Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-01

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

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

File Plancha LSD.jpg and File:BlotterPaper-scaled.jpg[edit]

Deletion request here and here. A person who expresses art in the form of LSD sheets has no enforceable intellectual property rights over said art. Commons allows photos of illegal graffiti under the same premise that the artist of such materials could not legally come forward as a rightsholder. US law specifically provides for the loss of all property rights, tangible and intangible, for any item which is used to in any way to facilitate illegal drug trade, which would obviously include LSD art.[1][2]. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 19:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The first one might be okay, depending on who created the art, but the second one is clearly not. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:LSD blotter paper.jpg, the elephants are copied directly from Dumbo, which is still under copyright by the Walt Disney Company. The fact that a creator of LSD sheets violated Disney's copyright does not give us the right to do the same! Powers (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


Not done This is a work of art and someone has the rights to it. --MGA73 (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

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


Speedy deleted despite being simply considered "out of scope" (violation of Commons' deletion policy). --  Docu  at 10:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Undelete. IMO there are not scope but copyright concerns with this image. The username and authorname is similar to the person in the image, that can not fit. The file is however not out of scope from a content perspective (but maybe out of scope from a copyright perspective as a possible unfree file). --Martin H. (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
So, restoring the file and deleting it afterwards again? A waste of time I think. But maybe advantageous concerning the reason for deletion. --High Contrast (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
No, giving the user the chance to fix any problems if there are problems (imo there are some). --Martin H. (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems like the deleting administrator misunderstands current deletion policy.  Docu  at 19:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg  Support undeletion. There could be a little doubt that Celgar34 == w:fr:Céline Garcia (actrice). Trycatch (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

undeleted since some above appear to believe it may be in scope this can go through a regular DR. --Herby talk thyme 12:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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

File:The Bronze Killer.jpg[edit]

DR had no discussion. This is a book cover that was uploaded by the author. Copyright of the book is owned by the her, as can be seen here. The cover is text only, and should be ineligible anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Point by point on Pieter Kuiper's claims:
  1. The subject had no discussion because it was open for ten days and apparently no one was interested in discussing it. Lack of discussion is not a reason to keep a DR open. I should note, in fairness to Pieter Kuiper, that he was blocked for almost all of the period the DR was open, so did not have a chance to offer his opinion there.
  2. Pieter Kuiper claims that the image was uploaded by the author. The log shows that the upload was by WP:EN:User:Venturian, whose user page is blank, with a note that it has been moved to Tom Warder (the now deleted WP:EN article on Tom Warder, not his user page). Therefore, it seems likely that User:Venturian is Tom Warder, who is the author's husband, but the uploader is clearly not the author, Marie Warder, and the connection is unproven.
  3. Amazon, cited above, gives us no evidence of who owns any of the copyrights involved. It is very likely that the copyright in the text of the book is owned by the author, Marie Warder. It is very unlikely that the copyright to the cover is owned by her -- much more likely that it is owned by the publisher or, possibly, the cover designer.
  4. While a few words of text and book titles are not subject to copyright, book covers are, as they contain various elements of original design, including choice of colors, the text on them, choice of fonts, and so forth, see Commons:Image casebook#Book covers. We routinely delete them from Commons unless the license is clear.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
1) I think I transferred this from enwp, I had seen this on my watch list, but I was not notified. Nor was the original uploader.
2) Tom Warder died (that is why Marie wrote the book); she was also playing music in the band, I corresponded with her, w:Marie Warder is over eighty years old.
3) Look inside the book: (c) Marie Warder.
4) Strange copyright doctrine, probably Woodward's own invention. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg  Support as PD-ineligible, I think. Text-only covers are completely different. The arrangement of the type is not copyrightable in the U.S.; the Copyright Office has routinely denied copyright on arrangement of title pages, etc.[3] There was a case Reader's Digest Association Inc v. Conservative Digest Inc where a magazine essentially copied the Readers Digest cover layout, including its selection of several different fonts, and specific arrangement of them (compare them here); the courts rules that was both a trade dress (i.e. trademark) and copyright infringement. So, it's possible, if selecting and arranging many different elements, it may rise to copyright, but if the image on is basically what the cover is, then I don't think this one really rises to that level. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg speaks to half the issue -- that it is PD-ineligible in the USA. (Thanks for that, I stand corrected on the US law). However, the book was published in Canada, so we must also know that this cover would be PD-ineligible there. A fast reading of the Canada Copyright Act doesn't shed any light.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Further on this subject. Although I haven't found a reference on Canadian law, UK law (which Canadian law often follows), gives a 25 year copyright to the typographic arrangement of books:
"Typographical copyright
If scanning a copyright-expired work from a British publication typographical copyright must be borne in mind. This subsists for 25 years from creation of the publication and covers the typographical arrangement of the publication. It does not exist in the United States." (see Commons:Licensing#United_Kingdom.
If that rule applies in Canada, then the cover is still in copyright and we are back where we started from.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
That is a big if. I have seen nothing to suggest that such a thing exists in Canada. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The full Canadian copyright law text is here. While based on UK law, they have redone it, and I see no reference at all to a separate typographical copyright -- it seems to have been removed. I was not aware of the Canadian origin though, which may change things, as they have a very different copyrightability line. That is still based on the UK line, although this court case apparently interpreted the same wording as having a somewhat higher threshold than the UK apparently does (but lower than the U.S.). And if the UK has a separate typographical copyright, that would indicate that that type of thing does not fall under their normal "artistic work" copyright in the first place, which then may also be true for Canada (as the list of "copyrightable" works seems about identical). Not completely sure though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

File now has an OTRS. I think we could have undeleted it anyway as PD-text or PD-ineligible. --MGA73 (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Speedy deletion warning[edit]

File:Siobhan Magnus MA.jpg

It says "no indication on source page that the image has been released or that uploader is editor of source page"

I've added another source ( under the image which along with previous source ( clearly states that image has been released by the uploader (Simmerbonbon332) Can you please remove the "criteria for speedy deletion" warning

While it may well be OK, we generally require a very explicit statement that the photograph is free for *anyone* to use and modify, including commercial use. Permission for Wikipedia only is not enough. See Commons:OTRS, and Commons:Email templates -- an email with that type of content from the author there should hopefully get it undeleted. There have been many misunderstandings in the past, so by this point we prefer to make sure the author is fully aware of the rights they are relinquishing. Or, they could update the image description at the source with an unambiguous license such as Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) or Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike (CC-BY-SA). See . Note that Creative Commons Non-Commercial (NC) or No Derivatives (ND) licenses cannot be used here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I just asked Simmer332 for permission. Here it is in a comment I hope that would be enough for undeletion Guidingthelight

Yep, the second you mention you aren't the author, you'll need to go through the OTRS bureaucracy. If you get explicit permission from someone, its best to just upload it with their name under author, no website source (you scanned it), and the correct licence and permissions set.
Use the saved time to continue contributing to the project. Maybe the OTRS team will follow suit and ditch the unnecessary crap-chute process (afterall, until a copyright claim is made, you're wasting efforts on puny preventative measures) - Floydian (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Missed getting back to this. Actually, having the author put up a note on the original source site would be enough to avoid OTRS. However, it needs to be a very explicit note, mentioning specifically that other people are allowed to create derivative works, and are allowed to make money off of it (i.e. use it commercially). The easiest is to choose the appropriate Creative Commons license and link to it. The note as it stands does show that the author is OK with some usage, but does not explicitly mention derivative works and commercial use; in other words it does not appear the author has considered all the possibilities, and they may in fact not be OK with freely licensing the work when they stop and really think about it, which is why we want those explicit statements. Also, permission cannot be restricted to promoting the subject (which the current statement does not technically do, but it is close.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


Not done It looks like you got close, but as Carl Lindberg says, the permission statement needs to be very explicit for us to be able to rely on it. --99of9 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Guzaarish images[edit]

Kindly do not delete the above images. These images are published in for promotional purposes. The images are intended for promotion and publicity of the 2010 movie Guzaarish. Hence the usage of these images in Wikipedia will not be cited as a copyright violation.The picture of Sanjay Leela Bhansali and Lata Mangeshkar is also not a copyright violation since the image is of no importance unless and until it appears in this particular article.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Srk1121srk (talk • contribs) 17:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
For promotion? So we should do advertisment? Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Did you, as you claimed, take the photograph that you uploaded as File:10guzaarishstills0012.jpg (or shoot the film from which the still was taken, whichever may be the case)? Are you, as you claimed, the copyright holder of that images? Before answering, please note that making fraudulent claims about the authorship of copyrighted works is a criminal offense. Regarding the other images, did the legitimate copyright holder publish the images under a license that explicitly allows anyone to use them in modified or unmodified form for any commercial or noncommercial purpose (not just promotional)? Before answering, please note that making fraudulent claims about the licensing of copyrighted works is also a criminal offense. You may wish to go back and read Commons:First steps and Commons:Licensing. LX (talk, contribs) 20:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Two issues here. As posters they are copyrighted and permission would need to be sent via OTRS for us to host them. However if they are "promotional" images they may be outside our scope so please say what article they would be used on. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
We definitely need OTRS. But promo images for a notable film are certainly within scope. - Jmabel ! talk 07:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


Not done No permission received --Herby talk thyme 17:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Drawings of Richard Perle[edit]

Drawings deleted by Kameraad Pjotr with rational "These drawings are made based uplon photographs. Without those photographs, we cannot determine how much these are a derivative work. Drawings made from existing images (photos, paintings, movies) are derivative works".

As author, I know that none of the drawings are derivative works. Photographs of Richard Perle were studied as documentary evidence only, and the drawings bare no resemblance to the photographs studied as documentation.

I contest this deletion as effectively forbidding drawing as a technique. I have serious doubts as to the actual motivations of Pieter Kuiper for nominating these images, as well as to those of Kameraad Pjotr, often a Kuiper supporter, for deleting them. Finally, there is an overwhelming consensus in favour of my understanding of "derivative work" on the deletion request [4]. Rama (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not the first one to no notice the copyright problems with Rama's drawings, see also en:Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content/Archive 44#Does a drawing of a person, or the fact that one might be drawn, mean all non-free photos of people are thus replaceable? Rama refuses to mention his sources. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg  Support under assume good faith. If we can show a source photograph where the *expression* is copied (i.e. you can identify the specific photograph by the angle, or shadows, or some specific details like that), then images can certainly be nominated for deletion. Commons:Image casebook#Drawings based on photographs has some very overbroad, poor language in it. Photographers do not gain a copyright over the item they are photographing; using photographs as reference for a drawing is not a derivative work, at least not always. The more photographs it is "based" on, the less likely it is a derivative work. Particularly of a person. You have to copy some expression seen in a specific photograph (certainly possible, but by no means a guarantee). To me, claims like this are little different than claims of "own work" on photographs. If it can be shown the drawing is too close to a particular photograph, then nominate it for deletion at that point, based on concrete evidence. The author does have a better-than-average grasp of copyright law; I would certainly give them the benefit of the doubt. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
For many of his drawings, the author made copies from a single photo. I believe that all his drawings are made while looking at photos. Also all those drawings of sex positions. I mean, it is unlikely that those were made during a live croquis session. Rama is a plagiarist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Looking at a single photo is also not necessarily a problem. Copying the disposition of the subject should only be an issue if that part was under control of the photographer to begin with. Copying shadows, the photographic angle, etc. could be an issue though. I can't see any of these, so I really can't comment, but making drawings by looking at a photograph is quite often not an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment File:Richard Perle-2.jpg appears to be a derivative work of this. In particular, note that the asymmetric smile matches, as does the overall pose, as does the lighting. --99of9 (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Second if Rama makes a drawing based on one or more photos I think that we need a link to the photo(s) or specify where it was found so that others can verify that it is not a copyvio. If I upload a photo saying "I found this on the net or in a book and it is PD" then I really hope others would ask me to provide a link. As far as I know Rama never gave links to the source and we speedy delete files without a source - also when files are uploaded by admins. --MGA73 (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


Not done Requested links to source have not been provided --Herby talk thyme 17:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Files deleted by Jameslwoodward on September 28, 2010, 10:49 (UTC)[edit]

See entry: Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:SerdechnyG

These files were deleted by Jameslwoodward on September 28, 2010. In the deletion entry I've announced that letter to OTRS was sent on Sept, 22 but files were deleted regardless of my announcements with such explanation: „There has been enough time wasted here“. On October, 24 I received OTRS-answer signed by Johan Bos:

“Thank you. You may upload those images refering to OTRS ticket 2010092110011056”

If there are no complaints, I'd like to ask administrators, who are currently on-line, to restore below listed files:

Thanks. — George Serdechny 19:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Author and source is missing, at the moment an wrong author (flickr user who is not the author) is mentioned and flickr was installed as the source. The result of this invented/self-created source is a complete break in the source chain, any real source information is missing. Will this be fixed, will you provide the original sources? --Martin H. (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't get you. Original authors (all of them) are listed in OTRS-response. With detailed prescription of authorship for each photo and scheme. — George Serdechny 10:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The DR is pretty clear. The source given is not the real source, just a Flickrwash and we should not even consider undeletion until we understand who the real source(s) is/are and whether we have the appropriate permission. Given the claims made by George Serdechny in the subject DR, I'd be surprised if we ever get that far.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
James, I'm really sorry to ask you about that, but please dissociate yourself from this thread. /Friendly/ — George Serdechny 10:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
If an OTRS-member can confirm that the problems from the DR were addressed (ie. the source is not Flickr, but the real source), I see no reason to keep them deleted. Otherwise, they must remain deleted. (And James has every right to voice his opinion.) Kameraad Pjotr 11:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The ticket does not refer to the original source but to Flickr. I am very new to OTRS but I would have some concerns about the authority provided in it. --Herby talk thyme 12:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Then it would seem the ticket is invalid. I see no reason to undelete. Kameraad Pjotr 13:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I've asked Rubin16 about this ticket: User talk:Rubin16#COM:UDEL#Files deleted by Jameslwoodward on September 28, 2010, 10:49 (UTC). He says that the ticket is somewhat dubious, it's based solely on the words of George Serdechny (and he is not the author). I'm not sure if we can undelete these files on such basis. Trycatch (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed - I was being careful with my words - the permission appears to be given on behalf of other people which I find unsatisfactory I guess. --Herby talk thyme 16:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Pity, but Herby does not have much time to figure out current situation and declined responsibility. If there are any other, more or less experienced OTRS-volunteers, who have some time to read discussed letter I'll appreciate it a lot. If somebody will, please, pay attention to last part of the letter. -- George Serdechny 20:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Not done To me this was not valid permission and others do not seem to have disagreed so closed --Herby talk thyme 17:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Solicito undeletion de Astor[edit]

Hola, me imagino que alguno de las datos que he introducido es incorrecto pero no se cual. Ruego me infomés donde está el error y así poder subsanarlo.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casimusica (talk • contribs) 12:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
[Machine translation] "Hello, I imagine that some of the data that have introduced is incorrect but itself not which. Request me infomés where is the error and thus to be able to rectify it." [Machine translation ends]
  • This is a repeat offender. He has created Astor or Astor Cosmética or similar pages seven times and three different Admins have deleted them. The pages have been promotional of a cosmetics firm, all text, with a logo. Since they have no images, they are not Galleries by any stretch of the imagination.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Not done Spam (see Special:DeletedContributions/Casimusica). --Martin H. (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Requesting undeletion of 2 Images File:Bobarnowallet.jpg and File:Bobarnocuffed.jpg[edit]

On the page two images were recently deleted. I uploaded both images. I have all rights to the images. In addition, Bob Arno grants permission to upload the images. Please advise what to do in order to restore the images to the Bob_Arno page. Thank you. Mercurie (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, those photos look to be promotional photos, and so we would need OTRS permission before we allowed them. There was no such permission, so they were deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Note that the uploader, according to the original headline of this request refered to two local uploads on en.wp. See also the version history there. Not that we will have confusion with this different project uploads. The instructions for the (not very recently) deleted images can be found at User talk:Mercurie, the uploader may please refer to the exact filenames when providing written permission. --Martin H. (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • seems to have been sorted --Herby talk thyme 12:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Actor head shot from[edit]


This is a promotional photo of Laura Molina (artist) from the International Movie Database,

The copyright belongs to the subject of this photo and it has been properly licensed under the rule for these types of photos.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintdiva (talk • contribs) 11:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This is Wikimedia Commonms. We don't allow images which are not free use. Please upload it to your local project under fair use rules. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no separate rule for "these types of photos" -- all media must be freely licensed by the copyright owner, promotional or not. I can't see the deleted image, but I believe it is the one here (and here, marked "Photo by Paul Hamilton"). Normally, Mr. Hamilton would be the copyright owner, unless copyright was assigned via contract to someone else. In either case, for a previously-published photo like this, we generally require an email sent to OTRS (see that link for sample content and address) directly from the copyright owner, so we have an explicit record of the licensing statement. If that is done, explicitly mentioning this photo, then it will be undeleted after the OTRS message is processed and the permission is verified. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Paintdiva (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Fair Use" rules on this site say this is NOT applicable. Paul Hamilton-Molinsky took this photo as a "work for hire" by the subject of this photo. Mail has been sent to Wikimedia Permission & license, Ticket#2010120610020489
I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Laura_Molina.jpg
A photo of Laura Molina from IMDB for public use and promotional purposes. ©2005 by Laura Molina
:[ ].
I agree to publish that work under the free license
Attribution No Derivatives cc by-nd
I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.
I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
December 6, 2010 , LAURA MOLINA
This must be sent via OTRS and is not valid posted here as we have no proof of where the permission comes from. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
...and {{cc-by-nd}} is not an accepted license at Commons, because it is non-free. LX (talk, contribs) 11:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Yup. CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are acceptable; CC-BY-ND or CC-BY-NC are not. If it was a work for hire, then she would own copyright and can license it, but the "No Derivatives" part can't be there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
It has now been licensed as CC-BY-SA on Flickr. We should probably go ahead and undelete it, using Flickr as the source (see here). I'd still rather have an OTRS email from the domain, but even if we get one from the correct address without the correct permissions, I think the subsequent acts on the Flickr site are enough to correlate them and show a good license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I have sent OTRS email, however this photo is not from the domain, but is used in full resolution on and cropped version on Flickr. --Paintdiva (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Basically, we need a reasonable verification that you are in fact Laura Molina, and not somebody using fake usernames, fake Flickr accounts, etc. to make us think they are. Believe it or not, that kind of thing unfortunately happens :-) So, OTRS procedures were evolved so that we don't have to just "take someone's word for it", as frustrating as it may be to work through it. Basically, the "From" part of the OTRS email is hopefully enough to verify that it comes from an address known to be yours, one way or another. The OTRS responses are generally private; not visible to users (such as me) or even most administrators. Thus, it can take a few days to get processed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo of actor from IMDB for public use.[edit]

File:Laura Molina.jpg

This is my photo for public use without copyright. PLEASE STOP DELETING IT.

17:03, 6 December 2010 CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs) m (8,452 bytes) (Removing "Laura_Molina.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Jameslwoodward because: deleted after temporary restoration for examination.)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

If you've filed OTRS, please just be patient; it will be processed (may take as much as a week) and, assuming it is in order, the image will be restored. - Jmabel ! talk 07:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Paintdiva (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

- Did permission again through Flickr:
Date: December 7, 2010 8:23:04 AM PST
Subject: Your Creative Commons License Information
Thank you for using a Creative Commons legal tool for your work.

You have selected Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported.

You should include a reference to this on the web page that includes the work in question

Laura Molina 2005 by Laura Molina is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at

Wikimedia Commons does not accept either noncommercial or no derivative licenses. You will have to use either a CC-BY or a CC-SA for use to accept it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the license at the Flickr account link above has been changed to CC-BY. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Now changed to CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic on Flickr Paintdiva (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Image:richard-turner-karate.jpg and Image:richard-turner-card-mechanic.jpg[edit]

OTRS has received permission for using this image. The ticket no for reference is 2010120610000251. Please undelete these files. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It was on enwiki the files were deleted. So nothing to do here. --MGA73 (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Undeletion files request[edit]





The photos list above were deleted as missing permission information, but the author of these photos is myself. Undelection request, Thx.

Kent0415 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC) kent0415

That looks reasonable to me; usually we take people at their word when they claim that they took a particular photo. Powers (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
All restored --shizhao (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
You might want to clarify that "Qin,Wei" is you. (I would guess that they were tagged as missing permission from the author, because the author field doesn't have any clear connection to your user name.) If you create a user page, you could link to that. LX (talk, contribs) 21:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Common beginner mistake[edit]

Please undelete the following image Fichier:Logo-FCCQ-signature-COULEUR.gif as it was simply not labelled properly. I'm a new user and I can assure you that this image is the property of my employer ( All I was doing was updating the current logo and wanted to keep the same authorization settings but somehow didn't manage to.

My apologies,


Hi! File:Logo-FCCQ-signature-COULEUR.gif was deleted because the copyright of the logo belongs to and to keep (or undelete) it we need a written permission from a person associated with that website who are authorized to give such a permission. You can find more information on OTRS and you can ask if you have questions or need help. --MGA73 (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed pointers given --Herby talk thyme 17:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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

My files have been deleted. I AM THE OWNER OF ALL MY PICTURES UPLOADED.[edit]


I just had my photos removed. This is the second time this has happened and the second time that I have written to you regarding the photos copywrite. The images are ALL mine. I took every single one of them with my own camera. In reference to the name "Ray Taylor"; he is the BREEDER of the dog, not the owner of the pictures. I am the owner of the pictures and I would like to share them on Wiki. Recently, another person uploaded a photo as the prime representative for the American Eskimo Breed. This a problem. In tune with the AKC & UKC standards of the American Eskimo breed, this dog (the one pictured in an orange cardigan, although cute as ever) is NOT up to proper Eskie standard. The dog's measurements and body structure are completely off. Not to mention American Eskimos should NOT need cardigans to be warm. This is another falsity that misrepresents the breed. To put a sweater on an Eskie can actually cause the dog to easily overheat.

Overall, this specific dog should not be a visual representative for the American Eskimo dog on Wikipedia's American Eskimo Dog page. This photo gives people the wrong idea, mainly due to this specific dog being very far from the correct breed standard.

The photo that should be removed from the Wikipedia American Eskimo Dog page is this one: --- It is entirely NOT a "real" American Eskimo. It is clearly a mixed breed and it should absolutely not be the dog to represent this breed. To have this picture up on the prime American Eskimo page misinforms anyone who searches Wikipedia to find out about the American Eskimo.

This is in regards to all of my American Eskimo uploads and also in regard to them being deleted from the Wikipage for American Eskimo Dogs.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Patribella (talk • contribs)
Listing the affected files here (they're blue links because Patribella re-created the pages with permission statements):
P Halloran is in fact the uploader (Patricia Halloran), so the first should be okay. The claim that Ray Taylor is the breeder, not the photographer, is credible and supported by the caption of this YouTube video, uploaded 2010 August 1. OTRS shouldn't be needed for these. I'm not sure about the last one though. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know about this undeletion request, because I told Patribella that it was not necessary this time. Communication appears to be difficult... I undeleted the last file earlier today, but not the other ones because they are duplicates of files recently re-uploaded by Patribella (and then nominated for deletion, and speedily kept after clarification). Case closed: all these files are present on Commons, and not threatened anymore of deletion AFAIK. --Eusebius (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed, looks like the permission/authorship thing was sorted out, you already reuploaded the images. --Martin H. (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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


The photo is taken from EOS-utvalget's website link and is in public domain (not copyrighted). Could you please undelete the photo so the article comes in order again? Dagtho (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing on that website indicating that its contents are in the public domain. Publishing something on the Internet, like publishing in a book or by any other means, does not constitute releasing the rights to it into the public domain. If only unpublished works were protected by copyright, the whole concept of copyright would be rather pointless. See Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain. LX (talk, contribs) 17:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
@Dagtho You can always send them an e-mail and ask for a OTRS permission. --MGA73 (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed, the website is not in the public domain. To use the image on Wikimedia a permission is required. --Martin H. (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Image:Localització del Secar de la Real respecte de Palma.png[edit]


I'm working in Palma districts wikipedia articles and the images that I've modified were undeleted some time ago. The file is Localització del Secar de la Real respecte de Palma.png.

The message I see when I tried to upload the file is the following:

Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted.

You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. The deletion and move log for this page are provided here for convenience:

* 18:57, 23 April 2007 Siebrand (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Localització del Secar de la Real respecte de Palma.png" ‎ (In category Unknown as of 14 April 2007; not edited for 9 days) (global usage; delinker log)

I'm new on commons and what I understand is that the problem was that the file wasn't edited for a time, and then deleted.

My request is for undeleting this file because now I will work on it and it will be useful for the wikipedia articles of Palma districts to locate different places on the city (click here).

I'm working in some articles related so maybe I'll find the same problem on many images. Please tell me if this is the correct way of working with commons.

RafelJuan (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC) RafelJuan

The message askes you to be carefull if uploading this because someone else uploaded a file with the same name in the past and it was deleted. The old file is deleted long time ago because the uploader of that file never added a license to the image. Files that are not licensed by the author can not be kept, as long as the author did not say a license for his work we can not undelete the upload. You can however just continue and upload your own work file to that filename, ignor the warning, it is appropriate to continue editing the page. --Martin H. (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like this is done, the warning was understand now and nothing to undelete. --Martin H. (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Category:Saint-Lambert (Calvados)[edit]

I have found a picture to put in it. Not empty any longer. Teofilo (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

✓  Done Powers (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Undeletion of file[edit]


I can't image why some user here makes fun of judging in my private photographs require a "copyright" or whatever ... Do undelete the picture please, I don't see why or for what reason I need to send a proof of my photography or would you like to see a picture of me standing next to the box to see that I'm right and your mod is just an idiot ... !?

Thanks in advance !
— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 20:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
When you're done hurling invectives at the people whose help you're requesting, perhaps you'd be so kind as to read the instructions. You failed to:
  • enter an appropriate subject (since this page is all about undeletion of files, "undeletion of file" doesn't make for a particularly enlightening subheading)
  • identify the file
  • sign your request (or even log in so that the file might be identified from your upload log)
LX (talk, contribs) 05:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed, we have many pictures, not clear what the request means. --Martin H. (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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

File:Chris Turner QB.jpg[edit]

Was deleted because it was marked with "all rights reserved" at Flickr and I tagged it as copyvio therefore. But I somehow missed it was a crop of an existing image at Commons which was licensed (and verified) as cc-by-2.0 during upload. Please undelete this file. --Denniss (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Martin H. (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

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

File:Interstate 99 Map.png[edit]

I'd like to request an undeletion of File:Interstate 99 Map.png to see if the map was created using GIS software. If so, then it wouldn't be a copyright violation per se. Imzadi 1979  21:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

How would you determine if the map was created using GIS software? Powers (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, another project member on IRC said that the map should have been created by User:Stratosphere and modified by the User:Conk 9 to reflect an extension of the freeway. If that's the case, I'll recognize Stratosphere's style in creating maps. (He created the original set for 200 different highways in Michigan). If that's also the case, I can attempt to e-mail him (he's retired from active editing) to confirm his work. Imzadi 1979  22:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
✓  Undeleted – Private correspondence with the OP confirms their suspicion. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed, have been undeleted. --Martin H. (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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

The SVG diagram 'A Mind Map of Information Security' of mine is highly educational and must be preserved[edit]

Hi Herby (shown up as the author of the deletion remark), my mind map is a scalable vector graphics diagram showing up how complex the topic information security is. Furthermore it illustrates how important this topic is for the future of information socities. Therefore this SVG-diagram is highly educational and very important in order to understand the key issues of information security. It is already used by the german wikipedia article about 'Informationssicherheit' (information security) as an illustrative diagram according the above stated educational objectives. --ServCogni-HC (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

None of your contributions have been deleted or proposed for deletion. There is no User:Herby at Commons. Is this dispute occurring on the Wikimedia Commons project, or at the German Wikipedia? You will have to provide more specific information. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe he means User:Herbythyme. Geagea (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, User:Herbythyme hung a {{project scope}} on his talk page, although it's not clear why -- ServCogni-HC's only contribution other than his user page and the note above is File:MindMap of InformationSecurity by HollidayConsulting.svg which, until now, did not have a {{speedy}} or {{delete}}.
I have started Commons:Deletion requests/File:MindMap of InformationSecurity by HollidayConsulting.svg for the reasons set out there -- copyvio, scope, no educational use.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Herbythyme also deleted ServCogni-HC's user page, so presumably, the {{project scope}} was related to that rather than File:MindMap of InformationSecurity by HollidayConsulting.svg. Perhaps it was deemed overly promotional? (I don't know what the original version looked like.) LX (talk, contribs) 12:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed, apparently the file was restored and passed Commons:Deletion requests/File:MindMap of InformationSecurity by HollidayConsulting.svg. --Martin H. (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Image:Mozilla Firefox 3.5 logo 256.png[edit]

Esperanto: Kvankam alŝuto de emblemo-varmarko eble kontraŭas la spiriton de Komunejo, la dosiero estis forigita kvazaŭ ĝi estus nelibera aŭtorrajte. Tio estis eraro, kaj la dosiero eble estas restariginda.
English: Although uploading a trademarked logo may be against the spirit of Commons, the logo was deleted as if it was non-free copyright-wise. That's a mistake, and the file may be worth restoring.

--AVRS (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The information provided by Justass in the deletion discussion is missing something.see far below In his sources it reads (underlining by me) "you are not granted any trademark rights or licenses to the trademarks of the Mozilla Foundation or any party...". This is not a trademark restriction but a copyright restriction similar to that one imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation on our visual identification marks. The licenses does not apply to the logo, this is supported by and AFAIK we already had it in various deletion discussions, just search the Commons namespace for mozilla or firefox. --Martin H. (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
But that is from the trademark policy. See Mozilla Licensing Policies: "This means that, while you have considerable freedom to redistribute and modify our software, there are tight restrictions on your ability to use the Mozilla names and logos in ways which fall in the domain of trademark law, even when built into binaries that we provide."
The logos are from the Mozilla project and built into the binaries, thus they are licensed also under GNU GPL according to Mozilla Foundation License Policy. Or is that point disputed? If the logos are not licensed under GNU GPL that should be clearly stated somewhere on those pages. If they are, there cannot be copyright based restrictions on their use (other than those explicitely mentioned in the licence).
--LPfi (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
(I interpret "licenses to the trademarks" as meaning licences to use the trademarks as trademarks, but my legal English is not that good.) --LPfi (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
That is absolutely a trademark section and has no bearing on a copyright license. I believe the copyright licensing terms of the Mozilla logos were ambiguous before, but if they are definitely under the MPL/GPL/LGPL now, then that is cleared up. All they are saying is that fact the logos are available under that license does not mean any of their trademark rights are given up, which makes perfect sense. (The Apache license does the exact same thing, and does "free"ly license their logos that way, which the Free Software Foundation explicitly declared does not make it incompatible with the GPL at all since it has no bearing on the copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation could do something like this if they choose, but so far have not.) Since it certainly appears as though the MPL/GPL/LGPL license is unambiguous (the history comment in the LICENSE file states exactly that, Symbol support vote.svg  Support . Also should undelete anything else containing the Firefox logo which we have deleted on those grounds. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Note that the free licenses only apply to the logo files in Firefox 3.5 and later, which are a little different from the ones in 3.0.
Bv. atenti, ke la liberaj permesiloj aplikiĝas nur al la emblemdosieroj en Firefox 3.5 kaj pli novaj, kiuj estas iom aliaj ol tiuj en 3.0.
--AVRS (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, OK, fair enough. That LICENSE file has been in there since 2007 though, and it appears they were licensed that way all the time. Wouldn't that pre-date 3.5? The change they made earlier this year (comment is "correct legal text to make it clear Firefox logo files are free in copyright terms, although the image is still a trademark") was just a clarification, not a change in intended status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, the status of the old logos may be not very clear (Firefox 3.0 is obsolete, so it's not so important for current Firefox), unlike that of the new ones: As for that LICENSE file, see --AVRS (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the responses in both bug reports all indicate that the original intention was license the logos under MPL (though retaining all trademark rights), and the 2010 update was merely a better-worded clarification, not a change in status (in other words, the status of the old logos is just as clear as the current ones). It's not a big deal, but it would appear that Mozilla-authored images in that folder going back to 2007 or so, and if images containing such images have been deleted, we could undelete those. The responses also indicate that the MPL licenses are intended to apply to the Thunderbird, Seamonkey, etc. logos as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support The MPL/GPL/LGPL license sounds free enough for me. --MGA73 (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support sounds convincing. --Martin H. (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


Undeleted . Thanks everyone. --AVRS (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

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


The deletion of these pictures was argumented as being based on COM:FOP#Russia - that the russian law would prohibit Freedom of panorama in cases where the "portrayal of the work is used in commercial purposes" which would be the case here.

The understanding and application of this new law (Jan. 2008), leading to mass deletions of pictures of arbitrary russian buildings, is based partly on automatic translation (as here) and superficial knowledge (as here). No russian legal expert has given his comment on this understanding, no publications nor court cases are cited (and none have even been filed).
As a personal note, the original russian text was commented by my russian friends as being "impossible to translate and understand correctly without legal experience in russia".

My proposal is to undelete the respective files, tag them with a special category (as proposed here) and request a comment by a reputable russian legal entity. In the case that the conflict of the commons publishing with the russian law is confirmed, the pictures can quickly be removed. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, except for the sequence of things. Our rules require "when in doubt, delete". Since the translation we are currently using says that there is no FOP for commercial use, we must delete. Therefore, we must continue as we are, marking DRs with Category:Russian FOP cases, until such time as we have a definitive translation and opinion that there is satisfactory FOP in Russia.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The Precautionary_principle names examples why one would feel he could violate a copyright from someone else who holds it. This case is different, it's about the interpretation of a (new) law in a country who's language none of the people understand who execute the deletions here.
Please do not set the status to "closed" (again) until more positions have been heard on this case. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
If you read the whole section, it says "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." Jim is entirely right about the order this will have to be done in.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Have you heard about the Aniconism in Islam which prohibits the presentation of living creatures in the eyes of certain legal systems? So there should be enough "significant doubt" that all of the pictures in Category:Arab_world do not violate these understandings - from our superficial reading at least. So there's more work to do for you .. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Non-copyright? I'd rather assume that this is exactly the arab form of what we call "copyright". --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
They are not copyright restrictions, copyright being the basic right of an author to control their work for a limited time (even if that limit is 120 or so years). Blanket restrictions like that are far outside the realm of international copyright treaties, and are usually more local in nature. For another example, the swastika is mostly outlawed in Germany, but we sill allow those here as well. Arab countries have their own explicit copyright laws as well (most if not all are members of the Berne Convention). We will often ignore "perpetual" copyright claims as well, such as a couple such things in the UK (King James Bible, if I recall). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not different... the Berne Convention ends up mandating a somewhat similar set of rights across countries. In multiple countries, it has been deemed that (by the normal definition of derivative works) that photographs primarily of a copyrighted architectural work are derivative works, and subject to the architectural copyright. The Berne Convention does allow countries to make exceptions to that in their laws, but without an explicit exception like that (which allows a photograph primarily of the work to be used commercially), we will side on assuming non-free. The same is true if there is significant debate on the issue in legal circles, as well. By all appearances, the exception listed does not extend to commercial use. But, if you want to provide an interpretation of Article 1276 which indicates otherwise, please do so. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so let's find out what a "copyrighted architectural work" is - maybe we'd have to apply our "doubts" to much more pictures taken in russia, or take away russian pictures at all, in order to leave no doubts. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Berne Convention mandates copyrights on architectural works. Article 1259 appears to define that for Russia... given a rough translation, it appears to be even wider in scope (including landscape architecture) than some other countries. Unless there are specific court results, legal scholar texts, or direct portions of law which specify otherwise, Commons will usually assume the usual Berne conditions, in that this sort of thing is not "free" (even if perfectly legal to use them in Commons' particular case... we want them to be usable even in commercial contexts by others before we can host them here). Russia's law appears to explicitly treat this situation as OK for non-commercial use only. Yes, these are rough translations and not definitive, but they are strongly suggestive of at least some substantial limitations. I'd love to find a legally defensible reason to keep this sort of thing -- it is highly frustrating to many people (including me), I know, but the "free" principle is pretty much at the core of Wikimedia and we can't just ignore it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Well said, Carl. We may not like it at all, but we must obey the law, which appears to be no FOP in Russia for commercial use. I'd like very much to be wrong, but I don't think it will happen.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Fine, but I was not complaining about your personal attitude, but the concentration on written/translated texts instead of "Rechtspraxis" (court cases). And once again, if we take this translation as a logic rule, we'd have to rule out much more pictures taken in russia. Let's actually do that, because this seems to be the only way to wake people up and take action to change the rules, be it for Russia or Wikipedia / Commons. I never understand anyway why WP only wants to present pictures that can be used commercially, but that's a different story. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, if you know of any relevant court cases, please let us know. The written law is often just a starting point, but it is often the only thing we can find easily (particularly for a non-native). We would rely on users from those countries to find any relevant court cases and at least summarize them, so we have better information to go by. Also, if the law change mentioned at Commons talk:Freedom_of_panorama#Possible_FOP_in_Russia_in_the_near_future is enacted, please let us know. That change (again via rough Google translation) seems to indicate that pictures of public architectural works would become just fine, if it becomes law (though sculptures would still be an issue). That would be great, particularly if that influenced some of the former Soviet republics to change their law accordingly (most of them have very similar language to Russia's law). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed, COM:FOP is based on the law, if no one claims their rights in a court, if the laws are not executed by the authority or if no architect knows of their rights this will be unimportant for Commons. Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not concerned about whether copyright holders care and COM:PRP apply. If the law will change in future this will be great but an expect future change is not a basis for today.

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

File:Amateur blowjob and facial.ogv[edit]

Deleted over a year ago at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amateur blowjob and facial.ogv. The nominator argued homemade porn is non-educational and the closing admin merely said "Speedy deleting - Outside of scope" with no other input. We have no other videos demonstrating fellatio (at least in humans, just in bats) and quality is not great but acceptable. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In the poll about sexual content many users strongly opposed speedy deletion for media being out of scope. The deletion policy does not accept out of scope as reason for speedy deletion. Is this allowed because of some other policy? Otherwise admins should refrain from doing them and speedy undelete any such deletions. --LPfi (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Previously to this video (May 2009) the user uplaoded video File:Bosozoku.ogv that he had grabbed from youtube and other recordings that he not created himself. Later the user uploaded sounds he extracted from porn videos. Previously the authorship was already questioned in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Woman's shadow on bed.jpg, all uploaded on September 8 2009 and deleted on Novemeber 9, 2009. This user had just stolen amateur pornos from the web and uploaded them as own work, this file in question - uploaded on September 8 2009, belongs to his stealing work. --Martin H. (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Has the user been blocked? --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Based on Martin H's research I withdraw my request for undeletion. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • User:Mattbuck excised my comment, without leaving a record here, with an edit summary that accused me of "soapboxing". Geo Swan (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg 

I withdraw my nomination -mattbuck (Talk) 01:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

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


This file should be kept for the article and not deleted.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by YSL² (talk • contribs) 06:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The subject file has a {{speedy}} on it but has not yet been deleted. The speedy is correct, in my view, as it is a school logo that is certainly complex enough for copyright protection. The file has a fair use rationale on it.
YSL², the uploader, should read Commons:Fair use and then upload the file on WP:EN with the fair use rationale. It cannot remain here without OTRS permission from the school.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

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

New Comment[edit]

It is a photo provided to create a Wikipedia page by Mr. Wojciechowski himself when we were cooperating in Persident's election in Lublin.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 13:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to give us a link to whatever you are talking about.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed, unclear request. --Martin H. (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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

undeletion request, it havent met the criteria for speedy deletion![edit]


It is the "press" version, so you can legally download it, and use at wikipedia, or if you write an article about the university!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcimarci (talk • contribs) 11:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
You can use it if you write an article about the university or for information purposes. Thats a press license or fair use, but not free enough for Commons. See Commons:Licensing: Files here must be free to reuse by anyone, anytime, for any purpose; not only free for someone - the press - or free for some purposes like writing an article about the university. --Martin H. (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg  Delete - Commons is a 100% free project, it can be transferred to wikipedia in the fair use policy...--...Captain......Tälk tö me 13:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

See Commons:Image casebook#Press photos as well. LX (talk, contribs) 09:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed, seems sorted --Herby talk thyme 17:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Appeal to keep File:UOWD_Logo.jpg[edit]

I'm contributing to the wiki page of my university but the file which is a logo and front page of my university is always deleted


Please Keep this file


Not done , no fair use on Commons, uploading something with a fair use rational (File:UOWD Logo.jpg) will not help you out. --Martin H. (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Country by month categories[edit]

Deleted with misleading edit summary. Categories weren't empty, but they were emptied by the administrator without prior discussion and then deleted as empty. The proper venue for these would have been COM:CFD.  Docu  at 04:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The proper venue would have been not to create this unnecessary meta categorization in the first place. For the unaware reader: We talk about a "by country" categorization tree here, Category:Months by country, collecting Category:January 2009 in the United Kingdom and Category:January 2004 in the United Kingdom together in a category system Category:January in the United Kingdom with the purpose to collect photographs taken (by EXIF) in the United Kingdom in January (From the category: "Images/pictures taken in the United Kingdom in this month."). The category system contained nothing but subcategories, see the two examples above, this subcategories are untouched, only the meta categorization creating a connection between photographs taken at some date and the topic category "January" was excluded. For the edit summary (although it is correct): Empty category is simply a deletion reason from the drop down, I avoid work too and saved my time to write "emptied, unnecessary category system" every time. My laziness with this summary is however not a ground to create this bad categorization tree or to argue against the maintenance I did with this. --Martin H. (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Neither is an acceptable reason for speedy deletion per Commons:Deletion policy.  Docu  at 06:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose No need for this categories. Deletion is correct. --GeorgHHtalk   06:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Can you explain your comment in terms of deletion policy?  Docu  at 04:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that we have to make a serious effort to define a tool that can create such lists dynamically instead of proliferating thousands of categories like these which are impossible to maintain correctly and which obscure "essentiel" categories. Another thing we need is a system that avoids the proliferation of such category systems (and matrixes) without broad acceptance in order to avoid frustrations when they get deleted. --Foroa (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support , but I agree with Foroa - a dynamic system where we don't need to sort these categories would be nice. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment This brings up a number of issues. Firstly, I agree with Docu that for an admin or anyone else to empty categories and then have them speedied as 'empty and unused' is not really acceptable. CfD should have been used. I've no strong feelings about the categories themselves but am totally opposed to any sub-categories such as '1 January in...' (see recent discussion at Village Pump). I'm not a fan of minute categorisation as a rule, but can see some argument for these month categories as parent cats for month by year cats. I think this all started when the '[year] in [country]' cats were created. I'm thinking of the GeographProject files, all 1.5 million of them. If these all end up categoried by year alone some of the resulting cats could be enormous and so it makes sense to split them up into smaller categories - should those smaller categories ('January 2009 in X' etc) have a parent cat 'January in X'? I can see the arguments for and against. An obvious alternative to months is the seasons categories. Again, these seem valid but the problem is they will eventually get much too big and so it could be argued that a months category would go some way to solve that problem (precise definition of season start and end is another point, but I'll leave that). Perhaps the main lesson here, as Foroa says, is that any large category system such as this needs to be discussed and agreed upon first so we can avoid situations like this. Anatiomaros (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Easy to recreate when/if needed. Not done. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

They were being used. Does that mean they can be recreated? --  Docu  at 22:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I fully endorse their recreation, especially if some are then categorised in Category:Springtime in Rome. I'll take a look and recreate later if you;'re fussed. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Signs in Germany[edit]

Please undelete per Commons:FOP#Germany. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burg Neuhaus - RW Ramschied -Hennthaler Landwehr 089.JPG. --  Docu  at 17:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Not restored as all four cases are badly cropped. Freedom of panorama does not give the freedom to arbitrary crops or other modifications of the original work. One of the problems is that the crops even removed the attribution (part of it is still to be seen on one of the images). Photographs of these displays would be acceptable within COM:FOP#Germany if the display boards would be to be seen in full and a statement would be made why this is FOP, i.e. from where it has been photographed and why are these display boards are assumed to be a permanent installation. (The two latter points are eased if they are implicitly documented by the photograph.) --AFBorchert (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's generally preferable to leave some of the surroundings, to make sure the context is visible. "Badly cropped" isn't a reason for deletion as such.
"Elsewhere" #110 does look like a crop, but is this correct for #141? The other points could easily be added to the description by the uploader. --  Docu  at 11:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It is particularly bad in case of #141 where the credits are cropped off. And it is not a question of preferences but of German copyright law that while supporting freedom of panorama does not permit arbitrary modifications of displayed work. And a crop is such a mutilating modification that voids this privilege. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

To make it easier to discuss these, please undelete tempoarily 141,086,089. For each of these the uploader started a discussion (in the wrong place though). --  Docu  at 11:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


Not done as this would violate German copyright law and the copyright holder has already told us that we do not have his permission (see the OTRS ticket that is refered to in the deletion log). --AFBorchert (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

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


These Map_McMahon_Line_Simla_Accord_Treaty_1914 were deleted. When I asked at the graphic lab whether someone could redesigne these graphics, I was informed the files could probably be restored and kept under {{PD-scan}} + {{PD-UKGov}} see :[5]. Is it possible to restore these files considering this, or should there be some debates about it? Thanks for your help. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg  Support undeletion of the first two. --99of9 (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Undeleted License is {{PD-scan}} + {{PD-UKGov}}. Yann (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Yann (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

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


not sure why my video is being deleted??? Im am Permashine also founding member of the band Bolt Upright
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boltuprightfan (talk • contribs)
It's much easier to tell if you give us the name of the file you upload. You've put a YouTube link on a page here, and a link on the page on Wikipedia, and in neither case is it appropriate. If you want the video on here, you're going to have to upload the video here, and you're going to have give permission via OTRS; since that permission would have to include the right to commercially distribute the video and the parts of the video without royalties, I'm not sure even the band could do that without permission of the record label.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hm... I guess the request is in regard to Permashine which consisted of a link to a Youtube video and a talk page enumerating the members of this band. All this is out of scope and was rightfully deleted. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


Not done , out of scope gallery page with nothing but one youtube link on it. --Martin H. (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Take off deletion notice from Usertalk area[edit]

The deletion notice for one of my pictures still appears in my Usertalk section:

This was resolved awhile back, I believe: The permission for use of this work has been verified and archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. It is available here for users with an OTRS account. If you wish to reuse this work elsewhere, please read the instructions at COM:REUSE. If you are a Commons user and wish to confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account or leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard.

Can the deletion notice be removed?

Thank you, Mary Weber

Closed you can simply edit your own talkpage and remove the note. --Martin H. (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

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


English: Artificial deformation of the lips at the Sara. To them is a particularly nice. The lips are pierced and the holes gradually through the use of ever larger slices of wood expands.

Deutsch: Künstliche Verunstaltung der Lippen bei den Sara. die bei ihnen als besonders schön gilt. Die Lippen werden durchbohrt und die Öffnungen allmählich durch die Verwendung immer grösserer Holz-Scheibchen erweitert.

Customs of the World


And? Why do you want this undeleted? Why do you think the deletion reason was wrong? Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Padaungfrauen mit schwerenMessingringen umHals undBeine.jpg was where this was deleted, and that appears to be entirely correct. At a certain point, you don't have to accept our interpretation of copyright law, but you do have to understand that that's what we work from.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
It is delete of the censorship. The photo is 98 years old or more, any copyright exist before 1923. You do not work after any copyright law if you do not accept that date: 01.01.1923. Please: Can I get a lawyer in a place of a censor?haabet 20:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Commons requires that works it hosts be out of copyright in the source nation. In this case, it's Germany, which like most of the countries of Europe require that the author of a work be dead for 70 years before it leaves copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
the photo from a book pinted in New York in 1912 and later (1913?) it is reprinted in the German Empire. The German Empire as disappeared in 1919. The German Empire have only the German language in common by the Federal Republic of Germany of today. The Federal Republic of Germany is a new federal state from 1946 and it forbidden to use old laws from before the 1946. (Before 1946 was the maximal maximum period of rights 25 (or 35) years after the first publication. As WWII photos from Nazi Germany is PD from 1970) 'Customs of the World' is reprinted in 2008. It is reprinted because the publisher was confident that all rights had expired.haabet 16:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
And the F.W. Murnau Stiftung has firmly laid claim to the rights to the 1927 German film Metropolis. All copyright laws in the EU are fully retroactive, no matter what the political landscape looked like when they were originally published.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg 

keep deleted . Great, you repeat your wrong arguments from Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Padaungfrauen mit schwerenMessingringen umHals undBeine.jpg - wrong because you ignor the retroactivity of the law. Besides the repetition of something you already said your only argument is to insult someone as a censor who did nothing bud judging by the copyright related facts provided in the deletion request. It is delete of the censorship... bullshit! You dont have arguments, so nothing to undelete here. --Martin H. (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC) p.s.: I saw your latest comment at a deletion discussion, here. Also 3 years after the file we talk about here you not understand that if something is not PD in the country of origin it is not ok on Commons. If a news paper use that photo, they will never pay for that. Commons is not a newspaper but a free content project that offers images to be used anywhere, not only in newspapers. And Commons:Commons is not#Commons is not concerned about copyright holders not caring, see our precautionary principle. --Martin H. (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
In the larst 100 years had been written two laws in Denmark by retroactivity. The first printning was in USA, and the law in 1922 was without retroactivity. The Library of the American Congress this photo. As minimum you have need to delete all old photos from the Deutsches Bundesarchiv, because they are 30 years younger and Deutsches Bundesarchiv has not paid for the photos or make a copyright holders not caring. If a films are shown in U.S. after 1/1/1923 it is possible, as it have a copyright.haabet 22:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Padaungfrauen mit schwerenMessingringen umHals undBeine.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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


The stated reason for deletion is copyright violation. I received permission from the copyright holder to put it on Wikimedia and for it to be used in any manner before I uploaded it. Enlormn (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you have that copyright holder send an email to Commons:OTRS, to the address and with the content specified at that link? Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done. 2 1/2 months later, still deleted, nothing heard. The image is however more a container for a weblink, so not realy in scope of Commons and not worth longer waiting time here. --Martin H. (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Free of Law Picture Bernard Pinet.jpg[edit]

Dear Administrator,

I come to you about the photo of actor Bernard Pinet was recently deleted, The name of this picture is File:Bernard Pinet.jpg. In fact, I confirm, on honor, that this picture is totally free of law and public domain. To be in harmony with the career of this French actor, is it possible to reactivate his photo on his card and if your OK, can you tell me how to proceed. Pleasure of your new, with cordial greetings.

Gregm26 (talk)

Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment I don't really understand why the picture was deleted in the first place, so I think it should be undeleted (well, you already did it). But the first picture you uploaded as your own work was watermarked "Photo: Didier Gerfaud / Amundsen -". Could you explain it? Trycatch (talk) 08:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Clearly tagged as a copyright violations because Copyright ©2010, Amundsen. All rights reserved. --Herby talk thyme 12:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
It was a reason for deletion of the first picture, 2nd & 3rd were different. Trycatch (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - undeleted for now (the last version only - the others are copyright violations. But I really do doubt that the image is PD and without something pointing to some proof of that it should be deleted again. --Herby talk thyme 13:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Closed, is undeleted already. --Martin H. (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Waste fired power plant with material recovery.jpg[edit]

I request the file File:Waste fired power plant with material recovery.jpg to be reinstated. See here

Thank you in advance, KVDP (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

[Comments copied from discussion at my talk page}I
It is problematic in several ways:
  • It's just an outline drawing of a large industrial building, with no detail specific to its title.
  • You say "The schematic is made from a snapshot of King Humphrey's AEB 3D model", without including that in your source information or giving us any copyright information on it.
  • Your description is not sensible -- how do you do this: "additional waste can be brought to the plant from other areas, or rebuild on a new location" without enormous cost or additional pollution from distant transport?
[end of copy]
This is another of KVDP's political rants with a simplistic drawing taken from someone else's work without appropriate credit.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done, not entirely own work, appropriate source informtion not given on the file or in this request. --Martin H. (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Android 2.2 Screenshot[edit]


I want to update the Android screenshot. I am newbie on wikimedia common here. So I don't know much about the details. But if the image in is approved, I think image that I upload is the same.

Thank you for your attention Zakiakhmad (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Closed, not an undeletion request. COM:FAQ#How_can_I_upload_a_new_version_of_a_file.3F. --Martin H. (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Zanger Petro[edit]

Graag het geluidsbestand van terugplaatsen. Is ingesproken door mij en hoort bij dat artikel. [unsigned]

Graag het geluidsbestand dat hoort bij terugplaatsen. Dat is ingesproken door mij. [unsigned]

(Translation: I would like the sound file that belongs to restored. It was recorded/dubbed by me [and belongs to that article].)

1) The article was deleted 2010-12-08. 2) Was this file on Commons? 3) If so, what was the filename on Commons? 4) Given that the article was deleted, someone will need to determine whether this file is within scope. - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed, nothing to undelete on Commons identified in the request. --Martin H. (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Trollface.png deleted due to copyright violation?[edit]

Who has the copyright on this Internet meme? 4chan?--Kaminix (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Copyright on Trollface has its original author, Whynne from deviantART. Trycatch (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed, although I speedydeleted the image myself I close this request as an invalid request, surely a work will be protected by copyright and even if it is all over the internet it will still not be free. See COM:PRP. Thanks @Trycatch for identifying the creator, that makes me closing this request/question without any doubt. --Martin H. (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Please undelete Anna Chromy sculpture pictures[edit]

Dear Editing Commons

Two sculptures of Anna Chromy's which I uploaded were deleted because the copyright permission was not specified. I have since updated the copyright permission and emailed with the details.

The pictures deleted are File:Anna-Chromy-Ulysses.jpg and File:Anna-Chromy-OlympicSpirit.jpg. These are more recent uploads from previously deleted files. Please restore these recent files to ensure galleries are displayed correctly.

Thank you

Surrealist Art Lover (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually re-uploaded them in commons not knowing that they were once deleted. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed, reuploaded already. --Martin H. (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

All files in Category:Undelete in 2011[edit]

Files in Category:Undelete in 2011 have previously been deleted but they (or their main subjects) are entering in Public domain on January 1, 2011. Thus I request their undeletion as of January 1, 2011. --Apalsola tc 22:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Not required to mention here. People are aware of that category, the undeletion will take place on January 1 in an uncoordinated process :) --Martin H. (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks! --Apalsola tc 11:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed, was not done but the undeletion was done on January 1 by a few users. --Martin H. (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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


The image File:Eas3logo.png was deleted stating that it was a copyright violation, but here it says that it is under GNU Free Documentation License. If the license is correct, can you please restore the image? --Sreejith K (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Its restoredby Jcb, will you able to upload the high quality version, as the license is compatible to commons...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed, is restored. --Martin H. (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Pelado fileteado.jpg[edit]

Users "feyday" or "Mbdortmund" have deleted the picture "Pelado fileteado.jpg" but this picture is NOT a copyright violation at all. This picture belongs to Alfredo Genovese and it´s well used and under permission of the owner, like the other pictures used in the article. I´m novice in Wikipedia, the image will be restored? should I wait for an answer? thanks in advance,


If you have permission from the author to use it in Wikipedia and release it under a free license, please send it via email to OTRS. Otherwise we won't be able to restore it due to lack of evidence of permission. Thanks, --ZooFari 01:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Undeleted and tagged as 'missing evidence of permission'. Note that an permission to use in the articles is not enough. Please follow the instructions I will write on your talkpage, if you have questions you can ask on your usertalkpage or on the Commons:Help desk. --Martin H. (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Image Undelete Request: 21_flam_accent.gif[edit]

The image, 21_flam_accent.gif, was apparently deleted due to "no permission". However, the image has the same permissions as 20_flam.gif and all the other rudiment images from the Percussive Arts Society. These images appear in All rudiment images were sourced from

Permissions from the 20_flam.gif file that also apply to 21_flam_accent.gif: Description: English: Reprinted by permission of the Percussive Arts Society, Inc., 701 NW Ferris, Lawton, OK 73507-5442; E-mail:; Web: Permission: GFDL-WITH-DISCLAIMERS; Released under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Undeleted Not eligible for copyright anyway, restored per the explanation in this request. --Martin H. (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Image Undelete Request: 37_drag_paradiddle_2.gif[edit]

The image, 37_drag_paradiddle_2.gif, was apparently deleted due to "no permission". However, the image has the same permissions as 36_drag_paradiddle_1.gif and all the other rudiment images from the Percussive Arts Society. These images appear in All rudiment images were sourced from

Permissions from the 36_drag_paradiddle_1.gif file that also apply to 37_drag_paradiddle_2.gif: Description: English: Reprinted by permission of the Percussive Arts Society, Inc., 701 NW Ferris, Lawton, OK 73507-5442; E-mail:; Web: Permission: GFDL-WITH-DISCLAIMERS; Released under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Undeleted, per explanation and pd-ineligible anyway. --Martin H. (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Please undelete File:DC-Douglas-TeaPartyPSA.jpg[edit]

To I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File:DC-Douglas-TeaPartyPSA.jpg I agree to publish that work under the free license GFDL. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. 1/6/11 DC Douglas, wikipedia user: misterdc

Closed, File:DC-Douglas-TeaPartyPSA.jpg is restored already. --Martin H. (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Stannakirche01.jpg and File:Rathaushartberg01.jpg[edit]

Both files were speedy deleted as copyvios due to my OTRS request (ticket#2011010710016921). We later received an email (same ticket no.) from the original uploader and photographer with a valid license statement. Asav (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Undeleted, please check if the information etc. is all correct, Ill remove speedy request from the files. --Martin H. (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm updating the information right now. Asav (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

File:CareyCampbell and CharlieCookofCookReport.JPG[edit]

File was deleted. The deletion was vandalism. Justification claimed that it was a copyright violation. It's not the truth. I own the picture. I own the copyright, and posted the proper license on the site, on wikipedia. Please undelete. Thank you. Here's proof. I have the picture at GreenPartyConservative (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a written permission from the site, see google cache or the image directly please? See Commons:Email templates for a template and Commons:OTRS on how it works with the permission. --Martin H. (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please undelete. I own the picture. Posted the proper license on wikipedia. Thank you.

GreenPartyConservative (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

See above, can you provide a written permission from that source please? That will be the easiest way. --Martin H. (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Undeleted I reconsidered. I will restore the files and tag them accordingly to my above request, then you know what to do and anything will come in order and this site will not become longer and longer with items requiring OTRS permission. --Martin H. (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Some images deleted from Madurai_Airport Page[edit]

Madurai_airport_conveyor_belt.jpg Madurai_airport_new_terminal_building.jpg

In Madurai_Airport page, the above mentioned images has been removed stating copyright violation with Who is this! They simply copied all the images from my own forum

They even don't have their own domain! How they claim copyrights? If you look over their URL, you can clearly see most of the images are captured from our forum ( and some from ePaper and some from

I am not sure how you confirming copyrights request. When claim copyrights, how you confirmed that images are their own proper? Please review my forum and their web site. You can understand who is having copyrights. I request you to undelete my above said photos.

Thanks Sundar amu (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Madurai airport conveyor belt.jpg is not a free image. You just grabbed it from Have you read Commons:Image casebook#Internet images and do you understand what is written there and what free content is? I doubt. And honestly I have zero confidence found that File:Delhi-Madurai-Delhi SpiceJet Flight.jpg is not a photo that you created yourself as you claim there. And im curious if this is your second account after Padrealex97 failed already. --Martin H. (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
What about this image? File:Madurai_airport_new_terminal_building.jpg Sundar amu (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thats also a picture that you just found on the web and that you can not upload here without having the copyright holders consent to free reuse. Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. --Martin H. (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you please give the exact URL and copyrights information? Actually I got this image from my friend and I only released that image in my forum So the origin of image is from (which is my own site). So no one else other than my friend can ask for copy rights. Sundar amu (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Send permission via OTRS thanks, however please be very careful with copyright --Herby talk thyme 17:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Closed, nothing happened, unclear author and source information and nothing to undelete without having this either uploaded correctly or with an COM:OTRS permission. --Martin H. (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Infotabule Náprava povodňových škod.jpg[edit]

File:Infotabule Náprava povodňových škod.jpg was deleted by Kameraad Pjotr on 19:49, 14 November 2010 referencing to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hostivař, tabule Revitalizace Botiče.jpg with stated reason: "Not permanently located in a public place, in the sense of the Czech law."

However, this conclusion isn't mentioned at the linked discussion page Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hostivař, tabule Revitalizace Botiče.jpg (the only conclusion there (19:49, 14 November 2010) is "kept") and is noncorforming with the discussion and inconsistent in itself. This board (just as the second one whereof photo wasn't deleted) was placed by typical technology of permanently placed infoboards: on the solid single-purpose post, not as some portable or temporary exhibition or some periodical bulletin. As was clearly mentioned in the discussion, "permanently located" in sense of the law cannot mean that such object is absolutelly perennial and can be never removed or changed. The fact that this board was once exchanged doesn't mean that it wasn't "permanently located" in the sense of law. Just as every building will someday be destroyed but it doesn't mean that non-portable buildings shouldn't be in principle considered as "permanently located" (as there was also mentioned in the discussion). I hope, we will not delete all images of destroyed buildings with a reason that they weren't "permanently located". --ŠJů (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


Done , restored. I assume the closing admin hit the wrong button and deleted the file instead of keeping it following his delreq conclusion. --Martin H. (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

File:The Presidential Library Logo.png[edit]

File "The_Presidential_Library_Logo.png" removed fairly. It was registered with the violation of licensing rules during training. Can you fix the situation? File is needed. --Gtarasevich (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please can you give your reasons in your native language - I find it hard to understand your English. --99of9 (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Файл "The_Presidential_Library_Logo.png" был удален за нарушение условий лицензирования. Можно ли его восстановить? Он очень нужен для статьи. Обещаем устранить все нарушения.--Gtarasevich (talk) 07:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the source was here, and it was deleted due to no license being specified. We would need permission from the library itself to license it freely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
После предоставления разрешения на использование файл восстановят? Разрешение высылать на этот адрес (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Разрешение на использование всех материалов сайта уже высылалось и хранится в архивах системы OTRS. Его идентификационный номер 2010111210004639.--Gtarasevich (talk) 08:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hm, would need someone with OTRS access to look at that ticket to see if it amounts to valid permission. But yes, OTRS is proper procedure for images like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Мы будем ждать ваших рекомендаций.--Gtarasevich (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there an OTRS volunteer who can speak Russian, to help with this request and #OTRS 2010111110009967 above? They seem, according to descriptions here, to be more general OTRS permissions and not tied to a specific image, and thus OTRS volunteers would not undelete these images on their own. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


Done , File:The Presidential Library Logo.png was restored already. --Martin H. (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Creator:Zbigniew Wąsiel[edit]

Please undelete. There is still Category:Zbigniew Wąsiel with images of his works.  Docu  at 07:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

  • template creator is not used anymore (excluding category itself of course), because his works were deleted after requesting permissions from their uploaders. Z. Wąsiel's works were uploaded from multiple accounts, which were also responsible for uploading non-Z. Wąsiel's works as well as number of derivative works. In all cases uploaders failed to provide an OTRS permission for their licensing. Also please take a look at nl:Overleg_gebruiker:Maxxii/blockmsg. Masur (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support , his work is not PD yet, but that doesn't mean there can be no free pictures of it (because of FOP for example). –Tryphon 08:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Hm. Normally I'd say that lack of use is no reason to delete a creator template, which could contain helpful information for future use, but I do see that both Wikipedia articles (en-wiki and pl-wiki) were deleted for apparent lack of notability and self-promotion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Even if the artist is not notable by Wikipedia standards, some of their works can be in scope of Commons, and Creator template can be useful (well, it's a rather obvious statement). But in this case it's hard to say if he is notable or not (because the local wikis have very diverse notability standards), and Slomox claims he is notable at least in nds-wiki, see COM:VP#Crosswiki spam. Trycatch (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support per Tryphon. Trycatch (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

closing it was restored by Slomox. --99of9 (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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

/* Risks and effects */[edit]

The image uploaded under "Risks and Effects" within the Prince Albert article was deleted for being a "low quality porn image." However, this image, though of poor quality (and will be cleaned up and re-posted), is showing an example of what occurs when a piece of this jewelry is ripped out. I think it's important for others who have or are interested in having a Prince Albert and read this article to see the final result. This image is not intended as porn, rather for educational purposes on the risks and effects of mishandling such jewelry.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jafstin (talk • contribs) 22:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Since the original poster is unable to link, we're talking about File:PA_Problem_copy.jpg and w:Prince Albert piercing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
And note that the image was deleted after the undeletion request.I cant disagree with the deletion, that photo was just bad, you cant even say for sure if it is an animal nose, some kind of unknown vegetable or acutally Jafstins willy. The autofocus is on the clothing ~20cm distant, not on the unidentified subject that more or less touches the camera lense. --Martin H. (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


Not done Per comments above. If you really want to "educate" the world, take a (much) better photo - I'm guessing the subject isn't too hard to find. --99of9 (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

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


Re: File:Language_Love_Grp_&_LJ2.JPG & File:Language_Love_Grp_&_LJ1.JPG as per here. The administrator who deleted these two images seems to be biased against me and in favor of the nominator as per my complaint here. This is not an accusation or a personal attack - I am only questioning this. I am very surprised about these deletions and apologize on behalf of the Southerly Clubs for this having been uploaded, if this really is against the rules on derivative images. I've read them carefully. My principle questions are these: (1) Was there consensus in this case? (2) Can any and all images be deleted that were taken of people with a visible TV-set going, if the copyrighted broadcast or video on the TV-set can be identified? SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose undeletion; the whole point of these images was the TV screen showing scenes from a TV program; also File:Language Love Dance Grp.JPG should be deleted (but it has two (2) OTRS tickets...) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I am looking for neutral input here from administrators who cannot be suspected of bias. The 3rd image now added by Kuiper to his deletion attempt is not from the copyrighted film. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The TV image cannot possibly be thought de minimis -- the whole point of the image is Lars Jacob looking at his own image on the TV screen. The TV screen, although poor quality, occupies about 2/3 of the image. Therefore the photo is a derivative work of the TV image.
The OTRS permission is unclear -- we will need permission from the owner of the copyright of the film -- which is not usually someone who appears in the film, therefore probably not Lars Jacob. If we have that, then this is OK, but if we do not have that permission, which I suspect is the case, then this must remain deleted.
As to your question:
"(2) Can any and all images be deleted that were taken of people with a visible TV-set going, if the copyrighted broadcast or video on the TV-set can be identified?"
No, of course not. If you photograph a room that has a TV in it which is simply one feature of the room, it will not be a problem any more than a painting on the wall would be if it were only a decorative part of a large room. This, however, as noted above, does not fit that description.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! And once again I am apologizing on behalf of the Southerly Clubs for uploading these two images, with such a large part of the frames being the TV, under a previous OTRS. I can assure you that no one there was aware of these facts or of the risk of any problem. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


Not done Yes, these are likely to be derivative works. 99of9 (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

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


This file was deleted, after I assured the administrator that I had permission to use it. It is public domain. The editor who deleted this and others of mine, Mansur, will not answer my messages to him. Rak-Tai (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Authorisation to allow us to host such an image would have to be through OTRS, thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


Not done , this file was claimed to be entirely own work and that is not correct. --Martin H. (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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


A new headshot of Tamzin Merchant was uploaded and it was deleted and removed when added to her page. This file is a much more up to date version of what was already there, and I own sole rights to it since I took it of her and she requested I add it to her page in lieu of the current one.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by XXx kittenz xXx (talk • contribs) 21:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done, this page is for undeletion request, this file is not deleted at the moment. --Martin H. (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is Commons -- the repository for the image, but not the source of your problem. I see that you have added the file to The English Wikipedia article on Tamzin Merchant a second time. In both cases you missed the required syntax a little. The first time, it was deleted, the second time another editor fixed it. If it is removed again, you need to take the issue up there, starting on Talk:Tamzin Merchant, not here.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Archivos borrados[edit]

Los archivos borrados corresponden: El primero File:Adolescentlibre.jpg a una foto tomada hace unos años en mi Asahi Pentax no digital y el segundo File:LogoGLCC.png a un logo diseñado hace dos meses por mi en adobe photoshop S23 para la pagina web de La Gran Logia Central de Colombia. Estos fueron subidos a wikipwedia Commons a finales de novuiembre de 2010 pero por no saber como diligenciar una licencia de libre uso fueron bajados por no tenerla. Agradecería que se volvieran a restaurar las imágens con licencia de uso libre. Cordialmente --Amayasantos (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The deleted files are the following: , File:Adolescentlibre.jpg this was a photograph shot by myself in an Asahi Pentax. The second file File:LogoGLCC.png a logo designed two months ago by myself in Adobe Photoshop CS3 for the website La Gran Logia Central de Colombia. Both files were uploaded to Wikipedia Commons on late november 2010 but since I'm not too experienced in filling the online submission form they were deleted. I'd be very grateful if they were restored, since I'm willing to give free use to those images. Thanks a lot --Amayasantos (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Adolescentlibre.jpg is a duplicate of the later uplaoded File:Adolescent.jpg. For the logos you will require written permission from the copyright holders of the logos. See Commons:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Closed, as explained: One file was a duplicate, the Logo LogoGLCC.png is now File:GRANLOG.gif and has an OTRS release. --Martin H. (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

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


Quoting album license:

Track      |   License URL
 01        |
 02        |
 03        |
 04        |
 05        |
 06        |
 07        |
 08        |
 09        |
 10        |
 artwork   |

You can download full album from Jamendo to get this file with it. ─ GallaecioE logo? 21:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


Done It is as Gallaecio says, there is an explicit cc-by-sa-3.0 license to the artwork included in the download package. I have undeleted the file and added that information to it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Manifestants 1er mai.jpg[edit]

File:Manifestants 1er mai.jpg was discussed in 2007 and this discussion was closed with "kept". The author, authorship and source were clearly claimed in this discussion. Despite of it, Nilfanion deleted the image on 13 September 2009. --ŠJů (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It was me who tagged it as missing source in 2009. Likely wasnt aware of the previous deltetion request at that moment (although It was also me who removed the forgotten deletion tag from the image in 2008). However, a quick look shows regarding the two images mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1er mai tchécoslovaquie tribune.jpg:
Also the other uplaods:
Im sorry for having the previous deletion request overlooked and not started an appealing new request. But checking the situation afterwards now, I see not much bad with the tagging. The file is not own work but taken from an archiv, owning a copy does not make someone the author or copyright holder. --Martin H. (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
The strange thing is however, that the uplaoder and article write of fr:Rituel_du_1er_mai_à_Prague copied an article that he (according to the name) himself had written and published in the past at At that source (bottom, Voir une sélection de photographies du 1er mai en Tchécoslovaquie), his own websites, he is fully able to provide the true copyright information, the Archives and the Czech News Agency. Here on Commons he makes false claims only to push unfree images in our project at any price. Delete the rest of the images, the copyright holders are clearly written in the uploaders own publication of April 2005 at --Martin H. (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


Not done per Martin H. Trycatch (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

File:Orang Utan 2009-01.jpg[edit]

It was deleted without discussion. It's a handmade, stylized pencil drawing after a front cover of Science, and modified (the baby of the original is lacking), so I can not understand why this file has been classified as plagiarism. (It's not my file, but I was the one who asked the artist to draw it.) --Gerbil (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"It was deleted without discussion." There is no mechanism for us to generate discussion -- that is why we notify the uploader, which was done here, so that he or she may discuss it. Also, of course, if you had left it on your watch list after editing it in 2009, you would have seen both the Speedy and the DR. That's how discussion happens here.

In point of fact, it had three sets of eyes decide that it should be deleted

Note that both Turelio and 99of9 are active Admins who generally make reasonable decisions.

I have also taken a look at it and your description "after a front cover of Science" is correct. It looks to me like a derivative work and therefore a copyvio. I think Turelio was too kind -- I would have left the speedy on it.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not undeleted Derivative work of Science cover. Yann (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Deletion of Eurovision Song Contest logos[edit]

Recently it came to my attention that some Eurovision Song Contest logos were being moved to Commons. I was concerned from the beginning that upon transfer to Commons these logos could be deleted as copyright violations, so I went to Template talk:PD-textlogo/en to ask for input as {{PD-textlogo}} instructs. One user responded by stating that the logo examples I gave, these being File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg and File:Logo of ESC 2011 .jpg, were probably okay to be kept as not meeting the threshold of originality, and the logos were tagged accordingly.

However, at 09:15 on the 11 January 2011 Masur (talk · contribs) deleted File:Logo of ESC 2011 .jpg, which according to my memory was in use on multiple Wikipedia projects (not including the English Wikipedia), as a "Copyright violation". I assumed that Masur was not aware of the discussion that I had with another user, and I invited him to give input [6]. Masur did not respond despite being highly active on this project, and so few days later I left another note asking for input again and stating that I was going to bring it here if there wasn't a response within few days [7]. Masur has still not responded in any way, and has not at the present time provided any justification for the speedy deletion that was carried out.

The uploader of the image Minoo221 (talk · contribs), who appears to be a new user, attempted to re-upload the same (or a similar?) logo under File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.png, however it was deleted again by Masur with the rationale "Copyright violation". Masur has communicated with the uploader only through templated messages, including issuing a final warning [8]. I left a note with the uploader to explain what was going on, including a recommendation not to re-upload the logo [9].

The Commons:Deletion policy states that deleting files on grounds only of copyright violation should only occur when "Licensed only under a non-free license (like fair use, noncommercial or permission-only) or it is a clear copyright violation." I do not regard the deleted logo as being a clear copyright violation, particularly when it has been made clear to the deleting admin that there are multiple established users who think there is a case to be made that it was not copyrighted with justification, with no attempt by anyone to rebuttal it. Speedy deletion of logos had the potential to cause major disruption to Wikipedia projects as those uploaded locally (under the assumption of being non-free), once replaced with a Commons version, are usually deleted, hence meaning if the Commons version is deleted as well then the logo is lost entirely, barring admin intervention. From the above reasons, it is my opinion that this should have been taken to Commons:Deletion requests.

Given that it has become apparent that Masur does not want to respond to this issue, I am bringing it here for wider input. CT Cooper · talk 14:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Not restore File:Logo of ESC 2011 .jpg. It was more then File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg, with a black backround with red and yellow stripes, not just simple geometric shapes or letters. Maybe File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg is already above the borderline, its a recreation outside the process after it was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg. Your memory that this was used widely is not supported by the log, the file is in use in one Wikipedia and it was not in use in any other wiki.
While File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg is questionable and was deleted already, and File:Logo of ESC 2011 .jpg is more than just the textlogo already, the second file File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.png is obviously a non-free logo grabbed from (1st variant) and claimed a completely false {{Copyrighted free use}} on it - there is nothing of copyright free use written on the page, the logo is simply copyright and not free to use here.
To the uploader it can only be said that it is time to read the first steps and time to stop grabbing non-free images from random websites with the nonsense claim that they fulfill {{Copyrighted free use}}. --Martin H. (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't see the deleted images, but keep in mind that German logos have a way, way higher threshold of originality than you might suspect (see Threshold of originality#Germany). Looking at google image cache, Logo of ESC 2011 .jpg is closer, but probably still not near the German threshold (the colors are the flag of Germany, nowhere near original). File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg was a mistaken deletion before, and it would be a mistaken deletion now (it is currently nominated under a misunderstanding). {{Copyrighted free use}} should not be claimed, but PD-textlogo or PD-shape or PD-ineligible certainly could be. If the .png is basically the same as the SVG, it should probably be undeleted too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Not only Germany is important but also the U.S. And arguing with U.S. laws we deleted logos similar to that heart in File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg in the past, not to mention the other two files which are that logo plus something around it. The European Broadcasting Union is based in Switzerland which therefore maybe is the country of publication. Maybe a third consideration will be the country of the artist who created the logo, I dont know of that. I dont see why German simple design rules is so important here, excluding the topical relation to Germany there was no source information ever mentioned on Commons that allows any reference to German copyright. So that argumentation will require some source information first. --Martin H. (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
That would be a simple variation on a common symbol -- no, I don't think that heart would be copyrightable in the U.S. either (particularly used as a "v"). File:NY Arrows logo.png had hand-drawn arrows, and was not copyrightable. And given the German flag in the logo, it would have seemed to be a German logo, which is why I assumed that (I think Switzerland also has a relatively high threshold of originality). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Well the image was still in use, and that is the important thing, and my point on the potential for disruption of speedy deletion of logos transferred here stands whether that particularly sample was in use or not. Whether the deletion was ultimately correct or otherwise, there was still a communication failure here; I should not have had to come here to get answers on these deletions. I didn't know about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eurovision Song Contest 2011 logo.svg, but if that is the grounds for deletion it should have been (a) preferably mentioned in the deletion summary, or failing that, (b) pointed out to the uploader, or failing even that, (c) pointed out to me when I requested clarification from the deleting admin. It also needs to be made clear, that the active deletion request was started after I opened this discussion. The uploader has received mixed signals from established users on the copyright of these logos, from their images tagged by others as not being eligible for copyright, to suddenly finding themselves being given a final warning. Copyright is complicated, and while asking users to read up on policy is reasonable, it would not have hurt anyone in this instance to make clear to the user why their uploads are copyrighted i.e. that they allegedly do pass the threshold of originality, something that templates don't do. Copyright is important, but it does override reasonable measures to avoid biting users. CT Cooper · talk 16:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Undeleted These need at least a proper deletion request, as the issue of originality is not obvious enough for a speedy deletion. At the minimum, this will serve at a reference for similar cases about threshold of originality. Yann (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Various categories[edit]

  • 22:32 . . Foroa (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Australian painters" (Category:Australian painters moved to Category:Painters from Australia)
  • 22:31 . . Foroa (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Russian artists" (Category:Russian artists moved to Category:Artists from Russia)
  • 22:30 . . Foroa (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Argentine painters" (Category:Argentine painters moved to Category:Painters from Argentina)
  • 22:30 . . Foroa (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Russian photographers" (Category:Russian photographers moved to Category:photographers from Russia)
  • 22:28 . . Foroa (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Russian painters" (Category:Russian painters moved to Category:Painters from Russia)
  • 22:28 . . Foroa (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:German painters" (Category:German painters moved to Category:Painters from Germany)
  • 22:32 . . Foroa (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Irish painters" (Category:Irish painters moved to Category:Painters from Ireland)

Redirects deleted with misleading edit summary. Categories weren't actually moved by Foroa. --  Docu  at 22:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The deletion summary wasnt intended as misleading but is the standard deletion reason of {{nuke}} in {{Category redirect}}. The categories are created today, not as categories with content but as empty category redirects. Albeit there was no reason to create meaningles category redirects, all interwikis in e.g. en:Category:Australian painter and all other languages go to the correct category, there are no meaningful links to Category:Australian painters, there is no content. Unecessary category redirect, leads only to confusion and increases the bloated maintenance structure of this project without adding any value. --Martin H. (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The summary is still misleading. It's up to the administrator to make sure it's correct. Further, it's an abuse of administrator tools do speedy delete them.
In any case, what maintenance do you think the redirects would require? --  Docu  at 23:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
And more. You created Category:Cherry Kearton as a subcategory of a non-existing Category:English photographers. Then you created that Category:English photographers as a category redirect, with the misleading edit summary "desc". Ehhhm, why??? Have you ever worked in Category:Non-empty category redirects? There is much work done by hand. Why dont you simply switch the wrong category in Category:Cherry Kearton to Category:Photographers from England instead but bother the project with category redirects and more work? Stop doing that and stop bothering us here with "wrong deletion summary". The deletion summary is correct to some point. Your request here and your editing looks like grotty trolling to me. --23:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Gee, move on Martin. Accusing people of trolling, just because you don't understand it. ..
As you deleted Category:English photographers, I can't really comment on my edit summary any more (possibly erroneous).
If the redirects had exists before, I wouldn't have had to move images to the corresponding categories:
If you feel like cleaning things, up manually, feel free to do so at Special:Categories/Russian, etc. --  Docu  at 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
If you add something to a category of what you obviously know that it is incorrect and if you, instead of adding it directly to the correct category, then create that category as a redirect thereby ordering some other editors to move it... well, whats this? ordering slave workers? Afterwards complaining on them can only be trolling. --Martin H. (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are saying. None of the four files below were added to the deleted categories (with redirects) by myself:
I read "you [..] create that category as a redirect thereby ordering some other editors to move it"
Maybe you simply don't understand how category redirects work. If there is a redirect, files and categories get moved automatically. If you delete them, editors have to go to red links like the ones on Special:Categories/Russian and move them manually to the correct categories. Clearly a waste of time and as I don't see you going to those red categories, I suppose you might think that someone else has to do it. --  Docu  at 23:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
"If there is a redirect, files and categories get moved automatically" - Not always and it may not be intended that this bot is still working (if he is). The editor you shout at here and you insult with "misleading edit summary" is hard working at Category:Non-empty category redirects, manually, for long, long time now. --Martin H. (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe there is something I don't understand. Can you quote a sample for "Not always" and for "hard working at"? --  Docu  at 00:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I gave the example above, the edit in Category:Cherry Kearton could have been done by you, it was way unnecessary to do so via a category redirct ordering people (or bots)see Category:Non-empty category redirects, a bot will not do this recent redirects to do the edit for you. Much work in Category:Non-empty category redirects is done by hand, hard working is Special:Contributions/Foroa and other valuable editors. A bot that moves category redirects from time to time exists, thats true, but it is not intended to erode the purpose of the protection of User:CommonsDelinker/commands and give all editors the option to order bot edits without any controll, so this way of bot editing will end sooner or later. In my eyes you orderd people to do an edit for you, people who already to thankless work here and instead of saying thank you, you now cover them with claims like "misleading edit summary" (sounds if it is of importance that the categories have been moved long time ago already) or that they not did any work. Its not the first time that you make such requests here, always its a slap in the face of well-meaning, hard working editors. --Martin H. (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Until the time comes when we decide to stop the bots and category moving via category redirect, categories like these should be redirected rather than deleted. Regardless of the "slave work" and the other silly arguments I heard above, redirects serve other important guides in addition to what Docu described above. It is easier to find Category:Russian painters than Category:Painters from Russia using the upload form or hotcat.js. Hotcat automatically fixes categories that are redirects. If a user comes to find out that there is no Category:Russian painters, that user may not find the correct category and would add work to the uncategorized backlogs or leave out an important category for the file. The redirects are essential even if we have to do small sacrifices in maintaining them. That being said, I Symbol support vote.svg  Support the undeletion of the categories described above. --ZooFari 00:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Martin H., I read your very long comment, but I didn't read any samples that confirm what you wrote ("Not always" and "hard working at"). I would imagine, there should be easily 2 or 3 edits someone had to do manually for each case that would confirm what you wrote eariler, but apparently, there is none.
    Deletion summaries are meant to explain the reason for the deletion. They are even more important than edit summaries as most users can't easily review the deletion. If we notice that edit summaries are incorrect, users will have to ask routinely for undeletions, just to make sure things are done correctly. I vaguely recall that this happened to be a problem with some of your deletions. --  Docu  at 00:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Ehm, I gave you a sample, Category:Cherry Kearton and described the "not always" as written in Category:Non-empty category redirects. You added a category to one of your categore redirects to order other people to move it because your recently created category redirect will not be handled by a bot. Thanks for that. I appreciate four eyes principle, but driving it to an excess for category redirects and arguning around with the wording of deletion summaries claiming them "misleading" (while people will understand what the summary means and will not be missleaded by the summary) is an abuse of this page. Im bored by your requests here, and more and more they turn out trolling against other editors here who realy do things with their best intentions. If you want your redirect: Why didnt you just asked the deleting admin but bother the whole world here? You not even informed him. Why do you directly turn on "abuse" or "misleading"? Although i was not personally related first (I made myself related with the following two deletions after my second posting) I feel very angry about your claims and your egocentric behaviour here. --Martin H. (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Nothing needed to be done about Category:Cherry Kearton. It would have solved itself in a couple of days.
I suppose you noticed yourself that you can't back with specific samples what you are writing so you resort to personal attacks. --  Docu  at 01:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

In any case, I don't see an undeletion request here. Can we close this discussion here and (if there is anything substantive to discuss), take it to an appropriate page? - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

? The page is named "Undeletion requests". Could you just undelete the categories mentioned at the beginning of this section so we can move on? --  Docu  at 18:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Commons:Category redirects suck and above all give bad training. Because people see a "category:Russian artists" that works, they create Russian painters, Russian sculptors, and so on without connecting or redirecting them properly. We have more than 1250000 categories, heading for 2 million in 18 months, and if we have to maintain all sorts of spelling variations and in all 270 languages, the system will explode. When accepting all sorts of spelling variants and converting them into redirects, one will see only more and more Russian xxx, American ..., British xx, cats popping up. If the cats stay in red, people will understand it and change them eventually.
I noticed equally that many people just add items with non existing categories, and then redirect them later to a proper category or wait till someone else creates them. I create and repair probably more category redirects than most people, but redirects that are useful, not redirects that acknowledge fundamental naming and spelling rules in Commons. --Foroa (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The en:wiki contains 4 times more categories that start with American, 3 times more categories that start with United States than on Commons. I don't think that it is a good idea to create thousands of redirects for them, especially for the "american ..." which means some times US, sometimes North America, sometimes the whole of America. A better idea might be that a bot overhauls once a week all the red categories and tries to find/replace them with the corresponding commons categories. That would improve the situation on all accounts. --Foroa (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for implicitly confirming that the edit summary you used isn't related to the reason why you speedy deleted these. --  Docu  at 11:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
A bit of good faith, please. I have been alerted by a series of category re-creations such as Category:German painters, which, as can be seen in the logs, has been moved and deleted 3 years ago. So I deleted it for exactly the same reason. The advantage is that the edit summary now allows you to click in it so you have a one click access to the destination category, as quick as a redirect category. So yes, slowly, we make some progress. --Foroa (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
You still need to make sure your deletions comply with the relevant guidelines and supply a corresponding explanation. If you thing you acted in good faith, you just have to make sure that you act correctly in the future. --  Docu  at 06:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Per Martin and Foroa! --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Martin and Foroa. Per Commons:Category redirects suck I recommend to limit category redirects for limited cases, probably also for transitional periods only. In particular, I do not think that it is helpful to provide redirects that do not follow our naming guidelines for categories. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • "Commons:Category redirects suck" is a terribly outdated personal essay. Anybody who used Hotcat recently notes that it works just fine and files in redirected category get moved regularly. That essay can't be used to justify not following Commons guidelines. --  Docu  at 06:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
      • The essay is very moderated, I would make it much stronger in terms of bad training and all the maintenance woprk it incurs. It is not because a guesstimated 10 to 20 % of the changes are done using HotCat that all Commons rules need to be adapted accordingly. --Foroa (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Undeleted Useful redirects. Yann (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Various categories (2) deleted by Martin H.[edit]

  • 23:12 . . Martin H. (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:German architects" (Category:German architects moved to Category:Architects from Germany)
  • 23:10 . . Martin H. (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:English photographers" (Category:English photographers moved to Category:Photographers from England)

Deleted by Martin H. without a valid reason. --  Docu  at 23:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Empty categories, the redirect was created short before this day, unecessarily and as some sort of trolling or shifting boring maintenance work to all this monkey here on Commons who do such stupid work voluntarily. The summary is correct, the categories were moved to the linked target category in the past. --Martin H. (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The categories would have worked as redirects though... --ZooFari 23:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, if there had been a redirect earlier, File:Jim Lee (Photographer) Clare Parks.jpg would have been in the correct category on 2010 November 18 already.
Odd to think that Martin deletes stuff to create work for "monkey here on Commons who do such stupid work voluntarily". --  Docu  at 23:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg  Support per my comment in the above section. --ZooFari 00:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure who is supporting what above, so I'll make my position clear.
  • It would be silly to have both Category:English photographers and Category:Photographers from England in active use. The latter form is our usual choice. Similarly with architects from Germany.
  • On the other hand, a {{category redirect}} is almost essential whenever there is any chance that someone will create a new parallel category of an existing one. We cannot expect all of our editors to search about and see if a particular category exists before creating a parallel one. Category redirects are almost free and save a lot of work. I know that there have been many times when I would have put a file into Category:X, but a category redirect told me to put it into Category:Y instead. Our rule should be, "When in doubt, always make it easier to put files in the right category".
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Per Martin's and Foroa's comments above. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • These redirects are useful. Please restored them. Yann (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Undeleted Useful redirects. Yann (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Deleted file Angela Romeo.jpg[edit]

Deleted without any reply from permissions about emails there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Restored. - a valid OTRS ticket exists - Jcb (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

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


Français: Bonjour, je me suis rendu compte avec surprise que le dessin que j'avais fait ArmoiriesMichelDeMontaigne.svg a été supprimé avec comme message "(Removing "ArmoiriesMichelDeMontaigne.svg", it has been deleted from Commons by Wikitanvir because: Redundant or duplicate.)", alors même qu'il n'existe pas d'autres armoiries de Montaignes sur commons (sauf le test de Chatsam qui est un brouillon File:Chatsam brouillon.svg), alors je voudrais que l'image soit réstauré, par avance merci. 13:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty rare that an SVG should be deleted as "redundant"... it would have to be *exactly* the same as another version. I can't see the deleted file but it sure sounds like it should be undeleted. The only other way it shouldn't is if it really a bitmap inside, and we have the bitmap elsewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Français;Non, il n'y avais aucun autre armoiries de Montaignes, se fut un gros travail pour le réaliser, et je ne comprend vraiment pas pourquoi il a été effacer... Rinaldum (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Was a bit difficult to understand, but apparently it was deleted as an exact duplicate of File:Chatsam brouillon.svg - that might be correctis correct but that "duplicate" Chatsam brouillon.svg is however only an SVG sandbox by uploader Chatsam and not a stable image. Therefore undeleted. --Martin H. (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

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

King Jagiello Monument[edit]

Deleted because of no FOP in USA Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wladyslaw-Jagiello.jpg, but the monument itself is claimed to be public domain, as stated on my talk page:

Please revert your removal of 8 the series of images of the King Jagiello monument in New York City's Central Park. There is no evidence of any copyright notice on this monument. Public artworks from before 1978 are subject to the same copyright laws as published U.S. works, such as books and magazines. This means they have fallen into the public domain per U.S. law UNLESS there was an explicit notice of copyright on the work, AND the copyright was filed, AND subsequent renewals of copyright were correctly filed in the decades since. Moreover, visual works made before 1965 were required to have a copyright notice placed on them, in the form of a copyright symbol and the name or initials of the copyright holder, in order to be covered under copyright. This public monument has no such copyright notice, and is therefore in the public domain. This is also not a private artwork, but a public one and exhibited in a public place. Thank you. CZmarlin (talk) 03:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A.J. (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Something like this would typically be in the public domain; it would seem to me that this would be a case where the burden of proof would be on the person claiming it is not. - Jmabel ! talk 08:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Evidence given is pretty strong - the work may very well be {{PD-US-no notice}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not that simple. For USA sculpture FOP questions, the first place to go is the Smithsonian Institution Research Information System which tells us that it has most, maybe all of a copyright notice on it, but more important, that the sculptor, Stanislaw Ostrowski (1879-1947) created the work in Poland in 1909. This version was cast in Italy in 1939. Therefore it has a Polish copyright dating from 1909 and, probably, an Italian copyright from 1939. Both countries are 70 years PMA, so let's hang Category:undelete in 2018 on the DR.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Taking JW's summary, the original work creation was in 1909. Fresh casts do not hold any alternative copyright as there is no artistic value added by creating a faithful cast. Consequently the copyright is 101 years old, however under European copyright law, the length of copyright would be the death of the artist (1947) plus 70 years, so I would (conservatively) agree that the date of expiry of copyright must be 2018. -- (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
And on the other hand... as a pre-1923 work it is in the public domain in the U.S. without worrying about notice requirements (which do not appear to be there anyways -- SIRIS explicitly notes copyright symbols or the word copyright, and does not mention it here). [As noted below, as a foreign work, notices do not matter -- either the work was restored by the URAA or it wasn't, and this one was not.] The photographs were taken and presumably published in the United States, and is therefore a photograph of a public domain object. Much like freedom of panorama, we generally use the law in the country where the monument is placed for this type of thing -- even if is a copyrighted sculpture made by an artist from another country, if it is placed in a country where there is freedom of panorama, we will allow those photographs here since the copyright is held by the photographer. This is a basically analogous situation for the U.S. -- the statue is in the public domain in that country, so the complete copyrights of the photographs are held by the photographers. Symbol support vote.svg  Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The original work was pre-1923 but made in Europe, not the U.S. so you are quoting the wrong legislation. Under European law there does not have to be an explicit statement of copyright associated with the object for the standard copyright of the artist to apply. The cast of the statue is a faithful reproduction and hence under the same copyright and the photograph is another reproduction (not covered by Freedom of Panorama as taken under U.S. law) and also under the same copyright. Thanks -- (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
European law does not directly apply in the U.S. I suppose post-1923 sculptures could be restored if first published elsewhere, true, but as a pre-1923 work that is irrelevant. It is public domain in the United States, the location of the work, and therefore the photographs are of a public domain object (where the photographs are taken). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Carl, I think you miss the point on this one -- although, I must admit, I am not positive. It seems to me that the original 1909 work had a Polish copyright which will not expire until seventy years pma, or 2018. Then this cast, made in Italy in 1939 is a derivative work of the 1909 copyright. believes that the fresh casting does not have its own copyright -- he or she may be right, depending on size, material, and so forth, but let's agree that it is moot because the 1939 cast certainly had the 1909 copyright attach to it in Italy. Then it was shipped to the USA and installed here, first temporarily at the World's Fair, and then permanently in Central Park because by that point it could not be returned to Poland. I don't think that somehow its copyright status changed when it crossed the ocean -- it still has the copyright deriving from the 1909 work. If, for example, you made another cast from it, the new cast would be an infringement of the 1909 work. Therefore it is not PD and photographs of it may not be kept here.
You draw an analogy with Freedom of Panorama, but that's not good. If this statue were taken to Germany and permanently installed there, it could be photographed, because FOP is applied, as you say, by the location country. But copyright status does not change by location; it depends on where the work was first published,in this case, Poland.
By the way, even 2018 may not be good. The plinth was designed by Aymar Embury II (1880–1966), so if does not fall below the threshold of originality, we will have to be careful to crop it out until 2037.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the distinction between the external laws and Commons policy needs to be clearly made here. The 1909 statue never had any copyright in the US. The original statue does not have a Polish copyright; it is under copyright in Poland, and hence is eligible for copyright for any nation that has signed a copyright treaty with Poland, though in some nations, like the US and Canada, the duration of copyright has expired. Its copyright status didn't change when it crossed the ocean; it was still out of copyright in the US and in copyright in Poland.
Therefore, this is all about Commons policy, not law. This photo was taken in the US, and is unquestionably legal there. If we accept that a photo taken in the US and then uploaded to Commons has as its country of origin the US, then the we should unquestionably keep it.
I think FOP is right on the money. It's a bit bizarre that a photo of a Polish work that would be legal (by FOP) if it were in Poland, and is legal (by copyright expiration) in the US, would violate Commons policy. It's also a bit bizarre that a copyrighted 1919 French statue, taken to Germany, would be legal to photograph (by FOP) and thus okay for Commons, but taken to the US, where it would be equally legal to photograph (by copyright expiration) would not be okay for Commons because of French copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, forgive me Carl and Prosfilaes, I'm learning here. I've now read the applicable text of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and think that it applies. Fortunately (for Commons), it gives the sculpture only the USA copyright that it would have had if notice and registration had been done properly. Since that would be based on the 1909 publication, which is, of course, before 1923, it's PD unless you argue that 1939 is the appropriate date. I think it is not, because a new cast of a US sculpture originally published in 1909 would not acquire a later date.
I also think our policy is clear -- although it is still in copyright in Poland, it is PD in the USA, where it is located. Therefore the photos are OK. I would appreciate any comment as part of my learning experience.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand this interpretation of the URAA. My reading would be that as the original statue has always been under copyright in Europe, the URAA would mean that the replica would be considered under copyright in the USA. The alternative reading rather implies that I could, for example, put such a photograph of the replica on a book cover and be able to sell copies in the USA but not Europe. -- (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Works that were restored under the URAA only got what they could have got under US copyright law. If they were published before 1923, their term of copyright has already expired in the US. Your implications are correct; there are a lot of European works of art that can be put on the cover of a book and sold in the US (pre-1923) or Canada (life+50) but not most of Europe.
For this picture, I'm not sure; I have a hard time believing that Germany or Poland with full FOP, would rule that a photo of the statue that was legal in the US, that would have been legal had it been taken in their countries, was illegal because if the statue were copyrighted in the US, the photo would be illegal in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the URAA applies to this work. However, thereafter they fall (fully) under U.S. copyright law, which uses neither the rule of the longer term nor the rule of the shorter term, but rather their own term. Restored works get whatever the U.S. term would have been had the work been properly registered, renewed, and had copyright notices attached. This statue, given a 1909 publication date, then received the usual U.S. term of 75 years from publication, which had still expired. Only works published in 1923 or later get the 95 years from publication term (this is from a 1998 law non-retroactively extending the term from 75 to 95 years from publication). So, this statue is still public domain in the United States, even after the URAA. Therefore... in the U.S., photographs taken of the object have their copyright completely owned by the photographer, who should in turn have the right to license it as they wish, certainly within the U.S., and the country of origin of the photograph itself would be the U.S. as well (if published there, anyways). If this same statue were moved to Spain, for example, we would allow photographs of it here, due to FOP -- that has been general policy, as in Spain the statue's copyright does not extend to the photograph, meaning the photographer has full rights to license it. While the U.S. does not have FOP for statues, once they are public domain, the same situation exists -- the photographer has full rights over their photo, and so I would think a similar policy would apply. We are talking about the copyright on the photograph itself, in the end. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that the URAA applies so that there is unlikely to be copyright for photographs under USA law, but any publication in Europe would be subject to copyright due to the original work remaining under copyright until 2018, doesn't this lead to the same outcome in that a free license would not apply on Commons as we have no means of publishing in the USA only? -- (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No, because the country of origin of the photograph would be the United States. We are trying to determine the copyright status of the photograph. Also, the "derivative work" situation would likely not be uniform across Europe. As noted, if you move this same sculpture to Spain and take a picture of it, the photograph is still fine there (as Spain has FOP). For that matter, if you take it back to Poland, a photograph of it is *still* fine there, as Poland also has FOP. The photos may or may not be OK in other countries depending on how those countries would interpret their laws on the matter (there are almost no precedents for this kind of thing). It is quite possible that any country with FOP would not consider them derivative works, so could be used in publications (provided they had permission from the photographer). Commons' general policy is that such photographs are OK provided there is FOP (or the object is PD) in the location where the photograph was taken -- in that case, we would consider the photographer the sole copyright owner in the photograph, allowing them to license it freely. In this case, if the photograph is published in the U.S., then *that* is the country of origin for our purposes, and that is the law we would use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It has been a long discussion but the end result is that I am happy to change my opinion and support undeletion as the overwhelming likelihood is that such a photograph would not be challenged, it would appear to have no legal grounds on which to be challenged (if under a credible free release from the photographer) and we can supply evidence that reasonable steps were taken to protect the interests of any possible copyright holder. -- (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support per the reasoning of Carl Lindberg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Restored --O (висчвын) 03:55, 30 January 2011 (GMT)

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

This is not a up to date picture[edit]

Roy Harper hates this picture and every time it is deleted,it appears again! Please remove!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsslover (talk • contribs)
Are you talking about File:RoyHarper Widnes 2001.jpg? You may not upload your own picture over someone else's picture. You also may not upload official pictures or pictures you found on Facebook without getting the photographer to send permission to OTRS. We're not going to delete the only image we have of Roy Harper.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


Not done --O (висчвын) 04:36, 30 January 2011 (GMT)