Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-12

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

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

Alleged Copyrighted and Out of Scope Files.[edit]

Topic: Accusations of Copyrighted media files and reported Out of Scope media.

I invoke my right against self incrimination.

Several files was reported for statements of such and few were removed from my uploads link not notifying on my discussion page.

In my defense, the images were not uploaded contradicting to copyright due to the file was of my own works for educational and health purposes only. But, the image was taken from the internet from a personal reliable source which some of my works are contributed to. However, some viewers or users may find the images displays an inappropriate file which undoubtedly does contain a graphic image or a file uncommonly portrayed and used. Therefore, there is no viable reason of vandalizing a project report of any circumstances without a reasonable proof of so.

If the file is requested through its file name, then I will simply rename the file. However, my conclusion of the file is not copyrighted or taken from other sources according to any whatsoever degree of illegal licensing for the copyright or blocking. I would like a strong viable proof for this. However if it is a copyright file, I would like a strong copy of the reported copyright file or vandalizing a project but greatly want them returned for educational purposes of the matter not mainly because of its graphic content to the eyes of certain viewers.

Regards, Parker Ellis Parker Phy 08:32, 29 November 2013‎

Commons’ scope doesn’t preclude content that would be unkind «to the eyes of certain viewers», no worries there. You uploading your content via third-party websites is however problematic, and goes beyond assuming good faith. You need to e-mail satisfactory proof of authorship, here. -- Tuválkin 11:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the files can be restored. INeverCry 21:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Blue Medalha.png[edit]

Such as Blue Medalha. Reason: Morning would very much stay because the image I created this page my proof and if anything the page disappear'll get 0. I would appreciate to stay at least a few more weeks if it does not meet the requirements after two weeks be removed. --Jose David Baptista de Sousa (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Like the closing admin said: «03:06, 29 November 2013 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Blue Medalha.png (Copyright violation: If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to upload the file, email COM:OTRS) (global usage; delinker log)». Check this page: COM:OTRS to make proof of authorship. -- Tuválkin 10:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Arkadi Duchin (1).jpg & File:Arkadi Duchin (2).jpg[edit]

An OTRS permission was received see Ticket:2013112810008663. Thanks Hanay (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


✓ Done INeverCry 21:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


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

File:FCS_tour_savanna.jpg is my own work[edit]

File:FCS_tour_savanna.jpg is a still captured from a video I personally made. There are no identifiable people in it. It was not taken at a paid event. I have complete ownership of it.

Even disregarding these facts, it definitely does not qualify for speedy deletion by wikimedia deletion rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerfer (talk • contribs) 2013-11-29T16:19:12 (UTC)

  • Please send an email as explained in COM:OTRS and the image will be restored. - Jmabel ! talk 17:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Dick erect.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I joined the site about two or three days ago and uploaded a picture (Dick erect.jpg). I didn't understand the copyright guidelines at the time, and just used the recommended setting. I realize in this case it was the wrong procedure. The picture is an original taken by me of me. I now understand to release all rights for pictures such as these.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

--Wikisphotoer (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Out of COM:SCOPE - small and very blurry image. INeverCry 21:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done COM:SCOPE -FASTILY 22:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Ortsschild Grüne Eiche.jpg[edit]

{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} sorry hatte vergessen die Rechte anzugeben und war länger hier nicht aktiv --Blonder1984 (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


✓ Done INeverCry 22:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Dorothy Lake State Natural Area.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: the photo is my own Aarongunnar (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


✓ Done INeverCry 21:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:UnsupersizeMeDocumentaryPoster.jpg [edit]

Hi,

Thank you for sending me a prompt update about the status of the picture UnsupersizeMeDocumentaryPoster.jpg I just uploaded.

It is indeed the poster of a movie documentary called "Unsupersize Me" directed by Juan Carlos Asse. Mr. Asse is also the owner of the Web site http://www.unsupersizeme.com where this picture is located.

As I am creating a page about this documentary, I have explicitly asked Mr. Asse to grant me a written permission to upload in Wikimedia Commons and use this poster on Wikipedia. To this effect, Mr. Asse have used the official Wikipedia form for this purpose. Therefore, I have sent the completed and signed form of Mr. Asse to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as requested by Wikipedia.

Therefore, I would like you to please double-check with the person in charge of this end (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). If you wish to receive personally a copy of the signed permission of Mr. Asse, please let me know by providing me with an address at Kone.Mamadou@gmail.com

As soon as everything is alright, I would appreciate that you lift your ban on this picture and relaod it where it was.

Thank you for your cooperation.


Kone


Thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that you sent. Your continued patience regarding this matter is appreciated -FASTILY 10:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Phablet.jpg [edit]

Did not elaborate why it was non-free. The devices shown were displaying wallpapers and content contained within Android's open source code, no non-free content was visible. Recommend rename to "Samsung Galaxy Note series phones.jpg" if restored, however. ViperSnake151 (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It was deleted because the uploader claimed "own work" for three screens full of images that were clearly not his work. No mention was made of the fact that these might be free images. So far we have nothing but a third party's assertion that these are free - it would be nice to have a confirmation of that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Obviously the "own work" claim applies to the photograph itself, wouldn't it? All three images were stock Android wallpapers (Samsung devices usually come with their own non-free wallpapers), and they were all on the "flying jelly beans" easter egg screen from Android 4.x., which means that the user's intent was to make a photograph of all three devices that does not display any non-free Samsung elements (i.e. their UI) ViperSnake151 (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the inclusion of the screen backgrounds is obviously a matter of controversy, I've gone ahead and edited them out. The file should be acceptable for Commons now -FASTILY 21:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Brødr. Jørgensen logo.JPG[edit]

This logo merely consists of an old, public domain version of the coat of arms of the town of Sønderborg and some simple text. I therefore request undeletion. --Urbandweller (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  • There's obviously some creativity in the medallion itself, and that dates from 1953, so it is certainly in copyright. I think we're out of luck on this one (at least for another decade or so). - Jmabel ! talk 17:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done per Jmabel. INeverCry 16:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Florent Marcellesi.png[edit]

I demand that picture must be replaced because it has been taken from a page with creative commons: http://florentmarcellesi.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/hay-que-aprovechar-la-oportunidad-de-la-crisis-para-repartir-el-trabajo/ You can see the logo of Creative Commons in the below part of the page. Thank you.--EQUOeditor (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 Not done ND licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 21:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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

File:RichmanLarryL.jpg[edit]

I hereby affirm that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File:RichmanLarryL.jpg

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

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

I am the copyright-holder.

Richman9 (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


Hello Richman9, this needs to be emailed to COM:OTRS. Once they process the email you send, they will restore the file. -FASTILY 22:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

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

eigene Werke von Klaus Götze[edit]

3 File:NK1112.jpg
4 File:NK0809.jpg
5 File:Germinaltitel.jpg
6 File:NK0506.jpg
7 File:NK0203.jpg
8 File:FKgrafik.jpg
9 File:LT 4V.jpg
10 File:A expl 1.jpg
11 File:Sternenstaub.jpg
12 File:EXL Pferde.jpg
13 File:T neu.jpg
14 File:Geräte.jpg

Diese Fotos wurden von mir ,Klaus Götze, (Wikiname: Eberhardklaus) angefertigt und auf der Seite : https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Eberhardklaus/Artkelentwurf eingestellt. Zunächst beim Hochladen mit "Eberhardklaus" als Urheber und in den letzten Tagen in "Klaus Götze" als Urheber umbenannt. Erbitte die Löschung zurückzunehmen. Danke--Eberhardklaus (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I didn't look at all of these, but they appear to be posters or other printed matter. Are you the photographer of all the images shown on them? Did you yourself actually create the posters? If you cannot answer "yes" to both questions, then your photographs cannot be kept on Commons without permission from the people who actually created the works that you have photographed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Das sind Fotomontagen die aus nicht selbsterstellten Inhalten zusammengesetzt sind. Damit keine alleinige Urheberschaft und keine Lizenzzierung unter einer freien Lizenz ohne die Zustimmung aller Urheber. English: Commons:Collages. --Martin H. (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Ich kann nur nochmals versichern: Diese Fotos bzw. Montagen aus eigenen Fotos stammen ausschlieslich von mir und alle Urheberrechte liegen bei mir.--Eberhardklaus (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
"aus eigenen Fotos" --"from your own photos"[Google]. From whose photos? If the images are from Commons, they require listing the sources in all cases and giving the author credit in most cases. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I have now looked at them all and I think we have a communication failure here. These images include advertisements from several different companies and a variety of other graphic works. I do not think that they were all created by one person, and, even if they were, at least some of the copyrights would be owned by the companies whose products they present.
Do you understand that the problem here is not the photographs or scans, but the fact that the posters, advertisements, bookplate, and other materials you have scanned all have copyrights and that your images infringe on those? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Out of Scope, likely copyvios -FASTILY 23:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Marlon Brando - 1954.jpg[edit]

Fails to recognize U.S. copyright law:

This work is irrevocably in the public domain in the United States because it was first published in the United States without copyright notice prior to 1978.

Rationale for deletion, per DR: Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons.

See also pending discussion about this and many other deletions (ten others today) based on the same rationale. --Light show (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Arguably, it was not published without notice, because it was never published with the consent of the copyright holder at all. The very restrictive license statement on the front says that it was distributed under controlled circumstances which would not constitute "publication" as defined under the 1909 Act. The fact that someone later violated the license does not affect its copyright status. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Not being able to see the photo, and there may not be enough evidence to keep, but just want to note that the presence of some text that the publicity materials be returned or something like that usually were not enough to prevent publication -- by their nature, publicity materials are designed to be distributed so that as many members of the public as possible will see them, which by its nature is general publication. See that aspect of this ruling (search for "limited publication"), which spells that out. Judges would be hesitant to rule that general publication occurred if the material in question was intended to be an independent revenue stream, but if they were intended to maximize the revenue stream of the TV show / movie / etc., then that was their primary purpose and most often general publication would have occurred regardless of any such text on the material. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing per Jim; this is probably not ok for Commons. -FASTILY 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg [edit]

Moi, 'Coco Briaval, détiens l'intégralité des copyrights visuels de notre groupe et notre marque Coco Briaval'. Notre groupe est notoire et il a enregistré dans plus de 3 compagnies majors du disque et s'est produit sur scène au niveau international dont l'Olympia à Paris. Ne nous empêchez pas de créer une page encyclopédique avec l'intégralité de la discographie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coco Briaval (talk • contribs) 14:20, 1 December 2013‎ (UTC)

  • I assume you are talking about one or more of the files at Special:DeletedContributions/Coco_Briaval. I see that these are historical photographs of a musical group, almost certainly taken by many different photographers. If the group, in fact, owns the copyrights to all of these images and is willing to license them for any use, then Commons policy requires a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

What Jim said. This needs COM:OTRS permission -FASTILY 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Friends of Natasha 2013.jpg[edit]

An OTRS permission was received see Ticket:2013112810008654. Thanks Hanay (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The ticket is in Hebrew, and @Matanya is our only native Hebrew OTRS agent who is also an administrator. odder (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Done by Matanya -FASTILY 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:WTMY Logo SMALLER.jpg[edit]

I work at the station this logo represents. We designed it. There is no copyright violation. Please undelete. Thank you, Doug Miles


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Lysiana exocarpi pollen.jpg [edit]

Hi, I checked the permissions on this and believe all is in order to use it. I have provided the attribution and link to the Australasian Pollen and Spore Atlas. Thanks, Lynda


 Not done NC licensed content is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Logo 4ESO matematicas.png [edit]

Detailing appreciate the meaning of "possible copyright violation", what are they based?. Thanks

Amparo.marrero (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Logo 4ESO matematicas.png


COM:NETCOPYRIGHT, COM:PCP -FASTILY 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

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

RESeminarySeal.jpg [edit]

This seal is owned by the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Episcopal Church. This wikipedia commons account as noted by the e-mail associated with the account is owned by said Seminary. The Seminary has and hereby is granting us of the Seal under the Creative Contributions Attributions license 3.0 Any questions should be directed to the Seminary Dean directly and he will provide any further information or evidence you require. Dean@reseminary.edu

Reformed Episcopal Seminary (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Abdus salam.JPG[edit]

This is my own work, I used my snipping tool to get an image of Abdus Salam from a video and this picture is not on the internet and is made by me. NawabMalhi


Not OK: Copyright violation. Please read COM:L. Yann (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:W3C Semantic Web Logo.svg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Under COM:TOO in US. See en:File:Sw-horz-w3c.png. Beside it incorporates 2 PD logos:

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this is over the edge -- I'm not at all certain that the center part of the logo is PD as claimed. The source, which has good legal counsel, claims copyright and licenses it NC-ND. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't understand. That's a logo is in PD, it's just too simple. There are 2 images considered as PD plus simple text, so it's definitive in PD.

 Not done Pretty much per Jim. Definitely not simple enough to qualify as pd-shape. This is going to require COM:OTRS permission to be restored -FASTILY 23:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I can't agree with you. IMO, one vote isn't enough to judge this file. So please open a DR for it, let others have denounced. --Rezonansowy (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This was already deleted in a DR with 2 other delete votes and a nom. Fastily and I also don't think it's simple enough for PD. That makes a consensus of 6 for deletion. INeverCry 21:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Pilar del Castillo, diputada en el Parlamento Europeo.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file it's an own work and we can use it on wikimedia. Maybe it's possible we don't filled correctly the information. If you restore the file we'll review the author's information. Sorry about the confusion. Thanks in advance. Carrermontse 09:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  • This image has appeared previously on the web site of the European Parliament. Therefore Commons rules require a license from the copyright holder using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note that "we can use it on wikimedia" is not sufficient. Commons rules require that images be free for use by anyone, anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Raava destroyed.png [edit]

There is no reason for this file to be deleted, please let me re edit the file to this information. under The Legend of Korra copy right I am eligible to show screen shots with proper recognition.

Description: Korra from the tv series The Legend of Korra

Source From Nickelodeon Studios

Date 03:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Author "The Legend of Korra" and all characters are owned by Nickelodeon Studios.

Permission The display of TV screenshots for non-profit purposes has so far been allowed by Nickelodeon as long as proper credit is given.

Other versions None

--Jessjordan (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Commons and Wikipedia require that contributions be free for all uses, not just non-profit, see COM:L. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done per COM:L, non-commercial licenses are unacceptable on Commons. INeverCry 21:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Rector of the BHOS, Elmar Qasimov.jpg[edit]

I hereby affirm that Baku Higher Oil School (in Azerbaijani: Bakı Ali Neft Məktəbi) is the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of its rector image.

I agree to publish that work under the free licence “Creative Commons Attribution Share/Alike 3.0Unported and GNU Free Documentation.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Tatyana Zayseva

12/02/2013— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taty19555 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 2 December 2013‎ (UTC)

  • Because this image has appeared on a copyrighted web site, our rules require that you provide the license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Dramane Diarra and his girlfriend Barbara Sue.jpg [edit]

Mindless, boilerplate deletion request, followed by mindless, boilerplate deletion. Here’s a new opportunity to actually use your thinking abilities and seriously evaluate the value of this image. -- Tuválkin 17:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Using "Mindless boilerplate" does nothing except make people mad. The Nom actually wrote a paragraph -- I would have done less. With that said, I would agree with Tuvalkin except that it is completely unknown whether either of the subjects consented to having their intimate moment posted here. Without that, we cannot keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jim - consent in doubt - also, very low quality image 720 × 540. Nothing to get pissy over. INeverCry 21:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done as per INC and Jim. Yann (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Sofía y amigas.jpg [edit]

Mindless, boilerplate deletion request, followed by mindless, boilerplate deletion. Here’s a new opportunity to actually use your thinking abilities and seriously evaluate the value of this image. -- Tuválkin 17:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Out of scope - just a group of unknown girls mugging for a snapshot. INeverCry 21:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done as per INC and Fastily. Yann (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Antarctica Service Medal.gif [edit]

The image has been deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:AntarcticaServiceMedal.jpg because of missing information about the photographer and the license on the photograph, and other issues related to photography (lack of exif, and so), but it looked like a computer generated graphic and not a photography. Therefore, if the image had to be deleted, it would be under a different rationale.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done No valid reason given to restore the image, which is the purpose of this page. You can alternately discuss this with the deleting admin on their talk. The image looks like a photo of a medal to me. INeverCry 21:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Alopekis wirehaired.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file File:Alopekis_wirehaired.jpg was wrongly deleted.

I am the original author of this photograph. It was published in my magazine in Greece and subsequently used and reproduced by many authors, with my permission, in articles about the Alopekis breed. It is also included in the article of the Greek wiki that I authored el:Αρχείο:Alopekis wirehaired.jpg and carries a FREE licence.

The file was wrongly deleted. I am the author of both articles and of the photo. en:User:Fainomenon

I wish the photo re-instated. Thank you, Fainomenon (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done The image hasn't been deleted. Comments should go to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alopekis wirehaired.jpg. INeverCry 21:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Alopekis dogs working with sheep.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file was wrongly deleted. The photo is included in the article of the Greek wiki that I authored el:Αρχείο:Ποιμενικές Αλωπεκίδες 1960.jpg and carries a FREE licence. (see the licence in Greek wiki under the photo). The file was wrongly deleted. I am the author of both articles and legal user of the photo. I wish the photo re-instated. Thank you Fainomenon (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The image was deleted as a copyvio from here / here. Are you the photographer/author of the image? INeverCry 21:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Files in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh.svg[edit]

Closing admin did not acknowledge COM:COA, which appears to apply. Fry1989 eh? 22:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

COM:COA, this file and other related ones (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of the Prime Minister of Bangladesh.svg). --Nafsadh (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

By "acknowledge", I do not mean "agree with". I mean that JuTa did not acknowledge the existence of the policy and therefore did not state in their closing summary why they feel it doesn't apply in this case. For that reason, this DR was not properly conducted. The files should be undeleted per COM:COA. Fry1989 eh? 19:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I posted an undeletion request as per COM:COA in a different section. I noticed your post later, and some subsequent edits merged my post to this section. I do not know why the closing admin could not adhere to COM:COA. Those file had been there in Wikipedia and Wikimedia since forever. Suddenly, someone thought those were copyvio and an admin rushed to blithely delete them! This deletion has caused a sever consequence on a lot of Bangladesh related articles. Nonetheless, those files were works contributed to PD. Again, the emblem of "Bangladesh" is the property of the people of Bangladesh, not simply of the government and thus in PD. Other emblems are either in PD or exempted copyvio per COA. --Nafsadh (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC) (edited)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not agree that all versions of the emblems are PD, but our rule on CoA is clear that individual representations of a CoA that are drawn from a blazon have only a copyright belong to their creator and do not infringe on any other representation. The blazon is clearly set forth in the document BANGLADESH NATIONAL EMBLEM RULES, 1972 (Amended up to January, 2002) which is linked in the DR:
"The Emblem consists of Shapla Flower on water flanked on two sides by shoots of paddy and decorated by four stars and three jute leaves at the top."
Since we have licenses from the creators, I think we must undelete these. And yes, they can be PD if the creator wants that.
I think the idea of a CoA template is good -- not itself a license, but pointing out that the work was drawn from a blazon and therefore has only one copyright, that of the creator. Fry is the logical person to do that, but if he is can't or won't, I'll do it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I would love to, but I don't know how to create a license or template, I've never done either before. If I'm pointed in the right direction I could learn. Fry1989 eh? 18:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Done per above. -FASTILY 01:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Constantin I. Istrati - Parcul Carol-2013-cod LMI B-III-m-B-20007.JPG [edit]

Per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Romania and Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_36#Romania_-_extension_of_copyright, authors who died before 1946 are in the public domain. Oscar Späthe died in 1944.--Strainu (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


{{Not done}} FoP Romania applies 70 years after the author's death. This author died in 1944, which means the image can't be restored until 1 January 2015. There's nothing at the talkpage you reference invalidating the 70pma. INeverCry 21:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Switched to ✓ Done per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Romania (at bottom). Author died before 1946. INeverCry 20:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File: Pablo Torrijos Foso.jpg[edit]

Solicito que deshagan el borrado de la imagen, ya que es una foto cedida por el propio atleta a traves de su facebook. Gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medioropesa (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 December 2013‎ (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, there is no evidence that the subject of the image is the copyright holder. In general, the copyright will be owned by the photographer, not the subject. Second, there is no evidence on the Facebook page of a free license. Simply posting an image in public does not give the world a free license to use it. IN fact, the page has Facebook's usual copyright notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 01:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:EPLAX - Vero Catalogue.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: new Source, new Licensing, new Permission Tfitzp (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


Not a valid reason to un-delete what appears to be a copyvio. -FASTILY 01:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Beaumont-Hamel statue du soldat écossais 1.jpg[edit]

File:Beaumont-Hamel statue du soldat écossais 1.jpg is an entirely different monument from those images listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial. This work is by George Henry Paulin not Basil Gotto. If a DR is desired it should be given due and proper consideration.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done Actually, there already was a DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beaumont-Hamel statue du soldat écossais 1.jpg. Yann (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Haymarket Metro station, 5 March 2006 (1).jpg[edit]

I came later to the party above (it was already closed when I tried to participate) but, honestly, I don't believe this image has any replacement at all in Commons. It shows a part of the metro station not shown by the other files, and apparently the visual changed meanwhile, so a replacement will be very difficult to find. It's a bit blurred, but still quite useful IMO, and it was indeed in use when it was deleted. I've no opinion on the other deleted file, however. With excuses to Fastily, I request this case to be reassessed once more. --- Darwin Ahoy! 22:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I fear you're wasting your time. It doesn't seem to matter that there are now three people here who are all in agreement on all the core issues - namely that (for this image at least), it does show something educationally distinct, it shows detail not found in other images here, people could/would use it, and it cannot be replaced, and therefore it's obviously within COM:SCOPE. All that matters it seems to me, is that more people think the opposite, even though their views are in places completely contradictory and mutually exclusive, and hint at vastly different beliefs of what Commons is for and who uses it:
    • Elcobbola (talk · contribs) thinks it is "disingenuous" to claim that it shows anything not present in other files
    • Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs) claimed the image doesn't show anything not present in the others, and were too blurred to be of satisfactory use
    • Avenue (talk · contribs) admits that the image shows details the others don't, but they are not educationally distinct
    • Jameslwoodward (talk · contribs) thinks that the image is not usable because you can't make out the specific method of rail mounting due to the "significant motion blur"
    • P199 (talk · contribs) completely ignored the issue of educational distinctiveness, instead preferring to cast doubt on the idea that anyone is even interested in illustrating such things, and claim that even if there are, they "wouldn't/couldn't use these pictures [because they are] garbage"
    • Stefan4 (talk · contribs) thinks the images are too blurry and "hardly useful for any purpose."
  • And that's how you delete files from Commons, even if they are used. Make of that what you will. How that adds up to a consensus to delete, without defining 'consensus' as a vote, I will never know. It does of course help in this system that it seems perfectly acceptable to overlook just how many (but thankfully not all) of the delete side, are all too willing to simply stop talking if they fear that they are about to be shown to have misunderstood the issues at hand or mis-applied policy, or were just mistaken in general about anything. Ultra7 (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Personally I also find the image somewhat uninteresting, even if it wasn't blurred. But I could say the same about almost all soccer game files. :) I well understand the point that it shows something not shown by the other images of that metro station, and that being precisely the wall where everyone is looking at while waiting for the train, even from a non technical point of view it seems well worth of keeping here.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Obviously. Don't hold your breath though. Expecting it to be reviewed here again will be like waiting for a clarification from Rodhullandemu. It just doesn't happen. Not once the numbers are not on your side. You're interjection just makes it 6-3 instead of 6-2 (or 7 if you count Mattbuck, the nominator). You're already being actively ignored by Elcobbola, who has been posting in other sections on this page. Others have no doubt already read your post and decided that they're better off ignoring it, just like they did when I said the same things in the original pages. That's just the way it works here it seems. Ultra7 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Undelete, per Ultra7. -- Tuválkin 17:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I forgot to include Rodhullandemu on that list, so will do so now. Ultra7 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion, the closing admin assessed consensus correctly, as set out in the above request. Thanks for the reminder, I might not have been able to contribute but for your intervention. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Yay, the closing admin can count. Whoop-deedoo… -- Tuválkin 20:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Is that comment intended to be helpful or satirical? Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Both, of course. -- Tuválkin 20:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Now I wish I had posted the first version. I should have put it in an edit comment somewhere, because in it I had predicted that, if you posted here at all Rod, this would be all you would have to say for yourself. I almost got it word perfect. I also predicted that your prior stonewalling would continue - there is a growing list of people, on the keep and delete side, who have all rubbished the claim you made in the original DR about how the other images satisfied the same purpose. Consensus is a process where people make considered arguments and defend them when challenged. You do neither. You just ignore people if answering them would undermine your own position, then hope to win the vote count. That's why when you say things like "the closing admin assessed consensus correctly", you're doing it with zero credibility whatsoever. Ultra7 (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How can there be consensus if those points remain unanswered? I don't believe matters here can be resumed to a mere sum of votes, and that's not "consensus" either.--- Darwin Ahoy! 22:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now listen here, y'all. I am not here to be cross-examined. I understand the difference betwee a consensus and a vote. If my reasons for voting to delete or keep any image are insufficient, by all means let the closing admin disregard what I have to say. But I'm not prepared to be hounded. That's all I have to say, apart from urging others to apply a little good faith. End of. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
That's the problem here Rod - despite your protestations, your own words show very clearly that you really don't understand what consensus is. A bunch of people turning up, giving a view, then sitting back and ignoring everyone and everything else, expecting an admin to do all the research on everyone's comments to decide who is and isn't right or who has the better case, is not remotely what consensus building is. It's just a vote with words and a bit more work for the vote counter. In a genuine consensus building process - anyone who has the audacity to declare "I am not here to be cross-examined" is automatically discounted. Cross-examination is a part of consensus building, because consensus building is at its core, an exchange of ideas and arguments - only once that has occurred can an admin assess the quality and strength of arguments, and draw a conclusion. This is really basic stuff, so basic it's amazing to me that you could have got this far without understanding it. That's not to say disagreeing is not part of consensus building - after a few exchanges people can, and often do, agree to disagree. But that's the key here - your unwillingness to even acknowledge the flaws in your arguments that others have pointed out means the closing admin doesn't even know if that's the case here. At best, all they can conclude from your stonewalling, is that you're the sort of person who has no problem with stonewalling. I don't know about anyone else, but I find it impossible to apply any good faith to someone who would rather stonewall than be 'cross-examined'. Ultra7 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't know at what point this case turned into a kind of POV or political dispute, apparently it's something that precedes it. In any case, the fact is that those 2 images show an important part of a building or structure that is not shown (in a reasonable way) by any other file here in Commons. I know you understand that point, Rodhullandemu, as you even cited your own example of a similar situation. I really do not understand why there is so much interest in deleting it. I have no doubts myself that that structure is within the scope of Commons, even if it's not as interesting as that synthesizer.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can't see the images, so won't comment on their quality. But if these were legitimately in use in Wikipedia articles (i.e. not simply added by the uploader then taken down by other editors shortly thereafter), then that fact means they are educationally useful, regardless of any other opinions here. Commons should not be dictating what is and what is not acceptable for other projects; for files never used in projects it is reasonable to have a discussion, but for in-use images (or ones which were in use for a reasonable time) the question has been answered outside of Commons and the images should be kept. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The images weren't in use on Wikipedia - but they were in use on Haymarket Metro station (a Commons gallery) which I created. Although I didn't take the image, I did upload it to Commons in order to use it there. Make of that what you will - clearly some people seem to think I am the sort of idiot who wastes time uploading and using images that are of no use because they're "garbage" - I think my record shows that up for what it is. As for the actual deleted images, you can still see the best of the two on Flickr, here. Ultra7 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This is exactly the sort of image I'd call "boring but harmless." I see no downside to Commons keeping such an image, and some upside if we don't have a better one to replace it. I'd be inclined to restore it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
That would then be up to the community... but if some people think it could be useful in some situations, I'd probably err on the side of keeping it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Per Darwin, Jmabel, Carl, etc, since this is a scope issue, and several editors see value in it, I can't see the harm in keeping it. INeverCry 20:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Zdravljica.ogg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file was deleted before discussion was finished - see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zdravljica.ogg. The relevant message was written by a Copyright agency of Slovenia representative and is now in the OTRS system under ticket no. 7232200. It clearly states that the music of the anthem can be freely reused. Not melody - music, implying broad interpretation.

Furthermore, the last argument for deletion by User:Eleassar is obviously invalid because it invokes non-copyright restrictions, despite Eleassar being well aware of the fact that they are not considered grounds for deletion of works from Commons (as per COM:NCR). — Yerpo Eh? 08:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting: ticket:7232200: "Oops! An Error occurred. Error Message: No TicketID is given!" and search: "No ticket data found." Thank your so much for being an honest and constructive contributor. By the way, my comment was not an argument for deletion but the reason for the doubt about the claim that an e-mail has been received. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Ticket:2013112010019291 is the correct one, I made an error in copy-pasting. So if the "thank you" above was an attempt at sarcasm, it wasn't terribly on-the-mark. — Yerpo Eh? 20:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
You should rather check what you write. Two remarks in regard to the reply:
  • The e-mail has been sent to the Copyright Agency of Slovenia (a private company), not to the Intellectual Property Office of Slovenia (a government institution) as has been stated at the DR page. This was done only on 10 November, but Miha claimed that it had been sent already on 20 October.
  • The reply is very vague; per it, any version of the anthem is in the public domain (even the rock version by Lačni Franz), which is nonsense.
I've sent a request for clarification to the Intellectual Property Office and suggest that we wait until we get a reply from this institution. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

My arguments are already presented below (sorry for opening a duplicate request). To sum it up brifely: both text and melody are in public domain, as well as this particular file is extempt from audio recording rights and prformers rights. Please do not try to manipulate: I never stated that the answer is from IPI, they didn't respond (yet), so I contacted API (which is also clearly seen from the OTRS ticket). It's a proffesional opinion and their answer perfectly makes sense to me. Please also note that, the version by Lačni Franz is the entire Zdravljica and not the 7th stanza (which is the national anthemn). There are no significant doubts, that the file wouldn't be free, so I suggest that we undelete it (unless someone can provide a better recording from one of the official celebrations). --Miha (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you have stated that you asked the Intellectual Property Office for a reply, but have provided an answer by the Copyright Agency. You stated that you had sent an e-mail on 20 October, but it was sent only on 10 November. One can only speculate why: was the reply by the IPO unfavourable for your position and you had to ask someone else, who provided an opinion vague enough to allow you to argue that it tells us the file is in the public domain? Do you think the rock music of the 7th stanza by Lačni Franz is in the public domain? That's what one could infer from the reply by the CAS. I suggest that we wait a few more days to possibly get a reply from the Intellectual Property Office; perhaps it will be more clear. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Miha said that he didn't get response from the IPO, and you're accusing him of lying with your speculation that the response was unfavourable (not to mention that between the lines, you accused me of lying about the OTRS ticket). Are you sure this is what you want to say?
I agree that we can wait a few more days, but I also think that we can apply the API's message to this case if there's no response, as per Miha's reasoning. — Yerpo Eh? 10:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but he accused me of being manipulative. Otherwise, I agree that we can undelete if there's no response. It's unfortunate that this file was deleted before the discussion was finished. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please watch your mouth. Today I got another reply (to the email I have send on October 20th), by IPO, which goes a bit against the other opinion: "avtorska pravica na delu traja za čas avtorjevega življenja in še 70 let po smrti, ne glede na to kje je delo objavljeno. Medtem, ko je na samem besedilu avtorska pravica potekla, pa je potrebno upoštevati glasbene podlage, na katerih pa očitno še traja avtorska pravica". They didn't even took into account the act regulating national symbols and 9/1 tč. 2 ZASP, so I suggest we also try to contact the ministry in charge. According to their reply not even the version published in the official gazzete is free, which obviously is not true. --Miha (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Please watch your mouth too. Otherwise, thanks for being honest and having provided this reply. This makes it clear that the reply by the APA is vague indeed and that the file can't be restored without a third opinion that must be clear and on the point stating that the musical versions are free. Translation of the received response by the IPO for those who don't speak Slovene: "The copyright on the work lasts for the time of the author's life and 70 years after his death no matter where the work is published. Whereas the text itself is not copyrighted anymore, the musical bases must be considered too, which are evidently still copyrighted." --Eleassar (t/p) 09:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The correct translation of "očitno" in this context is apparently and not evidently. --Miha (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Under EU law, the copyright lasts for 70 years after the author's death no matter where the work is published, provided that the author was a citizen of an EU member state. The music appears to have been composed by w:Stanko Premrl, who appears to have been a citizen of Austria-Hungary. Most parts of what constituted Austria-Hungary at that time are part of the European Union, so it is likely that a citizen of Austria-Hungary would be considered as a citizen of an EU member state with regard to copyright law. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

See here: AAS is accredited agency to represent authors, so their opinion is important. Furthermore, "the copyright lasts for 70 years after the author's death no matter where the work is published" is an overgneralisation. The Slovene Copyright Act (article 9.2) states, that copyright protection shall not be afforded to official legislative, administrative and judicial texts. national anthem is an official legislative. --Miha (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In article 2, "written works" and "musical works" are listed as two separate kinds of works. Does article 9.2 perhaps only apply to "written works" but not to "musical works"? One could also perhaps question whether musical notation constitutes text. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I doubt so. Coat of arms are also not text, but are categorized eitgher as "informacije javnega značaja" (Information of public interest) or official legislative. And precisely, Eleassar's example with Lačni Franz shows, why the version from Preml can not be proetected, because if it was so, then Lačni Franz could have never published his version that is based on version by Premrl.--Miha (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It's possible that no-one took care at the time, which is not good enough for us. This version was performed in the 1980s, when Zdravljica was not the official anthem yet, so the melody was clearly protected by the copyright law. As to 'Informacije javnega značaja', as explained at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zdravljica.ogg, public information by third parties are not in the public domain. And per the above, the IPO does not consider the orchestral version 'official legislative'. Also, as clearly explained here, even in the case Premrl's (his surname is Premrl, not Preml!) Zdravljica would be in the public domain, the performed versions have been modified by later composers. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
There are no third parties: Orchestra of Slovene Army is a governmental organisation. IPO's reply is very vague. I ask them to provide with a more detailed one in a reasonable time - they did not provide an accurate answer at all, for they only incorrectly stated that it doesn't matter where texts are published (this goes against the article 9 of the law itself as shown above). On the other hand we have a reply by API (which in fact is the organisation that represents creators of intellectual property and deals with such disputes), that perfectly clearly states, that free reproduction of anthem is guaranteed by the Act regulating national symbols and Copyright law. As an off-topic, in the reply you've mentioned above it is also said, that you could contact the Protocol, which deals with this "problem" (which turns out not really to be a problem) on a daily basis, before opening the deletion request – he exposed that the entire debate is unnecessary and result of your need to show off and deficient knowledge in this area. --Miha (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Third parties are Premrl as well as the rest of the listed authors (Jani Golob, Vinko Štrucl). Only the a capella version has solely Premrl as the author of the music, but this file is not a recording of a capella singing. The API reply is very vague, whereas the IPO's is at least in my opinion not (however, you may argue about this, which defaults to deletion due to the unclear copyright situation). The IPO is responsible for the field of industrial property and copyright and performs complex analyses of the copyright law,[1] so it's an authoritative organisation just as much as the API. As to the rest, it is irrelevant to the copyright status; if you haven't spotted in the DR, I've contacted MORS but got no reply... --Eleassar (t/p) 00:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
We already discussed this and provided you with counter arguments. Sorry, but the only thing that makes this situation unclear is you driving us in circles. If you've read this reply you'd see that a capella version is almost never sung in the official events, the instrumental version is defacto our anthem and if they made it free to reproduce (released it under the free licence), then it is not us to argue that they've made a mistake. --Miha (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
No, you're driving us in circles. The copyright status of this file is non-free or in the best case unclear. Unless you provide some new argument, I think this discussion is over. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Well it's not unclear, but waaay to far-fetched. In general, there are various copyrights on each anthem (performers' rights, recording rights, copyright of text author, copyright of composer) and in this case the first three are definitely not applicable (both performance and recording are exempt from copyright as work of governmental organisation, and the text is PD-old), whereas the third one is made free with the act regulating national symbols, which was confirmed by external lawyer. What you are trying to say is that works are per se copyrighted by the law and that we should be careful about small nuances between different versions that are performed as national anthem. Just as well you could argue that we should delete all pictures of Mona Lisa, because we cannot be sure that it is not a picture of some modern replica, that might be copyrighted in some countries. Laws are not an axiomatic system and some things are left for interpretation. I think, that this file is compliant with the mission of having a collection of free artworks here on Commons. --Miha (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
That's correct, what I'm are trying to say is that works are per se copyrighted by the law and that we should be careful about small nuances between different versions that are performed as national anthem. However, it can't be compared to the example of Mona Lisa because unlike that case, here we know almost without any doubt (per [2]) that this is a derivative work. The derivative works have their own copyright. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that these are derivative works, but as long as they are used as anthem on official events, I think, that it is far fetched to argue that they are not free. I have nothing else to add. It's upon admin closing this request to decide, if we are happy with to accept something that de facto is free here, or evaluate every tiny article of Slovene jurisdiction and deal with all the underlying contradictions. --Miha (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you're correct. Given that translations of official texts (which are derivative works too) are free if published as official texts, officially used musical arrangements would also be free. This is in accordance with [3], pg. 28, which states that different official works are used in the same manner as official texts, and are therefore like them copyright exempted. I therefore do not object to the undeletion anymore. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Done per above -FASTILY 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Microsoft Office XP logo.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: IMO these files have been judged wrongly. They're under the COM:TOO in US. Optionally, if you disagree with me let's open a DR for it. Rezonansowy (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 Not done These were already deleted via deletion requests. 4 other users, including myself, disagreed with you and thought these were above TOO, and nobody else has come forward here to support restoration. INeverCry 20:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Podzemlje Pece (18).JPG [edit]

This is another case of stretching FOP way too far. --Sporti (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I would add File:Bled Toplice.JPG. :( Yann (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose on both. For the first one, the question is whether the two mannequins and the cart form a single work (model) or not. In my opinion, they do. For the second one, it is a depiction of architecture comparable to [4] that has been claimed by an experienced administrator at [5] as copyrightable. Now we have obtained the opinion of another experienced administrator confirming this. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


Procedural close as a stale discussion (no new comments for over a week) with no clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Hakusanjima, Tsuruoka -March 2011 a.jpg[edit]

Graag terugplaatsen. Het bestand werd vrijgegeven onder de licentie cc-by-2.1-jp (afgekort als "表示") op livedoor pics. Zie ook dit bestand van dezelfde fotograaf. --トトト (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Het kan niet met OTRS worden behandeld, want ik ben slechts de uploader naar commons. Aangezien de licenties op livedoor pics zijn moeilijk te begrijpen voor buitenlanders, ik wil een Japanse recensent de zaak te herzien. --トトト (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done the original file is under CC-BY, which is verifible at the archived source page written in Japanese: [6] [7]. --whym (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Serama_Hen2.jpg [edit]

Undelete Serama_Hen2.jpg

I owned the bird in the picture. I took the picture. I uploaded the picture. I release rights for the picture to the public domain. No copyright infringement exists. It is also on other public sites with my permission.

--NCOCEO (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a recreation of File:Seramahen.jpg, which was deleted because it appears on copyrighted web sites and is low quality. Recreating images outside of process is a violation of Commons rules. Please don't do it again. Because this image has appeared on the Web, Commons rules require that the actual copyright holder provide a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. However, it is so small that it is not clear that it is useful in any case. If, after providing the OTRS license, you would upload it again at full size, that would be better. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done per Jim. OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. 21:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)INeverCry

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

Lysiana exocarpi pollen.jpg [edit]

The Australasian Pollen and Spore Atlas website cites terms at their page http://apsa.anu.edu.au/terms which link to this You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:

Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.137.149 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 4 December 2013‎ (UTC)

Unfortunately, the non-commercial requirement is considered too restrictive for publishing here. See Commons:Copyright#Acceptable_licenses. — Yerpo Eh? 14:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done NC licenses are unacceptable on Commons. INeverCry 21:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Daniel Scioli Infancia.jpg[edit]

Solicito la restauración de dicha foto, que sirve de aporte a mi biografía personal DANIEL OSVALDO SCIOLI. Muchas gracias

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems highly unlikely that this is "own work" as you claim. The copyright belongs to the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Spanish poster in Farwell.JPG appealing a deletion[edit]

As I was keying in a reply to a message about speedy deletion, the photo file was deleted. Not a lot of discussion in that process. The image was not a movie poster as stated by the editor who flagged it for speedy deletion. It was for a concert. And no copyright indicated. The bands on the poster will suffer no financial loss by the posting of this image on Wikimedia nor its use in a Wikipedia article. If anything, the publicity may help them. The poster is a wonderful way to show that Spanish speakers are not a significant part of the population of Farwell, Texas -- that is why I took the photo and inserted it into the article on Farwell.

No harm to anybody, benefit to Wikipedia. It seems to me it should be undeleted. Pete unseth (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done This is a copyrighted poster (copyright is automatic, the copyright holder doesn't have to state copyright directly). OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before it can be restored. INeverCry 21:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Escudo Municipal de Concón.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Soy miembro del equipo de comunicaciones de la Ilustre Municipalidad de Concón, y el archivo que estoy subiendo es el escudo oficial de la comuna. Los derechos de autor pertenecen a este municipio, por tanto no estoy violándolos al cargar este archivo. Vanesa.fez (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Colemono.png [edit]

Esta imagen y la marca de este logo fue creada por mi y es 100% libre para cualquier tipo de uso. Curax (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:incwala.jpg [edit]

I would like to request undeletion for the file incwala.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludvonga (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 December 2013‎ (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose From the source site:
"Copyright statement
The material - including text, sound, and video - featured on this site is the copyright of The Swaziland Tourism Authority (c/o Geo Group) unless otherwise indicated. It may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium, provided it is used for non-commercial, informational purposes only. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context."

That is an NC and ND license, which is not permitted on Commons, see COM:Licensing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done NC/ND licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 23:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Rochester Community High School Zebra.jpg [edit]

Follows Wikipedia's Fair Use Policy/Rules:

"This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc. This is an official logo of an entity that is the subject of a Wikipedia article. It will be included as that entity's primary means of visual identification, at the top of the article in question."

Image was previously uploaded and was not removed. Made a minor image edit (crop).

Image is a public high school's mascot/logo from the school's website.

"The file will serve an important function in a particular article; (NFCC8)" **Serves as the article's primary visual identifier.

"It cannot be replaced by any other, free illustration that might yet be created; (NFCC1)" **It is the only official mascot/logo of the high school.

"Its use does not negatively affect the commercial interests of its owner (NFCC2)" **It positively promotes the school.

"There will not be more non-free material used than necessary. (NFCC3)" **It is a small sized file and the only photo for the article.

--Paradox0232 (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done Fair use is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 08:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Barolo - bottle.jpg [edit]

This image is my own work, a bottle of wine. I do not understand why that file was deleted, since I have allowed all licenses. User Eleassar marked for deletion due to "Non-free image on a bottle". Where did he get that? There are thousands of them in the commons Otherwise, I didn´t found any debate page or anything else. Thanks, Renzo Grosso Parla ! Fatto ! 11:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons. Also, please bear in mind that files for deletion are judged based on their own merit, and not in comparison to other files -FASTILY 01:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hum-Top-Direction-Plate-01.jpg[edit]

I was the closing Admin on this deletion -- I have changed my mind. This simply shows a range of facts -- the azimuths to various nearby points -- using a form that is in use all over the world. There's nothing with a copyright here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


Restored: as above. Yann (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Nestor con DOS y Balestrini.jpg[edit]

La fotografía es de mi autoría. Motivo por el cual no estoy violando derechos de autor. Solicito por favor la restauración. Muchas gracias.


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:WTMY Logo SMALLER.jpg[edit]

WTMY Radio logo]] Please undelete. I work at the radio station described here. We designed this logo. Thank you, --Bobdouglas (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done Please send an email to OTRS confirming that the copyright holder of this logo wishes to release it under a free license. If everything checks out, an OTRS member will restore the file for you. INeverCry 21:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:736052_10151152475090356_835797344_o.jpg[edit]

--Fashomecca (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)John DeFazio, the owner of the image has given me written conscent to use his images on the article. The image was deleted because the same image was also found on his facebook page which belongs to him as well. --Fashomecca (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)fashomecca december 5, 2013


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 07:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:صلاح الحمود.jpg [edit]

I have the right to publish this picture, there is no any wrong, i know what i do. So, please undelete this picture.

This was deleted as a copyvio from http://www.alyaum.com/News/art/101221.html. INeverCry 20:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 01:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

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

[[:reponer todos los archivos subidos hoy en esta cuentae por este usuario

Buenas tardes, favor subir (deshacer el borrado de todos los archivos subidos hoy por este usuario) att: luciano de los santos m.


 Not done Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 01:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

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

IMG_2455-Medio.jpg[edit]

File:IMG_2455-Medio.jpg

borre sin querer


 Not done Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 01:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:P1-120613.jpg [edit]

It's a daily paper and I'm the online editor. Ken Johnson, kjohnson@ledger.com


 Not done Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:CasaMariaMariá-05.JPG[edit]

Please, Undelete above: 1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8  9 10 11 12 13 14  15 16   17 18


{{OTRS|2013120210020669}}. Thanks.Willy Weazley 00:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 02:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Ancient Mechanical Artillery. Pic 03.jpg[edit]

Per Avron at the deletion request. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a model. Models have copyright, see User:Elcobbola/Models. This model would certainly have a copyright in the United States and the assertion that it does not have one in Germany is unconvincing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
So you suggest that all the modern ship models should be deleted, too? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
In general, yes. Of course that applies only to those that are still under copyright and there are a number of countries where FOP exceptions will apply..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I have a question/comment here (I don't want that we delete images unnecessarily): this court case in conjunction with [8] (pg. 847) and [9] (pg. 42) clearly shows that models are not copyrighted, unless there is some substantial original addition to them. See also [10]. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think your cites are on point. The bank case is a case of a copy of a PD model, it was held that that the copy did not have a copyright of its own. The Toyota case is not a physical model, but a computer generated wire mesh. The William and Mary Law review quotes Alva, which upheld the concept that a smaller model of a Rodin sculpture had its own copyright. Interestingly, these are all US cases, where the law explicitly mentions "models". Read through User:Elcobbola/Models -- it's pretty clear. And see 17USC101:
"“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans." [emphasis added]
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
What's interesting to me is the following quote: "Alva Studios not only had reduced the size of the Rodin bronze, but it also had brought about another variation: The originality and distinction between the plaintiff's work and the original also lies in the treatment of the rear side of the base. The rear side of the original base is open; that of the plaintiff's work is closed. We find that this difference when coupled with the skilled scaled sculpture is itself creative." It seems therefore that there must be some originality on the model, if it is only a simple scaled copy of a pd work (this may not be with this image, but is probably true with most of models), the model is in the public domain too. --Eleassar (t/p) 21:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I understand this to have been taken in Mainz, Germany. Would {{FoP-Germany}} not apply? Эlcobbola talk 21:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
It's indoors, or, at the very least, under a roof structure that is visible in the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
It is on display indoors, in the de:Museum für Antike Schifffahrt. I think we need more input from uninvolved users, making a decision based on the views of the same editors who participated in the deletion request including me as uploader is kind of pointless. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Procedural close. No consensus to restore, and no new comments for 1 week. INeverCry 19:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Rory Uphold 3.jpg, File:Rory Uphold Tour.jpg.[edit]

I have an OTRS photosubmisson from Rory Uphold covering several images. I successfully uploaded four, but these two failed, because they had been previously uploaded and deleted. Can they be undeleted, and I will place the OTRS permission tag OTRS ticket 2013111510015803 on the images? --Sphilbrick (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


✓ Done INeverCry 19:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Ajuste de cuentas - la poesía colombiana del siglo XX.gif[edit]

(No reason given for request)

This file has not yet been deleted. It can be fixed by compliance with the deletion notice. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done File hasn't been deleted. INeverCry 19:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Nepal10rupees2008Reverse.jpg[edit]

All scans or pictures of Nepalese banknotes should be reinstated. There is no difference between the status of Nepalese and for example Thai or New Zealand banknotes which are represented as scans in Wikimedia commons.Schlechtmensch (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The rules on bank notes vary widely from country to country. Quoting other country's rules has no relevance to what the rules might be in Nepal. Since we do not have a section on Nepal, you are welcome to do the necessary research and cite any applicable provisions of the Nepalese law, but without that, these cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. INeverCry 19:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Eminem headlights.jpg [edit]

this picture is under the laws of the wiki commons. --Faizannehal (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)22:11, 7 December 2013

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a copyrighted cover and as such is non-free and cannot be hosted on Commons. It might well be OK on a Wiki that allows Fair-Use of images. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Copyrighted album cover. INeverCry 19:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:"Nagarikathegala Sangharsha" by S. R. Ramaswamy.jpg[edit]

File in question was scanned by me directly from the book. It is not stolen from some place on the internet. Neither is it a copyright violation as no part of the book has been reproduced. If anything, the book cover serves to act as a representative of the author's many works. The book is a critical analysis of Samuel. P. Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations and a New World Order" in Kannada Language. I would like to clarify few things and have few things clarified. 1.Is the reviewer who deleted the file well versed in the Kannada language.? 2.Does the book cover show up "anywhere else" on the internet to support the "Copyright violation" theory..? 3.When the author of the article uploads an image under a license tailor made specifically as his own work for the purpose of ample and unrestricted reuse, where then is the joy in deleting it..? 4.The comment says that "it may be a violation". Now, if a public work on a free encyclopedia is suspected of "maybe being in violation" then indeed we in the civilized world have thrown to the wind all requirements of first sufficing "hard proof" to assert that it is indeed a "copyright violation". 5.Kindly in the name of humanity, show the proof for copyright violation. 6.I re-iterate as civilly as possible, that such unilateral action bordering on audacity is highly unbecoming of Wikipedia and her beloved principles. 7.It is not a violation. Period. 8.In the interest of wider reading public and aficionados of Wikipedia in India, Please reinstate a perfectly legal image devoid of any and all copyright violations. --Rkkrupa (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello,
The copyright of a book cover usually belongs to the publisher. If you get a permission, then you can upload it here. Otherwise, you can upload it under a fair use rationale on Wikipedia. Best wishes from Ahmedabad. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: No permission. Yann (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial[edit]

This item is a collective work (at least Rudolph Cochius and Basil Gotto in terms of design and an unknown number of workman) that was commissioned by the Dominion of Newfoundland. Requesting that a demonstration that the supposed individuals gave up their copyright is an erroneous conclusion given the work is a work of the Crown and Crown copyright thus applies. There is equally no demonstration that the Crown gave up it's right to the copyright, which is something it normally retained in that time period. This is demonstrated by images of the sculpture was still under Crown copyright, such as:[11].--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I deleted these on the grounds that no evidence was offered that there was, in fact, a Crown Copyright. As a general rule, creators retain copyright to their works made for governments unless they were actually employees of the government (as opposed to contractors or vendors). Since the burden of proof here is on those who would restore the images, they must provide proof beyond a significant doubt that the creators of this work actually transferred their copyrights to the government. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I don’t know of any general rule wherein copyright was held by artist commissioned by the Crown to complete national memorials. If that were the case, every Commonwealth memorial in France (cemeteries included) would fall to question.
A couple of counter points:
  • Although in France, the subject item is on Canadian crown land and the monument commissioned by the Crown.
  • The subject is a collective work with overall supervision by Thomas Nangle, as representative of the Dominion of Newfoundland, wherein we know Basil Gotto sculpted and R.H.K. Cochius was responsible for landscape and design, and an unknown party responsible for the memorial panels (Commonwealth War Graves Commission?) at the monuments base; all elements being integral to the monument.
  • The Government of Canada had classified images it took of the monument as being subject to Crown copyright.
  • The National Library of Scotland equally views the images of the subject as being subject to Crown copyright as was shown in the copyright tag that existed on File:Beaumont-Hamel - Official Opening (7 June 1925).jpg.
  • The Imperial War Museum equally viewed images of the subject (at a different location but still in France) as under Crown copyright [12].--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
To your first point, the ownership of the land is not relevant. French law applies with respect to all of the copyright issues. That would be true even if this were an embassy, which it is not. There is no extra-territoriality in copyright.
To your second point, that simply makes the issue here harder -- if the contributions of all of those persons you list were integral to the monument, then the copyright will last until 70 years after the death of the last of them, and it will up to you to show that all of them explicitly transferred their copyright to the Crown following the procedure required by French law.
To your last three points, the copyright status of images of the monument is not the issue. The question here is the status of the monument itself. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The ownership of the land and the commissioner of the work is indicative of the most likely copyright status. Same goes for the work being a collective work that was commissioned by a government. Further, postcards of the monument are sold at the memorial site and I think it would be more likely to conclude that the subject is Crown copyright than the Canadian government is violating French copyright law. Although less significant, there is also no indication that this memorial has any copyright registration in France.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


No, sorry. Again, there is no extra-territoriality in copyright. We had a case of an embassy in, if I remember correctly, Iceland. After discussion, Jacklee came up with a cite that made it completely clear that local law applies to all copyright issues. I can probably find it if you insist, but it will take a while. There is no reason to believe that a work first published in France should have any copyright law apply other than the French.

In other words -- if the work were in Newfoundland, then clearly Newfoundland law (then) or Canadian law (now) would apply, because in its home country, the government has a special status which is recognized in its laws. But when the government of Newfoundland commissioned a work in France, it had no special status there and was subject to French law.

The issue is, by the way, clearly set forth in the third sentence of French copyright law -- the French put great importance on the creator's rights:

"L'existence ou la conclusion d'un contrat de louage d'ouvrage ou de service par l'auteur d'une oeuvre de l'esprit n'emporte pas dérogation à la jouissance du droit reconnu par le premier alinéa, sous réserve des exceptions prévues par le présent code."
"The existence or conclusion of a contract for hire or of service by the author of a work of the mind shall in no way derogate from the enjoyment of the right afforded by the first paragraph above."

That is a clear statement that the "work for hire" assumption in UK, Canadian, and (probably) Newfoundland law does not apply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Finding the cites didn't take as long as I though it would. Both quote the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The second has comment from both Carl Lindberg and JackLee agreeing, after some discussion, that only local law applied. It is notable that the second case is also a war memorial in France and that the sculptor was American, so it is very much parallel to this. See:

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

  • [edit conflict] Symbol support vote.svg Support Jim's points are reasonable and well taken, but I would suggest the following:
  1. For reasons set out in detail (along with statutory references) on Jim's talk page, copyright under British/Newfoundland/Canadian law in the memorial vests in the Crown, not in any particular individual. The relevance of this will become apparent below.
  2. In terms of French copyright law, Jim rightfully cites Article L111-1 of the Code de la propriété intellectuelle which states that a contract for hire or service does not derogate from the rights of the author. The issue here, however, might not involve a contract for hire or service. To the extent that elements of the overall memorial were created outside of France (which may be the case, since a number of identical caribou were created, one of which is in St. John's, Newfoundland, the other in Belgium), Crown copyright did not arise by any contract, but rather automatically by statute. Although Art. L111-1 also refers protects the rights of the author where "l'auteur de l'oeuvre de l'esprit est un agent de l'Etat" (unclear here if the capitalized "Etat" is only a reference to France or to any state), the reference to a state agent was added in 2006 and did not exist at the time in question (the previous provision). It is unclear to what extent Art. L111-1 applies.
  3. In any event, even if Art. L111-1 was applicable, there is an exception for collective works (Art. L113-5), which is the case here given that several authors made inseparable contributions to the memorial (notably Nangle, Gotto and Cochius), with the Dominion government having initiated and directed the process and taking responsibility for the overall project (I refer to the discussion on this point in the deletion discussion concerning the Vimy Ridge memorial). The fact that the work was owned by the Crown, and that copyright to the work in the Commonwealth vested in the Crown, is further evidence that this constitutes a collective work. For collective works, Art. 123-3 states that copyright expires 70 years after publication. In most countries, exhibition of a 3D work is not necessarily publication, but publication of the work is usually considered to occur upon the publication of reproductions of the work in 2D form (photos, etc.) For a work of this nature, exhibition and reproduction would undoubtedly have occurred in the same year (1925). The 70 year period expired 15+ years ago.

For these reasons, copyright has expired and the images should be restored. On a related note, the point I made about File:Beaumont-Hamel - Official Opening (7 June 1925).jpg in the initial deletion discussion has still not been addressed. The sculpture is almost entirely draped in the Union Jack, and any visible elements (the caribou antlers) are DM in the overall composition of the photo. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I see we had an edit conflict -- I suggest you read my cites above, as the American cemetery is on point and has two of our best legal scholars agreeing that French law applies.
To take the easy point first, I agree that the caribou antlers are probably de minimis -- let's undelete that one.
The work is in France. I don't actually know the French law on publication -- there is no definition in the code, but it's moot. I agree that if this is a collective work, then the rule is 70 years from publication, and that is long past. However, I'm not sure that it is a collective work. Basil Gotto is credited at WP:EN as the designer of the sculpture. Rudolph Cochius is credited for the landscape. Tom Nangle managed the project. Landscape is not subject to copyright in France (or in most countries -- Slovenia is the only exception I'm aware of). Project management does not make Nangle a copyright holder. I think the only copyright we're dealing with here is that of the sculptures, and that belonged to Gotto, and, according to me will belong to his heirs until 1954+70 = January 1, 2025. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Collective works are usually dictionaries and similar works where the authors are listed but each individual contribution is not attributed (articles are not signed). Contrary to that, in a journal where every article is signed, each author gets the copyright of his articles. If the authors of each component can be attributed, I don't think it is a collaborative work. Yann (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Erecting a memorial does not constitute publication (see for example Article 3 (3) of the Berne Convention). The memorial is therefore unpublished. According to Article 5 (4) (c) (ii), the source country is France, as this is where the memorial currently is located. It also seems that the source country changes if you move the memorial to a different country.
The memorial is located in France. The copyright term in France is life+70 years, and that term hasn't expired yet. France has no freedom of panorama for things like this, so the photographs are unfree in France. See for example this court ruling: Article 5 (2) of the Berne Convention forbids you to use foreign law to determine the copyright holder, and this presumably also means that Article 5 (2) also prevents you from using foreign exceptions from copyright (such as FOP) for foreign photographs.
The copyright term for a Canadian Crown Copyright is 50 years since publication. This term hasn't expired as the memorial hasn't been published yet. Publish the memorial and wait for another 50 years for the term to expire. The photographs are nevertheless free in Canada as Canada has freedom of panorama for things like this.
If this isn't Crown Copyright, then the 50 years p.m.a. term has expired in Canada, but France has a 70 years p.m.a. term which is longer.
I assume that Commons would require these photographs to be free in both France (the source country of the memorial) and Canada (the source country of the photographs). Unfortunately, the files are only free in Canada, but not in France. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing as  Not done per above. It looks like these are still protected by copyright, and therefore unacceptable for Commons -FASTILY 23:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Pilgerstempel Abtei Maria Laach.gif [edit]

Bei der Datei handelt es sich um einen Stempelabdruck eines Pilgerstempels, der in der Abtei Maria Laach für jedermann erhältlich ist. Dieser Stempel wurde von mir gestempelt und eingescannt. Leider habe ich beim Hochladen mehrerer Dateien übersehen, dass ich für den Stempelabdruck nicht mich als Urheber auswählen darf. Mit heutigem Datum wurde vom Urheber des Stempels, der St. Matthias-Bruderschaft Mayen, vertreten durch den Brudermeister, eine entsprechende Zustimmung an die entsprechende Adresse (permissions-commons-de@wikipedia.org) verschickt. Daher bitte ich um Wiederherstellung der Datei. Ggf. bitte ich um Unterstützung, wie die korrekten Daten zur Lizenz eingefügt werden.

The file is a stamp for pilgrims of Saint James, which is available in the Abbey Maria Laach (Germany) for everyone. This stamp was stamped and scanned by me. Unfortunately I missed when uploading multiple files, that I may not choose me as the author of the stamp. As of today, was the originator of the stamp, the St. Matthias Brotherhood Mayen, represented by the chief, sent a corresponding agreement to the appropriate address (permissions-commons-de@wikipedia.org). Therefore, I ask you to restore the file. If necessary. I ask for support, as the correct data is inserted to the license. Woscho (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent. Thanks for your patience, FASTILY 23:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Sean Li Best New Actor.jpg[edit]

Sean Li accepts award for Best New Actor at the Chinese Film Media Awards

I request the following image be undeleted as this picture is fair use.

It is from a public media source and does not violate any copyright laws.

Please advise,

Carmen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chu.km.carmen (talk • contribs)

Fair use is not accepted on Commons. If Wikipedia in your language accepts fair use, you can copy this file there under a fair use rationale there. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: No fair use on Commons. Yann (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Judge Maxine Chesney official portrait for United States District Court by Scott Johnston.jpg [edit]

Hi, I own the copyright to all images I have uploaded including Maxine Chesney Official portrait which you deleted. I painted it and I photographed it at the request of Maxine Chesney herself. Please undelete it.

Thank you, Scott

Hi, I own the copyright to all images I have uploaded including Maxine Chesney Official portrait which you deleted. I painted it and I photographed it at the request of Maxine Chesney herself. Please undelete it.

Thank you, Scott Scott Wallace Johnston (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


Undeleted: This file was speedy deleted, and there is sufficient doubt that it is not a copyright violation. Created a proper DR instead. @Scott Wallace Johnston: Please add your comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Judge Maxine Chesney official portrait for United States District Court by Scott Johnston.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Ultrajes - Harold Alvarado Tenorio.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: no borrar esta imagen Mauriciomv (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 23:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Piggyback by Trainload2.jpg[edit]

The file File:Piggyback by Trainload2.jpg is all my own work.

It seems to have been deleted in Nov 2013, but I was not advised about this until 9 Dec 2013.

It may not have been tagged correctly as a "self" drawn.

Please restore. Tabletop (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


You were notified here @ 20:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC). The file is missing a license tag. You may re-upload the file, but please include a license tag -FASTILY 06:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Benfica Moçambique.jpg[edit]

File deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Benfica Moçambique.jpg for being "Derivative work of a logo.". The logo in question was designed in 1930 and, as far as I could know, published first in Portugal in that date and until 1999 without stating an author, therefore public domain since 2000. Please restore.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


Restored as per Stefan4. Should we delete the old versions? Yann (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we should delete them. I've left a message about this at your talk page, but you've removed it without a good reason.[13] I don't know how you plan to be an administrator without communicating with the community. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Your good faith potential has gone away now. Don't come giving me lessons on communication when you can't even listen to simple advice by so many people. Yann (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
No, your good faith potential has gone away. You even change other editors' comments.[14] --Eleassar (t/p) 09:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
EC. Yann (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Image was restored. I've deleted the old revisions. INeverCry 23:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Hakob Oshagan, 1948, Haleb, Shahinian Studio, Photo credit.jpg[edit]

You deleted file of original photo of Hagop Oshagan. Owner of this photo is an uploader and user Talinedv - Taline Voskeritchian, the grandson of Hagop Oshagan.

The photo on page Hagop Oshagan in Aleppo, 1948. Avedis Shahinian, Photo Derounian is not an uploaded original photo File:Hakob Oshagan, 1948, Haleb, Shahinian Studio, Photo credit.jpg. Compared the size and quality of uploaded file.

Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Owning a copy of the photo and owning the copyright are two very different things. This is a formal portrait and the photographer who took it, or his heirs, almost certainly own the copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Copyrighted image, per Jim. INeverCry 23:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Colajbraila.jpg [edit]

This photo was made after hard work and is almost the same like town Bucharest, i don't see the point why one picture is deleted and another isn't! I request undelete the photo! --Cosmip2004

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Colajbraila.jpg. Taivo (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Our comments are sometimes a little cryptic. There are two problems with the image. The first is that for a collage to be kept on Commons, the source and license for each image in it must be listed. The second is that several of the images in it are of modern buildings and therefore infringe on the copyright of the architect. There are a few images in the gallery Bucharest that may have the same problem, but that does not allow keeping this one. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Copyvio images of modern buildings per Jim. INeverCry 17:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:وفاء احمد التلاوي.jpg [edit]

is all my own work

Because it appears on a copyrighted web page, Commons rules require that the copyright holder send a license, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 17:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Wiseman_infobox.jpg [edit]

E-Mail containing the permission was sent on the 9th of December 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deligabi (talk • contribs) 07:02, December 9, 2013‎ (UTC)


 Not done As soon as an OTRS member processes the permission, and if it checks out, the files will be restored. This could take a week or more. You can ask about progress at COM:OTRS/N. INeverCry 17:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Texas Forts Trail logo.png[edit]

I have permission from the owner of this logo to use it on Wikipedia. Perhaps I didn't outline this correctly. Would you mind showing me how?

Flofor15 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed. Also, per Commons licensing policy, the image can't just be "for use on Wikipedia". It would have to be released for commercial and derivative use under a free license. INeverCry 23:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Flag of mali empire.png[edit]

I need somebody other than Fastily to decide whether this deletion makes sense considering the remarks posted by User:Monsieur_Fou to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of mali empire.png... Sometimes it's better to proceed carefulily, or paying attentionily, not just fastily. AnonMoos (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No sources were given, that such flag has ever existed. Monsier Fou said only: "yellow on red background". There is no source, that the flag was rectangular shape, there is no source, that there was smaller yellow rectangle in center of bigger red rectangle. Taivo (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done per Taivo, out of scope. INeverCry 20:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:HERE.gif[edit]

how can a person not be allowed to post a picture of an album they have themselves created? that's me on the album cover. i don't understand why this is a copyright issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georger bavum (talk • contribs) 09:31, 10 December 2013‎ (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are two issues here. The first is that if you are in the picture, you are not the photographer (this is not a self portrait). The photographer is almost certainly the copyright holder, so we would require his or her license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. The second is you and the group do not appear to be notable, so that the image is out of scope. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Likely copyvio, and may also be out of scope. INeverCry 20:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:AlinaArtts.jpg[edit]

Добрый день. Файл, AlinaArtts,jpg, загруженный мною, был удален в связи с нарушением авторского права. Я являюсь представителем артистки, изображенной на этом фото. Какие необходимо предоставить документы, чтобы размещение этого изображения на Wikipedia.com было возможным? Спасибо. — Preceding unsigned comment added by For got (talk • contribs) 09:37, 10 December 2013‎ (UTC)

We require a license from the photographer or other copyright holder using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. When that has been received and processed (which may take several weeks -- there is a backlog), the image will be restored. Be sure that the e-mail gives the correct file name. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Mudah Logo.png [edit]

As a representative of Mudah.my, I have right to use this logo for the Wikipedia article that is currently undergoing review

(Mudahmalaysia (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC))

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Since the logo belongs to a company, Commons policy requires that an appropriate officer of the company send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Also note that the "right to use this logo for the Wikipedia article" is not sufficient. Commons and Wikipedia require that images be free for all use by anyone for any purpose, including commercial use..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder providing a sufficient free license is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Transiciones (Una nueva persona) (3352703668).jpg[edit]

This image was deleted on the basis of being out of scope with the closure statement "I consider this photo out of scope, I do not see any possible way to use it. I think, that it is impossible to illustrate homo-eroticism with that photo, because the photo is not erotic at all. I did not look, but I am quite sure, that Commons has better photos about hairy chests. The photo was unused." The only !vote in the DR was to Symbol keep vote.svg Keep with the opinion "There is no copyright issue. The image is in-scope as a high quality shot that could illustrate homo-eroticism, hairy chests etc. without nudity." The original image size is 2448 x 3264 px.

Breaking down the closure statement:

  • "I do not see any possible way to use it" - the only statement in the DR explained a possible re-use scenario to illustrate homoeroticism.
  • "impossible to illustrate homo-eroticism... the photo is not erotic at all" - a bizarre rationale that puts an admin's personal interpretation of the erotic over opinions expressed in the DR. As well as use to illustrate the homoerotic, this artistic photo is titled and in discussion is intended to illustrate a 'transition' with the figure giving the appearance of a sensual pupa undergoing metamorphosis.
  • "The photo was unused" - re-use on Wikimedia projects is not a rationale to delete.

The photographer (NeoGaboX) specializes in high quality portraits of both men and women which are sensuous (often making eye contact with the viewer) and colourful with a high level of traffic and discussion on Flickr. This photograph has 20 different independent contributors on Flickr praising its quality and impact. In this context the value to the public as an image to be reused for illustration is obvious.

The photograph is in-scope and no significant rationale for deletion was given, in fact the original nomination was a The Photographer generated thoughtless and pointy "boiler-plate" DR raised in a batch of several hundred the same week. -- (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


✓ Done Possibly in scope per Fæ. With no objections to this request, perhaps it's better to err on the side of inclusion. INeverCry 22:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Emblem of Papua New Guinea.svg (also named File:Coat of arms of Papua New Guinea.svg)[edit]

According to Commons Delinker the file was "deleted by Taivo because: Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect: content was: speedy|Leftover from a file move. #REDIRECT."

I fail to see how that was a valid reasoning to delete this image that was in very very very heavy use. I think Taivo meant to just delete the redirect but now the whole file is gone! Fry1989 eh? 19:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was deleted by Jim. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of Papua New Guinea.svg. Yann (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Then I am disputing that DR because it provides no links or evidence that this image was a derivate from the copyrighted version. Fry1989 eh? 20:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Other than being a virtually indistinguishable from the original, as per COM:EVID you need to show that it is not a COM:DW. LGA talkedits 08:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Considering I can no longer see the file, how am I supposed to compare it to the copyrighted original??? Had you linked that in your nomination and had I seen the DR before it was closed, I would have been able to properly asses that, but now I can't. Fry1989 eh? 20:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The Papua New Guinea emblem was created by copying a long-deleted png which listed a copyrighted representation as its source.

The source is still there and has an explicit copyright notice.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. INeverCry 21:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Universidade Eduardo Mondlane.jpg[edit]

File deleted due to no FOP in Mozambique. I would like to know if there would be any problem in uploading a cropped version of it, with the copyrighted drawing removed, since the university building behind is not the main subject of the photo, and therefore allowed in FOP-Mozambique.--- Darwin Ahoy! 08:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the file in question. Instead of cropping, I could blur (or otherwise remove) the drawing from there, and the file would still be very useful to illustrate Mozambique university education without hurting Mozambican law of copyright.--- Darwin Ahoy! 09:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. If you remove the sign altogether, then the building becomes the main subject, and the image infringes the architect's copyright. I think the same would be true if you blurred the whole sign. If you just cropped it between the head and "40" it might be all right, but it would be a close call. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking in blurring only the head, since the lettering in the sign is not subject to copyright (right?). Therefore the sign, which is important on itself - commemorates 40 years of university studies in Mozambique - will continue to be the main subject, and Mozambique no-FOP would not be hurt.--- Darwin Ahoy! 15:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm generally prejudiced against blurring anything -- I think it's a cop-out -- if an image is a copyvio, then we shouldn't change the reality of it to fit our needs. With that said, though, I wouldn't object and it would probably be better aesthetically. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded a perspective corrected version with the drawing pixelated. Please evaluate if the pixelation is enough to cease it from attracting any copyright, otherwise I can pixelate it more, or use other technique to remove the drawing from there.--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Image has been restored and copyrighted element sufficiently obscured via pixelation. I had to look at the old revision to see what the drawing was, so I think the pixelation has resolved the issue. INeverCry 22:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Undeltion of : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AAhlem_Mosteghanemi_2000.jpg[edit]

Hi, This picture is my work and have been deleted : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AAhlem_Mosteghanemi_2000.jpg

That's why I'm making an undeletion request. 11 December 2013 Sideraldream--Sideraldream (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image was in use on the web almost two years ago. Therefore our rules require that the actual copyright holder send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. see http://web.archive.org/web/20120112155423/http://www.bqfp.com.qa/page?a=396&lang=en-CA .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:SARI logo.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: As a current intern at SARI, I have the permission of the Chairman to upload this image/logo of SARI. Mattysaints (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Please have the Chairman, or another officer of the organization, send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


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

Ehrenstein color.jpg deletion[edit]

I uploaded this image and the creator, Andrew Parkinson, claims to have given permission a couple of days ago. The problem was that this permission was given a day to late and this file was deleted.

Ehrenstein color.jpg was deleted and I need it to use for the neon color spreading wikipedia page.

--ANDIRAMA 16:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

  • If Parkinson has sent a satisfactory license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS, then it will be restored without further action on your part. Note that like Commons, OTRS is all volunteers and is understaffed, so that it may be as much as several weeks before a ticket is processed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done If/when the OTRS permission is processed and confirmed, the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.== File:Sunny Hill Logo jpeg web.jpg == Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the administrator of the organization Sunny Hill School in Kuching, Sarawak and this specific logo / emblem is the official identifier of this entity. In context to this issue, this logo is not used to represent something else other than its official intended purpose. Hence, this is not a copyright infringement as Sunny Hill School (kuching, Sawarak) owns this emblem and as an administrator for the school, I am authorize to use it in proper representation of the school. Sunnyhillschool (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done This is a copyrighted logo. Please send an email to OTRS providing permission for hosting this image here on Commons. If everything checks out, an OTRS member or administrator will restore the file for you. INeverCry 23:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Transiciones (Una nueva persona) (3352703668).jpg[edit]

This image was deleted on the basis of being out of scope with the closure statement "I consider this photo out of scope, I do not see any possible way to use it. I think, that it is impossible to illustrate homo-eroticism with that photo, because the photo is not erotic at all. I did not look, but I am quite sure, that Commons has better photos about hairy chests. The photo was unused." The only !vote in the DR was to Symbol keep vote.svg Keep with the opinion "There is no copyright issue. The image is in-scope as a high quality shot that could illustrate homo-eroticism, hairy chests etc. without nudity." The original image size is 2448 x 3264 px.

Breaking down the closure statement:

  • "I do not see any possible way to use it" - the only statement in the DR explained a possible re-use scenario to illustrate homoeroticism.
  • "impossible to illustrate homo-eroticism... the photo is not erotic at all" - a bizarre rationale that puts an admin's personal interpretation of the erotic over opinions expressed in the DR. As well as use to illustrate the homoerotic, this artistic photo is titled and in discussion is intended to illustrate a 'transition' with the figure giving the appearance of a sensual pupa undergoing metamorphosis.
  • "The photo was unused" - re-use on Wikimedia projects is not a rationale to delete.

The photographer (NeoGaboX) specializes in high quality portraits of both men and women which are sensuous (often making eye contact with the viewer) and colourful with a high level of traffic and discussion on Flickr. This photograph has 20 different independent contributors on Flickr praising its quality and impact. In this context the value to the public as an image to be reused for illustration is obvious.

The photograph is in-scope and no significant rationale for deletion was given, in fact the original nomination was a The Photographer generated thoughtless and pointy "boiler-plate" DR raised in a batch of several hundred the same week. -- (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


✓ Done Possibly in scope per Fæ. With no objections to this request, perhaps it's better to err on the side of inclusion. INeverCry 22:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Emblem of Papua New Guinea.svg (also named File:Coat of arms of Papua New Guinea.svg)[edit]

According to Commons Delinker the file was "deleted by Taivo because: Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect: content was: speedy|Leftover from a file move. #REDIRECT."

I fail to see how that was a valid reasoning to delete this image that was in very very very heavy use. I think Taivo meant to just delete the redirect but now the whole file is gone! Fry1989 eh? 19:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was deleted by Jim. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of Papua New Guinea.svg. Yann (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Then I am disputing that DR because it provides no links or evidence that this image was a derivate from the copyrighted version. Fry1989 eh? 20:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Other than being a virtually indistinguishable from the original, as per COM:EVID you need to show that it is not a COM:DW. LGA talkedits 08:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Considering I can no longer see the file, how am I supposed to compare it to the copyrighted original??? Had you linked that in your nomination and had I seen the DR before it was closed, I would have been able to properly asses that, but now I can't. Fry1989 eh? 20:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The Papua New Guinea emblem was created by copying a long-deleted png which listed a copyrighted representation as its source.

The source is still there and has an explicit copyright notice.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. INeverCry 21:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Universidade Eduardo Mondlane.jpg[edit]

File deleted due to no FOP in Mozambique. I would like to know if there would be any problem in uploading a cropped version of it, with the copyrighted drawing removed, since the university building behind is not the main subject of the photo, and therefore allowed in FOP-Mozambique.--- Darwin Ahoy! 08:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the file in question. Instead of cropping, I could blur (or otherwise remove) the drawing from there, and the file would still be very useful to illustrate Mozambique university education without hurting Mozambican law of copyright.--- Darwin Ahoy! 09:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. If you remove the sign altogether, then the building becomes the main subject, and the image infringes the architect's copyright. I think the same would be true if you blurred the whole sign. If you just cropped it between the head and "40" it might be all right, but it would be a close call. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking in blurring only the head, since the lettering in the sign is not subject to copyright (right?). Therefore the sign, which is important on itself - commemorates 40 years of university studies in Mozambique - will continue to be the main subject, and Mozambique no-FOP would not be hurt.--- Darwin Ahoy! 15:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm generally prejudiced against blurring anything -- I think it's a cop-out -- if an image is a copyvio, then we shouldn't change the reality of it to fit our needs. With that said, though, I wouldn't object and it would probably be better aesthetically. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I uploaded a perspective corrected version with the drawing pixelated. Please evaluate if the pixelation is enough to cease it from attracting any copyright, otherwise I can pixelate it more, or use other technique to remove the drawing from there.--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done Image has been restored and copyrighted element sufficiently obscured via pixelation. I had to look at the old revision to see what the drawing was, so I think the pixelation has resolved the issue. INeverCry 22:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Undeltion of : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AAhlem_Mosteghanemi_2000.jpg[edit]

Hi, This picture is my work and have been deleted : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AAhlem_Mosteghanemi_2000.jpg

That's why I'm making an undeletion request. 11 December 2013 Sideraldream--Sideraldream (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image was in use on the web almost two years ago. Therefore our rules require that the actual copyright holder send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. see http://web.archive.org/web/20120112155423/http://www.bqfp.com.qa/page?a=396&lang=en-CA .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:SARI logo.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: As a current intern at SARI, I have the permission of the Chairman to upload this image/logo of SARI. Mattysaints (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Please have the Chairman, or another officer of the organization, send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


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

3 files with OTRS permission[edit]

An OTRS permission was received see Ticket:2013120810003104

  1. File:Fordfocus3genA icar.jpg
  2. File:Fordfocus3gen a icar.jpg
  3. File:Fordfocus3gen icar.jpg

Thanks Hanay (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The OTRS "permission" is from a gmail address which apparently belongs to the uploader. Although I don't read Hebrew and Google does not do a good job with it, there does not seem to be any license in the ticket.

All of this user's work has been deleted. I note that on his talk page, he says "Hi. all the pictures which I uploaded to Wikimedia taken by me (with my own camera) or by one of my colleague and they been taken as part of our job." Images taken by his colleague are certainly not his to license and those taken as part of his job may not be.

I think we need a license from an e-mail address at icar.co.il, not from this g-mail account..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I concur with Jim. This is not a valid OTRS ticket. Эlcobbola talk 16:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I realy do not understand the oppose. I asked him so many questions to be sure there is no copyvio in his request. look here you wiil see his name in Hebrew יתיר דוידוביץ. It his the same name as in his adress yatirda its mean Yatir=יתיר and da is the beginning of דוידוביץ. This site is a Car Buying Guide site, and I am not sure they have an e-mail adress. Notice that on User talk:Yatirda ther are 6 files, but he asked only 3. Hanay (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hanay, perhaps I am too suspicious from my CU and Admin work, but I think you are, perhaps not suspicious enough. What I see is someone who has taken some images off a known web site. That web site is clearly not freely licensed -- on the Terms of Use page it says:

"You may use the site for personal purposes only. Do not copy and use, or permit others to use, otherwise the contents of the website, including on other websites, electronic publications, printed publications etc., for any purpose, whether commercial or non-commercial, is not for personal and private use." [Google translation]

Then you have two e-mails, from a gmail account. You think they tell you that it is all right. How do you know that? The only evidence you have came from an unknown person. The gmail could be anyone. Maybe it is our uploader. Maybe it actually is someone at icar.co.il. Maybe it is someone else.

As I noted above, the uploader has said that someone else was the photographer for some of the images. The uploader certainly cannot license those to Commons.

As I said above, I think the only valid license for these must come from icar.co.il, and it must be a valid license -- CC-0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA. Alternately, of course if the site wants to change its Terms of Use, that would be even better, because then we could take any images we want, include future ones. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that I suspicious enough. I am an administrator in He:wiki and I have a lot of experience with such things. I also take care of all the pictures that uploaded in He:wiki. and there are users there that say that I am too Tough. I explained him that he can upload only pictures that he took by himself, that why he only asked to undelete 3 pictures not all the 6 that he uploaded originally. He is a new user in he:wiki and he is still learning how to do things. He promised me that in the future he will upload pictures that were never published. Hanay (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2013
I found him see here he is a Lawyer. Look at his e-mail adress it is the same e-mail. Hanay (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support OK, you've convinced me. I appreciate the detailed explanantion -- thank you for your patience. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done INeverCry 19:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Ehrenstein color.jpg deletion[edit]

I uploaded this image and the creator, Andrew Parkinson, claims to have given permission a couple of days ago. The problem was that this permission was given a day to late and this file was deleted.

Ehrenstein color.jpg was deleted and I need it to use for the neon color spreading wikipedia page.

--ANDIRAMA 16:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

  • If Parkinson has sent a satisfactory license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS, then it will be restored without further action on your part. Note that like Commons, OTRS is all volunteers and is understaffed, so that it may be as much as several weeks before a ticket is processed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done If/when the OTRS permission is processed and confirmed, the file can be restored. INeverCry 20:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This undeletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.== File:Sunny Hill Logo jpeg web.jpg == Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the administrator of the organization Sunny Hill School in Kuching, Sarawak and this specific logo / emblem is the official identifier of this entity. In context to this issue, this logo is not used to represent something else other than its official intended purpose. Hence, this is not a copyright infringement as Sunny Hill School (kuching, Sawarak) owns this emblem and as an administrator for the school, I am authorize to use it in proper representation of the school. Sunnyhillschool (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done This is a copyrighted logo. Please send an email to OTRS providing permission for hosting this image here on Commons. If everything checks out, an OTRS member or administrator will restore the file for you. INeverCry 23:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Monica Anghel 01.jpg [edit]

why is deleted? is my pics! and because is also on some web pages don't means is not my pics, photographed by me some time ago, and, of course, cc-ed to third parties long time ago! what you need, a physical signature from Monica Anghel singer that is my photo!? lol! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totedati (talk • contribs) 17:42, 12 December 2013‎ (UTC)

Because it has appeared on a copyrighted website, policy requires that the actual photographer send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. When that has been processed, the image will be restored without further action on your part. Please note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and is understaffed, so that may take several weeks. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 22:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:457172 366156203415865 1817212607 o.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: it is the file created for the organisation Q-Frat. I am creating a page on the same name on wiki and i want to upload that file because it is the logo of our organisation.

you can see on www.facebook.com/qfrat Shashomar1 (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please have an officer of the organization send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 22:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Yrlund.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have a permission from the photographer to use this file - he is a friend of mine: I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: [I, (Peero Lakanen), am] OR [(copyright holder's name) is] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [SPECIFY THE WORK HERE - describe the work to be released in detail, attach the work to the email, or give the URL of the work if online]

I agree to STANDARD CHOICE; SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TYPE OF LICENSE: [publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).]

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

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

[Peero Lakanen] [Copyright holder] [12.12.2013]

Photo can be found here too: http://www.darkgrove.net/janyrlund.jpg November Mist (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please have the photographer himself send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 22:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Mohsen attya- Emotional glow.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Copyright Holder has sent a ticket to the OTRS Team (2013120310018465) to release the images under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL licensing. Clarkcj12 (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


✓ Done INeverCry 00:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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

All files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:Fry1989/Gallery/Road Signs/Australia[edit]

There was no solid consensus to delete, the DR was retracted by the nominator, and there was general agreement many of the files are too simple while many are too complicated and therefore they are not all of the same level of complexity, and thus they should be independently reviewed rather than lumped together. This was ignored by the closing admin. Fry1989 eh? 01:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - the COM:TOO in Australia is very low, these are better hosted at enwp where they can be hosted as {{PD-ineligibleUSonly}} or fair use. LGA talkedits 11:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
You had your vote in the DR and you weren't able to get a consensus of support. The nominator retracted their DR and agrees that the varying levels of complexity requires individual review of each sign, and without a proper consensus to delete them all, this DR is invalid. The closing admin ignored all this and deleted everything, even though one sign was already proven to be PD and many many more most likely would be kept in an individual review. Fry1989 eh? 18:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
This should be rather obvious. No consensus to delete all files, the varying levels of complexity, the nominator retracted. Fry1989 eh? 22:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Still waiting on a response. I'm not letting this be ignored. Fry1989 eh? 18:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Still waiting. Fry1989 eh? 18:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Still waiting. Fry1989 eh? 18:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this case should be revised, so most of the signs deleted have pictograms and icons that are of universal use. Moreover, all of those images are included in the AIGA, released to the PD and therefore hosted here. - Fma12 (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this should be revised, and restored and Symbol keep vote.svg kept all those shown not to be original work of the Australian authorities, or too simple to have any copyright.--- Darwin Ahoy! 18:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I already restored this one, as it's an obvious case where nothing there can have any copyright. The caravan item, exactly like that, is of universal use. Probably there are more like this one.--- Darwin Ahoy! 18:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. The problem is there are many like that which are under, while I also admitted there are some that should go. They never should have been nuked as one group. Fry1989 eh? 19:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The rest of these need to be brought back and redone on a proper individual basis. Still waiting on that. Fry1989 eh? 19:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I am thinking to undelete these. I asked A.Savin his opinion. Nobody did before. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I will never stop pressing this issue. The varying complexities demand individual review. There's at least one file in that DR I even proved is PD and it got nuked anyways, which shows that the closing admin did not properly assess the varying complexities or any of the relevant information about safe files, but instead viewed them as a cohesive group which they are not. Even the nominator changed their mind and agreed that individual review, as well as further review of the law is needed before these are deleted, which in essence is a retraction. This was a bad DR from the beginning. Fry1989 eh? 20:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Still waiting. Fry1989 eh? 20:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Still waiting. Fry1989 eh? 16:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Fry1989, why don't you try to speak to A.Savin directly? Yann (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Because it's rather obvious which direction the consensus is leaning here. They already appear to oppose this unDR on their talk page, but as I've said they didn't even properly conduct the DR in the first place so I think their opposition is irrelevant. That's why. Now I have to leave in a few days for a vacation, but it's ridiculous that this has waited so long with minimal actions when everyone can see where the support is, so I guess I'm gonna have to re-open this in January when I get back if nothing is done before monday. Fry1989 eh? 17:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done I've restored all images (whew!!) and re-opened the DR per agreement of closing admin on his talk. Now that my mouse hand is about to fall off, someone else can take this from here. INeverCry 17:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


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

Commons:Deletion requests/Copyrighted buildings in Slovenia[edit]

These were kept once and now deleted without any discussion or even closing comment despite being simple ulitarian structures in another of Eleassar's renominations with same rationale. --Sporti (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose; in the lack of evidence to the contrary, all architecture must be considered copyrighted. There is no evidence of a threshold of originality on architecture in Slovenia and a facade or a canopy clearly is a creative architectural element. The comparison of the deleted images shows that these buildings differ from each other, they're not all the same, and as such they qualify as individual intellectual creations. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Your view can be seen in the DR so it is redundant to comment here again. And yes of course buildings are different to each other (well done on stating the obvious), but these don't have any distinguishable architectural elements which could be copyrightable. --Sporti (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I have to repeat myself because you can't comprehend that a facade or a canopy clearly is a creative architectural element, therefore copyrightable. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
For something to be copyrightable, it must be distinguishable. Generic facades and canopies aren't. Also TOO is high in Slovenia for works of applied arts (includes architecture) [15]. --Sporti (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I get tired of repeating my self on this subject -- there is no evidence of any case law anywhere in the world that sets any TOO for architecture. The only case law we have on the subject is from the United States where it is clear that the TOO is zero -- all architecture is covered. In Slovenia, and most other countries, architecture is not a work of applied arts, as Sporti claims. It is separately enumerated in the law. In fact, the Slovenian law gives it a whole sentence, rather than the single word in most country's laws:
"9. works of architecture such as sketches, plans, and built structures in the field of architecture, urban planning, and landscape architecture"
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Isn't this a "case law anywhere in the world that sets any TOO for architecture" - The Eurohouse S 2 did not meet the prerequisites of originality but the Supreme Court's ruling KKO 1989:149. The protection of an architectural work is the protection of a work that was born as a result of independent and original work. The Supreme Court ruling KKO 1989:149 concluded that the prefabricated house model Eurohouse S 2 consists of previously known and widely used in architectural elements. In the Supreme Court's view, the Eurohouse S 2 did not, as a whole, differ significantly from other commercially available detached houses, that one's options in constructing such a house are often limited, and that the form of such a house is largely dictated by the methods of manufacture and other usability issues. [16]? --Sporti (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Aha. Interesting. You are correct that it is case law on architectural TOO -- I stand corrected. However, I doubt that it is on point, both because the Slovenian law, as I pointed out, is more explicit about architecture than others, and because it speaks to pre-fabs, not independently designed buildings. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The ruling KKO 1989:149 is whether a whole house is copyrightable. When you take a photo of a façade, it is irrelevant whether the location of rooms or internal walls is creative (see e.g. this court ruling). A photo of Eurohouse S 2 can't be a copyright violation of architecture in countries with the same threshold of originality as Finland, but this is more than what we need to show. We just need to show whether the outer façade is creative or not. I don't know what these images look like, so I can't tell whether they show any creative architectural elements or not. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
So can images be temporarily undeleted to be seen and examined?. --Sporti (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I've temporarily restored them. INeverCry 22:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Now looking at these fasades I don't think images show anything else as "previously known and widely used in architectural elements". --Sporti (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
You've looked at them before and nothing has changed since then. There is still no evidence of a TOO in architecture and whether architectural elements are previously known or not is irrelevant. Doors, windows, roofs, canopies, stairs etc. are all previously known and widely used architectural elements, but these specific combinations are unique (individual) and thus qualify as creative architectural works. --Eleassar (t/p) 10:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the deep analysis, I can agree with that. The entrance in File:Nova šola na Ruški cesti 1961.jpg has been cropped out. --Sporti (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's ok for me too; thank you to Stefan. Restore the ones that Stefan deems not copyrightable (vk), the rest should be kept deleted per COM:PRP. --Eleassar (t/p) 17:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we have an agreement here. Files kept or deleted according to Stefan's analysis -FASTILY 09:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Teatro Gil Vicente.jpg[edit]

Unfortunately this DR was hastily closed when discussion had just started. Since this issue is of too much importance for being discussed on user talk pages, as those images are currently being removed from Wikipedia articles, I believe it should rather be discussed here.

Mozambique as a country came into existence in 1975. Prior to that date it was a Portuguese province, and part of Portugal. Therefore, all works published in that territory prior to 1975 were published in Portugal, and Portugal was the country of origin for those works. I don't believe there can be any doubt about this.

Mozambique copyright law, when defining its scope, Art. 3, c) states: "works published in Mozambique or works first published abroad and issued in Mozambique". In agreement with what I stated before, this can only apply to works published after 25 June 1975. d) states: "works of architecture erected in Mozambique;". In coherence with c) and in agreement with the facts stated above, this should also apply only to works of architecture erected in Mozambique, that is, after 25 June 1975. However, it seems to be currently misinterpreted here in Commons to make all colonial architecture subject to the no-FOP policies of Mozambique. I don't believe this is correct and would like this issue to be properly discussed, and if an agreement is reached, the deleted files restored and FOP-Mozambique to be amended to exclude all colonial-era architecture.

This applies to all other colonial buildings in Category:Mozambican FOP cases, some of them deleted by me.--- Darwin Ahoy! 03:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

How can you say that there is no doubt that Portugal is the country of origin for these works? We say that works published in Moscow have Russia as a country of origin, and that those published in Kiev have Ukraine as a country of origin, though they both may have been published originally in the Soviet Union or Tsarist Russia. If Yugoslavia was the country of origin for a work published in Belgrade prior to 1992, for purposes of the URAA, was that work in copyright in an non-existent nation in 1996?
I can not imagine that any post-colonial state is going to say that "works published in Mozambique" does not include works published in Mozambique while it was occupied by the Portuguese.
Lastly, after d) comes "(e) works entitled to protection under an international treaty to which Mozambique is party." I believe that a photograph taken in Mozambique of a work of architecture in Mozambique would have the same copyright issues in Mozambique no matter where the building was originally constructed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't "occupied by the Portuguese" because there was no organized state prior to Portuguese arrival there. What was made in 1975 was new. Any work published there before 1975 was published in Portugal exactly in the same way as someone who graduated from Lourenço Marques University graduated from a Portuguese university. We can't rewrite history.
I concede, however, that the case of architectural works is not so simple to deal with. Personally, I don't believe that what you claim is the spirit of the Mozambican law of copyright, since there is not any sense in a country which tried and tries very hard to get rid of the colonialism of the past, to specifically protect the interests of the former colonizer, to the point of bringing economical loss to it's own population. This is exactly what happens if those buildings are considered to be protected by the Mozambican law of copyright. To sold postcards of the majority landmarks of his own country, Mozambicans would have to pay copyright to the Portuguese who hold those rights. This is incredibly stupid, and would be some unintended consequence of that law. I don't believe it to be the case, however, as explained above and below.--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • According to the Berne Convention, the source country of a building is the country in which it is permanently installed. If a building originally was constructed in "colonial Mozambique" but someone "moved" it to "independent Mozambique", it would seem to me that the source country changed from "colonial Mozambique" to "independent Mozambique" at this point. Same thing if someone cunstructed a building in the Russian Empire but later "moved" the building to the Russian Federation: the Russian Federation would currently be the source country of that building.
Works published in the Russian Empire have the Russian Empire as the source country, see {{PD-RusEmpire}}. The problem is that the Berne Convention tells that works of architecture are unpublished. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Please note that the Berne Convention only considers works of architecture unpublished if they are built without the architect consent: "The expression “published works” means works published with the consent of their authors". Consequently, the mere construction of a work of architecture does not constitute publication. This is not the situation we are dealing with here. See Paul Goldstein, "International Copyright : Principles, Law, and Practice", p.132
According to the Berne Convention, are eligible for protection authors of "works of architecture erected in a country of the Union" OR "other artistic works incorporated in a building or other structure located in a country of the Union". Those buildings were erected in a country of the Union, yes, but that country was Portugal, not Mozambique. I can't find in the Berne Convention nothing close to "source country of a building is the country in which it is permanently installed". Please refer to the article where it is said.--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
According to the Berne Convention, constructing a building doesn't constitute publication of the building, so construction of a building doesn't constitute publication regardless of whether you have permission from the architect or not. That consent is needed for publication is a separete requirement. I can't find a copy of the book you are linking to and Google tells that there is no e-book available, so I can't tell what that book says about this.
In either case, the Berne Convention says that "The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work." Consequently, you can not use foreign exceptions from copyright, such as fair use or FOP, but only the exceptions which apply in the country where copyright is claimed. Thus, photographs of all recent buildings from Berne Convention countries are unfree in Mozambique, regardless of the source country of the building. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The book contradicts your accession of the Berne Convention. Quoting from it, when the author deals with the concept of what is published and what is not, and specifically about the part saying that construction, broadcasting, etc. is not the same per se as publication: "the more precise distinction [between what is published and is not, according to the Berne Convention text] is between copies that are authorized by the copyright owner, and copies, such as those made by an audience member or a passer by, that are not". About the author of that book, please refer to its entry on wikipedia.
I believe you misunderstood my point. I'm not arguing that because they are Portuguese works, they consequently shouldn't be object of Mozambique no-FOP provisions. I'm arguing that there are no no-FOP provisions in Mozambique law for works erected in that territory when it was part of Portugal. The law specifically says: "works of architecture erected in Mozambique". All buildings erected before 1975 were erected in Portugal. We were not a federation, we were a single country divided into provinces, such as Algarve, Minho or Mozambique. Some were in continental Europe, some were overseas.
I also believe that the common confusion between copyright as intellectual property and the material support of the works protected by that copyright is playing a role here. This theatre, for instance, is a mere copy of a project designed by someone, and published in what was then Portugal. Even if Mozambique now owns that copy, it doesn't mean it owns its copyright. The source country is still Portugal. If you know of any legal text that contradicts this (which is what can be directly read in the Berne Convention), please say so.--- Darwin Ahoy! 15:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
See for example NJA 2010 p. 135: images placed on a website with the consent of the photographer were considered to be "unpublished". There doesn't seem to be any difference between uploading images to a website and constructing an architectural work in terms of publication. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The images were considered unpublished in that case because the website was considered an ephemeral support for them. There is no possible comparison with the construction of a building, which is permanent. If a building is constructed with the permission of the architect, then it's published. Please refer to the mentioned Paul Goldstein book dealing with the Berne Convention for more detail.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hm? If you post an image to a web page, then the image is "ephemeral support" for the web page. Similarly, if you erect a building in a city, then the building is "ephemeral support" to the city. Where lies the difference? I don't have access to the book, so I can't refer to it. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why you say a concrete building placed in a public place is ephemeral, and therefore unpublished. Anyway, that doesn't seem to be the correct interpretation of the Convention. A screenshot for the mentioned book page is here.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think you're missing an important point. The building is copyrighted somewhere -- either in Mozambique or in Portugal. Copyrights do not simply evaporate when a colony becomes independent. If we assume that the building has a copyright, then we should apply the same FOP rule that we do for copyrighted sculpture -- we use the rule in the country where the sculpture is located -- see Category:Alexander Calder, where the only examples we have of this American sculptor are in FOP countries. Now, I agree that there is little or no case law on the subject and that our handling of sculpture might not stand up in court -- but if we are to accept your argument here, then we are opening a much larger discussion, both about colonial architecture and about sculpture. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I never claimed those buildings were void of copyright. If Pardal Monteiro (Portuguese architect) designed a church in Lisbon, and the same project was used to build another in Lourenço Marques, both buildings would be protected by the same Portuguese copyright law. But I believe I've understood your point. If I well understood, you claim both Portuguese and Mozambican copyright laws could apply in this case. The Portuguese copyright law would trigger the Mozambique no-FOP. Is that correct?
    • It maybe can be seen as well as Stefan4 said above (if I well understood): "works first published abroad and issued in Mozambique" (article 3, Mozambique copyright law) - So this theatre would be a work first published in Portugal, and then "issued" in Mozambique when its soil passed from Portugal to Mozambique.
    • I wish there was some legal background to this mater of colonial copyrights. I couldn't easily find it.--- Darwin Ahoy! 17:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree -- we've had a different discussion about copyrights in Namibia recently that revolved around the same issue -- which laws apply to works created in the colonial period? The only rough guidance I know of here is that it is, I think, our practice to apply UK law to pre-1948 Palestine -- I've seen that several times.
To the specific point, yes. The building has a copyright. I don't think it matters whether it is Portuguese or Mozambique -- they are both 70 pma and the architect is certainly known. Therefore, the only question is whether we apply Mozambique law to the FOP question. On the precedent of various sculpture -- for example Alexander Calder's work in Germany and Henry Moore's in the USA -- I think we do apply Mozambique's lack of FOP to the colonial buildings. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record, I've found who were the architects on the building SIPA record. If it was a collective work, the building would be void of copyright since 2004, but I've not enough information to say that.
I believe the sculpture example is very handy for this mater and, based on that, I believe those buildings which passed to Mozambique in 1975 would not be exempt from Mozambican law, and therefore this file should not be restored.
On the other hand, I don't see how buildings demolished before 1975 (not this case, the theatre is still there), which never were on Mozambique (country) soil, would be subject to Mozambique laws, therefore I believe those are safe to keep here in Commons, even if the copyright has not expired.--- Darwin Ahoy! 22:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
We accept photos of statues in Sweden (e.g. File:När vänskapsbanden knytes.JPG) but not statues in Finland (e.g. fi:Tiedosto:Kun ystävyyssuhteet solmitaan.jpg) even if the statues are different copies of the same work. Thus, if one copy of an architectural work appears in Portugal, but a different copy appears in Mozambique, we would only accept photographs of the copy in Portugal. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

@Stefan -- yes that's what Darwin and I have agreed. @Darwin -- the demolished question is an interesting thought experiment. Even more interesting is the question of the status of a 1970 image of a building that has not been demolished. I am inclined to think that the architect would have to go to a Portuguese court to try to enforce the copyright and that the Portuguese court would apply Portuguese law, including FOP. That would be particularly true if the image were used anyplace but in Mozambique. If it were in use only in Mozambique, then ultimately the architect would have to bring suit there in the first place and I suspect the court there would find for the architect. (This assume the judge is intellectually honest and doesn't take into account that it's a big, rich, foreign architect suing a small, poor, local business.)

All of this highlights the fact that our treatment of FOP is probably not consistent with what a court would do. Take a Calder sculpture. If it's in the USA, no problem, it's an infringement. But suppose the sculpture is permanently installed in a public place in Germany, someone takes a good photograph of it and sells tee shirts or postcards with the photo in the USA. If Calder's heirs care, they're going to bring suit in the USA and whose law is the judge going to apply? USA or Germany? Almost certainly he or she will use USA law because both the creation and the infringement took place there. It might be a little less obvious if it were a Henry Moore sculpture in the UK -- then I could see a USA judge applying UK law to the question because both the creation and the location of the work were in the UK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to sue someone, you would probably sue the violator in the country where the violator lives, and the court would then apply the FOP rules of that country, independently of where the work is located. For example, as far as I have understood, you (Jameslwoodward) live in the United States, so if I were to sue you, the best option would be to sue you in the United States. I might be able to sue you in Canada, Australia or Russia, but even if you lose, it may be hard for me to enforce the court ruling, unless you plan to visit the country where the court is located at some point. However, if you exclusively distribute the material from or in some other country, I may have to sue you in that country instead, which might make things more complicated for me. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Stefan4. I don't know if FOP applies or not in this case, but claiming that "the Berne Convention tells that works of architecture are unpublished" does not make sense. And this is complete nonsense: "There doesn't seem to be any difference between uploading images to a website and constructing an architectural work in terms of publication." Yann (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward - I agree with what you say. Images of copyrighted buildings taken in the country of Mozambique should be subject to no-FOP provisions, independently of the country of origin of those buildings. I concur as well that images of the same copyrighted buildings taken before 1975 should not be the object of Mozambique copyright law, since those panoramas were not even in the country of Mozambique, to start with, but in the Portuguese province of Mozambique. Being ephemeral by definition, those panoramas never passed to the country of Mozambique, and can't be the subject of its laws.--- Darwin Ahoy! 10:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is there any case law from Mozambique (or any former Portuguese province) (or Interpretation Act) that shows courts interpreting Mozambique to only have existed since 1975 and prior to that nothing. For example Australia has only existed since 1901, however the Australian copyright act applies to work created in the former colonies that now make up Australia. LGA talkedits 11:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I believe that point is pacific, since Mozambique was a brand new country made of a Portuguese overseas province which was Portuguese soil since the 16th century. In fact, there actually is some abuse on the opposite direction, with some Portuguese courts judging Mozambican affairs, and implicitly pretending that Mozambique never got competence to apply law in the territory, such as can be seen in JSTJ00040852. The Portuguese Supreme Court judged in 1999 that Frelimo is a person of International Right (not sure this is the proper translation) and that Mozambique courts have legitimacy to judge their own affairs since the independence of the country in 1975. I don't know if it's this what you meant, but I doubt there is any controversy (any at all) in the fact that Mozambique as a country only exists since 1975 (it's not Palestine).--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I apologize, you meant from Mozambique, not Portugal. I'll look into that.--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
No need to apologise, logically to me the works would be covered, the building is located in a place that became Mozambique when Mozambique came into existence so I was trying to find out if courts have been ruling that actions done prior to Mozambique coming into existence are not covered by Mozambique laws. LGA talkedits 20:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've found documentation to support that. First, File 02S3074 - Portuguese Supreme Court 2002 case about the international competence about a work (job) executed in Angola between 1968 and 1975: "Porém, como se viu, o contrato de trabalho foi, de 1968 a 1975, executado em território então considerado como português e, sendo esse (a execução do contrato) o elemento de conexão relevante, é a esse momento, e não ao da proposição da acção, que importa atender para efeitos de determinação da competência internacional (neste sentido, cfr. o acórdão deste Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, de 13 de Novembro de 1986, processo n.º 74 547, no Boletim do Ministério da Justiça, n.º 361, pág. 471). " It says that since the work contract was executed in territory then considered to be Portuguese soil, even if the case entered the courts in a date when the territory belonged to the independent country of Angola, the international competence of the courts to judge that case should be ascertained based on the date the work was executed, and not the date the case entered the courts, and cites previous jurisprudence to support that.
In the Luzaka agreement, both parties - Portuguese State and FRELIMO, representing the future Mozambican State - recognize and accept the right of the Mozambique territory, owned by the Portuguese State, to become independent.
This may also be relevant: Mozambican law of building nationalization. It voids all foreigners from any rights over buildings in Mozambique, transfers those rights to the Mozambican state, and considers foreigners all those absent from the country for a period of 90 days. This law voided all Portuguese property owners residing in Portugal from their assets in Mozambique. Since it says "all rights" over those buildings, I wonder if that includes copyright rights as well. In that case, the copyrights passed to the Mozambique state and would be void after 70 years from publication.
It should also be taken into account that Mozambique, unlike other former Portuguese possessions, decreed on its independence the complete dismantlement of the previous colonial structure and the total rupture with the previous system. There was no continuity.
In any case, I believe the Supreme Court reference above could be enough to determine that all photos of copyrighted buildings taken in Mozambique before 1975 are not subject to Mozambique no-FOP policies, since International Right seems to report jurisdiction to the date of the event itself, and not the date of complaint.--- Darwin Ahoy! 16:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
If Mozambique prior to 1975 is to be interpreted as "Portugal", then following COM:FOP#Portugal might be enough for pre-1975 images. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Since new data has been found, I request a reassessment of this case in question, about a recent picture of a theatre built in Mozambique in 1933, then Portuguese territory. Decreto-Lei nº 5/76 da República Popular de Moçambique (1976) says all rights over buildings in Mozambican soil owned by foreigners (considering foreigners all those absent from Mozambique for a period of 90 days) pass to the Mozambican State. Since most of the designers of buildings made until 1942 were already dead by 1976, and of the surviving very few or none were living in Mozambique in 1976 (and even if they were, they would have to be living inside the buildings they designed to keep their rights, which is improbable on itself) and certainly not those who designed this theatre, the copyright of this and most (if not all) of the other buildings existing in Mozambique in 1976 would have passed to the Mozambican state, and would be void now, after 70 years. I know that copyright is an immaterial right, and independent of its material support, but this law seems to void the foreign copyright holders from any rights over the works of architecture (precisely, buildings) existing in Mozambican territory in 1976. In that case, this file should be restored. Is this correct?--- Darwin Ahoy! 17:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thinking better about this, I don't think it would fly. What seem to have been forfeited in 1976 is the rights over the buildings, not the immaterial rights (copyrights) to the design of those buildings. But I'm not sure, since the State of Mozambique says they have all rights over those buildings.--- Darwin Ahoy! 19:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this over the day and my thoughts are :
  1. I still think that buildings built prior to 1976 are covered by the copyright law, if the intent was otherwise the drafters of the law would have made the point clearly.
  2. I think the "Mozambican law of building nationalization" possibly does change things, how is not clear, but the "all rights over buildings" would in my view also cover copyright unless expressly stated otherwise. I am not sure what effect that has as I am not clear what the effect of transferring copyright in that way would have on the duration of that copyright and what rights might have been transferred when the building was later sold, it is not also clear what happened to the copyright owned by a "foreigner" if the building was owned by a "non-foreigner" at the time of the law.
LGA talkedits 11:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Why would the copyright to any nationalised property expire after 70 years? Wouldn't the term still be the same, but the copyright holder different? --Stefan4 (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The term is the same (70 years), but since it's a collective person, it counts from date of publication, rather than date of death (the Mozambican State never dies - hopefully :) ). Art. 3 of Dec. Lei nº 5/76 says (loose translation): "1) All property over buildings owned by foreigners not residing in Mozambique goes to the Mozambican State" "2) The rights over buildings (real state rights?) constituted in favour of foreigners not residing in Mozambique are now terminated" Art. 12 says: "It's forbidden to sold, relinquish, exchange, donate, tax, or in any way alienate buildings, or rights over buildings, without the previous authorization of the Mozambican State, which will have always the right of preference" (my emphasis). Another law in 1991 specifically forbade those buildings or rights over those buildings, to be sold, transmitted, etc, to foreigners. I would like to know if copyright constitutes a right over a building, apparently in some way it is. --- Darwin Ahoy! 20:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The 70-year term requires that the initial copyright holder is a collective person, unless I'm missing something. The initial copyright holder of these buildings was the architect, and later transfer of rights (through confiscation, inheritance or whatever) doesn't seem to have any influence on the copyright term, as far as I can tell. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Now I understand what you meant. As I understand it, the rights of the initial holder were terminated and substituted by the Mozambican State, a collective person, therefore the 70 years from publication. In any case, I don't know if the State of Mozambique ever interpreted the 1976 law as relating to copyrights. From what I red, back in 1976 Mozambique didn't cared much about private property, and completely ignored copyright issues, therefore it couldn't be present in the spirit of that law. Even more, the Mozambican State now seems to be very much engaged on protecting Mozambican copyrights (at least on paper, facts and real cases are very few to none) and to adhere to international treaties related to copyright issues, so I doubt they would risk an additional diplomatic problem (they already have one due to the property confiscated from foreigners in 1976) by calling to themselves the copyrights of those buildings they nationalized (this theatre was included on them, I could confirm that).--- Darwin Ahoy! 04:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, new data requires a reassessment of this case (or at least a number of others, which possibly would require undelete):

Copyright in the Republic of Mozambique was from 1975 to 2001 ruled by Decreto-Lei n.º 46980 (pre-independence law). Among other things, this law establishes:
  • Artº25 - Copyright extends for life of author plus 50 years after his death.
  • Artº 150 - Only photographs containing name of the photographer and year it was taken are protected. Additionally, if a work of figurative art is the object of the photography, the name of the author of that work of art must be included. Reproduction of photographs not containing these elements is allowed, unless it can be proved there was bad faith in publication.
  • Artº 152 - Images of any work of plastic arts or architecture already divulged by its author is free to reproduce by any means.
In May 28, 2001 this law was revoked and replaced by Law No. 4/2001 of February 27, 2001 (current Mozambican copyright law), without stating if it was or wasn't retroactive. However, the principle of no retroactivity of the law was consecrated in the 1990 Mozambican constitution, valid at the time the law was published:
  • Article 99: 1. No one may be punished for an act that was not considered a crime at the time it was committed. 2. Penal laws may be applied retroactively only in favor of the accused.
  • Article 201: In the Republic of Mozambique, law may only be retroactive when this is to the benefit of citizens and other legal persons.
This principle was reaffirmed in the current 2004 Constitution, and is extensively supported and reinforced by the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Mozambique (1990-2003).

The outcome of this, independently of the aforementioned "Law of Building Nationalization" and any loss of copyright rights resulting from that, is:

  • According to International Right procedures, documented above, all works executed in the territory of Mozambique before June 25, 1975 (Independence date) should be treated as executed in Portugal and subject to Portugal copyright laws (most notoriously, FOP).
  • All works published in the Republic of Mozambique between June 25, 1975 and May 28, 2001 should be subject to Decreto-Lei n.º 46980.
  • All works published in the Republic of Mozambique after May 28, 2001 should be subject to the current Mozambique copyright law.

Some practical effects of this are:

  • Current no-FOP Mozambican copyright law does not apply to all reproductions of copyrighted works placed in public spaces (FOP) published before May 28, 2001;
  • All works whose authors died before 1951 or, being collective/anonymous works, were published before that date, are public domain in Mozambique. (2001 minus 50 year protection);
  • All photographs published in the Republic of Mozambique before 2001 without author and year stated in the photograph are public domain in Mozambique.

I still don't know if this precise file should or shouldn't be restored, but most probably a number of others should be based on this, and possibly a specific set of templates should be created to deal with the complexity of Mozambican copyrights.--- Darwin Ahoy! 02:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The way I interpret the laws you mentioned above is that you shouldn't be fined if you used a photo of a building before 28 May 2001, but that using it after that day is prohibited. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, thank you for bringing me confusion to where before I believed to have clear cut notions. The law in Mozambique can't be retroactive if it affects vested rights. This is confirmed even in a very recent Constitutional Court decision. The question now is to know if public domain in Mozambique is considered to be a vested right on its citizens. With copyright cases in Mozambique being extremely few, it's impossible for me to figure that. Apparently in the United States it isn't, per the URAA copyright extension confirmation by the Supreme Court. It is better to assume that in Mozambique the outcome would be the same, especially since the previous law apparently was never respected nor used, and the starting point to copyright protection in Mozambique seems to be generally taken as 2001. In any case, since Mozambique copyright law seems to be currently under revision, I recommend the files with copyright issues to be sent to DR rather than speedied, to keep some control on it.
I consider myself clarified, and withdraw this request for undeletion. Thank you to all who helped settle this matter.--- Darwin Ahoy! 03:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn, with no clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 09:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Ricardo Nanjari.JPG [edit]

Hola wikipedia, en dos ocaciones me han borrado el archivo Ricardo Nanjari.JPG nombrado en el titulo, siendo que soy el hijo de Ricardo Nanjari, el mismo que sale en la foto y dueño de esta misma. Espero la puedan restaurar, ya que no cometo ningún vandalismo.

Pablo Nanjari Wyss PabloNanjari (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You say here that you are the owner of the photo. In the image description you claim to be the photographer. This looks like a professional portrait, so that seems unlikely. Which is it?
If you are actually the photographer, then we can restore it. If not, then we will need a license from the actual photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Undeletion request for File:Natasha Yi bikini.jpg ,[edit]

Hi there, With all due respect to the higher contributor of wikipedia, I am requesting to undelete this file which is uploaded by me. This file contains the picture of popular model/actress "Natasha Yi". And her this photo is free to use. Since many content creator already used this photo many times on their productive/personal contents with the picture's owner's awareness. My intention was only to add this respective model's picture on wikipedia's wiki about her. I can make sure that, this photo does not violates' wikipedia's standard. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightylorddk (talk • contribs) 01:34, 13 December 2013‎ (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The source web site is very clearly marked "Copyright 2013 NatashaYi.com - All rights are reserved." Commons does not accept copyrighted material without a free license. Please read COM:Licensing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Copyvio per Jim. INeverCry 22:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Bailii.gif[edit]

This is an organisation logo, just like File:Microsoft logo and wordmark.svg. It is for use on that organisation's Wikipedia page only. I added the same licenses. Please undelete, or explain to me which license is appropriate? Wikidea (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The Microsoft logo is very simple and does not have a copyright. The subject logo is much more creative and does have a copyright. In order to keep it here, we will need a license from an officer of the organization using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Note that a license "for use on that organisation's Wikipedia page only" is not sufficient. The license must cover all use anywhere by anybody, including commercial use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim, Stefan, and Darwin. Yann (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:MHPR Logo.jpg [edit]

Este logo fue creado y Digitalizado por este servidor, Luis Hernandez y fue inscrito como marca registrada "Copyright" en el Departamento de Estado de Puerto Rico.

Lahmartinez.88 (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 01:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:MG_3952-Don-Chuck-Close.jpg [edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard?wpDestFile=MG_3952-Don-Chuck-Close.jpg

I took this photograph and it contains no copyrighted material.

TallulahMae (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, from your user name, you seem to be Tallulah Terryll from Magnolia Editions. Welcome to Commons. The problem here is that this image was already published at the Magnolia Editions blog - http://blog.magnoliaeditions.com/2010_09_01_archive.html - therefore you need to confirm by mail that you allow publication under the license you have chosen using the instructions and mail available at COM:OTRS. I hope you understand, we need to protect the copyright of authors, even when it is your own work. If you plan to upload more images that were already published, I believe you can request a special OTRS ticket that you can use without asking permission every time.--- Darwin Ahoy! 22:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong forum -- File has not been deleted. If you are the uploader, please email OTRS -FASTILY 01:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: file was deleted and restored for now, but that doesn't change the fact that we still require COM:OTRS permission in order to host it -FASTILY 23:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Wind Turbine Vortex Generator.jpg[edit]

I'm a VP at UpWind Solutions and we have developed the graphics describing how VGs work on wind turbines. I hereby authorize the use of the graphics. Robert Bergqvist Dec 13, 2013 --RobertBergqvist (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Tymoschuk with UEFA Cup in Lutsk.jpg and File:Tymoschuk with UEFA Cup.jpg[edit]

These photos were deleted according to COM:FOP, but no attention has been paid to Ukrainian copyright law provision 21.4

“The following shall be permitted without the consent of the author (or other copyright holder), but with mandatory indication of the author's name and of the source of borrowing: to reproduce, in order to present current events by means of photography or cinematography, to carry out broadcasting or other public communication of the works seen or heard in the course of such events to the extent justified by the informational purpose”

A court decision support this: it ruled that this provision (на підставі ст. ст.21 ч.1 п.4 Закону України «Про авторське право і суміжні права» = according to article 21.4 of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights) allows commercial use (виставлено на продажу чотири фотографічні зображення = four photos were put for sale) of photos of the presentation of the exhibition, where an artist was pictured with her works (позивачка, будучи присутньою на презентації персональної виставки, особисто позувала на фоні своїх фотокартин = plaintiff, being present at her exhibition, was personally posing in front of her own photographic works).

I see no difference in pictures of an artist with works of art during a presentation and a footballer displaying a trophy during a presentation: both are current and short-term events, both cases correspond to a picture of a person with a copyrighted object, in both cases copyrighted objects are used exclusively for information purposes. Thus the picture of Tymoschuk with the cup is identical to the picture of an artist with her works and is covered by the article 21.4 of Ukrainian copyright law — NickK (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The problem is that this provision only seems to allow you to use the image for the purpose of presenting current events, but not use the image for other purposes. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    On one hand, court decision did not state that this is limited to current events — it did allow commercial use of these images even two years after the event. On the other hand, in what other way can you use the trophy (the only problematic part of the image) other than in the context of event "Tymoschuk with UEFA Cup in Lutsk"? — NickK (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    For example, someone might wish to use the image to write about the trophy itself, or to present random photos of sports events. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    In the same way you can use images from the exhibition to write about the works of the artist, or to present random photos of exhibitions — as photographer has put these images for sale without any conditions. However, court did not impose any restriction on the use of these images, explicitly ruling that commercial use is allowed. Honestly, I fail to see any difference between these two cases — NickK (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We cant rely on article 21.4 for hosting images here, it is a fair use type provision, it requires a subjective view to be taken as to the use that each image is put to and that is not compatible with COM:L. The case you quote is not a good analogy, for starters the person in the images deleted is not the copyright holder of the cup. LGA talkedits 08:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    What is difference between the person protesting against the use of her own works and a sculptor who is not protesting against anything? I see only one difference: the plaintiff did protest against the use of her works, while the sculptor did not protest against any usage. The court did not impose any subjectivity, it did allow a photographer to sell pictures from the event. If one sells photos, he/she obviously cannot verify for which purpose these photos will be used — NickK (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    It is a pointless argument, because commons can not rely on article 21.4 for hosting images, it is a fair use provision and fair use is not allowed on commons. If the images in question were uploaded and had a release from the photographer we would still need to delete them court case not withstanding because as Jim points out our images must be free from usage restrictions bar attribution. LGA talkedits 08:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    Could you please explain the difference why pictures from exhibition are allowed for commercial use (being sold online, so that anyone can buy them and use for any purpose) and pictures from this event are fair use only? Do you know Ukrainian laws better than Ukrainian courts? — NickK (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
    Is that what the court has declared ? I will keep it simple : "Commons can't host images based on fair use provisions of copyright law" LGA talkedits 07:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    Please read attentively the court decision. The court ruled that commercial use of images from exhibition where copyrighted works is depicted is legal based on article 21.4. There was no fair use restriction related to it, court did not cite or impose any limitations. If limitations were imposed, please do cite them. Please bear in mind that "informational purpose" is related exclusively to the trophy and not to the photo itself — NickK (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    It is a fair use provision because it is limited to "events" and to "the extent justified by the informational purpose" and those restrictions are not compatible with commons. Around the globe countless of courts have ruled that a given copyright infringement was covered by relevant fair use rules, it does not mean we can upload those images here just because a court has ruled they can be used in such a way. LGA talkedits 20:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    So once again you state that even despite a court decision (just because a court has ruled) this kind of use is not allowed. I find quite surprising that an average Commons user would know Ukrainian copyright law better than Ukrainian judges. I find this a perfect example of copyright paranoia: it is not enough that there are dozens of thousands pictures of players with copyrighted trophies, it is not enough that any reasonable photographer would not even think that picturing a player with a trophy requires permission from heirs of the person who designed this trophy long time ago (nor heirs think so, I guess), it is not even enough that national law finds this usage admissible, and even a court decision on the very similar case changes nothing. Sorry, but it is very sad that Commons is now so deeply in copyright paranoia that a Commons user can now easily ignore a court decision and push his own vision of the law — NickK (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
    Ok, last attempt at explaining this, Commons can not host files based on fair use provisions, Ukrainian copyright law provision 21 and 17 U.S.C. § 107 are examples of such fair use provision, so any time either the Ukrainian article 21 or the US equivalent is relied upon for a given file it excludes it from being able to host it on commons. The courts are not relevant because the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) explicitly forbids Commons to host fair use materials and it is made clear in this resolution and as is made clear at the top of that page that policy can not be ignored. LGA talkedits 08:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    This is not a fair use clause like the American one — fair use clauses hardly ever allow commercial use. Here we have a clear court decision that allows usage for any purpose, including commercial, which is what COM:L requires. Could you please cite a provision in a court decision that makes this case incompatible with Commons rules? I have read it attentively and I failed to find anything imposing any limits on usage that would make this case a fair use one — NickK (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I was the closing Admin. The cup is clearly not de minimis. As LGA and Stefan say, the cited provision allows a limited sort of use -- it is far from our requirement that an image be free for use anywhere for any purpose by anyone -- any limitation on that is not acceptable here. Also, purely as an aside, I note that the file does not credit the designer of the cup, which is required by the cited paragraph. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    The latter may be easily fixed after undeletion — NickK (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus to restore. -FASTILY 01:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, no one could explain why the court decision for a similar case is not applicable here — they stated that although court allowed commercial use for any purpose, this is still fair use. Could you please explain how this is possible? If not maybe it is worth asking Ukrainian- or Russian- speaking administrators to comment on this issue, as they would probably better understand the court decision in question? — NickK (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Naked01.jpg[edit]

How can the file be deleted as "not educationally useful" when it is in use in Wikipedia? --Avril1975 (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


✓ Done I've restored it and undone the delinker at de:Erotik. INeverCry 19:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Anise K.jpg [edit]

I have authorisation via verified email from the copyright holder to publish Anise K's picture. Please provide a suitable non-public method for confirmation. --NolFito (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The actual copyright holder, not you, must send a license using the procedure at COmmons:OTRS. As you will see at that link, everything in messages sent to OTRS is confidential, except, of course, the existence of the license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 17:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Convenção do PMDB nas Eleições 2010.jpg [edit]

Obviously in scope, in spite of the mindless boilerplate rationales presented by both nominator and closing admin. This photo showed supporters in a 2010 political rally in Brazil (unique as such among all these P.M.D.B. photos), as made evident by the added categorization. It is clearly in scope and should be dully restored. -- Tuválkin 16:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


Procedural close as a stale request (no new activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 23:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Government of South Africa (1948).jpg[edit]

According to the "PD-South Africa" licence: {{PD-South-Africa}} "A South African work that is in the public domain in South Africa according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in South Africa in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946 and no copyright was registered in the U.S. (This is the effect of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.)"
Please confirm that copyright in respect of this picture was registered in the U.S. and supply the specific reference.
If not, please undelete. André Kritzinger (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question.svg Question Cant view the image but it has the date 1948 in the title of the image, but to be PD in the US it has to have been published prior to 1946 which if it refers to something in 1948 could not be the case. Can you give more details as to when this was created and published in SA ? LGA talkedits 23:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
It's a picture taken in 1948 of the new cabinet after the National Party won the 1948 election, so the date is 1948. Point is, it's been PD in South Africa since 1998 and it should only still be copyrighted in the USA if copyright was registered in the U.S. If copyright was registered in the US for this picture, reference to such registration should be available from the copyright office (or whatever it's called). If it was not so registered, it's PD in the USA as well. André Kritzinger (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but it looks like that the Uruguay Round Agreements Act extended the copyright term of this work in the US (as it was still in copyright in South Africa on 1 Jan 1996) and did so probably (and I am willing to be corrected on this) until about 2043. LGA talkedits 01:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I tried to make sense of this silliness last night and waded through the relevant acts and agreements. Are you implying that anything that was not yet PD in SA in 1946 will now be copyrighted (in the US) for another thirty years??? And because it's restored-copyright in the US, 25 South African articles on a South African subject that used a PD-South African image are now no longer allowed to display that image in those articles, because of a foreign legal farce? I am truly flabbergasted. "Land of the free", indeed! André Kritzinger (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree this is a puzzling interpretation of the URAA. From the evidence so far, this work has no copyright registered in the USA and was not published in the USA. In this situation there never was any US copyright for the URAA to extend. Given this is demonstrably PD in the country of publication, why would we not undelete this 1948 photograph? -- (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it is odd, how ever have a read of this from the US Copyright Office which will explain the situation. There is one get out, as you will see if it can be shown this photograph was published in the US within 30 days of its first publication in SA, these rules do not apply. LGA talkedits 12:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
For the URAA to apply, all Eligibility Requirements must be met. There are only 4 and 2 appear to have not been met in this case:
2. The work is verifiably public domain in South Africa. The wording of criteria 2 is not limited to the date of the act.
3. The work did have verifiable copyright that the US recognized in 1995, namely the rights of the original SA photographer at that time.
-- (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry don't follow that, the Effective Date of Restoration was January 1, 1996 so that is the date of the test, I don't understand your point 3, can it be shown the work was registered in the US ? LGA talkedits 13:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's see now, according to Circular 38B: "The URAA amended section 104A of the copyright law to restore U.S. copyright to certain foreign works that were in the public domain in the United States but protected by copyright in their countries of origin."
So far so good, so this 1948 picture was still two years away from becoming PD in SA at the time, but already PD in the USA. That much my little brain can grasp.
What I can't grasp is why the US copyright was not "restored" on the picture in question until it would become PD in its country of origin but instead went and placed it under US copyright until kingdom comes!
In other words, the US now makes laws that it wants enforced on the rest of the world?
André Kritzinger (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well if you want to upload the image to a server in the US, US law applies. LGA talkedits 13:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
That's not a good enough response. This whole issue is in conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation credo to "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." André Kritzinger (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It may seem crazy, but unfortunately the URAA is the US law on the subject. After the US Supreme Court case affirmed that it was legal, there was extended debate on the subject on Commons and it was decided that we would have to apply it because our policy requires that all images hosted on Commons be free in both their source country and in the USA. This is not the place to reopen that debate.
Therefore, the only tests we need to apply are set forth at Commons:URAA#Main_tests:
"If the answer to any of these questions is NO, then the URAA does not restore US copyright to foreign works. Otherwise, it does, unless one of the rare exceptions below is met.
1. If published, was the work published in an eligible country and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country?
2. Was the work still in copyright in the source country on the date of restoration?
- usually, but not always, the "source country" is the country of first publication. For something first published on the same day in more than one country, it is the country with the "greatest contacts" with the work. The full definition is at 17 USC §104A(h)(8).
- the URAA date in most cases is 1 January 1996. In some cases it is later. If in doubt, use 1996.
- in some cases countries have extended their copyright terms after the relevant URAA date; the copyright term in effect on the URAA date is the one that matters for working out whether a work was in copyright on that date."
To (1), South Africa is an eligible country. To (2), the image was still in copyright on 1/1/1996. Therefore, the image is covered by the URAA and cannot be hosted on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to use this file as a platform to expose a ridiculously silly policy. Looks like I'm farting against thunder though. But, in the case of this particular picture, I have a suspicion that the answer to criterion 1 (...and not published in the United States during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country?) will be NO. The South African opposition party had just won the South African elections and formed the new SA government, an official photograph is taken of the new Cabinet and distributed to the media. While I don't KNOW whether it was, I'll bet it was published in US newspapers as well. André Kritzinger (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I have access to some newspaper archives, I would be happy to take a look but I do not have access to the image. Can someone point to an online free source or put it up temporarily somewhere? Thanks -- (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The image can be seen here. The whole page is here. INeverCry 19:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
U.S. law governs copyright inside the United States, and no further. However, as a U.S. institution, that does govern the Wikimedia Foundation, and a general rule on Commons is that something must be public domain in both the country of origin (it is) and the U.S. (it may not be). The U.S. in general applies the same term to foreign works as it does to its own (i.e. there is no rule of the shorter term). That was historically based on date of publication (now 95 years), and yes, works needed to be registered and renewed in the United States, even foreign works, to continue copyright protection for more than 28 years. The Berne Convention however forbids such formalities, and after the U.S. joined in 1989, they were obliged to restore foreign copyrights which had been lost by lack of them. They delayed, but international pressure resulted in the URAA which restored to full U.S. terms any foreign copyright from a Berne member country which was still under copyright in its source country on January 1, 1996. So yes, it sounds like the government of South Africa would have had its U.S. copyright restored, which is now 95 years from publication. South Africa has an explicit term for government works, though it's basically the same as normal works -- in this case 50 years from publication, so presumably it went out of copyright in South Africa in 1999. As a technicality though, the South African government could press a claim in the United States if they could prove infringement. On the other hand... it is entirely possible that the explicit term in their copyright law may serve as a form of PD-author, in that the author of the material declares them public domain. The UK has confirmed this, saying that they consider their expiration of Crown Copyright to apply worldwide. I don't think any other government has made that explicit statement though, so there is room for doubt. It may make some sense to assume that, particularly for countries which have an explicit government term in their law (and South Africa's term likely comes from the UK precedent). Others may fairly disagree though. In this case, it sounds like hosting the image here would easily be fair use in both U.S. and South African law, so there is no real legal issue -- but Commons cannot host works under a fair use rationale. Deletion would come under a relatively extreme technicality though (given it's a government work), and I think I'd be in favor of keeping this one under the PD-author assumption. For South African private works though, the URAA is absolutely U.S. law and as frustrating as it may seem, it would require deletion in a case like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose US law is clear. Unless this was published in the US within 30 days after publication in South Africa, this is still copyrighted in the United States. This means that the photo is copyrighted in the country where Commons is hosted, so the image can't be used by Commons. US law is in no way special; the photo is copyrighted in multiple countries, for example these:
  • In Colombia, the copyright expires 80 years after the death of the photographer. As it was taken less than 80 years ago, it is still copyrighted in Colombia, and you can therefore not use the photo freely in Colombia.
  • In Samoa, same problem, but change 80 years into 75 years.
  • In many other countries, the standard term is between 50 and 80 years from the death of the photographer. Furthermore, the rule of the shorter term isn't used in those countries in which the photo was published within 30 days from publication in South Africa. According to User:Andre Kritzinger, this photograph was sent to the press in all parts of the world, so this would invalidate the rule of the shorter term in large parts of the world.
In short, this photograph appears to be copyrighted in a lot of countries, not only the United States. However, Commons only cares about the United States and South Africa. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Two things... first, if PD-author is the situation, then the URAA doesn't really matter since the author has waived rights. I can understand disagreement, but it is possible. A government copyright may be a different situation than a private copyright. Second, if it was sent around the world, it may change things as well. You are correct that the rule of the shorter term is not used when "simultaneously published" (within 30 days) -- but if one of those countries was the United States, it also means the work qualifies as a "United States work" inside the U.S. and it means the URAA was never applied to the work but it needed to be renewed like any other U.S. work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that we would need a list of countries in order to use any 30-day rule. It has only been told that this was published in "some" countries within 30 days, and we don't know whether the US is one of those. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The real problem is that we need a different type of administrator to get involved in this issue. We seem to have plenty of the type that know the law and know how to interpret and apply it. We're seriously short on the type that can tell the US government that its "we the people" for whom they "work" are dissatisfied with a law passed by them because it failed to take into account the Law of Unintended Consequences, and to tell them to fix it. André Kritzinger (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
What didn't it take into account? The Rule of the Shorter Term means that if one country lengthens its copyright terms, more people in other nations have to pay money back to that nation, giving nations plenty of motivation to do that. And legal codes are complex enough; they shouldn't be including the laws of other nations by reference whenever possible. The main reason the URAA does so is to keep as much that was historically in the US PD as possible.
I want a reduction in copyright durations, but that's not unintended consequences.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Questionable copyright, probably still covered by URAA -- no consensus to restore. -FASTILY 23:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Current situation of the Grande Hotel, waste hump on front façade terrace.JPG[edit]

File deleted as part of a batch about the Grand Hotel (1950s building, not allowed by Mozambique no-FOP). However, the main subject here is the waste dump, and the hotel is de minimis, so I think this one should be restored.

Also this one:

Main subject here is the exterior space in front of the Hotel, not the building itself. I believe this one should be restored as well.--- Darwin Ahoy! 14:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree that the building is DM in both images. INeverCry 17:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 23:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Logo Jugend gegen AIDS e.V..jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: As a representative of Jugend gegen AIDS I would like to restore/undelete the Logo as we, as the owners of the Logo, would like it to be freely available on the wikimedia database.

Kind regards 80.171.142.84 17:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


✓ Done OTRS received per note on my talk from OTRS member. INeverCry 16:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:19680606johncharlesfuller2011.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the copyright holder of this image. Bunnco (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Komeilyeganeh.jpg [edit]

با سلام. این عکس یکی از دوستانه! عکسش هم هیچ کپی رایتی نداره! با این که تو ویکی تازه کارم ولی اکثر قوانین و خوندم و هیچ کدوم رو نقص نکردم ولی ویکی پدیا هرچیزی که انتشار میکنم داره حذف میکنه--Koml Yeganeh (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)23.9.1392


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Davidthomasdesigner.jpg [edit]

I took this picture from him myself, he is david james thomas you can call to verify 647-285-6229

  • It appears on the copyrighted web site dtadesigngroup.com. When images have appeared on the web with copyrights, it is Commons policy to require a license, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. INeverCry 16:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Ido Maimon Promo Picture taken from his debut album "Dreams".jpg[edit]

Don't Delete this pic! cause i got permission from the artist himself. thanks


 Not done File hasn't been deleted. INeverCry 16:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:עידו מימון - חלומות - עטיפה.jpg [edit]

Don't Delete this pic! cause i got permission from the artist himself. thanks

This image has not been deleted, so this is the wrong forum for any discussion. Since there is no description or category, it is not clear that this image can be useful for anything. In any case, in order to keep it, we will certainly need a license from the photographer of the B&W image and possibly from the person who created the color design. Accordingly, I put a deletion request on it so that it can be discussed further. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:עידו מימון - חלומות - עטיפה.jpg. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done File hasn't been deleted. INeverCry 16:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Vasundhara Poster.JPG Undeletion[edit]

Hello,

I'm not sure why the file File:Vasundhara Poster.JPG has been deleted.

I own the copyrights of the file as I took the image from the production house myself. You can contact +91 9886333723 to verify the same.

Kindly undelete the same ASAP.

--Ivish s (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't understand, "I took the image from the production house myself". This is an image of a copyrighted movie poster. Owning a copy of the poster does not make you the copyright holder. Only the copyright holder of the poster can authorize this image. In order to restore the image to Commons, we will need a license from an officer of the organization that created it, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 17:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Franz Eduard von Wimpffen.jpg[edit]

--Mike18 (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Das Foto wurde von mir am 12. Jänner 2009 persönlich gemacht. Ich werde die fehlende Lizenzvorlage{{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}}nach Wiederherstellung ergänzen.


Feel free to re-upload the file, but be sure to include a license tag -FASTILY 23:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Suspension of Disbelief.jpg[edit]

I have given the link to the website from which I found this image. Since it is a film poster it is only for a fair use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 991joseph (talk • contribs) 11:32, 15 December 2013‎ (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As you say, this is a film poster, taken from IMDB. It is copyrighted and may not be kept on Commons -- Commons cannot accept fair use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Copyvio. No fair use on Commons. INeverCry 17:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Button helicopter.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: See File:Button clipboard information.gif, there's a license for it. Rezonansowy (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


Looking at the deleted revs, I see two unrelated images which, while derived from the same base element (an image of a square), have no obvious copyright connections/associations (Not made by the same person; no explicit license/source for the helicopter image). -FASTILY 23:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Galaxy Studios - Galaxy Hall.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission granted by copyright holder under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL licensing (OTRS ticket 2013121010007347. Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


✓ Done INeverCry 21:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:SONY WM-D6C with audiophile headphones.jpg[edit]

Hi,

I've just updated 'walkman' and 'AIWA' pages with some photos of my own work. They are the same photos that I use in my own website (www.walkman-archive.com) but at a higher resolution and I didn't even use in my own website. As I'm the author of those photos that have been all deleted recently, I ask you to undelete them. Please tell me how do I demonstrate you that I'm the author of them (as I have, of course, the original photos at full resolution in RAW format). Maybe I have to use another username (like 'walkman-archive') to avoid mistakes like this. Yes, I stamped my logo over them, as I didn't found any rule saying it's forbidden to use them.

This is the complete list of photos I've uploaded. Some of them are already deleted and the rest are requested to delete, but I find very confusing the internal messaging system of this website to talk to someone and explain my problem.

File:SONY Walkman TPS-L2.jpg File:SONY WM-D6C with audiophile headphones.jpg File:Some top-level walkmans from the mid-80s.jpg File:SONY Walkman Boodo Khan.jpg File:SONY Walkman WM-EX5.jpg File:Various walkmans.jpg File:History of music players 1979-2007.jpg File:AIWA Deck AD-F800.jpg File:AIWA HS-PX101 cassette walkman.jpg File:AIWA Strasser CSD-SR8 & HS-JX707.jpg File:AIWA Walkman HS-PX1000.jpg File:AIWA Walkman HS-PX303.jpg

I appreciate your help if oyu tell me what do I exactly have to do, as I'm actually confused with this internal system.


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:HNJacksonMarker.JPG [edit]

The photo is of a publicly displayed historic marker.

It is my photograph. How could it possibly be a copyright violation?--Mfwills (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The relief there seem to be public domain, but I'm not sure about the text itself.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Not a clear copyvio case, restored and sent to DR for proper discussion.--- Darwin Ahoy! 12:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me -- plenty of text for it to be over the "short phrases" ToO, 2005 date, placed by the State of Vermont, which is not a PD state. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:VT Hist Marker WmWells.JPG [edit]

The photo is of a publicly displayed historic marker.

It is my photograph. How could it possibly be a copyright violation?--Mfwills (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  • This should not have been speedied as the file name suggests that it is a FOP case. However, historic markers are literary works, so they can't be uploaded here unless the copyright to the text has expired. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


Not a clear copyvio case, restored and sent to DR for proper discussion.--- Darwin Ahoy! 12:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Igreja em Sertão Santana 001.JPG [edit]

The closing admin declares that this was a «courtesy delete of an unused file». Well, it was no courtesy at all, as the the uploader clearly said he had filed the DR in order to reupload the same image under a different, correct, filename. Two users !voted for keep, explaining that file renaming is possible and simpler, and suggesting a better name. The DR was closed against Commons best practices concerning file name accuracy, and should be undeleted for correct renaming, upon which it will usable at pt:Barra do Ribeiro. -- Tuválkin 04:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the situation was misunderstood (lost in translation?) as a courtesy delete request, when it was merely a rename request, misplaced as DR. Restored and renamed.--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It was not lost in translation. The closing admin simply decided to ignore the consensus (two keep votes, no delete votes) and delete anyway, in spite of the input by other users who had actually bothered to take time to access the matter. -- Tuválkin 01:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Kristo.hiiemae[edit]

Per reasoning here and per no objection by INeverCry that deleted these. 90.190.114.172 20:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


Meh -FASTILY 02:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:South Africa-Penny-1951.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

This file was deleted due to the requestor not being familiar with the relevant South African legislation. Under Section 3.3(a) of the South African Copyright Act of 1978, Test here, copyright in any anonymous or pseudonymous work subsisits for fifty years from the date when the work was first released to the public. Thus the design of any coins dated 1962 or earlier (1963 from 1 January 2014) is not protected from copyright. Since the copyright is owned by the South African Government and the South African Government made the fifty year law, they effectively put their own copyright into the public domain in the same way that documents produced by the US Government are in the public domain. Martinvl (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is no evidence that the the authors are anonymous or pseudonymous. Coin engravers can often be identified although they normally aren't named on the coins. In either case, the coins are unfree in the United States per {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Many US coins are signed. I don't know the practice in the Commonwealth, but the second of these appears to be signed "WP" or "WD". The first might also be signed, but the image is not quite good enough to make out the letters. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
    • The coins do not have to be signed to be by known artists. Example: I have two 1 kr coins in my wallet, one from 1999 and one from 2008, with different designs. The 2008 coin is signed "EN" (sv:Ernst Nordin, the engraver who designed the coin), while the 1999 coin is unsigned. However, this page on the central bank's website identifies the engravers of both coins. The 1999 coin was designed by sv:Lars Englund. Therefore, neither of the coins is anonymous. The lack of a signature on the signs therefore doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence that the engraver is anonymous. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Apparently still copyrighted -FASTILY 02:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Vodenica-1901.jpg [edit]

Author Nadežda Petrović died more than 70 ago.

-- Bojan  Talk  06:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It was deleted for "no source" and since it is a 2006 upload it is unlikely we will ever know the source. But, as BokicaK's comment shows, it is {{PD-Art}} so we don't need to know the source. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Done per Jim -FASTILY 02:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Sigmundsried.jpeg[edit]

Ich wollte nur sagen dass dieses Bild von meiner Panasonic stammt !!!!!!

Diese Fotos sind von mir ! Auf meinem Pc bearbeitet Mac und sind wichtige Fotos für die Denkmalgeschützten Objekte in Ried !!!!!

gpatsche 8:16 Montag 16. Dezember !!!!

Das ist von mir eine Info Tafel für das Schloss Sigmundsried benütze ich für Führungen gpatsche — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpatsche (talk • contribs)


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 02:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:PF.jpg [edit]

This file is used to make a page fro Policia Federal to publish info and images about it. Gtoledoh (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although you claim in the file description that the logo is your own work, I suspect that is not correct. In order to restore it to Commons, we will need a license from the Policia Federal using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. If you are authorized to upload this image, please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 02:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:LogoTrans7.PNG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Does not infringe copyright, already described in the description that the author is Trans Corporation. Indrakrisnadi1 (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 02:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


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

Undelete File:Narayana Health logo.jpg[edit]

Hi,

Kindly undelete the logo, I have uploaded it on wiki commons as I am one of the official representatives to use this logo for web purposes. The image is required to represent the logo of Narayana Health in it's wiki page.

Thank you, --Bhawana.nh (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Bhawana Sahu Corporate Marketing - Digital Narayana Health


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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

rycrdomoreno-lebrijasound.jpg [edit]

File:Rycardomoreno-lebrijasound
Ultimo trabajo en solitario del guitarrista Rycardo Moreno

El motivo es que soy la fotografa personal de Rycardo Moreno con lo cual tengo tanto derechos de autor puesto que hice esa foto,


como su consentimiento para derechos de imagen. Ailimes (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Logo international Press Club of Prague.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission given by copyright holder under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL licnesing. (OTRS Ticket 2013121710015085) Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


Done -FASTILY 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Pavirtuallogo.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission granted by Copyright holder under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 licensing (OTRS Ticket 2013121710014728) Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


Done -FASTILY 21:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Ahlem_Mosteghanemi_2000.jpg[edit]

This picture is my work and I request it's undelition. Thank you. Sideraldream 18 December 2013 --Sideraldream (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because this image has appeared on the copyrighted web site www.bqfp.com.qa, policy requires that the actual copyright holder provide a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 23:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Map of SEATO member countries.png[edit]

I see no valid reason for deletion. This file is clearly in scope and respects the licensing policy. The administrator who closed the deletion request gave no explanation about the reason for deletion. BrightRaven (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

When the closing admin leaves the deletion reason blank, this usually means "per nom". What's your response to the concerns of Antemister voiced in the DR? INeverCry 18:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am generally strongly in favor of keeping maps that people are arguing about, feeling that we are not qualified to decide subtle controversial issues. However, I temper that with the feeling that we should not keep maps that are simply wrong -- a map showing 60 states in the USA, for example. This map is close to that. It shows the colonies of the members of SEATO as if they were members. That would be fine if this were a map of a 1920's organization, but most of the colonies were independent by the time SEATO was disbanded in 1977, so that by implication it includes as members many countries that were not. It also does not include the Federation of Malaya, which was a colony of the UK until three years after SEATO was founded in 1954. It also omits many of the Caribbean colonies, as well as the Bahamas. The inconsistencies are not explained. Since it wasn't in use, I think it is best left deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Already told it: A map containing to less information to understand the topic is really misleading. According to the map, any colony of the member states seem to have the same status as a member state (by the way, I assume that those self governing british colonies like Rhodesia or the islands in the Caribbean had really no relationship with that organization. The highly important protocoll states, one of the main issues of the treaty are not mentioned at all - because they were not members. This map presents are rather misleading image of the SEATO.--Antemister (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The basic concept used for depicting states on maps is sovereignty. In 1959, the sovereignty of the UK and France had a large worldwide extent and we cannot ignore it when we represent these states at that time. You ask about the link between Rhodesia and the Caribbean and SEATO, but the link is exactly the same as the link with Corsica or Northern Ireland: the sovereign state there was member of SEATO. I agree this is an awkward link, but it is the only one we have when we want to depict SEATO on a map. Why would it be important to know that Coventry or Marseille were in the territory of SEATO member states and not Kuching or Libreville? The fact the people living in Kuching or Libreville had not the equal rights with the people living in Coventry or Marseille (which basically defines colonialism) is an internal policy matter and is not really relevant for international relations and for a military alliance like SEATO. What really matter in international relations is sovereignty. Nevertheless, I do not oppose the use of File:Map of SEATO member countries - de.svg, which distinguishes metropoles and colonies (but I would oppose the use of a map not showing the colonies at all, which would be incorrect). I do not understand why this map, which is not incorrect should be deleted: being unused is not a valid reason for deletion (but it is not completely unused). Having less information than another file is not a valid reason for deletion. Even being incorrect does not seem to be a valid reason for deletion (but this map is not more incorrect than File:Map of SEATO member countries - de.svg). So why this double standard? BrightRaven (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Another point: the distinction between metropoles and colonies raises other methodological problems. Was the French Guyana a colony or part of the metropole (it acquired the status of overseas department in 1946)? Was not East Pakistan a colony of West Pakistan? BrightRaven (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the "link between Rhodesia and the Caribbean and SEATO, ist not same as the link with Corsica or Northern Ireland". Corsica and Northern Ireland were and are integral parts of the France and the UK, respectively. Colonies have in principle a completely different legal status. That's why polictical maps always disambiguate between colonies and their metropoles. Frech Guyana was declared as an integral part of France - thats why it is dark blue in the new map. East Pakistan had the same status as Eastern Prussia from 1920 to 1939, as to use an example from my home country. It was a normal part of the state, but seperated from the the larger part of it. Why should there be an undeletion of this map, which has to be marked as outdated/replaced, because of such an inaccuracy?--Antemister (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


Procedural close. Stale request (no new activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 22:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:The National Archives UK - CO 1069-3-191.jpg[edit]

File incorrectly deleted due to no FOP in Mozambique. This photograph was taken on Portuguese soil and according to customary International Right, is not covered by the the law of the Republic of Mozambique, which didn't exist at the time (1955), but by the Portuguese law, which allows FOP:

A general principle in Law is "there must be a legal connection between the case or defendant and State X for jurisdiction to exist". In this case it's a British photograph of a building designed by a Portuguese architect (still alive and living in Portugal) taken in Portuguese territory. There is no connection to the Republic of Mozambique. This principle is confirmed in Portuguese Supreme Court case 02S3074 (2002) about international court competence dealing with a job executed in Angola between 1968 and 1975: "Porém, como se viu, o contrato de trabalho foi, de 1968 a 1975, executado em território então considerado como português e, sendo esse (a execução do contrato) o elemento de conexão relevante, é a esse momento, e não ao da proposição da acção, que importa atender para efeitos de determinação da competência internacional (neste sentido, cfr. o acórdão deste Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, de 13 de Novembro de 1986, processo n.º 74 547, no Boletim do Ministério da Justiça, n.º 361, pág. 471). " Says the relevant linking element is the place where the contract was executed, that it was then Portuguese territory, and therefore it is to that moment (Portuguese Angola) and not the moment the case entered the courts (Republic of Angola) that one needs to attend to determine international competence, cites previous jurisprudence to support it, and concludes excluding Angola courts juridiscion over the case.

Please restore.--- Darwin Ahoy! 03:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Given the very detailed analysis in the section above, it looks to me that prior to the current Mozambique copyright act coming in to force the FOP position is not so clear, I would therefore support this images return (providing there are no other issues) if it was taken prior to May 2001. As an aside I do not accept Darwinius view that this is not a work covered by Mozambique copyright act, just that it was taken at a time when there was no clear FOP bar and laws don't normally change that retrospectively.LGA talkedits 03:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I would like to clarify that I do not claim (I proposed it before, in a previous case, but retracted) that the building is not covered by the Mozambican copyright laws. I understand it as being covered by them. Perhaps it would be easier to understand this point if we imagine it as a statue covered by the sculptor's copyright. If it's mounted in a square in Portugal and photographed, that use is allowed under Portuguese FOP. There is no dispute about this, I believe. But if the statue later is transported to Mozambique and remounted in one of its squares ("issued" to Mozambique), then it can't be photographed any more there. However, the photographs taken in Portugal would still be allowed under Portuguese FOP. In this specific case, it's like if the building was built in Lisbon, photographed, and after 20 years dismounted and remounted in the Republic of Mozambique. It is now covered by Mozambican no-FOP, but photographs taken in Portugal would not have anything to do with that.
    • In a separate note, I tend to agree that photos taken prior to 2001 should not be covered by Mozambican FOP law as well, since it is an expected outcome, based in the no retroactivity of Mozambican laws as a general principle, and it does not imply depriving putative copyright holders of their copyrights.
    • Anyway, in this precise case, I believe the fact that the photo was executed in Portuguese soil is enough to not make it subject to Mozambican no-FOP, and this belief is supported by previous jurisprudence in Portuguese Supreme Court (it should perhaps be noted as well that both countries, Portugal and Mozambique, are signatory of a cooperation agreement in Justice and law enforcement since 1990). --- Darwin Ahoy! 22:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional jurisprudence related to this situation:

  • JTRL00024225 - "If a certain fact was executed in Portuguese territory, and there is no bilateral agreement, international convention or general principles about State succession that would make it exit from Portuguese jurisdiction, Portuguese courts are competent to deal with it. And this despite Angola, where the contract was celebrated, being today an Independent State, Italy being the destination of the transported goods, and the fact that the goods went astray in Spain."
  • JTRL00024030Determines the Lisbon Comarca court competent to deal with an action based in an accident which occurred in Angola, at a date it was Portuguese territory.
  • 7189/2003-4 A person working in Angola before its independence in 1975 is seen as working in Portuguese territory.
  • 0451/05 (Supreme Court, 2005) - "The law does not distinguish between the activity exercised in Mozambique (then Portuguese territory) (...) and the activity exercised in the rest of the national territory"
  • Bilateral Agreement between Mozambique and Portugal on Judiciary matters (1990) - Artº 14 - "All decisions taken by Portuguese Courts dealing with private rights which had not been the subject of a final judgement (res judicata) at the date of Mozambique Independence, will have immediate efficacy on Mozambican territory, with the exception of those where the final sentence differs from the initial one, which would require revision and confirmation." - Shows that Mozambique has no problem in principle in recognizing Portuguese jurisdiction in its territory concerning actions or facts occurred at the time it was Portuguese territory.

I want to add as well that I couldn't find a single reference or source opposing what is stated above.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you just clear something up that may change my support, where was the item when it was photographed ? Was it in what is now Mozambique or was it it what is still Portugal ? LGA talkedits 02:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
In 1955, when this picture was taken, Beira (where the building is located) was Portuguese territory, sharing the same rights (in general, including copyright) as the rest of Portuguese territory. Only in 1975 the territory passed, by mutual agreement (Lusaka Agreement, 1974), to the hands of the newly formed Republic of Mozambique.
Maybe I should add as well that, from, what I could understand, Mozambique, Angola, Guiné and the rest of overseas Portuguese territories are not a case of colonial/imperial copyright, designed to protect Portuguese interests. The law was exactly the same for the mainland and provincial works. Of course, in practice, a native of Mozambique would not have much access to the law, due to the facts in the ground, but from the moment he would have (as in the case of the integrated individuals, with knowledge and means) the outcome is expected to have been exactly the same. In fact, Mozambique kept the "colonial" law of 1966 (copyright law extensive to all Portuguese territory, mainland, islands and provinces) unchanged and in force until 2001. This is not the same situation as the British Empire or Palestine.--- Darwin Ahoy! 12:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
That being the case then I think at that time there was a FOP for buildings in that location. LGA talkedits 13:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. The 1966 copyright law explicitly allowed FOP (as does current Portuguese law of copyright - I must mention this because current Portuguese law of copyright is explicitly retroactive.).--- Darwin Ahoy! 13:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently ok -FASTILY 22:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Strachanco.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is an image of a coin that was struck in 1874 - well before the 50 year limit as per South African law or the 70 year limit as per US law. Martinvl (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you give us some evidence of the date? There's nothing in the file that dates them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Certainly if it was from 1874; since I have no access to deleted files, I'll leave that to Jameslwoodward. I'd point out that there is no 70 year limit in US law; works that were published 95 years ago (or published before 1923, since the extension wasn't retroactive to works in the public domain) are out of copyright. (That applies only to works published before 1978.) Anonymous works published after 2002 get life+70, with the law providing absolute safe harbor to anonymous works over 120 years old.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment According to http://www.tokencoins.com/techn.html#eight, the image we're talking about is of the 1874 minted coins. INeverCry 00:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How can this coin have a copyright at all, even if it wasn't from 1874? It's only numbers and letters.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Restored. Coins from 1874, so PD. Yann (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Convenção do PMDB nas Eleições 2010.jpg [edit]

Let me repeat the previous UNDEL nomination after the original deletion:

This photo showed supporters in a 2010 political rally in Brazil (unique as such among all these P.M.D.B. photos), as made evident by the added categorization. It is clearly in scope and should be dully restored. -- Tuválkin 16:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I will presently ask also the input of Brazilian Commons users about the usefulness of this image, the only one we had categorized showing annonymous P.M.D.B. supporters, all the others being party officials. -- Tuválkin 02:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is the picture in question, for those who can't see it. Personally, I don't think this photo adds much to anything, it just shows a bunch of people smiling and doing kind of facebook gestures who could be anywhere. I believe the photo was taken in the described circumstances, but I understand why it was mistaken by a personal photo.--- Darwin Ahoy! 02:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Out of scope. As Darwinius says, these people could be anywhere. There's nothing to indicate any political connection. For all intents and purposes, this is a facebook friends photo. INeverCry 05:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
You say that «there’s nothing to indicate any political connection.» Well, there’s the file description. Images don’t have to be self explanatory — if so we wouldn’t need metadata, additional information, and continuous curation — as we do. -- Tuválkin 04:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support after this information. The woman in the center is Category:Teresa Surita, notable politician of Brazil, which makes the file in scope.--- Darwin Ahoy! 05:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support per Darwinius, even considering that a photo with "a bunch of people smiling and doing kind of facebook gestures" around a notable Brazilian politician (= pt:Teresa Surita) has a slight propagandistic undertone... Gunnex (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Surely so (but no less than this or countless other crowdbath shots), but — so what? Commons doesn’t have to be neutral: We’d host that image the same way we’d host others with opposite undertones (such as these), after all! -- Tuválkin 04:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support according to my comment here. Érico Wouters msg 16:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I’m glad that it was possible to identify one person and learn additional information about the photo, but my original point in my original keep vote was that annonymous political rally attendants and electoral supporters do have a place in Commons, and Brazil seems to be lacking photos of those. -- Tuválkin 04:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Strong Oppose This is not a good or even a normal picture of a PMDB supporter(s). Not even having Teresa is a motive to keep since there are twenty seven pictures of Teresa Surita in Commons, all 300 times better than this one, and if "showing annonymous P.M.D.B. supporters" is a problem, we can always import those much better images from Flickr. Also, canvassing the whole pt.wiki to come to this page and to support the undelete is not cool at all. Béria Lima msg 20:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Béria — I awaited your opinion more than most people’s I contacted about this. The subject matter is not whether this is a good or normal picture of annonymous supporters, but that it was/is the only one we had in Commons (this was the point made before one of the depicted persons was identified), and countering the original nomination that this crowd shot was off-scope. I’m glad that this Flickr stream you found has much better content on this subject and with Commons compatible licenses. Maybe some interested party (no pun intended) would add some of those: I should say that I am not one, being myself nor Brazilian nor a supporter of P.M.D.B.’s broader ideology. Concerning the canvassing (a practice that at the time I didn’t know is frowned upon but which, it hit me later, can get quickly out of hand if not severely repressed), I can only say that I didn’t urge people to come here to support the undeletion, but to express their opinions (either supporting or opposing) and to add information — which is exactly what happened. (Also, it was not «the whole pt.wiki», but two dozen Commons users picked from the pt-N Babel category, after a quick perusal of their user pages.) It was done in reaction to the first UNDEL refusal rationale, that after 7 days nobody took interest in this matter. Heartfelt apologies for being uncool, it was a poorly thought initiative on my part. -- Tuválkin 04:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Image is in scope of Teresa Surita and the PMDB. Tm (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Restored. It seems that several people see a potential use for this. Quality acceptable. Yann (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Happily_logo_BN copia.png[edit]

This logo of Happily Ever After (1981) of The Cure is from my own personal work. I was inspired in the original logo to make this version. Thanks! Graph sas (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Your version is a derivative work of the original and therefore infringes on its copyright. Also, it is against Commons policy to host original art from non-notable artists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Derivative work. INeverCry 19:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Ahlem Mosteghanemi at Beirut Book Fair 2012.jpg [edit]

This picture is my work and I'm requesting it's undeletion. Thank you. Sideraldream 18 December 2013 --Sideraldream (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 19:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Sb2002-r.6 (cropped).jpg [edit]

Simple derivative file of accepted File:Sb2002-r.6.jpg. --SJuergen (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Why couldn't you do that before? --SJuergen (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Copyvio -FASTILY 22:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Juan Edgar Palacios Tapia.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Yo soy el propietario de la imagen, inclusive la imagen no es descargada de internet (A pesar de encontrarse en la web) la imagen es la original Viragosnake (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Because it has appeared at https://plus.google.com/102486200446029172420/posts, Commons rules require that the actual photographer provide a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 19:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Libro Inolvidable (Portada).JPG[edit]

El archivo File:Libro Inolvidable (Portada).JPGSolo date tiempo, que ese tiempo sera "Inolvidable".

Es de mi autoria Juan Edgar palacios tapia, les pido permitan la publicacion pues no viola a ningun autor por ser to el mismo

Juan Edgar palacios tapia--Viragosnake (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Because this image is a copyrighted book cover, in order to restore it, Commons rules require a license from the publisher using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Paul Chesley - A Photographic Voyage.jpg[edit]

Greetings,

My name is Paul Chesley and I am requesting an undulation of the file File:Paul Chesley - A Photographic Voyage.jpg. I am the copyright holder for both the image on the book cover as well as the book and I give my permission for the image of the book cover to be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL.

--Pchesley (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

First, thank you for giving the world wonderful images. Paging through your gallery takes me back to many places we have traveled. I encourage you to consider contributing a few of them to Commons. I know that images are your livelihood, but we have a number of professional photographers who license relatively low resolution (say 1000px on the longer dimension) with a license that explicitly includes only that resolution. This helps Commons and, perhaps, helps the photographer sell more images.
As for the subject image, Commons rules require that book covers and other published works have a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. OTRS has a backlog, but if you drop a note on my talk page after sending the e-mail, I will see that it is restored promptly. Please be sure to include the file name in the e-mail. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What Jim said -- please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 22:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Palacios Tapia Juan Edgar[edit]

Palacios Tapia Juan Edgar


Consiento publicar dicha obra bajo la licencia libre LICENCIA

Reconozco que concedo a cualquiera el derecho a usar la imagen en un producto comercial, así como a modificarla de acuerdo a sus necesidades.

Soy consciente de que siempre retendré los derechos de autor de mi imagen, así como el derecho a ser reconocido como autor según los términos de la licencia elegida para mi obra. Las modificaciones que otros hagan a la imagen no me serán atribuidas.

Soy consciente de que la licencia libre sólo afecta a los derechos de autor, y me reservo del derecho de emprender acciones legales contra cualquiera que use esta obra violando cualquier otra ley, como restricciones de marcas registradas, libelo o restricciones geográficas específicas.

Reconozco que no puedo retractarme de este acuerdo, y que la imagen puede o no ser almacenada permanentemente en un proyecto de la Fundación Wikimedia.


FECHA Y NOMBRE DEL PROPIETARIO DE LOS DERECHOS DE AUTOR

Juan Edgar Palacios Tapia 18/12/13


This needs to be emailed to COM:OTRS. They will restore the file for you if everything checks out -FASTILY 22:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


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

Blue_Knight_student-athlete_protesting_Senate_Bill_1070_during_soccer_game_at_Scottsdale_Community_College_in_Fall_2012._Photo_taken_in_locker_room_before_kickoff..jpg[edit]

Undelete File File is original and posted by owner of all photos and files. Miglope17 (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It cannot be undeleted if it was not deleted yet in the first place. Instead of trolling this page (three undel requests in five minutes, seriously?), better go and vote supporting it being kept, here. -- Tuválkin 03:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wrong forum. File has not been deleted -FASTILY 06:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Wilma Bishop.jpg[edit]

Hello.

I want to undelete Wilma Bishop.jpg file because these reasons: 1. I already write the source: Strike Witches wiki, i forgot to give the link: http://strikewitches.wikia.com/wiki/Wilma_Bishop. You can't say that i violate the copyright.

2. The picture is also get from the Illustration Column(IC) and edit in PSD, that IC is on some random website. I can't get the name of artist: http://strikewitches.wikia.com/wiki/File:Wilma_Scan_1.jpg

So i need to get back that image. Thank you.


 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 06:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Logo-tudomus-1.JPG[edit]

Estimado stephan

el logo que se publicó es de mi propiedad. Lo demuestra el que la marca está patentada a nombre de Gestinversión 20, sl. empresa de la que poseo el 63% de las acciones.

Espero tus noticias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentor007 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-19 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: This appears to be a response to User talk:Mentor007#File:Logo-tudomus-1.JPG, not related to File:Example.jpg. From the Google translation, it appears that the user should be sent instructions in Spanish about COM:OTRS from someone who can sign for his company. (The user owns 63% of the company, so he can probably speak for the company, but I don't speak Spanish.) --Closeapple (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What Closeapple said. Please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 01:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:CIIT_Islamabad.jpg [edit]

Dear Sir,

Here I send a request for undeletion of the file File:CIIT_Islamabad.jpg because it is an original picture relation to the topic. I personally visit that place and studied there.

Regards, Saadisaadsaadi (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)M. Saad Shahid

Symbol support vote.svg Support Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment- This image was deleted due to wrong use of tag "no source". It had a source, and no rational to counter it has been shown. If there are any doubts about the source, it should be sent to DR and discussed, not tagged that way.--- Darwin Ahoy! 11:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that it was tagged because the image has a watermark and it is small, so meaning that the uploader is not the author. Saadisaadsaadi, are you the photographer? Yann (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, probably, though it is not the correct use for that tag (at least the initial source should have been removed). Actually I could find a similar file uploaded by Saadisaadsaadi used in the institute brochures, which indeed increases the suspicion that they are not own work, so I retract my initial support and change it to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose.--- Darwin Ahoy! 11:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done per above. If you are the copyright holder and/or are authorized to upload this file to Commons, please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 01:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Logo Maison de la Rivière.jpg [edit]

Hi

The logo of La Maison de la Rivière is not copyrighted, so it should not be deleted.

Thanks --Nathalie.kummer (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Nathalie Kummer - 19-12-2013

Bonjour,
Malheureusement, tous les logos ont un copyright par défaut. Si vous pouvez envoyer une permission, le fichier sera restauré. Voyez COM:OTRS pour la procédure. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
All files have a copyright by default. Please send a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What Yann said. This needs COM:OTRS permission -FASTILY 01:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File: La-Ocasion.jpg[edit]

Estimado Sres: Esta es la página de condiciones de uso de la imagen de Manzana Publicidad, podéis ver que es de nuestra titularidad http://onda7tenerife.com/identidad-visual-corporativa/

Un saludo,

--85.155.19.15 23:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 01:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Mercury City Tower in the cloud.jpg[edit]

File:Mercury City Tower in the cloud.jpg

It`s my own photo, maked with Microsoft ICE. -Kirill Borisenko (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done There is no COM:FOP in Russia -FASTILY 01:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Mediante logo.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I'm the creator of the image, so there is no Copyright violation. Syrusakbary (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 01:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Ambilogo.svg[edit]

Was deleted without further comment within less than 12 hours _despite_ my very timely reaction and comment regarding the clarification of rights. I'm really pissed off. If there is indeed a problem with this file, I'd be the first to want to hear about it, and remedy the situation, but fighting rampant deletion knights is really not what I'm after. The file has been in use on Wikipedia in a number of places, so I'd really have appreciated an advance notice and proper deletion discussion thank you very much. You will find details about the rights situation on the talk page of the deleted image. Like I said, if there indeed is a problem, I'd put it up on Wikipedia under fair use, but heck, it was Wikipedia's friggin upload dialog that prompted me to put it up on commons in the first place. Please revisit your deletion policy, so that contributors can be heard properly and be informed of pending deletions with _proper_ notice (and no, 12 hours is not enough).--Nettings (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


Restored: PD-shape. Yann (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:URIARTE.JPG [edit]

This file is in the public domain, because Copyright law of Uruguay states: "Para ser protegido por esta ley, es obligatoria la inscripción en el registro respectivo." In case this is not legally possible: The right to use this work is granted to anyone for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

Nenuchito (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That is not the current law of Uruguay, I don't think. The current law (Article 53) seems to say that registration is entirely optional and the author does not lose any rights if they do not register (in accordance with the Berne Convention, which does not allow formalities such as registration to preserve copyright). The original law from 1937 does look like there was a registration requirement. Uruguay joined Berne in 1967. I'm not sure when the law was changed, nor if previous works had their copyright retroactively restored, nor if the original registration requirements still apply for older Uruguayan works (and not sure if this is one of those or not). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No consensus to restore -- Unclear copyright status -FASTILY 00:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:New Brainlab Logo.png[edit]

I think I simply provided the wrong copyright information and that is why this was deleted (I am new to Wikipedia). The image was found on the Brainlab website under 'Journalists'. http://brainlab.com/about-us/journalists

Under their 'Legal Notice' on the website it says 'Copyright The information on this website is owned or controlled by Brainlab. It is protected by copyright laws. Any reproduction other than downloads for non-commercial purposes or modification of this website is prohibited.' http://brainlab.com/legal-notice-legal

Which category should I put photos like this under? Is this grounds for un-deletion?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MedicusMagnificus (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 December 2013‎ (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A non-commercial license makes an image essentially unusable, so we do not permit images with NC licenses on Commons, see COM:L. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

estimado señor:

si es la imagen que quiero restaurar

--85.155.19.15 21:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 00:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File: Iniciar manzana.jpg[edit]

-- si es el archivo que deseo que se restaure, ya he enviado por email el consentimiento de uso.

atentamente,

--Iperezdiaz8 (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Estimado Sres: de Esta es la pagina de Condiciones de USO de la imagen de Manzana Publicidad, podeis ver Que es de titularidad nuestra http://onda7tenerife.com/identidad-visual-corporativa/ Un saludo,

--Iperezdiaz8 (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Saludos Perez, Al parecer ese nombre de imagen jamás fué usado en commons, podrías verificar si manzana.jpg es realmente lo que quieres restaurar?. Muchas gracias --The Photographer (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

?? There has never been a file named File: Iniciar manzana.jpg on Commons. None of your deleted uploads has a similar name, so before we can consider this request, you must say correctly what file you want restored.

Also, please note that http://onda7tenerife.com/identidad-visual-corporativa has an explicit copyright notice on it, so that anything taken from that site will require a license from an officer of the corporation using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


Closing as  Not done . The file named is non-existent, and it seems like the source named for the non-existent file only contains copyrighted content. -FASTILY 04:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Universiti_Tenaga_Nasional_(UNITEN).gif[edit]

This logo important to spread the institution brands.


 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 04:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Ingrid Puganigg als Martha Dubronski im gleichnamigen Film (1984).jpg[edit]

Die gewünschte Information - Bestätigung der Abgebildeten, Ingrid Puganigg, dass sie tatsächlich im Besitz der vollen Rechte an diesem Foto ist, sowie Name und Kontaktdaten des Fotografen - wurden zweimal (siehe unten) an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org gesendet.

Da somit hinreichende Evidenz für die Veröffentlichungsrechte beigebracht wurde, beantrage ich die Wiederherstellung der Datei / des Fotos.

Required information - confirmation of the person in the photo, Ingrid Puganigg, that she is in fact the copyright holder of this work, and name of photographer, including e-mail, phone and web site URL - have been sent (see below) twice to permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org.

Since sufficient evidence of permission has been submitted, I kindly ask to restore the file / photo.


Enclosed please find required confirmation of the person in the photo, my wife, writer and actor Ingrid Puganigg, that she is in fact the copyright holder of this work. The copyright was granted by the director of the movie, 'Martha Dubronski', who is also the photographer.

If necessary he can be contacted here:

E-Mail: bkuert@me.com Telefon: 0041 (0) 79 420 59 95 Website: www.beatkuert.com

Please be so kind to confirm that this is sufficient evidence of permission! Regards, Hans-Joachim Metzger

From: Ingrid Puganigg Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 6:55 PM To: permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org Cc: Hans-Joachim Metzger Subject: File Ingrid Puganigg als Martha Dubronski im gleichnamigen Film (1984)

Hiermit bestätige ich, Ingrid Puganigg, dass ich im Besitz der vollen Rechte an dem Foto bin. Bei dem Fotografen handelt es sich um den Regisseur des Films 'Martha Dubranski': Beat Kuert. Beat Kuert hat die Rechte an mich übertragen.

Sollte eine weitergehende Bestätigung erforderlich sein, ist er zu erreichen unter:

E-Mail: bkuert@me.com Telefon: 0041 (0) 79 420 59 95 Website: www.beatkuert.com

Ingrid Puganigg


Original Message -----

From: Wikimedia Commons To: Hans-Joachim Metzger Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 10:37 PM Subject: Túrelio hinterließ dir eine Nachricht auf Wikimedia Commons

  Túrelio hinterließ eine Nachricht auf deiner Diskussionsseite:   

Wir benötigen eine Bestätigung der Abgebildeten, dass sie tatsächlich im Besitz der vollen Rechte an diesem Foto ist, zu senden an permissions-c… Nachricht ansehen Änderungen ansehen


--Hans-Joachim Metzger (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


This needs to be emailed to COM:OTRS. Once OTRS processes the email that was sent, they will restore the file -FASTILY 22:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Aharon Meskin - Ben Gurion - Israel Prize1960.jpg [edit]

This file was deleted as a URAA problem which seems as not a problem anymore, please read: the WMF legal recent comment on this matter and the written permission from the state of Israel, the copyright holder. I'm not undeleting myself to avoid COI. Best matanya talk 22:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question The letter for the state of Israel covers works "taken before 05.25.1958" given the title of the file indicates it may have been taken in 1960 how does this letter cover this image ? LGA talkedits 23:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
As stated over IRC by odder, this file won't help, as it's a mere statement, which is insufficient. I postpone my request for undelete until this is clear with a better release document. To your question: this letter was issued in 2009, were copyright was release only for files until 1958, today we are in 2013, releasing files until 1962. matanya talk 23:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing as withdrawn, per above. -FASTILY 00:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

DarrenAndersonHeadshot-2.jpg[edit]

Permission has been received via OTRS. See otrs:2013121110002582. John Reaves (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


Done -FASTILY 00:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Roughnecks Logo.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: As a committee member of the Aberdeen Roughnecks, I can confirm that the logo in question is free-to-use, having been created by ourselves, and has no copyright on it. I would appreciate it if you could restore the image. Thanks. DelJRobertson (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Every created work has a copyright. In order to restore this, we will need a free license from an officer of the corporation using the procedure at COmmons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. To be honest, it seems like a lot of complicated work just to get an image added to our team page, so we'll leave it for now - creating the page initially was hard enough! I appreciate that you're just following the rules - no doubt we'll get it sorted at some point in the future. Regards, DelJRobertson (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Dr-umar-al-qadri.jpg[edit]

File:Dr-umar-al-qadri.jpg This is not a copyright violation as this image taken by me and I have approval from scholar Dr.Umar to share this snap to anybody. I appreciate Magog the Ogre (talk) if you restore this image. Thanks! --Shoaib535 (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Shoaib535


 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Classic Furby 1998.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: How is this copyright? I took this picture myself right before I post it on Wikipedia! I don't know why this guy marked it as copyright, but its not right! So put it back! Johnarcheus (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Your image infringes on the copyright of the Furby pictured. It can be restored to Commons only if Hasbro provides a free license, which is very unlikely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Copyvio. INeverCry 20:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:AB Uyum OSGB.jpg [edit]

I bought this image from istockphoto.com and i have an invoice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AB Uyum Group (talk • contribs)

That does not entitle you to sub-license the image. See http://www.istockphoto.com/help/licenses under "License restrictions". LX (talk, contribs) 11:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done per LX. INeverCry 21:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Alegoría de la República Española.jpg [edit]

Tanto el lienzo de la "República" pintado por Teodoro Andreu como la imagen son de mi propiedad, por lo que no hay ninguna razón para el borrado de la imagen. Es una censura inadmisible de tientes políticos que pretende borrar la imagen histórica de la "República Española" ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noulas (talk • contribs) 14:20, 22 December 2013‎ (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Teodoro Andreu died in 1935. The Spanish law applicable to works by artists who died before 1987 puts his works under copyright for 80 years after his death, so his paintings will be in the Public Domain on January 1, 2016. The fact that you own the painting itself is not important -- the copyright is owned by Andreu's heirs and you do not have the right to license it.
As the Admin who deleted the works, I can assure you that I have no knowledge of these works and no bias about the historical image of the Spanish Republic -- my only concern is that the photographs are copyright violations and cannot, therefore, be on Commons until 1/1/2016. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Not PD unyil 1 January 2016. INeverCry 20:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Harnad0anti-fur.jpg [edit]

This photo is mine, I uploaded It december 12 and assigned the free license for Wikipedia Commons, but then I was contacted on my talk page with this notice:

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Harnad0anti-fur.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

Then I contacted the rights owners who granted permission (see below) but the image was deleted anyway. Please let me know what I still need to do.

On 2013-12-13, at 3:38 PM, Anita Carswell <anita@idausa.org> wrote:

Hi Stevan,

Wow! I had no idea they were so strict! Yes, the poster is ours and we give you permission to use the picture with it. I am hoping this is enough and I don't need to create an account/log in myself, but if somehow someone here needs to do that, please let me know exactly what I need to do.

Thanks!

Anita

-- This mail is sent via contact form on In Defense of Animals http://www.idausa.org


Original Message

Subject: Permission to post your anti-fur sign to wikicommons

From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnad@uqam.ca>

Date: Fri, December 13, 2013 8:04 am

To: info@idausa.org

Dear IDA,

I am a professor at University of Quebec in Montreal. I participated in an anti-fur demonstration in Montreal a few weeks ago and was carrying an IDA sign from http://www.furkills.org.

A photo was taken of me with that sign, and I would like to use that photo for my wikipedia page, but wikicommons requires permission not just from the photographer and the subject (both of whom give their permission) but also the creator of the sign.

So could you please provide me with permission, as specified by wikicommons here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harnad0anti-fur.jpg

Many thanks. And please let me know of any way I can help in the wonderful work you are doing.

Best wishes,

Stevan Harnad

Canada Research Chair in Cognitive Sciences, UQaM

Professor of Cogntitive Sciences, U Southampton

--Harnad (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


This needs to be emailed to COM:OTRS. Once our OTRS team processes the email that was sent, they will restore the file -FASTILY 08:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:சோழன்.jpg [edit]

This is the important information about cholas kingdom family told by many historians noted with epigraphy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pugazhenthi (talk • contribs)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image was published on the web, and therefore we need a formal permission. See COM:OTRS for details. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What Yann said -FASTILY 08:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Museu Galeria Chissano, Matola, Mozambique..jpg[edit]

This is a photo of the exterior space of a Museum in Mozambique, centred in its garden, which occupies most of it (off-wiki copy for those who can't see it). It was deleted as a consequence of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Museu Galeria Chissano, Matola, Mozambique..jpg, with the reasoning "DM doesn't seem applicable because the sculpture is one of the subjects of the photo.". I do not agree, as this is not in agreement with FOP limitations in Mozambican copyright law.

Mozambican copyright law says:

Artº 15. It is permitted, without authorization by the author or payment of any remuneration, to reproduce, broadcast or communicate by cable to the public the image of a work of architecture, three-dimensional art, photography or applied art that is permanently located in a place open to the public, except where the image of the work is the principal subject of such reproduction or broadcast or communication and is used for commercial purposes. (added emphasis)

In my opinion, it is clear that the image of the work in question (sculpture) is not the main subject of the photo. It can be argued that it's not even a subject of the photo at all, since from the chosen title, the intention of the uploader seems to have been to photograph the museum, not the works of art that happened to be exposed in the exterior. The main subject is the museum, which is not copyrightable on itself. If the sculpture wasn't there, it would have no effect on the value of this photo to document that museum, which makes it, in my view, a strong case for de minimis. In consequence, I would like to ask a review of this case. --- Darwin Ahoy! 21:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If not the sculpture the museum is the principal subject of it. And as you quoted a work of architecture is copyrighted by Artº 15. regards --JuTa 22:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yes, we can argue for a long time whether the sculpture is the principal subject -- I think it is because it is in the foreground -- but the question is moot. The museum building is also copyrighted. So unless you are prepared to argue that the palm tree is the principal subject, this image must remain deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I could possibly agree with that if the museum was the building, and the rest were mere ornaments or accessories, but it is not the case.
This museum is established in the grounds of the former house of Mozambican sculptor Alberto Chissano (d. 1994), and includes the gardens (which serve as gallery), what seems to have been the garage (the pavilion to the left, now a gallery), the house properly said (large building, with many exposition rooms), one more pavilion not shown in the picture (another gallery) and apparently the former swimming pool behind the house. What is shown is a partial view of those grounds, namely garden (1st plan, not subject to copyright), part of a pavilion (also not subject to copyright, and the pictures on the wall are clearly de minimis), and the former house partially obscured by trees and a sculpture. If that specific building was the main subject, the photo wouldn't have been shot from that perspective, where it is behind so many things. I can't see how that building wouldn't be de minimis as well.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Proof that the building should be considered de minimis as well, is that if I cropped the photo to show only part of it and the rest (pavilion and gardens) it would still be very useful to illustrate the museum. I can crop it, but I don't understand why would it be necessary, for the reasons stated above.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
We're not communicating. My point of view (I think JuTa agrees) is that everything in the picture except the palm tree and the grass has a copyright -- two buildings and a sculpture. We can argue for a long time about what should be named as the "principal subject", but I don't see how you can argue that everything in the image is de minimis. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
(The other, smaller building can't have a copyright, it's a mere garage, there are millions exactly like that one). Anyway, I think we already discussed this in Commons, over a magazine stand containing dozens of porn magazine covers. All in the picture was copyrighted, and all was de minimis as well, if I well recall the outcome. I stand by my point of view, though I understand this is very far from a clear case.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Previous discussion about a case where almost all in the picture was copyrightable, but was considered de minimis and kept: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pornographies of Japan.jpg.--- Darwin Ahoy! 01:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose COM:FOP#Mozambique seems to be more permissive than COM:DM in that it permits reproduction if the object isn't the main subject. COM:DM, on the other hand, requires that the object is irrelevant to the image as a whole. The artworks and the buildings aren't de minimis because the purpose of the image is to show the place where those objects are located. However, the main purpose is only the building behind the trees, so thanks to COM:FOP#Mozambique, we do not need to consider the copyright status of the sculptural works or the left buildings, despite those not being the de minimis. This doesn't help unless the copyright to the building behind the trees has expired. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I can't agree with you - A building behind trees and exposed stuff can't be the main subject. If the guy wanted to photograph it, he would have stepped some meters in front to get rid of the obstacles hiding that marvellous piece of architecture (I can't help but finding that building ugly and absolutely uninteresting, to my tastes, but that is irrelevant to the case). If that thing has a copyright, it definitely has not expired. I still think it is not the main subject of the photo.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's see if I can make my point clearer:

  • Mozambique copyright law allows for FOP where the copyrighted work is not the main subject of the reprodution
  • The main subject of the picture is Museu Galeria Chissano, installed in the grounds of the former house of Mozambican sculptor Alberto Chissano. The museum is not copyrighted. Some buildings in its grounds may be, and its contents certainly are.
  • The picture is clearly centred in the grounds, mainly the garden. Three copyrighted works are visible:
Painting (far left, in the shadows, clearly de minimis);
Sculpture (far right, not the main subject)
Building (assuming it's copyrighted - center/right, behind trees, bushes and sculpture, not the main subject)

None of the three copyrighted works visible in the picture is the main subject of the picture. They are only part of it. I really don't see how this hurts Mozambican FOP.

In case there is no agreement on this, I would like to know if a cropped version like this one is acceptable, or what more has to be cropped to make it acceptable. In any case, I still think the cropping is unnecessary.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the main subject of the cropped version is the building behind the trees, and the sculpture is, of the original.--Elvey (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done per above. No consensus to restore -FASTILY 21:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Ponte Armando Emilio Guebuza Artigo.pdf[edit]

File deleted for being out of scope, possibly due to misunderstanding of its contents. It's a work about an important Mozambican bridge by Luis Canhemba, who, as can be seen here, works for the Administração Nacional de Estradas (road authority) of Mozambique, and is a journalist in their trimonthly magazine. I believe the contents (text and photos) are indeed his own work - he uploaded at least one of the photos separately and the EXIF is compatible with his other uploads. All of them are compatible with the work of someone who documents road transport in Mozambique.

It possibly has issues due to FOP in one of two pictures, but it should be resolved by removing or obscuring those particular pictures (I seem to recall there is at least one which shouldn't be allowed due to no-FOP). --- Darwin Ahoy! 01:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the FOP question depends on whether bridges are "architecture". They are definitely not in the USA, probably are in France, elsewhere, I don't know. The larger question, though, is that this is a PDF document which is, I think, a history of the construction of the bridge. While its images are probably in scope, the text is not -- it belongs in an article on WP, not in a PDF here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Personally I have no doubts they are architecture. They are even classified as "works of art" (literally) in the Portuguese road authority inventories. First time I heard about the "works of art" of the highway to Cascais, I imagined statues and murals lining along its sides. Turned out they were the bridges. Anyway, I've already imagined this would be an hard one, which could possibly involve OTRS. Its a pity, as the pictures are quite good and the text is informative, and the generality of them do not hurt Mozambican no-FOP (I seem to recall there's only one picture of the bridge itself, the rest are of the construction works, therefore very much in scope and not problematic, I guess). If I extracted the images from the PDF and uploaded them, would it be possible to keep them here?--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus to restore. IMO if the images from the pdf are extracted and uploaded, that should be okay -FASTILY 21:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Anynobody[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This was deleted by Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Coroner Post MortemHubbard.gif with the title "L. Ron Hubbard death documents" in 2008. However, it appears that these are the work product of a public body (the San Luis Obisbo County coroner's office) inside California. As such, they probably fall under Commons' current understanding of {{PD-CAGov}}, which was not fully understood back in 2008 when the deletion happened. See, for example, County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition (2009 court case) and en:Wikipedia:Public domain status of official government works#Template:PD-CAGov (2009–2012) that discussed the strength of PD-CAGov in light of new California court rulings. (Despite the way that the template {{PD-CAGov}} is worded right now, it applies to local governments in California law as well, not just to the statewide government.) Closeapple (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right. Should be restored… As I've said before, someone needs to go through a dump of commons from before PD-CAGov was deleted… Anyone? --Elvey (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

done -FASTILY 21:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


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

Ethernut50f.png has explicit permission for distribution under CC-BY-SA 3.0[edit]

Hallo,

ich möchte darum bitten, dass die Datei Ethernut50f.png wiederhergestellt wird.

Ich habe die explizite Erlaubnis, diese Bild unter der CC-BY-SA 3.0 Lizenz zu verbreiten.

Es erscheint mir verständlich, dass Zweifel an dem Bestehen der freien Rechte existieren, da dieses Bild ebenso zur Bewerbung des Ethernut 5.0 Boards eingesetzt wird (bzw. eine liecht abgewandelte Form). Jedoch bitte ich zu beachten, dass egnite generell eine sehr liberale Lizenzpolitik betreibt (Veröffentlichung von Software und Hardware unter BSD-Lizenz (eine recht ungewöhnliche Anwendung, aber naja ;-)), und daher verständlich ist, dass auch die Bilder ihrer Boards frei verfügbar sind / gemacht werden sollen.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Nerilex (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Liliana Flores.jpg [edit]

Thanks for your time. The image asked to be undeleted is, according to the policies: a straightforward photograph of an identifiable individual taken in a public place. The mentioned linked as a possible copyright violation is: (Copyright violation: copyvio via http://www.flickr.com/photos/emilienne/3126373298/in/photostream/ (2008 I have noticed that the same .jpg is used in the mentioned link, which is totally ok, the flickr user uploaded it, with the permission of the identifiable individual and the photographer as well as I do; there is no dispute or controversy related to the use of the mentioned .jpg file. I shall proceed in completing the proper copyright tag.

What you refere to is personality rights. The file was deleted for copyright violation. The file is protected by the photographers intelectual property rights and not published under a free license. You cant take it, you cant claim it your own work (as you did) and you cant upload it here because it is not free. --Martin H. (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. The flickr page even has a link with more information - by the all rights reserved tag!--Elvey (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done ARR at source. Copyvio. INeverCry 18:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:صفحه اول نیستان.jpg [edit]

با سلام این عکس یعنی عسک صفحه اول نرم افزار نیستان بیانگر محتوا و تم این برنامه بوده است و حذف آن موجب سردرگمی کاربران می باشد در حالی که عکس فوق هیچ یک از قوانین کپی رایت را نقض نکرده و تولید کننده انتشار دهند می باشد --Enekas4481 (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done Self-promotion/advertising is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 21:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Windows logo- 2006.svg [edit]

The Windows Vista/7 logo has been superseded, and the English Wikipedia accpets fair use. Can we please restore it? Typo385.5 (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 Not done Fair-use is forbidden on Commons. You'll have to upload this file locally at enwp -FASTILY 21:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Dvora Omer5.jpg[edit]

An OTRS permission was received see Ticket:2013122510005615. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


✓ Done INeverCry 18:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Burlington Skyway 1958.png[edit]

Deleted by wikilawyering despite written proof sent to OTRS regarding crown copyright. I have provided numerous examples of legislation, and contact that validates that the Canadian Government, LIKE THE UK, considers the expiration of crown copyright to be global. The copyright holder has verified the conditions, and this photo should be undeleted. If not, restore this to en.wikipedia. The response I've gotten is "No, I don't believe that" without one shred of evidence. Practically stonewalling. - Floydian (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It cannot be restored to enwiki because it is copyrighted in the U.S. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Based on what evidence? Because I've provided plenty to contradict your personal opinion. Also, yes it can; with a fair use rationale. I will upload it myself there if need be. - Floydian (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
You have misinterpreted the evidence. Four users have told you this, including User:Stefan4, User:Asclepias, User:Jameslwoodward, and me, but you have just been uncivil this whole time. And if it meets en:WP:NFCC, upload it, but I don't know if it does. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burlington Skyway 1958.png. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
There has been no evidence. Please link it here if there is. I don't want a wikipedia link, I want a link to actual copyright law. I also want to be told what is necessary, what will offer you absolutely no rebuttle and finally make you say "Yes, this is the permission we need". And yes, when hundreds of hours of work is stifled by an overprecautionary principle and you get told "Get this and its good", but then I get that and it's never enough, you get fucking pissed. - Floydian (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
That link was the non-free content criteria for Wikipedia, which must be fulfilled if you upload it as fair use to Wikipedia, which you said you would do. The link I had previously given you, m:Wikilegal/Use_of_Foreign_Works_Restored_under_the_URAA_on_Commons#Works_Released_Into_the_Public_Domain_By_Foreign_Governments, is written by the Wikimedia legal team (although not official advice) and it states:
“In order to place the work in the public domain in the U.S. (or globally), the foreign government must (1) be the copyright holder of the work in question; and (2) release the work, in writing, into the public domain (which may be as simple as stating that they release the work into the public domain).”
It also says:
“It is important to note that a statement from a foreign government stating that the work is merely “in the public domain” is insufficient to place the work into the public domain under U.S. copyright law if the work is otherwise protected by a restored copyright.”
Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose US law is clear: unless the copyright holder voluntarily has renounced its copyright to the file, the file is copyrighted in the United States. According to w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 October 6#Ontario highway photos, the copyright holder according to Canadian law is Her Majesty. When determining the copyright holder, the US follows Canadian law (see e.g. w:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.), so Her Majesty is also the copyright holder in the United States. The statement in the deletion request seems to come from "Public Works and Government Services Canada", but it is questionable whether this agency is what the copyright law refers to as "Her Majesty". --Stefan4 (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • again, questionable based on what? US law is clear based on what? Your opinion? The way the stars line up? You guys keep pumping these OTHERSTUFFEXISTS court decisions on me, but when I ask you to provide any shred of evidence numerous times, you ignore it. The Government of Canada is the representation of Her Majesty. The Governor General would be the direct representation of the Queen. But before I bother busting my balls for this donkeyshit, I want to know what I need to provide to make the copyright ninnies stop. But wait, none of you know that! Everything I am told is required is provided, then you bring some new anecdotal reasoning up to stifle it. WHAT DO I NEED TO PROVIDE AND FROM WHOM!. By the way, do either of you even have access to the OTRS ticket system? - Floydian (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I thought there was a decision not to delete files uploaded before March 2012 (Golan v. Holder came out on 18 January 2012). This one was uploaded in 2010. Well, I was told so... Yann (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Well... the real decision were to not allow new uploads posterior to March 2012 (see for example Template:Not-PD-US-URAA/doc). For < 2012, there is a temporary decision stating there is no emergency to act, but nothing definitive definitive. Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA for example concluded we aren't going to delete in one operation all these files. --Dereckson (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, the closure by User:Rd232 tells that we should review the files individually. This is what was done in the deletion request. However, the deletion request also redirected the matter to two RfCs. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • They aren't necessarily copyrighted if the copyright owner disclaims rights. In a way, when a government sets a specific term for their own works, that is what they are doing. Based on the emails from the deletion request, I think I'd Symbol support vote.svg Support restoration. While provinces may administer their own copyrights, they are subject to the copyright term limits set by the federal government. If the Canadian government says that Crown Copyright expires internationally, then that almost certainly also applies to anything falling under Crown Copyright in Canada. Governments claiming rights on their own works in other countries (beyond when they are expired in their own country at least) is a contentious issue in the first place and is far from guaranteed, but I'm not sure I would see the need to go around to every single federal government department and province in Canada to get their opinion on the matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
From m:Wikilegal/Use_of_Foreign_Works_Restored_under_the_URAA_on_Commons#Works_Released_Into_the_Public_Domain_By_Foreign_Governments:
“It is important to note that a statement from a foreign government stating that the work is merely “in the public domain” is insufficient to place the work into the public domain under U.S. copyright law if the work is otherwise protected by a restored copyright.”
Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Correct. It is better to get a statement that they intend that statement to apply worldwide, and not be ambiguous whether it is just "public domain" in their own country versus worldwide. That Wikilegal statement does not mean it's impossible for a foreign government to place a work into the public domain, whether it's a restored copyright or not (there is no real distinction in those cases... a valid copyright is a valid copyright, whether restored or never needing to have been restored, and their rights are the same). It appears we did get such a statement from the Canadian government. Given that, I'm not sure we necessarily need similar statements from every provincial government. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
As a non-Canadian, the provincial vs federal is not really clear and who "Her Majesty" is, is ambiguous as well, as Stefan4 has said on enwiki, although I'm sure it's defined somewhere. However, the dealings with Crown Copyright in Canada was recently decentralized with each agency responsible for the licensing of their own Crown Copyrights, which leads me to believe the agency itself owns the rights, not the federal government. The problem though is that whoever owns the copyright needs to relinquish their rights, not say "it is in the public domain," and instead say "I release this work into the public domain," however with recent reports of some agencies asserting copyrights on works and taking action whenever possible following the decentralization, it is not guaranteed to happen. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 06:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Post-close response While administration of the copyrights did get decentralized, the government is still pushing for a more uniform handling of Crown Copyright across all levels of government, including provincial, and there is a pledge of a non-commercial license for everything (which I think Ontario joined up for as well). That has not changed with the decentralization. The "recent reports of agencies asserting copyrights on works" are actually from a few years ago, before the government-wide push for the non-commercial license (the decentralization happened just a month ago, so I don't think anything along those lines has happened since). While it's very possible that the handling of still-valid copyrights will likely be different between departments, I'm not sure that will hold true for basic things like the term, which should be more uniform -- if Crown Copyright per Canadian law is intended to expire worldwide, that should be the same regardless of the level of government. I'm not a Canadian either, but... that would seem to be the most likely situation. If we ever get an indication otherwise, we'd have to revisit the question of course. (As a technicality "Her Majesty" would be Queen Elizabeth II, but in practical terms, that would be symbolic -- the copyright would be administered by the individual countries. Ontario would seem to be able to administer its own copyrights separate from the federal government, but there is a push for uniformity overall, and you'd think the federal government would be able to define the term at least.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Post-close comment While I agree it will be beneficial to receive permission from other provincial governments, the Senior Copyright Adviser of Ontario, who, as far as my research has led, is the head honcho for administering copyright issues, is who passed my questions on to the federal Crown Copyright Office. However, this is one case where I think we have taken the necessary precautions, and can use that as any defence to a possible complaint. We've done our research, now we should put it to use rather than questioning it to death. In almost all regards, Canadian bureaucracy is constructed identically to the British and Australian system. "The Queen" is technically the owner of all the governments, but moreso as a ceremonial declaration. - Floydian (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Restored as per Carl Lindberg. Yann (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Spanish Teen Rally. POSTER.jpg [edit]

CC License, <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/"><img alt="Licencia de Creative Commons" style="border-width:0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-sa/4.0/80x15.png" /></a>
Estudiar en primavera. Spanish Teen Rally by <a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2646540/" property="cc:attributionName" rel="cc:attributionURL">Amparo Fortuny</a> is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional License</a>.
Creado a partir de la obra en <a xmlns:dct="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" href="http://estudiarenprimavera.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/posters-par.jpg" rel="dct:source">http://estudiarenprimavera.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/posters-par.jpg</a>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piridin (talk • contribs)

The license Creative Commons BY NC SA is not allowed on Commons because NC (NonCommercial) is unfree - see Commons:Project_scope/es#T.C3.A9rminos_de_licencia_no_permitidos. --Martin H. (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Unacceptable NC license. INeverCry 05:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Akanimo Udofia.jpg[edit]

The file so deleted is my original file. I own the file and it does not belong to anyone else. I took the picture during one of my numerous assignment as a journalist in my country Nigeria.

The file has never been used nor its copyrights given to anyone else before. Thanks in advance for granting my undeletion requests in anticipation. DonaldsonWriter (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This was a very thin {{speedy}} -- no reason given except suspicion. I think we need to apply "Assume Good Faith" here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 10:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Indransuku.jpg [edit]

this photo taken by me only Jeevanjoseph1974 (talk) i don't have any issue to using anyware Jeevanjoseph1974 (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image has appeared on a number of web pages without a free license. Therefore, Commons policy requires a license from the actual photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What Jim said. Please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 10:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:عمارت امین دیوان صفاری در رشت.jpg[edit]

This is the house of Amin Divan my great great grandfather who was the ruler of Lahijan before Pahlavies and the picture was in KHaan-Eh Gilan Book written by his grandson Senator Mohammad Ali Saffari but i had this picture with myself so i scanned and uploaded it here to complete his wikipedia page . Sincerely Reza Saffari --Reza s 1991 (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 10:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


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

File:Peter Vlug.png[edit]

Hello, I was unaware the photo was proposed for deletion until it was delinked on the Dutch Wikipedia. I thought I had indicated using the wizard that it is indeed my own work. I believe it should suffice that I add {{own}} after undeletion. No other details were given about what information was missing in the deletion log other than "no source"; should there still be any questions, please make them clear so I can provide or clarify that information. Thank you. --Vrede en Recht (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


Restored. Looks OK to me. Yann (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

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

2 files from Russian news reports[edit]

I am kindly requesting that File:09-39-gkchp.jpg and File:ABZ Moskau.jpg be undeleted. Both images are from news reports, which are exempt in Russia, as was stated in the licensing template. Dicussion with deleting sysop here. --Matrikelpartikel (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thats nonsense. A news report such as "something happened in a building" is not eligible for copyright protection. Thats news reports on events and facts, which have a purely informational character. A photographic work of that building or any further analysis of the event is elgible for copyright protection. --Martin H. (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe your private interpretation is "nonsense." News reports may contain images. --Matrikelpartikel (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose News reports may indeed contain images, but the copyright exemption extends only to the bare written facts and does not include images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
en:Copyright_law_of_the_Russian_Federation#Objects_of_copyright, 4th section, is exhaustive on this issue. The law comes from the Berne Convention to which the Report of Main Committee I at the Stockholm Conference in 1967 explains: the Convention does not protect mere items of information on news of the day or miscellaneous facts, because such material does not possess the attributes needed to constitute a work. That implies a fortiori that news items or the facts themselves are not protected. The Articles of journalists or other “journalistic” works reporting news items are, on the other hand, protected to the extent that they are literary or artistic works. --Martin H. (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oppose, as per Jim and Martin. Yann (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

And  Not done per above -FASTILY 23:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Massimo-giordano-001.jpg [edit]

The file in question is NOT a copyright infrangment. I'm the legal owner of the right for pubblishing it on Wikimedia Commons (and related) for this file. The file is also pubblished on http://wiener-online.at/home/kultur/musik/1464451/Massimo-Giordano_Oper-ist-ausnahms-los-fur-alle, but they have just the permission to re-pubblish it on their site. They do NOT own the rights for that file. The "original" of this picture is on http://www.massimogiordano.com/gallery/press/#img-massimo-giordano-press-photo-21. Massimo Giordano is the owner of the photo, and I have the legal right to pubblish it.

Please tell me how to solve this. Massimo Giordano want that photo on his page.

TIA Mitja Jankovic


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 23:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:The Queen Presents the 1966 FIFA World Cup to England Captain,Bobby Moore.jpg[edit]

The picture in question was taken from here. The related copyright statement here reads "Before sharing images from our collections [on Flickr Commons], we determine that there are no known copyright restrictions". These sites appear to be reliable, so please restore the image and associated links. Please also update the copyright statement to ensure that somebody else does not make the same mistake in the future. Martinvl (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We have a 1966 press photo taken in England credited by the National Media Museum to the Daily Herald, which actually had ceased to exist before the date of this image. Given the 1966 date, it must have a copyright. That was the conclusion of several experienced editors at Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Queen Presents the 1966 FIFA World Cup to England Captain,Bobby Moore.jpg.
It is, of course, possible that the NMM somehow acquired the rights to the image. However, the uploader told us in the DR that the AP actually owns the copyright.
As suggested by User:LGA at the DR, rather than the image needing restoration, it offers a strong suggestion that the NMM Flickr feed is not a reliable source. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with the above analysis
  1. The picture was from the Daily Herald Archive, not necessarily the Daily Herald itself.
  2. This page describes the policy of Flickr Commons - I believe that this particular picture comes under item 3 "The institution owns the copyright but is not interested in exercising control". (Of course, AP might well be interested in marketing the high-quality version, but not this low quality version)
Please reinstate the image and add the template Template:Flickr-no known copyright restrictions to the licence section, a template that was designed for this very purpose.
Martinvl (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
If it does indeed come under item 3 then that is covered by COM:PRP 1 & 3. I would recommend asking them to provide a COM:OTRS notification that they are releasing the image, then it can be restored with the correct licence. LGA talkedits 00:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In the United Kingdom, photographs are protected for the lifetime of the photographer and then for an additional 70 years. There is no evidence that the photographer to an image taken in 1966 died before 1943. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image is clearly copyright in the UK until 2037 at the least (and depending on its US publication at the time maybe in the US until 2061) if it has been put into the PD by the wire service then we need proof that is the case. LGA talkedits 00:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Copyright protection means that somebody owns the copyright and has a right to charge a fee for its use. In the case of Flickr-Commons, just like Wikimedia Commons, the copyright owners have waived that right. We are entitled to take that picture off Flickr Commons for our own use in exactly the same way that anybody is entitled to take a picture off Wikimedia Commons for their own use. In some ways, Flickr Commons is more reliable that Wikimedia Commons - the Flickr Commons party who waived the copyright is notable (insofar that they usually have a Wikipedia entry), so they can always be traced - contributors to Wikimedia Commons do so from behind a username that is not always traceable. Martinvl (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Yahoo or "The Flickr Commons" have no copyright relation or however this is called to the media files they host. See http://www.flickr.com/commons/usage/. The Wikimedia Commons community made an independent analysis of the copyright status and came to a conclusion that differs from that of the National Media Museum. In this case of reasonable doubt the next step is to contact the National Media Museum and ask, why they think that the copyright expired or why they believe no copyright restrictions apply. Thats the only options they consider in their rights statement. The template Template:Flickr-no known copyright restrictions that you mention above, always requires a second copyright tag indicating for what reason the file is in the public domain. For us without the museums help there is no way to find out, what second copyright tag could possibly apply. --Martin H. (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done per above. No consensus to restore -FASTILY 23:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:The-girl-in-the-little-black-dress.jpg [edit]

It is done by me. It is a free work Lonjing (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC) 2013. 28. 12

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This looks like an album cover. All works previously published outside WM Commons required a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Do you have a specific reason to doubt User:Lonjing created the image? Do you have a specific reason to suggest the image was an album cover? If you know the image was an album cover is there a reason why you didn't ask Lonjing if they created that album cover? No offense, but if you are merely guessing that the image has been previously published I think the closing administrator should discount your opinion. Geo Swan (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All five of this editor's uploads have been deleted as copyvios. Except for this, they were all traceable to the Web. There comes a point at which we stop using "Assume Good Faith" and start asking for evidence on everything.
Please remember that it is not up to Yann to prove that it is a copyvio -- it is up to the uploader to prove beyond a significant doubt that it is not.
Finally, there is the fact that if this is not an album cover, it is personal art, which we do not host on Commons. So either it is a copyvio or it is out of scope. It should not be restored unless, if it is an album cover from a significant artist, we receive a license from the copyright holder using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Possible copyvio, and possible out of scope. If this is an album cover from an album by a notable artist, OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Nokë Sinishtaj.jpg[edit]

Nokë is my uncle,and that picture its taken by me,the picture its free of copyright and anyone can use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertBikaj (talk • contribs) 15:30, 28 December 2013‎ (UTC)


 Not done OTRS permission from the copyright holder is needed before the file can be restored. INeverCry 21:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

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

File:Arianiti 1.jpg [edit]

This is created by Vittorio Gifra,i own his copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertBikaj (talk • contribs) 15:53, 28 December 2013‎ (UTC)

  • This image has not yet been deleted, so this is the wrong place for any request. However, in order to keep the image, we will need a license from Vittorio Gifra using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Image hasn't been deleted. INeverCry 21:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)