Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-06

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

Undeletion of File:Geschwister-Scholl-Gymnasium Logo.png[edit]

This file was deleted by EugeneZelenko saying: "Copyright violation: School logo. Not text only". But this logo is official, published, used in official publications of this school and therefore an official work. It is, for example, published on the website of the school. --J.Schrader (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I am concerned by is it first was a CC license, and there is nothing on the website that says CC license at all. Also, while the logo is used on the school website, you provided not even a URL for where the image came from. However, I am not versed with German law so I cannot say yes or no on restoration yet. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit - and informed EugeneZelenko about it - that I didn't know the Template:PD-GermanGov so I tried to find a proper CC license. And since the logo came directly from the school to commons you will not find a URL for the logo itself.--J.Schrader (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The license states it needs to be "a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment (official work) issued by a German federal or state authority or court" and cannot be just any kind of work (unlike the US Government for comparison). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Seal-Germany ? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a seal, it's a logo - so http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Seal-Germany cannot appear.--J.Schrader (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On an official document a school would most likely use a seal such as this one, which is covered by § 5 Abs. 1. Since the logo in question appears to be created by a teacher on his own initiative we'll need his permission. →Na gy 19:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright status of the source images is also not immediately obvious. Permission by the teacher might not be enough. --rimshot^talk 08:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also need to see if this was a work for hire since that would determine what needs to happen next. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The images you linked are from a different school. The schools have nothing to do with each other.--J.Schrader (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On an official document a school sure uses the seal of the school, but sometimes the logo too, because the logo represents the school in public.--J.Schrader (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: Is it possible to undelete the file and move it to de.wikipedia.org? Then we don't have to discuss about commons-licensing and could use the Schutzlandprinzip.--J.Schrader (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the German Wikipedia policies, so I will ask someone there to look at this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find the relevant information on meta:EDP for any Wikimedia project (and to find the relevant local link!) and de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Logos for this issue. --Dereckson (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I cannot restore it at this time and from reading de.wikipedia, I do not have enough confidence to restore it there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:129.125.102.126[edit]

Deleted for "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirects". It's not unused anymore. As far as I remember the redirect wasn't broken or cross-namespace. --129.125.102.126 19:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was a redirect to a user page of a permanently banned user. Which is the connection between 129.125.102.126 and this user? Thuresson (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are the same person, from the hints I saw (since the talk page also makes a link to that user). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Warmelink has claimed to use 129.125.102.126 here. Also, 129.125.102.126 make edits to "block evasion" here. Thuresson (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Redirect to your talkpage, which already has a link making a connection between those accounts. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OHMap-doton-Wapakoneta.png[edit]

Some time after this file was uploaded, an identical image was uploaded as "File:OHMap-doton-Duchouquet.png", and this image was deleted as a duplicate. Wapakoneta is a city, and Duchouquet is a township; none of the other several hundred OHMap-doton-Place.png files are named for townships, so the wrong name was deleted. I've moved the file back to Wapakoneta.png, but could the page history be undeleted? Alternately, you could move this file back to Duchouquet.png, restore Wapakoneta.png, and delete Duchouquet.png as a duplicate. Nyttend (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once I did the move, the history for Wapakoneta.png was also moved and not sure exactly what else can be done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I restored it on en.wp and going to have it move to the Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:إعادة استخدام محتوى خارج يكيميديا[edit]

Arabic. Commons is multi-lingual. Undelete. --Captaincollect1970 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content of that page was only one letter, "S". Test page or page with no valid content. --Martin H. (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The content of the page only had "S" and the edit summary was yy. However, you are free to recreate the page with new content since the title says "Reusing content outside Wikimedia." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

UNDELETE Frank Natale's page[edit]

The initial article that was posted was a summary/biography of Frank Natale who was a well documented visionnary and great contributor to this world... with cited sources and referals to several sites talking about him including the Franknatale.com website... I had discussed directly with him about creating a wikipedia page... Now that he has passed away, it is due time that we allow as many people as possible that may Contribute to the encyclopedic documentation of his significative contributions Please re-instate, and help contribute rather than eliminate important history...

web page I request therefore you reinstate a wikipedia page About Frank Natale's lifework and Contributions (achievements, life focus, discography, books, etc...) His work has and Continues to positively affect hundreds of thousands of people...

Here are some excerpts and sources on External sites that refer to him:

(few of the many articles citing him from around the world)

His books and music are distributed the world over, and translated in many languages

...

Frank Natale was co-fouder of Phoenix House: The US most active organization committed to protecting and supporting individuals, families, and communities affected by substance abuse and dependency. It accomplishes it's mission throughout USA through focus on the distinct needs of each individual; a holistic approach that seeks to address mental, physical, and social health; The implementation of innovative and most effective prevention, treatment, and recovery programs; and the promotion of greater understanding of addiction.

Contributions will be posted if the page is reinstated...--Biopierre (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have no article about Frank Natale, we not deleted an article about Frank Natale, we never will have an article about Frank Natale because this is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. This is your very first edit on Wikimedia Commons, Welcome. --Martin H. (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I also checked the English Wikipedia and there was no article about this person created. There is nothing for us to do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WebGLScreenShot.png[edit]

Template:OTRS ticket -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 03:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr. Gerry Curatola.jpg[edit]

Template:OTRS ticket and [1] -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 03:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the website alone, that's pretty clear.

Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ludon-Médoc[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denied Wrongly recreated ([2]). Please put in place the right version with the right history, from the deleted one. Croquant (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done:

Français : On a restauré le contenu que tu avais crée et Léna a reverté vers ta version.

English: We undeleted your version, and Léna reverted the category to your version.

--PierreSelim (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Croquant (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Prof Dr Meyer Missions Map.jpg [edit]

I am requesting the undelete of the file File:Prof Dr Meyer Missions Map.jpg because I am authorized to use this photo by the owner of it. An email was sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on May 10th of 2012 with the authorization writen by the owner, but so far I have received no answer by the Wikimedia team. -- Beckenkamp (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done {{OTRS}} added and license corrected to conform to permission. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Rihanna Performing Rude Boy.jpg [edit]

Image:Rihanna Performing Rude Boy.jpg Dear administrator or whom this may concern, My image of Rihanna's performance of the song "Rude Boy" was deleted and marked a possible copyright violation. This is false. I took that image at the Liverpool Echo Arena, whilst standing to watch Rihanna's Loud Tour concert. I would appreciate the unbanning of this image, as this image being banned implies that I plagiarise the work of others - something I not only do not partake in, but strongly disagree with. To sum up, this image is mine and I hold the rights to publish it, so I request that you unban it to allow me to do so under a free usage license of some sorts. I appreciate your time, Yours faithfully, Liam Manley (LJM96)

Making a photo of a screen is reproduction of a copyrithed work. Unauthorized reproduction. --Martin H. (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done As Martin H said. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dunglish.jpg[edit]

Took this photo, uploaded it with all the correct permissions, file ended up at deletion requests because, silly me, apparently I forgot to scrub the EXIF. Was notified on 20 May 2012 11:10 that I needed to send a permission to OTRS, did so on 20 May 2012 11:15, see it deleted anyway today. Don't know how many more hoops I need to jump through. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support It was kept per that DR, but did someone then tag it no-permission so that it got speedied later? Unless this image was previously available elsewhere, we assume good faith, even if there is a tag like that in the EXIF. Unless I'm missing something, this was incorrectly deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the image was tagged as a result of the DR. However, I did respond, so somehting must have gone wrong at OTRS' end: I sent them an e-mail within five minutes of the image being tagged. With the proper form letter content and everything. Of course, If a user named mvuijlst and identifying himself as Michel Vuijlsteke (active on Commons since 2008 and at en since 2004) who uploaded a properly tagged and described image from a Flickr account held (since 2004) by someone naming themselves Michel Vuijlsteke is, per the DR, still somehow "perhaps not really the Michel Vuijlsteke they claim to be", I don't see how an e-mail would ever solve that issue. Anyone could send a "personal e-mail" from any number of addresses around the world, claiming to be whoever they wanted to claim to be. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there you go. Misunderstandings all around, case closed. :) --- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Scarlett The Avengers L.A.jpg [edit]

This is not a copyright violation, I have all the right reserved to use this photo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EndrisPuka (talk • contribs) 12:50, 3 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

You toke it from http://www.flickr.com/photos/seabunnie/6947680202/ where it is

1) not freely licensed - means you are not allowed to take it or use it!

2) cant be freely licensed because the flickr uploader is not the copyright holder...

So no, there is nothing that allows you to upload it here. --Martin H. (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyvio User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:00876 Archäologischen Ausgrabungen auf dem Michaelerplatz vor der Pfarrkirche in Sanok. Zustand am 15 Mai 2012.JPG[edit]

I deleted this file because the uploader himself requested deletion of this file stating that he uploaded it my mistake. But User:Blackcat is of the opinion that this is not a valid reason for deletion. See his comment on my talk page. If uploader requesting deletion of his own unused file is not a valid request for deletion, please undelete this file. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed in the deletion policy (and in the drop down menu) that the file must be recently uploaded and unused before it can be considered for a speedy deletion (and that is something you correctly pointed out Sreejith K). What would you define recently is something that I do not know of, but an upload on the 16th of May and a deletion request on the 23rd of May (so 7 days) is something I would find reasonable to consider (recent). However, if I may take a guess from looking at the edit logs, the German user uploaded an image and a Polish category was added by another. After the category was changed to "Excavations at Świętego Michała Square in Sanok" was just being reverted back and forth. The uploader then describe a "fatal error" that was used in his deletion request and I believe it has something to do with this Polish category being there. While I do not believe Sreejith K was wrong in his deletion at all, I think the motives for the deletion was nationalism in my view. Based on this, I am going to restore the file. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified about the restoration in the user's talk page and asked if he has any concerns. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done by User:Zscout370

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

[edit]

Please, if you publish the photo back, I will change the licensing information to fair use. ~~Lucy2~~

The Commons does not accept fair use, please see Commons:Fair use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 09:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anna Ericha Marie Brummerstedt (1858-1950).jpg[edit]

Based on her age, this portrait photograph of the Danish painter Anna Westphal, née Brummerstedt (1858-1950) is from around 1890-1900, and can be licensed under PD-1923 and PD-Denmark50 (or perhaps Anonymous-EU). Thus I see no need to delete it. Best regards, --Urbandweller (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard this request. The same file has been reuploaded (File:Anna Westphal (1858-1950).jpg), and I have corrected the licenses of that file. --Urbandweller (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EmancipationHouse.jpg"[edit]

Autor of the work is Trujillo_Rocks in skyscrapercity (he has taken the photo with his own camera) and he has licenced his work for everyboy uses as the licence he's given.--Spanchrash (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Trujillo_Rocks own work? Quite low resolution for this image. --High Contrast (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Trujillo rocks is the author and you must not lie that is inapropriate for an administrator the image is not low resolution in any case I'll give it more resolution and I'll upload again.--Spanchrash (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is no lie. 900px is a low resolution. Upload it in a higher resolution. --High Contrast (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what resolution is ok for you?--Spanchrash (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The highest you have. Not my idea, but a Commons standard. Provide good quality. --High Contrast (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --High Contrast (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:PedestrianStreet.jpg[edit]

Autor of the work is Trujillo_Rocks in skyscrapercity (he has taken the photo with his own camera) and he has licenced his work for everyboy uses with the licence he's given.--Spanchrash (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Trujillo_Rocks own work? Quite low resolution for this image. --High Contrast (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Trujillo rocks is the author and you must not lie that is inapropriate for an administrator the image is not low resolution in any case I'll give it more resolution and I'll upload again.--Spanchrash (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is no lie. 900px is a low resolution. Upload it in a higher resolution. --High Contrast (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --High Contrast (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:PedestrianStreet3.jpg[edit]

Autor of the work is Trujillo_Rocks in skyscrapercity (he has taken the photo with his own camera) and he has licenced his work for everyboy uses as the licence he's given.

This is no lie. 900px is a low resolution. Upload it in a higher resolution. --High Contrast (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --High Contrast (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hanoos[edit]

Por la presente declaro que soy el único propietario de los derechos de autor exclusivos de OBRA publicada en http://hanoos.com/ y http://hanoos.blogspot.com.es/ y doy mi permiso para reproducir sus imágenes. Consiento publicar dicha obra bajo la licencia libre Licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-Compartir bajo la misma licencia 3.0 (CC-BY-SA-3.0). Reconozco que concedo a cualquiera el derecho a usar la imagen en un producto comercial, así como a modificarla de acuerdo a sus necesidades. Soy consciente de que siempre retendré los derechos de autor de mi imagen, así como el derecho a ser reconocido como autor según los términos de la licencia elegida para mi obra. Las modificaciones que otros hagan a la imagen no me serán atribuidas. Soy consciente de que la licencia libre solo afecta a los derechos de autor, y me reservo del derecho de emprender acciones legales contra cualquiera que use esta obra violando cualquier otra ley, como restricciones de marcas registradas, libelo o restricciones geográficas específicas. Reconozco que no puedo retractarme de este acuerdo, y que la imagen puede o no ser almacenada permanentemente en un proyecto de la Fundación Wikimedia. FECHA Y NOMBRE Y DNI DEL PROPIETARIO DE LOS DERECHOS DE AUTOR 30 de mayo 2012 Hanoos Hanoos DNI. 507 41 285 L --Isidoro Castaño (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please send the above email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, as explained on COM:OTRS/es, if you have not already done so. Thanks. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader sent an email to OTRS as of today, according to a post below. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Affected images[edit]

File:Semblantesn12-40x40cm.jpg File:Bagdad 2.jpg File:Rejoneador.png File:La salida 1.jpg File:Estocholmo,oleo81x100cms RTO.jpg File:Mision de paz 140 x 140 cm.jpg File:Perspectivas enfrentadas 80 x 80 cm.png File:Hanoos, 2012.JPG

Template:OTRS ticket and Template:OTRS ticket as well as Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Isidoro Castaño apply. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 15:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably applies for all images in Category:Abuzaydun Hanoos, some of them from other contributors but marked for deletion too. --Foroa (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Until the DR and OTRS is settled. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Helen Keller1.jpg[edit]

This deleted file is the unrestored reference version of a featured picture. File:Helen_KellerA.jpg is featured at Commons, at English Wikipedia, and at the Turkish Wikipedia. Unrestored reference versions are necessary for recordkeeping purposes and should never be deleted. Erroneous reasoning given at time of deletion was, "(Exact or scaled down duplicate: File:Helen Keller.jpg) This deletion rationale is false: File:Helen_KellerA.jpg is larger in both dimensions and file size, and uploader notes for the other file state that it was "enhanced" in unspecified ways. The purpose of reference versions is to provide the visitor with an unaltered view of the original image, locally hosted at Commons in case the source version ever becomes unavailable. Please undelete. Durova (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both files seems to be the same and have the same size in pixels according to the upload log:

* File:Helen Keller1.jpg was : 2 673 × 3 420 (1 915 723 octets)...

* File:Helen Keller.jpg is : 2 673 × 3 420

--PierreSelim (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "seems to be the same" which would be fine for most purposes is an inappropriate standard here. The justification for why we feature restored historic images includes retention of unaltered reference files. If we failed to keep unaltered originals, then critics could rightfully claim that we have damaged the archival integrity of the historic material. You may review my featured picture contributions: all restored FPs include archival reference versions. Indeed, we refused to promote FPC candidates if the nomination failed to upload an unrestored reference version.

File:Helen Keller1.jpg is a direct .jpg conversion with minimal compression of this uncropped and unedited file at the Library of Congress.File:Helen_KellerA.jpg is nearly twice the file size of the image you mention, and as previously stated the most recent uploader explicitly states that unspecified edits with the goal of "improvement" had been performed. That makes it not identical, and therefore the deletion rationale was invalid. Durova (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the file temporarily to engender discussion, and since the issue of concern is "duplication" and there's no compelling need to keep a duplicated file off-wiki; so that non-admins may participate in the discussion, if need be. I neither condone nor dispute its retention on Commons. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 17:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is disputing a difference between File:Helen KellerA.jpg and the others, nor the need to keep the original... but what's the difference between File:Helen Keller.jpg and File:Helen Keller1.jpg? They look like exact duplicates to me. Oh... File:Helen_Keller.jpg used to be a different image, a smaller image but a wider crop and therefore different, and was overwritten with "Replaced by enhanced photo, per consensus at FPC" but instead of the enhanced version, they uploaded another copy of the original Library of Congress version, so it became an exact duplicate. Thereafter Helen Keller1.jpg was deleted because of it. Sigh.... we should be keeping that other, smaller image as it does show a slightly wider crop of the same photo. Uploading over top is not a great idea, but it's been that way for over 3 years now. But File:Helen Keller.jpg is in wide use, and is *not* the featured version, whereas it should be. I'm not sure of the best way to fix this. Do a global replace of File:Helen_Keller.jpg to change to File:Helen_KellerA.jpg, then revdel the most recent one, so that File:Helen_Keller.jpg is the older version/wider crop again, Helen_Keller1.jpg is then the archival original, and Helen_KellerA.jpg is the featured picture, with no duplicates? (That would make viewing historical versions of articles using that image incorrect, as it would not show the image actually used.) Or should we rename the current Helen_Keller.jpg to something else, then revdel that last upload, and then make Helen_Keller.jpg a link to Helen_KellerA.jpg? Maybe there's another way... Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, I see it got deleted again. We really should have three images in the end, as there are *two* images at the Library of Congress. The first one is here, which is what File:Helen Keller.jpg always was, until its last revision. The second one is here, which is what File:Helen Keller1.jpg was, and is what the restored and featured version was based on. Unfortunately, the unrestored version was then uploaded on top of File:Helen Keller.jpg, creating a duplicate. And since that one is still in wide use, it would seem as though all usages really want to be seeing the featured version but aren't. It's messy, but it seems to me the best idea would be to use CommonsDelinker to change all uses of File:Helen Keller.jpg to be File:Helen KellerA.jpg, so that they use the featured version, then revdel the last upload on File:Helen Keller.jpg so we get that alternate Library of Congress photo back as an option, and then undelete File:Helen Keller1.jpg so we have the original version of the second Library of Congress photo, the one the restored version is sourced to. I suppose we could do some tricks with renaming files and file redirects instead of CommonsDelinker. Anyone have any better suggestions? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it, so the discussion can continue. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript -- usages of File:Helen Keller.jpg were replaced to point to File:Helen KellerA.jpg, the restored version, then I reverted File:Helen Keller.jpg to the previous revision, which is a different variant of the photo. Thus [[::File:Helen Keller1.jpg]] is no longer a duplicate, and is the source version for File:Helen KellerA.jpg. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

file: Arjen Duinker 2009.jpg [edit]

es una foto pública, utilizada muchas veces por el señor Duinker en revistas, libros y entrevistas. Necesito que esté también en commons para poder ilustrar mi artículo en la wikipedia. gracias por restaurarla Luc boaz (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)luc boaz[reply]

This is a photo by Jacqueline Koster. Please go through the process at Commons:OTRS to show that she has given you permission to publish her photo. Thuresson (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing on OTRS User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inusa Dawuda (e.g. "inusadawuda.jpg") [edit]

Please undelete image, inusadawuda.jpg. The image is used with permission from the artist, Inusa Dawuda. The image is consistent with its use on the Russian language version of the wiki page, http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inusa_Dawuda. Thank you. --Diviness (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inusadawuda.jpg was uploaded without a copyright license but with a source, myspace.com. Please go throught the procedure at Commons:OTRS to show that the photo is released under an acceptable license. Thuresson (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing on OTRS User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LogoCOLOV.jpg[edit]

Como integrante del comité organizador del El Coloquio sobre Lenguas Otomangues y Vecinas (COLOV) yo, Nicholas Johnson, puedo atestar que el uso de este logo es legítimo y para desarrollar una página wiki que estoy redactando en este momento (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloquio_sobre_Lenguas_Otomangues_y_Vecinas_%28COLOV%29) para ayudar a diseminar la historia y actividades del mencionado evento lingüístico bianual. En 2010, fui encargado de desarrollar este mismo logo para la página oficial de la cuarta coloquio dedicado en memoria a "Thomas Smith-Stark" ([3]), lo cual usamos para el coloquio más reciente "Antonio de los Reyes" que se llevó acabo en Abril del presente año (http://colov.san-pablo.mx/). Si hay más preguntas o dudas al respecto, me pueden contactar por este medio, mi correo personal (nicholasjohnson@fahho.mx) o por el correo oficial del COLOV (colov@san-pablo.mx).

Gracias.

(Edlemons (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Envie un email a COM:OTRS con la autorización respectiva Ezarateesteban 12:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias, espero su respuesta.

Not done Nothing on OTRS User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:4-Gorille.ogg[edit]

I believe this file should be un-deleted because the reason for deletion was "Dupe of Image:6-La frémoire.ogg". However, File:6-La frémoire.ogg was deleted (because "No permission since 3 November 2009"). As such, this file is not a duplicate of anything. Hyacinth (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we can get permission from Alain Thomas (which we had before with his paintings) and whoever did the interviews, the videos could be restored. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be an audio file. I don't have access to the deleted file history. Presumably this file had appropriate permission since it was not deleted for not having it. Hyacinth (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both were CC/GFDL self but there was no assertion the uploader was Mr. Thomas. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done No permission. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

we own the rights to files: File:Pyogenesis "Unpop" USA.jpg etc[edit]

We own the rights on the following files and images:

File:Pyogenesis "Unpop" USA.jpg File:Pyogenesis "Unpop" World.jpg File:First Pyogenesis band photo 1991.jpg File:Flyer Pyogenesis, Mexico, 1995.jpg

please put them online again

(Maikgrbr (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)) MaikGrbr[reply]

Please follow the procedures at COM:OTRS to get the files undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing on OTRS User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Currier_Museum_of_Art_·_external_01_·_20080602.jpg[edit]

This file and another, File:Currier_Museum_of_Art_·_external_02_·_20080602.jpg, were deleted based upon nominations (1, 2) that included the comment, "Sculpture is too prominent in the picture for a de minimis argument." But the sculpture out in front of the museum is not the subject of these photos, the museum is, so unless I'm misunderstanding something all that needs to happen is that the photos be cropped or the sculpture be redacted sufficiently for a "de minimis" argument to be made. If this is the case, I would appreciate it if they could be undeleted or if I could be furnished with access to them to make the changes as I no longer have my own copies of them. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 17:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the original photos... but is this and this small copies of them (from the Google cache)? If so... the sculpture looks to be very prominent in those photos; not really something you can crop or redact easily. I tend to agree that if there is a photo of the museum as a whole, with the sculpture unavoidably there as part of the scene, the photo may be OK -- but if those are the images, they look like photos primarily of the sculpture while getting the museum in the background to give it some context. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of interest, is the approach taken here acceptable as regards copyrighted 3D works? --Tony Wills (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh :-) Not sure... if the outline is still copyrightable, it *may* conceivably still be a problem, but the case would probably be getting pretty thin. Basically like a silhouette there. No idea, really :-) Perhaps that was enough to satisfy the Atomium's folks... Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the approach that Tony links to is one of the ones I was thinking of. I mean, just the silhouette of a 3D object being copyrighted? That would mean that a photograph where something like the Atomium was simply casting a shadow and not actually in the picture would be verboten. Though of course as far as redacting the sculpture in these particular images is concerned, I wouldn't need to use a silhouette, a rectangle could cover it. But anyways, even just with cropping, if you basically cropped out the entire sky then the only portion of the sculpture that would remain would be the three supporting beams. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 14:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is a stretch, and could only really apply for something with a distinctive shape like that -- if someone drew that on paper, would they have a copyright? As for the crop... I suppose an extreme crop may change the focus of those photos. Certainly possible if you crop out the sculpture entirely, or even mostly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, come to think of it, I might try something like a wire removal type edit of the image.

It's really nuts that this is necessary. I was vaguely aware of this problem but I hadn't entirely thought it through... it's amazing that someone could pay a million bucks for a sculpture and not be able to photograph it, or that an artist can accept public funds to create a publicly-installed "sculpture" that's basically a 2D design on the pavement and then sue photographers if it ends up in a photo. And basically everyone who has taken any large number of vacation photos is probably a criminal. But that's free market capitalism for ya, I guess...

At least it's looking like we can probably photograph police carrying out their duties as public employees in public places here in the U.S. Unless they start wearing copyrighted artwork. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 20:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., fair use likely means that non-commercial uses are fine -- so vacation photos, or even putting photos in travel guides, etc., are fine. However, something like selling a postcard of a photo of the sculpture can cross the line. Many countries have explicit non-commerical exemptions for photos like that (though we don't accept photos with that restriction). Relatively few make non-commercial vacation photos a potential problem, but there are some. There are also some countries which make pictures of buildings a similar problem (those can be copyrighted too). The U.S. does not have the issue with buildings -- their law specifically says photos of buildings are not derivative works (but does not say the same about photos of sculpture, thus our problems). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well that's good to know. I would imagine it might start to get sticky the more that image hosting sites like Flickr monetize their traffic, though. But that would be a problem for the hosting companies more than for the individuals who took the photographs, I guess.

I guess I should ask, then, do you think any successful fair use argument could be made to put these up on Wikipedia proper as non-free media? I was searching but I didn't come across any cases where it appeared that a rationale for something like this seemed to have stuck. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be possible to illustrate the sculpture, sure, if it's discussed in the article text. The image would have to be used though, so not sure that more than one would be kept. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Although I'm asking questions about fair use at the Wikipedia project above I am still requesting that these images and the wikitext of their pages be released to me so that I can modify them to make non-infringing versions for Commons, which Carl seems to think is possible. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Text only so the description can be added to fair use Wikipediae. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SMSP logo.jpg[edit]

Hi! Please do not delete the file since I'm the author, and the alumni is also aware of of my actions as well as the Institution...

Within my good intentions, I'm hoping that you'll consider my request for the so purpose of using the file for my recently approved article on wikipedia...

Hoping for your kindness and consideration...

GOD bless you all...--QuecyKeith (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the procedures at COM:OTRS to get the file undeleted. Before hosting it here, the copyright owner must license the work quite liberally, allowing anyone to use it, including commercial use and derivative works. This is only for the copyright in particular, the trademark does not need to be licensed at all. The OTRS procedure makes sure the copyright owner is aware of what they are licensing. As an alternative, you could upload it directly to the English Wikipedia under a "fair use" rationale (see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content and en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Graph_with_CMC.JPG[edit]

Correctly deleted for reason "No license since 31 May 2012". OTRS ticket 2012060710003076 now received giving permission and providing license details. QU ^TalkQu 07:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ticket isn't coming up for me, even with searching. Can you provide a direct link? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here. I had it locked, maybe that stopped you viewing it... QU ^TalkQu 17:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is what happened :) Anyways, restoring now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Promise.jpg[edit]

I own the copyright.

Not done You're not Earth, Wind and Fire. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 14:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Bâgé-le-Châtel[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --PierreSelim (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beaupont[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --PierreSelim (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bey (Ain)[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --PierreSelim (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biziat[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --PierreSelim (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boissey (Ain)[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --PierreSelim (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Certines[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --PierreSelim (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chavannes-sur-Suran[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chaveyriat[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cleyzieu[edit]

This category is no longer empty. (just boring!) Croquant (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you group the categories in one section (for the next ones). :-D --PierreSelim (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I found them one after another, during categorization of locator maps, it was more convenient for me, and without risk to forget some of them, to create a new entry each time I found one. I didn't think there were so many of them; next time, I'll use only one section. Sorry for this very annoying work, but I feel innocent for it; just blame (as I did) the administrators who deleted these categories, which were clearly candidates to be populated sooner or later. En tout cas, merci pour la restauration rapide. Croquant (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC) En parlant de restauration rapide, toutes ces émotions m'ont donné faim.[reply]

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

More communes of Ain[edit]

These categories are no longer empty (open list, created as I check the categories of locator maps of communes of Ain). Croquant (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yann (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Landshövdingen målning av Albert Edelfelt 1899.jpg[edit]

This and other images of Albert Edelfelt's paintings were deleted in 2008 before the Wikimedia foundation made a statement regarding the public domain status of non-artistic reproductions of two-dimensional works of art (Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag). Edelfelt died in 1904. This particular painting but in black and white already exists on Commons here. I hereby request that this version in colour is undeleted. Thuresson (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- for the reason stated. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Professor Meyer and the amazon indians.jpg [edit]

I am requesting the undelete of the file File:Professor Meyer and the amazon indians.jpg because I am authorized to use this photo by the owner of it. An email was sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org on May 10th of 2012 with the authorization writen by the owner, but so far I have received no answer by the Wikimedia team. -- Beckenkamp (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are having a backlog right now, but we did get your email (OTRS #2012051010006274 if anyone wants to take a peek at it) for that image and the below map. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted the map, see below, but this image has Professor Meyer as the subject. The copyright normally remains with the photographer, so the OTRS license should explain how Meyer has the right to license this image. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done by another user according to https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketNumber=2012051010006274 User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wooden bird.JPG[edit]

I request the undeletion of this deletion request because it is no classic issue of vandalism (which was the reason of deletion). The rationale is not this anchorless that it could be considered as ordinary vandalism. --High Contrast (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK done, although there is little support for deletion, IMO. Yann (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:starspangledbanner.ogv Undeletion[edit]

http://www.madisonrising.com/ssbcopyright.php This is the copyright info. It's for fair use. Tell me what it should say, it's supposed to be up here.

Leprakhauns (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept fair use, please see Commons:Fair use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crossgardens.jpg [edit]

The file in question belongs to St Cross College. It wasn't 'randomly from the internet', it comes from the college itself. I am a member of the college, the photo is used in association with the college, the college allows it to be used. Therefore please restore it!

Rkceo (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 01/06/12[reply]

The page from which the image came has an explicit copyright notice. We have no way of knowing whether you have permission to give a general free license for images from it. Please have an appropriate official of the college send permission from his or her official e-mail using the method at Commons:OTRS. One permission can cover three of your deleted images:

Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Deleted. Should permission from copyright owner be supplied to OTRS, it is a simple matter to restore the image. -- Avi (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grotte-de-la-mine-4.jpg[edit]

Good morning, I'm Abderrahim Ghassen, vice president of the caving club of zaghouan and webmaster of our web site www.speleo-tunisie.com This picture was takken by our club. We are a tunisian caving club and want to improve the wiki page "spéléologie en Tunisie" by using our picture.

You can contact us on our e-mail ( you will find it on our web site www.speleo-tunisie.com) speleo.club.zaghouan@gmail.com

We will put another picture and we will indicate the link on our web site.

best regard,

غسان عبد الرحيم

That sounds very cool. For images which exist on the internet already though, we ask that either the license be marked at the source, or the procedures at COM:OTRS (a private email from the address you mention) be followed to specify the license. Accounts here are essentially anonymous, so it's impossible to tell the difference between someone legitimately licensing their image, and someone simply taking an unlicensed image they liked and copying it here. So, we want to have some independent confirmation. Once the OTRS volunteers process the permission, it will get undeleted. Thanks -- it'd be great to have some photos like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Deleted. Should permission from the copyright owner be supplied to OTRS, it is a simple matter to restore the image. -- Avi (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MarinersHelmet2011c.PNG[edit]

This file is the property of my organization, the Palm Beach Mariners Football Club, Inc.; I am the President/CEO of said organization. Please do not delete this file. Thank you.--Agtzero (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a drawing, not a photo. Please go through the procedure at Commons:OTRS to show that you release the image under an acceptable license. Thuresson (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Deleted. Should permission from the copyright owner be supplied to OTRS, it is a simple matter to restore the image. -- Avi (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Apio verde el mercurio.jpg[edit]

File:Apio verde el mercurio.jpg I have the rights for this article that appeared at a local newspaper, concerning my own feature film.

Send it to COM:OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Deleted. Should permission from the copyright owner be supplied to OTRS, it is a simple matter to restore the image. -- Avi (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Richard L. Cassin.png [edit]

I have explicit permission from the owner of this image that I can provide. He owns all necessary copyrights and gave me permissions to post the photo on Wiki Commons.

I can provide written documentation that I have all necessary rights.

Please follow the procedures at COM:OTRS (a private email giving permission). Do note that permission must be given to everyone, not just Wiki Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Deleted. Should permission from the copyright owner be supplied to OTRS, it is a simple matter to restore the image. -- Avi (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trots op Nederland logo.jpg[edit]

Please undelete. I am board member of the political organization whose logo I uploaded. I have the explicit permission to upload and submit this to Wikipedia.

Tscargo (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please follow the Commons:OTRS procedure. You also have to prove the logo author whether have transferred to you all the copyright (with a scanned copy of the transfer contract), whether it agrees to have it directly agrees to license the logo under an open source license (and in this case, it's up to him to write the OTRS permission request).

--Dereckson (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Deleted. Should permission from the copyright owner be supplied to OTRS, it is a simple matter to restore the image. -- Avi (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Institute of Information Technology Bogra.jpg[edit]

--Woliul (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this refers to File:Institute of Information Technology Bogra (IITB).jpg which was deleted twice as a copyright violation. It is a logo that passes the threshold of originality and no evidence of permission was given by the uploader, User:Woliul. In order to keep it on Commons, we will have to have permission from an appropriate officer of the school, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redeleted as copyright vio. It is not only text but also an artistic image, and so is not eligible for PD-TEXT. Please have an official of the institution who has control over its intellectual property confirm that they are willing to grant an irrevocable license to anyone in the entire world, for now and in perpetuity, for any and every use that could be obtained from the logo, and we can then host it on the commons. To illustrate an article on a local wikipedia project, fair use may be appropriate in this case, but the commons does not host fair-use images. -- Avi (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

file:BikiniDesigner480 Tala Raassi.jpg [edit]

Was not a copyright violation, was copied from the Voice of America interview using the link given. She was interviewed by a VOA reporter, which is clearly PD as a work of the US Government. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one has a AP tag, so it is not OK. I think other images are probably the same. Yann (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, they appear to now have AP tags. I swear at the time the image was copied they didn't. VOA has redesigned their site, and some images now appear to have different tags. Thank you for pointing that out. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion upheld. Image appears to be under copyright. -- Avi (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Broadbent+ uganda LRA colonel B eng 15dec11.jpg[edit]

Broadbent is a Voice of America reporter/photographer. PD as a work of the US Government. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the photographer is Joseph Kony, from AP. Not OK. Yann (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt the photographer is w:Joseph Kony :-) But I think I do see that on voanews marked as an AP "File photo". They probably didn't take it -- seems like a Ugandan army photo -- but we need more information to keep it. It is not PD-USGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, right. I misread the caption. Yann (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion upheld. Image appears to be under copyright. -- Avi (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Broadbent+ uganda LRA soldier eng 15dec11.jpg[edit]

Broadbent is a Voice of America reporter/photographer. PD as a work of the US Government. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the photographer is from AP. Not OK. Yann (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion upheld. Image is probably under copyright similar to others from same date and source. -- Avi (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Broadbent+ uganda LRA helicopter eng 15dec11.jpg[edit]

Broadbent is a Voice of America reporter/photographer. PD as a work of the US Government. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one has a AP tag, so it is not OK. I think other images are probably the same. Yann (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion upheld. Image is probably under copyright similar to others from same date and source. -- Avi (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chris+Lee+pix+by+Heidi+Chang.jpg[edit]

This was taken by a VOA photographer, which is in the public domain as a work of the US government. Oaktree b (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the right image, from this page, it is marked "AP". May just be a publicity photo, but it is not PD-USGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title itself gives credit to Heidi Chang, who sounds like an independent journalist anyways, but she was the one who filed the story, and did not take the picture. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion upheld. Full-size image has AP tag and thus is probably under copyright. -- Avi (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Borromeo+String+Quartet-Dec+17+20111.jpg[edit]

This was an image of an orchestra, I can't see why this is a copyvio. Again, taken by a VOA reporter. VOA - J. Taboh Credit is given to J. Taboh! This is silly.Oaktree b (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Taboh does appear to be a VOA employee,[4][5] so if the credit is correct the file is {{PD-USGov-VOA}}. Support if that is the correct attribution. 11:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I think I see the photo here. Taboh filed the audio report, but the photo (even though it was taken at the Library of Congress) is marked "AP" when you click on it. You need to be very careful to check image credits when taking things from voanews.com. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was the one near the middle of the page, under the section "Instrument Collection" with the stands and the 4 people playing. The VOA has changed their site design, and I notice now that many of the images that were tagged as taken by a VOA photographer now appear to be taken by the AP, or AFP etc. I fear we may see many more of these... I wonder if the VOA has incorrectly tagged them, because at the time that image was as being taken by J. Taboh (I was very careful to check that before uploading). But it now appears to be an AP photo...

See this example, http://www.voanews.com/content/ghana_female_pilots_ready_for_takeoff/666418.html . I uploaded the picture of the airplane taking off, the caption says it was taken by Mary Saner/VOA, but the photo is tagged AP in the bottom right corner. Is it an AP or a VOA photo? Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. That is interesting. I wonder if VOA is now adding the "AP" watermark on the images regardless of source (cross-licensing deal or something?). The image you speak of (which is not related to the person in that article) is also here, which is an article by Saner; both images are explicitly credited to Saner there, but also have the "AP" tag when you click on the images. There is also a third photo there supplied by one of the subjects of the story, that *also* has an AP tag but clearly didn't come through them. I think I would trust the images directly credited to VOA like the "Saner/VOA" ones you found. The AP watermark is going to make things difficult though. The violin ones are not credited that way though. That would be rather aggravating if the explicit caption was there at one point; it's going to make verification rather difficult. For an event in DC like the Library of Congress one, it's pretty believable to have been photographed by a BBG or VOA employee. But there is no such credit there at the moment. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not asking VOA? Yann (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion upheld. From the VOA's Terms of Use (emphasis added is my own):

“	All text, audio and video material produced exclusively by the Voice of America is in the public domain. Credit for any use of VOA material should be given to voanews.com, Voice of America, or VOA. However, voanews.com content may also contain video, audio, images, graphics, and other copyrighted material that is licensed for use in VOA programming only. This material is not in the public domain and may not be copied, redistributed, sold, or published without the express permission of the copyright owner. Associated Press: VOA has a license from Associated Press to use AP photos and graphics. All AP material is copyrighted and the property of Associated Press, and may not be copied, published or redistributed without the written permission of Associated Press. Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. AP will not be held liable in any way to the User or to any third party or to any other person who may receive information in the Service or to any other person whatsoever, for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing or occasioned thereby.	”
—Terms of Use

As such, anything watermarked AP needs to be assumed to be used by the VOA under license from the AP, and not their own work, until we have proof otherwise. Should we get proof, restoring the image is a simple process, but until then, it needs to remain deleted. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dolma Gyari.jpg[edit]

I guess this is one of the many VOA files that innotata marked for deletion. However, I have no access to the file, and I do not see discussion, as the file was speedily deleted. Thanks to restore if VOA. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the image on this page, it is marked "AP" and is not a government work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see the logo, but you are right, it is visible on high definition. I apologize. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Deleted. Per above. -- Avi (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WoodyTalk 4.jpg[edit]

Also:

This picture has been uploaded by Woody World Co.,Ltd. who produces Woody Talk Show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodyworld (talk • contribs)

Please follow the procedures on COM:OTRS to confirm ownership and a free license. Accounts here are anonymous, so we can't tell if a user account is really associated with the copyright owners, or just a fan (even if the username suggests an association). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Deleted. Should permission from copyright owner be supplied to OTRS, it is a simple matter to restore the image. -- Avi (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pastor herbert cooper on cover of outreach magazine.jpg [edit]

Part of the public domain.

J2effect (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that? Outreach Magazine's website, including this page which shows the cover in question, clearly states "Copyright © 2012, All Rights Reserved". —LX (talk, contribs) 21:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyvio issues. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Communes of Loir-et-Cher[edit]

These categories are no longer empty (open list, created as I add categories to maps of communes of Loir-et-Cher). Croquant (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of list.

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stop hand 2.svg[edit]

This image was not a duplicate of File:Stop hand.svg. Please undelete this image, it may just have some color changes. --Captaincollect1970 (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I checked both files and they are the same design and color wise. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Communes of Ain[edit]

These categories are no longer empty (open list, created as I add categories to maps of communes of Ain). Croquant (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of list.

Done Yann (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Tréflévénez[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yann (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Communes of Cher[edit]

These categories are no longer empty (open list, created as I add categories to maps of communes of Cher). Croquant (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of list.

already done MorganKevinJ^(talk) 05:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Al-Wahda S.C.C. (e.g. "File:Al-Wahda.png") [edit]

This an official logo of Al Wahda SCC. I work with the Government of Dubai and with the Pro-League Committee in Dubai. I can assure you that this is the official logo created by our graphic designer.

Best.

Please email permissions-commonswikimedia.org following the format given here. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 05:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Communes of Yvelines[edit]

These categories are no longer empty (open list, created as I add categories to maps of communes of Yvelines). Croquant (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of list.

Already done MorganKevinJ^(talk) 01:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yes2dotAfrica campaign by DotConnectAfrica.jpg[edit]

Please restore or undelete this image. I have also uploaded another one with the copy right label, which ever one you approve. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkamanzi (talk • contribs)

This file needs a permission. See OTRS for details. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

frank-2012.jpg [edit]

Hello, I am the webmaster for Frank Ochberg, and am currently updating his wiki page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ochberg

I tried to upload a photo (frank-2012.jpg) owned by him, and gave it the permissions {{Copyrighted free use}} It seemed to upload okay, and gave me the code to insert in his wiki page, which I did and it showed up, but was gone within 15 minutes.

Can you tell me what I need to do to rectify this?

Thank you,

David Clarke 06/18/12 www.giftfromwithin.org Mongo777 (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please email permissions-commons

wikimedia.org following the format given here. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 05:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Falling hare bugs.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted under the rationale that "A derivative work of Bugs Bunny per this [Warner Bros. copyright file]", without discussion. However, the work that this shot of Bugs was taken from is not covered under copyright; the cartoon in question, "Falling Hare", had its copyright lapse and is a public-domain work. Therefore, screenshots of the cartoon are also in the public domain, as derivative works of a public domain work. If it was an original drawing of Bugs, it would be a copyvio, but as it is a direct screenshot from the public domain cartoon, it is also public domain and, thus, suitable for inclusion on Wikimedia Commons. - The Bushranger (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would appear to be much the same as Category:Fleischer and Famous Studios Superman images, which have repeatedly resisted deletion... AnonMoos (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was the Admin who deleted this. It appeared to be a routine deletion of a Warner Brothers copyrighted image. If that is not correct, by all means let's fix it. If Bushranger could give us a cite for the claim that is PD, that would be good. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, while you can find literally hundreds of cites saying it's PD, finding one that wouldn't raise RS concerns is nearly impossible. This appears to be one of those things that "everybody knows", and, therefore, nobody ever really mentions it because, after all, everyone already knows it. But "Falling Hare" is one of the cartoons that WB did not renew the copyright on, and it's been released multiple times in collections of PD cartoons. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were some cases recently that made clear that for cartoon characters, even if a particular work became PD due to lack of notice or renewal, it could still be derivative of an earlier work which defined the character, if *that* work is still under copyright. Elements of the image which were original to that particular cartoon would be OK, but if the Bugs Bunny pictorial character is still copyrighted, it's still a derivative work. The main case (a circuit court decision) was just last year. We ended up deleting a bunch of Mickey Mouse stuff because of it (even though the cartoon itself was not renewed). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I suppose it makes sense -- all of Bugs Bunny is derivative of A Wild Hare, the first appearance of the dwatted wabbit, so that even if a subsequent work was not properly copyrighted, it would still be a DW. Do you have a link to the decision? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that theory makes no sense whatsoever. If characters appearing in the film not being PD makes direct, unaltered screenshots of the film not PD, then by the same logic the film itself is not PD - and that isn't the case. If somebody drew their own image of Bugs, it'd be a copyvio; even recreating an image from the film would be copyvio. But a direct, unaltered screenshot of a PD film can't be anything but PD. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It actually makes a good amount of sense. If I wrote a book, I control distribution of that book, plus derivative works. If someone makes a movie based on the book, then forgets to renew the movie (or forgets the copyright notice), then the movie is PD, but the book is still copyrighted, and the book's copyright owner thus still has the right to control derivative works, since that is under the rights of the book's copyright. This has been ruled on, repeatedly by this point (in one case, on a copyrighted play/PD movie situation). The court case I was referring to above was Avela vs. Warner Bros. (quick blog summary here), which was about some publicity materials for the movies Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz (somewhat different situations because some of the publicity material was published before the movie), and also some material with Tom & Jerry cartoons which had fallen into the PD (but remained derivative of the character). Also see here (decision text here); certain episodes of a TV series fell into the public domain, but were still considered derivative of the characters (since the first episodes, which defined the characters, were still under copyright). The play/movie case I referred to above was Russell v. Price; it has this quote: Thus, although the derivative work may enter the public domain, the matter contained therein which derives from a work still covered by statutory copyright is not dedicated to the public. Really, the above rulings are all pretty consistent with each other. The main DR for this was Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif (third nomination; I had some erroneous arguments in the earlier ones, based on I think reading a defense argument and thinking it was the court's decision). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, the film is public domain, and therefore (by definition) a single cell of animation from the film is public domain, but a screenshot showin the same cell of animation is not? Thats absurd. Not saying it's not the legal facts, given the above, but it's still absurd. (Maybe Shakespeare was right. ;) ) - The Bushranger (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... think of it like a photo of a copyrighted statue (in a non-FOP country). The photographer can release their copyrights, and call the photo "public domain" (or license it and call it "free"). In reality though, distribution is still subject to the copyright in the statue, which it is not possible for the photographer to affect. So despite the fact that one set of rights was terminated, another set of rights (which also covers the photograph) still exists. Failing to renew the copyright to the movie similarly means that one set of rights is now gone, but the underlying rights can still exist. The part that may feel "wrong" is that this still seems to hold when the author of both sets of rights is the same -- almost seems like they shouldn't get protection from their own mistakes that way, that letting protection lapse on the derivative work should almost seem like implied permission to distribute that one derivative work. But, a couple of the rulings above indicate that that is not the case. The failure to renew means that any *additional* expression added in the derivative is then public domain, but as for any expression still used from the underlying still-copyrighted work, that much is not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carl, I don't read Russell v. Price the way you do. The court stopped the distribution of Pygmalion; by corollary, the parts of Falling Hare that are derivative of older, still in copyright works are still under copyright. My reading of the law is that these shorts, like the Superman shorts, should still be under copyright. Why in reality the budget DVD distributors can continue to distribute these films without being sued I don't know. (And before you mention small fish, Mill Creek is pretty big and sells nation-wide in Wal-Marts and the like; a lawsuit, or even some vocal threats that Mill Creek caved to, would scare away many other infringers.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the parts of Falling Hare that are derivative of still-copyrighted works are still subject to the underlying copyright. Pretty much all the above cases seem to agree with that. I am not arguing to undelete this file at all... rather quite the opposite. Was something unclear? The only ruling I can find at the moment which might argue to the opposite was perhaps Rohauer v. Killiam Shows, which was a case between the derivative rightsholder and the underlying work rightsholder, where permission had previously been obtained but since the death of the author occurred prior to the renewal period, normally renewal rights must be re-obtained (which they were not), but the court ruled that the derivative work was still OK. However, that was at best trying to balance competing rights, not a PD vs copyrighted situation (as Russell vs Price pointed out), and anyways it appears that the Supreme Court also overturned much of the Rohauer reasoning in Stewart v. Abend. In the Avela vs. Warner Bros. case, Warner said they would not contest the copying of the posters as posters (i.e. duplicates of their original purpose), but just new derivative works made using the material. The court decided that declaration amounted to permission to make pure copies in that one case, thus Avela was OK for their straight reproductions (which might indicate a ruling somewhere indicating such things were OK), but the court also made clear that even that was normally still subject to the underlying copyright, and was only allowed in that one case because Warner had given their explicit blessing. There might be a ruling out there which supports the continued distribution of the Superman shorts, but to date nobody has pointed one out, as far as I'm aware, and we have a number of rulings saying that distribution of the derivatives is still a problem. So yes, I think it should remain deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Case law provided by Carl stated that the screenshots are still protected under copyright because of a derivative of the underlying work. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:100_рублей_Путин-лидер_партии_жуликов_и_воров.jpg[edit]

The image shows an ordinary banknote with some political inscription which at first glance makes impression of some non-valuable uploader's original art and I believe that's why it was deleted on COM:SCOPE grounds. But actually this image is perspective-corrected (to meet "Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works" criteria) version of the illustration that appeared in Russian mass media in articles covering usage of banknotes for propaganda. Here is selection of such articles: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15], most of them are reputable printed or online news sources. Sadly, closing admin overlooked this media coverage issue. If editors of printed (Novaya Gazeta and Bolshoy gorod) and online media found enough value in the image to waste paper (or bytes) on it, then image undoubtedly has educational value and should be undeleted. --M5 (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for you, besides scope issues, what kind of permission do you have for this image? While it is a picture of Russian currency, it was not your own photograph and comes from a press photo. We need permission from novayagazeta.ru in order to host this photo. There are also issues of derivative works. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As reported by newsru.com, the original photo was by facebook user Irina Shadrina [16] (AFAIR she was credited on file description page). The author of scribbling is unknown, but the text is a trivial political slogan. The file was originally uploaded to Commons by other user without permission and then the copyright status was (rightfully) challenged. When I stumbled upon the discussion I decided to remove any creative input of the original photographer by keeping only the flat banknote part which is {{PD-RU-exempt}} as any Russian currency. So I transformed the image with perspective-correction and crop tools in GIMP and replaced the original file with the image of the flat banknote without any surrounding objects, creative angles etc. This is the same thing we do with {{PD-Art}} paintings where we crop the 3D frame part which is copyrighted. So the final image is a "Faithful reproductions of two-dimensional work" and we have a nice opportunity to have PD image which illustrates the well-published historical phenomenon and depicts the banknote that actually was a part of that phenomenon, compare with similar (and challenged in 2009) File:One_dollar_bill_with_In_God_We_Trust_marked_out.jpg. --M5 (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then Irina Shadrina needs to email COM:OTRS giving us permission and a license for us to host the photo since I would feel it is a derivative work. With the dollar bill photograph, it was taken by the author and self-uploaded. But, it would be easier to also remake the text on a Russian banknote? I don't have a problem in terms of the scope since there is a use for it, my concern is about the licensing and copyright of the original photograph. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am told that if the resulting image is not copyrightable (in this case a faithful reproduction of a banknote that is not copyrightable), then it is not restrained as being a derivative work - see the last paragraph added by Carl Lindberg in this discussion - Probably best to get comment from Carl in case I am misinterpreting or mis-applying his contribution :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hrrmmmm. That's a lot more clear-cut when you are referring to a drawing, and extracting a portion which obviously does not qualify for copyright on its own. For a photograph... maybe certain crops are OK, but that banknote photo may have distinctive shadows etc. which could make even the crop easily identifiable as coming from that particular source photo. Flimsy grounds for protection perhaps, but it may not be completely impossible. The PD-Art ruling was about photos designed to be essentially copies of 2-D works. A scan of the note would be fine, regardless of who did it, but the question is if the crop here removed all copyrightable aspects from the source photo. I can't see it, so I don't know, but... could be close, but also a tough decision, especially if you can still easily identify the source photo via details (shadows etc.) left in the crop, which you could argue is part of the photographer's expression (arranging the note to get the desired shadow effect, or something). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification :-). So you are saying that if the resulting image shows no details of copyrightable authorship (eg shadows, lighting, perspective) it would be fine. Of course one can still easily identify the source, because we would probably be citing the source as the original photo to authenticate the veracity of the claim that this image was of an actual photograph of political slogan distributed via banknotes. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done but I feel a second DR could be started to decide on the issue if this is really a production of 2D artwork or not. However, there is a scope for this image (no matter it is protests against Putin, defacing of currency, etc). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Linda Edengren.jpg[edit]

My own file, no copyright violation.

Edotk (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted as a copy of http://www.ptkonsulterna.se/Kontaktaoss/LindaEdengren.aspx MorganKevinJ^(talk) 19:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Michael Andreas Haeringer.jpg[edit]

La fuente de la imagen es: http://pianistasdelmundo.blogspot.com/2012/01/michael-andreas-haeringer.html --Enriwiki (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Source has a clear copyright notice. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Touhou 12.8 Fairy Wars Gameplay.png [edit]

Zun's copyright clearly states that using game data other then the screenshots is not allowed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deadkid_dk/Archive08#List_of_Touhou_Project_characters Zun has stated that we are allowed to use the images for free and he doesn't mind. Here is more proof also from the previous website posted (its below the copyrights) Q. I want to use snapshots on my webpage (for a walkthrough, etc.)

Of course I don't mind.  You don't even have to notify me beforehand.
As long as you follow the rules below, I won't mind.

1. Don't post endings.
2. Rescaling is okay, but please preserve the images' aspect ratio.
3. Don't make image content edits that are indistinguishable from the
   original images.
   This includes things like changing the spell card names, recoloring the
   images, or add extra bullets that weren't originally there.
    * However, this is okay if it's done as a joke and it's clearly stated
      that it's a joke.
4. Things like cropping the images or overlaying them with text are no problem.

If you have any doubts, just ask me and I'll respond.

"Don't make image content edits that are indistinguishable from the original images." We cannot accept that conditions, so the image will not be restored. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK to require that modified versions be clearly labeled as such, along with what had been modified. The idea is that nobody should be led to believe that modified versions are purely the work of the original author; that goes to moral rights. I'm not sure if the restriction above is purely that type of restriction though; it may in reality be fully disallowing many types of derivative works -- the types of modifications described must be be allowed to be free. They can be required to be fully documented as modifications, but they can't be prevented completely. Even if clear documentation of modified versions was the intent, the actual wording would seem to be disallowing such derivative works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "Rescaling is okay, but please preserve the images' aspect ratio" flatly prohibits at least one form of image modification that we require the right to do. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done A lot of the wording with the derivatives note is just making this image not free for our purposes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Several things. See User_talk:Fastily#Please_clean_up_your_mess.[edit]

.--0g1o2i3k4e5n6 (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is it all of the images at https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matching_%28Graphentheorie%29&oldid=93916469#Algorithmus_von_Edmonds ? If so, I think they all been restored from what I seen. If not, can you link us the images that need to be restored? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps File:Edmonds-example-1.svg, File:Edmonds-example-2.svg, and File:Edmonds-example-3.svg, looking at that link? And File:Bip2maxflow.jpg. I don't think I see any other missing images. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was that all of the images were tagged as no-source, but did have a license as PD-self (most likely tagged because the source field was blank). I do not believe this was the entire fault of the deleting admin, as the talk page post makes it out to be. However, I am dealing with some IRL issues at the moment so I cannot restore them myself. Yet, I

Support their restoration. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration

Done, I have added the template {{Own}} in the source field as it is a own work. Please 0g1o2i3k4e5n6 do not hesitate to fill the descriptions of this images, it would add a lot of value . --PierreSelim (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tor logo0.png[edit]

I am requesting that this image be undeleted, and locally uploaded to English Wikinews.

Once again, Commons lack of interest in where images are in-use is embarassing other projects. You have deleted an image which, on Wikinews, is perfectly acceptable under a Fair Use Rationale. Not only that, you've done it where the image is used on a sisterproject Featured Article. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look deleted to me, but it does have a speedy deletion tag on it which should be converted to a DR, I will do that. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted. It was undeleted as requested above, so it could be copied to WikiNews locally, ~~but it should be speedy deleted once that is done. It should never have been on Commons in the first place.~~ Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was copied to wikinews. Is there really no notification bot for them which warns -- at least on talk pages -- when images are up for deletion? Maybe see if w:User:CommonsNotificationBot could be ported over to wikinews... I guess meta:User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker used to do that job cross-wikis but it seems to be no longer operative. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take back my should have been deleted comment. The copyright notice on both https://www.torproject.org/ and https://media.torproject.org/ is clear; the deletion reason was about the terms of their *trademark* license, which is not a deletion reason at all. We care just about the copyright, and that status looks to be crystal clear. So

Support permanent undeletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was restored and I closed the DR based on this discussion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Circball court area.jpg[edit]

Please undelete. This file was uploaded (despite copyright mark ) under license per Terms of Use #7: Licensing of Content.

You agree to the following licensing requirements: Text to which you hold the copyright: When you submit text to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it under: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (“CC BY-SA”),

Copyright holder has not asserted any DMCA takedown demand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.4.63 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 20 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

You cannot release something under CC-BY-SA if you are not the copyright holder. --PierreSelim (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright holder as licensor has granted license of this Work under "CC BY-SA"! Licensees (WMF users) are exercising its rights under "CC BY-SA" to use/distribute this work according to the license agreement, quoted in part below:
3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:

to Reproduce the Work, to incorporate the Work into one or more Collections, and to Reproduce the Work as incorporated in the Collections;

to create and Reproduce Adaptations provided that any such Adaptation, including any translation in any medium, takes reasonable steps to clearly label, demarcate or otherwise identify that changes were made to the original Work. For example, a translation could be marked "The original work was translated from English to Spanish," or a modification could indicate "The original work has been modified.";

to Distribute and Publicly Perform the Work including as incorporated in Collections; and,

to Distribute and Publicly Perform Adaptations.

WMF as a hosting company must make this Work available according to its Terms of Use #1 ("we act only as a hosting service," and should therefore undelete this Work today! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.4.63 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

The file is clearly identified as being copyrighted to someone. We would need a formal permission sent by the copyright holder to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (for some help on this procedure please check this help page). --PierreSelim (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder has ALREADY GIVEN PERMISSION, under the Licensing section of the file page which states: Licensing
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. No additional permission needed because, when it was uploaded by copyright holder, permission was granted on its file page! Read the License section!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.4.63 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Is this your photograph? The quote above that "Copyright holder has not asserted any DMCA takedown demand" would seem to indicate that the copyright owner is someone else, and we need explicit permission from them -- we don't keep until we get a DMCA takedown notice. On the other hand, the reason for deletion does sound odd -- simply because the photo has a copyright symbol on it. That is not a reason for deletion, let alone speedy. If the image exists elsewhere on the internet, then we would need external permission via the procedures at COM:OTRS. If not though, then we assume the copyright owner would be the only one able to upload it here, and therefor the CC-BY-SA license is valid (which is still under copyright, so the copyright symbol is not even wrong). I can't see the original image to see if there was a source, or if the image exists elsewhere, so I'm really not sure. But the deletion reason in the log looks like it could be a misinformed admin, unless the copyright notice indicated a different copyright owner than claimed, or something like that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the copyright holder has ALREADY GIVEN PERMISSION, under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license at their website. That license can be viewed at copyright holder's official website: www.circball.com/home (bottom page). A similar diagram that this file is (not a picture) is also located at the same website at http://www.circball.com/_/rsrc/1340305126685/rules-and-regulation/summary/Court%20Diagram%20v3.jpg. You're right the admin who deleted this file was misinformed. The deletion was a mistake and was inappropriate and should not have been deleted. To go through COM:OTRS this time is even more inappropriate given that this file already has the appropriate CC-BY-SA license granted by copyright holder at their website. Whoever uploaded this file at Wikimedia Commons has the proper CC-BY-SA license granted to that person as released by copyright holder at their website (despite the copyright mark). Users of WMF are also under license agreement to use this file in conformity to the CC-BY-SA license agreement ALREADY GRANTED. PLEASE UNDELETE THIS FILE TODAY!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.4.63 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 22 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

It is true that www.circball.com has a notice which reads:

"Unless otherwise noted, content on this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License."

However, the image in question has an explicit copyright notice on it which reads:

The specific copyright claim on the image overrides the general copyright notice for the whole site -- the image falls within "Unless otherwise noted". That means that in order to keep the image here we would need permission from Vysisias. That will require an e-mail permission from a source clearly identifiable as Vysisias giving us a license to the image, using the permission laid out at Commons:OTRS. That may be difficult because "Vysisias" does not appear in Google's database.

However, there is a more general question. I think this violates our rule against promotional material. I think we probably should not keep this image even if we can get permission from Vysisias. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 02:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This specific content (image) does NOT fall under "unless otherwise noted". "Unless otherwise noted" only means that the copyright holder has EXPLICITLY made a statement (by the author, or by the holder of the rights to the work) that the material is NOT to be licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA), explicitly noting in unqualified terms that the Work is not to be licensed at all (ie, "Unlicensed Work") under any terms. "Unless otherwise noted" refers to Licensing, whether it's marked with copy symbol or not. It's all about licensing. We're not disputing whether this file is copyrighted or not. We're disputing whether it's been licensed or not. This image was granted license on their website and it was not "otherwise noted" not to be licensed.

As stated in their website, content in that website was granted license under CC-BY-SA. Copyright holder has not explicitly noted that this specific file (with or without any mark--copyright, trademark, etc--without ambiguity, that this specific content is not to be released for licensing at all. Having a mark does not mean you cannot license it. Please read the license terms itself and also read WMF's User Terms #7 above which states that if you have a copyrighted work, you can license it.

#7. "Text [or media] to which you hold the copyright: When you submit text to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it..."

under different license terms. So this specific media though copyrighted was licensed under CC-BY-SA. No Commons:OTRS process is necessary.

And also how does "this violate our rule against promotional material"? Wasn't this for an "educational purpose"? Nothing is being promoted here other than for use in other Wikimedia projects, just like the Pepsi logo "Pepsi logo 2008.svg" was used for educational purpose, wasn't it? 173.55.4.63 04:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "All Rights Reserved" is indeed contradictory to a CC license, and could very well amount to an indication that the material is being "otherwise noted". The patents and copyright are listed as being by Vero Vysosias, who presumably is also behind the website -- so it could be a situation of a copyrighted image later being licensed freely. But why include the copyright notices then? Are they the direct images from the patents? If the images on the website were clearly licensed CC-BY-SA, everything should be fine, but I can definitely see the argument that the images are indeed "otherwise noted". Having the images with their own explicit notice with "all rights reserved" is definitely different than the CC "some rights reserved" licenses. If the copyright owner in the notice was someone else, that would absolutely be an indication that it does not fall under the general website license; I'm not sure what other form an "otherwise noted" work would take. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the promotional aspect, I'm less sure on that argument, but this appears to be a game being pushed (and owned) by a single company which has not yet gained traction by itself, and is trying to use Wikipedia to promote/explain the game and thus gain traction -- Wikipedia prefers not to be used like that; the explanatory material could just as easily be on the corporate website. But, if there are enough third-party reliable sources, it may be OK anyways. If the article exists on en-wiki, we should be hosting images to illustrate it, if possible. But in looking... I'm not sure the article ever made it past draft status, and seems to have been deleted from there even. The subject was emphatically deleted from en-wiki as being non-notable. Hrm. w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circball and w:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Circball. The uploader has been indef blocked as well. While deletion from Wikipedia does not necessarily mean that these are outside our scope (perhaps someone is working on a Wikibook or something)... that is a legitimate question in light of the above. I'm probably slightly inclined to keep the images if we can be confident about the licensing, as there could eventually be uses for it, but I can definitely understand opinions to the contrary. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having "All Rights Reserved" or any copyright notification of any kind on the image in question does not limit in any way the rights and licenses granted under CC-BY-SA. Copyright notification is optional in any copyrighted material. Use of the notice only informs the public that a work is protected by copyright laws (thus, all rights are reserved by law), identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication. Nothing in the notice indicates that the image may NOT be licensed nor does it prevent the licensor to license such work at any time at any terms. In fact, the opposite is true. CC-BY-SA requires that only works that are copyrightable can be licensed under CC-BY-SA. Works that are not copyrightable cannot be granted such license by CC.

Also, it may be that "All Rights Reserved" may refer to other patent and trademark rights. Looking at the patent images, it does show that one patent image ("Fig 2 Circular Court Diagram") is somewhat similar to the image in question though not exactly the same. There are differences in labels, but the overall image is similar showing a court play area. Thus it could be interpreted that patent rights are reserved as well. In any case, the "otherwise noted" phrase only refers to licensing agreement under CC-BY-SA only. Specific rights are granted under Section 3 of the CC-BY-SA license agreement. All other non-waivable rights are still retained and reserved, including the exclusive right to license the image to others under different license terms, commercially or non-commercially. BTW, http://creativecommons.org also has a similar language ("Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License."). Did that prevent them from licensing their works to users of WMF? Hope that clears the issue of this image being licensed under CC-BY-SA.

As to the promotional question, I'm not sure if the image by itself promotes anything. Even without the image in question, its official website (http://www.circball.com) has already garnered traction for the game using other media and websites (facebook, youtube, videos, etc), independent of Wikipedia. The game is already notable among users regardless of the deleted image and deleted draft contents about the game, and does not depend on wikipedia to gain notariety. Someone have had to play the game out there, instead of just looking at an image on a website. Also, looking at the log archives, it may seem that these editors have over-reacted or have mis-informed ideas as to game's supposed non-notability (differences in opinion seems to have defined non-notability, is more like it. Reliable sources ignored, etc.) But regardless of the outcome in these archives , the image in question by itself does not promote or make Circball notable nor does it promote anything else, by itself, even though the game already is, notable, IMO. It is useful to WMF though to promote free knowledge, in this case, through this image. So let's undelete the file. 173.55.4.63 09:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not. Excess verbiage aside, "All rights reserved" is directly contradictory to free licensing, and that's been upheld in numerous deletion discussions. You cannot simultaneously reserve and release rights. If it really is the author's intention to release the rights, getting them to remove the all rights reserved statement or e-mail OTRS shouldn't be a problem. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Provided that we know that CC-BY-SA applies to the image, then yes it's OK, despite the (earlier) declaration of "All Rights Reserved". But no, that is not referring to trademark or patent rights; that is explicitly part of the copyright notice (as evidenced by the copyright symbol), and is a phrase usually just found in relation to copyright anyways. If the copyright owner knowingly later licensed the image CC-BY-SA, that's fine. If we know that the uploader here is in fact the copyright owner (probably have to be confirmed via OTRS), then the licenses as given on the uploads could also hold. Without that, then we need to rely on the license as shown on the website. It says that material there is CC-BY-SA, unless otherwise noted. The separate copyright notices however are a pretty blatant example of something being otherwise noted, which would exclude those photos from the overall site license, which in turn means they are not licensed CC-BY-SA at all, and we can't rely on any of the terms in that license. If the site owner wanted to exclude certain images from the overall CC-BY-SA license, the shown separate notice is exactly how they would most appropriately do that. It may be a simple mistake (the images contained the notice from a previous usage and the site owner forgot to remove them), but we really can't tell the difference between that and intentionally excluding them from the CC-BY-SA site license. If the images on the patents do not have a specific copyright notice, then those might be PD ({{PD-US-patent}}). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a common practice to mark content excluding it from cc licensing as provided by WikiCC (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking/Creators/Marking_third_party_content):

Two common marking practices

"CC has found that licensors often use two mechanisms to mark works like those described above. Some licensors include a general notice within their copyright and licensing notice that identifies those portions of the work that are not subject to the CC license. This may take the form of a general notice letting licensees know that some of the content is not licensed under the CC license applied, may be subject to another license arrangement and/or may not be available for reuse. Ideally, these types of notices specifically identify that content. This style of notice is popular in mediums like video, where a notice at the beginning or the end is convenient and the standard. Other licensors choose to mark the specific content with a notice to that same effect at each instant it occurs, instead of providing a general notice attached to the work. Ideally, licensors will do both for maximum clarity."
"As a best practice, licensors should give clear and effective notices. Notice may be in any form the licensor chooses and should clearly explain what rights and substantive portions of a work are and are not licensed. Some licensors include the following general notice along with the license icon: "Except where otherwise noted, this work is available under [license version]." Licensors can then use marking, for instance a watermark, colored background or any other method desired to indicate elements to which the license does not apply. For instance, some licensors individually mark pieces of content to which the license does not apply with explanatory text such as “(c) copyright holder--used with permission” or “The CC license does not apply to this picture.” Licensors in that situation, however, should also ideally explain their marking scheme in the general notice."

None of this was done by the website owner. The owner has not identify any parts of the work with "watermark, colored background or any other method" to which the license does not apply. Meaning, the picture in question doesn't have a specific marking that says "...used with permission" or "The CC license does not apply to this picture." Therefore the picture in questions is licensed under CC. Although "All Right Reserved" notation is used as an optional copyright marking used for copyright purposes only, it is not used as a licensing mark to exclude from licensing. Even though copyright owner asserts all rights with any copyright notation in whatever form they may be, certain rights are released by owner and granted to users when licensed under CC-BY-SA. Also, the phrase "All Right Reserved" has been supplanted by "common usage of the phrase to refer to any legal right", in addition to copyrights (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_rights_reserved). There's nothing in the CC legal code that says "All Rights Reserved" breaks the cc license agreement.

Unless otherwise clearly marked by some marking scheme such a text "used with permission" or "The license doesn't apply to this work", the picture is licensed. That's what "Unless otherwise noted" means. The copyright notation is not a exclusionary licensing marking scheme. 173.55.4.63 21:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of writing these needlessly verbose discourses here, your time would be more wisely spent e-mailing the copyright holder to ask if they mean what you hope they mean. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people need this "verbose discourses" here to show that a simple undelete is all that is needed instead of going through this email crap! As pointed out, the file is already licensed and no email is needed to find out from copyright holder because it was already released from their own website. Just freekin undelete the file already!! 173.55.4.63 23:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done You been told many times to email COM:OTRS. The file is not yours to release, so you cannot say "just freekin undelete the file already!" and it happens. The source website has a copyright notice for this image, so they will have to email us to give us a license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

St. Xaviers College Church and building, Ahmedabad (Unique Photo).JPG[edit]

Hello Team,

This was my own creation and effort. This was a Wikipedia organized photo-drive for the Ahmedabad city. Among all other participants, I have captured the best of my exertions. The pic for the St. Xaviers College Church and building is unique in the way when I have used a mirror of my bike to bring the church and the campus building. This was an innovative idea and can say a unique notion. I would like to request you to please retain this pic as it gives the best view of a memorable and historic educational structure, i.e. St. Xaviers College Church. Thanks, Maulik Joshi

File:St. Xaviers College Church and building, Ahmedabad (Unique Photo).JPG, never deleted, so nothing to undelete. I agree however about the low educational value of the photo, if you upload a group of photos you should exclude the worst quality photos. --Martin H. (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to undelete. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Communes of Indre[edit]

These categories are no longer empty (open list, created as I add categories to maps of communes of Indre). Croquant (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why do you announce these here -- both this time and several times in the past? I see only three possibilities:

You are recreating a cat that was deleted because it was empty, but now has contents. No problem, nothing needed here.
You are creating a cat that is brand new and has contents. No problem, nothing needed here.
You are recreating a category that was deleted for another reason. Discussion is required here, but that does not seem to be the case with these.

Your doing this is not a problem, but unless I am mistaken, you are doing something you don't need to do. You are one of our most experienced editors (>200,000 edits) -- I am sure you have better things to do on Commons. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, the answer is 1, but I don't agree with your way of seeing things. In order to, firstly get the initial content, and secondly give credit to the previous contributors of the category, the only way is to restore it. Indeed, such categories are frequently not just one Category:Cities and villages in xxx, and may contain much more information: for instance, just have a look to the Yvelines communes restored recently; there may be some cases where the categories contain just one line, and restoration could be avoided, but there is no way to know for sure before doing it. So, definitely, restoration should be preferred over recreation. Croquant (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For this department, as it seems that the categories created by User:Parisdreux contain just one Category:Cities and villages in Indre line, I understand better your comment. Knowing that, I'll apply my exception rule, and just recreate them. Croquant (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Now I understand. What was not obvious until I looked at the history here and at one of the Cats was that between the time of your posting the -- then red -- cats here and my seeing them in blue, Foroa had restored them. It looked to me that you had simply posted the notice after having recreated them. Your reasoning makes perfect sense.

I suggest that it would be clearer to others if the Admin who does the restoration, or you, Croquant, puts a note on such as

Restored by Foroa

to clarify the sequence. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my answer before seeing that Foroa recreated two categories, which explains a part of the misunderstanding. Croquant (talk)

Red is non existing, blue is existing. The lists tend to be extended gradually, so it is not clear when done.

In addition, it shows how the deletion of empty structural categories creates a lot of unneeded additional work and miscategorisation as the searched cats don't exist anymore. --Foroa (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Croquant (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, when I see popping up a new category on my watchlist, it means that it existed before and I tend to undelete all the versions. --Foroa (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done and I suggest for Croquant to put future requests on my talk page and I will deal with it personally, so this process doesn't have to be used anymore. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GreentopMo2.jpg[edit]

I believe this file was wrongfully deleted by an overzealous Wikipedian. The sign, if one will take the time to look closely at the printing on it, is not an advertisement. It is a sign stating that Greentop, Missouri is the hometown of Bluegrass music star Rhonda Vincent. How is that advertising? She really doesn't gain financially, nor does the town, from the billboard. If it stated something like "Buy her new album Taken at Wal-Mart" I could see where it might be disallowed. I think we need to use a little more common sense here folks. Sector001 (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The problem is that this image is a derivative of the board. It doesn't matter what is the purpose of the board, but it is an original work, which has a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:DW issues User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Montastruc (Hautes-Pyrénées)[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just saw User:Zscout370's above proposal; I don't understand why it should be done that way. Croquant (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly to not clutter this page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Boisgervilly[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Officemaxpbg.jpg[edit]

A OfficeMax store located in West Palm Beach FL

It looks like the file was deleted because the pictures comes from another website, i.e. it might be copyrighted to someone else who didn't released it under a free licence (files not under free licences are not accepted on Commons). Do you have any indication that the file is free ? --PierreSelim (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyright issues. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anne Bremner.jpg[edit]

I understand that initially, I failed to convey that I do have permission to use the owner's photo; however, Anne Bremner, the owner of the photo, has given me the right to use this photo on Wikipedia. At this link, you will find her Declaration of Consent.

Here is the text version of what is in that photo: "I hereby affirm that: I, Anne Bremner, am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of this photo: http://annebremner.com/_img/anne.jpg I agree to publish that work under the free license “Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)”. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

If there are any problems with my explanation, please help me understand how I can get this picture undeleted as soon as possible. --Milesr3 (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to get her to send the email with that content to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, as detailed in COM:OTRS. If she did so, it will get undeleted when that is processed. But given that... I'd probably support undeletion as-is. It's always possible that someone cobbles together a fake like that, but... given that the author appears to have tried to add the photo to her Wikipedia article, that seems far-fetched to me. My only hesitation is that the shown permission is explicitly for this image, which may be lower-resolution than the one previously uploaded (not positive as I can't see it, but Google cache seems to show larger). I have no issues with uploading the image from that URL. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I apologize for not knowing how to indent again below your message) Anne Bremner has sent the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. She is the copyright owner of the original for that photo, so I hope that the email is substantial proof to allow us to use the high resolution photo. If not, the one that is linked above will suffice for the time being. I will return to this discussion tomorrow. Thank you very much for your help and patience.

--Milesr3 (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was undeleted by OTRS volunteers. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Communes of Morbihan[edit]

These categories are no longer empty (open list, created as I add categories to maps of communes of Morbihan). Croquant (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of list.

Done MorganKevinJ^(talk) 16:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Google Female Rapper".jpeg [edit]

This photo was taken by the owner, and given to me. There is no copy right infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaggastyle (talk • contribs) 20:21, 25 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Service: File:Snapshot from the video "Google Female Rapper".jpeg this is probably the file the user above wants to discuss. Best regards --Neozoon (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask the owner to send an email to permissions-commonswikimedia.org in the format given here. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 21:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Santilly (Eure-et-Loir)[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --PierreSelim (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nicki Minaj in Italy.jpg[edit]

This file should not be deleted becasue I gave all right to its owner, and it is on a public domain website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1flyguyrob (talk • contribs)

Copyright is the right of authors to control who may their work and how they may use it. By using their work without permission, you haven't "given" them anything! On the contrary, you've infringed on their rights. Please go back and re-read Commons:First steps. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This file may not be uploaded without permission for the copyright owner. Consider asking about an image on the help desk or on irc before you upload it until you gain more experience, as continuing to upload copyright violations will lead to you being blocked. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 00:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]