Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-09

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Johan_Briedé.jpg

see OTRS ticket# 2011070110004095, this image has received a free license with this OTRS ticket. When the image is undeleted, I can apply this OTRSPermission template and use the image on nl-wiki. Thanks, Edoderoo (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 12:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:De_Dageraad_der_Menschheid.png

The Dutch permission-queue was under a long delay, in the meantime the image got deleted two weeks ago. Permission is received per OTRS #2011082910012791, if this can be undeleted, I can process the ticket. Edoderoo (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume good faith and undelete this. - Jmabel ! talk 14:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:A whisper to Jenn Turcott.jpg

File:A whisper to Jenn Turcott.jpg is an image which I took personally and released under an appropriate license when I uploaded the image myself. What's happened to a couple other files, and probably this one, is I also uploaded to FlickR as "All Rights Reserved" and somebody else put a "FlickR review" tag on it, causing it to fail, and be deleted. However, the image isn't from FlickR, and what's there is irrelevant. I created it, own it, and have the right to release on the appropriate license. I'm not sure if this has happened to other files. The admin responsible hasn't been active for a few days, which is why I'm posting here. --Rob (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as per [1] and [2]. --Túrelio (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done 07:01, 2 September 2011 by Yann. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File: DonghoduringFirstKissTourinManila.jpg

That photo was taken from my own camera, so why did Wikipedia says it has been removed because of Copyright Violation??. 121.54.54.52 07:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to a file uploaded by JmKissme (talk · contribs). Looks like providing true source information and not making false claims does not mean a lot to this editor. I'd prefer to remove the rest of his uploads and give him a block. --Martin H. (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We now have three different users involved:

User:Mongino2011, Created on 5 August 2011 at 08:31, whose only contributions are the comment above and two images, both of which have been deleted as copyvio/no permission. Claims that the subject image is his, although he was not the uploader.
User:JmKissme. Created May 2011. Uploader of the subject image. Has uploaded six apparently useful images and around fifteen that have been deleted as copyvio/no permission.
User:121.54.54.52 whose only contributions have been the comment above and adding a long spam section to the description of File:Bamboo spring.jpg. Of course this may or may not be the same person as either or both of the others.

None of them are particularly experienced and we certainly need some explanations as both User:JmKissme and User:Mongino2011 claim the subject as their own work.

Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moningo2011 just forgot to add a headline to his posting and accidentially mixed his concern up with this JmKissme thing. JmKissme is an "U-KISS" (boygroup) copyvio uploader, Mongino is related to Olivier Weber. I fixed this with this diff --Martin H. (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, User:JmKissme is a serial copyvio uploader of photos showing en:U-KISS. --Martin H. (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Olivier Weber 3 - copie.jpg

Thanks to undelete my photo File:Olivier Weber 3 - copie.jpg used for the biography on Wiki: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Weber in french and different languages.

I am the author of the photo. The photo can be located on different sites: http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&expIds=17259,24472,27147,27586,27955,28010,28060,28220&xhr=t&q=olivier+weber&cp=10&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1037&bih=514

Thanks

Olivier Weber olivierweber2001@yahoo.fr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongino2011 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, television screenshot, the copyright belongs to the television, not to the person shown on television. --Martin H. (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Undue File Deletion

I own the rights and copyright to the Lyraka image deleted. I grant permission for the image to be used here and on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy DiGelsomina (talk • contribs) 14:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign all your comments. Though you didn't mention the filename, you are probably talking of File:Lyraka.jpg, right? Well, TinEye gave 51 hits, including many which show an "uncropped" version of your upload. Any explaination? --Túrelio (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Andy DiGelsomina is associated with www.lyraka.com, from which this image comes. However, we do not know the Commons editor User:Andy DiGelsomina is the same person. Please use the procedure at Commons:OTRS to license this image, ensuring that the e-mail comes from @lyraka.com and that it specifically names File:Lyraka.jpg. An e-mail from g-mail or other anonymous provider will not be acceptable. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, follow the instructions given by Jameslwoodward above. --Martin H. (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Stasi-2.1-zensursula.png

(Deletion Discussion) I know that this topic is controversial, but the given rational for deletion is insufficient and factually wrong. The deleting admin (H-stt) said that it was an "easy decision", but he made a general mistake. In his rational he claimed that this image is a "Bearbeitung" (Edit). This means, that any work that is based upon some other work can be treated as an own work. The requirement for this law term is, that the image has much enough own creativity/meaning applied to it.

Many participants in the deletion request claimed that the edit has a completely different meaning (see de:Stasi 2.0) then the original photograph, which should be this one (a simple press photograph but protected). The edit itself emerged to a completely different work during the protest against logging of Internet activity (Vorratsdatenspeicherung) and blocking of Internet content by the German government. Given the facts this image is an own work, which is independent from the original (see German UhrG §3). The "how it was created" (stencil) does not count, since the technique used to create an (new) work has nothing to do with copyright or in German Schöpfungshöhe.

So i request the undeletion, since the closing rational is not sufficient in any way and in my personal opinion just ad absurdum. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 16:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen this discussion til now, but I certainly wouldn't call it absurd. Under U.S. law there could well be an issue, as the stencil does copyright the exact angle used in the photograph, and that may be enough (facial expression too, but not sure that is copyrightable, unless the person was posed by the photographer, which is a possibility). For a somewhat corresponding case, the artist of the Obama "Hope" poster used a copyrighted photo, was sued, and the judge told him to settle because otherwise he was most likely going to lose (i.e. it would be considered a derivative work, and in fact they did settle several months later). Germany's law many have different nuances though, so I can't comment on that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at the law, I think §3 only states that derivative works do contain separate authorship (this is true; the stencil is not a copy but has additional copyrightable aspects), but §23 still seems to make clear that publication and exploitation of such adaptations/derivative works still require the permission of the author of the original. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it does. It says here : Das besondere bei einer Bearbeitung ist, dass diese Teile eines anderen Werkes beinhaltet. Deshalb ist der Bearbeiter bei der Veröffentlichung und Verwertung an das Einverständnis des Urhebers des Ursprungswerkes bzw. dessen Rechtsnachfolger gebunden, soweit ein Urheberrecht am Ursprungswerk noch besteht. - Amada44 ^{talk to me} 16:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. However, read on to § 24 UrhG: "Ein selbständiges Werk, das in freier Benutzung des Werkes eines anderen geschaffen worden ist, darf ohne Zustimmung des Urhebers des benutzten Werkes veröffentlicht und verwertet werden." my translation: 'a work created in free usage of the work of another may be used and published without consent of the original author.' Requirements for this are:

# a separate work (this is the most disputed point in the original discussion, however also the most obvious): the image must pass the threshold of originality. As the stencil cannot be (exactly) reproduced through a fully automatic process, parameters have to be set and the area for cropping has to be choosen. At the very latest, adding the characters and a political message awards the new image a totally new meaning, hence considerable originality. Common example for an 'unseparate work' is a thumbnail image. Courts tend to assume originality quite liberally, so it's somewhat curious that this is the most discussed point.

# 'free usage': the individuality of the new work must significantly make the original work fade into the background. This should have been the disputed point, if any. Here, the work as a whole is to be considered, including the intended (subjective) meaning. a color portrait image and this stencil plus the political statement have nothing to do with each other, in my oppinion.212.255.33.13 17:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It took me two minutes and Illustrators automatic tracing to get about the same result. No, they are not identical but playing around with tracing parameters really isn't artistic work. see my sreenshot here. File:Temp file DO NOT USE THIS IMAGE.png. I really don't think that this would pass as a selbstständiges Werk. Also the text to the image does not interact with the iamge at all, so its basically just a titel to the image and does not (imho) add creative work. We don't know at all what the outcome of a courcase would be, so I think the safest option is to keep this file deleted.

Apart from that, images on coomons need to be free in the US too. Amada44 ^{talk to me} 17:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... yes I'd say that would be considered creative. You could not stop anyone else from doing the same thing, of course. U.S. courts have rules that identical works, which were independently created, have independent copyrights and are not derivative of each other (as counterintuitive as that may seem). Yours is not identical either. As for the U.S., it is maybe a little ambiguous, but the U.S. does follow other countries' laws when it comes to determining copyright ownership, and the rights granted by this clause are more or less the same as the ones granted by FOP, which we have no trouble accepting. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that is a lot more interesting. The WIPO English translation says: An independent work created by free use of the work of another person may be published and exploited without the consent of the author of the used work (with a limitation on that for musical melodies). I somehow missed that. It looks basically like a provision to make parody and that type of thing fully legal, through broader. The dejure.org page on §24 lists several court cases relating to that; could a German user summarize the case here, as it seems particularly relevant (a black-and-white drawing of a sculpted eagle, I think, given the Google translation). There is also a case listed where frames from a "Price is Right" show were used as a part of a parody (of a different subject), and that was apparently allowed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is interesting and comes close to what we have here. The magazine used this image and created this one. The difference in my opinion is, that the magazine was inspired by the the image and redrew it completely (It will take quite some effort to create that image). Here the image has not been re-drawn. It was processed by some filters of graphic programs and very similar results can be achieved in a few minutes. As copyright with parodies seem to be handled less restrictive though (and this image would qualify as a parody) it could be that the image is okay. But the thing is, we don't know and cannot predict what the outcome of a court case would be. Amada44 ^{talk to me} 18:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, the effort of creation is not so important. Important is the individuality and character of the new work, expressed by choice. If you need to set parameters manually, and can't achieve the exact result through automatic measures, the choice of these parameters make it an individual work. (citations for that are in the original discussion) Also, you can't create the text through filters, but the whole new work must be considered. Choice of text, choice of font, positioning, cropping etc... thus my remark of being a little confused on how this point is even an issue.212.255.33.13 18:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so can I take an image of Mickey Mouse, make it black and white, auto trace it, shift paths a little, write above the image: Mouse Hero make T-shirts and sell them and the 'choise of where I placed the Titel' will stop Walt disney sueing me? This (my comment) is not really helping in this discussion so I will step out of it. Amada44 ^{talk to me} 19:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would neither be a caricature nor a work with political meaning. Your intention would be rather different. Thats why Ralph Ruthe can make puns on Balu, Schnappi, Batman, etc. without any fear to get sued. If you give that character a new meaning (for example an really evil mice), then you have no legal problem at all. Same in this case. The original is the image of a smiling politician, while this result makes her look devilish and combined with Stasi 2.1 a villain. Thats a very simple way to achieve this, but it works very well in this context. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 20:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the authorship present in a photograph is quite different than that in a drawing; the photographer does not gain copyright control over a pictured object. There is little of the photographer's expression left, though the angle is still the same, and you can definitely tell it is the source photograph. (Though even in the eagle case, it seems possible for a seeming derivative of a graphic work to qualify, though being a national symbol may have had a lot to do with that). The main thing is to get a sense of what "free use" means in German copyright law, and what it would not cover. There are a number of decisions to help with that. Of course it's impossible to tell how a judge would rule, but that is no reason for deletion -- you could argue that for almost any image we have. § 24 is part of the law, and it does give some definite rights, as courts have ruled that way. The main thing is to read through them to get an idea of what type thing is allowed based on that clause, and this seems like it may be an example. A quick summary of the cases would perhaps be helpful, as would the judge's language when it comes to what they deem "free use" to mean. If the only thing keeping this "free use" is the addition of the "Stasi 2.1" at the top, that may make me a bit hesitant. Would this section of law mean we could make the same treatment of any photograph of a person, and it would be OK, or is it only OK given the political commentary with the addition of the label? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of effort is usually not counted. You can create an image the easiest way you find to do it or you could model it with toothpicks in over 20 years. It makes no difference in German law. What counts is originality. This includes the idea to the image and the meaning and effect on the public. I would consider all last named aspects as given inside the context of its creation (Stasi 2.0). It is as well an caricature and therefore freedom of press would apply as well as in the Focus case (even so the decision made inside the Focus case wasn't even build upon legislation about caricatures). On top of that it has a political meaning which the original did not have. I see two very different works (original and edit) in this case. So i strongly doubt that any lawsuit against this image would have potential to be successful. There are to many good reasonings against it. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 18:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as the author rightfully lists:

The purpose and character of your use: Was the material transformed into something new or copied verbatim? Also, was it for commercial or educational use?
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
The effect of the use upon the potential market

This questions have already been answered in this case multiple times. (Read above or inside the DR itself) -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 20:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info Nach Mitteilung des Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales, Presse/Strategische Kommunikation, ist dieses Bild nicht mehr freigegeben. Die Ministerin besitze alle Rechte an diesem Bild. - via OTRS. --ST ○ 22:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be that the picture isn't released "anymore" or that the minister "has all rights" on the image? The later isn't even possible after German copyright law, if she didn't took the image herself. But this doesn't even matter, since the edit can be rightfully considered an own work. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 05:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note! In case anybody wondered what had happened when in between the file link became blue and image appeared: another user had uploaded a different (though similar looking) image directly over the deleted file. After he had, on my request, uploaded a second copy of his image under the separate filename File:Zensursula21beta.png, Rehman, again on my request, has split the file histories in order to restore/clean the original file history of the image that is discussed in this UR. --Túrelio (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly give further explanations of my decision: I consider this a derivative work under the definition of §23 UrhG (the German Law on copyright and authors rights). German law distinguishes between derivative works (Bearbeitung - §23) and independent use (Freie Benutzung - §24). To get some misinterpretation above out of the way: A derivative work is only a work, that has sufficient originality (Schöpfungshöhe) to be a work on its own, separately from the original. Anyone may create a derivative work, but to publish it, you need consent from the creator of the original work.

I consider the picture in question to be a derivative work, because it does not push the original so far into the background in a graphical way, to be completely independent. Everyone in the deletion request discussion agreed that the well known publicity shot of minister Ursula von der Leyen was the original from which the stencil was made.

There is another way to determine independent use of an original, and that is satire and the like. There are pretty close limits to use of a well know work and adopt it in satire, German judicature shifts between freedom of expression and protection of copyrights, the two most important verdicts in this field are Alcolix (BGH, Urt. v. 11.3.1993 – I ZR 264/91 - For those in the know, the winning lawyer was FvG in this case and he represented the Ehapa publishing house) and Mattscheibe (BGH, Urt. v. 13. April 2000 - I ZR 282/97) But to be independent use as satire, the stencil would have to be a satire of the photographer and his work, not of the depicted person.

In the end, I see this as a case of a derivative work. And as mentioned before, I would use the stencil myself in any publication without qualms, it has beomce an important icon in the political debate. Thephotographer can't really afford to speak up against the use, and frankly he will not have any loss from it. But Wikimedia Commons can't host it, because we only host files that are free of any third party rights, to use by anyone, for any purpose. And we can't say that for this file. Thus I had to decide the DR in a negative way and delete the file. --h-stt !? 18:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However you seem to have ignored the next section of the WP summary of the law, you've originally cited. Assuming the WP summary is correct it somehow invalidates your argument as it states that a "Bearbeitung" (derivative work) has to be distinguished from "Umgestaltung" (change) and that the artistic/cultural use (in particular being enhanced for comedy/satire) is not not considered a "Bearbeitung" (derivative work). Clearly the graphic in question used/enhanced the original photo for the purpose of satire hence (under German law) it would not be considered derivative work. Also I don't quite buy your argument about satire being required to be about the photographer rather than the photo in this context. But even if that's case it wouldn't quite apply here, because instead of the actual photographer we may have to look at the copyright holder and the copyright holder are German authorities of which the person in the picture (Ursula van der Leyen) is a representative. So this is not really a scenario where the graphic's author has used work under the ownership of a completely independent 3rd party to perform satire on German authorities/Ursulua von der Leyen.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated out in this blog entry on lawblog and in the following comments it seems to be sure this image is not violating the rights of anyone...--Benjamin Garn (talk)

If you read the comments, you will see that it is just as controversial as here. Esp. this comment I find helpful: Die entscheidene Frage ist vielmehr, ob es sich bei dem Zensursula-Stencil um eine Bearbeitung oder Umgestaltung des Originalbildes iSv § 23 UrhG handelt oder ob es sich bei dem Stencil um ein in freier Benutzung des Originalbildes entstandenes Werk (§ 24 UrhG) handelt. Im ersten Fall wäre eine Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers am Originalbild nötig, im zweiten nicht. - Amada44 ^{talk to me} 08:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the satirical character seems rather obvious due to integrated text ("Zensursula" (a pun combining censorship and Ursula von der Leyen's name), "Stasi" (East germany's secret state police)), so imho that it is clearly a "Umgestaltung" rather than a "Bearbeitung".--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clearly agree to this statement. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 09:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@H-sst: I must inform you, that your arguments one-sided and that you only cite the parts that are fitting your argumentation. In case of the linked WP-article de:Bearbeitung (Urheberrecht) you only cited the first paragraphs, not their directly following revisions or special cases. At the same time you use the arguments stated by the OLG Köln in 2000, which were revised by the BGH in 2003. The higher court ruled that the depiction of the Gies-Adler is legal, even if it is no caricature. Maybe you should update your knowledge about this topic? You ignored this changes and facts inside your decision, that is based upon "insufficient effort", that does not play any role, since it does not count in German legislation. I must strongly disagree with the closing result, which goes against the majority of the participants opinion and ignored basic facts. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 22:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually arguing exactly the way the OLG Köln argued in the "Gies-Adler"-Decision, which was mentioned before in this discussion. So you are in good company with that line of thought.

However, the BGH overruled that decision. I'll quote the important parts of the decision (GRUR 2003, 956) to illustrate their line of argument (can translate/summarize in english if necessary): http://www.zivilrecht.wi.tu-darmstadt.de/media/jus1/lehre_1/gpu_1/Urheberrecht2.pdf

"Die freie Benutzung eines älteren geschützten Werks setzt - hiervon ist auch das BerGer. zutreffend ausgegangen - voraus, dass angesichts der Individualität des neuen Werks die Züge des benutzten Werks verblassen. Dies geschieht in der Regel dadurch, dass die dem geschützten älteren Werk entlehnten Züge in dem neuen Werk zurücktreten, so dass die Benutzung des älteren Werks durch das neuere nur noch als Anregung zu einem neuen, selbstständigen Werkschaffen erscheint.

"Das BerGer. hat bei der Gegenüberstellung der beiden Adlerdarstellungen zu stark auf die vordergründigen Übereinstimmungen abgestellt und nicht hinreichend beachtet, dass im Rahmen einer antithematischen Auseinandersetzung mit einem bestehenden Werk auch Übereinstimmungen hinzunehmen sind. Im Streitfall sind die festgestellten Übereinstimmungen vor allem darauf zurückzuführen, dass die Darstellung des räuberischen und gierigen Bundesadlers, der mit seiner Kralle ein Bündel mit Geldscheinen greift, gerade das der Öffentlichkeit bekannte Original erkennen lassen soll. Während der Bundesadler generell als Wappentier der Bundesrepublik den Staat verkörpern mag, verbindet die Öffentlichkeit den bekannten Gies-Adler mit dem Bundestag, also mit dem Gesetzgeber, von dessen angeblich unrühmlicher Rolle der Artikel handelte.

"Der für eine freie Benutzung erforderliche Abstand zu dem benutzten Werk kann - selbst bei deutlichen Übernahmen - dadurch gegeben sein, dass das neue Werk zu den entlehnten eigenschöpferischen Zügen des älteren Werks einen deutlichen inneren Abstand hält und deswegen seinem Wesen nach als selbstständig anzusehen ist. Auch in einem solchen Fall kann davon gesprochen werden, dass die individuellen Züge des älteren Werks in dem neueren Werk „verblassen”. Dies kann durch eine Parodie geschehen, durch die das ältere Werk selbst zum Gegenstand einer kritisch-humorvollen, ironischen Auseinandersetzung gemacht wird, ist aber auch auf andere Weise möglich - etwa durch eine Karikatur, die nicht das ältere Werk selbst betrifft, sondern den Gegenstand, der in dem älteren Werk dargestellt ist. Voraussetzung für eine solche, durch gewisse Übernahmen charakterisierte freie Benutzung ist aber stets, dass das neue Werk trotz der äußeren Übereinstimmungen einen deutlichen (inneren) Abstand hält, der im Allgemeinen in einer antithematischen Behandlung zum Ausdruck kommt."

in summary: do not focus to strongly on superficial similarities. these can be necessary so people recognize what the new work is about. the focus must also be on the inner distance of the works, especially if the new work has a contrasting message, so even strong superficial similarities do not hinder free use.132.187.246.59 22:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the Gies-Adler-Entscheidung, but choose not to refer to it here, because I believe it is not applicable. The Gies-Entscheidung as well as any other refering to satire as justification for independent use (Freie Benutzung) is based on satire on the original work. In Alcolix the Asterix-characters were used in mockery based on their individual traits (the original work is the Asterix series of comic books), the same at Mattscheibe and Der Preis ist heiß (~ en:The Price is right) as the typical elements of the TV-gameshow were taken and put into a new, satirical context and the Gies-Adler-Entscheidung, where the well known Eagle-symbol in the German parliament, that is shown in the TV news on an almost daily basis was edited in an unflattering way. But here the mockery is over Ursula Von der Leyen, not her photograph or the photographer. So satire and the application of § 24 UrhG based on the invocation of satire does not work. That makes all the difference, because we need to protect the work by the photographer unless he himself agrees to put the picture under a suitable free license. --h-stt !? 11:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let em emphasize again the mockery is about Ursula von der Leyen and German authrorities and the copyright holder are the German authorities. The original photographer, who is not holding the copyright, has is irrelevant in this context.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"copyright holder are the German authorities" is wrong as of our current knowledge. We were told that Mrs. von der Leyen holds the rights (I assume the right for use, as she is not the photographer). --Túrelio (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probaly too late but for the mocherly aspect that makes no difference as the Mrs. von der Leyen is representative of the German authorities. I.e. the mockery apllies to the authorirites in general and to her individually as a respresentative as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does work very well since the focus of both works is the depiction of the person itself. One in a promotional photograph, the other quite the opposite. Both show the same "character" with very different meaning and context. Additionally the Gies-Adler-Entscheidung was not based on satire (referrer to the introduction to the case), since it did not count as a satire. It was based on freedom of press and expression. Like it would in this case in the meaning of freedom of expression. This concludes that your argumentation is invalid and wrong. It is an own work, a Freie Benutzung (Free Usage). -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 11:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your legal interpretation of the Gies-Entscheidung with regard to the application of it to our file in case. --h-stt !? 12:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But many others do... -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 12:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. No consensus. – Adrignola talk 03:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File: 1967-1969 Looney Tunes Opening Title Card.png

This is a SCREENSHOT and I own this PRINT SCRREN and I created it. No reason for deletion. Obviously, you guys wouldn't know own work and free usage IF IT HIT YOU IN THE HEAD!!!!!!! Undelete this ASAP because you guys just have a lousy reason and bad staff. Undelete it!! Aria1561 (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of words in upper case and multiple exclamation marks will not increase the chances for undeletion here. And while you may have made that screenshot, that doesn't mean you own the copyright to the image, nor is the movie your own work. Your use of the words “Anyone is granted the rights of using this for certain purposes.” on the image description page seems to refer to the concept of fair use, but fair use images are not allowed here. You might have better luck at the English wikipedia, which allows fair use images under certain conditions. --Rosenzweig τ 17:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Owning a copy of the movie does not mean that you own the copyright to the movie and can license it as CC-BY-SA. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image consists entirely of coloured text, a couple rectangles, and a small logo (which I believe is de minimis). It's {{PD-text}}. (The original license supplied is of course incorrect.) Dcoetzee (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-text}} or {{PD-ineligible}}. – Adrignola talk 03:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:VIAF inter project linking 2012-08-12 01.jpg and File:VIAF inter project linking 2012-08-12 04.jpg

Dear friends, File:VIAF inter project linking 2012-08-12 01.jpg and File:VIAF inter project linking 2012-08-12 04.jpg where part of Category:VIAF inter project linking together with

They are part of an important multiple site project being presented at German Wikimedia convention next month: de:project:WikiConvention. Most work was made during last years in very rudimental and hostile conditions (compare de:Cighid and [3]) work made behind the end of the world / behind konets sveta / Конец света.
The project involves the usage of various tools and additional development and documentation. A JavaScript Greasemonkey was developed, is in the test pahese before being published and before being portad to MediaWiki gadgets. All files from the category mentioned above are presentig testcase examples on various sites about work I am involved. Testing requires the usage of various browsers and account (Gadget, JavaScript) settings.
It is tipical to WikiMedia that some admins delete without any notification content they do not understand and which is below their domain of interest. Regards user:Gangleri ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 07:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the screenshots contain part of unfree software and a few unfree book covers (File:VIAF inter project linking 2012-08-12 04.jpg). Besides the wrong information that you created all this entirely by yourself no reason is given why this content is free. --Martin H. (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also with your other uploads you breach copyrights. If there is wikipedia text in your screenshos: This text is licensed under cc-by-sa-3.0: You must indicate all authors and the license andyou must distribute your screenshot under the same license. Or for example File:VIAF inter project linking 2012-08-12 02.jpg. The photo is licensed under cc-by, you must(!!!!) attribute the photgrapher and indicate the license. Pay attention to copyrights, this is not fair use wiki. --Martin H. (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I agree with Martin H. I haven't looked at your other uploads but the two I deleted (which you listed in the header) are definitely not images that should be on Commons as they are not freely licensed content (afai can tell). Killiondude (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Ich verstehe einige Brocken Deutsch. Aus pädagogischer Sicht ist es möglich auf verschiedene Arten vorzugehen. Die großen Pädagogen beschränken sich auf Aussagen wie "Das ist alles Mist!". Unter Unterstützung und Hilfe verstehe ich Aussagen wie: "... Füge bei File:VIAF inter project linking 2012-08-12 02.jpg folgendes hinzu: ...". Das mit den Buchdeckel bei File:VIAF inter project linking 2012-08-12 04.jpg habe ich auch verstanden. Die Wiedergabe der Buchdeckel ist in diesem Fall irrelevant. Ein Teilausschnitt "tut es auch". Die Bemerkung zu: "Besides the wrong information that you created all this entirely by yourself ..." ist auch korrekt. Dort müsste stehen "Based on own work but I did not invented the wheel.". Mir ist nicht bekannt wer hierfür die weltweiten Patente besitzt. Gruß aus München ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 06:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Du solltest die Screenshots neu erstellen ohne irgendwelche Buchcover und mit einer strikten Beschränkung auf freie Software unter vollständiger Quellen und Urheberangabe. Alles andere geht nicht, COM:PS#Must be freely licensed or public domain und Commons:Screenshots. Welche Quellen- und Urheberangaben du ergänzen und entfernen musst, wirst du selber herausfinden. Richtig ist allerdings nicht 'based on own work' sondern 'screenshot of xy'. Einen Screenshot zu erstellen ist keine geistige Schöpfung. --Martin H. (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danke! Für die Änderungen brauche ich drei Tage Zeit. Allerdings habe ich keine Kopien der gelöschten Dateien. Gruß ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 21:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfree content. Screenshot of software could be restored if permission from developer received through OTRS. Same with book covers and publisher. – Adrignola talk 03:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Ill Met by Moonlight - first edition cover.jpg

Hi This is a photograph of a front cover. the book is widely available. the image serves to illustrate the first publishing by our father in 1950. We hold the copyright to the book. so we hope that this is sufficient information for you Huguº (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please email us (see COM:OTRS) from an email address associated with the publisher of the book. – Adrignola talk 21:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Joseph Cari, Jr..jpg - undelete

In the Image Casebook (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Image_casebook) it says about photographs:

Photos taken by you or scans or photocopies made by you of objects or designs whose copyright has expired (usually 70 years after the death of the author, but see Commons:Licensing for a country-by-country list).

We do the Media for Joe Cari and took this image, own it, and were asked by himself to update it on Wikipedia. It is free to be distributed, anyone can already locate the image and save it from his website: http://joecari.com/

Please let me know if this is sufficient for the image to be undeleted.

Thank you, Kym @ HyperGraphics

--Hypergraphics (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please email us (see COM:OTRS) from an email listed as a contact at http://joecari.com/ – Adrignola talk 21:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Pelinga's Bottle Shot.jpg

I would kindly request an undeletion on the file listed above, as I have sole ownership of the picture and it is not copyrighted. I may have erroneously selected the incorrect licensing; I'm having difficulty with that. Please let me know if I should start all over to upload the file again, or if someone can help me change its status to free public domain, as it is not a picture owned by anyone.

Many thanks, Distefwiki (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked your other upload File:Stefano Pelinga.jpg and it relates to an image on http://www.trickshotmagicinternational.com/index.php in particular this link. Can you explain your relationship to that site? Agathoclea (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These do look like copyright violations, unless Distefwiki is a professional sports photographer. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please email OTRS from an email address listed on a professional photography site. – Adrignola talk 03:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:STAR System color logo.png

I am the legal owner of the copyright for this image. I administrated the organization it represented for 9 years. If I give permission for this image to be placed in Commons, how is this a copyright violation? How do I get this image undeleted?

Paul Maslak (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first two statements seem contradictory; surely the organization itself is the legal owner of the image, and the current administrator the one who has the right to license it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the contradiction. I was and remain sole legal proprietor of the STAR ratings, its copyright as well as its now-defunct organizational operations. I am majority owner of a corporation but never put the STAR ratings under its corporate legal umbrella. I was a national newsstand magazine editor and later a professional motion picture producer. I certainly know when I do and when I do not own an image. How do I submit proof of ownership? Paul Maslak (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See COM:OTRS. – Adrignola talk 21:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Don "The Dragon" Wilson.jpg

This image is owned by Don "The Dragon" Wilson. He gave it to me for the purpose of including it with his Wikipedia entry. I cropped the original image to fit the Wikipedia page and to remove background noise, but otherwise it has not been changed. I have known Mr. Wilson for over 30 years. If he gives permission for this image to be used, how is that a copyright violation? How do I get this image undeleted? Paul Maslak (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, a permission for the purpose of including it into Wikipedia does not mean that the photo was published under {{FAL}}, it means that a "for Wikipedia permission" was granted and thats insufficient, Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. Second, retrieving the picture from the subject does not make it your work, but you said "self" on the file description. Third, the copyright holder is unlikely the subject but more likely the photographer, only the copyright holder can grant a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This person is a public figure as a professional sports champion and a cable-TV movie star. Certainly you can understand why he would commission publicity stills that he can control for his own purposes. That was the case with this image. He paid the photographer. He owns the photo and asked me to put it on his Wikipedia entry. What do we need to do to qualify it for use with Wikipedia? We can provide whatever notarized statements of ownership that may be required. Also, because I ran the world ratings for the sport of kickboxing, other prominent world champions are willing to provide me with photos of themselves for use in Wikipedia. In the interests of improving their Wikipedia biographical entries, I really need to learn how to qualify these photos. Paul Maslak (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please email us: COM:OTRS. – Adrignola talk 21:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Lyraka (2).jpg

Lyraka(2).jpg is my property.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy DiGelsomina (talk • contribs)

see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Undue File Deletion above. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Steve lieberman Diktator 17 album cover

not sure why this got deleted for copyright infringement? who is the copyright holder of record? thanks 613codify (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Steve_Lieberman_The_Gangsta_Rabbi_DiKtatoR_17_2009_2010.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1[reply]

Well, first it's an album cover, which are usually copyrighted. In addition, the source page http://jdubdigital.com/album/diktator-17 says "All rights reserved". --Túrelio (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. how would i get a picture of the album for an infobox on an article on the album. i see many articles on albums with their images. thanks again 613codify (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see such articles with albums? However rarely, an album cover might be that simple that it is not copyrightable. As :en Wikipedia allows fair-use (Commons does NOT), in selected cases a cover might go by fair-use. Finally, the uploader might have asked the group/rights holder for permission - surely the best method. --Túrelio (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buttons Red-GKN logo.jpg File:CustomerBrands-Alphab.tiff File:GKN Logo wiki.jpg Johanna klpf (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use files should be uploaded locally. – Adrignola talk 03:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Humayun Azad

It appears that I could not fill up the requisite spaces properly as a result of which the photos were deleted. No one holds copyright for these photos. Since Humayn Azad's [age in English, Hindi and Bengali are without his photos, it is essential that his photos are inserted in the relevant pages. I therefore request for undeletion. Thanks.Shankar Sen (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only file of yours that has been deleted is File:Tridib Mitra ( Poet of the Hungry generation Literary Movement in Bengali Language ).jpg which does not appear to have anything to do with Humayun Azad. Perhaps you would be kind enough to give us a list of the files you are requesting undeletion here? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He may refer to File:Poet Philosopher.jpg, which is not deleted and without any problem tag (except missing date), though I would like to know whether the uploader has really shot this by himself. --Túrelio (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request is lacking requisite information. – Adrignola talk 03:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Tridib Mitra's photo

Tridib Mitra has authorised me to use this photo anywhere, including in my personal blog. That is why I have posted it on the relevant page. Shankar Sen (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No clue what is being referred to here. Submit a new request with relevant information please. – Adrignola talk 03:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Poster Passion Despair.jpg

Please undelete the file "Poster Passion Despair.jpg" the copyright holder agreed to publish the file under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 liscence (CC-BY-SA). The copyright holder is the film production company KINO.NET AG, the owner is Steff Gruber. He will send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to declare his permission. Please let me know if there is something more that I should do for undeletion. August 18, 2011 Curriculum09 (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can undelete if and when OTRS receive permission. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS permission confirmed in ticket 2011081910004121. – Adrignola talk 03:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Raj Reddy .jpg

The reason for my request is the genuineness of the image I have uploaded. The image is taken by myself in my university. I personally captured the image with the permission of the person in it. There is no obligation either by the person in it or by any other. I need the image to be restored as soon as possible.

09:09AM 19-Aug-2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sravan2023 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Although we usually assume good faith on the part of our uploaders, when a new user uploads a single image, we are skeptical.

When that image is highly professional -- multiple lights, dodged-in background, perfect pose and smile -- and appears all over the Web, that skepticism becomes doubt.

I suggest that the best way to keep this image will be for Dr. Reddy to send an email to Commons:OTRS confirming the copyright status of the image. That would have to come from an official university e-mail, not from g-mail or another anonymous source. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS verification is needed. – Adrignola talk 03:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Data-romance-600x600.jpg

Hello,

If you can clarify how to upload this file correctly with with the proper information, that would be helpful. I work for the record label/management/artist of which this picture was taken and commissioned by. Please tell me the proper information to upload so that the picture can be undeleted.

Thank you for the help.

Best, Danny Schnair

Coordinator | Street Quality Music WWW.SQEMUSIC.COM--Jasonsqe (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Commons:Permission for an overview of what we need. There are instructions at the bottom of that page that describe your next steps. Powers (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Anaperugini_biografia_site.jpg

Hi,

This image is owned by Ana Perugini. I am a communications adviser and assure that I can use it for this purpose. S,o please release the image.

Thanks,

Luiz Oliveira

--Luizheli (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please send appropriate credentials to prove that you are an authorized representative using the process described at Commons:OTRS. – Adrignola talk 21:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that Commons only accepts content published under a license that allows anyone to use it for any purpose. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above; please provide verification of your representation and licensing through OTRS. – Adrignola talk 04:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:John Garfield Warner Bros. Publicity 1947.jpg

Although the original reason for deletion was valid, I believe the image can be restored with a different license: PD-US-not renewed. It's rationale can be found in a similar image: File:Cortes-Ricardo.jpg, which includes among others this statement: "Publicity photos (star headshots) have traditionally not been copyrighted. Since they are disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain, and therefore clearance by the studio that produced them is not necessary." ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be {{PD-US-no-notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}, depending on whether a copyright was displayed and whether it's renewed. The file would only be restored in line with Commons:Hirtle chart. Publicity photos are not public domain and Commons won't accept that reasoning: Commons:Image_casebook#Press_photos. – Adrignola talk 03:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions. Why do you refer to the image as a press photo? It was taken by an unknown studio photographer working for a private company, not a newspaper photographer. And are you saying that the extensive rationale (including the point about publicity stills not being copyrighted) at File:Cortes-Ricardo.jpg is not applicable? If so can you address the points made there? I would like to restore the image under {{PD-US-no-notice}}. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file stated it was of "John Garfield photographed by Warner Bros. Studios, 1947." Author was listed as "Warner Bros. Studios - Publicity". So this would be a work for hire for Warner Brothers. "Press photo" and "publicity photo" are interchangeable in terms of how the image casebook's reasoning applies. Source was stated to be http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Garfield,%20John/Annex/Annex%20-%20Garfield,%20John_03.jpg so I don't know how one would get a date of 1947 from that to know if it's public domain due to the date of publication. Also, we'd need to definitively know that copyright was not renewed. I'm not arguing for or against deletion, but simply providing you with information. Perhaps someone else knows more about the origin and current status of this image. – Adrignola talk 17:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provenance of image is unclear. – Adrignola talk 04:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Usho3.jpg

don't delete this please.. i beg you plx don't..--Heyhello1234567 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)--Heyhello1234567 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)--Heyhello1234567 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)--Heyhello1234567 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)--Heyhello1234567 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)--Heyhello1234567 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page for undeletion requests. There is nothing to undelete, because the file has not (yet) been deleted. If you have any policy-based reasons (as opposed to just nagging or personal attacks) why the file should not be deleted, there is still time to present them in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Usho3.jpg. Don't overwrite other people's comments, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently was nominated for deletion and deleted, per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Usho3.jpg. – Adrignola talk 04:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:A2 14r.svg

File:A2 14r.svg was deleted as having no license, but the gif version File:A2 14r.gif is properly licensed. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

How is the latter properly licensed when its source, http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/ksol.htm, says "Copyright © 1999, 2004, 2005. All rights reserved."? – Adrignola talk 15:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because they took the picture out of a book from the middle ages and don't have the copright? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Restored with source file's licensing. – Adrignola talk 04:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

file:MFIA.svg

file:MFIA.svg was deleted because of out of scope but the png version File:MFIA.png is in use which would imply being in scope. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The latter usage makes no sense in the header template on my translated version of the page it's used on. The in use provision is if it's actually in use. Latter file is in use (probably not legitimately), while the former is not. That's not to say people couldn't disagree with the outcome of the deletion request here, but it's disingenuous to restore a file for the suggested reason. – Adrignola talk 15:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not really logical. Now the png can be tagged to be converted and somebody would draw a new svg and upload it. So either both files should be deleted or neither. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Source file in use. Vector version available. – Adrignola talk 04:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Mother Teresa Poster CalcutaUC dot cl 01.jpg

thumb Adriagnola comment on that file miss permission, I mean it is a photo of an open place in University, santiago Chile. No copyright is requested --Penarc (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've created a derivative work of a poster whose design would have a copyright belonging to another. – Adrignola talk 19:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of non-free content. Not permanently located. – Adrignola talk 04:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:백괴시티 로고.svg

Hey! This file is used on Uncyclopedia. And this is a logo of Uncity which is part of Korean Uncyclopedia.

So this file doesn't violate the copyright, because it is made by myself.

I'm active in Ungame which is a sister project of Uncyclopedia.

Korean Uncyclopedia uses Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license.

--Zzang1000 (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Korean Uncyclopedia uses the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike license, which is not a license accepted on Commons. --Carnildo (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zzang1000 just gave incorrect/incomplete source information. The image is a DW of this file: File:Rubik's cube v3.svg. If the creator would clearly state this as source, there would never have been a problem. --High Contrast (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Complex_dedicated_lane_sign.gif

Buchanan Computing (copyright holder) has authorized the publishing of the Complex_dedicated_lane_sign.gif screenshot as per [Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses]

Please send in permission from an authorized representative via a Buchanan Computing email address using the instructions at OTRS. – Adrignola talk 04:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

thumb|+James Hayden, acting as the nice, shy, and gentle "Harry Colman" in the 1981 TV film, "The Intruder Within.".

Greetings. I sincerely believe that this screenshot is in perfect accord with Wikimedia Commons "Public Domain" policies, since it is my understanding that this US 1981 TV film has NO COPYRIGHT status in the United States. If this is indeed so, I respectfully request that this screenshot be undeleted. Thank you.

Why would it have no copyright status in the US? Showing it on TV isn't publishing it, as several court cases have established, so it would have had to have been sold to the public on film or VHS by 1989 without a copyright notice, without subsequent repair. I find that unlikely and very hard to prove.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provenance of image is not clear and has not been proven. – Adrignola talk 04:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Various icons.png

Buenos dias, Con la presente busco conocer el motivo del suprimiento de los 3 archivos subidos(Various icons (talla grande).png y Various icons.png) atraves de mi cuenta Kovacs22 a wikimedia commons.Sobre todo por que son imagenes png que yo mismo edite usando los programas inkscape y adobe illustrator.Es muy buenos saber que wikipedia busque proteger los derechos de autor pero creo que en este caso se esta cometiendo un abuso.Me gustaria como amateur de edición grafica aportar con mis archivos pero creo que si tengo que justificar que me pertenecen cada vez que los suba no va ha ser posible.Sin más espero su respuesta para restituir los 3 archivos:

Various icons (talla grande).png
Various icons.png
Varios iconos.png

--Kovacs22 (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you know that "own work" means "completamente fruto de mi trabajo"? A collection of various unfree logos isnt entirely your own work, in fact: nothing is your work there. Also deleted File:Diferentes iconos talille 1200x1600.png that you uploaded short after this request. That one is also a collection of not self-created, unfree works. --Martin H. (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of a collage doesn't give copyright on the contained imagery. It just creates a derivative work. – Adrignola talk 04:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Mulher Polícia.jpg

I am requesting the undeletion of the file File:Mulher Polícia.jpg as I have already sent the authorization for its usage to the e-mail permissions-commons@wikimedia.org today, August 28, 2011, at 20:21, perhaps one hour after I uploaded it.

I don't understand why it was deleted since I used the same procedure I had used before, for the file I uploaded just before this one, about which I recieved a message asking for the authorization, which I immediatly sent, and everything was easily solved.

--P.F. Duarte (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Maria João Sigalho, Rosa Filmes, August 28, 2011[reply]

Depending on the language, it could still be awaiting processing or maybe you've received a response in the past few weeks. If you don't hear from us soon, please address the issue at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. – Adrignola talk 04:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Bettina Hoffmann, La viola da gamba.jpg

This is a title of an already published book, as you can find it on the website of the editor and of internet bookshops. Tarquinia Molza (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it has been published has no meaning for copyright. Being published anywhere does not translate into "free from copyright" or "under a free license". The cover contains an image that may be still copyrighted. It is the uploader's job to provide evidence that his/her uploads are indeed freely licensed. --Túrelio (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide permission from the publisher as described at COM:OTRS. – Adrignola talk 04:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Connie9.jpg deleted

Hi, I was personally asked by Miss Connie Stevens to add a photo to her wiki page. She provided me with the photo from her own collection and has a copyright to it. The photo was deleted. What do we have to do in order to put the photo on the page? Thank You,

Tiho Borosak

See the instructions at COM:OTRS; it involves sending an email with the full permission statement. Since accounts here are essentially anonymous, we generally require this step for any images found previously on the internet, unless the full copyright license is displayed at the original location. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:TulsaSkyline1925.jpg

I have tried to use the subject file, which I originally uploaded, only to find that it has been deleted. So far, I have been unable to find out why the deletion occurred. No message was posted on my talk page.

The photo is from the Beryl Ford Collection, readily available on the Tulsa City-County Library Website with the following permission statement:"You are free to distribute this photo provided the content is left unchanged. Photo credit should be given to the Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library and Tulsa Historical Society."

I request that the subject image be restored. Thank you. Bruin2 (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's at File:TulsaSkyline1925.jpg. It has never been deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"You are free to distribute this photo provided the content is left unchanged." That's a no-derivatives license and not permitted here. If it is from 1925 though and published in the US, it may be in the public domain if published without a copyright notice or published with notice but without having renewed the copyright since then. – Adrignola talk 15:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no link to the source, so it's hard to tell whether it was published, and if so then when. I'm tempted to put this up for DR.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:TulsaSkyline1925.jpg Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was not yet deleted, but has been now; Commons:Deletion requests/File:TulsaSkyline1925.jpg. – Adrignola talk 04:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:VIA6506calg1982.jpg,File:CDNbighill1986.jpg and File:VIA6569-890917 Tr71 Trillum, London, Ont 3 FP7A.JPG

The following files where deleted because of lack of OTRS permission. For some reason the emails I sent for all three images did not register. I sent them again when I recieved the notice and contacted the user who posted the notice on my talk page, but the deletion still occured. I can resend the emails if necessary. I have complete proof of permission and have successfully navigated the OTRS process before. Thanks Samuell (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the language, it could still be awaiting processing or maybe you've received a response in the past few weeks. If you don't hear from us soon, please address the issue at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Files needing OTRS can't be restored without the necessary approval. – Adrignola talk 04:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Pravda1982.jpg

I referenced this deletion debate in my licensing: Deletion request of front page Neues Deutschland. This image, too, is an unreadable copy of communist-state owned newspaper. Is it because this was a special edition with a large image of Brezhnev? If so, I can always find a front page with mostly text. Rockhead126 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unreadable copy? The main subject of that cover is a photography, it certainly not qualifies as "pd-ineligible". Also the decission at Deletion request of front page Neues Deutschland for a plain text document isnt correct, the requirement for pd-ineligible is not that the scan/reproduction is too bad so that its not readable anymore, the requirement is that the text is to simple for copyright. Making it pd-ineligible will require to cut out all text, no matter one can read it or not. --Martin H. (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Gfss.png

Hello, the file File:Gfss.png was recently deleted. This was a logo I had designed for the Glenforest Secondary School Wikipedia page. This is the school's official logo as illustrated by the uploading of the logo onto their official school website (http://glenforestlibrary.com/logo.jpg). As I designed it and am the current webmaster of said school, I grant permission that Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons may use said logo as content for related articles.

A couple things -- if it was a work for hire (sounds like it), the school owns copyright, not you personally, so we'd probably need permission from someone else. Second, you can't give permission to just Wikipedia... to host them here on Commons, the permission must be granted to *everybody*, and for *any* purpose. (Well the copyright needs to be licensed that way; the trademark is unaffected.) The alternative is to upload to Wikipedia directly under a fair use rationale. Commons generally requires specific permissions being sent in for any work which has been previously published anyways, as it's impossible to tell if a user account (essentially anonymous) really has copyright ownership -- we prefer emails being sent from the originating institution itself. See COM:OTRS for which type of email needs to be sent, with the contents -- that should make clear of what rights need to be granted. If sent, then the image will be undeleted as part of that process. If not sent (and it's completely understandable if the school is not comfortable with that permissive a license), then it will likely stay deleted (and uploading directly to the English Wikipedia becomes an option). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded under fair use to en.wiki. – Adrignola talk 04:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File: Only Road Home to undelete.jpg

I am asking that the picture file name: File:Only Road Home.jpg be undeleted. I am the copyright holder. This is a picture of the cover of "Only Road Home". Released by Bayland Records 11-2-2010. My name is Ronnie Penque. I am president of Bayland Records and I own the artwork for "Only Road Home". I am also the artist who wrote and produced the album "Only Road Home". A new article has been added to wikipedia on "only ROad Home and it is waiting for the cover art, That is the file: Only Road Home.jpg . If this file can not be undeleted can you tell us where to redo this. Thank you Ron Penque owner of File: Only Road Home.jpg

Hello, Mr. Penque, and hello, Wikimedia image administrators. I have replaced the deleted album cover image with another one. It's on the English language Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OnlyRoadHome.jpg. The new image has an appropriate fair use rationale and licensing information. Because of this new image it will not be necessary to un-delete the old one, we're all set. Thanks! Mudwater (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not all set. If we can host this file, then we should host it here, where all the Wikipedias can use it, not just the English one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need to send a message from an email address associated with ronniepenque.com to OTRS saying that you're the owner and that you're releasing it under a free license. See COM:OTRS for details.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above, and instructions at COM:OTRS. – Adrignola talk 04:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Files vandalised by User:82.5.45.32

On my talk page, User:82.5.45.32 claims to have gotten files deleted by deleting their license information[4]; can someone who has access to deleted edits check to see if any files were accidentally so deleted?--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has no deleted contributions. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 09:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they are doing that on en-wiki: en:Special:Contributions/$01734071290912$. They remove the licensing, add the no-permission tag, and it probably gets deleted silently within a week. Do we have any protection against that practice here, maybe some automated way to figure out if a no-permission file once did have a license? On the other hand, some of that user's comments indicate that the user simply took the photos without authorization off of Flickr a few years ago, and is now simply trying to correct that situation. The photos are no longer on Flickr, and I don't think we have any evidence of them being licensed correctly on Flickr, so deletion is probably appropriate in this case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant deletion request here is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flyb.jpg. Lupo 20:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as there's nothing to undelete. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 07:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Torso with pubic hair.jpg

File:Torso with pubic hair.jpg was deleted with an invalid reason for deletion. We offer a variety of images and "not in use" (after a IP replaced it, after DR start) is not a reason for deletion. --Saibo (Δ) 01:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I previously closed as keep only because it was in use. It is clearly a low-quality (out of focus - even in thumbnail) and low-res image, so I'm glad someone has found a better replacement for use on en-wiki. I can't see any realistic educational situation where the new image would not be preferable, thus this is redundant and fails scope. --99of9 (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see it, but as a general matter, if it was legitimately in use for a while, then it is by definition usable which is the COM:SCOPE criteria. We don't delete images as soon as there is a single "better" one, we keep them both and let projects choose. The idea is to get many choices as possible for projects to choose from. I understand there is a sensitivity with this type of image, and I don't want to encourage people uploading images as a game just to see nudity on wikipedia, there is room for multiple images on subjects, particularly ones which are part of an article's revision history. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mention "preferable" - we do not editorialize other projects and apparently this was in use since 2011-03-24T20:54:38 so it seems to be usable, as Carl notes. Out of focus in thumbnail? Umm - not really. Contrast/lighting is not good - sure...

However, I think we can close this discussion for a simple reason: likely copyvio (see User_talk:Tbmurray#Last_warning and the watermark (lpsg.org) bottom right in the first file version). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 05:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Saibo's explanation. Tabercil (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose COM:SCOPE#File_not_legitimately_in_use: "The fact that an unused pornographic image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornography does not mean that we should keep all pornographic images". COM:SCOPE#Discussion: "There may sometimes be an argument for retaining multiple images that are (from an educational point of view) quite similar, for the sake of variety and availability of choice, but there is no purpose in our hosting many essentially identical poor quality images that have no realistic educational value." – Adrignola talk 20:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more to discuss here as said above. --Saibo (Δ) 04:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:Dablink

Template:Dablink is currently used by something like 400 pages on Wikimedia Commons. I'm shocked that such a deletion could happen: I would have thought that before any template was deleted, a check would be made to ensure no pages were transcluding it, and any such pages would be fixed before template deletion, not after. I'm also genuinely perplexed by the deleting administrator's response to me that "There is nothing wrong that this file was deleted". If correctly following procedure results in damage to 400 pages, then surely the procedure is wrong?

The effect of the deletion is that, for example, a hatnote which previously said

Not to be confused with Category:Foobar

now says

Template:Dablink

The deletion request for this file was because one user didn't see the need for it; nobody else commented for or against the deletion, probably because no-one was aware of the request; I certainly wasn't. I don't see any harm in the continued existence of this template. On the contrary, it allows "hatnotes" to be consistently formatted in the same style as each other. If a decision is made to change the cosmetic appearance of hatnotes, all we have to do is modify this single template. Please undelete. -- Dr Greg talk 10:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the usages of it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two users should not decide to delete such a commonly used template; it needed more discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template's uses should have been replaced with {{En}} in nearly all cases, as such "hatnotes" were not localized for the benefit of our readers. Otherwise it's saying that we're only concerned with providing English language disambiguation. – Adrignola talk 00:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to replace the usages with {{En}}. But I think this comment also shows a problem of this template. It's a template that comes from the English language Wikipedia, which is perfectly fine there, it just doesn't fit for Commons. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dablink was discussed in this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Dablink. Within 7 days nobody had any problem with this DR. Thus it should not be controversal that this template gets deleted after these 7 days of runtime. So, Prosfilaes and Greg, it was no descission of two persons. Why didn't one of you leave a comment in this DR? Would have been surely a helpful thing. --High Contrast (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was it marked on the template, where it was visible everywhere the template was used? I didn't see that day's DRs apparently, and likely most of the people who were interested in the matter didn't. That's the complaint about many of Common's DRs, that it doesn't get the interested parties involved, mitigated partially by the fact that we treat images in use as being in-scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the uses as suggested above, in many cases resulting in superior layouts using {{LangSwitch}} or at least the per-language templates. So even if this wasn't handled in the best manner, rest assured that any damage has now been repaired. – Adrignola talk 22:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Ssangyong eng.png

This image is just company logo. So Do not delete this file.--쌍용건설 (talk) 04:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to undelete, because the file has not been deleted. You had claimed (incorrectly) that the logotype was protected by copyright, that you were the author and copyright holder (that is: you claimed that you personally designed the logotype), and that the logotype was published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license. Idh0854 noted that this was untrue on all counts and tagged the file as a copyright violation. Yann made the assessment that, while your claims were incorrect, the logotype is ineligible for copyright protection. Yann changed the file description to indicate this and removed the copyvio tag.

A logotype being "just a company logo" does not say anything about its copyright status. This particular logotype is ineligible for copyright protection because it essentially consists solely of letters. en:File:Virgin Mobile logo.png is also "just a company logo," but that is not ineligible for copyright protection. Furthermore, a logotype being ineligible for copyright protection does not mean that you can make up untrue licensing claims. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the file is missing source and author information that could be added or it may end deleted. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 08:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a logotype contains no original authorship, it has no author. And if it is in and of itself ineligible for copyright protection, a source is not needed to verify its public domain status. I'm not sure why you think it would need to be deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added the necessary information to the description page. Wasn't hard if you look at the en.wiki page where it's used... – Adrignola talk 00:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:BLACK CRACKER cover.jpg

Please undelete the image file File:BLACK CRACKER cover.jpg and do not delete the image file File:Josh Alan Friedman.jpg from the entry for JOSH ALAN FRIEDMAN.

I have sent a copy of a signed authorization, based on your template, for both files to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Please do not display the permissions letter in a public area or forum, as it includes the personal contact information of the rights holder. Thank you.

Gspeedlace

Oppose - it can be undeleted when the permission is checked by the OTRS team. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it in ticket 2011091110000432; permission from the book's publisher, not its author, is needed. – Adrignola talk 00:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Ben_Gurion_1959.jpg

Was deleted by Fastily after Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ben Gurion 1959.jpg; is clearly {{PD-Israel}}. Or is this the start of a URAA drive? In that case, I am definitely out of here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. {{PD-Israel}} is sufficient. Yann (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Undeletion of File:Alhurra logo.jpg

I am requesting undeletion of the media file: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Alhurra_logo.jpg

Proper permission documentation for this file's free license was submitted to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

Thank you.

--Agent021 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the ticket and processed it. Jcb (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Request to undelete Al Thoura.jpg and Thoura.svg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thoura.svg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Al Thoura.jpg

1) I made the image based on a request on wikipedia english for the arab spring article.
2) I created them and release to wikipedia under the correct license
3) Since, I created the image it has been used by many protesters in the Arab spring.
4) I image also has been used in many different articles in the news.
5) I am user, not an artist hence I dont have to be notable for my work to be kept.
6) even an un-notable artists have some of their work here on common as long as it serves a purpose.

So I was hoping that the someone will undelete them both. thanks -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am the deleting Admin. Both images are private works by a non-notable artist. The fact that he or she created them for a WP:EN article does not mean that they are not out of scope -- they were not in fact in use there. Clearly I'm wrong here, see below, and I see Trycatch has beaten me to the undelete. Thanks. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm... looking at the Google cache... I think I'll

Support. This is a longtime contributor, not someone looking for exposure for their own artwork or something like that. News organizations often make up their own graphics to for example identify a particular topic for related stories, and this seems somewhat in that vein -- maybe wikinews could use it (at least in theory if not in practice). Or it could perhaps be a logo for a WikiProject or something along those lines. I think this type of thing is in line with project goals and is in scope. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support It was used in at least two notable magazines: w:History Today -- [5] and w:The National Interest -- [6]. It's proven to be useful. --Trycatch (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done speedily. It was heavily in use in the main space of multiple wiki-projects -- http://toolserver.org/~delinker/?image=Al_Thoura.jpg. It's not our business to editorialise other WMF-projects. --Trycatch (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was too hasty. Seems to be a derivative work, see e.g. http://blog.relativitycorp.com/?p=323 and multiple other hits in TinEye. Nominated them for speedy. Trycatch (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch -- both are clearly simply negative images of the cited image from 2008, the one a simple negative, the other with material added. Casts some doubt on our uploader's credibility as well. That's a pretty strong statement of "own work" above, which the clearly are not. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely problematic, though much of the work does appear to have been the uploader's, just not the base fist image, which could be redone. Perhaps they thought it was such a common image that it was useable. I found at least one site which credited "wikipedia.org" for the white-on-black version but have not found if it was here to begin with. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:clio-faces.jpeg

This file is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. And, not to forget, I made a partial copy in pixelart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heftiorus (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, its not simple. --Martin H. (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree. Not even close to simple. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - "because it consists entirely of information" - this is bullshit, this drawing doesn't contain information at all - it does meet the threshold of originality, I didn't doubt that for even a second when I decided to delete it and most active admins will know that if I say that something is too complex for PD-ineligible, almost every admin will agree - Jcb (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll vouch for "most active admins will know that if I say that something is too complex for PD-ineligible, almost every admin will agree". – Adrignola talk 16:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Way too complex for PD-ineligible. --99of9 (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Request to undelete File:Tahrir Square - February 9, 2011.png

Yes, I know Jonathan Rashad personally and if you read the comments here, he says that he is Drumzo (The uploader); So I was hoping that the someone will undelete the picture. thanks -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the 720×478px imagesize. Thats what the uploader released. The higher quality version is taken from flickr without auhorization. --Martin H. (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once the author release the image for us to us and we managed to find a higher resolution one made by him, we are allowed to use it. FYI, when he released the image he didnt have a pro flickr account so he gave this highest resolution he had at that time. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats wrong, please read the full text of the license agreement. The only question is if the file - the high res - is under a free license at the time of your transfer to Commons, and that question is answered with a clear NO for the time of your transfer of the high res to Commons. If you transfer the high res today and claim the high res published under a free license today because it had been published under a free license in the past, you will mock the authors right to stop distributing under a free license at any time. --Martin H. (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@The Egyptian Liberal, your first statement "Once the author release ..." is highly controversial, not to say plain wrong. --Túrelio (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some authors will put a small resolution image under a free license, and keep the largest version under restrictive licenses. I don't think that's something we want to challenge, no matter what the armchair lawyers can say on the matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then undelete it and revert it back 2 the low res. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, uploades based on the high res version not undeleted. --Martin H. (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Masturbating with a toothbrush.jpg

Image deleted without explanation, arguments for deletion were basically "out of scope, PORN". Now, I'm not arguing it's a great image, it's not, but it is one of I believe only two images we (had) of masturbation using implements which were neither vegetables nor purpose-made sex toys. This was a bad image, but people masturbate using toothbrushes sometimes - I know people who do. People sometimes do it because they don't have access to sex toys, or they just want a thrill of unintended use. Either way, this is something which happens, quite regularly, and which we now, without explanation, have no media depicting. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The only !votes in favour of deletion cited only COM:PORN which states "We may remove low-quality pornographic images that do not contribute anything educationally useful to our existing collection of images." Clearly, this image contributes something that our existing images do not. Some people (e.g. User:Bulwersator) seem to think that the idea of masturbating with a toothbrush is random and silly, but this is a relatively common practice - perhaps the most commonly used household object - and would be excellent for illustrating an educational discussion of makeshift devices for masturbation. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done as closing admin. Dcoetzee makes an entirely valid point that was wholly lacking in the actual DR. If he makes that comment 2 hours ago and on another page, this isn't a delete, so... Courcelles (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Courcelles. However, I really do not understand why you close such controversial (their nature here in COM) DRs right after 7 days? --Saibo (Δ) 23:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

request to undelete File:Jim_Bell_IAU09.jpg

Hello, On the advice of the Commons help desk I would like to request the undeletion of File:Jim_Bell_IAU09.jpg that I had posted to Wikimedia Commons. The copyright holder states that the image can be released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, as long as I credit them for the photo. Once it is undeleted I will credit the copyright holder (IAU) and mention the links noted below (from my help desk message) on the file's description page.

Thanks!

James Bell

Transcript of Commons help desk session:

Hi there,

I would like to upload an image of myself for use on my Wikipedia entry. The image was taken by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), and is posted online at http://www.iau.org/public_press/images/detail/ga09139/

I tried posting this image previously but it was rejected by someone as not being my own work. May fault.

According to the IAU's copyright page at http://www.iau.org/copyright/ the image can be released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, as long as I credit the IAU for the photo.

Does that license indeed allow me to post this image on Wikipedia, and if so, can you please point me to instructions on how, specifically, I should do this to ensure the proper credit is given?

Thanks!

James Bell (astronomer, b. 1965) Marsrox.jim (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's fine. Apparently, there was only a misunderstanding because the original indications about the source were perhaps incomplete or confusing, and you had not responded to the message for clarification after one week. You can ask the undeletion of the file on the page Commons:Undeletion requests. Just make sure you credit the author and/or copyright holder and that you mention the above links on the file's description page, so that anyone can verify the source and the license. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Undeleted as picture http://www.iau.org/public_press/images/detail/ga09139/ is available under free license according to http://www.iau.org/copyright/

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

non deletion request

Can you please don't delete the File:BDanaiahkavi.jpg file please keep it online we need to use it

Thanks and regards Bandaru Danaiah Kavi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandarudanaiahkavi (talk • contribs) 12:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Second, I note that the image is watermarked as being from Ragalahari, which is why my colleague deleted it. That makes us skeptical that it is actually your own work. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done watermark speaks against having full ownership of the rights

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Christine_Boehm.jpg

Please undelete the file above mentioned; copyright information has been set to OTRS, see ticket #2011021710011379 --Wvk (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The OTRS ticket is from a relative of the subject. It offers no evidence of who the photographer was or who owns the copyright. After looking at the image, it seems to me that this is a professional portrait, so we would need permission from the photographer or his/her heirs. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the attachements? --Wvk (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. One of the attached documents is a release (I am being vague to protect privacy) but offers no explanation of who the photographer was and why Boehm claims copyright in an image of herself. Itdoes not specify a license, and does specify Wikipedia only, which is, of course, too limited. I should add that I don't read German so I relied on Google to translate. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jameslwoodward, the uploader, Alexandra Boehm, has written on my request a short answer how she got the copyright (see OTRS ticket #:2011021710011379). The uploaded photo is a privat photo marked on the back of the photo "Copyright Christine Boehm". After her death the father of Alexandra Boehm, Michael Boehm, brother of Christine Boehm owns the copyright. He agreed that the photo can be uploaded and used; unfortunately his written statement says nothing about the licence, but Alexandra Boehm, the dother of Micheal Boehm and the uploader, specified the licence after uploading the photo. IMHO, there should be no problem in restoring the photo, because there was no photographer involved, and a member of the family has specified the licence. --Wvk (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted I checked the german OTRS ticket 2011021710011379 and the documents and declarations provided are sufficient.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

undelete

jason12.jpg and clyde12.jpg are my photos. For some reason they have been deleted.--Fasb150 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jason12.jpg is created by Víctor Roces, File:Clyde12.jpg is created by Arto Lehtinen. You cant be two persons in one, your statement above "are my photos" is untrue. --Martin H. (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done as per Martin H.

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Schlierkamp-klock img 0370.jpg

Für das Bild liegt eine schriftliche Genehmigung des Firma Starland vor, die mir erlaubt es zu verwenden. Schalten Sie das Bild also wieder frei und geben Sie den Nutzern in der Zukunft die Chance so etwas nachzuweisen, ohne dass das Bild sofort gelöscht wird. Die Struktur dieser Seite ist dermaßen unübersichtlich und sie nimmt einem nahezu die Lust an der Aktivität bei Wiki-Commons. Myzera

Freigabe an OTRS weiterleiten, bitte dabei Bezug auf den Dateinahmen nehmen. Obige Formulierung birgt Potential für Missverständnisse, wenn nur dir erlaubt ist das Bild zuwenden dürftest du es nicht hier hochladen, es muss Jedem, ohne Einschränkungen, erlaubt sein das Bild für jeden Zweck unter einer freien Lizenz zu verwenden. de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Fremde_Aufnahmen. --Martin H. (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

request to undelete file: Alexander_smit.jpg

The jpg is derived from a video-still. The video is a low quality video taken from Alexander Smit by his commission, stored and later rediscoverd with other material, like phototgraphs writings etc. by people that were close to him. I know these people personally. There's no copyright on the stuff whatsoever, let alone on a insignificant part of it derived from these "archives" by a friend, and there-after edited (made a little more vivid) by, again a friend. It's me and the people that knew him who choose to have the "old" picture replaced by this one. So it's a collective ownership that does not claim anything but the right to take care of a proper presentation of Alexander Smit. ps reason given for deleting: Jcb: "Copyright violation: This picture was taken from a video, edited by Rob Sondaar.)" The still has been worked on by Rob Sondaar for the purpose of making it suitable to fit in as a portrait of A.S. on Wikipedia!

Yours,

Zoletaw (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In most countries of the world, there is automatically a copyright on material like this. It would be owned by the person who originally shot the material, usually, unless possibly it was a work for hire. The copyright owner needs to indicate the license, either on the web page where the video can be found (not sure where that is), or by sending permission via email (which needs to be from an address which can be associated to the copyright owner). See COM:OTRS for details on the latter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one who had the video shot is Alexander Smit, someone else pushed the on/off button. The original tape is probably lying in a shoebox at a friends place, owner of advaitaweb.nl. The original still is used as a profile picture on: https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/alexandersmit/ where has been dicided to use this image to replace the former image on http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Smit_%28spiritueel_leraar%29 . For again some reason another picture, derived from commons is removed and probably deleted. All and all a very frustrating situation.

--Zoletaw (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, the file showed an author who was different from the uploader and no evidence of permission from the author. Based on your comments above, it is clear that Rob Sondar, who is shown as the author, is in fact only a later editor. He may or may not have a copyright of his own, depending on how much work he did.

Second, as Carl says, the file you describe would certainly have a copyright -- almost everything has a copyright, so your reasoning would not work in any case. A movie still is particularly difficult because in most countries the copyright runs until 70 years after the last person to die of a long list -- actors, directors, producers, musicians, etc.

We all understand that it can be very frustrating to deal with copyright in some situations, but that's the way it is. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So no picture, movie or whatever can ever be free, because everybody's free to claim it at any time. And if not, how can I (we) prove that the "Alexander-archives" as I call it for now, are meant to be free for proper use, and free from copyright anyway? What about "The picture of the day"? File:Sadhu Vârânasî .jpg What if this Sadhu says: "Anyone can do with the picture whatever he wants!", and then he dies, which is quit certain to happen one day, will Commons than summon people, who cherish their momories of him, to let him sign for it? And when all is arranged, the picture accepted, and the maker wants to change it's size. There's a change that the resized picture will be rejected by Commons despite unchanged arguments to leave it be.

--Zoletaw (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Sadhu has no rights over the picture; he's not the photographer. I don't know what you mean by "will Commons than summon people"; we have the explicit permission of the photographer to use the photo. If we don't have the explicit permission of the photographer, then we need the explicit permission of the current copyright holder, in most cases the heirs of the photographer. I have no idea what you're going on about as to size; Commons usually wants the largest version it can get, so it rejects the idea of shrinking photos.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me, that, if I walk the street, and ask a peasant to make a picture of me with my own camera, I have to chase the person for permission to publish my portrait? And I tell you, there is no copyright holder, there is no gain at stake, there is no one to be found to object against using this picture for this purpose. And if there were, who's going to sew whom, and for what?

--Zoletaw (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the law; he who makes the creative decisions owns the copyright. Without an explicit contract, it needs to be work for hire, which means that the photographer is the employee of the new copyright holder. It doesn't matter that there's nothing to be gained; the law says we need to get permission before we can use these photos. There is a copyright holder, somewhere, unless it's at least 70 years old. And that copyright holder could sue the Wikimedia Foundation for copyright infringement, for damages to be set by the court, potentially thousands of dollars.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there has to be a copyright holder, how come there are free images? Did I have to hire the guy that took my picture with my camera, have him sign a contract and pay him? This is what happened, as I told before: Alexander friendly asked someone to push the "on" button. I'm trying to help improve the presentation of Alexander Smit on Wikipedia here, but it seems commons is just looking for reasons to hold off instead of helping me.

--Zoletaw (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the copyright holder agrees to license their copyright using one of the usual license. Nobody can do that for them though. If the video was taken under the direction of Smit, i.e. he set the scene etc., then he was probably the "author". If everything was done by employees of an organization, that organization would normally own copyright. Normally copyright owned by individuals is inherited by his heirs, but of course he can transfer it to an organization. And actually Netherlands copyright law does contain one interesting provision (article 4); unless there is proof to the contrary, the person named as the author when it is first "communicated to the public" can be considered the author, so if this video has never been published before, that may be enough. If one of the people involved here (or an organization) is considered the copyright owner, yes they can license it (see COM:OTRS, and follow the directions there to do so, and the OTRS folks will undelete it). Without that permission from the copyright owner, making copies is against the law, and even though for many such photographs it is highly unlikely that a copyright owner would both surface and bother to sue, it remains a theoretical possibility. Commons only accepts files where it appears that theoretical possibility does not exist even if the images are used in a commercial fashion (this is the "free" concept). Images which can be used under a "fair use" or "fair dealing" context can often be uploaded to the local wikipedias and used on articles, but cannot be uploaded to Commons. Works where the copyright owner has been lost (and may not even be aware they are the copyright owner) are tough; these are "orphan works" and countries really have not come up with a way to handle them in a risk-free manner, so we don't accept them. Yes, this can be highly frustrating, but it is a foundational concept of all Wikimedia projects, and we do try to follow it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be handled through OTRS. – Adrignola talk 15:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Vane.png

Of this vane miljons and miljons are produces. (Original in the Netherlands under the name "Dudoc van Heel vaantje" by the firm Kubus.) This vane is so widely used that the image shows a particular icon of sailing since the 1960's. If the image came from the australian side i can not recall. The firm Optiparts is also dutch so if the Australians have the copyright on the image is doubtfull.

Please undelete the file. I will made a picture of the vane on my O-jol and replace the current image. VYGOcommons (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think its about the 'design', its about the creation of the file. Open your graphics software and create your own graphic of this, dont copy other people work from some Australian websites and upload it saying 'its entirely my own work'. Thats what you did, and it is untrue and wrong. --Martin H. (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, please undelete and I'll put an own picture in place within a week. Than related pages does not have to change the image reference. VYGOcommons (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please upload your own file under the same name. – Adrignola talk 15:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

My images were not violating copyright

Giro720 (talk · contribs) claimed my files were violating copyright, but the images weren't.

File:San Diego Blackout 2011 (September 8).jpg

File:Compaq Presario 2200 (Notebook).jpg

File:Giant Gonzales.jpg

File:Netgear Wireless USB Adapter.jpg

File:CVS Pharmacy Prescription Bottle.jpg

File:Wal-Mart Prescription Bottle.jpg

File:Angaria turpini.jpg

--JCRules (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While I might barely believe that the prescription bottles are your own work, even they are a small size, typical of images taken from the Web. The Compaq and Netgear images are absolutely typical web thumbs -- it is very hard to believe that they are your own work, and even if they are, they are so small that they are not useful. THe other two are much the same.

The best way to avoid this sort of problem in the future is to upload images at full resolution, not thumbs. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Project scope/Evidence. – Adrignola talk 15:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Requesting Undeletion of Image:TourMillion.jpg

I am requesting the undeletion of the image TourMillion.jpg. I have permission from the CEO of the company to freely use this image which is a screenshot of the website and can provide a written confirmation from him if needed. Thank you. Dude4476 (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Dude4476[reply]

Please have the CEO send in permission following the instructions at COM:OTRS. We can't take your word for it. – Adrignola talk 13:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Strasbourg-Grande mosquée.jpg

Hi, This file was deleted as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toulouse - Rue des Mouettes -20110414 (1).jpg, like other mosques' pictures in France, because there is no FOP in France. I have no doubt that this deletion was made in good faith, but concerning File:Strasbourg-Grande mosquée.jpg I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to use a separate DR, because of the fact that the picture was taken when the mosque was under construction, at a time when the result couldn't be reflected and recognizable, especially concerning the dome of the Mosque. Then I'm asking for your knowledge about previous similar cases, to know if this picture can be undeleted or not. Thanks a lot! Jeriby (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While the dome is unfinished, the rest of the structure is complete and is certainly original enough for copyright, even in France. Remember, please, that the French law simply uses the word "architecture" with no modifiers. All architecture, complete or not, is covered by the statute. The French courts (unlike those in other countries) have added a relatively high threshold for originality, but this plainly exceeds that. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that the copyright is mainly in the whole building. So here the main original part of structure (the dome) is far to be complete, so there is no copyright here. Yann (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question So you're saying that if after the building was complete, any photograph of a detail of the building would not be a DW? Only photographs of the whole building are DW? Again, there is nothing in the statute (which says just "architecture", not "completed architecture", or "architecture of whole buildings") to support that. I don't know all the French case law, but no one has cited a French case that says that either. Certainly this would be a DW under USA law, but, fortunately we have FOP for architecture. No one has ever said that French law is different from USA in this respect. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A detail with significant originality would get a copyright, but not an image of the whole building where the main part is incomplete. Well, it just looks logical to me, but copyright law is not very logical... Yann (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see how incompleteness matters in architectural copyright. The court cases I've seen in the US are not about the pretty exterior; they're about the beating heart of the structure, better shown by an incomplete structure than a complete one. In the lack of FOP, it would be as illegal to copy that by photography as by architecture, I would think.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not restored. No freedom of panorama in France for architecture that passes the threshold of originality. – Adrignola talk 15:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Files of Lushnikov

Ladies and gentlemen, please undelete the following list of files as the deletion was a result of weird lack of comprehension and my mistakes in the usage of templates.

The main thing here is that at present I write articles about TV-channel and its founder/owner. I've contacted him and he fully agree to give a lot of his photos to Wikimedia.

File:Alexey Lushnikov. Studia VOT. 2010.jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov. Galereya. Spb. 2010 .jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov. 2005. TV-3. press conference.jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov, Alexey Nilov i Alexander Polovtsev. Menty..jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov i Yuri Shevchuk. 2008.jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov i Yuri Shevchuk. 2005. TV-3. PC.jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov i Yuri Shevchuk. 12.11.2008.jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov i Vladimir Yakovlev.jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov i Svyatoslav Fedorov.jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov i Nikolay Trofimov.jpg

File:Alexey Lushnikov i Mikhail Gorbachev 15.05.2009. Spb.jpg

File:Telekanal VOT. logo.jpeg

Best Regards, Doctor Zevago (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have the copyright holder for the files contact the OTRS team. – Adrignola talk 15:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:RaphGrandeCass_SalonduLivre2011.jpg

This file was uploaded by the person being photographed. It was provided by the photographer, which happens to be a friend, with the authorisation to be used. It was apparently deleted because found also on the facebook account of the photographer... RaphGrandeCass (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The person who created it is the copyright holder and only the copyright holder can publish it under a free license. The file had the source information "Facebook". The person photographed can not take photos from facebook and distribute them, no matter the photo shows himself or someone else. --Martin H. (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said the photographer gave me the authorization to use the picture... Though it is on Facebook, I hope the picture still belong to the photographer and/or the person being photographed. Anyway, I'll reput it, using the original file. Hope it will be ok. RaphGrandeCass (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was recreated as File:RaphGrandeCass SalonduLivre2011.jpg and so I have deleted that as well. Do not circumvent our actions. Please have the copyright holder email OTRS and/or note under the Facebook photo's description a desired license (assuming the Facebook user is the photographer and not the subject). – Adrignola talk 16:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Uploads by Cellcom

Not sure why someone is flagging my images but this is my original work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellcom (talk • contribs)

Most of the files you uploaded were not your work, but copies from the web. You are not allowed to do that. Thanks, Yann (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please heed the notices on your talk page. – Adrignola talk 15:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Robertturner.jpg

I uploaded the above file because it was from the federal goverment. The user who deleted it claimed it was not, and said it was a copyright violation, but was mistaken. I got the photo from Congressman Turner's page on the U.S. House of representatives website (www.bobturner.house.gov). That website is from the federal government. Look for yourself, go to that website. Click about, and you will see the photo. Please undelete it from wikipedia and restore it to the articles where I had originally posted it. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daaronson12 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file does not fall into the public domain simply because it is hosted on a website operated by the U.S. Federal Government. It would only be in the public domain if it were created by an employee of the U.S. Federal Government as part of their official duties. In this case, according to the deletion log, the photo was taken before Turner was elected to the U.S. Federal Government. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not government work. – Adrignola talk 15:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:IllianaChristianHighSchool.JPG

File:IllianaChristianHighSchool.JPG Was deleted because somebody deleted the free-art licensing {{FAL}} which applied to the work of art I uploaded on behalf of Illiana Christian High School of Lansing, Illinois as the picture for their Wikipedia. I ask for it to be re-instated & placed back on the article or allow me to update the photo under a new licensing if {{FAL}} which applied before no longer applies to the photo in question. Fireteam2479 (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was not deleted due to a lack of licensing, but rather a lack of permission. You will need to have a representative for the school email OTRS, following the instructions on that linked page, to provide a release under a suitable license. Otherwise the logo can be uploaded under fair use at Wikipedia. – Adrignola talk 02:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Red Baron.jpg

This file was deleted as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Sanke postcards because it was not known when the named photographer died -- but we have recently found out he died in 1931 (see Creator:C. J. von Dühren). So, that file can now be undeleted.

I'm not sure about the others on that DR... I can't see them to see if there was a photographer mentioned or not. While we normally want to see the backs of postcards to see if there were any photographers mentioned, from what I was seeing it seems as though Sanke typically credited the photographers on the front -- the backs I have seen have either nothing other than lines[7][8][9] or a line of text mentioning only Sanke[10][11]. If Sanke was not the photographer (which is what the DR implies), then photos without a named photographer could possibly be considered {{Anonymous-EU}}. There is an index of all of them at http://www.sanke-cards.com/page3.htm though they don't seem to bother identifying the photographers in the text (and a couple of images there crop off the bottom area where photographers if any were mentioned) . These do seem pretty famous postcards though, and you would think photographer's names would be identified by now if they could be. One note -- many Sanke cards have a monogram with a large R, small P and small H in a circle, but that mark seems to be there across postcards by many different photographers, so I don't think that is related to an author, unless perhaps it was a photography studio which employed different people (in which case 70 years from publication would still apply). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted the subject, added the 1931 date, and changed the tag to PD-old. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Marcelo Paschoalin.jpg

The photo was marked on the deletion log as a copyright violation (indicating it was taken from [[12] http://www.sinopsedolivro.net/autores/1290771481-foto3.jpg]). The photo, however, was from the author's website where he states clearly it can be used to promote his books and his person:

"As imagens e texto a seguir podem ser usados livremente para promover o livro A última Dama do Fogo e seu autor Marcelo Paschoalin." - [[13] http://letraimpressa.com/press-kit/]

In an English translation the sentence reads: "The following images and text can be freely used to promote the book A última Dama do Fogo and his author Marcelo Paschoalin."

The photo's url is [[14] http://letraimpressa.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/foto3.jpg].

Fermmoylle (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free reuse only for a specific purpose is unfree content. Commons:Licensing or Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain is not fulfilled, the file is not ok to upload. --Martin H. (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose undeletion. Commons only accepts content that anyone can use freely for any commercial or non-commercial purpose in modified or unmodified form. Please read Commons:First steps again. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, asked the uploader to try to get a written permission from the copyright holder per email to OTRS support team at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:EveMillerInKansasPacific1.png

This photo is a screen shot I took from a Public Domain film Kansas Pacific, found here: http://www.archive.org/details/KansasPacific. Could you please re-add it to Wikimedia?

Pleonic (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Film published in 1953. If the film had a copyright notice and it was renewed, it is not public domain. There is no citation for the public domain claim in the Wikipedia article. – Adrignola talk 16:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Pacific is listed as in the public domain by the Peter Rogers Organization,ProFilms Public Domain films listing which tracks public domain films, and has a Creative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0 on its Internet Archive page. Do you need other documentation?

Pleonic (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A 1953 movie would have had to be renewed in 1980 or 1981, which means the records should be online at copyright.gov. I don't see a renewal doing a search. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

undeleted as pointed out, the film is categorized as beeing in the public domain. (see [15] ) Thanks to all that brought this up and investigated the issue. Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

# 1 File:Eduardo_Mateo_disco_Mateo_solo_bien_se_Lame_1972_Argentina.jpg

File:Eduardo_Mateo_disco_Mateo_solo_bien_se_Lame_1972_Argentina.jpg This file is a photograph that was published in The Republic of Argentina in 1972. It meets all the In Commons prerequisites to be uploaded. It has no reason to be deleted because it is already in the public domain under Argentine law (PD-AR-Photo). Thank you
Information:
Source : album property of ulpoader
Edition : Oct 1972 Argentina
label: De la Planta
Photographer : Horacio Molina
here is the cover showing this work
http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/7939/emalbum1972.jpg
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/3064/lavateelortogil.jpg --Negromacondo (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When was the album distributed in Uruguay? Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina : October 1972, Uruguay: December 1972--Negromacondo (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this deletion request the user says that "The original album was published in Argentina before Uruguay in October 1972 , for the no-longer existent label Trova" now he says it was edited by De la Planta in Argentina instead. In both deletion requests the user has failed to provide a full scan of the back of the album. In the images he provides now all i see is the uruguayan edition of "De la Planta" serial nº KL 8317 in 1972, (in the right), and the reedition of the same album released in Uruguay by "Clave" serial nº 72-35049 in 1976 (in the left). Please read carrefuly all the deletion requests: 1, 2 and 3.--Zeroth (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The backs of both of those say De la Planta. Doesn't matter if he was wrong before; but are you saying the October 1972 date is incorrect? The photos were taken in the recording studio, and the backs of *both* albums say the album was recorded in Buenos Aires (i.e. in Argentina), so it may well have been released in Argentina first. It does seem like a reasonable case. I can't see them, but are the two photos in question the ones in the images above? If so, is the photographer named on the back the same person as es:Horacio Molina? If so, those would be photos by an Argentine taken in Argentina. On the face of it, this seems a quite reasonable undeletion request. The comments in this youtube video indicate the album was released in both countries; if they were released within 30 days of each other then they are considered "simultaneously published" and the country of origin is the one with the shorter copyright term (sounds like Argentina in this case). It would have to have been published in Uruguay more than 30 days before it was published in Argentina for Uruguay to be the country of origin. Seems likely that the same photos were on both the Uruguay and Argentina releases, given the scan provided above (is there something incorrect about it?). I really don't see any information in any of the deletion requests which contradicts that, only that the accuracy of the information was being questioned, but it seems to check out. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You ask "is there something incorrect about it?", and the answer is yes. The pictures provided are not from the uruguayan and the argentinian releases, are both from uruguayans editions: one from 1972 and the other from the reedition in 1976. The album was releases in Uruguay and distributed in Argentina (not the same as released in both countries at the same time) as says in the bottom of this image that is conveniently cutted off. The problems would end if we could see the back of the argentinian edition so we could know for a fact that the pictures were published there too.--Zeroth (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright-wise, yes, distributing in Argentina is the same as publishing, so if the same album (with the same photos) were distributed in both countries at the same time, then they were simultaneously published in both countries. If you are correct, and it was the the same release but simply distributed in both countries, then logically they would all have had the same photos on them. If there was a separate release in Argentina without the photos, or it happened more than 30 days after Uruguay, then there could be an issue. Yes, if the above image is from a 1976 re-release, that is not relevant to the original publication. However I did find a reference here which say that Trova licensed the album from De La Planta and released it first in Argentina, then De La Planta released it later in Uruguay. That link has a photo of the front cover of the Trova album -- looks like the number is XL-80046. There is a listing for the same release here, where they give the label as De La Planta but do specifically say it was made in Argentina. There is a large version of the photo (front cover again, with the LP as well) here. Do those look like the same packaging as the Uruguay release? At this point it certainly does appear to me that the first release of the album was in Argentina. Still not 100% sure if the same photos were on the packaging, but all other info provided (label, date of release) seems correct. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I congratulate you, it's an amazing work of research. Aparently the album released in argentina first was that of the cover you provide: Trova serial number XT-80046. So, if that album had those images in the back, the issue would be solved. In fact, that has always been the problem. Providing a full scan of the back of the argentinian edition that has the images, that was edited prior than the uruguayan. Unfortunately we hasnt seen it yet.--Zeroth (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the one image above does look to be the Trova XT 80046 back side. The serial number and the Trova mention just happened to be accidentally cut off. At this point,

Support undeletion, seems pretty clear Argentina is the country of origin and {{PD-AR-Photo}} applies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carl, That is correct I showed both covers of De la Planta label, the Argentine and Uruguayan versions. I am not saying it is an Argentine edition published in Oct. 1972; Guilherme de Alencar Pintos says that in his biographical book on page 301. (In the wikipedia article on Eduardo Mateo there are 132 references from the same book.) Also on the page about Mateo's album: Mateo solo bien se lame In the first line you read, "Mateo solo bien se lame" es el primer disco solista de Eduardo Mateo. Salió a la venta en octubre de 1972 en Argentina y en diciembre de 1972 en Uruguay.
Translation: "Mateo solo bien a se lame" is the first solo album by Eduardo Mateo. It was relasead in October 1972 in Argentina and in December 1972 in Uruguay".
Yes, Horacio Molina is the same person, an Argentine musician, and he participated in a track on this album also. As the album's page says, he sang backup vocals on the "Tras de ti" track (last line first paragraph).Information from the back of the album --Negromacondo (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excelent!. What i was asking finally is here, an almost full scan of the back of the trova album. This proves beyond doubt that the image was present in the argentinian edition (Trova).

Support undeletion.--Zeroth (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Restauro porque se presentaron las pruebas requeridas de que el material cumple las licencia especificada. Le recuerdo al usuario que subió las imágenes que para la próxima presente los enlaces en archivos sin nombres ofensivos en ningún idioma o habrá que aplicar sanciones --Ezarateesteban 13:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

# 2 Eduardo_Mateo_disco_Mateo_solo_bien_se_Lame_2_1972_Argentina.jpg

File:Eduardo_Mateo_disco_Mateo_solo_bien_se_Lame_2_1972_Argentina.jpgThis file is a photograph that was published in The Republic of Argentina in 1972. It meets all the In Commons prerequisites to be uploaded. It has no reason to be deleted because it is already in the public domain under Argentine law (PD-AR-Photo). Thank you
Information:
Source : album property of ulpoader
Edition : Oct 1972 Argentina
label: De la Planta
Photographer : Horacio Molina
here is the cover showing this work
http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/7939/emalbum1972.jpg
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/3064/lavateelortogil.jpg --Negromacondo (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the publication date of the Uruguay edition? --Martin H. (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 1972. as the biography book says . (Please read above also, all the information is there)--Negromacondo (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image the user provides says "El disco fue editado en Argentina antes que en Uruguay (X/1972) por el Sello Trova" (trans: "The album was edited in Argentina before than Uruguay (X/1972) by the Record label Trova"). The problem is that the images that the user provides are the covers of the uruguayan editions: De la planta, 1972 (left) and Clave, 1976 (right). If we dont have the cover of the argentinian edition we can't be sure that the images where edited there first and therefore we can't apply the "PD-AR-Photo" license.--Zeroth (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, These are the photos from the album. Photo 1 : http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5838/culorroto.jpg Photo 2: http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/8853/solabiencontratapa.jpg --Negromacondo (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excelent!. What i was asking finally is here, an almost full scan of the back of the trova album. This proves beyond doubt that the image was present in the argentinian edition (Trova).

Support undeletion.--Zeroth (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hecho mismo caso que arriba --Ezarateesteban 13:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Undeletion request: File:Sqprofile copy.jpg, File:Zone4 Lilru Small.jpg, File:Zone4 Nicky Small.jpg, File:Zone4 Joony Small.jpg, File:Zone4 Ray Small.jpg, File:Zone4 Sera Small.jpg, File:Zone4 Wells Small.jpg

Request for the following to be undeleted:

File:Sqprofile copy.jpg, File:Zone4 Lilru Small.jpg, File:Zone4 Nicky Small.jpg, File:Zone4 Joony Small.jpg, File:Zone4 Ray Small.jpg, File:Zone4 Sera Small.jpg, File:Zone4 Wells Small.jpg

Photos were deleted for reasons of Copyright infringement. However, I actually represent OGPlanet and am trying to upload images/logos of our games for many pre-existing Wikipedia pages of our games as the majority of them have poor images or no images at all (eg. Rumble Fighter, Lost Saga, La Tale). If this is not the way to do so, please let me know how I can get these images uploaded. My email is michaelm@ogplanet.com. Thanks.

--OGPlanet (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm handling this. See the user's page. The deletion requests on the still-existing files can be closed. – Adrignola talk 17:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-09

Undue File Deletion

File:VIAF inter project linking 2012-08-12 01.jpg and File:VIAF inter project linking 2012-08-12 04.jpg

File:Ill Met by Moonlight - first edition cover.jpg

File:Joseph Cari, Jr..jpg - undelete

Steve lieberman Diktator 17 album cover

Humayun Azad

Tridib Mitra's photo

File:Mother Teresa Poster CalcutaUC dot cl 01.jpg

thumb|+James Hayden, acting as the nice, shy, and gentle "Harry Colman" in the 1981 TV film, "The Intruder Within.".

Connie9.jpg deleted

File:VIA6506calg1982.jpg,File:CDNbighill1986.jpg and File:VIA6569-890917 Tr71 Trillum, London, Ont 3 FP7A.JPG

File: Only Road Home to undelete.jpg

Files vandalised by User:82.5.45.32

Undeletion of File:Alhurra logo.jpg

Request to undelete Al Thoura.jpg and Thoura.svg

Request to undelete File:Tahrir Square - February 9, 2011.png

request to undelete File:Jim_Bell_IAU09.jpg

non deletion request

undelete

request to undelete file: Alexander_smit.jpg

My images were not violating copyright

Requesting Undeletion of Image:TourMillion.jpg

Files of Lushnikov

Uploads by Cellcom

File:EveMillerInKansasPacific1.png

# 1 File:Eduardo_Mateo_disco_Mateo_solo_bien_se_Lame_1972_Argentina.jpg

# 2 Eduardo_Mateo_disco_Mateo_solo_bien_se_Lame_2_1972_Argentina.jpg

Undeletion request: File:Sqprofile copy.jpg, File:Zone4 Lilru Small.jpg, File:Zone4 Nicky Small.jpg, File:Zone4 Joony Small.jpg, File:Zone4 Ray Small.jpg, File:Zone4 Sera Small.jpg, File:Zone4 Wells Small.jpg

Navigation menu

Search