version of File:17 celkový horní prostor 2.JPG and view the altar at the same size as in this cropped version. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "own work" problem. Dobroš admits, its a crop from that file. I assume the user was new and thus can make some mistakes. I cannot see much help to her here on Commons. Licenses are not so widely known. So I assume this is a minor problem, which can be repair by explanation to the user and changing the source. Regarding other deleted files, we are now in process of OTRS verification - Dobroš admints that just one file, the first one is imagevio.
Regarding the use. You might be right. On the other hand details are always appreciated. But what about the artical en:altar stone. Will you have the same argumentation? Sometimes the details are appreciated and this mensa, is not usual.--Juandev (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for introducing me to the word "mensa". My wife is an Episcopal priest and I am active in the Church and I have never seen it before in this context.
Even at the article Altar stone I would use the larger image -- context is always good and, as I said above, the WP zoom function allows a reader to see the altar at the same size as the cropped version. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
But Wikipedia is not a gallery. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, full of text and images supports it as illustrations. So the image should describe exactly that part of article. Push readers to scroll is not a mission of Wikipedia. Anyway, I informed the original creator, to come to present her Point Of View (POV).--Juandev (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
And I am sorry, maybe my use of the word "mensa" (which I assume comes from latin) was not correct. I am not an English native speaker.--Juandev (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Juandev, absolutely no apology is necessary here -- my "thank you" was entirely sincere -- precisely because many of our colleagues do not have native English, I avoid sarcasm and slang and try to say exactly what I mean in relatively simple English. I like learning new things and "mensa" is a perfectly legitimate English word. It is, indeed, Latin for "table". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Windows logo with wordmark.png

Category:Windows logos with wordmarks contains

Category:Microsoft Windows logos contains

Therefore undelete File:Windows logo with wordmark.png to have a proper deletion discussion. 77.179.201.26 13:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Only File:Windows logo - 2002–2012 (Multicolored).svg is trivial. Two other files should be deleted. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Modificado Símbolo da Chapecoense.svg

On December 5th this logo was deleted, on the grounds of not being "simple text". However, such argument seems to be quite weak as we usually consider that how simple or complex the fonts and typefaces are is not relevant (see {{PD-textlogo}} and en:Wikipedia:Public_domain#Fonts_and_typefaces). That is, regardless of how distinctive the font is, it's a font and therefore ineligible for copyright. On the other hand, I have to notice that, even if it has been required three times (see here, here and here), the same files haven't been deleted. My conclusion is that the alleged copyright violation is far from clear and in fact nobody wants to enforce the deletion request. Therefore, I cannot but require the undeletion of the original file. Best regards --Discasto talk 10:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe subject is, indeed, complicated, but I think Commons as a whole deals with it correctly. A logo that is pure text can have no copyright in the USA because, no matter how complex the type font is, type faces have no copyright. The UK is exactly opposite -- typography has a special 25 year copyright. So, there is a range of possibilities which varies from country to country.
This, however, is not simple text. It is text set on a distinctive seal. The central text is an unusual font. We do not know where Brazil sits on the range from the USA no copyright for fonts to the UK explicit copyright for typography. Hence this was deleted under COM:PRP and should not be restored unless someone can prove that this would not have a copyright in Brazil. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If I tell you the truth, the solution is as simple as replacing File:Modificado Símbolo da Chapecoense.svg with File:Símbolo da Chapecoense.svg, but, as no one seems to be able to delete it, I can't see any single reason not to restore File:Modificado Símbolo da Chapecoense.svg. BR --Discasto talk 21:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Spice_Container,_a_1965_work_by_Luise_Kaish_in_the_Jewish_Museum_Collection.jpg

Hello Wiki Editors,

I'm writing to ask if you would undelete the file titled "Spice Container, a 1965 work by Luise Kaish in the Jewish Museum Collection."

I have retained permission from Michelle Humphrey, the Rights & Reproductions Coordinator at the Jewish Museum to use this image. Please see my e-mail exchange with her below.

Let me know if you need additional information from me, or if you'd like me to submit this information in a different format.

Many thanks for your time.

Best, Sarah


Forwarded message ----------

From: Humphrey, Michelle <MHumphrey@thejm.org> Date: Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:43 AM Subject: Re: Luise Kaish: Spice Container To: Sarah McCollum <sarah@kaishfamilyartproject.com>


Hi Sarah,

Thanks for your email – we have no objection to the use described in your email below, and please feel free to use our caption. Please let me know if you need an image file.

Many thanks for sending back the license, and please let me know if you need further information.

Best, Michelle


Michelle Humphrey Rights & Reproductions Coordinator

E mhumphrey@thejm.org<mailto:mhumphrey@thejm.org> T 212.423.3248

The Jewish Museum 1109 5th Ave at 92nd St New York, NY 10128

________________

Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 12:09 PM To: Humphrey Michelle <mhumphrey@thejm.org<mailto:mhumphrey@thejm.org>> Subject: Luise Kaish: Spice Container

Dear Michelle,

Thank you for your phone call a few minutes ago.

I work for the Kaish family and am reaching out on behalf of Morton Kaish and Melissa Kaish, who retain the copyright of Luise Clayborn Kaish's works.

I'm writing with a question regarding an image of one of the works in your collection. Would be possible to use the image of Luise Clayborn Kaish's sculpture "Spice Container" in an image gallery within her Wikipedia article?

Luise Kaish's wikipedia article can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luise_Clayborn_Kaish<http://cp.mcafee.com/d/2DRPoOrho7ef6zBBBYsrKrjK-y-MYM-OrjK-y-MYMqerCQXLELIfcfI6QrIcFCzBwQsTKrl9JGH4U-m1kOvyaL00jsOvyaL00jq6WqehRTD-LMVAQsILfzKLsKqen4-hjd7bzbybfbnhIyyHtV_BgY-F6lK1FJ4S-rLOr2a9EVLtB5UTsSjDdqympYeciaOmZ2mY01MN8Hb0GTaDyEAvFoxmc1k2JBgCrFIt9wEHIG4TtlAumScRER4vJfBPqbUUsMr2HsGuq80aSl2qhEw65FmYQg2lojSkfyrjudD02cdKO0>

The image of her work within the Jewish Museum's collection can be found here: http://thejewishmuseum.org/collection/20674-spice-container

The Accession Number is: JM 93-65

It would be a great addition to Luise's entry to have the image of "Spice Container" accompany the article.

All the best, Sarah McCollum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahcmccollum (talk • contribs) 21:27, 07 December 2016 (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are several problems here.
First,
"Would be possible to use the image of Luise Clayborn Kaish's sculpture "Spice Container" in an image gallery within her Wikipedia article?"
is too narrow. Both WP:EN and Commons require that all images be free for any use anywhere by anyone, including commercial use and derivative works. Permission for use only on WP:EN is not sufficient.
Second, unfortunately we have some users who try to forge an exchange such as that above in order to keep an image on Commons. Therefore we require that permission e-mails be sent directly by the copyright holder using the procedure at OTRS.
Third, there are two copyrights here -- that for the photograph and that for the art work itself. As noted above, the museum does not hold the copyright to the work, so we need a free license from the copyright holder, also using OTRS.
Finally, as someone who works for the family of an article's subject, you are in serious violation of WMF global policy concerning Conflict of Interest and Paid Editing. A summary of the rules can be found at WP:COI. At the very least, you must declare your conflict on your Commons user page, User:Sarahcmccollum, and your WP:EN User page, User:Sarahcmccollum and stop making any more edits to the articles except for the correction of errors. This applies to both article, Morton Kaish and Luise Clayborn Kaish. If you do not comply with the rules, you may be blocked from editing both here and on WP:EN and any edits you have made may be removed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Maria_Estela_Guedes.jpg

Foi-me cedida autorização pelo fotografo e enviada a fotografia para efeitos de a colocar na wikipédia a mesma é de dominio publico. Agradeço que restaurem ou me informem.

--Triplov (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSince copyrights can last up to 150 years, long after we all are dead, any license of a copyright must be clear and in writing. Also note that permission to use the image on WP is not sufficient. Commons and WP require that all images be free for any use by anyone anywhere. Please have the photographer send a free license using OTRS.

Also please note that uploading an image after it has been deleted is a serious violation of Commons rules. You have uploaded this image three times. If you do it again, you will be blocked from editing on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Daniel Rosty On Stage (2016).jpg

-> Bei diesem Bild habe ich vom Photographen "Matic" das OK bekommen, es auf Wikimedia hochzuladen und anschliesend für meinen Wikipedia Beitrag zu verwenden! Es liegt hier KEINE Copyright Verlutzung vor!!

-> Diese Bilder sind von meinen Freunden gemacht worden und dafür habe ich schon lange das OK bekommen, diese zu nutzen, zu Veröffentlichen, etc.!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Rosty (talk • contribs) 18:48, 08 December 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Rosty: Bitte schau einmal auf COM:OTRS, dort gibt es Hinweise, wie Urheber ihre Erlaubnis geben können. Leider stellen gerade die Bilder von Prominenten sehr oft Urheberrechtsverletzungen dar, sodass wir hier sehr vorsichtig sind. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Since copyrights can last up to 150 years, long after we all are dead, any license of a copyright must be clear and in writing. Also note that permission to use the image on WP is not sufficient. Commons and WP requires that all images be free for any use by anyone anywhere. As Sebari says, please have the photographer send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Artist's_Concept_of_Curiosity_Rover_Subsidized_by_Advertising.jpg

Hi, I'd like to request the undeletion of this image:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Artist%27s_Concept_of_Curiosity_Rover_Subsidized_by_Advertising.jpg

It was created by me, several years ago, if there are other instances of this image on the web they have been taken from my own personal blog at FactualFiction.com/marsartists...the image was released CC0 then and is now. There should be no copyright conflicts. The base image of the rover is also released CC0 as per NASA policy. Thank you.Ericmachmer (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It may be unnecessary to handle this here as I have just sent OTRS clarification of myself as the original creator of the composite image, as suggested by the person who deleted this image. Thank you. Ericmachmer (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this is probably out of scope. We do not keep personal art or parody from non-notable artists..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Escuela Nacional Preparatoria Núm. 7.png

This file was speedied as Copyvio, but it was already resolved as Kept as a "recognized", public organization of Mexico, even the UNAM is a public university. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Example.jpg

Soy especialista SEO y trabajo para guatevision, por lo me han solicitado actualizar el logo, ya que el que se encueentra en wikimedia commons es antiguo. Las personas de guatevision me dieron su nuevo logo para cambiarlo.

Deseo que dejen el nuevo logo empresarial de guatevision.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unidadseopl (talk • contribs) 22:58, 09 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I suppose this is about File:Guatevisionlogo.JPG which had a 3-dimensional logo uploaded by Unidadseopl. Please note that this logo is original enough to be copyrighted, so we need a permission sent by email from the copyright holder. Please see Commons:OTRS/es for details. De728631 (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:LightShow.jpg

Also:

Hello. Please 'UnDelete' the images because I am their Copyright Owner (©2016 Danger Money Records [1]). That said; I hereby affirm that I: , Patrick Coleridge-Taylor, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [the media work][1] as shown here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.C.T,[4] and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of the work(s). I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following license: Own work; attribution required for reuse; reusers must share alike; version 4.0 of the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license.[5] I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. [Patrick Coleridge-Taylor] [Copyright holder] [9th December 2016] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukmusiclover (talk • contribs) 23:17, 09 December 2016 (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some of these are subject to Deletion Request and are not yet deleted. You may respond at the DR, but the result will be the same. Because we do not know that User:Ukmusiclover is Patrick Coleridge-Taylor or is related to Magpie Photographic, which is the source given in the file descriptions, we require that the copyright holder send a free license using OTRS. In this case, the message should come from an e-mail address at http://magpiephotographic.com. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Termosísmicos.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is a musical group that have all its material free in youtube, they are aware of the use of this image and have no problems with it. Please don´t delete a image that is for a little band that want to make its art. Orestes7054 (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Coverband, probably not in scope. Band spam. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:rasmussenpatrik.jpg

File:rasmussenpatrik.jpg I am the photogropher, and its Me on the picture taken by my own Camera, with a timer. So I own all the copyright of this picture. Please undelete the picture. /Patrik Rasmussen --Rasmussenpatrik (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that. Please send permission to OTRS. One source: http://www.patrikrasmussen.com/ (1200x1200px), google image search why would one use a 666 × 800 px photograph, when one allegedly made one that's 1,2k sqaure on the website? Seems more like a fan request. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Hedwig. This is a professional photo which appears elsewhere on the web in larger sizes. I think this is a fan, not the singer. Note that if you do send a license, the e-mail must come from an address that is directly traceable to the singer, Patrik Rasmussen. Note also that to continue to use Rasmussenpatrik as your user name, you must prove that you are either the singer or that that is your actual name. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:My digital tv logo.jpg

I want request this to undeletion beacause i have permission to have it and my picture is only for the purpose and deeply analysis in how the article shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potterpat2 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The file description says that the source is "WP:NFCC#4" -- I assume that refers to WP:EN Non Free Content Criteria. That is not a source and this is not WP:EN -- Commons does not keep "fair use" content.
In order to make a decision about this, we need to know what it is and where you actually got it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Th74 logo.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Why some bands are spam and others are not? Pschwarzde (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Commons keeps only material that serve an educational purpose. We are not here to advertise things or groups that are not-notable, see COM:ADVERT and COM:SCOPE. As a general rule, a band that has an article that has been on one of the Wikipedias for a month or more is probably notable. A band which has many Google hits showing that it is the feature at significant events is probably notable. Similarly, a band that has music available on Amazon is probably notable. As far as I can see, this band has none of those. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Formula Manipal Logo.png

Official Logo of Formula Manipal and uploaded with the consent of creators and the team's current manager, Rakshith Reddy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navaneethcrshna (talk • contribs) 08:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Policy requires that in order to keep an organizational logo on Commons, we must have a free license sent to OTRS by an authorized official of the organization. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Selim Mouzannar Jeweler.jpg

The Copyright holder (Alain Sauma) gave me permission to use this work in Wikipedia articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taniarw (talk • contribs) 09:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Since copyrights can last up to 150 years, long after we all are dead, any license of a copyright must be clear and in writing. Also note that permission to use the image on WP is not sufficient. Commons and WP require that all images be free for any use by anyone anywhere. Please have the photographers send a free license using OTRS. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Village of Kesternich Map - 1944.jpg

I am the primary author of Battle of Kesternich <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kesternich>. A map image and a photograph were deleted from this article. I cannot locate the line in the history where the photo was deleted, however the line for the map is as follows:

(cur | prev) 00:54, 28 February 2015‎ Filedelinkerbot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,739 bytes) (-120)‎ . . (Bot: Removing Commons:File:Village of Kesternich Map - 1944.jpg (en). It was deleted on Commons by Ellin Beltz (Copyright violation, see Commons:Commons:Licensing).) (undo)

First, I'd like to say that I take copyright as a serious protection and I would like to make sure I satisfy Wikipedia's policy for such.

Both images are sourced from U.S. Government and are therefore public domain.

The map image was a clipped section of a map which was printed and used by the U.S. Army during WWII. Printed on the map is, "Published by the U.S. Army 1944" and in another location indicates, "Nov 44/654th Engrs." I own a copy of the map which was carried by a Forward Air Observer during the war in the ETO and scanned it for use in the article. As an alternate source for the map image I can use the images I received from BYU, which denotes the their map images as, "Copyright: Public Domain, Courtesy Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University." I will need to use four maps from their collection to create the image of the village since it rests squarely in the corner of four of the maps. One example of the four can be found here with the Public Domain statement: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/GermanyMaps/id/2999/rec/1

The photo was distributed by the U.S. Signal Corps. It now resides as part of the collection housed in the Modern Military collection of NARA. I know this because I personally wend to College Park Maryland, researched the photo, and received a copy of the photo from NARA. From the NARA website, "All Signal Corps photos in the NARA collection are in the public domain, meaning that they are not copyrighted." This statement can be found here: http://www.digitalhistoryarchive.com/wwii-photographs-at-the-us-national-archives.html

Thank-you in advance for any assistance you can provide.

Best Regards, Tom MacKnight — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom macknight (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Long reply

Greetings Tom macknight: The two images are

{{Information |Description={{en|U.S. Signal Corps Photo 199669-A}} |Source=Transferred from [http://en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia] |Date={{Original upload date|2007-11-03}} |Author=Original uploader was {{user at project|Tom macknight|wikipedia|en}} |Permission=PD-USGOV-MILITARY-ARMY. |other_versions= }} {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}

{{Information |Description={{en|A portion of a period map used by a member of the 78th Infantry Division in the execution of his duty. }} |Source=Transferred from [http://en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia] |Date={{Original upload date|2007-11-03}} |Author=Original uploader was {{user at project|Tom macknight|wikipedia|en}} |Permission=PD-USGOV. |other_versions= }}

Notice that neither one of them has a source. For the one I deleted, it's a small cut out of the middle of a map. The whole map has not been uploaded, so we can't read what it says on the edges. There is no link to any online source where the map can be found or viewed. Also "transferred from en:Wiki" is not a real source, it's only a transfer note. For the image from NARA, again NARA should be mentioned as a source, all their photos have identity numbers which allows us to find them. The identity number is not on the file template and the ownership of the file could not be determined from what was there. Speaking only of the map which I deleted, would it be possible to upload the entire map first, with proper source? Seeing what you are describing above, I could restore the detail and reference the full map as the source. I can't speak for INeverCry but I am sure if you were to provide the NARA number he could get a start on tracking down that other image. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I think sometimes we carry "no source" a little too far. The provenance which Tom macknight gives above is sufficient for me. Sure, someone could spend the time and effort to find the NARA number, but I'm happy to apply good faith to what's above. I suggest that the comments above be copied to the talk pages of the two images and the source line should read "Source= See talk". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support as {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} from the sounds of it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Gale Centre.JPG

It is my original photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfvoll (talk • contribs)

The deleting admin was Jameslwoodward. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It was deleted because an image taken from the same seat on the same night appear all over the web without a free license, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gale Centre - panoramio.jpg. In order to restore either image to Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I am the original photographer.--Jfvoll (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
That may be, but because we get many such claims that are not true, as I said above, we require confirmation through OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
If you would have looked at the author of the panoramic photo you would see the author was "Jason F. Voll" look at my user name j(ason)f(.)voll. I filed a OTRS claim, thanks for making an mountain out of a molehill.--Jfvoll (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:814frontpage.jpg

File is picture of newer cover of Cambridge’s student newspaper, Varsity. Was taken down due to a permission issue, however I have permission from Varsity publications to use it. Please undelete.

– CLNAS, 4:30pm Sat 10 Dec 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLNAS (talk • contribs) 16:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please note that claiming "own work" on work that is not in fact yours, is a serious violation of Commons rules. Policy requires that third party permissions must come directly from the copyright holder using OTRS. It must come from an authorized official of Varsity, from an e-mail address at Varsity.co.uk or another e-mail address directly traceable to Varsity. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, and, also like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be several weeks before the image can be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:ML2016.jpg

Image was taken in February 2014 by Maria Ladenburger herself and posted on Facebook as public. It's public and reposted everywhere.

Using it in Wikipedia article isnt a violation of copyright, is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Hultonus (talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)