Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-03

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

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

Antonella-Clerici promo.jpg is a promo photo created for this purpose. It is supposed to be used online.[edit]

This is a promotional photo, created and disseminated for promotional purposes. It is offered free by the celebrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortunaa2 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 28 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

In the image description, you claimed that this image was your own work. Now you are claiming that it is someone else's work. At the very least, you will have to give us a link to the source. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 07:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sanek in 2012.png [edit]

Why my photo Sanek in 2012.png was deleted??? This is not Copyright violation!!! This is my personal photo, and im upload this! Im upload this photo in 2012 in facebook - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=341936662549926&set=a.121412441269017.24806.121412171269044&type=1&theater

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 07:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:YelawolfToronto2012.jpg undeletion request[edit]

I request that this image be put back up because on it's flickr page, it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. And that means the image can be adapted and copied. It can be seen here. Please reconsider deleting this, so you can see why this image is not a copyright violation. Captainmad(talk) 21:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There are two problems with this image. The first is that the Flickr site is not owned by the photographer, but by a third party. There is no evidence that the Flickr user has any right to license the image. The second problem is that the tattoos have a copyright of their own and the photograph is a derivative work. In order to restore this image will need a license from both the actual photographer and the tattoo artist or artists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY (TALK) 07:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Michael O'Leary, CEO of Ryanair with Karin Butot, Managing Director of The Airport Agency.jpg[edit]

Request undeletion. This image was taken by an amateur photographer on behalf of those in the photo and all 3 parties have no copyright to it and have given their consents for the image to be used AlexarturWalsh (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY (TALK) 07:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo Burgerbelangen Enschede.jpg [edit]

Our logo was deleted but the copyright is ours. Our website is www.burgerbelangenenschede.nl Our email is secretaris@burgerbelangenenschede.nl Hope this informs you, please undelete the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbaradoosje (talk • contribs) 10:45, 1 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please have a corporate officer send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 18:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luthers Romreise Süd.jpg[edit]

I marked on a Google Earth map locations to show the route of a pilgrimage. This picture was stored as file in commons. Please explain, why this is a policy violation. volker39--Volker39 (talk)

 OpposeGoogle maps and satellite images are copyrighted. Although a copyright notice is not required for copyright to apply, there is a prominent copyright notice in the bottom center of this image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation. INeverCry 18:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JA Rojas.jpg [edit]

Esta fotografía del poeta, realizada por Carmen Pinuaga (como indica el correo que copio abajo), estaba publicada bajo licencia Creative Commons y de acuerdo con la autora y la hija del poeta, Flores Rojas. 


   ----Messaggio originale----
   Da: info@carmenpinuaga.com
   Data: 25/02/2013 22.08
   A: <jjbeeme@libero.it>
   Ogg: Re: R: Poema visual 

   Buenas tardes José Joaquín:
  
   Ya veo que has tenido que quitar las fotos que pusiste en la página de Wikipedia, es una pena porque estaban muy bien. Las fotos eran mías, es decir yo soy la autora, no sé cómo puedo demostrarlo a los celosos guardianes como tú dices (¿quizás con los negativos?) Quizás tu sabes mejor como ponerlas? o como pedir permiso declarando que yo soy la autora. Tengo mas fotos de él hechas por mí.
 
   Un abrazo muy fuerte.
   Carmen.

No nos vale. El titular de los derechos de autor ha de hacer una declaración y mención específica de licencia. Por favor escríbale y dígale que le envíe cumplimentado por correo electrónico éste formulario (no se olviden de escoger una licencia compatible con Commons). Una vez obtenga contestación, por favor reenvíe todo en un mensaje a OTRS a la dirección: permissions-commons-es@wikimedia.org indicando en el mensaje de qué imagen está enviando el permiso. Una vez recibido el equipo de OTRS se encargará de hacer las gestiones oportunas para restaurar el archivo y colocar las etiquetas apropiadas en el archivo. Hasta que esto no ocurra, el archivo no se puede restaurar. Un saludo. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JA Rojas.jpg [edit]

Esta fotografía del poeta, realizada por Carmen Pinuaga (como indica el correo que copio abajo), estaba publicada bajo licencia Creative Commons y de acuerdo con la autora y la hija del poeta, Flores Rojas. 


   ----Messaggio originale----
   Da: info@carmenpinuaga.com
   Data: 25/02/2013 22.08
   A: <jjbeeme@libero.it>
   Ogg: Re: R: Poema visual 

   Buenas tardes José Joaquín:
  
   Ya veo que has tenido que quitar las fotos que pusiste en la página de Wikipedia, es una pena porque estaban muy bien. Las fotos eran mías, es decir yo soy la autora, no sé cómo puedo demostrarlo a los celosos guardianes como tú dices (¿quizás con los negativos?) Quizás tu sabes mejor como ponerlas? o como pedir permiso declarando que yo soy la autora. Tengo mas fotos de él hechas por mí.
 
   Un abrazo muy fuerte.
   Carmen.

No nos vale. El titular de los derechos de autor ha de hacer una declaración y mención específica de licencia. Por favor escríbale y dígale que le envíe cumplimentado por correo electrónico éste formulario (no se olviden de escoger una licencia compatible con Commons). Una vez obtenga contestación, por favor reenvíe todo en un mensaje a OTRS a la dirección: permissions-commons-es@wikimedia.org indicando en el mensaje de qué imagen está enviando el permiso. Una vez recibido el equipo de OTRS se encargará de hacer las gestiones oportunas para restaurar el archivo y colocar las etiquetas apropiadas en el archivo. Hasta que esto no ocurra, el archivo no se puede restaurar. Un saludo. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Poesiavisual-Rojas.jpg [edit]

Esta fotografía de una obra del poeta, realizada por Carmen Pinuaga (como indica el correo que copio abajo), estaba publicada bajo licencia Creative Commons y de acuerdo con la autora y la hija del poeta, Flores Rojas. 


   ----Messaggio originale----
   Da: info@carmenpinuaga.com
   Data: 25/02/2013 22.08
   A: <jjbeeme@libero.it>
   Ogg: Re: R: Poema visual 

   Buenas tardes José Joaquín:
  
   Ya veo que has tenido que quitar las fotos que pusiste en la página de Wikipedia, es una pena porque estaban muy bien. Las fotos eran mías, es decir yo soy la autora, no sé cómo puedo demostrarlo a los celosos guardianes como tú dices (¿quizás con los negativos?) Quizás tu sabes mejor como ponerlas? o como pedir permiso declarando que yo soy la autora. Tengo mas fotos de él hechas por mí.
 
   Un abrazo muy fuerte.
   Carmen.

No nos vale. El titular de los derechos de autor ha de hacer una declaración y mención específica de licencia. Por favor escríbale y dígale que le envíe cumplimentado por correo electrónico éste formulario (no se olviden de escoger una licencia compatible con Commons). Una vez obtenga contestación, por favor reenvíe todo en un mensaje a OTRS a la dirección: permissions-commons-es@wikimedia.org indicando en el mensaje de qué imagen está enviando el permiso. Una vez recibido el equipo de OTRS se encargará de hacer las gestiones oportunas para restaurar el archivo y colocar las etiquetas apropiadas en el archivo. Hasta que esto no ocurra, el archivo no se puede restaurar. Un saludo. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PCMasters Logo.png [edit]

I am requesting the undeletion of PCMasters Logo.png because I know the creator and he said I should upload it for the Wikipedia Site for PCMasters.de. I am sorry if the licence was incomplete, I will change this after undeletion.

Logos are usually uploaded directly to Wikipedia (not to Commons) under a claim of fair use. You should probably read en:WP:NFC and then use en:Special:Upload (assuming you're uploading to the English Wikipedia); we don't allow "fair use" on Commons. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Having looked at the image, it is too complex for us to claim that it is in the public domain, so per HJ Motchell, this will have to be uploaded directly to Wikipedia. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.== File:Image of Matthew David Roberts, Retrieved from Oyez.jpg ==

http://www.oyez.org/tos Says explicitly that all content "is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. The full terms of the license are available, along with a convenient, human-readable summary, online at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/" --Jroberts.757 (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if you read the deletion log (which you can see if you click the file name above), you'll see that's precisely why it was deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward. --Jroberts.757 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done NonCommercial licenses are unacceptable on Commons. INeverCry 19:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Atlan_&_Petrucci.jpg File:Joe_Atlan_Piano_Concert.jpg File:Timo_Tolkki_&_Joe_Atlan.JPG File:Joe_Atlan_at_TED.jpg [edit]

Hi, I want to undo these deletions by "INeverCry". These pictures are not a copyright violation. All of these pictures are published freely by his author Joe Atlan on his official Facebook Page, with him saying specifically "As some of you have requested to use the pictures for Keytar & Keyboard articles, feel free to use these photos for anything you wanted with no limitations, same with the ones on my official Website". You can see it yourself here. Please put the pictures back or I'll upload them again if this method doesn't work. Thanks!

Removing "Joe_Atlan_at_TED.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by INeverCry because: Copyright violation, see commons:Commons:Licensing.

Removing "Joe_Atlan_Piano_Concert.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by INeverCry because: Copyright violation, see commons:Commons:Licensing.

Removing "Atlan_&_Petrucci.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by INeverCry because: Copyright violation, see commons:Commons:Licensing.

Removing "Timo_Tolkki_&_Joe_Atlan.JPG", it has been deleted from Commons by INeverCry because: Copyright violation, see commons:Commons:Licensing.

--Tolkki4Win (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose First, if you upload them again, you will be acting in violation of Commons rules and may be blocked from editing here. Please do not do it. Second, these are images of Joe Atlan, not by Joe Atlan. It is very unlikely that he actually owns the copyright and the right to freely license them, no matter what it says on his Facebook page. Third, please remember that Facebook, unlike Flickr, is itself copyrighted. In order to restore these images on Commons we will need a license from the actual photographer(s) using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I won't upload them again, but I don't think that made much sense. If the artist himself is freely licensing them it's obvious that the photographer has given him the ownership of the pictures. The fact that the pictures are on Facebook doesn't mean they were published originally there. They're also on Joe Atlan's official website here. I really don't think it makes sense to try to contact the photographer when the artist is the one that has published the pictures for first and specifying their free license. --Tolkki4Win (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking a look at the previous Undeletion Requests, I saw this one. It's exactly the same case with me "It's offered free by the celebrity" except that I provided the link to the source with the explicit declaration, which was the requirement you asked for to that user.--Tolkki4Win (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The statement on the Facebook page is not sufficient for our purposes. Per COM:L, "simply writing that 'the material may be used freely by anyone' or similar isn't sufficient." You'll note that the previous undeletion request you cite was indeed declined. Secondly, Jim is correct that copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject; that it was the subject who uploaded the images to his own website and/or Facebook does not transfer the copyright. If the actual copyright holder is willing to release the images under a free license, they need to follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 15:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did note that the previous undeletion request was declined, but Jim did cited the "giving a link to the source" as a sufficient way, and that's what I did. Nevertheless, while waiting for an answer here I submitted a question to Joe Atlan's Facebook page regarding the ownership of the pictures and this was the response. Apparently the TED picture is indeed copyrighted, so my apologies for that one. However, the rest are confirmed to be in the Public Domain, even for commercial purposes.--Tolkki4Win (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followed the process correctly with the official statement from the author and sent the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. There shouldn't be further problems. Thanks for the help.--Tolkki4Win (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to restore, and this matter also seems to have been resolved now -FASTILY (TALK) 22:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

request restoration (YasuhikoTsuchida001.jpg)[edit]

Hi. This picture is permitted to use in wiki by Yasuhiko Tsuchida. He is an owner of this picture. Thanks.--MITs (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 07:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Polo Pony, ballpoint biro drawing.jpg[edit]

It's come to my attention that several files which illustrate articles I've written for Wikipedia have been deleted from Commons. Above is the title of one file in question. Other files relating to the same artist, James Mylne (artist), were part of these very-recent deletions (James Mylne artwork illustrating the Ballpoint pen artwork article were also deleted). I personally solicited those files from the artist, and instructed him to upload the files himself with the explicit intention to avoid such questions as now exist! I personally know for a fact that artist James Mylne himself uploaded the works in question, and for which he is the copyright-holder. By his upload, he was granting permission for usage within Wikipedia articles related to him, to which I am either a contributing editor or the sole author. Aside from the above confirmable facts, I don't believe apt notification or time was allowed to avert these deletions, and I'm formally requesting they be reinstated. I have used the same above procedure previously with other artists, from whom i requested Art and/or Photo data; I will now investigate whether there may be other files in question of which I'm not immediately aware, as I had recently spent a day or two inserting files which had been uploaded to Commons at my request. Penwatchdog (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 07:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was granted ownership of the image and it is also up online with fair use for anyone[edit]

I was granted ownership of the image and it is also up online with fair use for anyone, how can I demonstrate?

We are not allow to accept fair use images on the Commons. Please see Commons:Licensing. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 07:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have just emailed them with a standard letter, thank you Xeinok (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marcel Wöll.jpg [edit]

Hello, this undeletetion request i made in german

Das Bild wurde ursprünglich auf de.wp hochgeladen. log Es wurde der Seite Antifaschistischer Protest in Frankfurt/Main entnommen. Diese steht unter der Lizenz (CC BY-SA 2.0 DE) Lizenz. Am 2013-01-18 wurde die Datei nach commons verschoben. log. Da die Inhalte der Seite unter einer freien Lizenz stehen bitte ich um Wiederherstellung. --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎  17:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 00:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Danse_macabre_hrastovlje.JPG [edit]

The image was a faithful reproduction of a 15th-century artwork, deleted because of "missing permission". If I'm not mistaken, the person who made the reproduction doesn't own any copyright, so his permission is not needed. — Yerpo Eh? 17:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add cited, verifiable source information please. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Herbicide Stockpile Kadena AFB.png[edit]

The photo is the work of the US government photo shoot and press event where Japanese press was invited. A photo copy of the is held within the Okinawan Prefectual Archives with open copyright and originals are in the US national Archives. I believe that the photos and where it came from are sufficiently described with a link and I had assumed that the license information was included correctly. Can you restore the photo as it is critical to the Operation red hat article and a DoD press event is happening today and inform me of what is missing and how to avoid this issue in the future. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to a source which shows that it is a US government work? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Ignore what I said above. I have 3 images and was confused. This is a photo image of a sentence from a US military document from 1971. title is Historical, Logistical, Political and Technical Aspects of the Herbicide / Defoliant Program. Author is Fort Detrick. The document is a creation of the U.S. Government. The image is a creation of the person who recopied and sent 100 of 7000 pages to me, myself who recopied the page(s), and sent 2 of 7000+ pages to reporter Jon Mitchell of Japan Times for use in his article. He took my digital image an expanded one line which is the image in question. I am a creator. I can take a new pic of the doc and call it my creation.

Johnvr4 (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: I cannot find the document online but will assume good faith on your part. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Project 112 cover story, Decision 987 page 46, United States projects - Chemical warfare testing in Australia.jpg[edit]

Text is the work of the US government restated by Austarian government. a photo copy of the document is held within the National Archives of Australia and available online after logging in as guest. I believe that the photo and where it came from were sufficiently described with a link and I had assumed that the license information was included correctly. Can you restore the photo as it is critical to the Operation red hat article and a DoD press event is happening today and inform me of what is missing and how to avoid this issue in the future. ThanksJohnvr4 (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to a source which shows that it is a US government work? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an image of a document. I believe I had a link to the source in the file. It is the work of the government of Australia. Specifically, Foreign Affairs and Defence committee Canberra, Australia, May, 18, 1965. The text in the image states the info in it came from the US Embassy. It is available online from the National Archives of Australia. Johnvr4 (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the text is a work of the US Government, and the photo of the text is a work of the Australian Government, correct? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, something like that. The US sent a cover story to Australia to use for a secret project in Australia. The Australians were in discussion of the project and their archive system is to take a photo of each page of a file. You must download one page image at a time. To find it I have to go the the National archives of Australia, use the search function, log in as a guest, use Advanced search and use the criteria in the info provided with the file (I think it was the accession number). The link I provided expires after 30 minutes but may work if you log in first. I'm still looking for it online and the info on how to find it was also deleted. It is a nightmare, but the image is publicly available online from the Australian Government. The US version is apparently still classified.Johnvr4 (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original description of the deleted file: {{[[Template:Information |Information ]]}} It is a scan of of a single page, numbered 6 and labeled TOP SECRET. It mainly describes two cover stories suggested by the United States Embassy to the Australian Government. The given source link delivers the notice Your session has expired, or you have exited RecordSearch and are trying to re-enter it without logging on first. It is unfortunate that many archival sites do not provide permanent links.

However, I had no trouble to login as guest on that site and to search that document, giving the title United States projects - Chemical warfare testing in Australia. Three hits were delivered where I chose the middle one of the given range 1964 to 1965. The title page is labeled Commonwealth of Australia, Department of External Affairs, TOP SECRET, United States Projects – Chemical Warfare – Testing in Australia. It is actually a bundle of documents belonging to some folder. As far as I understand, the United States made a proposal (pages 36 to 47 in the folder) to conduct Chemical warfare tests in Australia. This proposal consists of two documents, a summarizing diplomatic note (pages 36 to 40, called Annex A) and a summary about the tests including the proposed cover stories (pages 41 to 47, called Annex B). Both papers were reviewed by the Foreign Affairs & Defence Committee on May 18th, 1965. From the context it becomes clear that this is indeed a document by the United States, delivered by the U.S. embassy to the Australian government. In my opinion, {{PD-USGov}} applies and the file should be restored.

The reason for deleting this file was Media without a source as of 22 February 2013 after it had been tagged {{No source since}}. As I could access this file through the given site as described, I can confirm that the source is valid and I would recommend to use following source link instead which should work independently from a session: [1] (this is just the source image without any navigation). --AFBorchert (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flag of Phoenix.svg [edit]

The only reason why this file should is that it’s used on the page City_flags#Western. —Britannic124 (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Works of municipal governments in the US are not PD in general. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elon Musk in Mission Control at SpaceX.jpg[edit]

Eshanklin (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Greetings All, my apologies, I'm not sure how this works. I work at SpaceX and uploaded a new pic for Elon Musk awhile back called Elon Musk in Mission Control. It looks like it was removed on Jan. 18 by INeverCry for lack of permissions. Can you tell me how I can provide permission and repost the photo? It was taken by us here at SpaceX and we give permission to use it.[reply]

Also, in the intro paragraph, Elon is described as an Internet entrepreneur which is inaccurate because he's been an entrepreneur in aerospace and in automobiles as well. Can we have the word "Internet" removed from that phrase?

Please let me know if there is any info you need from me--thanks!!!!! Emily, Emily@spacex.com

--Eshanklin (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to your request for a change in the article Elon Musk on the English language Wikipedia, you can do that yourself -- anyone can edit Wikipedia material. Just click on "Edit" in the toolbar near the top of the article page and go to it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please send an email to COM:OTRS from your SpaceX email address to confirm your identity. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photographs of old stained glass windows at Bregenz Pfarrkirche[edit]

I ask to reconsider the deletions following this deletion request, this affects following files:

These are photographs of stained glass windows in an Austrian church (Pfarrkirche Mariahilf in Bregenz) taken by User:AndreasPraefcke. They constitute derived works of artists which are named in the respective descriptions. The windows were designed by Robin C. Andersen (who died in 1969), in one case Anton Faistauer was involved. The original works are obviously not yet in the public domain. However, in Austria freedom of panorama includes the interior of public buildings and this church can be considered as a public building.

In his conclusion, the deleting admin raised the question whether these pictures are free in the United States: Nobody seems to be able to prove, with tangible evidence, that the files are indeed freely licensed in the US, where the Wikimedia Servers are situated. However, as outlined by Clindberg, there has been no U.S. precedent for it:

It's entirely possible that courts would rule along the lines of that one Germany cross-border FoP case -- the sculptor owns the copyright of the statue, and while the photograph is not deemed a derivative work in the country where the statue is located, it is in the U.S., and thus there is possible infringement based on how the photograph is used. Or, it may be judges take into account that the photographer expected to fully own the photograph in the source country, using foreign law to determine that the copyright owner of the photograph is entirely the photographers, or that the FoP situation alters the fair use calculation, or other possibilities.

Given this, a strict deletion of FOP cases per lex loci protectionis which considers everything unfree that would not be free if photographed in the United States appears premature. There was no consensus yet to enforce this. Hence, I suggest to use templates like {{Not-free-US-FOP}} to warn potential reusers in the United States but to otherwise keep (and in this case to restore) them at least until we have a U.S. precedent. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support We have very consistently applied the rule that the only FOP rule that matters is that of the locality where the work sits. Thus we have kept images of Alexander Calder works located in Germany, although he was an American sculptor and the work was created in the USA. If we are going to change that policy -- and I do not think that we should -- then we need to do it globally, after a global discussion, and not on any individual cases. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Per AFBorchert, there is no consensus to enforce US FoP. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BeastLogo.jpg[edit]

This is a logo for the Beast roller coaster at Kings Island and it is very notable. Fastily thinks that it is a copyvio and I did not claim it my own work. --Starship9000 (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a roller coaster logo. Please see this. It is a roller coaster logo. I do not think it is deriavitave work. --Starship9000 (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's a derivative work. All logos have a copyright, unless it has expired or they are too simple. This obviously has not expired and is way too complicated and original to be free of copyright anywhere. For those who are not Admins, the logo can be seen (poorly) on the front of the roller coaster shown here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
… or on Flickr. --Leyo 15:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This is a photograph of some artistic work which is eligible for copyright. As already pointed out, it is thereby a derived work and it is no longer free regardless what the Flickr license indicates. We would need a permission of the copyright holder of this artwork (per OTRS) to keep it here at Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sterpu Viive Puccini Giacomo Edgar Tigrana.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The photogrpher is an individual person who has ment this picture to be under free use. By mistake there has been used a wrong licence code Karavanni zyntek (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This is a photograph that depicts a Finnish stamp from 2004 and is thereby a derived from a work that is eligible for copyright. Unfortunately, Finnish stamps are no longer free but copyrighted since 1990, see here. Hence, we cannot restore it. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete File:Logo européen AB.jpg[edit]

DR had two keeps, no deletes, and the nominator was only questioning the current license. Admin deleted the file with no reasoning, this was improper. Fry1989 eh? 19:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I think this is simple enough for PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo Tv Azteca.jpg[edit]

por favor wikipedistasles pido de antemano que no borren estos archivos ya que no tienes copyrigth y no los violan por favor se los pido deshagan el borrado. Gracias por su atencion (--RaFa MT505 (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)RaFa MT505).[reply]

please ask beforehand wikipedistasles not delete these files because you do not have and do not violate copyrigth please ask you undo the deletion. Thanks for your attention (- RaFa MT505 (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC) RaFa MT505).

 Not done Copyright violation -FASTILY (TALK) 00:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ancestor Figure, Kulap.jpg[edit]

I have reason to believe that the owner of the flickr account with this image and the Commons user are the same person. I have left a note on their talk page to either relicense the image on flickr, or to leave a note in their flickr profile identifying their flickr with their Commons account. moogsi (blah) 23:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When they respond, forward that response to COM:OTRS. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 00:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Karachimontage.jpg [edit]

Because That File Was Whole My work and Is Removed For Possible Copyright Violations which it is not

 Not done: If you are indeed the photographer of every image in the montage, please send an email to COM:OTRS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Whambo.gif [edit]

I wouldn't mind using this image in scope for my user/user talk page. Not just because it describes my skills to the reader, but it might also act as a talisman to ward off the occasional hysterical omphalophobics, not that they bother me generally, I like such people, but I also recognise that many editors, like many readers, are simple family-oriented folks. Probably good to get the .jpg undeleted at the same time, it's the same image without the animation, for people who can't handle the pain of animation. Penyulap ☏ 08:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please first address the concern of Yann, who deleted your picture: possible defamation. --Dereckson (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A more precise rationale is available on the .jpg:
Yann gave Sticking Jimmy's head onto a partially exposed child's body has crossed into the realm of deliberately offensive and disruptive in my view. If an admin wishes to create a DR, fine, but we must take Personal Rights seriously here. Commons is not 4Chan, ... as delete rationale. --Dereckson (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Aside from the fact that it is defamatory, it also raises other questions. While I have no particular opinion on Jimmy Wales, pro or con, mocking the most widely known person associated with WMF seems a poor activity for one who would, presumably, want WMF to succeed. While I would not for a moment suggest that we should all be praising Wales, and I certainly think we should criticize him with specifics when necessary, general mocking seems counter-productive to the project as a whole. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're talking about the one where he is fat and riding a meteorite, that's a different image I think, but hey, nobody can see it so who knows. This request is about the one where he is a toddler again, I can't scientifically prove that he was once a toddler without a laboratory and access to the specimen, but I'm pretty sure he had a normal development cycle that didn't involve an egg, cloning tank or replicator, so maybe 'young' is not an outrageous insult on a scale of whatever passes for insulting these days, or is it ? On the other hand it raises the question if he was portrayed as the blessed virgin with a Halo and so forth, would everyone be all to happy with that, and put up a shrine somewhere ?
The other thing is that making jest about a persons friends or colleagues is a measure of social cohesion. If people are not able to establish trust to a level where they can have a joke or jest about each other, then what does that say except "cold, heartless project". Penyulap ☏ 12:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The image under discussion is indeed the young boy, partially exposed, with Wales's face on it.
Even jesting about friends can be difficult on a multilingual, multicultural project such as Commons -- without a common native language and frame of reference, things that might be understood as a jest with a schoolmate can easily be misunderstood. However, in the context of Commons, Wales is not a friend, but the public face of the project, and mocking him mocks the project. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this is the base image which makes omphalophobics tremble with fear. Sure, you can call it 'partially exposed' or 'half naked' trying to make it more politically correct by providing a measure of clinical detachment but it's a belly-button plain and simple. Omphalophobics are certainly welcome, and we should cater to everyone, ommatophobics, hammockaphobics and rhodophobics. What is insulting or improper about a belly-button, from a non-omphalophobic perspective ? Penyulap ☏ 12:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add logic connectors between "defamation against Jimbo Wales" and belly button please? --Dereckson (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
..err, 'the deleter said there was one so it must be so' ? I don't know, I can't imagine there is one in the real world. Everyone has a belly button, some innies some outies, there's not prejudiced related to them, there are rings and jewellery and stuff, I'd say belly-buttons are pretty ordinary. Possibly there is no 'defamation' in the image at all, some have said so elsewhere. Penyulap ☏ 13:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Not in scope. We've spent too much time on this already.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just where can I read about the scope of files for my personal userpage ? Perhaps you can take a moment to let everyone know that the policy has changed if that is the case. Penyulap ☏ 00:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As said above, "The image under discussion is indeed the young boy, partially exposed, with Wales's face on it." Jimmy Wales is a valued contributor to Wikimedia Commons and should have the same expectation of being free to volunteer here in a non-hostile environment just as anyone else. We cannot on the one hand refuse special consideration on copyright policy due to his public standing, whilst on the other allow special dispensation for those attempting to cause him deliberate personal offence or distress, by-pass the respect provisions in COM:IDENT, and cause general disruption to the community by sticking Jimmy's head on the body of a partially exposed child, or as in a previous version, on the body of a hairy, semi-nude, overweight body. This has gone beyond tolerating school-boy humour and should Penyulap start such a campaign directed at any individual in the future, I and others must judge this as a disruptive pattern, and consider applying the processes of COM:BP with regard to ensuring that this website is not an enabling platform for harassment or actions that can be seen as attempted harassment (just because Jimmy may in the future choose to laugh this off as joking in bad-taste, does not mean that the community should not take the matter seriously). Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to like making the inappropriate link between a belly-button and actual inappropriate nudity. Actually you mention 'partially exposed' twice. 'Exposed' has a legal and general meaning which is not met at all here, people could just as inappropriately mis-characterize any image with a persons face showing as 'partially exposed' to slander just as effectively an image that the general public can't see. Certainly some people feel a pressing need to expel all talent from the wmf projects in a misguided effort to be king of a talent-less castle, but I take a different approach, I have avoided external sites, and their humour and commentary of the wmf sites, because they too often have a 'they stole my lunch-money' undercurrent, a sort of whiny second-place air to them. I would see the place where I stand, be it here or elsewhere, as a place where I'm equal to everyone, not above or below. Leaving humour and parody to the outside non wmf world means they have the best always, and we are indeed talent-less. That's a pretty sad line to be pushing to suggest that we can't as a community show them how it is done. Still, who am I to care? every website comes to an end, and the faster you pull this one down by deleting all the best stuff and driving off the talent, the sooner proper sites will replace it. Yes, it won't just be an upload wizard that invites you to steal stuff from flickr, there'll be a long list of better sites that you can choose to steal from, because you sure as hell can't get the best here on commons. Penyulap ☏ 08:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Humor and parody are not particularly in scope. The problem with working with the best is that they tend to have standards; if you want to be sure that your material will be acceptable, you generally have to go to the second-place sites that specialize in quantity over quality.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well can anyone articulate a link between this image and 'defamation' ? Penyulap ☏ 06:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done. There is clearly no consensus to restore the file. -FASTILY (TALK) 10:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Be in Bre.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission to use this image has been requested today from Brewarrina Shire Council in accordance with wiki policies. The Council indicated via phone approval will be granted. Currently pending approval. CamV8 (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Send evidence of that to COM:OTRS when you have it. After you do that, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 02:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Empress_Casino.jpg [edit]

I requested in writing permission to specifically include this image in the article. Permission came from the actualy company that designed the building and they use the same image as part of there portfolio. I may not have filled out the copyright information completely correctly, but I was never given a warning or anything that the information was considered incomplete or inadequate. I would be happy to provide the correct information, since I do have permission to use the image I want it to be part of the article. TheArchitect91 (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned here. Send evidence of that to COM:OTRS. After you do that, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 10:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Camp Kinser Red Hat Demo.jpg[edit]

The photo is the work of the US government photo shoot and press event where Japanese press was invited. A photo copy of the is held within the Okinawan Prefectual Archives with open copyright and originals are in the US national Archives. I believe that the photos and where it came from are sufficiently described with a link and I had assumed that the license information was included correctly. Can you restore the photo as it is critical to the Operation red hat article and a DoD press event is happening today and inform me of what is missing and how to avoid this issue in the future. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to a source which shows that it is a US government work? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is what is on the talk page discussion of my article.

Please don't add the images from the location below, the photos I have are color versions of these photos and without the NARA stamp. I have images that are copyright free from Okinawa Prefectural Archives and captions must be translated from Japanese. I have 3 GB of Photos on Disc with the photo numbers I am looking through and using as an index for photo numbers.

This is the external link where Japanese photos and captions (and videos) can be viewed from the Okinawa archives. I suggest using Chrome or a translator.

The instructions that I received were: input a Photo name: "19-01-2" (for example). Push a right search button. 検索実行＝Japanese go The images at the site above are work of Army Communications Squadron, US Government photo shoot, source is National Archives and Records Administration.

A similar image is File:Camp Kinser Demo 2.jpg. Johnvr4 (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should be entered in the search box as the photo name for this particular photo? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a disc from the archives and when I renamed these two files, I did not incorporate the original file name. I'll have to seach through 3 GB of photos. I am reaching out to my Japanese friend who sent me the disc from Okinawa to help me locate these photos. the event was Camp Kinser Briefing session For Operation Red Hat, May 11, 1971, a demonstration for Japanese press of actions that would be taken if a chemical munition was found to be leaking[90]. The meeting and photo were the result of a strike by civilian workers over safety fears. This safety manual was also created for the demonstration: File:R004803B Operation red hat special safety procedures.PDF. I do not understand Japanese. I hope this helps clarify the situation and I am still looking for original file numbers to answer your question.Johnvr4 (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGF. Please feel free to re-upload the file once you have located the necessary documentation to support that particular copyright claim. Be sure to properly cite and reference the source of that file -FASTILY (TALK) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1960s postcard of Ljubljana.jpg[edit]

It was deleted after this DR, eventhough the consensus was to keep as it is similar to Commons:De minimis#An example under Civil Law. --Sporti (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The copyrighted building is squarely in the center of the image. The only other buildings visible show only parts of their roofs and very oblique parts of their facades or are largely obstructed by the copyrighted structure. The street, far below, has only people and a few cars.
I think the Pei Pyramid - Louvre case cited is a poor cite for two reasons. First, it is a strange and little understood French case -- the only de minimis win in any country that we known of. Second, even if you grant its validity, the Pei Pyramid forms a much smaller part of the cited image than is the case here and, arguably, the rest of the Louvre is well portrayed there. If you take the Pyramid out, as is done at the linked article, you are left with a good (although strange) image of the rest of the Louvre. If you take the copyrighted structure out of this image you are left with a huge hole in the middle and oblique facades and roofs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, if you take this building out, you end up with still a good photograph of the street. Why would it be different with a pyramid in a square or a building in a street? And why is this "strange and little understood French case" taking such a large portion of de minimis page? --Sporti (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The street is de minimis, whereas the buildings in the centre are the object of interest, and they are still copyrighted. Stating otherwise would be like stating that a painting is de minimis and if you take it out, you're still left with a good photograph of the frame. The cited example is peculiar and should be taken with a grain of commons sense. If possible, it should be replaced with a better example, more representative of the situation in general. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Painting could also be de minimis if the frame would take 90%+ of the photo. So this photograph wouldn't be usable to show the street without this building? It is permanently placed just like the pyramid. The fact that it is in the center (again just like the pyramid) doesn't make it the object of interest but this is clearly the street (just like it is with the square or cityscape in some other cases). --Sporti (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The building is the essential and the defining element of this part of the street. The street would not be what it is without it. The building to the right side of the discussed one is copyrighted too. In addition to them, all the buildings of the right of the street are still copyrighted. Take them out and you have nothing useful anymore. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The building is the essential and the defining element of this part of the street. The street would not be what it is without it". Yes and this is exacly why is it DM - Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable. (Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines) --Sporti (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is very unlikely DM: "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful." --Eleassar (t/p) 14:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can you possibly know this building is the reason for taking the photo?! Common sense tells as - if this was the case, it would be taken from much closer and different angle and would take most of the photo. (Unless the reason for taking the photo was showing the street... in this case one would expect such angle and composition) --Sporti (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming that this building was the reason for taking the photo. I'm claiming that it is a key part of the subject (this view of the street) and that removing it would make the derivative work radically different or useless. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok and so it falls under DM: "Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable" and not "Copyrighted work X is identifiable and an unavoidable part of the image subject, but is not essential to the subject (blacking it out would not make the file useless)" (Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines). --Sporti (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I believe that the problem is that de minimis depends on how the photo is used. For example, if you use File:Louvre at night centered.jpg as illustration in an article about the Louvre main building, then the pyramid is de minimis since the pyramid isn't interesting. On the other hand, if you use the same image to illustrate an article about the pyramid, then it is the Louvre which is de minimis, since only the pyramid is interesting.
A good example is File:Virgin America airplane interior.jpg. On the page w:Narrow-body aircraft, the purpose is to show what an aeroplane looks like, so the copyrighted images on the screens are de minimis. On the other hand, on the page COM:DM, the purpose of the image is to show how copyrighted contents appears on screens in an aeroplane, so the copyrighted contents are not de minimis. It has to be possible to use a Commons image for any purpose, so should File:Virgin America airplane interior.jpg be deleted because it can't be used freely on the page COM:DM? --Stefan4 (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that it depends on what is the main subject of the image. The airplane image is a much better representation of the cabin interior than the content on the screens. The images on the screens are random and not essential to the subject. Even on the DM page, the purpose is not to show how particular images look like, but only that they're there. It should be kept. The image proposed for undeletion is a much better representation of the copyrighted buildings. They're not random, because they're permanently placed there, it is important how do they look like, and they are essential to the subject (the depicted street or square). It should be deleted. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No clear consensus to restore at this time -FASTILY (TALK) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kurdistan syrie 2.jpg [edit]

Why You have deleted this File: File:Kurdistan syrie 2.jpg  ??? This File is my own work , and has a very famous Source. I can not understand those who marked or deleted it?Ojanfar (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you trace the map from that book, scan the map from the book or just use it as a reference to say where you got the map areas drawn? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Сара Окс.jpg[edit]

I ask cancel erasing file. Files are provided right holder personally and I evlyaetsya of its legal representative. Thank you.

Прошу отменить удаление файла. Файл предоставлен лично правообладателем и я евляюсь его законным представителем. Спасибо. Kocmacik (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please get a hold of Commons:OTRS/ru and explain to them how you got the legal rights to the file. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What ZScout370 said -FASTILY (TALK) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Körmendi Petra.jpg +2[edit]

Reason: The files were deleted for lack of permission. The email from the copyright owner has arrived to OTRS, ticket ID 2013021310005675. The permission is in Hungarian language. I am an OTRS agent. Please undelete the files so that I can place the permission tag. Thank you. Teemeah (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 16:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SPP.JPG, File:Armee95 44.jpg & File:Alarm43.jpg[edit]

Quelle:Staatlich 

Besitzer: Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft

Verwendung möglich mit Lizenz {{PD-Coa-Switzerland}} Hornet Driver (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, but please update the file description pages accordingly -FASTILY (TALK) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Бейджик участиков Форума Селигер-2012 (Технология добра).jpg [edit]

 Keep There are no violations of all the files of high-resolution. I can send without processing the image on request on e-mail -- Artur Pirojkov (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the logo used on the ID card, according to the deletion log. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC) -FASTILY (TALK) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VEVO logo red RGB.jpg[edit]

VEVO is changing its logo. File: vevo_logo_red_RGB.png is the current and correct logo. Our VEVO.com website will be updated on Tuesday, March 12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pressjennif (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

No file named File:vevo logo red RGB.png has ever existed on Commons. Perhaps you mean File:VEVO logo red RGB.jpg? —LX (talk, contribs) 09:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The jpeg file is the right name. As for the logo itself, it is used in a recent video about Demi Lovato but for how wide spread the new logo will be used, or how it was obtained, is beyond my nearly 4 am US-CST self. But legally, it is still going to be PD-text. I would say  Support restoration. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Asamblea_Nacional_de_Ecuador_2010.svg[edit]

Two days ago, a PNG duplicate of this logo was uploaded. I nominated it for deletion for that reason. The PNG remains, but the SVG was unilaterally deleted without a discussion by 1Veertje, claiming it is a copyright violation. There is no proof of that other then the fact the logo is used on Ecuadorian National Assembly's website, and this was therefore a wrong deletion. It requires a proper DR with a discussion, not a unilateral backdoor deletion by an admin without accountability. The SVG had been here for at least 2 years without any question of it's status, this is very irregular. Fry1989 eh? 20:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that the SVG was deleted immediately but not the PNG version. Usually is either one or both. Anyways, Section 2, Article 10 of the Ecuador copyright law only gives "legal and regulatory provisions, judicial decisions and the enactments, agreements, deliberations and rulings of public bodies, including official translations thereof." (English text from WIPO) so if we did find some kind of regulation about this logo (perhaps a logo guide or something) or uses this logo, then we would be fine. I do not know what the TOO is for Ecuador and that would be something for our Spanish users to find out. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, it's too simple. But even if it's not, it needs a proper discussion simply because of how long it has been here. It should be undeleted, and that admin should be admonished for deleting it on his own whim. Fry1989 eh? 18:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Above average size erect human penis with pubic hair.jpg[edit]

Deletion was unjustified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrothead BC (talk • contribs) 06:32, 9 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot of images of the male penis similar to that fashion (erect, with pubic hair, with the penis stationary), so anything that is low quality can be speedy deleted. Also, uploading the same image again several times under different names isn't the way to go about it, either. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done See COM:SCOPE -FASTILY (TALK) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bremenn2011.jpg [edit]

File:Bremenn2011.jpg The author of this photo agreed to use it freely.--Twig (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:RIA Novosti [edit]

Deleted files RIAN in the framework of cooperation with Commons Wikimedia under license Template:RIAN-license. Please restore the -- 109.226.94.204 15:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently those RIAN images are not free, and are therefore unacceptable for use on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 22:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Audio Imagery - Electric Ladyland Cover.jpg[edit]

I submitted a request before but could not locate the instructions on what to do. This picture was actually designed by me thus should not have been removed from the commons. Please remind me how to proceed. Thank you. Audioimagery (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The design of the cover may or may not have a copyright, but the photograph certainly does. Please have the photographer send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 16:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gauteng00.jpg [edit]

This file was deleted as a copyright violation with no specific reason being given. I question the basis for this over-hasty decision and whether it was in line with Commons policy. Paul venter (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A specific reason has been given: From Google Maps. You can see it if you visit again the file (File:Gauteng00.jpg). The deletion has been requested by a third user, whom puts the template {{copyvio|1=From Google Maps}}. --Dereckson (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Images from Google maps are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 00:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hamidul hasan muhsin al-hakim.jpg[edit]

I've a framed hard copy of the picture at home. This is a personal collection. Nobody holds a copyright other than me of the picture.

Inamabidi (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Sorry, but that is not the case unless you were the photographer who actually made the picture. Owning a copy of a work of art (which includes photographs) does not make you the owner of the copyright or give you any right to license it freely as required here. That right belongs to the creator or his heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY (TALK) 00:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lotte Mart, Beijing.jpg [edit]

This photo is just a store entrance. Not a packaging violation. 螺钉 (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: By deleting admin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shaul Blecharovitz portrait.tif [edit]

An OTRS permission was received. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Next time, please provide the ticket number, so we can note it in the restore reason for better transparency (and as it's your job to add the relevant template, if you die, that allows another volunteer to relay you more easily). --Dereckson (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bruce-lee-striking-thoughts.jpg[edit]

This is a free and open file can be seen and used by anybody due to the fact Bruce Lee has been dead over decades.

Please undeletion!--Killerlxt (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Killerlxt[reply]

Fixed the file name in section title. Correct file is File:Bruce-lee-striking-thoughts.jpg. --Dereckson (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright protection duration is very very long.
In US, EU and some other countries, copyright doesn't expire at death, but 70 years after. Previously, US protected works 95 years from publication date instead.
The book cover copyright holder is rarely the book author.
The book is published in 2002, authors being Bruce Lee and John Little (I guess it some texts from Bruce Lee edited and completed by the second?). It will be in public domain 70 years after the death of John Little.
The Bruce Lee textual works aren't in public domain yet. Chinese Gung-Fu: The Philosophical Art of Self Defense will be in public domain in 2059 (old us copyright law: publication + 95 years), same thing for Tao of Jeet Kune Do published after his death (2069). Finally, Bruce Lee's Fighting Method will respect the rule 70 years after the death of author, so will be in public domain in 2044.
But that will only concern the text. For the cover, you need to find who takes the photo, do the layout, or apply the (shorter between 95 years from publication and 120 years from creation) corporate copyright ownership rule.
So your file can't be restored. --Dereckson (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Dereckson -FASTILY (TALK) 00:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Folklore works from Slovenia[edit]

I propose that the following files are undeleted as "folk literary and artistic creations" from Slovenia.(Article 9) The same has been stated in at least two court cases:[2][3] "avtorske zaščite niso deležna avtorska dela le v primeru, če je od smrti avtorja preteklo 70 let, in folklorna dela" [Copyright is not afforded to author's works only in the case that more than 70 years have passed since the death of the author, or it is a folklore work.]

--Eleassar (t/p) 11:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eleassar. Also affects:

✓ Done Please fill in the file description pages accordingly -FASTILY (TALK) 03:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paola vintimilla 2.jpg Paola Vintimilla1 .jpg Paola Vintimilla.jpg [edit]

Hola buenas tardes estoy ayudando a editar la biografia de Paola vintimilla, la misma persona me envio sus fotos para que las ponga, les agradezco me ayuden cpn la correccion o desborrado de las imagenes gracias (ANGELICA 11:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC))

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 03:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Michael O'Leary, CEO of Ryanair with Karin Butot, Managing Director of The Airport Agency.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Deleted because it required owner's permission. Photograph owned by French Connect. Email below from French Connect sent to appropriate address confirming approval. De : Nadia Dzula Envoyé : lundi 4 mars 2013 09:24 À : 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org' Objet : Permission French Connect confirm that the imageFile:Michael O'Leary, CEO of Ryanair with Karin Butot, Managing Director of The Airport Agency.jpg submitted by AlexarturWalsh belongs to French Connect and its owner The Airport Agency. We hereby submit that we are the copyright holder and we have given permission to publish this file under a free license.

We understand user Jameslwoodward has requested this notice before the file can be used.

Regards

Nadia 

AlexarturWalsh (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send evidence of permission to COM:OTRS if you have not yet already done so. Once OTRS processes the email you sent, they shall restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 03:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Qinshitongxunlu V3.9.0.jpg[edit]

it's my own work. Why delete it?Topliuchao (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 03:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Doužnjek[edit]

Same as #Folklore works from Slovenia. --Sporti (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support As much as I remember, all these images depict a folklore work. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Support see sl:Doužnjek --Miha (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Please update the file description pages accordingly -FASTILY (TALK) 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ped Endo clinic.jpg [edit]

This photo is a work of me and I have the right to use in wikipedia Sahar Hassanein (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Sahar HassaneinSahar Hassanein (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose First, the image was deleted because it does not have a license. It is essential that the uploader provide a license for images, or we cannot keep them. You were notified of this a week before the deletion.
Second, the image description says that the image was taken by Prof. Mohamed El Kholy. If that is you, then you need to say so. If not, then the professor must provide permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
But last, and most important, the image appears to be of a group of colleagues -- "Endocrinology Clinic - Children's Hospital - Faculty of Medicine - Ain Shams University". Commons does not generally host images of faculty or working colleagues because such images have no particular educational value. See Commons:Scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with points one and two, but I don't recall any ruling on the last, and would find that a photograph of faculty at a notable organization could well be something to find its way to a Wikipedia page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. But feel free to re-upload the file if you can find a legitimate use for it in a Wikipedia article. However, be sure to include a license tag, or the file will be deleted again -FASTILY (TALK) 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Presidente Felipe Calderón Hinojosa Óleo.jpg [edit]

This image was deleted without a previous discussion. This image used this license --Giggette (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr source is CC-BY-SA-NC, which is unacceptable here -- we do not allow NC licenses. However, our policy is to ignore any copyright claim on the image when the subject is a painting, see COM:PD-Art. Therefore the question is whether the painting itself is out of copyright or qualifies for FOP treatment -- FOP is very broad in Mexico. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright, thank you. --Giggette (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY (TALK) 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grób Andrzeja Gregorowicza.jpeg [edit]

this picture was taken by myself. I don't understand why would be violation of anyone's rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjred (talk • contribs) 17:31, 13 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Haliaeetus albicilla (Svolvær, 2012).jpg[edit]

Apparently a licensing issue that I cannot see. It is NOT the same image as on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/yathin/7857079800/ ): note the resolution, the crop and the colors which makes the two very different. The flickr image and the image on commons are NOT derivatives of each other, but derived from a RAW file which is not anywhere on the web and is copyrighted by the photographer - me. If that's the reason for deletion, then might as well delete everything on commons... -- ~y (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the deleted version to the flickr version. Yathin, you can only pick one license per original creative work (e.g. RAW is a storage format like jpg/tif. You can't legally take a cc-by jpg photo, invert the colors, convert it to png, and then publish it PD), and here on Commons, we default to the more restrictive license when there is a discrepancy (so CC-NC in this case, which is unacceptable on Commons) -FASTILY (TALK) 05:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And it's been restored by Howcheng. Obviously I disagree, but I sure can't be arsed to pursue the matter. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, they are different works because the RAW was processed very differently (at different times and I had even forgotten about the flickr upload) -- and perhaps I'm wrong with my understanding. Anyway, the flickr license is not something important and it has been a default license for a long time. I just changed the flickr defaults as well as the license on that image so that it doesn't conflict anymore. Also, you could have just left a note on my page to tell me about the conflict and I would have changed the license. Cheers. -- ~y (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by User:Howcheng -FASTILY (TALK) 05:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pablo Picasso The blind man's meal 1903.JPG [edit]

This was deleted on the grounds that it is still under copyright in Spain. However the law to apply is not completely clear -- Picasso was a Spaniard and painting was made in Barcelona, but it now hangs in the Metropolitan Museum, New York.

If we apply USA law to the case, then the painting is PD-1923 and therefore the images is PD-Art. Since we routinely apply the law of the country where the work is located to works of art -- including more than 50 Picassos -- it seems to me that this ought to be restored.

I note that the Met has it tagged with a copyright notice "(c)2011 Estate of Pablo Picasso", but if US law applies, that is not accurate and, in any case, the 2011 date is absurd.

A separate issue is that this particular image is very poor, with part of the painting cut off. If the decision is to restore this, I will upload a better version of it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons follows very clearly two laws:
(1) the source country copyright law, which is here Spain, both for author nationality and publication place, without so any hesitation. You can move the work where you want, that won't change the publication status.
(2) the US copyright law
The work is indeed in public domain in US, as virtually any work published before 1923.
Your information Since we routinely apply the law of the country where the work is located to works of art seems very strange and a surprise for me. --Dereckson (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The warning on Creator:Pablo Picasso and the fact the Category:Pablo Picasso is added in NoUpload is in contradiction too with your analysis. What I see in the category is mainlyonly FoP stuff. --Dereckson (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excepted one new upload, already contested in file description. I'm nominating it. --Dereckson (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be better to wait until this is concluded? If your POV prevails, then we'll need a mass delete from many artists who have works hanging in the USA..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Routinely", I think is correct. I realize and support the fact that "other stuff exists" is not a good argument in almost all cases, and I don't like to use it here, but:

Your argument suggests that we can apply local law in countries where FOP applies, but not local law in countries where the copyright period is shorter? That doesn't make sense to me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A statue built or disclosed in a country A by someone from B is published in the country A, not in B. So the source country law will be A... A statue moved from B to A, B seems the source country for me. --Dereckson (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The UK stuff seems fallacious, indeed. The Indianapolis painting should be deleted too, I missed it by 3D. --Dereckson (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source country is the country of first publication, not the country where the work currently is located. However, there tends to be an exception with FOP cases: if FOP applies in the country of photography, then the copyright status of the underlying work tends to be ignored in the source country of the work, regardless of the FOP rules there. If this painting was first published in Spain, then that sounds like a very clear  Delete to me. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete The source country is the country of first publication. If we can establish first publication in the US for a Picasso, then I'll argue for undeletion, but it seems much more likely the earlier ones were first published in a life+70 or life+80 country.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this particular one, I agree,  Delete. But it brings up an interesting question. Suppose someone paints a mural in Spain in 1920 and then dies in 1950. The mural is transported to the US to be displayed publicly. Then would a photo of this mural be OK for Commons? Let's see: In the US, it's out of copyright. In Spain, it is still copyrighted, but by lex loci protectionis, reproductions of it are OK since it's in a public place, even if not in Spain. Anything wrong with this reasoning? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, please understand that while I have taken a position here, and will continue to argue it, I am not wedded to it. What I would like to see is a thorough discussion so that we can clarify and make consistent our policy on works of art that are still under copyright in the creator's home country, but not under copyright -- because of FOP or PD-1923 -- in the country where they are now located.

Also, please understand that this is a far reaching question. Keeping this work off Commons will require us to delete at least all paintings and possibly all works by European artists who died after 1942 (1932 for Spain).

I have restored the three files listed above which were speedy deleted by Ecemaml. We do not delete files that have complex copyright issues on a speedy basis. They will need DRs, or at least a conclusion to this discussion.

I'm not at all sure the first publication country is so clear. Many of Picasso's early works were bought by the Steins or other private collectors and were not published, in the legal sense, until they went on display in museums many years later. That's true of many now-famous artists. Their works were not first bought by museums, but by private collectors. Who is to say, without research, what the country of first publication is in these cases?

Also, I don't understand Dereckson's argument as it applies to sculpture. Why is sculpture different from painting? Why is the source country Germany for Calder's works located there, but the source country for the subject is Spain, even though it is located in the USA.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Publication for paintings is a very complex matter. There was recently a long discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/02#Paintings and publication date - example: Finland/U.S. about the URAA part. Essentially, most paintings are first "published" when they are exhibited at a museum or included in a museum catalogue. The problem is that we don't know when or where most paintings were exhibited. I realise that this doesn't only affect URAA status but also the country of origin. Maybe it's better to start another discussion at COM:VPC about this. Statues are simple: the country of origin is usually the country where the statue is located (with only a few exceptions, for example w:Statue of Lenin, Seattle). If you take a photo of a statue, the opinion seems to be that people think that the photo isn't a derivative work of the statue if the photo is covered by FOP. However, this approach is at least not the case in Germany (see de:Hundertwasserentscheidung) and may be wrong elsewhere too. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of the source country rule is so the rule of the shorter period will mean that the file is out of copyright most places. Changing the location of the painting has no effect on that, any more then carrying a book across borders affects whether or we accept pictures from it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stefan, I have the same question I asked Dereckson -- why is sculpture different from painting? I'll agree that in the case of a monumental sculpture -- many of Calder's works -- that we can assume that it was not assembled in public until installed in the destination country. But why is File:'Head of a Woman (Fernande)' by Pablo Picasso, Tate Modern.JPG (a small sculpture) handled differently from a painting done at the same time and place? I'm not talking about FOP issues, we all understand that difference -- I'm asking why you would say the sculpture's country of origin is the UK but the painting France or Spain? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prosfilaes, I think that's a bad analogy. A book is clearly published in one or more countries. As you say, carrying it across a border doesn't change where it was published. But, as I and Stefan have said, first publication for a painting is not so obvious. The subject work was painted in Barcelona in 1903. I don't know its history until it arrived at the Met in the 1950s -- we could find out. If it was purchased in Barcelona by a private collector -- a very likely scenario -- then its first publication in a legal sense was at the Met. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COM:FOP#Choice of law would say that we should  Keep the statue because it is covered by {{FoP-UK}}. However, I'm not sure if that is the right way to go. I'm wondering if we shouldn't require the image to be freely used in the United States, the United Kingdom and the country where the sculpture was first published. Some people claim that images are OK in the United States if it is covered by FOP in the country of photography (although this is untested legal theory). If the statue was first published in the United Kingdom, then it could of course be kept, but if the statue was first published elsewhere, then I think that we should check whether the country of first publication either allows FOP for this kind of works (Spain doesn't) or recognises {{FoP-UK}} for photos taken in the UK (no idea what Spanish law says about this). Of course, we don't know whether it was first published in Spain or not.
Also, what is the country of first publication of a statue? USA law says that pre-1978 statues usually are published (meaning that there is a country of first publication from the USA point of view) whereas post-1977 statues usually are unpublished (meaning that there is no country of first publication from the USA point of view). But what is the country of first publication from the point of view of other countries? Most countries didn't get a new copyright law in 1978, so in most countries, the publication status of a statue erected in 1977 will be the same as the publication status of a statue erected in 1978. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Getting rid of the polite fiction that paintings were published when and where they were made could do hideous things to our collection of paintings. And I don't think it does you any good in this case. I seriously doubt it was published at the Met; they were probably pretty strict about people not taking photographs. It could have been published in a exhibition guide; assuming it was done with permission of the copyright holder, you've still failed to establish when the guide was published, and if it was properly renewed (which I wouldn't put past the Met). Maybe one could establish that it was PD-US-no renewal, but no one has even started to assemble evidence towards that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has a long exhibition history, beginning in Munich in 1913. Then Cologne, Buenos Aires, Paris (1938). Then a variety of US exhibitions in the 1950s. Unfortunately for this case, if it appeared in a catalog, or the gallery sold postcards or posters, that probably nails the copyright at PMA70 (the German rule) at least.
Can we make a more general rule from this? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am having trouble figuring out what the source country is. According to the Berne Convention, the source country is the country of first publication. The European Union uses the Berne Convention definition whereas the United States uses a slightly modified version which still typically means that the source country is the country of first publication. The European Union doesn't apply the rule of the shorter term on works by citizens of EU countries even if they were first published outside the European Union, but I'm not sure if we care about this.
    • Publication according to USA rules: The painting was published the first time it was exhibited at a museum open for the general public which didn't prohibit photography or the first time it appeared in an art catalogue. This painting has been exhibited in numerous different countries according to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It seems that Germany is the first country in which the painting was exhibited, so is Germany the country of first publication (i.e. the "source country") according to the US copyright law?
    • Publication according to EU rules: The painting was published the first time copies of it were offered for sale or were distributed in the general public in some other way. If the painting appeared in an art catalogue, then it seems that the painting was clearly published. However, it seems that just exhibiting the painting somewhere doesn't constitute publication, since no copies were offered to anyone.
Since the European Union doesn't seem to define publication in the same way as the United States, the country of origin might be some country according to the European Union and some other country according to the United States. How do we handle this? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can assume that if a painting appears in an exhibition, it almost certainly was published in a catalog. I'm comfortable making that assumption if it has the effect of confirming the work is still under copyright, but I think PRP prevents us making it in the opposite case. So in this case, I'm willing to stipulate that the subject was first published in Germany, but I wouldn't make that argument if it had first been exhibited in the USA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to have been exhibited in Spain, though. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pablo Picasso The blind man's meal 1903.JPG is marked with Category:Undelete in 2054 because of the Spanish copyright term. Do you think that it would be OK to change this to Category:Undelete in 2044 based on a German, Argentinian or French copyright term? --Stefan4 (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done, per no clear consensus to restore. Unless we know the exact source and licensing details, we shouldn't be hosting the file on Commmons -FASTILY (TALK) 22:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Šalamenci 1931.jpg [edit]

Per #Folklore works from Slovenia. --Miha (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It's a photograph, not a folklore work. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is in PD anyway and it needs to be archived on sl.wiki as a featured media. --Miha (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the photo was published more than 25 years ago (per [4]). It does not constitute "fair use" in the Slovene Wikipedia and using it "to be archived as a feature media" would violate sl:Wikipedija:Avtorske pravice#Politika izjem as well as foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Eleassar. See COM:PCP -FASTILY (TALK) 22:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Al Jazeera files with bad file names[edit]

These images were published by Al Jazeera on their official Flickrstream. The primary objection raised in the DR was that they needed to be renamed - fair enough, I'm happy to do that. However the DR closed with "Unclear copyright status" as the grounds, but the copyright is plainly clear:

  • There was an original release on a CC licence by Al Jazeera.
  • The photographer (Adam Makary), at the time of taking the photographs an employee of Al Jazeera, emailed to confirm they support a release so long as they have attribution as the photographer.

These images should be undeleted and then renamed to something more palatable. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

eh, ✓ Done for File:163615 501518659290 511364290 5849815 2361193 n - Flickr - Al Jazeera English.jpg. The rest were orphaned redirects. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:110207_Terranova_05_029_cropped-1.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I would like to request an undeletion for my profile picture.

Thanks, Joe Terranova

(Joeterranova (talk))

Unless you took the photo yourself with your own hands, I'm afraid this cannot be hosted on Commons. However, if you did take the photo or own the copyright to it (e.g. contract photographer), please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 22:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bharathi1.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I'M a new user. My only intention was to donate something to th Wikipedia Savyasachim50 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The files were deleted because they are screenshots of a film that is still under copyright and not your own work, as you claimed. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Savyasachim50. You must not claim "own work" when it is not correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY (TALK) 22:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Planking.jpg[edit]

Varför är bilden borta? Bilden var tagen av mig och gjorts tillgänglig under licensen "Creative Commons Erkännande-Dela Lika 3.0 Generisk" Vad skulle jag ha gjort anorlunda? Åke Hoff, Falun (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Det står att bilden raderats för att någon anser att den utgör ett upphovsrättsintrång. Det betyder vanligtvis att samma fil finns någon annanstans på nätet och att det inte gått att bevisa att det är du som är fotografen. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation -FASTILY (TALK) 22:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Miss Piggy, Fozzie-bear and Gonzo in MOMI.jpg[edit]

I toke the picture in a museum in London, on a itinerant exhibition of Jim Henson's World in august'95. I have too pictures of myself with Ernie&Bernie, or my brother with Kermit the Frog.

I think that I've followed the rules of copyright

King regards,--Ignasi masip (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Stefan4. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2012-safilm-poster.jpg [edit]

I am requesting to have the 2012-safilm-poster image undeleted. I am working with SAFILM - San Antonio Film Festival, and the creators of the image are also part of the group.

I don't understand why it was removed to begin with. It's a promotional poster that was commissioned by the film festival, which owns the rights to it.

Safilmmark (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment It was deleted because it is a copyrighted poster whose description said it was produced by two people. You are obviously not both of the creators, and may not be either one of them, so we must have a license from each of them, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 18:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion requests/File:飯田めぐみ.jpg[edit]

This Picture is not private photo She is Art director and Npo's president Her photo credit is displayed © Kazumi Hosono. http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%A1%E3%82%BF%E3%82%B9%E3%82%BF%E3%82%B8%E3%82%AA Aaando (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Aaando[reply]

This file is the subject of Commons:Deletion requests/File:飯田めぐみ.jpg. It has not yet been deleted and can not be deleted before March 21, seven days after the nomination. You must give your reasons there, not here. This page is for requesting restoration of files that have been deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please direct comments to Commons:Deletion requests/File:飯田めぐみ.jpg. INeverCry 18:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:colby_buzzell.jpg [edit]

Requesting undeletion. Photo was taken by Colby Buzzell (me) with his own personal camera.--CBFTW (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyvio. INeverCry 00:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:TallinnPan.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tornimäe Maja but was not nominated for deletion there because it's an obvious de minimis situation. It seems that the closing administrator deleted all images mentioned in the deletion request as opposed to only those nominated for deletion. Stefan4 (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done russavia (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Featured pictures on slwiki[edit]

Could you please temporarily undelete the following files:

 Oppose It's a selling product, not a folklore work. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sl:Jaslice states it is Christian tradition. id.wiki has a copy of this image and it can be seen that the figure is quite old; almost identical figures can be seen at lots of homes in the christmas time. Def. not a selling product. --Miha (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such figures are sold in shops. You should provide a clear evidence (i.e. a source stating) that it is old enough to be in the public domain. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Does not constitute "fair use". There are enough images in the article. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this one was recognised as featured by local community (i.e. it depicts the object better than other images) --Miha (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're incorrect. Its encyclopedic value is much smaller, as it does not show the tail of the dragon and the pedestal, as the current one does.[5] --Eleassar (t/p) 09:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose There is no article. The naming is incorrect, as the depicted bridge does not stand in Plave, but in Ajba. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Does not constitute "fair use". The guideline, if it exists at all, is incompatible with sl:Wikipedija:Avtorske pravice#Politika izjem as well as with foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Does not constitute "fair use". The guideline, if it exists at all, is incompatible with sl:Wikipedija:Avtorske pravice#Politika izjem as well as with foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose, unless there is evidence that the photo was published more than 25 years ago (per [6]) --Eleassar (t/p) 09:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The photograph unneccessarily depicts the work by J. Plečnik, which is not discussed in the article. A free alternative is possible to illustrate the article 'Parish of Kranj'. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose It is a copyrighted sculpture.[7] --Eleassar (t/p) 10:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to a new undeletion request if you think it is free. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Take it to a new undeletion request if you think it is free. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Črnuče_02.jpg (there is no need for it in article but simple metal bridges are not really copyrightable)
 Oppose Take it to a new undeletion request if you think it is free. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to transfer them to sl.wikipedia.org. They represent valuable content and were even recognised as featured pictures. All of them were deleted per COM:FOP, but they can still be used on local Wikipedia as fair use. --Miha (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know where do you intend to use them under 'fair use'. E.g. sl:Centralno pokopališče Žale already has an image; also sl:Mladika, Ljubljana; also sl:Vrtni park v Štanjelu; also sl:Stari most, Maribor; etc. The undeletion of 'Idrijska cipka.jpg' has already been requested above; you may add Doužnjek3.jpg there. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of them were featured pictures and have corresponding page, where they should be used for better understanding. The picture used on sl:Centralno pokopališče Žale is in fact the same as File:Žale-7.jpg just small res. and renamed, which created unnecessary confusion. File:Mladika palace, Ljubljana.jpg is much better (after all it has been featured) than the one used in the article now (both are not suitable for Commons). The same argument applies to all other files. Furthermore, files should be kept locally for further reference, just like other featured content (English Wikipedia archives their featured pictures locally too). Eventually, you can propose deletion request on sl.wikipedia. --Miha (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose How do you know that Mladika palace, Ljubljana.jpg (deleted) is much better than Mladika palace, Ljubljana.jpg (locally uploaded to the Slovene Wikipedia)? To say frankly, this is the same image (I've downloaded it before it was deleted). Where do you intend to use the Ajba (misidentified as Plave) bridge? Or the Kugy monument? There is no corresponding article and the article about Julius Kugy doesn't need this photograph as it currently stands. I also don't know why do you see the usage of these images at Wikipedia project pages[8] "fair use". Your plan to copy all featured images to the Slovene Wikipedia, be them "fair use" or not,[9] is also not in accordance with the principle of the minimal use of the non-free content. I suggest that we wait until the Slovene Wikipedia has a clear WMF-compatible EDP in place (and the corresponding text written), before these images are undeleted. The discussion about it is in progress.[10] ---Eleassar (t/p) 08:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was me who started the discussion you've mentioned because all the media can be uploaded under the terms of CC-BY-SA (photo itself) and CC-BY-NC or similar licence for work of art/architecture depicted if we modifly our EDP. Of course, on the long run we have to join forces with civil initiatives who propose a copyright reform. As I stated here[11], I intend to replace photos with links to files (which are needed for transparency of voting archives). Furthermore, local guideline is to keep a copy of the featured media on local WP and you can always propose a deletion there. --Miha (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, we can't upload photos usable only for NC purposes, unless it is "fair use" (within the frame of sl:Wikipedija:Avtorske pravice#Politika izjem). It is clear that all of them can't be undeleted right now, because they would not be used within this policy. Some may be. I suggest that you first state where do you intend to use them and why would this constitute fair use; and replace the links in the project pages with the template you have mentioned. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Eleassar -FASTILY (TALK) 20:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening. I added pages next to the file names. Full res is ok with fair use when the depicted work in an architectural one. --Miha (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my opinion to the individual entries. However, in general, I still oppose the undeletion of all the listed files, as long as they're linked to from project pages. Using it "to be archived as a feature media" (as you have stated below) would violate sl:Wikipedija:Avtorske pravice#Politika izjem as well as foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the unopposed deleted files available here. Be sure that uploading these files at slwiki would be compliant with its local policies. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Images published by Japanese local government authorities[edit]

I uploaded these two files a while back with a public domain license (Template:PD-Japan-exempt), as my understanding was that material (including images such as these?) published by local government authorities in Japan is exempt from copyright and falls into the public domain. I don't have access to the actual URL from which the images came right now, but I recall they were from somewhere on the official Moroyama Town website. Both images were however recently deleted as copyright violations. I would like to confirm whether I was correct in uploading these with a public domain license - in which case I would like to see them restored - or whether my understanding was mistaken and they should not have been uploaded to Commons. I have previously uploaded another similar file under the same license and premise (File:Kawagoe Station west exit forecourt artists impression.jpg), so that may also need to be removed if my understanding of Japanese public domain is mistaken. --DAJF (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add File:Kawagoe Station west exit forecourt artists impression.jpg to the list of files to possibly be un-deleted, as it was deleted after this discussion started. As with the two images above, it was an image included in a notice of scheduled construction work published by a local city government (en:Kawagoe, Saitama) in Japan. --DAJF (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it's hard to say. I've restored the files for a COM:DR. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kawagoe Station west exit forecourt artists impression.jpg -FASTILY (TALK) 01:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Jsa-berlin-torhaus.jpg & File:Theater an der Parkaue.jpg[edit]

everything is okay with this file. permission exists (in german) under the mentioned address. it's licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagination0010101 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 16 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 21:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ancestor_Figure,_Kulap.jpg[edit]

I tagged this as a copyvio by mistake, as the same image was on flickr with an incompatible license. I left a message on the uploader's talk page asking them to change the license on flickr or identify their Commons account in their flickr profile. The file was deleted before I could untag it. I asked for the file to be undeleted, but was advised to wait for a response from the uploader. I received no response, but the license of the photo on flickr has changed to CC-BY 2.0 (it was originally an NC or ND license). Additionally, there is no reason to doubt that User:Harryp2 = John Merriman = merryjack. I really dropped the ball on this one. --moogsi (blah) 14:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sognando la California1.jpg[edit]

As stated before this articles and the ones below were written by Peppo Biscarini (the author and uploader) and the pictures were also taken by the same. So the fact that the work was a scanned copy does not alter the authorship. Thus the rush to delete was uncalled for according to the wikipedia ruling on authorship. I have released the right of use to wikipedia.

--Sharky60 (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them if you have not yet already done so. If everything checks out, they will restore the files for you -FASTILY (TALK) 00:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MOF.jpg [edit]

Please don't delete my file. This is my own work together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheryl Mika (talk • contribs) 2013-03-17T16:16:39 (UTC)

This file was deleted in 2006. It had an absolutely blank description -- no information whatsoever so the deletion was entirely correct for several reasons. You were not the uploader. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No source, small size, no EXIF - looks like a copyvio grabbed from the internet. No valid reason given for undeletion. INeverCry 21:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MazeofFears.jpg [edit]

PLEASE don't delete my own files! For the god sake. Those are my own works! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheryl Mika (talk • contribs) 2013-03-17T16:18:37 (UTC)

This hasn't been deleted. However, w:Maze of Fears suggests that this is a CD cover, so it has to be deleted unless you contact OTRS and prove that you are the copyright holder. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You uploaded this file. It was deleted as a copyright violation. You uploaded it a second time, which is a violation of Commons rules. It has been deleted a second time as a copyright violation. As Stefan says, since it is an album cover, in order to keep it on Commons the copyright holder of the artwork on the cover must send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:DarrylWezy.jpg[edit]

Please dont delet Darrylwezy.jpg because this file is purely creator's own which write in Wikipedia. THANKS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheryl Mika (talk • contribs) 21:32, March 17, 2013‎ (UTC)

 Not done This picture has been taken from here. Consequently, we need a written permission by the copyright holder for image through OTRS to restore it. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Daria.jpg[edit]

hi this is fille is a screenshot of tv, must not be deletd --Gonce (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? That's precisely why is must be deleted; see Commons:Screenshots. Anyway, it has not been deleted (yet), so there is nothing to undelete. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is a copyrighted screenshot from w:Daria. It can't be hosted on Commons. Please see Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. INeverCry 18:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

==[edit]

This file was legally obtained from the owner (O'Hair Shutters, Ltd.) and was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with the owner's consent. Please note that my email address is that of the company that owns the artwork. This was posted with the intent that it be sharable via WikimediaCommons and Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreyY (talk • contribs) 17:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)‎[reply]

Administrators have no way to view other users email addresses. You'll have to send the details and permission to OTRS, they can use this template for that. Please note that the owner of the copyright will have to choose an explicit license(s) of this list, otherwise the declaration is not valid. Statements like "for Wikipedia use" are not valid. An explicit licensing is required. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission required. INeverCry 23:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Capa loucura.jpg File:Capa Portraits.jpg File:Capa Crn.jpg File:Capa rio.jpg File:Capa livro Chelsea Hotel.jpg[edit]

Hi,

It was deleted the photos File:Capa loucura.jpg File:Capa Portraits.jpg File:Capa Crn.jpg File:Capa rio.jpg File:Capa livro Chelsea Hotel.jpg from the photographer Claudio Edinger page. I already sent an authorization of the artist, allowing me to upload photos of the covers of his books. I wish the pictures can be upload again, because the delete them do not seem to have any foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estudioe (talk • contribs)

Estudioe, if you've sent permission to OTRS, they will restore the images for you if everything checks out. Эlcobbola talk 14:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Packung Maggi Pasta asciutta 1973.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received in Ticket:2013031910010003. XenonX3 (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Эlcobbola talk 14:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kawasaki KR1-S.jpg This photo was taken by me, so the copyright belongs to me.[edit]

I took this photo so the image rights belong to me.

Regards

Neil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninfield (talk • contribs)

Neil, the concern was that the Flickr version has a license which contradicts the license chosen for the Commons. If you could just change the Flickr license to CC-by or CC-by-SA, that would confirm authorship and allow the image to be restored. Эlcobbola talk 14:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 22:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gasson in the morning.jpg[edit]

Was deleted because the statue is copyrighted. It seems that the statue was installed in a public place with no notice at least by 1960, if not earlier. → Discussion. --moogsi (blah) 19:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 22:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mariana van zeller by rahrahrah.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My personal work http://www.flickr.com/photos/57258531@N00/3992511363/ Rahrahrah (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image on the Flickr page is All Rights Reserved. Since we have no way of knowing that Commons User:rahrahrah is actually the same person as the Flickr user also named rahrahrah, the best thing would be for the Flickr user to change the Flickr license to CC-BY. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 16:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

121130 ballroom-118.jpg and File:111229 writers cramp-01.jpg[edit]

I hereby affirm that I, Darva D. Campbell am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File: 121130 ballroom-118.jpg and File:111229 writers cramp-01.jpg.

These are photos of Megan Joy and Quinn Allman taken on set during the principal photography of the movie Writer's Cramp. I do not believe these works are currently online elsewhere, although similar photos are available on the official movie page at: http://writerscrampmovie.com/Writers_Cramp/Trailer.html#grid

I agree to STANDARD CHOICE. 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 am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Darva D. Campbell 325 Pepper Ave Hillsborough, CA 94010 650 288-2100

I am the owner of the studio, Once Upon a Thyme Productions, LLC, which holds the copyright for all photos related to the production of Writer's Cramp. You can find information on this company on IMDB pro at https://pro-labs.imdb.com/company/co0408791, and on me personally on IMDB pro at: https://pro-labs.imdb.com/title/tt2630876/filmmakers. You can also find my information on the official movie page: http://writerscrampmovie.com/Writers_Cramp/Creative_Team.html, and my email address, writerscramp@me.com, on the official movie Facebook page: www.facebook.com/WritersCramp.theMovie/info.

Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 16:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dmitry_Rybolovlev_in_2012.jpg[edit]

Please restore this image

Reason: this picture was incorrectly deleted. Full permission for use under the cc-by-sa 3.0 licene was granted by the photo's author

--Dazzler (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Nataf has provided CC-BY-NC-ND licenses in both French and English. He and his representative have been told several times that both NC and ND are not acceptable. He has not provided a CC-BY or other acceptable license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. NC/ND licenses are unacceptable on Commons. See COM:L for acceptable licenses. INeverCry 18:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dmitry_Rybolovlev_in_Monaco_2012.jpg and File:Dmitry_Rybolovlev_2012.jpg[edit]

Please restore these two images

Reason: These two pictures were also incorrectly deleted. The author, Franck Nataf, has already provided permission for use under cc-by-sa 3.0

--Dazzler (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Nataf has provided CC-BY-NC-ND licenses in both French and English. He and his representative have been told several times that both NC and ND are not acceptable. He has not provided a CC-BY or other acceptable license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. NC/ND licenses are unacceptable on Commons. See COM:L for acceptable licenses. INeverCry 18:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Riga Freiheitsstatue.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Seems to be a photo of w:Freedom Monument by w:Kārlis Zāle which is both {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-1996}}. Stefan4 (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan -- I agree that it is PD-70 in Latvia since the creator died in 1942, but Latvia is 70 years pma so it has just become PD there on 1/1/2013. Therefore I think it was not PD there on the URAA date -- what do I not understand? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to w:WP:Non-U.S. copyrights, the copyright term in Latvia was 50 years p.m.a. on the URAA day. This implies that the statue was in the public domain in Latvia on the URAA date but that it was later restored in Latvia. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per Stefan4. I had the same question as Jameslwoodward but the interesting point that Latvia had 50pma per Art. 28, Law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights of 11 May 1993 made the artwork free at the time of the URAA date. Lavia changed this to 70pma on 6 April 2000 (all per the cited en-wp article). Hence, indeed {{PD-1996}} applies. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion of File:Sonia Bos.jpg Picture of portrait of Sonia Bos[edit]

Picture is on website of Stichting Sofia and may be used by anyone without permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiaaquariusmystiek (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image is, indeed, on the web site http://soniabos.com/site/pages/english/homepage.php. It is not, apparently, your own work as you claimed when you uploaded it and there is nothing on the site that says that this image is free to use. In order to restore the image here we will need a license from the actual photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 18:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sanader.jpg [edit]

This file is not an object of copyright because it is published on and by the official website of the Government of Croatia (http://vlada.hr/en). At the bottom of the page it says that content from these pages can be used without a prior consent by the author under the condition that the source of information is quoted. I specified the source and it is clear that any content (text, images etc.) can be used without prior consent.

  •  Oppose That statement is preceded by "Copyright © 2007 - 2012 Government of the Republic of Croatia. All rights reserved." Even if the section you quote were the entirety of the statement, it would be inadequate for our purposes. That reuse does not require prior consent does not address, for example, whether derivatives are allowed, nor does it explicitly address commercial usage, revokability, etc. See COM:L. Эlcobbola talk 17:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done file is copyrighted and that is prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 16:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Livro Venice Beach.jpg[edit]

Please undelete and insert {{OTRS|2013020510005225}}:

Willy Weazley 21:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 22:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maria Padilha.jpg [edit]

This file was deleted after this page. I didn´t participate because when I saw that, the page was finsished.

I took this picture. The reason for deletetion is too weak. I put this picture here and then in pt-wikipedia. After this, some other sites has used the picture, but it was my picture. I have several pictures here in the same situation: I take the picture, I cut it in my computer and after this, I upload it to here. So, it was small because it was cut before upload. There was data in the file about the camara.

I took this picture, so I cut it in my computer because I wanted put the picture at pt:Maria Padilha. After this, I uploaded also this picture, that is from the same picture. After this, I uploaded the original picture, with 2,59 mb, the best resolution of my camera...

At last, any person uploaded several pictures of Maria Padilha with copyvio. So, when this was detected, my picture was considered copyvio too...

Sorry my english... Braswiki (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. Seems legit (assuming File:Maria Padilha.jpg really was a crop of File:Maria Padilha e Tonico Pereira.jpg). The uploader is in good standing, having a lot of contributions and no history of uploading copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 16:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rajeev Karwal.jpg was deleted. we have the rights to use it[edit]

Rajeev Karwal.jpg was deleted. We, at Milagrow, possess the right to use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayush.datta (talk • contribs) 05:50, 22 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: File:Rajeev_Karwal.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The file comes from http://www.milagrowhumantech.com/media-kit and the website claims copyright on all of their works, including this media kit. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 16:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg [edit]

I am a memeber of this band and own full copyright to all photos that I am uploading onto this site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzz3001 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 22 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 16:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Barona_Casino_Lakeside_California.jpg [edit]

I am the creator of the content I uploaded and release it under the CCA-SA license as stated in the EXIF data for the image.

--BZillaGorilla (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)bZillaGorilla[reply]

Exif info shows "© Instict Images". Send process as described in COM:OTRS. Thank you. --Krd 10:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Instinct Images" is MY photography business. I created the content and I am the copyright holder. I don't understand why it's an issue. Do I need to create a new account as "Instinct Images" in order to upload the images I create?

Exif: © Instinct Images - Creative Commons Attribution–ShareAlike License

Isn't that sufficient?

Thank you. --BZillaGorilla (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email from your business email account to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, containing information as described in Commons:Email templates. Thank you. --Krd 11:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then wait 75 days for a response? Seriously?

--BZillaGorilla (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping my talk page when you've sent it and I'll expedite it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BZillaGorilla: If you did instead or arguing here, your image could have been restored already. --Krd 11:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I cancel this request? I thought the purpose was to create content to be shared and that's what I did. I didn't expect such a hassle and it's certainly not worth the effort for such an inconsequential image. Lesson learned.

--BZillaGorilla (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. --Krd 12:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Habemus Papam 2013.ogg[edit]

Please undelete. It is my own recording of a public announcement in Rome on March 13 by Card. Jean-Louis Tauran. --Majoritems (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support restoration. The file is just a piece of the voice of the Cardinal Protodeacon saying the famous Habemus Papam speech. I do not know why Majoritems' statement that he recorded the audio himself at the Vatican State can't be trusted [12]. If you think that Majoritems was lying, you need to prove it (necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit). The format of the announcement has a long history and I'd tend to think it is on public domain. Since 1417... I also feel Commons:De minimis may apply to this short piece of voice, in case that the voice of this file is effectively copyrighted. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Case of COM:TOO. The stereotypical recitation of a single sentence, which is used since several hundred years whenever a new pope is elected, is not attributable to the speaker. If you look at Youtube, you will see that he even read it from a book. Nor did the speaker want it to be restricted by copyrights, since the intent of the sentence is always to spread unrestrictedly to the world the message that "habemus papam" (that's why he said "habemus papam"). --Majoritems (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It's not copyright per se, but w:Related_rights#Performers explains that the performer, in this case the Cardinal Protodeacon, has the right to prevent fixation of his performance.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I doubt the simple reading of a non-original sentence can be seen as a performance. I'm not sure I understand why Russavia and Odder are so cautious in this specific case. (From a speculative point of view, we do acknowledge PD-scan and PD-Art; must a straightforward recording always be copyrighted?) Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not comparable to {{PD-scan}} or {{PD-Art}} where we have an original work that is PD and where we assume the digitization itself to be PD as well. In this case, the uploader claims to have this speech recorded himself. Hence, we have to consider whether the speech can be considered PD and whether the uploader can be trusted in his statement that he recorded it. I guess that Russavia and Odder were somewhat sceptical as we had apparently a significant flow of copyvios coming on that day in relation to the new pope. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the case itself, I think the speech is PD-old and that its reading by Cardinal Tauran is PD-ineligible. As for the recording, I'm unsure what more we can ask from Majoritems: a written (OTRS) statement? Regarding the PD-Art/PD-scan comparison, my point here is that merely pressing the 'REC' button on a recording machine probably doesn't warrant a copyright any more than pressing the 'copy' button on a scanner does. --Jastrow (Λέγετε) 23:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think speaking about PD-ineligible missing the point; copyright law and {{PD-ineligible}} have nothing to say on the matter, it's a whole 'nother body of law. Maybe Jastrow is correct, and that it would not be protected by those rights. But those are the rights we have to look at to answer that question.
This strikes me as closer to pressing the button on a camera then a scanner. If he had plugged in the sound board (as many did for their Grateful Dead "bootlegs"), then it might be like PD-scan, but here there's all sorts of issues about ambient noise. Maybe it's close enough to an exact copy, but I certainly wouldn't want to say that without listening to it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment What does US law say about performer's rights? If the European law is considered moral rights, then we don't need to worry about it. We can safely ignore every non-US non-copyright law. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • US signed all the treaties on performer's rights and probably wrote some of them. It's not moral rights; it's the right for a vocal performer to get paid just like a painter would.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This is not an original recording, its a recording (or a copy) of a recording. For 1/2 second you hearte the crowd applauding, this 1/2 second is exactly the same as in television (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0rCMd8S5nY). This means, the user who claimes that this is a self-created recording stand at the same position like the outside microphones at the square AND the user had a direct acces to the Protodeacons microphone AND the user had acces to mixing equipment to fade out the crowd.... Own recording? No. --Martin H. (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyvio, per evidence presented by Martin H. Feel free to email permission to COM:OTRS if you truly are in fact the person who made this recording. However, be prepared to show official documents proving this fact. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

albert ndreu[edit]

Hi,

all the photos uploaded are my own pic, you can see them i have them all under Albert Ndreu Facebook!

Thanks,

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 02:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Znaki Zodiaka0003.jpg [edit]

Please, redelete this file as its author - Mr. Viktor Afanasievich PETROV has granted a permission to use it freely for everybody. He did it via OTRS (email)

Даниил Петров (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The files will be restored by OTRS once they process the email(s) that were sent. Thank you for your patience. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shaheed Shafiur Rahman.jpg [edit]

Banglapedia is the considered as the official & authorized by the government of Bangladesh which describes Shafiur Rahman as a National Hero & this particular photograph is in display at the national museum, used in both print & electronic media in numerous occasion and added to that he remains a distant blood-relative of mine, his descendant family claims no copyright for using this photograph (which is actually from a family collection & provided by them in the very first place) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raisrulez (talk • contribs) 21:34, 23 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose You claimed on the upload that you were the photographer of this image. Now you claim that it is an old family image. In that case, the copyright belongs to the photographer or his heirs, not you or the family. We will need a license from the actual copyright holder in order to restore it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY (TALK) 02:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SaeedAnwar.jpg [edit]

This person is a cricketer & This photograph has been in use in numerous media representation and in display in several Internet sites as open source since he do not claim rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raisrulez (talk • contribs) 21:38, 23 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The stated source of this image, www.cricinfo.com has an explicit copyright notice. There is no reason to believe that the image is freely licensed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyvio -FASTILY (TALK) 02:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RaisulIslam-Asad.jpg [edit]

This person is a media personality (Movie/TV actor) and a feedom fighter of the nation. This photograph is being used in numerous occasion in both print & electronic media. Added to that Banglapedia the official open-source encyclopedia of Bangladesh & IMDB use this photo to represent the actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raisrulez (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose On the upload you claimed that this image was your own work. Now you claim that it is not your work, but may be freely used. Without knowing the actual source of the image, we have no way of knowing whether that is correct. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY (TALK) 02:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:George Mallory ith wife Ruth Mallory in 1916.jpg[edit]

The person died more than 60 years ago. I believe that in itself should remove any copyright issues regarding the use of this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raisrulez (talk • contribs) 21:48, 23 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose UK images are under copyright for 70 years after the death of the photographer. The subject's death is irrelevant to the copyright, particularly since we know that this image is from 1916. Without further information, it will be at least thirty years until we can consider keeping this image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The file is still copyrighted, and said files are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 02:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Karta2.PNG[edit]

As a result of the court decisions, following parts of a map are in the public domain, and may be used freely: Place names. Those aren't copyrightable. Colors. For example, the colors representing area features on a topographic map, such as vegetation (green), water (blue), and densely built-up areas (gray or red). Colors aren't copyrightable, either. Symbols and map keys Can't be protected by copyright, even if the mapmaker invented truly original ones. Geographic or topographic features. Those are facts, and facts aren't copyrightable. The map consists of: Place names, Symbols and map keys, topographic features. Strannik27 (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Maps are eligible for copyright even if some of the individual elements aren't, see here. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Karta1.PNG[edit]

As a result of the court decisions, following parts of a map are in the public domain, and may be used freely: Place names. Those aren't copyrightable. Colors. For example, the colors representing area features on a topographic map, such as vegetation (green), water (blue), and densely built-up areas (gray or red). Colors aren't copyrightable, either. Symbols and map keys Can't be protected by copyright, even if the mapmaker invented truly original ones. Geographic or topographic features. Those are facts, and facts aren't copyrightable Elements copied from other maps (say, from a public domain USGS map). Whatever new information the mapmaker added will be protected by copyright (the selection, arrangement of the info), but the elements that were copied (the elements of a USGS map used as a starting point, for example) will stay in the public domain.. The map consists of: Place names, Symbols and map keys (the location of the cave), Geographic features (Elements copied from other maps say, from a public domain USGS map). Strannik27 (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Maps are eligible for copyright even if some of the individual elements aren't, see here. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Formes Vegetals - Bernat Sanjuan.jpg[edit]

I'm the photographer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKIART (talk • contribs) 13:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter, as the painter Bernat Sanjuan died only in 1979; thereby his works are still copyrighted. By publishing a photo of his paintings, you violate his copyright. --Túrelio (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: As elaborated by Túrelio this photograph is a derived work of a copyrighted painting by Bernat Sanjuan which gets free in 2050 in its source country and 95 years after its first publication (per URAA) which is unfortunately not mentioned in the file description. If it is to be restored before, we need a permission by the copyright holders (i.e. the heirs of the artist) through OTRS. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:DanielDjokic.jpg has OTRS permission[edit]

I request file restoration because it has received permission on OTRS. ticket:2013022810011738. Thanks, --Alan Lorenzo (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done INeverCry 01:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Timothy Kamahl Rowe[edit]

bio of myself--Timothyrowe (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This was deleted at Wikipedia, not at Wikimedia Commons, see here: A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event). I suggest to discuss this with the deleting admin at en:User talk:Gogo Dodo. But it is unlikely to be restored as neither Wikipedia nor Wikimedia Commons are webspace providers for your personal biography except when you are notable and then it is best done by others. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BeijingOlimpicGames2008-08-08.jpg[edit]

~This one:

First may i ask if there is a reasonable chance, this Pic is claimed by someone for copyright? Next: who can say there is to 'much artistic work'? What is art? Art may be everywhere. This is more glamour. A globe is not art, light beams are not. At least did someone even think about FOP? (seems not) --Itu (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted; art may be everywhere, which is a continuing problem in DRs. At the very least, there's many copyrightable photos of people at the top. I don't think anyone should worry about FOP if you can't be bothered to actually think about it and discuss it in the context of the actual rules of Chinese FOP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question: Is (supposed) art a 'continuing problem' in Deletion-Requests - or in something real? --Itu (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures are copyrightable. The copyright act says nothing about art.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Actually, the globe certainly has a copyright -- maps are copyrightable everywhere. The light beams would probably be copyrightable in France -- in China, maybe, maybe not. And, as Prosfilaes says, each of the images at the top has its own copyright. Chinese FOP is very broad and does not require that the work be on permanent display. The law does, however, require that the work be outdoors, which this is not, and that the author be named, which would require giving the names of all of the photographers of the images at the top, and the mapmaker. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

globes: So, there is very much to delete in Category:Globes (besides the obvious high-probable copyrightviolations that no one cares about) --Itu (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose US Copyright law (jurisdiction of our servers) does not concern itself with art, but with original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium. The globe seems well above the threshold of originality (it is original), it was created by humans (it has an author) and it's made of wood/paper/whatever (fixed in a tangible medium). The work is not outdoors, a requirement of Chinese FoP. Эlcobbola talk 17:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'created by humans': Beeing legal you may even a forest give a copyright because its manmade... And for me the originality is like much logos are, even here at commons. --Itu (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Work of art not displayed outdoors (as required by Chinese law) and each photograph has their own copyright (and probably from a lot of different jurisdictions). Also the work is protected in the US because the work was published in a country that is a signatory to the Berne Treaty (PR China did in 1992). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus to restore. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rahmenplan zur Stadtgestaltung Leonberg.jpg [edit]

Dear Sir or Madam, I have uploaded plenty of images for the article ISA Internationales Stadtbauatelier. As source of these images I stated ISA Interntaionales Stadtbauatelier, although the source is the weblink http://www.stadtbauatelier.de/. I would apreciate it if you could undelete those images, so i can change the source of this images and use them for my article. Thank you very much. Leachim 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leachim 1 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 25 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. File hasn't been deleted. Please direct comments to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Leachim 1. INeverCry 17:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Soi Cowboy (2008).jpg [edit]

I am the copyright image for this image and wish to make it available — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewarrenne (talk • contribs) 12:20, 25 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The image is a derivative work of the poster. If you are the actual copyright owner of the poster and the images on it, please send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

template:PD-NL-Gov/en[edit]

Can you plz not delete that template in that way, instead of that build a tl with a text that this template shouldn't be used any more as we have it once with PD-Sovjet?--Sanandros (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Replaced with a notice that template has been deprecated. Эlcobbola talk 17:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TheElephantKing.jpg [edit]

We are the copyright holder of this image and would like to allow its use here

Tom Waller De Warrenne Pictures Co. Ltd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewarrenne (talk • contribs) 12:33, 25 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The image is a derivative work of the poster. If you are the actual copyright owner of the poster and the images on it, please send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 17:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Leopoldsreut4.jpg [edit]

Wieso ist das abfotografieren einer Infotafel eine Urheberrechtsverletzung?

File:Infotafel in Leopoldsreut (2).JPG

Suchergebnisse - über 21000 Artikel

--Ekpah (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a derivative work of likely copyrighted materials. I suppose you'd better get started nominating all those listed files for deletion -FASTILY (TALK) 23:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Redacted hot air balloon festival.jpg[edit]

This file was tagged for deletion for reasons not contemplated either in guidelines or Common´s deletion policy. The stated reason was POINTy, which is not a Common´s policy. POINTy is an essay and therefore cannot be nor is it a reason for nomination, for it is not contemplated at the deletion policy page. #[[13]].

Another reason stated in the deletion request is that the upload was not done in good faith, a category also not found in the policy page, therefore it cannot be used for deletion. I request that the nominator Эlcobbola talk sustantiate his accusation. Also, his qualifying legitimate words in a negative manner is not contemplated in policy nor a reason to delete.

I request that another affected file, File:The world according to wiki censors.jpg, be restored for it was unfairly associated with this out-of-policy nomination.

As for the closing argument, in line with Common´s stated policy found at [[14]] I request from closing administrator to state the reasons to close the argument withiin the stated Common´s policy.

I make this specific request considering that this nomination and deletion is at the center of a controversy that had me blocked in an unjust manner in my opinion and is part of a wider controversy.

Furthermore, the issue of censorship is a legitimate concern here and in every medium of cultural diffusion. Parody is a real and legitimate strategy to address social concernns such as censorship. To simply state "out of scope" or "no encyclopedic value" must be supported by arguments based on proven knowledge, proven academic reputation or any proven authority to declare outright what constitutes value and what not. Additionaly, the closing argument is in no way related to the reason nominating the image for deletion.

It is my opinion that administrator´s actions be done according to stated policy and not to personal opinions over fields of concern where they lack the required expertise to particpate in an informed and just manner.

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File appears to need fair use to be OK copyright-wise; Commons:Fair use doesn't permit that on Commons. Rd232 (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 CommentTo begin with, people have referred to the original image as an image of Sponge Bob, however, the object itself is an airship, during flight among others in a hot air balloon festival. This image has distorted completely the character and is a parody of the way sometimes Commons goes to extreme claims about protection of copyrights. Deletion of this image was a revenge-motivated DR over the argument that ensued over the original one. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the "Sponge Bob" balloon wasn't your focal point but it did become a focal point of the photograph. I feel it wasn't enough to meet the De minimis policy, had you not had the "Sponge Bob" balloon (just assume that it wasn't there), the other shaped balloons (such as the bee) in the distance wouldn't be an issue and would meet the De minmis policy. Bidgee (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was it taken in Mexico though? If so FoP might get more interesting, as they appear to not have a "permanently placed" requirement. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was taken in Mexico...--Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it's a derivative of a US work. For example, File:Aboriginal Flag.JPG is acceptable because it's in Israel, so we consider the source country as Israel and not Australia and thus can safely ignore Australian law. However, Spongebob is a US character, and we must obey US law because the WMF is in the US. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We usually use FoP depending on the country where it actually is. If an originally French statue is installed in Spain, we'd allow photos of it. 00:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The exception is the US. We have to follow US law no matter what because WMF is in the US. Now, we do continue to allow photos of German statues despite no US FoP, but that's more of a "don't give a shit" and/or "the law's not clear" attitude, with no real legal basis. But this is a cartoon character that is obviously a US work and is copyrighted in the US, so it's more clearly a copyvio. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No clear consensus to restore -FASTILY (TALK) 05:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The world according to wiki censors.jpg[edit]

This file´s deletion was associated to another file in a manner not contemplated in Common´s deletion policy, therefore deleted either as a result of ignorance of procedures or policy or improper association which is no excuse to violate Policy, or as a result of unfair association by the person who requested its deletion.

Parody is a legitimate recourse to point to or critisize social phenomena, such as censorship or censorship practices.

Wikipedia and Common´s, as a social phenomena are legitimate targets of parody, evenn to the dislike of some. By deleting this image, Common´s or its administrators incurr in the very phenomena that the file tries to depict. It becomes a victim of censorship.

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The goal of Commons is to be a central repository of images for other wikipedia departments, loading images here is not meant to satisfy Common´s itelf, but rather, to supply images to outside entities, and since Commons supplies images for science, religion, literature, art, so it does to social phenomena like censorship. Loading an image that addresses censorship is as legitimate as loading an image that addresses geography issues. This is, however, a side issue. The main issue is that the nomination and its closure are outside the scope of the policy for deletion. Ignoring this very important issue would render every single Commons policy inoperative and we would be left at the mercy of the whims of administrators with the danger that this stuation would pose to the project. So please address the issue on policy matters, which is after all the central point. Why nominate for deletion an image outside stated policy??? So the question remains, why allow a deletion request when the reason is an ilegitimate reason, and worst, deleting for another reason? It is like arresting sombody for jaywalking on the mountains and convicting him for murder. Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment See this for further context. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 17:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ecemaml for your continuing efforts in diverting the central issue. How about centering the debate on the point at hand? I can see why you would desire confusion since your policy violations are part of the problem. If you want we can discuss your policy violation behaviour with clear examples on the Village Pump, out in the open? It is an invitation. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image appears to be transformative, i.e. it is a derived work of the original which puts it in a new light, as it is typical for a parody. This appears to be permitted under the fair use clause, see Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.. But as we do not consider fair use excemptions to be free enough at Commons per COM:L, I do not see how we can keep it. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 - this does not seem free enough for Commons, per Commons:Fair use. It would be fine in other contexts where fair use is accepted. Rd232 (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really, this image is no longer a picture of Sponge Bob, it has been distorted beyond usefulness... this image illustrated by the way of parody the phenomena of censorship. In any case, if deleted because it is a copyrighted character, how about this image here? #[[15]]. It does not make sense to keep one and delete another based on different arguments when the case is practically the same. The argument to keep the chewbacca image resides on the fact that it is a custome, while the claim I make is that spongebob is an airship. However, pretty much the same... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't know why we allow costumes, especially full-body ones. But WMF Legal says it's OK, so I trust their judgment when it comes to legal issues. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No clear consensus to restore -FASTILY (TALK) 05:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo Playboy Latinoamerica 2012.png[edit]

A basic rabbit sillouette and text is too simple for US Threshold of Originality, and playboy is a US company. Fry1989 eh? 15:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Fry is right with respect to the USA, perhaps not. But the source country is Argentina (see http://www.playboytvla.com/terminos-y-condiciones-de-uso.php) where we do not have any information on the TOO. PRP requires that we err on the side of "delete". .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, Playboy is an American company, it's rabbit logo is PD-US and the rest is text too simple. Fry1989 eh? 19:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This raises an interesting question. If an author from Country A produces an image that is primarily published in Country B, what is considered the source country? If the source country is indeed the US, I agree that the logo is almost certainly too simple. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly believe it is a restore. Now if they chose a branding that is completely different than the US owner (which they chose a horizontal logo than a vertical one), that would be something to look at. But really, you can see this as a US entity and it's work was published in the US and aboard at the same time (or within the 30 days in case of the branding). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 05:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:El carrusel del tiempo - 2.jpg[edit]

Se me ha comunicado que este archivo ha sido borrado por haber violado las normas. En este sentido debo decir que:

  • Yo, Javier Pérez, soy el autor de la instalación artística: El carrusel del tiempo' exhibida en el Festival de Salzburg 2013, trabajo encargado por el propio Festival
  • El archivo no ha sido "robado de Internet" sino que ha sido subido desde mis archivos personales, este y el resto de archivos denominados con el nombre de El carrusel del tiempo
  • El autor de la fotografía Luigi Caputo me entregó, como autor de la obra artística que soy, los archivos para que hiciese el uso que creyese conveniente.
  • Este archivo que ustedes han borrado por considerar que no es mio, está en mi página web wwww.javierperez.es y en otros medios y redes: You Tube, Vimeo, Tumblr, Pinterest ya que tengo todos los derechos de difusión de mi obra que crea convenientes.

Por todo ello solicito se considere este conflicto, entre la autoría de la obra expuesta (que es mia) y otros derechos por parte de la organización o el autor de la fotografía y me aporten alguna solución que evite el borrado Atentamente Javier Pérez Giacoes (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Envía un email desde una dirección reconocible siguiendo lo expuesto en Commons:Modelos de mensajes. Tienes más información de todas formas en Commons:OTRS/es. Saludos, --Alan Lorenzo (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Alan.lorenzo said -FASTILY (TALK) 05:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Azadi1.jpg[edit]

Per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Iran, works owned by a legal personality "fall into public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation". The tower was completed in 1971 and while I can find no source explicitly mentioning the ownership of the tower, it seems like it is owned by the city or other government (regional, national, government agency). This article says the "municipality" (thus, a "legal personality") rebuilt the tower a couple years ago and gives this quote from its architect—Hossein Amanat:"This monument is not owned by me or anybody," Amanat said. "It is something that people in Iran have some connection to." Furthermore it was built to honor the 2500th anniversary of the Iranian monarchy and was one of the handful of the Shah's monuments not removed/defaced after the Revelution, which suggests it was not owned by a private party, but either the government or Shah (in which case ownership was transferred to the new Iranian government).

There is an entire category of images of Azadi Tower, with many focusing on its details. The decision of this undelete nomination should affect most of those images as well. Out of all those images, only one has been subjected to a deletion request and it was kept for the reasons described above: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azadi Monument.jpg. AHeneen (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; there's no US problem, since Iranian works don't get US copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Iranian works don't get US copyright -FASTILY (TALK) 07:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

(File:His Boy Elroy band photo 1992.jpg)[edit]

Dear WikiMaster,

This photo is allowed for reproduction as long as it intact with credits. This photo and other band photos are called 8x10 Promo Shot or if you are an actor your head shot. There were sent to magazines, newspapers, clubs, venues for limited editorial reproduction. The photo clearly states "1993 Sony Music Permission to reproduce this photography is limited to editorial uses in regular issues of newspapers and other regularly published periodicals and television news programming." The His Boy Elroy page on Wikipedia would be within the limits of this permission if it posted this photo. 3/27/2013 carbonforrest

--Carbonforrest (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Press kit photos disallow commercial use, and are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 07:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Prince Vivian Ambrose Edward XI 21.jpg[edit]

Salman haider 28-03-2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Luv (talk • contribs) 12:57, 28 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not a valid reason to restore. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ambassador Grabar-Kitarović.jpg[edit]

I request to undelete the photo Ambassador Grabar-Kitarović.jpg

I am working at the NATO Public Diplomacy Division and authorize the use of this image on Wikipedia

NATOPDD (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Meital.jpg [edit]

Please, undelete this. As an associate of Anderson Group PR,I have copyright privileges to this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvmodesitt (talk • contribs) 15:44, 28 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Douglas Hamilton (journalist).jpg[edit]

Hi, I would like to ask for help regarding the undeletion, and eventually the correct upload of the file Douglas Hamilton (journalist).jpg . The image, which should be used to identify the person in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Hamilton_(journalist) , is a scan of a photo that is in my possession. It was given to me personally a few years ago by the now deceased Douglas Hamilton. After his death, I scanned the image and made it available to several websites running obituaries (for example http://www.thebaron.info/news/files/c03c785dbe89372177bfeceeda585abb-785.php ). It is unknown who took the picture back in 1992, so I cannot in the best faith provide a source in that sense. I am its current owner, and am very happy for the picture to be publicly available. Any advice as to what the correct handling of this should be -- much appreciated. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weisskaepchen (talk • contribs) 17:58, 28 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CORINE Land Cover 2000.jpg[edit]

The photo shows a CD and its cover about Corine Land Cover project and was taken by me a few years ago. It's not a copyvio as the delete request says. --Tony Rotondas (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your picture is a derivative work. Unless the CD cover is in the public domain (and nothing seems to make it true) your picture keeps the original copyright and therefore you cannot claim a free license. Sorry. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 14:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Boot-classic-logo-argancy-baseball-metz.png this is my ownwork????[edit]

Hi My Name is Jeoffrey Gonzales,

I try to upload my own work to illustrate to update this page http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_d%27Argancy I'm the graphic designer of all I Produce for the Bootleggers Baseball Team http://bootleggers-baseball.com You can take a look here http://www.flickr.com/photos/baseball-metz/sets/72157631621125453/

So lest me upload my file to update the page of the team

Thank's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeoffrey.G (talk • contribs) 15:40, 29 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY (TALK) 20:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete my user pages[edit]

My Commons user pages presented here were deleted without notice. I assume this is because the pages were deleted on Wikipedia. The two reasons for deletion there I corrected now:

  • "Fake Article" - I added all a disclaimer that its not an article.
  • "No Webhost" - I put it on Commons what explicitly supports "educational" content.

The background of this pages about medieval portolan charts I explained here. It shall help to improve Wikipedia and to discuss new or less known facts around this subject. Portolan research is divided in two schools. As a person from the German language school I abstained from editing the English WP Portolan page and only provided text resources. The leading historian of the English school, Tony Campbell, did a web link to my page. So the content has some value. In the deletion discussion it came up that WP allows only user pages that are intended to be moved in the article space. My pages were more detailed than usual for an article and I intended them mainly as resources. I hope Commons may allow them as resources for Wikipedia like the other content here. It shall allow people a quick access to less known information on portolans in the hope they may have further things to contribute. -- Portolanero (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see COM:SCOPE. Commons is for galleries and collections of images. Text, articles, and encyclopedia entries belong on w:Wikipedia -FASTILY (TALK) 20:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yoruba Wedding, Husband and Bride and talking drummer in Traditional dress.jpg[edit]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/81878546@N05/

Available for non-commercial commons use.19:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done No it isn't -FASTILY (TALK) 20:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:USS Oakland Battlestations Pacific.pngBSP_ZeroAirPatrol.PNG/220px-BSP_ZeroAirPatrol.PNG[edit]

BSP_ZeroAirPatrol.PNG/220px-BSP_ZeroAirPatrol.PNG File:USS Oakland Battlestations Pacific.png

These are screenshots I took from a game for illustrative purposes on the Wiki page.

--Axiis Crusher (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Axis_Crusher 30-03-2013[reply]

Unfortunately, video game screenshots are prohibited on Commons. See COM:L, COM:DW, and COM:FU -FASTILY (TALK) 01:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, you are welcome to upload it directly to Wikipedia (i.e. not on Commons) under a claim of fair use. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please undelet the File:太陽系圍繞北斗星座公轉60年一週期示意图..jpg .[edit]

I have given Permission to Permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by email as your requested on March 26,2013 Here repeat the Permission sa following: I hereby affirm that I, 吴仕元Wu Shiyuan ,am the creator of 《太陽系圍繞北斗星座公轉60年一週期》. The English version is《The Solar System going a circle for 60 years around the BeiDou constellation》 I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in an uncommercial product, 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 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 am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. 吴仕元Wu Shiyuan(Y.S.William) 2013-3-26

One more thing: Please recovery the English version of 《太陽系圍繞北斗星座公轉60年一週期》. It is named as《The Solar System going a circle for 60 years around the BeiDou constellation》 Which was deleted by Fastily on march 25,2013. 吴仕元Wu Shiyuan(Y.S.William) 2013-3-30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 吴仕元 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 30 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

We have your email (Ticket #2013032810004271), but give us time to look over and process it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2013-03&oldid=700019935"