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 • ‎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.


Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

Watch Edit


Files uploaded by Xerxessenior

These files have been deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Xerxessenior:

The nominator said the first two images "have two different cameras". Today, most people have a cell phone, which typically has a camera, and a digital camera. It's not a surprise to have two different cameras at all. Nevertheless, this user has uploaded some of his files locally on Persian and German Wikipedias. Take a look at the metadata of the following files:

Nokia E72-1: fa:File:Hashiyeneshinan Frankfurt.jpg and fa:File:Gushtkub 1.jpg

Pentax Optio M10: fa:File:Darolfonun WikiFa 1.jpg, fa:File:Mobile Foghetakhassos 1 1.jpg, fa:File:Sarv-Harzevil-GLB-2012.jpg, and de:Datei:Chemical warfare warningboard iran.jpg

The last file is uploaded on the German Wikipedia. If you look at his SUL, you will see that he has 93 contributions on German Wikipedia and can speak German fluently. fa:File:Hashiyeneshinan Frankfurt.jpg shows some homeless people in Frankfurt, so I can personally believe that this user lives in Germany and File:Aldi empty leer.jpg and File:Zip trafic 1.jpg are his own work.

File:Shaban Jafari Tudehiha.jpg is clearly a scrap of an old Iranian newspaper so we can make sure that the image has been published before (i.e., not been in a private collection). Article 16 of the Iranian copyright law (the 3rd item in {{PD-Iran}}) stipulates that all photographic works fall into public domain after 30 years of publication date. The image is about the w:1953 Iranian coup d'état.

File:Shaban Jafari Kotak.jpg: I talked with the user on Persian Wikipedia about this image, which is also about the 1953 Iranian coup. He claims that this image has been taken from an old Iranian magazine published in 1953. He currently cannot prove his claim because the magazine belonged to one of his former friends. I do believe his honesty and integrity based on our mutual cooperation on Persian Wikipedia.

The decision about the last image is up to you but I think the first three images can be restored safely. 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Were File:Aldi empty leer.jpg and File:Zip trafic 1.jpg in use? These seem like random cell phone pictures with no genuine educational value. How are they in COM:SCOPE? Эlcobbola talk 00:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
File:Zip trafic 1.jpg is about w:Merge (traffic). It was used in a Persian Wikipedia article. I have not seen File:Aldi empty leer.jpg personally but the uploader claims this is a picture about an empty chain supermarket in Germany, called w:Aldi. It was also used in a Persian Wikipedia article. 4nn1l2 (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose File:Zip trafic 1.jpg, File:Shaban Jafari Tudehiha.jpg and File:Shaban Jafari Kotak.jpg; Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral on File:Aldi empty leer.jpg. The Aldi and Zip images were added to articles by the uploader ([1] [2]), so their use ceteris paribus is not supportive of scope. The Zip image is terrible quality, including with poorly censored number plates, and is from a vantage that doesn't really illustrate the zipper merge; thus I don't think it's in Scope. For the other "self" image, if we need a image of Aldi shelves that need restocking, so be it. As for File:Zip trafic 1.jpg and File:Shaban Jafari Tudehiha.jpg, we require a source. "He claims that this image has been taken from an old Iranian magazine published in 1953. He currently cannot prove his claim because the magazine belonged to one of his former friends" (emphasis mine - !!!) is not acceptable. COM:L requires source "information sufficient for others to verify the license status"; we cannot say to re-users of our content "you will need to find a friend of a friend of Xerxessenior to verify the PD claim." The images are not of the full publication, so there is no way to verify date or jurisdiction (for example, Persian is also spoken in Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, Azerbaijan, and elsewhere.) Certainly the aforementioned claim is believed and not meant to deceive, but people can misremember and make honest mistakes which is precisely why COM:L and COM:EVID require verifiable sourcing. Эlcobbola talk 17:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
COM:INUSE states that "It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope." I do not see any mention to "ceteris paribus" in the policy page. He added the pictures and the Persian Wikipedia community decided to keep them. One way to build consensus is through editing (en:WP:EDITCONSENSUS). If nobody objects, a new consensus has been reached. And nobody objected. We had used the Zip image to illustrate this traffic method in high speeds. If you still disagree, I am more than happy to continue this discussion on Persian Wikipedia, not here.
Regarding the Iranian coup pictures, what kind of source should he provide? Does it suffice to name the magazines? He knows the name of magazines and their publication year: fa:خواندنیها (de:Khandaniha) and fa:تهران مصور both in 1953. These magazines were published in Iran. They stopped being published after the w:1979 Iranian Revolution (37 years ago) so their content is definitely in the public domain. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ellin Beltz: and @INeverCry:, I am pinging you as the nominator and the eliminator respectively. I have kept an eye on this page during the last two weeks but nothing has happened. Could you please consider this request? 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I nominated the images. I see nothing new which changes the nomination and applaud elcobbola's analysis and conclusion that verifiable sourcing is required. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Notepad++ screenshot2.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The claimed content copyrighted by Microsoft (the border at the top?) is below COM:TOO. The DR and deletion seems to been in error. Josve05a (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Undelete. Hi. I concur with the nom. This image is deleted because of a semi-transparent border around main window. Multiple DRs so far have established that such items are below TOO. (In the event that the border becomes too elaborate, it is still de minimis.) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • (It would not be de minimis, since it is a screenshot, but it is below TOO) Josve05a (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. That tarnished and censored image distorts the fact about its subject, requiring a verbal warning. But more importantly, it does so without just cause. What is free is removed from it and it is very dangerous to make it a precedent. (For the people outside U.S.: these portion are free in U.S., which is the country of origin. I am aware that had these parts were made in e.g. Japan, they would have not been free.) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of pictures (now well-founded): File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg; File:Khudoer-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg; File:Amdinov family2.jpg; File:High School was established in 1936.jpg

Please restore the pictures (now well-founded): File:Agakhanyanc.okmir.jpg; File:Khudoer-Yusufbekov-and-Agakhanyanc-Okmir.jpg; File:Amdinov family2.jpg; File:High School was established in 1936.jpg listed on the project page of Commons: Village pump[1]. Thanks in advance Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Apparently in relation to [1]. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi! Carl Lindberg Sorry, i'm forgot, I want fix like this - "Commons:Village pum# 4.5 Need in practical help on fixing the category or what else can be done|I didn't delete these in a hurry. I looked at ...", but your choice more better - with respect. Thanks Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • See the below links for temporarily sort out the complicated discussion:

File:Okmir Agakhanyanc (right side)-and-Khudoyor Yusufbekov his sons Khurshed-Isfandiyor.jpg;
File:Khudoyor Yusufbekov (right side) his son Khurshed-Okmir Agakhanyanc-Isfandiyor Yusufbekov (left side).jpg;
With respect, Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC), updated Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. a b Commons:Village pump#Need in practical help on fixing the category or what else can be done

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk • contribs) 11:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Khurshed.yusufbekov (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Gestandaardiseerde woningbouw - Standardized housing (9322119032).jpg

File:Gestandaardiseerde woningbouw - Standardized housing (9322119032).jpg was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gestandaardiseerde woningbouw - Standardized housing (9322119032).jpg after my nomination. I've recently contacted the archive on another similar case (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Huis - House (9547367952).jpg), here they were able to verify that indeed the rights were transferred. The answer convinces me that their releases of works are indeed on valid grounds, and therefore I think this files licensing can be trusted and thus the file can be undeleted. Pinging @Krd: as deleting admin, pinging @: as uploader. Basvb (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If there is already contact established, OTRS permission should be achieved IMO. --Krd 11:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@Krd: The permission is already provided on Flickr, at least the permission from the archive. The email I got is a clarification from their side, not a permission in itself (Having those kinds of non-permission emails in OTRS doesn't add a lot IMO). Another thing would be to ask them to provide the individual permissions from the architects, but that is not something that I see happening. Basvb (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Montakhab Jameeat Baghdad celebrating, 1975.jpg

The image is an inartistic photographic work in nature that was first published in Iraq before 1 January 1999. It is in the according to Law No. 3 of 1971, amended by Order No. 83 in 2004 as it is mentioned in the template below:

{{PD-Iraq}}— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashima20 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

--Hashima20 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The photograph may have been taken in 1975 but do you have evidence that it was really published before 1999? It looks like someone's personal snapshot rather than a press photo that made it to the newspapers, so if it was first published in this forum then the rationale doesn't work. De728631 (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
As it states in the forum, the publisher of the post in the forum cropped the photo out of a 1975 edition of the University of Baghdad magazine and took a snapshot of it. --Hashima20 (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think that can be correct. When a newspaper photo is scanned -- whether you scan the newspaper itself or, as claimed here, a photo of a newspaper, the very coarse halftone screen always shows in the scan, usually as a moire with the scan resolution. Therefore newspaper images that are uploaded to Commons are unmistakable. This image shows no sign of the halftone screen, therefore I doubt very much that it came from a newspaper. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
If it was taken from a magazine as Hashima20 wrote, and not from a newspaper, would there still be a halftone screen? AFAIK magazine images tend to have better resolutions. De728631 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
(ec) FWIW, Hashima20 said magazine, not newspaper, which would change the consideration of halftones. That said, the areas of black on the edges suggest this is a scan of a standalone photograph, not of a page from a publication, be it newspaper or magazine. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per COM:PRP. To paraphrase: "someone in an internet forum said they got it from a university magazine" is not adequate evidence. COM:L requires "information sufficient for others to verify the license status" which is not a threshold I believe to have been met, especially given that this appears to be a standalone photograph (i.e. not scanned from a publication) per my comment above. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Other than the not adequate evidence part, the photo was actually cropped from the magazine because the University of Baghdad magazine is known for its hard paper so the publisher of the post, who is a known archivist, could have simply cropped out the photo from the magazine but the hard paper made it look like a standalone photograph. --Hashima20 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I copied it into GIMP and blew it up to 800% and saw no sign of the halftone, which would have been present if it came from a publication. I also note that the corners are rounded, which would be typical of a simple photo, but not present if the image were simply clipped from a publication. In order to keep it Commons requires proof beyond a significant doubt that it has been published. So far, that is completely lacking. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

U.N. Security Council Resolutions

Files and reasons detailed in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#U.N._Security_Council_resolutions (link when archived). Thanks. -Aleator (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have commented at the VP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I have also commented there. The reasoning for undeletion has nothing to do with the copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support As Seucurity Council Resolutions are legal documents they would fullfill {{PD-EdictGov}}.--Sanandros (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
"These do not include works first published by the United Nations"... Thuresson (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sanandros: 17 U.S. Code § 104 (b) "The works specified by sections 102 and 103, when published, are subject to protection under this title if — (5) the work is first published by the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies, or by the Organization of American States." The UN is not a sovereign government, and it's resolutions are not 'laws'. Reventtalk 03:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Sry but the UN is not the author of the resolutions. They are done by the representatives of the governments. So it's basically the same process as if the governments would decide for an international treaty. The Term "publish" is here not exact enough as I also can publish any act but you still can not determine the copyright status solely by the publisher. I think every thing is written in Bowett's law of international institutions but I'm not sure as I don't have that book and I also can't access that book right now. But even the State Department is publishing resolutions but don't indicate any copyright.--Sanandros (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sanandros: In the 'special' case of works first published by the UN or the OAS, you 'can' in fact determine the copyright status solely by the publisher. It is an exception, and it exists because US law specifically says so. Works first published by the UN or the OAS are copyrighted in the United States, regardless of authorship. The relevant word is 'first. It does not matter, at all, if the State Department notes that a copyright exists or not.
The Security Council resolution you linked is, in fact, not protected by copyright, but it's not for the reason you state. It's unprotected because it was published by the UN under document number S/RES/1624 (2005), and the UN specifically states in ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 that they will not seek protection for "written material officially issued under a United Nations document symbol". The situation is more like a 'public domain dedication' of copyrighted material, but it's still copyrighted, because US law says so, explicitly. Reventtalk 07:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The relevant licensing template is {{PD-UN-doc}}. Reventtalk 07:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Yea OK it would take to much time to check literature on that topic. If I have once time then I going to do that but not now.--Sanandros (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Blason DE empereur Adolphe de Nassau.svg

I have created this file from files available on commons. It was nominated for deletion with no other explanation than "Copyright issue". I asked for precision and provided the files I had used to make my file :

I got no further explanation on the "Copyright issue" and my file was deleted under the reason that the eagle was different from the source file (which is obvious as I mentionned that the file had been edited). If the file is really problematic, could at least someone give me a precise explanation of what the "Copyright issue" was ?

Biplanjaune (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand this from a COM:SCOPE standpoint. Does the above imply that you are concocting your own blazon for Adolphe de Nassau ("own" not related to rights, but in the sense of own rendition--a fictitious or imagined blazon)? If so, how would that be realistically useful for an educational purpose? Эlcobbola talk 15:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
As long as the blazon, i.e. the heraldic description of a coat of arms, is observed it is totally irrelevant how the actual depiction is realised in terms of style and graphical details. There is not a unique valid rendition of a coat of arms but any artist is free to draw their own version according to the blazon, so this has nothing to do with COM:SCOPE. As I read Biplanjaune's request, he took some previously uploaded graphical elements as linked above and gave them a personal touch. That is alright given that the source content is freely licenced or PD. This procedure is a common practice at Commons when new images of arms are created. The only thing he forgot to do was attributing the source files and authors on his own upload from the beginning. This can be healed though so I support an undeletion. De728631 (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand the distinction. The word "blazon" was used to mirror the file name. The issue, perhaps not well expressed, is that there is no source information whatsoever (i.e., we do not even have the heraldic description to determine, per Carl below, whether it's a known blazon and true to the description.) Эlcobbola talk 21:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support if it's a known blazon, and the above descriptions are true. The DR was lacking in information as to what the copyright issue actually was, so does not seem like a valid reason to delete on its face. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per my comment(s) above. The blazon vs. description issue is a red herring, as this image doesn't even have a source for the latter. Without a source for the description, reusers have no way of determining whether this is inline with the description, or merely a figment of the uploader's imagination. A realistic educational use is required, where educational is "providing knowledge; instructional or informative." Whether this provides knowledge, instruction or information cannot be assessed without a sourced heraldic description. Эlcobbola talk 21:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Ok, I got your point, without a reference for the blazon it looks like Biplanjaune just made this up. The arms of Nassau in the inescutcheon are actually lacking the typical billets, and this should be fixed, but the general combination of Imperial Eagle plus Nassau arms has been attested by Siebmacher. For the greater arms of Adolph, see File:Siebmacher 1701-1705 C002.jpg. If Biplanjaune's image is not restored, we should also delete the similar versions in Category:Coats of arms of Adolf of Nassau. De728631 (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

File:The Battle of Vimy Ridge.jpg

I don't quite understand why this file was so briskly deleted. The image sourcing did contained a link to the Canadian Library and Archives record which clearly indicates that Canada considers the copyright expired. The link to the record is here: [3]. The record also notes that the "Copyright entered in the Library of Congress". As this image was registered in the US before 1923 it's automatically PD in the US. The painting is the result of Jack's employment as a Canadian official war artist which is why the image record notes the Canadian War Records Office any why that office exercised copyright control in the UK. I'm not sure what I'm missing because this appears to be a straightforward keep.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The original copyright was owned by the Canadian War Memorials Fund, which appears to be a charity, not part of the Canadian government, so I don't think Crown Copyright applies. The copyright would have expired in Canada (50pma) and the US (published before 1923). They could be uploaded to en-wiki, for sure. However... even if a work for hire, the term is still usually based on the life of the human author. The "country of origin" is the country of first publication. It sounds like the painting was made in the UK by a British artist (who later emigrated to Canada). Per this page, it does sound like the CWMF commissioned works were displayed in London after the war and through the 1920s and 1930s. They were eventually moved to the National Gallery of Canada and later to another museum there. That admittedly does sound like the country of first publication is the UK, which is 70pma. Now... if they were *simultaneously* published (within 30 days) in Canada as well, that would change the country of origin to Canada, since (in the case of simultaneous publication) it is the one with the shorter term. But we may need some better evidence of that. The source link simply says the copyright has expired (which is true in Canada regardless of country of origin), not that it was Crown Copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
My understanding was that the Canadian War Memorials Fund was in partnership between Lord Beaverbrook and the Canadian War Records Office, the creation and collection of the pieces being for the Canadian War Records Office. In effect Beaverbrook put up the cash by the CWRO was the holder.(Death So Noble: Memory, Meaning, and the First World War by Vance, p. 164-165). The fact that most Canadian War Artist were commissioned so that they could work in the field is clear demonstration of this partnership. Likewise, the image record at LAC clearly states that the Canadian War Records Office exercised authority over the publications of reproduction images in the UK images by The Medici Modern Art Society. The publication of Art and War: Canadian War Memorials in 1919 is also a clear demonstration that the Canadian War Records Office took control of publication rights of the images.--09:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That may or may not be be case (I don't doubt it, but I have not investigated it either). However, it is largely irrelevant. As Carl says, since the work was first published (in the legal, copyright sense of the word) in the UK, then the country of origin is the UK and the UK copyright expires 70 years pma. Since Richard Jack died in 1952, it will be under UK copyright until 1/1/2023 and, since we require that works be free of copyright in the country of origin, we can't keep it until then. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The key error is this assessment is that Jack never controlled copyright of the work. Any and all reproductions of the painting, in the UK and elsewhere cite either the Canadian War Records Office or later the Canadian War Museum. This is expected as the painting was due to the creator’s employment, rather than by a freelance creator.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like it was set up as a charity... if an external entity put up the money, I don't think it would count as being for the Crown (it would not be a work for hire if the government was not paying for it). If a private entity creates a work, they can donate it to the government, but it would not become Crown Copyright, but rather a normal copyright administered by the Crown. Anyways, the fund was explicitly claiming copyright back then (per the notices and US registrations), and if it was crown copyright, that would have been the claim instead. Per here, Beaverbrook also created the Canadian War Records Office using his own funds. Individual government departments usually don't claim copyright for themselves. @Jameslwoodward -- if it was Crown Copyright, that would trump the copyright term to be 50 years from publication. Once that happened the lifetime of the author ceased to matter. You might argue that if the work was first published by the government, it became Crown Copyright by the terms of the UK Copyright Act 1911. It just sounds like this was a pretty tenuous link to being a government department -- it was mostly a private effort engineered by Lord Beaverbrook, with permission from the Canadian government but not really under their control. It does seem that a lot of works were exhibited in January and February 1919 in London -- see here. If we could show that pamphlet was also distributed in Canada at the same time, that might help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Undelete For a number of reasons:
  1. The work has an expired copyright in Canada. The link to the record is here: [4] and displayed under the Flickr feed of the Canadian Library and Archives fee here: [5]
  2. The Canadian Government via the Canadian War Records Office and subsequently the Canadian War Museum had exercised full copyright control of reproductions of the painting. This had been the case since 1919, demonstrating a long standing real and implied control of the work that has gone undisputed. The Canadian War Records office having licensed the Medici Modern Art Society to reproduce images of the work.
  3. My understanding is that under UK law, works created as commissions prior to 1 August 1989 were owned by the commissioner and not the creator.
  4. Although the painting was created for the Canadian War Memorials Fund (whose status is somewhat ambiguous), Jack was a paid commissioned officer (Major) in the Canadian War Record Office from 1916 to 1918. Full military records including pay records are found here:[6]. The works could be argued are the result of employment, not commission.
  5. The US Catalog of Copyright Entries (Part 4. Works of Art, Etc. New Series, Page 89, 1919, ref 4627-4636) notes the Canadian War Records Office as the copyright holder of "Battle of Vimy Ridge by Richard Jack"[7]--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For those who don't have a Google Play account here is a public version of the US copyright catalog. The UK copyright act says that Crown copyright applies when a work is produced by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties (Chapter X, section 163). Jack was an officer in the Canadian War Records Office at the time he painted the work and it was commissioned for an "outgrowth" of the CWRO. This should make the painting qualify for Crown copyright which is now expired both in Canada and the UK. De728631 (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:倉山満.jpg 肖像者本人より、この写真を使って欲しいとの依頼があり、掲載しましたが、今回も同一人物からの依頼で削除されました。

肖像権保有者よりこの写真を使えとの指示がありましたが? なんなら倉山本人に倉山満の砦や倉山塾にて名指しで「eien20がウィキペディアで肖像画像削除依頼をしてきた。笑止千万!」とでも 呟いて貰いますので。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by あきつの飛鳥山 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 September 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.
File: from Mitsuru Kurayama .jpg portrait in person, there is a request of the want to use this photo, but was published, it has also been removed at the request of the same person this time. There was a indication of the use of this photo from the portrait rights holders? What if Kurayama so you got muttered himself to by name in Mitsuru Kurayama of the fort and Kurayama cram school "eien20've been a portrait image deletion request in Wikipedia. Highly ridiculous!" And even.
translator: Google

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The Google translation of this request doesn't make a lot of sense, but the case is straightforward. The author cited in the file description, 倉山塾用宣材写真, is not the same as the uploader, あきつの飛鳥山, and the uploader does not claim that the file is his or her own work. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright owner must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


Здравствуйте, Александр! Конечно фотографировал не я, но эти фотографии мне достались в наследство от отца и следовательно я могу их публиковать. Или я что-то не знаю? заранее извините, что отвлекаю. С Уважением, Евгений. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divbig (talk • contribs) 23:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Krassotkin: I can't read Russian except for the name Александр (Sasha), so I'm guessing this concerns the various deletion requests you filed for this user's images. De728631 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Divbig: Согласно законодательству, авторскими правами на снимки обладает фотограф. Все остальные владеют только правами на экземляры, и не могут их сканировать в целях распространения, а тем более устанавливать на них свободную лицензию, что требуется при загрузке на Викисклад. --sasha (krassotkin) 05:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If the requester's father was the photographer, then this is OK. If not, then Krassotkin's comment is correct. Perhaps Krassotkin can ask that question in Russian? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Divbig: Джим просит уточнить, был ли ваш отец фотографом, сделавшим все эти снимки? --sasha (krassotkin) 21:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Siseministeeriumi valgustatud hoone.jpg

OTRS request via ticket:2016070810011431. Picture taken for the Estonian Ministry of the Interior by Kaupo Kalda. As employer, the copyright belongs to the Ministry, I reckon, even if in the forwarded mail there is the (informal) authorization by the photographer as well (can an Estonian-N double check it please as I used Google translator). --Ruthven (msg) 11:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Estonian OTRS member needed - see request below. INeverCry 22:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Hanno Pevkuri portree.jpg

OTRS request via ticket:2016070810011431. Picture taken for the Estonian Ministry of the Interior by Renee Altrov. As employer, the copyright the Ministry holds the right, I reckon; anyways, in the forwarded mail there is the (informal) authorization by the photographer as well (maybe an Estonian-N can double check it please). --Ruthven (msg) 11:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ruthven: Do you have a list of Estonian OTRS members on the OTRS wiki? Or can you find an active OTRS member amongst Category:User et-N or Category:User et-4? INeverCry 22:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The other request (above) needs to be checked. INeverCry 22:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@Kruusamägi: Can you double check the tickets above please? --Ruthven (msg) 06:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I looked into that and well .... technically, it was just asked if the use of those photos would be ok in wiki (even thou the specific license should had been specified and that fact clarified, that after adding the photos there with that licence everyone could use them i.e. the ordinary stuff), but at a same time it's clear from the letters that as long as authors names are mentioned, then both of them are ok with it (for example Kaupo said that "If possible, then get my name next to it. It would be great.") And it's clear that they were ordered from photographers to be used as a promotional images of Ministry and Minister. So it had to be clear from the start to them, that those images would be used in that way.
You could also inform him, that he could send future permissions to "permissions-et@" if he would prefer Estonian to have a look at it. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


thumb|Escudo heráldico del apellido Pozzo Ardizzi.

Dear, I do not know why it was removed the image of coat of arms of my family. The image is our property. I ask you please to be included again.

Thank you very much.

--Dacpa2 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Daniel Pozzo Ardizzi 23/09/2016

The image was deleted because you did not properly indicate the source of the picture. You wrote "propio" (own) but it was not clear that it was scanned or photographed off this old document. Do you know when this family tree document was written? And could Matteo Pozzo Ardizzi also have drawn the image of the coat of arms? It looks sufficiently old enough to be out of copyright but we need more information about the original artist of this image. De728631 (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

File:أحمد السقا.jpeg

About a famous actor.if it was the source file personal and unhelpful, This image about an important character.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This appears to be an image of Ahmed El Sakka. It was deleted because it is a crop of an image that was deleted as a personal image, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:محمد فرج ابو العلا.jpeg. The subject image, however, might be useful. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The source image description says "Muhammad Faraj and Ahmed El Sakka" and the uploader is Muhammad Faraj. This appears to be a circumstance of the image's subject attempting to license the image. Permission from the photographer would be required, which we do not appear to have. Эlcobbola talk 22:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @Elcobbola:Is not the image owned by the uploader? --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
      • The image may be owned by the uploader, but the copyright is almost always owned by the photographer, so if the uploader is in the image, then the uploader does not have the right to license it. I don't read Arabic, so I defer to elcobbola here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Bowl of Hygieia

The symbol of the Bowl of Hygieia has a history dating several centuries. It is the international symbol for pharmacies. Though the original source is disputed, no current designer or company could possibly claim that they have a unique copyright of the design, due to any modern version being direct derivatives of centuries old icons, drawings and signs. For example refer to

I ask that the list of images are undeleted and the DR reopened for a longer and better informed discussion to take place. -- (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The seven images in the subject DR are all direct DWs of File:Bowl hygeia.jpg which was deleted because it had no source, no author, and no license. While you may argue that modern representations of ancient symbols cannot have a copyright, that will vary country to country and without a source, we don;t know whether it would apply here. I also note that File:Bowl hygeia.jpg is significantly different from figure 19 at .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "no current designer or company could possibly claim that they have a unique copyright of the design, due to any modern version being direct derivatives of centuries old icons, drawings and signs" is nonsense. This is akin to arguing no image of Santa Claus or a dragon could be original because they are invariably derived from centuries old drawings. Disney would disagree. In the US, all that is required for a work to be original is that the author contributed more than a mere trivial variation (Kamar International Inc v. Russ Berrie and Co). There are almost infinite ways to vary non-trivially the depiction of a chalice/bowl entwined by a serpent; for example, this version is worlds apart from this version. Further, "the mere fact that [an author] used a matter in the public domain does not in and of itself preclude a finding of originality, since [they] may have added unique features to the matter so as to render it copyrightable." (R. Dakin & Co. v. A & L Novelty Co.) Indeed, even the replica Statue of Liberty in Las Vegas, Nevada is sufficiently original to have its own copyright (Registration Nos. VAu 1-090-876 and VA 1-882-070). Эlcobbola talk 22:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Лейтенант ГИБДД Арина Прунь на выборах в Госдуму 2016 года.jpg

См. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Лейтенант ГИБДД Арина Прунь на выборах в Госдуму 2016 года.jpg

Избирательный участок место, где нет никаких запретов на съемку, более того, Арина в данном случае не праздное лицо, а человек обеспечивающий охрану избирательного участка. В сети лежал видео всех участков РФ, лежат в соответствии с законом, и тут появляется человек удаляющий файл по причине, что мол разрешения не спросили... Все что защищает закон - это права личности, то, что нельзя под этим фото написать, что "Арина-покллонник пива Туборг" и использовать так в рекламе, но её нахождение на выборах ну никак не под какую защиту не подпадает. Прошу восстановить файл, а админу объяснить правила и законы на которые он ссылается. --S, AV 17:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a mess. Neither the comments above nor at the DR addressed the concern over which this was ultimately deleted: COM:CSCR. Whether photography is allowed in the polling place, whether the woman is an official, and whether it is a "real picture from real event" are irrelevant considerations. That said, COM:CSCR is implicitly an offshoot of COM:NCR, which are issues and considerations germane to those who choose to use Commons' content, but not necessarily to the Commons as a mere host. Thus, deletion for CSCR reasons may be questionable, or at least would certainly benefit from more discussion on how this law would apply to us. That said, this is simply not in scope. This is a non-notable, junior official sitting in an unremarkable room (i.e., no indication it's related to an election--let alone a specific election--or to polling but for the written description) talking on her mobile. Although one of the DR participants added it to an election article in response to the DR, COM:SCOPE requires files be legitimately in use; that addition strains credulity and has an air of gaming the system (although, to be clear, I have no doubt the person was acting on a good faith, albeit misguided, belief that retaining the image would be helpful to the project). Frankly, that use is (was) somewhat akin to illustrating the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II with a picture of a constable having a chat in a back pew at Westminster Abbey: no realistic educational value or use. Эlcobbola talk 14:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


Completely arbitrariness of admin User:Jcb:

  1. Deleted a file (near speedy after 3 min he was pinged) with false reason.
  2. After address him, he declared this CoA file (fully flimsy) as logo, he declared also that the given source/reference is not the same depiction (fully flimsy)[8]
  3. I was blamed to "disturbing the process" {no source} tagging, on removing this tag for the existing DR for exact this reason with exact this edit comment.

For me this all told is absolutely specious reasoning (and so uncivil (one-man show) behaviour for an admin. If I was really pissed off, I would make a report on AN).
PS: it is the exact SVG source of File: Rothenstadt.png. User: Perhelion 00:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't see it, but a "no source" tag is for copyright only. It is not appropriate to use that tag to indicate that a COA is fictitious (or has no blazon information) -- that should then always be a regular DR (at best) to see if the community thinks it's not useful for an educational purpose. It is not a copyright violation to have a CoA with no blazon reference, so the tag should not have been used. The lack of blazon source info is at most a scope question and therefore should never be a speedy deletion. (Same for sourcing of data information on maps, graphs, etc.) So... Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion as it appears deletion was out of process, though a regular DR may still be warranted (no real idea there). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Carl, the fully clear reference with reputation is this (and maybe the only one you can find online). The DR was only a very cynic reaction (awkwardness) from Btr though this situation with "no source" tagging (the admin was aware of this, so he decided ad hominem twice. In fact a clear reason for an admin admonition).[9]
User: Perhelion 08:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - as already explained at my user talk page, this version of the COA is unsourced. Every different presentation of a COA has its own copyright situation. The "source" as given by topic starter points to a different version of the COA. The license only applies if it's a government work, but in this case we don't know, because vital source information is missing. So this is about copyright: the copyright situation is unknown, because the source is missing. Jcb (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Was the file marked "own work" ? If so that would be a source, and a "no source" tag is inappropriate. Or are you suspecting that the SVG was extracted from a vector source like a PDF? If so, we would need to identify that source. Much of the time, SVGs are self-drawn by contributors. If that is the case, then a "no source" tag should never be applied -- the contributor probably does own the copyright and can license it. If it's too close to an existing version, such that you feel it has been traced, then we'd need to find that to compare the two. Some countries do disallow copyright on all versions of municipal COAs regardless of the artist, though a self-drawn COA from those countries could still have copyright elsewhere. What was the license tag on this? And was it the original license? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
No, and your comments above aren't really on point. We don't require an external source when the uploader is the creator (except, of course, for the issue of scope and conformance with the CoA/blazon description). We do, however, require a source when a particular CoA/blazon is not the work of the uploader, taken from an external source. This, the latter, is presumably the case here as the author entered was "unknown", the source entered was "unknown", and the template was {{PD-Coa-Germany}} (i.e., not self). Presumably that template is true, but COM:EVID and COM:L require a source so confirming. Similarly, if true, a source should be trivially easy to find and should have accompanied this request, instead of the unhelpful and inappropriate comments directed at Jcb. Эlcobbola talk 16:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
OK. Hrm. I was assuming this was self-drawn, but if not -- and the PD-Coa-Germany was the license on the original upload, with an unknown source -- then that is fair. We do need to show that the file came from an official source to use that tag, true enough. That is a copyright issue and using the no-source tag would make sense. That is assuming the vectorization was done by a third party -- if done by the uploader, and was just making a version of a coat of arms seen elsewhere, the initial license tag itself was wrong (or at least misleading). When was the file uploaded? I don't even see that in the logs. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
No, what Jcb says can't be true and he also says this the first time "to me" (so I had probably unhelpful and inappropriate comments directed)
It doesn't really matter who created the CoA, because they all are PD-Coa-Germany and the Nutzungsrecht - "right of use" and Namensrecht - “legal name” is always by the CoA owner. So I don't understand the logic behind this, what changes the license if the creator is someone other? Also "nur ähnlichen Wiedergabe gegeben"[10] - so even if at only similar reproduction.
Anyway the uploader Btr is probably also the creator (as he said on the given link above). But he don't agree to set own because he assume wrong license calling, because he only redrawn it. So he is definitely right not to have the right to own the Schöpfungshöhe - threshold of originality (which also generally in most cases not exist for CoA in Germany, only for extraordinary depictions). As I said it is helplessness of the user and I'm only the helper in this “game” (actually, this should be the task of admins, but instead they accuse me to be even unhelpful and inappropriate, but Im sorry if this all is a big missunderstanding).
@INeverCry: Where is your comment gone? User: Perhelion 10:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I was just noting that the file was first uploaded at 02:19, 5 January 2013 since Carl asked about it. INeverCry 20:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. Requester acknowledges that uploader copied a pre-existing work ("he only redrawn it") which means we require a source. This is unambiguous per COM:L. Also unambiguous is that "the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained" to provide this sourcing. (COM:EVID). Admins are volunteers like everyone else and have no obligation to do sourcing work for others. Currently there are over 54,000 files tagged as no source; it simply wouldn't be possible. The deletion was proper, and that the requester has devoted time to being "unhelpful and inappropriate" (not an accusation, fact: "absolutely specious reasoning (and so uncivil (one-man show) behaviour for an admin. If I was really pissed off, I would make a report on AN [11]) instead of finding a source is unfortunate. Эlcobbola talk 14:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
This is still a bit odd to me. I now do see File:Rothenstadt.png, uploaded by the same user, with a similar license issue, and that was almost certainly generated from the SVG in question. That used to be named Rothenstadt.svg and was uploaded about the same time. User:Btr was both the original uploader, *and* the one who nominated the SVG for deletion for lacking a source (was that after a speedy tag was applied?). That user does not have a large history of SVG work, though there is a little. I do see a virtually identical image here, which is a bit different border but obviously have the same source, although that was uploaded there after the upload here, so it could have been taken from here. Very different version here... can't find much other info, and don't see another obvious source for the uploaded file here. There may be some confusion over the PD-Coa-Germany tag... I read that as being versions from official sources are OK, and anyone can use the design (per other rules), but it may still be that personally-drawn versions can still have a copyright. If the uploader assumed that the law means that *all* versions are not copyright protected, regardless of author, even if they would hold a valid copyright in other countries and just put that tag on it rather than "own" as they were entitled to, that could get us into this situation. If the user feels they drew the SVG but slavish followed an existing bitmap such that there was no additional authorship... OK, but what was the copyright status of the source image they were copying? That is the copyright question here. If that was an official source, the tag may make sense. If not, that's where things get dodgy -- if the original had a copyright, and the SVG author assumed it was inherently PD, that could be an issue. But if they just made their own drawing of an existing official design -- i.e. it was not slavish, just vaguely close -- that would be fine. It's just hard to know, especially when the uploader themselves questions the source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It's odd to me too. As you articulate, there is a myriad of possible scenarios here; the desire (putting aside requirement) for a source is a desire for a reconciliation and explanation. Эlcobbola talk 15:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Files by User:Thinkingarena

The copyright owner of the following files agreed to release the files to public domain under CC-BY-SA-3.0. ticket:2016091410018598. However those files deleted as out of scope. So I am bringing the issue to her.

Also, files uploaded by User:Thinkingarena include official document of the Israeli authority which deleted also as out of scope. I don't know if there is anything coprightble in this document. Your advice regarding be appreciated:

I beleve that the file in project scope. They can be usefull in the article Patent claim. They can be usefull in wikibook to describe the process of patent in Israel etc. As there is no copyright issue her I think they should be undeleted. We have a lot's of file of patent documentation (including PDF). Examples: File:US2308051A, Arthur T. Cahill, Means for Generating Music Electrically, filed 1938, issued 1943.pdf, US2253782A Keyboard for Electrical Musical Instrument (1940-05-07 filed, 1948-08-26 published) by Laurens Hammond - Solovox.pdf, File:Keskari, Keska-Veschluss, Österreichische Patenturkunde.jpg, File:MR. DARRAC'S PATENT.png, File:Parkradar2.jpg, File:1933 05 13 C. Keskari Eintrag in Gebrauchsmusterrolle-1 (Mufftasche).jpg, File:Brevetto inglese per il motore Barsanti-Matteucci (12 giugno 1857).tif, Category:Patent certificates, Category:German Patents, Category:Patents -- Geagea (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If something is good for Wikisource, we can hold the source PDFs. Those are in scope. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Multiple files request

Hello, please undelete following files:

per ticket:2016092510005536. Thank you. --Mates (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The ticket asserts that the uploader is a family member and heiress, but does not provide evidence of the conveyance of intellectual property rights. Firstly, as a general proposition, the copyright would be held by the photographer, not the subject (the wording here implies a reliance on a belief in the latter, but I would readily defer to native Czech speakers) and, secondly, regardless of the original copyright holder, the transferal of those rights to the uploader, if indeed true, would have been done by written conveyance. A scanned copy of that document needs to be provided. Эlcobbola talk 19:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

File:SchmidAlteTH.jpg File:SchmidRS.jpg wiederherstellen


Die beiden Dateien Datei:SchmidAlteTH.jpg und File:SchmidRS.jpg (beide in Category:Kantonsschule Trogen) wurden automatisch von Benutzer:CommonsDelinker gelöscht, obwohl die Einverständiserklärung am 24.5.16. an Permission von Heidi Eisenhut (Kantonsbibliothek Appenzell Außerrhoden) gemailt wurde und die Dateien mit {OTRS pending} gekennzeichnet waren.

Am 26.8.16 bat ich per Mail an permissions-de um Wiederherstellung, habe aber seither nichts mehr gehört... Ich benötige die beiden Dateien u.a. für Vorträge über Wikipedia und das Archiv, das ich betreue. Bitte um Wiederherstellung. Herzliche Grüsse! --Archive Aurora (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons Delinker hat nur die jeweiligen Links aus der Wikipedia entfernt (daher der Name). Gelöscht wurden beide Dateien von @JuTa: mit der Begründung, dass seit 1. Juli tatsächlich keine OTRS-Erklärung vorgelegen hat. Frage an die Kollegen von OTRS: ist diese Mail an vielleicht an permissions-de geschickt worden und wurde nicht an Commons weitergeleitet? De728631 (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Földosztás Fóton 1945 tavaszán.tif

File:Földosztás Fóton 1945 tavaszán.tif This file is a scan of the original photograph, digitised by me. The photographer is unknown. Thought similar photos were taken at the site by well known photographers, this one was taken by somebody else. 70 years + 1 have passed since. --Elekes Andor (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose From the deletion log: "Author is Marian Reismann hungarian photographer (1911-1991)". Thuresson (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Also note that even if the photographer were anonymous, in Hungary the 70 years runs from the date of publication, not the date of creation. You say that you scanned the original photograph, so in order to use {{PD-old}} you must show that the photograph was published before 1946. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Cuvée Médaillon Rouge Vintage.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A permission has been recieved on OTRS for this file from the right owner: OTRS ticket 2016090610008702 Linedwell (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Linedwell: could you please clarify the customer's position in the company, and that he is legally able to license the image on behalf of the company? Storkk (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: The customer have been the managing director of the compagny few years ago, I have no more informations about him. Linedwell (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Linedwell: what I meant was, "could you please clarify with the customer" that he is legally able to license the company's IP. If, for example, he is MD of marketing and just wants to put the image on the company's WP page, he would likely not be in a position to license the file. Storkk (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: I reopened the ticket asking him if to clarify this point. Regards, Linedwell (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)