Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive

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

Closed undeletion debates are archived here by SteinsplitterBot.

Contents

Recently archived requests

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

File:City of Kenmore logo.jpg and file:City of Kenmore logo small.jpg

These two files belong to the City of Kenmore, WA and as an employee, I am submitting the seals to the City's Wikipedia page. The City has contracted with a local design firm to create the seal and since we purchased the work, it is the City's property to distribute and place in printed materials as well as the web. I would like to use these updated seals on Kenmore's wiki page as the previous seal was submitted by a citizen who cropped the image from a photo they took. The seal image I submitted, on behalf of the City of Kenmore, is the official seal for the City of Kenmore. --Mldynk (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Melodi Yanik 1/23/2017

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please see COM:OTRS how to verify a permission by email. We need either a declaration from the design firm that they ceded their copyright to the City of Kenmore or we need a copy of your agreement forwarded from an email address associated with the city. Please understand that this process is required because we cannot verify that your Wikimedia account is truly connected to the City of Kenmore. Once the email has been processed by our volunteer staff, the logos will be restored but this may take up to several weeks because we are very shorthanded. De728631 (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done . After receiving OTRS-permission the files can be restored. Taivo (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Tristan Lecomte.jpg

Professional picture made by professional photographer for PurProjet et Tristan Lecomte's professional use

--Lau1681 (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC) 2017/01/31

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unless there is an explicit written agreement between the photographer and the subject, the copyright remains with the photographer. Also, the image appears with an explicit copyright notice at http://www.purprojet.com/team-member/tristan-lecomte/. In order to restore it, either (a) the photographer must send a free license using OTRS or (b) the subject must send a free license including a copy of his agreement with the photographer which permits him to freely license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. OTRS-permission is needed. Taivo (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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

File:45èlf.png

It is deleted, but tis logo is my own work. Very strange that someone else discusses the cpoyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinpeelen (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on 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 a timestamp will then automatically be added 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 The article at 45èlf is up for deletion for lack of notability. If it is deleted, there is no reason to keep this logo here. If it is not deleted, then policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. In either case we cannot restore this now..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done As per Jim above. Thuresson (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Бабушка и мужчины.jpg

Восстановите пожалуйста этот файл File:Бабушка и мужчины.jpg. ALDOR46 (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It was deleted because the background is a copyrighted image. Since the image is sold widely, it is unlikely that you can obtain a free license for it. Also, there is no indication of why the group in the image is notable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 Not done : as above. --Yann (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Works by Wassily Kandinsky

Apparently his works are PD: Category:Wassily Kandinsky

--Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 02:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Images deleted before 16 June 2006 cannot be restored. Thuresson (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, then I withdrow. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 04:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Images deleted before 16 June 2006 cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:JR East Ome Display C2154.jpg

In the first place, Is it a map?
Flow diagrams are also Derivative work? --Benzoyl (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a schematic map of a railroad system. It is well established that such maps have a copyright, see the free use rationale at File:London Tube Map.png.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 Not done . Yes, it is a map. Flow diagrams are by principle copyrightable, but if there are few entities, then flow diagram does not surpass threshold of originality. It is unclear, how many entities are needed in flow diagram to be copyrightable. But this schematic map meets TOO and needs permission from copyright holder. Taivo (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:TARDIS library ( Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS).jpg

Hi Jcb,

I am quite certain that the BBC would not mind allowing this screenshot on Wikipedia. Do you advise contacting them about this issue ?

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now - if the copyright holder sends a valid permission to OTRS, we me undelete the file. Jcb (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done . We do not know for sure, what BBC thinks about publishing the screenshot in Wikipedia. After receiving OTRS-permission from BBC representative the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Milice ecole.jpg

Anonymous photograph taken during the Vichy France (1940-1944). 1944+70+1 = 2015. I do not know if the anonymous works are affected by the wartime extension. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse.

I withdrow, see below. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 04:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This one could be restored. Yann (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The rule in France is 70 years pma or, for anonymous images, 70 years from publication. There is no evidence that this image was ever published until recently. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done . The nomination is withdrawn. Taivo (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:KirnerRealities.jpg

I created the picture, it is mine, why did it was flagged as a possible copyright violation?

att —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.163.30.233 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As noted in the file description, this is translated from the image at http://www.intechopen.com/download/get/type/pdfs/id/39046. Translations are derivative works of the original and require permission from the actual copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The paper Jim linked to is licensed under CC-by-3.0 (see bottom of page 2 in the PDF). This enables free derivative works. De728631 (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Good catch, thank you, De728631 .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Twee dames met een baby.jpg

Please undelete the file, it is an approved picture of the painting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Designmie (talk • contribs) 19:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The artist en:Jean Baptiste Leopold Colin died in 1961 and the painting is protected with copyright. The file can be restored after copyright expiring in 2032 (70+1 years after death). Taivo (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The same rationale applies to the other uploads of paintings by Colin that I deleted today. If the heirs of the painter gave their approval to upload these photographs with a free license, we need an email with their permission as is explained in COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done - permission from the heirs of the painter is necessary - Jcb (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Touch artwork.jpg

Please restore this file to the English Wikipedia (preferably as "File:Little Mix – Touch (Official Single Cover).jpg") under fair use, with the file description page containing the wikitext below. This is for use in the enwiki article Touch (Little Mix song). Thanks! Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
06:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Notifying Yann, Musicedit98 and Calvin999. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
06:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  •  Not done Fair use is claimed. Thuresson (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Sailor fuku in Second Life 5.jpg and File:Sailor fuku in Second Life 7.jpg

The license will become {{cc-zero}}.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


✓ Done The screenshots are now available under CC-0 and the software itself is licensed under GPL ({{Second Life}}). De728631 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Designmie

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission was granted by the only living heir of Colin and the author of the book the images were taken from. Permission is stored in OTRS ticket:2017020210008033 Mbch331 (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


✓ Done (there was one duplicate). Wow, that was a fast response from the copyright holder. @Mbch331: please add the OTRS tags. De728631 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Radhika khanna book launch.jpg

Please do not remove this photo! this is not violating any rules. I took this picture of radhika khanna myself. Thanks--Wikiedits00000 (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The book cover is copyrighted and non-free, and the associated poster in the background is prominently displayed in your photo. You may not publish a photo of these without permission from the original designer or the publisher. Please see Commons:Derivative works for more information. De728631 (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the image pending the outcome at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radhika khanna book launch.jpg which had just been opened when I deleted the file. Please comment over there. De728631 (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Afida Turner live.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2016120510028196. I will make sure that the permission is enough to keep the picture(s) (media work + depicted work), update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template when this gets restored. Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. Face-smile.svg Scoopfinder(d) 19:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


✓ Done Please update the file page. De728631 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Shahak_shapira.jpg

Shahak Shapira hat laut eigener Aussage die Freigabe für die Verwendung des Fotos heute Mittag erteilt. EN: Shahak Shapira has allowed the usage of his picture by sending an email to permissions-de@wikimedia.org this noon. --Danielschwarz (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Danielschwarz: Dann wird die Datei durch diesen Prozess wiederhergestellt werden, wenn die Voraussetzungen erfüllt sind. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 Not done Warte bitte, bis die E-Mail geprüft wurde. Dies kann wegen Personalmangels bei OTRS einige Wochen dauern. De728631 (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Богун_Оникій_Тимофійович.jpg

I have created and edited the following article: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%BD_%D0%9E%D0%BD%D0 % B8% D0% BA% D1% 96% D0% B9_% D0% A2% D0% B8% D0% BC% D0% BE% D1% 84% D1% 96% D0% B9% D0% BE% D0% B2 % D0% B8% D1% 87. The photo of the person referred to in the aforementioned article Bohun_Onykiy_Tymofiyovych.jpg was added to the Wikimedia and the source of it was indicated which is in the public domain. 00:46, on January 24 ,2017 CommonsDelinker (debate ∙ contribution). . (7049 bytes) (-50). . ( deleted the file Bohun_Onykiy_Tymofiyovych.jpg because it was removed from the Wikimedia Commons by the user Ellin Beltz. Reason: Copyright violation, see). Since it is indicated in attributes of picture Bohun_Onykiy_Tymofiyovych.jpg that the source of it is a book «For Statehood”. Coll. Kalisz 3, 1932 http://diasporiana.org.ua/istoriya/96-za-derzhavnist-zb-3/ file djvu: http://diasporiana.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/books/96/file.djvu, Paste Between pages 120-121(posted on the website http://diasporiana.org.ua , it may be regarded to be the public domain. The date of publication of the book proves it (more that 70 years passed) and also an explanation of the project (about): "The main principles of cooperation are:

   voluntary cooperation.
   openness (the members can be any institution or public organizations and also individuals who support the idea of the project). »http://diasporiana.org.ua/pro-proekt/.

Hereby I request to return the photo Bohun_Onykiy_Tymofiyovych.jpg to the Wikimedia.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The fact that it was published in 1932 is important but not conclusive. In order to restore it here, you must prove that the photographer died before 1951. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 Not done per Jim. As long as the lifetime of the photographer is unknown, we cannot determine the copyright status. De728631 (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Знак на Армијата на Република Македонија.svg

The PRP does not apply to simple geometric shapes like squares, triangles, or stars, which this is. It is a simple 12-point star, there is nothing original about that. We have much more complicated police stars on Commons from other countries. Fry1989 eh? 03:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

For reference: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Знак на Армијата на Република Македонија.svg. The problem is that we have no idea about the standards for TOO of Macedonia. Therefore, the PRP applies. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
As I stated, TOO does not matter for simple geometry. I asked the question of what is different between this file and File:Silver star.png, and nobody answered me. I don't think it is appropriate deleting the file without deciding if it is really any different from any other simple star geometry we have on Commons. I see nothing complicated enough about this to be deleted. Fry1989 eh? 18:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussed image, even though geometric, is significantly more complex than a simple 'star'. - Reventtalk 13:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not. It's less complicated than the image I provided for comparison. The image I linked uses a variety of colours on each point to stand out, whereas the file deleted only uses two colours. And then it has another star with the same number of points, flat, and some letters. It is simple as anything. It should not have been deleted. Fry1989 eh? 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
There would seem to be a greater design component to the deleted image than the star used for the example. One needs to consider the concentric nature of the components and the colour. I can see how the assessment was made that it is more than simple geometric shapes, and it looks to be more to that assessment than a simple collection.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
That makes no sense. The only difference is the number of points, my star example has 5 and the image in question has 12. Increasing or decreasing the number of points on a star does not change it's complexity, it is still a simple geometric form. Fry1989 eh? 20:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. I agree with User:Fry1989 here. Ankry (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I found what looks to be a translation of the Macedonian copyright laws here. The only thing concerning our case I found is in article 12:

(1) A copyright work, within the meaning of this Law, is an intellectual and individual creation in the field of literature, science and art, expressed in any manner and form.

(2) A copyright work shall be, in particular:
[...]
10. Works of applied art and design;
[...]

(3) The adaptation of a copyright work, where it fulfills the conditions of this Law, shall be considered as a copyright work.

No indications about the threshold of originality. Is this image an intellectual and individual creation? I'd say so, yes. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done The legal situation concerning the TOO is inconclusive and there is no consensus in this discussion. De728631 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:自分自身のファイル名.jpg

これは私が保有しているロゴです。 即時削除の撤回を求めます

This is the logo that I have. Requests withdrawal of immediate deletion.
translator: Google

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.21.139.229 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 30 January 2017‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on 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 a timestamp will then automatically be added 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.

Also:File:ロゴス.jpg

Hmm. Except for the tree on the right, this is PD in the USA. The tree is fairly simple, so even with the tree, it may be PD-USA. What about Japan? What do others think? You can see it at the top left of http://www.kitanotatsujin.com/index.php where it appears with "Copyright(C) Kitanotatsujin Corporation All Rights Reserved". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support. In my opinion this is quite simple tree. Taivo (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. The TOO in Japan requires "a production in which thoughts or sentiments are expressed in a creative way and which falls within the literary, scientific, artistic or musical domain". The tree doesn't look very artistic or expressive to me so this should qualify for {{PD-textlogo}}. De728631 (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Journey Cover.jpg

RE: Ticket:2017011610012478 I responded to editor (Smooth O) regarding rights to the photograph in Wikimedia Commons (Journey Cover.jpg). This is a composite image used for an album cover. The image of the artist was taken by his wife, Denise Flauding, who has given full permission for its use. It was superimposed over an image of the Canadian Rockies taken at the Marriott Lodge in Jasper, Alberta, Canada. This is a photograph I took during a video expedition in 2009. I am a videographer and the Producer of the album named in the photograph. I did explain this to some degree in my previous email, however I respectfully request that the image be UNDELETED. The cover helps to update Mr. Flauding's bio on Wikipedia. The album is being released internationally on Feb. 15, 2017. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimnblack (talk • contribs) 18:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The OTRS ticket speaks of "verbal permission". Because copyright can last more than 150 years, long after we are all dead, all copyright license must be in writing. Therefore each of the copyright holders involved must send a separate free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done Verbal permissions are not sufficient when it comes to verifying copyright matters. Unless all authors and copyright holders of this joint work have sent in their permission in writing (i.e. by email) we cannot restore the file. De728631 (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Christian Jessup Composer.jpg File:Christian Jessup's Falling for Her Album Cover.png

I personally own the rights to the two files mentioned in the subject and would like to request their undeletion.--GothamRogue (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The first image has been published before without a free licence at the Gardner-Webb University website: [1]. In such cases we need more evidence to verify the free license. The easiest solution would be you updating the copyright information at the Gardner-Webb page to a Creative Commons 4.0 licence. Otherwise you'd have to send an email from an account associated with the University. Please see COM:OTRS for details.
As to the album cover, this has not yet been deleted but the verification process is the same. Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. De728631 (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:syedameenbadasha.jpg

since I am the owner of this image --Sadiqmf (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Owning a physical copy of a photograph does not make you the copyright holder. The copyright rests almost always with the original photographer. Unless the photograph was taken by a member of your family and you inherited it, we cannot restore the file without permission from the original photographer. De728631 (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : as per above. --Yann (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:NazaninB.jpg

I would like to let you know, I had downloaded my friend's picture (Miss Nazanin Boniadi) in Wikimedia Commons and used it in her English and Persian topic's page. During download process , probably wrong licence type has been chosen ( I am not familiar with rules ) and it get deleted . As I explained before in that picture's talk page I have permission to use it in Wikis by owner of picture and also she knew very well that picture would be contribute and anyone can use it after. She is famous actress and well known so has million pictures but This picture have been used in her personal website in internet. by above information could you please kindly help me to restore that. regards --Farid69 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We need a free license from the original photographer sent by email. A permission from the subject shown in the photograph to use the photo in Wikipedias is invalid because all media at Wikimedia Commons need to be free for anyone to use anywhere for any purpose, and only the photographer as the copyright holder may grant such a license. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions how to verify a permission by email. De728631 (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @De728631: thank you for explanation. you are absolutely right. so in this case I prefer to get picture by my own camera for peace of mind & saving-time in paperwork. I am pretty sure, that portrait would be Picture of the Year :) fingered crossed ;)

Also could you please cancel my UN-Delete request regarding this picture. Kind Regards Farid69 (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done : Withdrawn. --Yann (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Presentacion_gambeta_de_sueños_2014.jpg

File:Presentacion_gambeta_de_sueños_2014.jpg

Personal Image, without copyryght.

Gabriel de Chascomus (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done : Please read COM:NETCOPYVIO. --Yann (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Michael Sart.jpg

This is my own picture. There is no copyright on it.

--Ciaoui (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done : Please read COM:NETCOPYVIO. --Yann (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ana Maria Braga.jpg

Hi, this file Ana Maria Braga.jpg was take by me in december 2016. I'm her employée and I have Ana Maria Braga permition to add this photo at Commons. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvia Henz (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done : Not deleted yet. Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Nadiabochi-.jpg

Hi, This picture was taken by me in june 2016. I work with Nadia Bochi and I have her permition to add this file at Wikimedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvia Henz (talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done : Not deleted yet. Please send a permission via COM:OTRS. --Yann (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Files of user User:BavariaYachtbau

The files

have been recently speedy-deleted by user:Ellin Beltz. The deletion reason seems to have been that the files do not have identical metadata and therefore an own-work claim is dubious. The uploader is a confirmed account of Bavaria Yachtbau, a well-known german boatbuilding company (see en:Bavaria Yachtbau, de:Bavaria Yachtbau). That the company is not the photographer on itself is obvious, but that the company has the necessary rights for distributing their promotional images (which they obviously were) is very likely. We do have an OTRS ticket (#2012022710009281) about the account, so the content of this should also be considered when making a decision on these images. If something is still unclear, there should at least be a contact in that ticket to clarify the situation. (XenonX3: can you check that ticket?).

The images themselves would be very valuable, as they're among the best images of modern sailing yachts that we have. Others of similar good quality I've found seem to be obvious copyvios (that's a different story though). --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The files did not have any OTRS information, no descriptions and were uncategorized in addition to having two different photographers (uncredited). If restored, please take the time to adequately describe and categorize the images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course. That is no problem at all. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not sure that the fact that this is a well known company is relevant here. Ticket:2012022710009281 does not come up when requested. Aside from a deleted logo, these are the only contributions from this user. We have no evidence that User:BavariaYachtbau is in fact the company -- it could well be a fan or customer of the company. We also typically require a free license via OTRS for images that are not PD, own work, or from freely licensed sources. We also need to know the actual author, because in most countries that determines the life of the copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible that you don't have the rights to see that ticket? It might be on the permissions-de list. This edit is very unlikely to be fake. XenonX3 is admin and OS on dewiki. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I have pinged de:User::XenonX3 on their talk page on German Wikipedia. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
When I search for the ticket on the OTRS main page it comes back saying there is no result. But, of course, strange things happen. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Note: XenonX3 seems to be taking a wiki-break. He hasn't edited for half a year. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I also cannot view this ticket. As a matter of principle, if an OTRS ticket provides the permission (i.e., foundation) for hosting on the Commons, it needs to be in a permissions queue accessible to Commons' OTRS volunteers. If the ticket is valid as claimed, please assign it to a permissions queue. Эlcobbola talk 16:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    That ticket is in info-de and contains nothing but an account verification. --Didym (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    In that case I Symbol support vote.svg Support restoration of the files. These are clearly promotional images by the manufacturer of the boats and we can assume that they have secured all necessary rights to publish those photos under the licenses stated. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Didym, would you be kind enough to post a note at User:BavariaYachtbau summarizing the OTRS message -- that the user is, in fact, the company of the same name. With that done, I would support restoration. Thanks, .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Bump! @Didym: pinging Didym?! De728631 (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Oops, I did get that first ping, but I didn't see it between other alerts. Done now. --Didym (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Restored per discussion. @PaterMcFly: Can you add descriptions and categories?. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:ALANNA LOCKWARD 2016.jpg

ALana Lockward herself the person in the foto is the owner of the rights of this foto. The potographer Miguel Gomez took this foto of her. Both Alana Lockward and Miguel Gomez are informed and in acord with this foto being published at wiki commons.

Rafapetunia (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We need a written permission by email from the photographer. Please see COM:OTRS for details. De728631 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done . After receiving OTRS-permission the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Framsida.jpg

Hello,

This picture is taken by me and not in violation of anything. I took it and have permission from the Royal Tennis Hall of Stockholm to use it.

Best regads,

Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikwelin (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately we cannot verify your claim right here and since the image has been published before by the Royal Tennis Hall without a free licence, you need to send an email from an address associated with KLTK confirming your authorship. Alternatively you as their webmaster could add a notice on the website attributing yourself as the author of the photo and releasing it under a free licence like Creative Commons 4.0. The recipient address for the email of confirmation is permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. De728631 (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per De. Taivo (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Page 2 - CFL as shown on UN Map to Karachi Agreement 1949.JPG

Was deleted as "uploader request" without further explanation. Is PD per {{PD-UN-map}}. Replaces the identical copy en:File:Page 2 - CFL as shown on UN Map to Karachi Agreement 1949.JPG with was unnecessarily tagged as non-free content. Finnusertop (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


✓ Done: Free image on en-wiki, transferred latest version. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Brook Bernacchi 1965.jpg

It was said that it was a duplicate image but it was not. It was from the Reform Club Election Bulletin of 1965 but what the author of this image is remains unknown. --Lmmnhn (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted after a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brook Bernacchi 1965.jpg. Do you have any new information not known at the deletion request? Thuresson (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Lmmnhn: anonymous images are a big problem as:
  • it is very difficult to prove that they are really anonymous
  • Wikimedia Commons images are required to be PD in US also, not only in the country of origin.
And according to this guide, US copyright for anonymous images last much longer than in other countries (120 years from the image creation or 95 years from their first documented publication). If you can point out an image that was published in HK in 1945 or earlier, or that was first published in US (and not in HK) in 50ties-60ties, we may go forward because of some extempts. Otherwise an identified author is necessary. Ankry (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done No new information has been presented to indicate that the image is in fact in the public domain. De728631 (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Joseph_Becherer.jpg to undelete

Frederik Meijer Gardens & Sculpture Park is licensed to use the photo I want to add.

--Ezacek (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Erin Zacek 02/02/17

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not sure what you mean -- in the file description you claimed that you were the photographer. Are you now claiming that someone else is the photographer and has licensed the image to the Park? In any case, the image includes prominently a work by Roxy Paine which will probably be under copyright well into the 22nd century, so we cannot restore the image without both a clarification of the copyright status of the photograph and a free license from Roxy Paine. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done per Jim's reasoning. De728631 (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Lage magellansche wolken.jpg

This is https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Lage_magellansche_wolken.jpg , where it says CC-BY. Author is de:User:Szs. 85.179.108.145 09:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The cited page shows CC-0, not CC-BY. However the permission block says:

"Die SuW hat mir/uns die freie Benutzung des Bildes erlaubt. Wortlaut: 'Du kannst das Bild benutzen. Bedingung ist ein Hinweis auf "Sterne und Weltraum" mit Angabe der Heftnummer.' Die Anfrage enthielt den Link auf wikipedia, es war also der Zweck bekannt. Ist das so OK? Im schlimmsten Fall muss ich das Bild neuzeichnen... --szs 10:01, 21. Apr 2004 (CEST)"
The SuW has allowed me / us the free use of the picture. Text: 'You can use the picture. Condition is a reference to "stars and space" with indication of the issue number. ' The request contained the link to wikipedia, so the purpose was known. Is that so OK? In the worst case, I have to redraw the image ... --szs 10:01, Apr 21, 2004 (CEST)
translator: Google

Because it is a 2004 image, the permission would be grandfathered if it met our requirements, but because the request was for use on WP:DE, it is not a license to use the image freely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 Not done : It seems unlikely the author fully understood the licensing terms and intended the file to be licensed under those. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

Прапор_міста_Вараш.jpg

File:Прапор_міста_Вараш.jpg Should be restored because of current licensing policies on the official Varash City Council site. File:Прапор_міста_Вараш.jpg Повинен бути відновлений базуючись на чинній політиці ліцензування міської ради Вараша згідно з офіційним сайтом. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Сергій1271 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The copyright disclaimer at the bottom looks like {{attribution}} to me. De728631 (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. @De728631: The copyright disclaimer only allows the use, but not the modification. To be treated as {{attribution}}, both should be explicitly stated. --Scoopfinder(d) 19:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Modification is just a type of use. If modifications were forbidden they should have allowed "unaltered use" only or something similar. De728631 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
      I am sorry to disagree on this, but "simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient" according to COM:Licensing. I would also invoke COM:PCP: it is better to be cautious. --Scoopfinder(d) 20:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Ok, you've got a point there. De728631 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It also specifies that the attribution on the Web must be a link to their site. We do not normally do that on the page that contains the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : per discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

Uploads by Aaberlanga

Also:

Good evening

I´m Aaberlanga user on Wikimedia commons. Recently I upload this image but Wikimedia reject it because of use without permission.

I have just written to the author of the permissions and rights of the photographs to request permission and I have obtained his authorization under the license CC-BY-SA 4.0. I just resend that authorization to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org but i prefer not to include it here to protect the identity and the data of the sender.

Please, could you be so kind to republish that images. The images are on this link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aaberlanga

Thanks so much Best

--Aaberlanga (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Aaberlanga

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The file will be restored when the permission email has been processed by our voluntary email team. Because they are badly understaffed though, this may take up to several weeks. De728631 (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Also, unfortunately, we have enough users here who have tried to forge permission e-mails that for some time we have required that the e-mail must come directly from the copyright holder. Your forwarding it to OTRS will not be accepted. Please ask the copyright holder to send the license directly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : per discussion, COM:OTRS required. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Qabusnameh.jpg

This file moved from en.wiki to commons and deleted as no source. Copy of th file avalube also in he.wiki he:קובץ:Qabusnameh.jpg. The work is from 1349. That is PD-Art-100. If we need a source is not very hard her for example. -- Geagea (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it would be best if Geagea undeleted the file and cleaned up the description appropriately. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Geagea, please feel free to restore this and update the description. {{PD-art-100-1923}} should be the appropriate licence. De728631 (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


✓ Done: per discussion, @Geagea: please clean up. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:MB…read_the_unshapeable_shock_night….ogg

REASON: This file is correct & needed, because:

  • It is an original composition by Mr. Márton Bujdosó, notable Hungarian composer, who is uploaded it and gave correct OTRS permission Ticket#2016112510017171 permission
  • AND this file is absolutely IN SCOPE of Wikimedia Commons PROJECT SCOPE, because:

Aim of Wikimedia Commons

The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository:

   that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and
   that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative".

This is file is needed int the common repository because it referred from various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. E. g. the Wikipedia Article about the the composer: Márton Bujdosó

Please, undelete it (because it was mistakenly deleted and this absolutely correct and needed) SZERVÁC Attila (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

If the creator of the derivative work is also notable, the work obviously is in scope. See also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:...read_the_unshapeable_shock_night..._(Gerard_Manley_Hopkins).pdf --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. But: this is not a derivative work (narrow sense of the term). The title quotes a verse from the English poet (not composer!!) G. M. Hopkins, but the musical material contains no quotation or transciption. Ellin Beltz wrote this ("derivative work", "as an amateur copy of a famous painting") complete mistakenly. In broad sense, naturally, all works are derivative works. :) BUJDOSÓ Márton (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThis work has been discussed before -- see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-12#File:MB.E2.80.A6read_the_unshapeable_shock_night.E2.80.A6.ogg. The OTRS ticket is new, however, so this is a legitimate request. However, I oppose it.
First, we must discount all of the comments about scope and value above because they were made in complete violation of WMF's policy on Conflict Of Interest. See WP:EN's summary of the COI policy which is applicable to all WMF projects. A person cannot comment here about the value of his own work as BUJDOSÓ Márton has done here.
Second, although BUJDOSÓ Márton does have an article on WP:HU, the first entry was on January 13, 2017 and a significant portion of the article was written by our uploader, also in violation of the COI policy. Google has no significant hits for this person other than Facebook and similar self-promotional sites. I doubt very much whether our Hungarian colleagues will keep the article.
Third, there are no Google hits for "read_the_unshapeable_shock_night" except in direct reference to Gerard Manley Hopkins. That strongly suggests that the musical work does not meet our requirements for notability.
Fourth, a musical work has many copyrights -- composer, lyricist, arranger, producer, and, in many countries, the performing artists. While not all of these may be applicable here, the OTRS message speaks only to the composer's copyright.
Last, the OTRS e-mail is from a gmail account. We do not generally accept licenses coming from gmail account because, of course, the owner of a gmail account can be anyone.
Any one of the five points above are enough reason to oppose this restoration. The five of them are overwhelming. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: According to COM:INUSE the file is in scope until our hungarian celeagues decide to delete the article. Also, I doubt, you should not refer English Wikipedia policy while talking about a Hungarian Wikipedia article. If you found this to be a real problem, it should be disputed either on huwiki or on meta, not here. The 3rd point I see irrelevant while we are talking about media for a huwiki article. The last two points may be a real problem, however, I see no attempt to resolve them in OTRS. Ankry (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
One more comment here: I don't see anything about unpaid edits that may be Conflict Of Interest in WMF policies. So they seem to me traeted under local wiki policies. I see no such policy in huwiki. Maybe, we should canvas this discussion there to receive clarification? Ankry (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The original deletion stated "in essence the same as an amateur copy of a famous painting and as that, out of scope" though the evidence is now that it is a notable person, so that original reason must be set aside and the matter reexamined. Otherwise I agree with Ankry. If there is an article at huWP (in scope), the work is released or out of copyright (in scope) then I do not see why it could not be undeleted against those points. [Also noting that we do not have a CoI policy, nor rule out of scope due to a CoI, and we cannot as many images we upload are our own works, so I cannot accept that as reason for deletion. I also dispute that WMF has a conflict of interest policy for contributors outside of "Paid contributions without disclosure". Terms and conditions checked. Foundationwiki and metawiki searches undertaken.] The 4th and 5th dot points are valid and need consideration and answers prior to undeletion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

billinghurst, Ankry, two points. I quote the WP:EN COI rules because they are the applicable portion of the broader WMF rules which apply to all projects. The broader WMF rule, which applies here and at WP:HU is

"Disclose actively if you are requesting, using, or allocating movement resources that may benefit your family member, spouse, partner, business associate, significant other, close friend, or their organizations or employers." on potential conflicts of interest

I can't imagine how anyone can think that it is OK for a user to talk about his own work and be a significant contributor to an article on his own work. Billinghurst, you say

"I also dispute that WMF has a conflict of interest policy for contributors outside of "Paid contributions without disclosure"."

That suggests that you believe that while I may not pay someone to write an article about me without disclosure, that it is OK for me to write an article about me without disclosure or, perhaps, that the fact that he used his own name is sufficient disclosure?

While I am aggressive in defending almost anything on Commons from deletion if it is in use elsewhere, there are exceptions to that rule, most particularly when a user himself places an image or creates an article himself, or when the WP use is so new that the WP has not had a chance to react. I agree that if, a few weeks from now, it was clear that WP:HU was going to keep the article, then my point #3 would be invalid. But that still leaves #4 and #5. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: If you think that general WMF policies should be considered here, point them directly. Not through other wiki policies. I see no evidence that any benefits are taken into account here. If I write an article about myself/my sister/my father/my boss/my employer/my house/my book/etc. (or publish a photo of any of them) you cannot assume I do it to receive any benefits. If there are benefits here, they have to be proven, not assumed, IMO. Going this way, I should assume that I enter CoI while publishing my own photos on Commons. I see no real difference between publishing a photo by a photographer and publishing a composition by a composer. The notability of the author may be taken into account, but it cannot be the only criterion. Ankry (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward:
  • It is not "what I think about CoI" it is interpreting the community's policies, and at this wiki we have nothing about CoI.
  • At this wiki we have the commons:scope around educational, and public domain or freely licensed. If you wish to introduce a CoI component, please suggest it, rather than invent that it outweighs our scope.
  • At huWP they will have some policy and are able to make their decisions. If you believe there is a CoI abuse, add your opinion there, it is what I do with my crosswiki work when I see abuse. It is what huWP has to do when they disagree with our actions.
To the facts:
  • You quote foundation:Resolution:Guidelines on potential conflicts of interest. If you read the lead paragraph it is for the board and employees and the lead paragraph expresses that the Board of Trustees ... hereby approves ... Guidelines on the Disclosure of Potential and Actual Conflicts of Interest in Requesting Movement Resources (my emphasis)
  • The guidance relates back to foundation:Conflict of interest policy, the policy for board and staff. Zero mention about volunteer edits; and one consistent with their position of providing the platform, not guiding editing, leaving that to the respective communities.
  • w:en:WP:COI is interesting reading and good guidance for many wikis, but it not the universal policy, nor the universal approach.
So as I said, I do not believe 1-3 are impediments, and I agreed with you that 4 and 5 do need to be addressed and resolved to undelete the file.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Jim, I precise that this is not a comment about the potential undeletion of this image but a comment about the discussion. I tend to agree with billinghurst, that foundation:Resolution:Guidelines on potential conflicts of interest talk mainly about "when requesting, using, or allocating movement resources". I'm not sure that to upload a file here, while it is indeed a use of wikimedia servers, can be considered as "using movement resources", but I may be wrong. I also think that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is very difficult to transpose here because to edit an article is totally different than to upload and license an artwork, mainly because an artwork while being COI in a specific article, can be useful for someone else. Scope and licensing are our main issues, and while one can think a specific image used in an article can be indeed COI regarding local wikipedia policies, it is also clearly in our policies to not editorialize the other projects, therefore we should not use our tools to enforce local wikipedia policies. Maybe one day we will have an easy tool for authorized users to postpone from here potentially misused images to the local wikipedias, and as we check a lot of pictures this could be an advantage for local wikipedias. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore @Jameslwoodward: why I think COI is not applicable here, it's at the opposite of the goal of our project. I mean, if a notable artist alive, e.g. [2] open an account here verified by OTRS, and then upload legaly here a few image of it's paintings, we are not going to say there is a COI, of course not! If the artist is notable enough then its artworks are welcome, this is even one of the purpose of Wikimedia Commons, or I missed something. And when an artist, also verified by OTRS, is not enough notable we will say there is COI, this is not logical. The only issue for us may be the scope but not the COI, or COI have to be an issue whether the artis is notable or not.
To license an image of an atrwork is done here, and when it is in scope and legaly licensed we accept this image whether from where it come from. To write an article about this artwork is done in wikipedia, but sorry, while I personally see no issue that you cite the Wikipedia rules and policies to the inexperimented users to make them understand the goal of the wikimedia projects, which is to your credit (nicest when said in french "c'est même tout à ton honneur"), we have to be careful when quoting such policies because to say that an artwork may be in scope or not is one thing, but applying a COI rule in function that the artist is notable or not makes me uncomfortable, as we begin here to sort not the files but the users. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for raising the issue of COI on Commons -- it was plainly contrary to our policy here. However, I made five points way up there at the beginning of this long discussion and COI was only one of them. There seems to be some agreement above that at least two or three of the others are valid reasons for not restoring this file. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me ask: how can I give a correct, valid permission? What else is needed? A scanned signature? Maybe, signature of performers, festival organizers and maker of the recording? (But: we speak about a free-licensed piece of music...) - - By the way, if I may say so, overwhelming majority of composers (at least in Hungary, and in this musical style) have not the slightest intention of publishing their works under free license. I made an attempt... but it makes me sad, that this is so much difficult. (Or you make it so much difficult.) BUJDOSÓ Márton (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : Still on copyright grounds. According to the statements in this UnDR we have an OTRS permission of the composer, but not one of the performers. COI arguments are invalid, since this is in use. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Tehran_Province_Constituencies.png

Hey guys, User:Jcb, User:INeverCry, the author of these file has just left me a note on my local wiki talk page about possibility of restoration of these files:

I know the user is very active on creation of political related maps and as he claims he is the author of these files I also can trust him on that. I can not find any similar image on Google Images to these files, and I guess this is used as source but I ask him about exact reference if needed. So, do you see any other specific issue with these? Thanks −ebrahimtalk 08:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The PDF you linked is all text, so, while I cannot read it, I can say that it is not relevant. The problem here is not the source of the data -- data does not have a copyright. The problem is that he gives no source for the maps. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you User:Jcb, as the user had linked on the images pages, File:TehranProvBlank.svg is used as the source. This image and above linked uploads are not different in fact, the user is correctly has managed to separate the newly introduced Iran province, en:Alborz Province from Tehran on that files it seems and also merged some of constituencies regions based on data can be found on the PDF I've linked.
I also asked from him if he is able to find some extra reference for his works but I believe the files are not incorrectly uploaded, he likely just used some locally available geographical map books it seems and used them with regions that originally was available on File:TehranProvBlank.svg.
Also, it worths to be mentioned the user is not able to access to Wikimedia Commons due to some recent Internet restrictions and this is why he couldn't response to lack of source notices and also is not able to put his comment here. −ebrahimtalk 19:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. There is no reference to any source on the maps, so "as the user had linked on the images pages" is not correct.
  2. File:TehranProvBlank.svg, which you cite as the source above, is not the base for these maps. It is a different map.
  3. "he likely just used some locally available geographical map books it seems" suggests that these maps are derivative works of the map books.
While I sympathize with Arfarshchi's communication difficulties, your various inconsistent statements do not give me the confidence to accept your assertions. I also note that Arfarshchi last contributed to Commons on January 11. Has his situation changed since then? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. It is linked already. Please have a look at this, permission section. Wrong place of course, whole file descriptions should be improved after revival, if we conclude to undelete these of course.
  2. Yeah, that is the exactly point I was talking about, it is the same. Just some of splitted west regions (en:Alborz Province) are removed, look at east (right) regions of this and.compare it with one of the uploads.
  3. No. I meant if you don't know about the regions, and, how and why he merged and removed some of them, it is because of unfamiliarity, the info of which region named what is well known and not controversial at all. Region removals can be done by subtracting Alborz map, and merges, by using the info available on this PDF or this Persian Wikipedia page, all based on the map image uploaded before, File:TehranProvBlank.svg. Also the user gave me this (national statistics organization of Iran which it seems has blocked foreign IP access to the site) for verifying the info.
Jameslwoodward: I am not sure, that is what he said to me, I heard also some of ISPs are better than other on this. −ebrahimtalk 11:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize you were an Admin. Incidentally, it would be helpful if your user page said that.
  1. one of them is linked -- others are not. I did not look at them all.
  2. I see, thank you.
Given #2 above and that you recommend this and will clean up the sources for the files that aren't linked, I can now support this. Thanks for your effort here..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Thank you also :) −ebrahimtalk 12:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: per discussion, @Ebrahim: please clean up. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

ISS-50 EVA-2 (i) Robert S. Kimbrough.jpg

ISS-50 EVA-2 (j) Robert S. Kimbrough.jpg
ISS-50 EVA-2 (k) Thomas Pesquet.jpg
ISS-50 EVA-2 (l) Thomas Pesquet.jpg
ISS-50 EVA-2 (m) Shane Kimbrough.jpg

The assessment "Works by ESA employees are automatically All Rights Reserved, and not automatically released from copyright as with NASA images" is not true. The EVA of Thomas Pesquet was a commissioned work for NASA with NASA hardware. To say Thomas Pesquet is an ESA employee and so his work is ESA property is not purposeful. For example Robert McCall was never a NASA employee but his paintings and patches made for NASA are free.

Where is difference to the photos of CSA employee Chris Hadfield? His work may be also "All Rights Reserved"? We have many other photos here on Commons made by ESA astronauts and cosmonauts, all copyright violations? I don't believe so. Warm regards --Ras67 (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I estimate that there several hundred thousand images on Commons that ought to be deleted. Telling us that other stuff exists is never a valid argument. I have, in fact, just created Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Robert McCall (artist). Note also that even if the creator of a work transfers the copyright to the US government, that does not automatically make the work PD -- modern postage stamps and the Sacagawea dollar are the most notable examples of this, but there are others. In order to have these images restored, you must prove that they have been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 Not done : Enough doubts to not warrant undeletion per the precautionary principle. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Вы нарушили мои авторские права и нанесли моральный ущерб. Вы преследуете меня из за того что я мусульманин! Вы исламофоб! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OderGunchin (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done : No valid reason for undeletion provided, just baseless accusations. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Hunters Painter - Ivanov Boris Mikhailovich.jpg

The photographer and artist is the similar person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingvar rr (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on 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 a timestamp will then automatically be added 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 support vote.svg Support The image can be found at the artist's website with a CC-by-4.0 licence [3]. De728631 (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I am missing something here -- I don't read Cyrillic -- but I see nothing at the cited site that tells me that the site or the license is authorized by the artist. As far as I can tell, it could simply be a fan site that is doing license laundering. That's why I deleted the image in the first place. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The website is "© Борис Иванов, 2003-2017" = © Boris Ivanov, 2003-2017. De728631 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The photo at [4] is size 529 x 865 pixels and apparently licensed as CC-BY-4.0 but it is not the same photo that was actually uploaded. The uploaded version is 3,094 × 3,906 pixels. It is possible that the painter wish the smaller photo of the painting to be licensed freely, not that the painting itself if licensed as CC. Thuresson (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Does this really matter? I thought the license was granted for the work as such and not any specific snapshots. De728631 (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
A "work" in the copyright legal sense of the word is a work -- you cannot freely license only a small version -- the license applies to all versions. However I still haven't seen any evidence that the painter has authorized the source web site -- anyone can put anyone else's copyright notice on a site. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
By your logic we would have to treat any external free licence as licence laundering and request verification for all images from Flickr, Ipernity and whatnot that so far been uploaded. De728631 (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
We must use judgement on all such questions. Certainly we are careful about Flickr and other such sources -- you are surely familiar with Commons:License laundering. My judgement here is that this may -- beyond a significant doubt -- be a third party site not authorized by the painter. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
That must be a hardcore fan posing off as Ivanov himself writing from a first-person perspective [5]. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Aha. Finally. I said above "Perhaps I am missing something here", and I now see what it is. As you say, it would have to be a very hardcore fan. Symbol support vote.svg Support .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Request by Taqs Blaze

Undelete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taqs Blaze (talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

From the edit summary: I don't see a reason for this dfd for being deleted and I don't think a dfd is offensive to be deleted and it was made by 1 of my group member on a project and I am free to do what I want with it

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is apparently about File:DFD for the AI personal assistent.jpeg. If this was not created by yourself, you cannot grant a free license for the image because you don't hold the copyright unless this is a work for hire made by an employee of yours. We need a written permission coming directly from your group member that this can be used by anyone for any purpose. A suitable licence would be "Creative Commons by attribution 4.0". Please see COM:OTRS how to verify a permission by email. And what we need too, at least after restoring the file, is a description of what is actually shown in the image. De728631 (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Actually the reason for deletion was that the diagram is out of scope. It is a diagram without any explanation at all that can serve no educational purpose. Also, it is a PNG and our preferred format for files of this type is SVG. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done : as per above. --Yann (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Bri_on_a_fitness_ball.gif

No reason for deletion, no Notification about possible deletion. Disappeared - and that's it! Shustov (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't know why it slipped in the list, but 1. I doubt you are the author of this small GIF, 2. it is quite out of scope. TBH, seeing the number of warnings on your talk page, I wonder how it is possible you are not blocked yet. :/ Regards, Yann (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Your explanation that you "doubt" and you "wonder" is not my problem and it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of my file File:Bri_on_a_fitness_ball.gif. Please, look at the similar file from Wikiversity: Work-out on a ball and say what is wrong there? Shustov (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to interject on a closed request but, for posterity, I mentioned this image (and another) to the closing admin after the closure as I'd mistakenly not included them. The deletion reason, as indeed mentioned in the deletion log, was "Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Shustov" (i.e., same issue as the contemporaneous batch). Эlcobbola talk 22:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : File was deleted according to COM:SPEEDY. No reason for undeletion given. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Chin-up on one.gif

Notification about possible deletion by User:Эlcobbola was published at 16:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC) “so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not”. In exactly 9 (nine!) seconds after, namely, at 16:39 24 January 2017 (UTC), the file was deleted by User:Jameswoodward. MY QUESTION IS: Was that "community discussion" really so incredibly fast? Shustov (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to interject on a closed request but, for posterity, the image was nominated at 16:30, 24 January 2017 and deleted at 16:39, 24 January 2017. This is 9 (nine) minutes, not seconds. Эlcobbola talk 22:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : File was deleted according to COM:SPEEDY. No reason for undeletion given. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Headstanding.jpeg

Notification about possible deletion of this file by User:Эlcobbola was published at 16:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC) “so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not”. In exactly 9 (nine!) seconds after, namely, at 16:39 24 January 2017 (UTC), the file was deleted by User:Jameswoodward. MY QUESTION IS: Was that "community discussion" really so incredibly fast? Shustov (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to interject on a closed request but, for posterity, the image was nominated at 16:30, 24 January 2017 and deleted at 16:39, 24 January 2017. This is 9 (nine) minutes, not seconds. Эlcobbola talk 22:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : File was deleted according to COM:SPEEDY. No reason for undeletion given. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Headstand training.jpg

Notification about possible deletion of this file by User:Эlcobbola was published at 16:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC) “so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not”. In exactly 9 (nine!) seconds after, namely, at 16:39 24 January 2017 (UTC), the file was deleted by User:Jameswoodward. MY QUESTION IS: Was that "community discussion" really so incredibly fast? Shustov (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to interject on a closed request but, for posterity, the image was nominated at 16:30, 24 January 2017 and deleted at 16:39, 24 January 2017. This is 9 (nine) minutes, not seconds. Эlcobbola talk 22:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : File was deleted according to COM:SPEEDY. No reason for undeletion given. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Stand on head only.jpeg

Notification about possible deletion of this file by User:Эlcobbola was published at 16:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC) “so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not”. In exactly 9 (nine!) seconds after, namely, at 16:39 24 January 2017 (UTC), the file was deleted by User:Jameswoodward. MY QUESTION IS: Was that "community discussion" really so incredibly fast? Shustov (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to interject on a closed request but, for posterity, the image was nominated at 16:30, 24 January 2017 and deleted at 16:39, 24 January 2017. This is 9 (nine) minutes, not seconds. Эlcobbola talk 22:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : File was deleted according to COM:SPEEDY. No reason for undeletion given. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Donald Trump's Victory Speech.webm

The video was correctly released by the photographer (VOA News). Though Donald Trump is giving a speech, and can be seen referring to prompt board, there should be evidence provided that he was reading a prepared speech verbatim ("verbatim" seems highly unlikely, especially when thanking supporters, staff and members of his family, or segments like "That is now what I want to do for our country. Tremendous potential. I've gotten to know our country so well. Tremendous potential. It is going to be a beautiful thing. Every single American will have the opportunity to realize his or her fullest potential."). In order to delete this public domain file, there must be verifiable evidence that a counter claim exists, in this case by producing the text of a copyrighted speech that was prepared in advance of giving the speech, so that we can verify that the text matches what Donald Trump says in the (public domain) video and that the intention of the speaker is to limit republication. In this instance my opinion would be it is more likely that Donald Trump would want his speech in the public domain rather than limiting re-publication or charging for it being requoted.

The original DR is linked below, there was very little discussion of the copyright issues with both participating opinions being that the file should be kept, though as there were only two participants in addition to nominator and closer, that's not much representation of community views.

-- (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Equivalent case to any sound recording. The recording is a derivative work and therefore, copyright is assumed, just as with any other content. There must be verifiable evidence that the Trump campaign has released the rights of the speech and that the very Donald Trump has released its own rights as "performer". Pretty obvious. --Discasto talk 13:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Please link to the speech text, this is missing from the DR and would be needed to overturn the public domain release. It is obvious that Trump improvises most of his words in this video, so they cannot be in any prepared text, it would be useful to check the necessary pre-existing text to demonstrate this. As far as copyright is concerned, there are literally no performance rights for this speech (as he is not performing a pre-existing published creative work). Thanks -- (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest contacting greatagain.gov which is released with a free license. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 13:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The speech is not at https://www.donaldjtrump.com, so I suspect it has not been published as a prepared text. On greatagain.gov, the earliest date for releases is 2016-11-20 and the acceptance was videoed on 2016-11-09. I have tweeted greatagain at https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/826067546323427330 -- (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
For what it is worth, several sources (e.g. [6], [7], etc.) say then President-elect Trump read his victory speech from a teleprompter, which suggests that fixation of the content of the victory speech did occur before he gave his speech. Of course, that does not remove the issue of whether or not he deviated substantially from the previously prepared remarks that would have been on the teleprompter. —RP88 (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@RP88: That does not matter, there is a copyright in 'the performance itself', as fixed by the recording of it, separate from any copyright in the text of the prepared remarks. - Reventtalk 05:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As always on Commons, the burden of proof lies with those who would keep a work here to prove that it is PD or otherwise freely licensed. Note also, that for the work to have a copyright, it is not necessary that Trump read the speech word for word -- if he read any complete sentence from a prepared document, that portion of the speech has a copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I realize now that my comment above is too restrictive. Since the video of the speech is a form of fixation allowed by US copyright law, all of the speech is, in fact, copyrighted, whether read from a prepared text or not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: This is related to the re-opened deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Activist Gloria Steinem Tells Women's March Protesters 'Put Our Bodies Where Our Beliefs Are'.webm#Reopening. --Closeapple (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If this video is the first recording of the speech, then it is free. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. See archived discussion from Jimbo Wales user talk page: (Archive). These deletions are, in effect, creating a new Commons policy. Because evidently in the past we did not delete public domain videos of public speeches. We should keep these videos, and adjust, or clarify, the rules so that we continue to do so. The VOA (a federal government agency) is not deleting these videos. Why should we? We should operate according to the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). --Timeshifter (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
We are not the VOA. The VOA is a news agency and reporting notable speeches is a fair use for any news agency. Commons is not a news agency, so fair use can not apply to us even if Commons policy did not prohibit it. The suggestion that we should operate as guided by the DMCA is explicitly prohibited by COM:PRP.
Note, by the way, that any speech made by Trump while he is President will be the work of a Federal employee and therefore PD. This was, however, made in November. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
A correction, when VOA videos have been created by their employees, the videos are automatically public domain. The separate issue is whether we can or should accept that hypothetical notes for public speeches should overrule the video's public domain status for Commons, when nobody can produce the notes, the notes are unpublished, the notes may not have been followed by the speaker and the notes may even no longer exist. In terms of Commons policies we are stretching our understanding of "significant doubt" to cover hypothetical texts which we may never verify and for which copyright may never be asserted or be impossible to assert. -- (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually it is not Fair Use for VOA to replay a whole copyrighted speech. VOA is operating like Youtube, most news media, and most individuals who replay public speeches. All public speeches are copyrighted the moment they are on video. No prepared notes are required. Look it up. Youtube, VOA, etc. are operating based on DMCA concerning public speech. They are waiting for a Take Down notice that rarely comes, because people making public speeches usually want it spread far and wide. I know the rules on the Commons. They need to be adjusted to the fact that a large percentage of people have high-resolution videocameras on their smartphones, and they use them to make many videos of other people speaking. All of those people speaking have a copyright. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The VOA (any other news sources recording these speeches) had permission from the 'performer' to do so, obviously. Thus, the videos were 'licensed' derivative works (though not a form of license we would accept), and they have a clear right to themselves republish them. The VOA cannot, however, 'relicense' the copyrighted material that they do not own (the text of the speeches, or the performances) to third parties, and neither can we. Only the author of the performance can do that, and there is no evidence in these cases that they have done so. - Reventtalk 05:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Revent. You have raised performer rights several times now and I believe these are an unsupported tangent from the text copyright core issue, so would like to see it put to bed.
If you wish to argue that speakers, such as politicians, have performer rights there are specific points you must address where there is a mismatch between copyright law and video recordings of this type. Firstly, my understanding is that the USA (where this video was taken) has no established federal performer rights law, not to be confused with performance rights of a work. Secondly, there is no copyrightable artwork being created by a normal spoken address, i.e. not singing or poetry readings, that would be distinct from the argument that a prepared text may be copyrightable; if this were true then if the speaker gave a later address using the same text, you should be able to prove in law that each performance has a separate copyright.
Could you address these two points by pointing us to the correct and verifiable part of USA intellectual property law? Thanks -- (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per the Precautionary principle. This is clearly not a work by an US Government employee (But rather a derivative work of the speech). We also do not know for certain whether this is a prepared speech or an impromptu speech (most likely it is a prepared speech and is eligible for copyright protection). See meta:Copyright of Political Speeches for more information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
As I, and others, have pointed out above, it doesn't matter if it was a prepared speech or completely off the cuff. USCO Circular 1 says:
"Copyright protects “original works of authorship” that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device."
The speech itself is the original work. The video is the required fixation. (I note, for completeness, that the speech must be original -- if one stood up and recited the Gettysburg Address, there would not be a new copyright.) .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Jim, you are going wrong with "The video is the required fixation", as the video is legally the intellectual and material property of the photographer. As WMF legal stated "If a speaker’s remarks or responses to questions presented during a speech were not written down or “fixed” in some manner, they would not be protected by the written speech’s copyright.", please refer to the sources that WMF legal quoted. To challenge the copyright of the photographer in a court action, evidence must be presented of pre-existing copyright material, in whatever form. Contributors here and earlier may find discussion muddied by the word "fixation", it just means that to be copyrighted, the creative work must be able to be presented (on request in court) and verifiably pre-exist the video (as per the legal case study referenced earlier).
In the example case study, a judge determined there was a case to present by first examining the presented alleged copyright-able material, before an action was allowed to proceed; there is no example case study of where the film or recording was itself the pre-existing copyrightable material. The only relevant cases would be those of performer rights, an entirely different area of IP law, problematic in the USA due to a lack of any successful legal cases, and for which there is no evidence that they would apply to normal speeches, as opposed to music or other conventional performance-based artworks. -- (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Unless made by a Federal employee, the video will generally have its own copyright, but that is irrelevant. The video is still a means of fixation of the speech. Your quote from WMF mentions "fixed", but does not support either side of this discussion as it does not mention whether a video is fixation. I found several supporting items on the Web, see for example https://library.osu.edu/blogs/copyright/2015/09/30/copyright-in-campaigns/, where it says:
"Two categories of works are not covered by copyright, however: works that fail to meet the fixation requirement and .... This means that speeches made at town hall meetings or political rallies may not be protected by copyright, unless those speeches were recorded or transcribed."
That clearly tells us that extemporaneous speeches are copyrighted if recorded or transcribed. There is no requirement for speaking from a prepared text.
And, from 17 USC 101:
"A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission."
For these purposes, the video is a "phonorecord". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The first citation (a blog rather than a conventional reliable source) you give here I would put aside as the conclusion you use it for is not based on any actual U.S. legal cases, and the quote you use is where a video is taken as effective meeting notes, and the film-maker is the asserted copyright holder of the content, circumstances that are logical and I would in no way challenge. The example therefore just muddies the water as the case we are looking at here involved multiple copyrights in conflict.
The citation you give from 17 USC 101 is not disputed. It is this definition that was used to assess in court whether pre-existing notes could be presented to assert a claim of copyright. Again there is nothing in the citation that justifies the presumption that live speech in a video, with no pre-existing notes being quoted, can be copyrighted by the speaker, separate from the copyright of the video creator. In practice there are no existing legal cases that support this assertion or reading of USA IP law (and by the way, it is clear to me that WMF legal support my reading of IP law in this regard, however I encourage you to ask them to revisit the wording of their essay to address your interpretation.). -- (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
@: It's now been cited to you, repeatedly, at the DR about the Steinem speech where the USCO specifically, explicitly, and repeatedly states that the performer whose work is 'fixed' in a recording has a copyright that is separate from the copyright held by the 'producer' of the recording. You keep insisting that people provide 'court cases' that prove you wrong, on a point where half a dozen legal experts, including the USCO, have said you are wrong. A court might at some point ruled that the sky is indeed blue, but there is no need to dig up the ruling when reliable sources agree. You are not a copyright lawyer. When the USCO says something is true, the burden of proof then lies on the person who claims they are wrong to provide the evidence. - Reventtalk 01:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
It is obvious that you can record your words and then copyright your recording. The USCO does not state that all recorded speech is thus the IP of the subject. -- (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : It seems likely that this speech is copyrighted, therefore we cannot host it, at least per the COM:PRP. One area where we should relax our rules, in my opinion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:201701_Trachea_and_Bronchial_tree.png

At least this image is not so small that it should be undeleted. --Yayamamo (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I would support uploading the SVGs only if they were created in such a manner that they will render realistically at sizes in the 200 pixel on a side range and, preferably, larger. If they render poorly at that size then they are not useful and, as I said at the DR, would be a disservice to our colleagues with poor vision. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I've just uploaded its SVG file at File:201701_Trachea_and_Bronchial_tree.svg. Is this preferable? --Yayamamo (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't particularly like the light gray on light gray colors, but the size is much better -- there's good detail even at 2000px. Perhaps one of our SVG experts could modify the color.
As I noted above, if the rest of the SVGs are similarly detailed, I support uploading the SVG version of the files I deleted yesterday. You might do, say, ten of them, list them here, and let us take a look at them. If the ten are good, then do the rest. And thank you for your effort and understanding here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I just had a closer look at the Trachea SVG. Recoloring would likely become a really tough job because there are hundreds of little elements with different hues. So swapping of colours is not that easy. De728631 (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the try -- nonetheless, I think we should keep the SVG (but not the PNG). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : per discussion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:ZhangJinghui.JPG

This file was deleted in a RfD in 2004 because the status of its copyright is uncertain. It was not possible to determine even the date the photograph was taken. I want to restore it to submit it to an new RfD trying to clarify the status of its copyright and, if re-deleted, determine an undelete date. Apparently it is a historical photograph. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 01:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Images deleted before 16 June 2006 cannot be restored. Thuresson (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll confirm this. The file's deleted revisions do not have any file revision, only the revisions of file description page --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
There are a source that is not a broken link and allows you to recover the image in the description page? --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 09:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The source is [8]. Yann (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Yann, did you get that link to work? It has timed out twice when I tried it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
No. IA has a page copy from 2004-10, one month after the date in the URL, but the image isn't available. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Searching for 张景惠, the mentioned name, on Chinese Wikipedia, we seem to already have a lot of his images. Noting that the original image has an aspect ratio of 300 * 204, File:Manchukuo politician.jpg is probably the closest to this ratio, but not quite. The original page has also no title text for the image, or a description of the image in the Chinese text below that could help identification of this image. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : File can not be restored for technical reasons. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


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

Csatáry László

File:Kanada IM levél 2015..jpg

Dear Andrzej Krzysztofowicz!

The Wikimedia deleted the photos because he was not authorized by the author of the free publication and referred to the Canadian Rights Notice that this is also covered. The US law was not a word of complaint. The permission for the free use of the letter authored by Terry Breitner Director of the Canadian Department of Justice gave a written, so the issue is resolved. This is the case in Canada, so the problem does not affect the US.

The photo upload is necessary since the year 2012 the press wrote that Csatáry Laszlo been expelled from Canada and the Canadian citizenship for war crimes. Laszlo became the player with Csatáry II. One of the episodes and thus became közszereplővé World War II. Based on these accusations in the media and many articles and video reports and flagged forrárásként, Laszlo was referring to these Csatáry Wikipedia. The year was 2013. It was the editor of the article named "Tomcsy" editor. The discussion board people complained why "Tomcsy" refers to the media as a credible source? I have one and a half year period of the Hungarian and Slovak archives and Canada got into the documents that show the reality of it Csatáry Laszlo. The Kandi Justice Minisztérum 2015 letter proves that the expulsion and denationalization mCsatáry accusation is not true and does not commit any sin.

This letter is complete supporting Canadian history László Csatáry Wikipedia and the world. In order for this photo is legal, historical and educational significance because it becomes a round of László Csatáry whole story.

That is why I want you to get permission to upload.

This letter was written using the Google translator, because the English language just a little know, but I hope that my reasons are understandable and logical. Best regards, Sandor Verbovszki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peretsényi (talk • contribs) 06:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on 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 a timestamp will then automatically be added 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 The file is a letter from a Canadian Official. Since it was written by a government official in the course of his duties it will be under Crown Copyright until 50 years after its publication. It cannot be kept on Commons without the permission of the Canadian Government. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear James, This Canadian Law promulgated in 1997: - Reproduction of Federal Law Order SI / 97-5 Registration 1997-01-08 Reproduction of Federal Law Order P.C. 1996-1995 1996-12-19 - It has, so that more people can get to know the Canadian public documents. It is therefore not clear what kind of encryption is 50 years. Peretsényi (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done : Covered under Crown Copyright. The Federal Order cited is about laws and decision by courts, not about correspondence with an office. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Example.jpg

Dies ist eine Aufnahme meiner Person. Dieses Bild ist in meinem privaten Besitz. Ich möchte dies sowie einige anderen Bilder die auch in der Verinsrunde von mir aufgenommen wurden in mein WIKI Profil hinzufügen leider ist dies alles absolutes neuland für mich. Die Zeitungsartikel ist absolut Verständlich aber mir stellt sich die Frage warum ich Bilder die mehrere Jahrzehnte in meinem Besitz sind nicht unter meinem Profil veröffentlicht werden können. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juergenbrecht1 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Um welches gelöschte Bild geht es hier? File:Example.jpg in der Überschrift ist nämlich nur ein Platzhalter. Allgemein gilt für Fotografien, dass nur der tatsächliche Fotograf ein Bild für den freien Gebrauch lizensieren kann, nicht jedoch die Person, die darauf abgebildet ist. Das heisst, wir benötigen hier ggf. die Freigabe durch den oder die Fotografen. De728631 (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : Unvollständige Anfrage. Unklar, welches Bild gemeint ist. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:RT SF9A0489-cropped-small.jpg

The above file uploaded by User:Art javier was initially tagged for speedy deletion by The Big Bad Wolfowitz with the rationale "Derivative work. Uploader may have cropped this image from a record cover, but since they don't hold copyright to the original, which is presumptively under copyright, their work is self-evidently nonfree". User:Art Javier claimed on the file page that "Nikki Phoenix authorized This picture to be uploaded for general use so that it also could be used for her Wikipedia Page. I converted it to DR here. The claimed by User:Art Javier suggested that the work is likely to be a commissioned work but it was not clear weather User:Art Javier is indeed the original photographer or not. Meanwhile, the image already appears on Jetset Magazine Website and the website says "All content and materials available on jetsetmag.com, including but not limited to text, graphics, website name, code, images and logos are the intellectual property of Jetset Magazine, and are protected by applicable copyright and trademark law. Any inappropriate use, including but not limited to the reproduction, distribution, display or transmission of any content on this site is strictly prohibited, unless specifically authorized by Jetset Magazine.". I argued that the copyright notice on Jetset Magazine's website is not an evidence that they are the copyright holder of every contents on their website and in case of images, the copyright holders are the original photographers who took the images. Unfortunately, this argument was described as "Unresponsive nonsense" by User:Elcobbola who believed that "a statement on a legitimate publication's website is, in fact, exactly that." Of course, this is not correct. Jameslwoodward deleted the image that it would be restored provided "an OTRS e-mail is received from an address at nikkiphoenixxx.com that includes a free license from the photographer or a copy of the written agreement between the photographer and Ms Phoenix that allows her to freely license the image. User:Art Javier claimed to have sent the email as requested by Jameslwoodward. In other to resolve this issue as soon as possible, User:Art javier contacted jetsetmag.com that since he's the original photographer, the image should be credited to him and Jetset Magazine did exactly that. Jet Magazine credited the image to him as requested. At this point, I think the image should be restored since the website has now credited the image to the uploader. With kind regards. Wikicology (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done : OTRS permission is pending. Let the OTRS process sort this out. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Marian and Vivian Brown.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file was deleted by Jcb as a copyright violation today (5 Feb 2017). Russavia (posting as an IP) initially queried the deletion and was reverted by Jcb. I added my name to the request hoping that as a fellow administrator, Jcb would explain his reasoning. I've not received a satisfactory explanation.

The image was uploaded by Russavia before their ban. The image was imported from Flickr [9] when it was originally licensed under the CC-BY-2.0 license, the license was verified by the Upload Wizard, and the templates {{FlickrVerifiedByUploadWizard|cc-by-2.0}}{{cc-by-2.0}} was automatically added to the file description page during the initial upload.

The image was deleted on Flickr between the upload date and todays date, and an alternative image, made available only under the All Rights Reserved licence, was uploaded. [10] which is the source given in the deletion request and in Jcb's deletion log entry.

The deletion was triggered by Montanabw (this user needs to explain why they're tagging Flickr images with the licence verification template as a copyright violation).

I would quickly like to remind both Jcb and Montanabw that Creative Commons licences are not revocable and that this image should not have been deleted on the grounds of copyright violation. If there was doubt about the veracity of the licence at the time the image was uploaded, that can be remedied by looking at the original source file on the Internet Archive. I have confirmed that on the two snapshot dates (8 October 2015 and 24 January 2016) the image Jcb deleted was available under the CC-BY-2.0 licence (see [11] - be aware that Flickr pages on the Internet Archive can be slightly temperamental and you may need to refresh a couple of times to catch the image and the accompanying data). Nick (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


✓ Done: Procedural restore. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Shanks Poster.jpg

This is a poster of an upcoming film "Shank's" and uploaded by the person associated with the film. Request for undeletion immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notjustent (talk • contribs) 16:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Notjustent: If you really have the right to upload this image under license given, please have a look at COM:OTRS. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done . After receiving OTRS-permission the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

?

What could be more creative than using my wife and my baby to portray Africa essence in motherhood. I own the work and that's the truth. I'm submitting similar work right away. #onaaraTODAYnews — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnaaraTODAYintelligence (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done : User has no contributions (deleted or not). --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jean Jepson 1940s Portrait.jpg

I am having discussions with your Teahouse colleagues about permissions for using this file.

Questions are being put to me about "ownership" and "legal permissions" over the use of the picture.

Jean Jepson, before she died, distributed several copies of this and other photos to many of her students, including me.

Over the years we have shared these photos freely and widely and they are posted in many dance studios and websites. This is how Jean wanted us to remember her and we use all such memorabilia to honor and remember her.

I have added this photo to the article so that interested parties can get an immediate snapshot. This would be very convenient for readers. If you are not able to use it then that is fine. This same photo is available online and readers will be able to see it somewhere else.

Do I own it? I own the copy that Jean gave me.

Do I have permission to use it? She gave it to me and other students so that she would not be forgotten. That is what we are doing. Introducing her to new generations and making sure that she is not forgotten. We have been doing it for a long while and we will keep on doing it as long as people are interested in learning her story.

CableHut (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing, File:Jean Jepson 1940s Portrait.jpg has not been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Collapsed fullview.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file was uploaded by MGalloway (WMF). An ex-employee of the WMF. Globally locking such account is common practice when leaving their position/employment, and not an indication of wrong doing. The file was deleted by Taivo due to it being with no known purpose (i.e. out of scope) after only one day of "discussion". The similar file File:Board Owner View.png was kept by INeverCry, since it is a screenshot or mockup of WIkipedia made by an WMF employee, so there has to be some sort of documentational or procedual value to it.

“The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository:
  • that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and
  • that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.

I'm arguing that this file should be undeleted for two reasons. One for procedual reasons, it did not go through 7 days of DR. Secondly, I'm arguing that it is automatically in scope, since it is made by and for the WMF themself. (tJosve05a (c) 15:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Closing DR-s speedily is totally OK, if nominated files qualify for speedy deletion. This file qualified: it has a lot of en:Lorem ipsum text, nothing what had sense. At second, not everything produced by WMF is in scope, for example this total junk file. It was not "project of the Wikimedia Foundation." Taivo (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It was a mockup of Flow, made by an WMF employee. It may not have educational value, but we are a media storage for both educational media, media from WMF events, and WMF documents. This is one of those. Also speedy deletions should only be done if it is a clear COM:CSD or non-controversial, which scope-issues clearly are not. (tJosve05a (c) 16:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Mockups use Lorem ipsum, to avoid real quotes or usernames in their documentations. It is still valuable and in scope regarless of the text in the discussions they are representing, since that's not the "point" of the mockups. (tJosve05a (c) 16:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't fully understand the circumstances surrounding this, but this is a WMF project page. Either (a) it is publicly available either directly or in the history of a page, (b) it has been deleted, but is still available to Admins if needed, or (c) has been more permanently hidden so that a limited number of people, or, perhaps, none, can see it. It seems to me that if (a) is true, then having a screenshot of it is unnecessary. If (b) or (c) is true, then keeping an image of it circumvents a deletion process that should be addressed directly, not at second hand. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: This is a screenshot/mockup made by a WMF employee of how Flow could have looked, as part of the development of Flow. Nothing to do about circumventing deleted pages. (I.e. it was never actuially a real page with any real content) (tJosve05a (c) 16:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, lets see if I understand. This is a dummy page, which was created off-line, and never existed as a page on any WMF project -- is that right? If so, I'll withdraw my comment above and support undeletion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Given that all text in the discussions is lorem ipsum, I'd say so. (tJosve05a (c) 16:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Per above. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support For the reasons explained above. - Reventtalk 19:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per this discussion. "Out of scope" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. This is clearly in scope as a MediaWiki mockup. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Tschunk-org.jpg

delition was requestet here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tschunk-org.jpg

The bottom of the website says:

(cc-by) 2011-2013 Alle Inhalte von tschunk.org als Creative Commons mit Namensnennung freigegeben.

--Shisma (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support This should not have been deleted. De728631 (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


✓ Done: There is no reason why the permission on the website should not be valid. Everything at that website points to a correctly licensed image. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:KFC SoGood.png

El cóndor andino:

Le solicito que no borre mis dibujos, están con dominio público y que se pueden usar para otros usuarios. --El cóndor andino (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)El cóndor andino--El cóndor andino (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The KFC logo is copyrighted and non-free. All the other files have not yet been deleted but there is the same issue. Please comment at the individual deletion discussions. You might have seem some of these logos at Wikipedia that accepts fair use content, but Commons does not tolerate fair use. All images here must be free for anyone for anyone to use for any purpose and these logos do not match this criterion. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : Files not deleted yet. --Yann (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Babu 1.png Request for Undeletion

Mr. K. Babu is a friend of mine, the image to be undeleted is the one which taken for his campaign purposes (especially in social media). The rights of this image belong either to him or his election campaign manager V Chenthamarakshan. The image is used here to represent K Babu MLA, with both their permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anirudhankovath (talk • contribs) 05:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

So why did you claim to be the copyright owner when you uploaded the photo? Thuresson (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done . Copyright holder (that means photographer, not you, not K. Babu) must send OTRS-permission to Commons. After that the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-gan (1).png

That file is a WMF file, a logo of a Wikipedia. It was transferred from ganwiki to Commons [12]. Now the transfer is blocked, and it is not possible to delete the local file. But ganwiki normally moves all 'commonizable' files to Commons. If the uploader really asked for deletion, please say who it was, so one can discuss with that user. 77.180.32.8 13:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


✓ Done: I have restored the file for now. It should most likely be moved to File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-gan.png and needs cleanup, though. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Logo TEHNOMASH Znak CMYK-01.jpg

This file belongs to us, we are the company, which created it. Also, we have patients on this logo, we will be happy to show it to you. Logo_TEHNOMASH_Znak_CMYK-01 is my file, i also can provide you the whole brandbook of the company. Tmnpo (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. This is not a simple logo and surpasses threshold of originality. Complex logos can be in Commons only with official permission from copyright holder. Plain words are not enough. Please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail should be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. After that the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The file has been re-uploaded by another user with Ticket:2017020610011058. Kept pending validation of the licence by the OTRS team. De728631 (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:An-Pu-O Papiro de Wadjet.jpg

Reason: I am the author of the image, which appears in my book Nicole Sigaud (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are two problems here. First, User:Nicole Sigaud could be anyone. Second, as a general rule, the author of a book does not have the right to freely license the cover. That right generally belongs to the publisher and depends on what basis the cover photograph was licensed. In order to restore this image, we will need either (a) a free license from the publisher or (b) a free license from Nicole Sigaud together with written evidence that she has the right to freely license the cover. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done per Jim. De728631 (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Лунчено.jpg

Please restore File:Лунчено.jpg we have received OTRS permission from author (Ticket:2017020710015703). --sasha (krassotkin) 15:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


✓ Done @Krassotkin:, please add the OTRS tag. De728631 (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:The Collaborators.jpg & Bastion Poster Compressed.jpg

The image file - File:The Collaborators.jpg - is owned and licensed out by my company (I own rather than work for it). I didn't realise the film had a wikipedia page/article written about it, when I saw it, I saw the image provided on the page was simply a list of title credits. As we have already added the release poster of the film to other sites and entities, such as imdb, I thought I would add the completed release poster to the already created wikipedia article.

The other image file - Bastion Poster Compressed.jpg - is another film owned and licensed out by my company. After adding the poster to the collaborators page, I did the same for the recently released Bastion film.

I would like to request the un-deletion of these files; or if that is not possible, could I have the reasons behind and advice on the correct procedure for adding our licensed property for future reference.

Thank you.

(RichardAlbiston89 (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC))

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We have a rule that free licenses for media that have been published before without such a licence must be granted and/or verified in writing directly by the copyright holder. If your company holds the copyright for these posters, please send an email from one of your official accounts to verify your Creative Commons licenses. For details and the recipient address, please see Commons:Email templates. Once your email has been processed by our volunteers, the image files will be restored. This may take some weeks though because we are very shorthanded. De728631 (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : as per De728631, permission(s) must be sent by the copyright holder(s). Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Chateau moulin Lustrac.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file deleted is a private photograph dedicated to the public domain by the author. 79.91.174.34 16:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image can be found online at this forum site which credits neither the photographer nor mentions the public domain. "Sources diverses" is the only credit to be found there. To restore the image, we need a permission by email from the original photographer. De728631 (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : per De728631, we need a permission from the copyright holder. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Boundlesslogo.jpg

We own the rights to this image and it was created by us. We would be happy to provide further evidence if you need it. WonderstruckGames (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@WonderstruckGames: Please see COM:OTRS for a process to assert your copyrights. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sebari:: We've submitted an e-mail using the template provided by Wiki Commons. Hopefully this can be resolved soon. WonderstruckGames (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done . OTRS-permission from copyright holder is needed. Taivo (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Anatislogo suom iso.png

The logo is my own work and thus I am the original copyright holder. I have created it and I willingly want to give it to anyone to be used so I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. Symbioosi (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


✓ Done: Going for a full DR. --Yann (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Steven Erikson 2016.jpg

File:Steven Erikson 2016.jpg

I am the person who took this picture of Steven Erikson at Lucca Comics, and I am the person who uploaded it. I do not understand why it was deleted, because doing a google image search and seeing the image used by others on their blogs/websites does not mean that it automatically is in violation of wikipedia's policies. I would suggest checking the date stamp and or date the image was uploaded here on wikipedia and comparing it to the other websites.

I asked the admin, who'd nominated this image, his reasoning behind the nomination for deletion, and he has so far not responded to my message. And apart from that, I have contested the deletion on the image's talk page, but have seen no one responding to it; to the contrary, the image was deleted without a response.

regards, LordofMoonSpawn (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

This was an extremely low resolution image of only 305 × 424 pixels, which probably caused the deleting admin to suspect that it had been copied from another website. Can you provide a high resolution image, with EXIF data, straight from your camera to confirm that you were the photographer? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) First of all, for future reference: this is not Wikipedia but Wikimedia Commons where a few different rules may apply when it comes to images. And your request at Jcb's talk page was made just 20 minutes before you posted here. Both Wikipedia and Commons are administered by voluntary users who are usually not sitting at their computer 24/7 so I think you should have waited for Jcb's reply a bit longer. Anyhow, I Symbol support vote.svg Support your request because the results from this Google search that caused the deletion of the file are mostly Wikipedia screenshots archived in Google's cache, plus a few Wikipedia mirrors and backwards copies. This was uploaded by you (I suppose) after it was published at Commons. I can't find any earlier publication of this photo that would suggest that you are not the original photographer and publisher. De728631 (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both for responding.
@De728631: Yes, the image was uploaded by me, as you can no doubt conclude from my username, and my contribution history. If that's still not enough, I just edited my page to include a link to my Wikimedia user page. Thank you for your support, and no, I was not referring to Jcb, but rather to the user who nominated it for deletion; this user.
@MichaelMaggs: Yes, I am willing to upload the uncropped version, but the quality (resolution) would still be low, since the image was made using a phone. But please check this. Look at the profile image and browse through the other images -- I think that it should be sufficient to "authenticate" it.
PS: this is the full image I uploaded on the Malazan Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordofMoonSpawn (talk • contribs) 20:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
LordofMoonSpawn (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's useful. But there is still one thing that bothers me: the very low resolution of your image. A photo taken with a mobile phone in 2016 has a vastly greater resolution than that. Could you explain why your image is so small, if you took it yourself? It seems to me that you must have deliberately reduced the resolution for upload, but you've not confirmed that. Are you able to provide the full resolution image for verification, please? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
It is not unusual to crop a regular sized photo to a small section depicting a particular person. Mobile phones do not have a zoom. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@MichaelMaggs: The only explanation which I can give as a reason is that it did not auto-focus correctly. And When you first asked me to upload the image, I searched my laptop but could not find it, which is why I chose to provide those links as an alternative. If you give me a day or two, maybe I can find the original image in one of my external hard drive's. And @AFBorchert: is correct: I cropped it so that only the author was visible.
Also, I'm not a professional photographer i.e. the image was taken as a memento, but since Steven Erikson had no recent image, and since I have been a contributor on wikipedia for more than a decade, I thought I'd rectify that.
LordofMoonSpawn (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - file has very low resolution and has not meta-data. The so called "full image" as linked above, does not contain any meta-data either. At this website, the image is credited to a 'Davide Monky Moncalero', who may be or may not be LordofMoonSpawn. I think it's necessary that the uploader shows the full version with original resolution and with meta-data to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: I will try to upload the original in a day or two, but if I don't find it, I would like to appeal to you to consider the possibility of not everyone being a plagiarizer on the web (not that you accused me of that).
LordofMoonSpawn (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unless and until evidence can be presented via the full OTRS process, including a copy of a full-resolution image with metadata. The fact that no earlier copy of the image has so far been found online does not provide evidence that the uploader is the photographer and copyright owner. It is, to say the very least, difficult to accept that a mobile phone that "did not focus correctly" could be the cause of a tiny image with missing metadata. MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Found the image (with matadata) on my google drive of all places. Used the OTRS process to release it. Thanks for all the assistance.

LordofMoonSpawn (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find any OTRS email relating to this file. You sent it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, I assume? If you could confirm the subject line of the email I can look again. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes did send it to that email. Subject line was OTRS. I received an automated email with this ticket [Ticket#2017020810010046]
LordofMoonSpawn (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@MichaelMaggs: Should I sent another email?
LordofMoonSpawn (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Thanks very much for the image via OTRS. That all seems fine, and I have undeleted the file for you. Thanks for taking the time to go through the steps to establish your copyright. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:boundlesslogo.jpg

According to the rules it says "You can upload someone else's work if the author granted permission for anyone to use, copy, modify and sell it." The developers have provided this artwork on their forums at playboundless.com and have encouraged people to contribute to their wiki page. Original Artwork can be found on the developers website under press kit. Therefore I would like to get this file undeleted. Herbertsworld (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing at their website equals an explicit permission "to use, copy, modify and sell" their graphics. A generic press kit and the encouragement to cover the game on blogs, websites and magazines does not include the right to make derivatives and sell Boundless graphics. De728631 (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : per De728631, see also related UnDR. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Olavo-de-carvalho-1033048 1920.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: IT WAS PROPERLY LICENSED. here is the source. It is a sketch made by someone who decided to make it public domain. Holy Goo (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


✓ Done: Not really sure that the license is valid, but I undeleted this and created a DR instead. --Yann (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Olavo-de-carvalho-1033048 1920.png .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jim Boeven with Colin Farrell on the Set of Hart's War.jpg

Hi - although this image was approved previously by Wikimedia, I see that it has been removed. We have been able to track down the person who took the picture using Jim Boeven's phone and will be submitting that copyright affirmation to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Do I have to reupload the images? --Elizabg (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Elizabg 2/8/2017

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Commons has no mechanism for approving images, so I'm not sure what you mean. This file was deleted because the OTRS permission was from the subject, not the photographer. In order to have the image restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. Anything you or the subject sends will not be accepted. If and when that license is received, approved, and processed, the image will be restored without further action on your part. 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) 22:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done . OTRS-permission from photographer (not from depicted persons) is needed. After that the files can be restored. Taivo (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Scott Evans.jpg

I am writing concerning the deletion of the file File:Scott Evans.jpg. This is not a copywritten picture of Scott Evans. It is owned by me. It must have been deleted in error. --Stella8358 (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

When you uploaded the photo you claimed that the photo was copyrighted. If you are the copyright owner of this photo, please use the process described at Commons:OTRS to verify the license. Thuresson (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done . The photo was published in Instagram before upload into Commons. That case own work is considered dubious and OTRS-permission from photographer is needed. After receiving the permission the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jason Dy MCA Music.jpg

Also File:Elha_Nympha_signed_under_MCA_Music,_Inc.jpg

This image is owned by us, MCA Music Inc., a Universal Music Group Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCAMusicInc (talk • contribs) 03:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be great. However, since user accounts are essentially anonymous, we prefer to be careful with previously-published material, and require an extra step to confirm the license -- see Commons:OTRS. The second reason is to make clear on the permissions being granted -- we cannot accept permission for Wikipedia use only, and that sort of thing. So, once the email mentioned in that OTRS page is sent and processed, the files get undeleted then. It may also be possible to specify that anything owned by MCA, Inc., and uploaded via this account is OK, which could then be used for future uploads (they can be marked with an OTRS template to refer to the number). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, the same applies to your other uploads which I have just deleted -- an authorized official of the copyright holder must provide a free license via OTRS. In at least one of these cases, the copyright holder was not MCA, so do not assume that a single license can cover all of your ploads. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done per Carl and Jim. Taivo (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:SrBlanc.jpg File:Sr Blanc.jpg

This image no copyright. It´s Free. I´m the director of movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superpatagonia (talk • contribs) 22:18, 9 February 2017‎ (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on 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 a timestamp will then automatically be added 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 With few exceptions, none of which apply here, all created works have copyrights. As a general rule the right to license copyrighted material from a movie lies with the producer(s), not the director. In order to restore this, the actual copyright holder must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done . After Commons has received and processed OTRS-permission, the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Handvenenscanner.png File:Spielbank Cottbus.png File:Potsdam.png

Ich bitte darum, die gelöschten Dateien

File:Handvenenscanner.pnghttp://www.bbsb.de/nc/cottbus/news/news/datum/2016/09/23/quick-check-in-mit-venenscan/File:Spielbank Cottbus.pnghttp://www.bbsb.de/cottbus/File:Potsdam.png → (http://www.bbsb.de/potsdam/)

wieder herzustellen und in dem Beitrag der Brandenburgischen Spielbanken einzufügen. Die Bilder wurden in unserem Auftrag aufgenommen und stehen uns zur Nutzung frei.

Mit herzlichen Grüßen

Jana Biste --JanaBiste (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Gerne können die Bilder wiederhergestellt werden, sofern Sie eine entsprechende Genehmigung erteilen können. Dazu empfiehlt es sich, eine E-Mail an das Supportteam zu senden. Die genaue Vorgehensweise wird unter Commons:OTRS/de erläutert. Gruß, →Nagy 09:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done, OTRS permission has been received. →Nagy 15:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:MFP LOGO.jpg

this is a freely available picture of the logo of Money Free Party, check for yourself on a google search--Jodian007 (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The logo appears at http://moneyfree.party/ with "© 2017 Money Free Party International". Please remember that almost everything on the Web is copyrighted and cannot be uploaded to Commons without permission of the copyright holder. See COM:Licensing for more information. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please read Commons:First steps before making additional contributions. Thuresson (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Kosovo_Metohija_Turks_1961.gif

Hello. I am the author of this image which got deleted. I was not notified of its nomination for deletion and I contacted the person who did delete it but they didn't reply [13]. The deletion request seems very unusual - the person asking to delete the file said that it was misnamed? No, it was not misnamed. (Lilic (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)).

It was not deleted, it was renamed as File:Kosovo Metohija Turks 1953.gif. The file clearly shows that the population data is as of 1953, not 1961. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Hm, thanks for the clarification!
The thing is that the file name should say 1961. I don't have settlement level data for 1953 at this time. The legend is wrong - but I can change the date there. I am not sure how to change the file name itself though. (Lilic (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC))
Moving the file back to the old name is not a problem, but I'm not sure I understand. I assume, as you claimed, that you are the author named in the upper right -- your username matches -- then why is the wrong date in the upper right? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I made a mistake, that's why it says 1953 on the map itself. I should change that. But, the title/file name should also be changed to say 1961, not 1953.
Data for settlements for 1953 for Serbia is not available as far as I know. It's not possible that it's for 1953. Meanwhile, I do have this data for 1961, and I made the map with the 1961 data but made a mistake on the legend... (Lilic (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)).
✓ Done I apologize for our two colleagues who renamed this file without checking with you first. Please update the file and the file description with the correct date. You can upload the new file directly over the old one. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: by Jim. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:2015-11-02 WikiDACH 2015 Schwerin, (256) Der Kunsthistoriker Dr. Gero Seelig.JPG

Soweit ich weiß wollte Bernd über diesen Mann ein Artikel schreiben. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 19:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


✓ Done: A quick googling turns up a few sources about the depicted person: he seems to be curator of a state museum. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ondoua4.jpg

Dear friend, With a lot of respect that i'm writing you this letter. Finally friend , i don't understand why all my files are deleted. please friends , i'm sending you this undeletion request to help me to configure the profile of this young player. Regards TONYE TONYE ERICK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergytony (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a small image without EXIF and it therefore appears that you have lifted it from somewhere on the Web. If you are the actual photographer, the easiest way to prove that is upload a new version of the file at full camera resolution using the same file name. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done per Jim. Own work is unlikely. Taivo (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Venusberg in MEK.png

no nreason for deletion given, https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosiero:Venusberg_in_MEK.png says it is GFDL. 78.52.112.235 14:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The file was originally deleted because at the time it did not have any information on author and licence. We could restore it but the map is out of date. The district and municipality depicted have been merged into larger administrative entities during the last few years. That is also why the very first version was deleted from de.wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Makes no sense at all: "The district and municipality depicted have been merged into larger administrative entities during the last few years." - there are thousands of files depicting borders of dissolved administrative entities. Even categories exist: Category:Maps by former country. 77.180.32.8 13:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support for now as it is in use on eo-wp. Although replacing it by an SVG version would be preferable. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted in 2008 for lacking licence information. At the time the inforamtion given was "Permission=GNU-FDL (wiki de)". We can't undelete unless we have some information as to source and validity of the licence ("DE wiki" is not enough). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

eo:Dosiero:Venusberg_in_MEK.png has the same file with an original upload log from de.wiki where the file was released under GFDL. So a restoration and attribution would be possible. Otherwise we could just transfer the file from eo to Commons. De728631 (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support The licensing was correct on dewiki (it was just given as a link to de:GNU-FDL, but given it's upload date in 2005, that's probably ok). The deletion rationale on dewiki is a bit unclear, but It was clearly not copyright related, but had something to do with the image being obsolete due to a political reorganisation. --PaterMcFly (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Undeleted. @PaterMcFly: can you add the necessary information from the deleted file on the German Wikipedia?. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. Added original license and uploader to the description page. (The accounts Rauenstein, Zeuke and Geograv all belong to the same user) --PaterMcFly (talk) 08:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Niet Stemmers logo.png

In my opinion, the following applies to File:Niet Stemmers logo.png

This image only consists of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain. WikipediaNummer1 (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That's quite true. It was tagged for deletion by a bot because it had a third party source and no evidence of permission. It was deleted, not because it is a copyvio, but because it had no license or PD tag of any sort. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: As PD-textlogo. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2016-02-24 Sascha Fuchs, Geschäftsführer der Stiftunglife.jpg

Moin zusammen, durch die Sammellöschungen kann ich nicht erkennen zu welchen Bild ein Artikel geschrieben werden sollten. Ich versuche nun die Bilder zu finden, die Relevant für Artikel in der deutschen WP sein könnten. Löschen geht nun mal schneller als richtig zu suchen. Tschüß-- Ra Boe watt?? 10:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


✓ Done Image will be used in an article at de.wikipedia which would place it in the project scope of Commons. De728631 (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Giancarlo Frosio.png

The file (File:Giancarlo Frosio.png) has been deleted. I kindly ask to be undeleted.

The photograph and any rights attached to it belong to me.

Kind regards,

GCF--Gcfrosio (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gcfrosio: Please see OTRS for our process to undelete previously published files. In this case we need proof that the photographer transferred all necessary right to you. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear,

I'm saying that the rights belong to me. As far as you are concerned, the picture was taken by me. I wouldn't know what proof I might provide you. There's no right to be transferred.

Best,

GCF--Gcfrosio (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done : Per myself. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Margaret Joan Spencer.jpg

Please undelete. When I uploaded the image, I stated that it is Public Domain. Further explanation: The image is an official photograph taken the Australian War Memorial (AWM) website and it is clearly marked on that website as: "Item copyright: Copyright expired - public domain. This item is in the Public Domain". For confirmation, the web address is: https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/093326/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcm261 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on 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 a timestamp will then automatically be added 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 support vote.svg Support Actually, when you uploaded the image, you said absolutely nothing about its status. It was deleted because it did not have any license or copyright tag at all. With that said, it is, as you say, PD, and can take the tag {{PD-Australia}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


✓ Done: Pd Australia it is. Ruthven (msg) 15:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Rebol-on-Mac.jpg

From Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Maxint2

On Rebol website iw rtien clearly: ( http://www.rebol.com/license.html ) REBOL/Core and /View are free and will always be free. They are intended for commercial, non-commercial, educational, and hobby uses.

Summary of the end-user license:

You can download and copy the software free of charge.
You can redistribute the software free of charge.
You can use the software for commercial uses.
The software is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind.
You cannot modify the software or the license.

Help promote REBOL! Display the REBOL logo on your website.

Type "license" from the REBOL console to see the specific license details.

So all Rebol images can be on wikipedia. If you don't believe on me, contact the author of Rebol: Carl Sassenrath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxint (talk • contribs) 10:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on 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 a timestamp will then automatically be added 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 In the first place, the license above speaks only to the software. It says nothing about icons and screens. Second, "You cannot modify the software or the license" is an ND license, which Commons prohibits. With that said, however, I am not at all sure that there is anything copyrightable in the subject image.
However, I'm not at all sure that the subject image is useful for any educational purpose. The image does not in any way illustrate the language -- it is a small window that could be easily created in any of hundreds of ways. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : out of COM:SCOPE; per Jim (and the request suggests it's COM:ADVERT purpose). Ruthven (msg) 16:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Valeria Gontareva.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: according to uk:User talk:Julia berezovska#Фото, the uploader is a professional photographer (but apparently she's not experienced with Commons); you can also look at her Depositphotos profile. Djadjko (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Free licenses for previously published works need to be verified by email. After all, anyone could create an account at Commons and claim to be photographer Julia Berezovska. This requires an OTRS email either for the licence of the image or for verifiyng the identity of User:Julia berezovska. De728631 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done : per De728632. @Julia berezovska: an COM:OTRS permission is needed. Ruthven (msg) 16:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:sanoj das.jpg

http://sanojdas.blogspot.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanojaryan (talk • contribs) 10:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on 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 a timestamp will then automatically be added 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 This image has been uploaded twice, once by User:Sanojdas, who has been blocked by Taivo for uploading out of scope images after warning and by User:Sanojaryan, who I have just blocked as a puppet of Sanojdas. It is still an out of scope unused personal image from a user whose only actions on Commons have been to be a nuisance. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 Not done : per Jim. Ruthven (msg) 16:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Guillermo A Baena y profesor Navas de España.jpg

RESTAURAR ARCHIVOS

mi usuario es Gbaena He recibido notificación de ustedse del borrado de estos artículos ya que fueron publicados en un magazine. Si revisan cuidadosamente el magazine verán que soy el autor de los artículos, y bajo esa condición fueron enviados a la revista electrónica, por ello no estoy de acuerdo que los artículos violan los derechos de autor, al ser la misma persona que los escribió. Articulos: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Millennials_Vs_Baby_Boomers.pdf https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CUIDADO_CON_SUS_COMPRAS_POR_INTERNET.pdf

Sobre la foto con el profesor Navas de España mi amigo e invitado a Uruguay, no encuentro la violación de los derechos, ya que la foto fue tomada por mi, en un Congreso en donde fui invitado como Conferencista y expresidente Internacional de la Sociedad. Además estoy en la foto. La Sra Griselda Lassaga en compañera de mesa y ella ha publicado igualmente la foto https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Congreso_Internacional_de_SLADE_en_Montevideo_Uruguay.jpg

--Gbaena (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Guillermo A Baena Lopez

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We require a written confirmation for any works that have previously been published without a free licence. Please send an email confirming your authorship of all prose text and photographs included in the articles. For details, please see COM:OTRS. De728631 (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : @Gbaena: para trabajos publicados ya, hay que enviar una autorización por COM:OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 16:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:R.C.baleno.jpg

This image is mine. Is present in my collection of ancient photos.--Maxtsn (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ownership of a physical copy of a photo does not grant copyright. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : per Sebari. Ruthven (msg) 16:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Ледокол проекта 21180 "Илья Муромец".jpg

This file has been nominated for deletion as Copyvio, and Ellin beltz deleted it without even checking the source: Contents from {{Mil.ru}} are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Agreed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


✓ Done: per request. Ruthven (msg) 16:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Hello bike logo.png

The Hello Bike logo, as can be seen on the website: https://www.hello-bike.net, is a logo of which ownership belongs to The Bikevertising Company B.V.

Request to undelete the logo due to permission of uploading the logo by The Bikevertising Company B.V.

--Jrkbgrt (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Might be borderline {{PD-textlogo}}, but if you want to be sure to avoid further problems, the best thing is to send evidence of permission to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. In my opinion this qualifies for textlogo. Note that both e-s are identical. Taivo (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Emily Duggan, Series X3 NSW Enduro winner.jpg

Good afternoon,

This file was deleted on the grounds that it could be found elsewhere on the web, but as Emily Duggan's PR representative, I actually have ownership of the file.

Regards,

Lachlan Mansell

--Cfmedia (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. If the image is found elsewhere on the web, the per out policy documented permission is needed. Due to large number of fans and impostors simple words are not enough. Please open COM:OTRS page and look, what kind of e-mail must be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. After receiving the permission the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
There is another problem. Woman on photo holds a cup. Cups have own copyright. I do not know, where (in which country) the photo is made. In my opinion Commons needs another permission from cupmaker. Taivo (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
IMO the cup is very simple here, and it should be OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You say, "I actually have ownership of the file". Owning a paper or digital copy of a photograph is irrelevant -- what you must prove is that the actual photographer has licensed the image to you, including the right to freely license it to others. You can do that by sending a free license and a copy of your written agreement with the photographer using OTRS.
Although it is a close call, I'm inclined to agree with Yann that the cup is OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : as above. --Yann (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Poster.post-cineflix.jpg

File Poster.post-cineflix.jpg was created by me using wholly original art of my creation, and it is available at LaundryDayFilm.com for anyone to use. Please undelete & restore immediately.

--ArmakProd (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The poster appears at laundrydayfilm.com without a free license and is, therefore, not "available at LaundryDayFilm.com for anyone to use". Since we do not know who you are or what your role is in creating the poster and the photographs in it, policy requires that an authorized official of the production company (usually the Producer) must send a free license using OTRS from an address at laundrydayfilm.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) 11:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : as above. --Yann (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Wraith Logo Square.png

Requesting to undelete file File:Wraith Logo Square.png due to the fact that permission for the file was requested and received in October and was confirmed in December, but for some reason there was no permission attached to the file in February when it was deleted. Sirkidd2003 (talk)


✓ Done: Permission received. --Yann (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:2016-08-24 Ausstellung Echoräume Laveshaus Architektenkammer Niedersachsen (104) Wolfgang Schneider und Matthias Görn.JPG

Bitte wieder Herstellen Benutzer Matthias Görn in der Deutschen WP -- Ra Boe watt?? 23:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Watt? Mach doch bitte ein paar mehr Angaben. Möchte Matthias Görn das Bild auf seiner Benutzerseite zeigen? De728631 (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Moin wenn ich das richtig verstanden habe hat Bernd ihn eine Schulung geben, bitte stell das Bild wieder her, ich poste es dann dort auf der Disk Benutzer:Matthias_Görn. Danke und Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 00:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Nachfrage; der Vorstand im Landesmuseum Hannover ist relevant oder? Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Was Matthias Görn angeht, bin ich nicht sicher, dass er die Relevanzkriterien auf de.wiki erfüllt, aber Herr Schneider hat bereits einen Artikel. De728631 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done de:Wolfgang Schneider (Architekt) is a notable person. Image is within the scope of Commons and was previously in Category:Wolfgang Schneider (architect) so it should not have been deleted. De728631 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Skatrunde_in_der_Laube_1930.jpg

OTRS Ticket#2017020610016679 bitte wieder herstellen. -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


✓ Done Raboe001: Bitte setze den endgültigen OTRS-Vermerk auf der Dateiseite. De728631 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Moin De728631, super vielen Dank, werde ich machen, es sind noch ein paar Fragen zu klären. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 22:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:Kolonie Neu-Holland 1911.jpg

gleiche Ticket OTRS Ticket#2017020610016679 bitte wieder herstellen -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


✓ Done Raboe001: Bitte setze den endgültigen OTRS-Vermerk auf der Dateiseite. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

josé luis rey vila SIM : ARTICLE AND PICTURE

I have received two alerts about the article and picture of my great uncle José Luis Rey Vila SIM. The picture belongs to my family so I am not breaking any copyright license. Otherwise I changed the pdf text and write the article again in the wikipedia. The article is a summary from my Master work at the University of Barcelona and I added all the libraries where this work is catalogued nowadays. --Mbaldarey (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done File:JOSÉ LUIS REY VILA SIM.jpg and File:José Luis Rey Vila Wikipedia español.pdf has not been deleted. Thuresson (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Rozhdestvenskiy.jpg

Please restore this file. Draws copyright when placing I did not break, as the picture is taken from the my family archives.--Comrade1988 (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Name of photographer and date of first publication please. Thuresson (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you stupid?--Comrade1988 (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As suggested by Thuresson, as a general rule images from family archives are not yours to license. This appears to be a formal portrait by a professional photographer. If that is correct, we will require a free license from him or his heirs. You yourself can freely license an image only if you were the photographer or are the heir of the actual photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
No one knows the name of the photographer. No one will know his name.--Comrade1988 (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : @Comrade1988: please use COM:OTRS, so you can confirm that you're the copyright holder. Ruthven (msg) 16:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Jürgen Koch, Galerie Koch, Königstraße 50, 30175 Hannover.jpg

Abgebildete Personen sind in Hannover sehr bekannt. Von daher ist eine Löschung vorschnell gewesen. -- Ra Boe watt?? 19:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The file description says that the source is http://www.galeriekoch.de/de/gallery/team. That web site is not freely licensed and the image does not appear on it. In order to restore this, aside from the question of whether the subject is actually notable, the actual copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The uploader stated Please see permission given by Ole Christian Koch. That user is blocked on de-wp for failing to provide OTRS authorization. Therefore Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, unless we get such authorization per Jim. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Danke für die Info, durch die Massenlöschungen kann ich nicht erkennen, ob es zwischen den Bilder unterschiedliche Löschgrunde gibt, ich bin gegen Sammellöschungen und Ansprachen an die Hochlader um die Aktionen zu erklären. Vielen Dank und Bernd, schau Dir bitte diese Begründung an. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 10:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : no permission. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

File:Corts Catalanes 860-872.jpg

This file was delated for not containing information about the license but it have a OTRS ticket and the authorship is verified. It is the same case of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taulat 5-11.jpg. @Magog the Ogre:,@Jarekt:,@Ellin Beltz:. Please undelete it and also:

All of these files are part of the architecture heritage project to liberate the images from Xavier Badia Graphic Archive. Thanks. --Dvdgmz (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Restored. Dvdgmz the reason files were deleted was that files misspelled {{Xavier Badia permission}} template name and the deleting admins did not noticed. --Jarekt (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Jarekt, thank you for restoring the files and fixing the source templates. De728631 (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

JamesEllsworth.png

Please restore my image, is benefit for the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mijosdzdw (talk • contribs) 19:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This was deleted as a copyright violation. You uploaded it as your own work but the image can be found [ttp://shop.wwe.com/james-ellsworth/ online] in a larger context, so you are likely not the copyright holder. We need a written permission by email from the original photographer to restore the image. De728631 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : Copyright violation, read COM:L. Alan (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Konniemac

Hello, I deleted last year the four files below with other files in this DR created by Ellin Beltz.
I deleted the files of this DR mostly because I found a signifying part already published, I've been requested by mail yesterday to check the dates of the uploads, and to restore the files first uploaded here. It's true 1/ I did no find previous publication of some uploads at the time of the deletion 2/ as requested I checked the dates and indeed some of the files have been firstly published here. On the files not published elsewhere or at least later a signifying part are blurred/with bad quality and/or with random composition, and therefore are useless for our project. Only the 4 files below, uploaded here 8 February 2015 and in Panoramio the 5 March 2015, have a very decent quality, a good resolution (3008*2000px) and may be in scope:


I do not want to do a one-sided restoration, and I ask here the opinion of the community. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

My nomination was for the whole group which were all attributed to the same creator and did not appear to be free. Since the same creator was listed on all the pictures, not just the ones from Panoramio, I assumed that the entire group had been picked up from that source (even if some of them had been removed from Panoramio prior the search) and that they were all not free. I still think COM:PRP on these because of how the original template was made |author[[User:Konniemac|Konniemac]]|permission=|other versions=}}Cobb Island Maryland, Southern Maryland Real Estate Konnie Mac. If you put that into google, you get a link to http://konniemac.com/cobb-island-homes-for-sale/ which is run by Konnie Mac McCarthy, who I would assume actually took the photos. It is not uncommon for individuals to assume the name of another and upload photos belonging to or taken of that other, and my assumption, based on the "all rights reserved" on panoramino and the lead to the real estate company is that this is either one of those, or a promotional upload series to make more hit value on "Cobb Island Maryland, Southern Maryland Real Estate Konnie Mac". But if you feel they're free and restore them, I would take it on COM:AGF and move on. We have plenty of other stuff to work on! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I like to be accurate, and as far I remember, it's me who searched and found the publications on the web (Panoramio), this was not mentioned on the DR before I put it, therefore your nomination was not for "all rights reserved", unless you have forgotten to cite this information when creating the DR. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Furthermore it's me who deleted the files and this was not a "per nomination" rationale, I deleted because I found some of them previously published, "Cobb Island Maryland, Southern Maryland Real Estate Konnie Mac" in the description field was never my rationale, and I don't remember to have seen "courtesy" in those descriptions as suggested by the dr rationale. I likely would have not delete the files without the link to Panoramio provided by me. All the files nominated for undeletion here, have been as far I know first published here and all tagged with "own work", this questions a little my deletion rationale "most of the files are coming from ...", which after to have check carefully the dates is not entirely true at least for the files cited above. So this is not a questioning of Ellin rationale, but about mine. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the motive here was to promote the island and, in particular, the real estate company mentioned in each of the file descriptions. That violates COM:ADVERT. These don't have any valid categories, and are virtually identical. We have more than 4,000 sunset photographs, most of which are properly described and categorized. If we were short of sunset pictures, I might remove the ad from the file description and properly categorize and keep one of these, but as it is, I see no reason to spend any editor time helping this single purpose contributor advertise his business by restoring any of these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We have more than 4,000 sunset photographs - 90-95% of these files have so bad quality, unreal colors that may be nominated for deletion as out of scope. Deleted files have clear copyright status, awesome quality and colors. They may be FPs. I do not see any spam in these sunsets. /St1995 14:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support My concern for the deletion (already published) is not valid for those 4 images, they were first published here. But furthermore the account in Panoramio is very likely the holder of those photos (publication of full set in full resolution). The images are not bad visually, have a good resolution, and a good quality, and in all cases a better quality than most of the sunsets here in Commons. And I know a bit about this topic. The description can be easily modified if there is a concern about a potentiel advertising. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion, as it is clear that they were deleted for the wrong reason. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done: Per discussion. If nothing else the original deletion request reason seems to have been wrong. Apart from that fairly high-quality sunset images of a known location. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:A-motsnyj-1945.jpg

File has been wrongly marked for deletion. File:A-motsnyj-1945.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3141593d271828c (talk • contribs) 12:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Why was it wrongly deleted? You declared it as your own work but it is a photograph from 1945. Are you really the original photographer? Otherwise the image is most likely still copyrighted. De728631 (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : Unclear rationale for undeletion. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:DUET, Gazipur.png

This was my own work using using Inkscape so I request to bring back from deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhsenbd (talk • contribs) 11 February 2017, 19:11 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The design of the logo itself is copyrighted and non-free so you're not allowed to recreate it without permission from the original designer or perhaps the university. As you have uploaded another copy at the English Wikipedia, I added fair use rational over there, but here at Wikimedia Commons we do not accept fair use material. De728631 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : per De123456. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


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

Files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Bernd Schwabe in Hannover

Ich beantrage die Wiederherstellung aller gelöschten Fotos. Die Löschbegründung trifft nicht zu. Die OTRS-Freigabe für die Fotos der Galerie Koch liegen OTRS seit zwei Wochen vor. Zu den Personen, deren Fotos gelöscht wurden, zählt der Auschwitz-Überlebende Henry Korman, der Hannoversche Oberbürgermeister w:de:Stefan Schostok, der Landtagspräsident w:de:Bernd Busemann, der Autor w:de:Jürgen Piquardt, der CDU-Politiker Wilfried Lorenz, der Grünen-Politiker w:de:Stefan Wenzel, der Stadtsuperintendent w:de:Hans-Martin Heinemann, der Autor w:de:Rainer Hoffschildt, der Unternehmer und 96-Sportfunktionär w:de:Martin Kind, die Bibliotheksdirektoren w:de:Anne May und w:de:Georg Ruppelt und und und. Teilweise sind die Namen dieser prominenten hannoverschen Personen soger im File-Namen genannt. Die Anlässe, bei denen fotografiert wurde, waren öffentlich. Ich sehe in den fortgesetzten Löschanträgen von User:Steinsplitter einen persönlichen Angriff auf Bernd Schwabe, die Löschung ist nicht sachgerecht, sondern Diskreditierung eines anerkannten Wikipedia-Autors. --Stobaios (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You have to link to the files which may be in scope, most files seems out of scope. And i told it to you yet: Nominating files is not a personal attack, please refrain from telling stuff like "Steinsplitter personally attacked Bernd Schwabe (...) because discrediting an Wikimedian" because it is simple untrue. I agree with the closing admin that the author being a respected Wikipedian does not make these pictures in scope. I am also quit shocked how Stobaios attacked me in the aforementioned DR for nominating the files for deletion. Pinging the closing admin Jcb. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't have said anything if it was a single deletion request, but there are lots of those before this mass deletion request. Most of the pictures are photographs of prominent figures in Hannover taken on public events and therefore in scope. --Stobaios (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - individual files can be undeleted if demonstrated to be in scope. I have e.g. assisted Raboe001 by sending him some of the deleted files, so that he can take a look. And @Stobaios:, please be aware that if you continue with your personal attacks, some of us may feel like using our admin tools to stop it. Please consider this as a warning. Jcb (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jcb: I speak plainly. I was quite shocked to learn, that these repeated and continuous deletion request come from an admin, despite the fact, that even the names of encyclopedic relevant persons are mentioned in the file name. There was no serious check of this mass deletion request, this was a arbitrary decision. I'm a de-wikipedia text author, generally i don't care about the affairs on Commons, but in this case it is a shame for an open knowledge project. --Stobaios (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Moin zusammen, sorry mein englisch ist zu schlecht um zu schreiben, ich muss daher auf deutsch schreiben. Die Fotos die Jcb mir gesendet hat,

sind ich meinen Augen Aufnahmen von Künstlern oder eventuell relevante Personen die einen eigenen Artikel bekommen könnten. Es bedarf eine aufwendigen Prüfung und ich bin gerade etwas sauer das Steinsplitter, das er sie ohne Kontrolle gelöscht haben wollte. Jedes einzelne Bild muss vor der Löschung geprüft werden und nicht erst wenn es gelöscht wurde. Ich tute das jetzt und es braucht Tage. Danke dafür ich kotze gerade. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 20:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hier scheint die unverzügliche Wiederherstellung die einzig richtige Lösung zu sein. Raboe001, besten Dank für deinen Einsatz! --ST 22:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's get this show started and have an individual review:
De728631 (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • w:de:Hans-Jürgen Wenzel is a notable person, also Alexander vom Hofe, see [19][20][21][22]
  • Was soll dieses widersinnige Verfahren? In der deutschen Wikipedia wird bei den Löschkandidaten tagelang über die Relevanz einer Person diskutiert, es gibt zumindest Relevanzkriterien. In Commons entscheiden Admins offenbar selbstherrlich ohne Prüfung oder nachvollziehbare Begründung, welche Fotos gelöscht werden. Das ist Willkür pur. --Stobaios (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Moin Stobaios, ich verstehe die Löschung auch nicht, ich denke wir sollen es einfach als interne Qualitätskontrolle für Bernd sehen und es positiv nehmen. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 09:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Stobaios, die Relevanzkriterien für Commons sind in Commons:Projektumfang definiert, und da es in der ursprünglichen Löschdiskussion trotz 2 Wochen Laufzeit offenbar versäumt wurde, eine Einzelprüfung der Bilder vorzunehmen, sollten wir das jetzt hier machen. Das ist nicht der optimale Weg, aber eine pauschale Wiederherstellung scheint mir auch nicht gerechtfertigt. Abgesehen davon kann sich hier jeder an der Diskussion beteiligen und fachliche Argumente vorbringen, also hat das mit Willkür nichts zu tun. De728631 (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Aber bitte unter Ausschluss der Öffentlichkeit. Außer Administratoren kann kein (stimmberechtigter) Benutzer an der Bewertung teilnehmen. Sehr merkwürdiges Verfahren. --ST 17:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Wenn Du damit die abschließende Bewertung und Entscheidung über die Löschung oder die Wiederherstellung gelöschter Dateien meinst, dann ist das überhaupt nicht merkwürdig. Hier geht es im Allgemeinen nicht um von Wikipedia-Benutzern selbst verfasste Textbeiträge, sondern wir müssen hier meistens über Urheberrechtsfragen von Bildern entscheiden, die von außerhalb kommen. Dazu braucht es eine gewisse Erfahrung, die hier (hoffentlich) mit der Admin-Position nachgewiesen wird. Dass dabei die Bewertung von Grundsatzfragen wie "Projektumfang" auch ausschließlich durch Admins geregelt wird, gehört eben dazu. Übigens gilt für de:Wikipedia:Löschregeln genau dasselbe: "Frühestens nach sieben Tagen entscheidet ein Administrator auf Basis der vorgebrachten Argumente, des Seiteninhalts und der bestehenden Richtlinien, ob die Seite gelöscht wird." Also was ist hier merkwürdig? De728631 (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Es spricht ja nichts gegen eine sachliche Diskussion, aber es wurden leider sehr viele ad hominem Argumente vorgetragen. Das ein LA nichts feines ist leigt auf der Hand, aber es muss nicht gleich Anlass zur Empörung geben. Ein Benutzer hält den LA für eine Kampagne und/oder Angriff gegen irgendein ein Wikipedia Büro (Wusste gar nicht das es mittlerweile so viele gibt, Coole Sache!) der andere musste sich wegen mir Übergeben (kotzen[sic]), was soll man dazu sagen? Nicht sachlich, nicht hilfreich, kein respektvoller Umgang, unkollegial und gewiss nicht im Sinne von COM:MELLOW. Zwei Wochen hatte Bernd und Co. Zeit darzulegen wer "Relevant" (in COM:SCOPE) ist, das bessere Kategorisieren sowie individuelle Bildbeschreibungen währen wünschenswert. Ich habe sogar in der DR einem Benutzer angeboten die klar Relevanten durchstreichen, dem ist niemand nachgekommen. Ich glaube De728631 hat oben recht gut ausgearbeitet welche Fotos in COM:SCOPE fallen (Danke!), ich hätte auch nichts dagegen jene wiederherzustellen. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Moin Steinsplitter, ja ich kotze gerade, bin angepisst weil Du mir einfach Zeit stiehlst, weil ich jeden Bild nachjagen muss, ich finde es gut das Du Bernds Qualitätskontrolle bist, aber bitte schreib zu dem Bild was Du dran auszusetzen hast und nicht einfach eine Liste hin spucken und dann andere die Arbeit überlassen, siehe oben genau De728631 und nicht Du hast die Liste gemacht. Bitte Bernd macht Fehler wie jeder der viel macht, aber bitte keine Massenlöschungen, da kommt keiner hinterher und bei Deiner Liste sind viele Bilder die mit etwas mehr suche im Internet als relevant zu erkennen sind. Also bitte Quaitätskontrolle sehr gerne, Fehlerkontrolle hervorragend stehe sehr gerne dahinter, aber bitte kontrolliere was Du tust etwas besser oder im Zweifel lass es. Und ja ich glaube das Du Dich auf Bernd eingeschossen hast, denn ich sehen nicht das Du anderen Benutzern so hinterher putzt. Ist aber auch gut, denn wenn Du damit fertig bist und nichts mehr findest wissen wir das Bernd in die Spur ist und können uns wieder den eigentlichen Aufgaben -Wissen zu schaffen- zuwenden. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Nachtrag: Du schreibst "ich hätte auch nichts dagegen jene wiederherzustellen." ich würde mich freuen wenn Du sie wieder herstellen könntest, um mit etwas Arbeit abzunehmen.
Tut mir leid, ich bin neu auf Commons, habe allerdings einige de.Wikipedia-Erfahrung. Ich wusste nicht, dass auf Commons normale Benutzer keinerlei Rechte und Administratoren unbeschränkte Macht haben. --Stobaios (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

✓ teilweise wieder hergestellt: Nach Analyse von De4711. Sollten weitere Dateien anscheinend in scope sein (laut Dateinamen und ensprechenden Quellen), bitte gesondere UnDRs stellen. Die ad-hominem-Angriffe hier gehen aber auf keine Kuhhaut. Ideal lief das ganze Verfahren sicherlich nicht, aber das ist absolut kein Grund für persönliche Angriffe. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


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

File:JK CBK IK NK.jpg

Jawed Karim, Christine B. Karim, Ilias Karim and Naimul Karim standing before Wild Goose Island in Glacier National Park, 2007

--Iliaskarim (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This was deleted as a copyright violation. Since you are depicted in the photograph it is highly unlikely that you are also the photographer. We need a written permission by email from the original photographer to restore the image. That aside, the image is not suited for the purposes of Wikimedia Commons other than being used on your user page. Commons is an educational media repository so we do not keep random personal images of non-notable people. De728631 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Too bad :) Iliaskarim (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done : per De0815. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)