Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-05

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


Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

File:DJN NOW Woman of Courage Award 2004.jpg

OTRS ticket 2014040410003938 permission from Chris Brammer (photographer) copyright given to the subject Donna Nelson who released the image under CC-by-SA-3.0 & GFDL. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

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

File:J4s interim logo.jpg

C'est le logo officiel de l'entreprise J4S Intérim, sans la base-line "L'Art de recruter", une variante du logo remonté par Patrick Rogel, disponible dans tous les documents de l'entreprise. Il fait suite à celui de 1999 : File:Logo J4S Intérim - 1999.jpg Merci de le rétablir.--Quickroom (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 23:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

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

File:LeoOladimu.JPG

We have OTRS permission under ticket 2014042410020837 from the person who has Power of Attorney for Leo Felton (we have copies of the PoA) and his permission to release the image into the public domain. (Felton is currently in prison) Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Disco de Hispavox Spain.jpeg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File:Disco de Hispavox Spain.jpeg

Please restore the image of mi page "Musica pop latinoamericana", is only a for sale product that get it on the page:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/V-A-Chicas-de-Hoy-Yuri-Pandora-Fandango-Tatiana-LP-VG-/271414098465

                            —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.109.225.231 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 26 April 2014‎ (UTC)

As it says right at the top, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:OTRS. It is not the place to request restoration of deleted files. The correct place to do that is Commons:Undeletion requests, but before you do please read the instructions this time. A request like the one above is unlikely to result in undeletion, because you have not provided any reason as to why the deletion was incorrect. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Tecnomilton (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2014 (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 23:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Nut Job - Operazione noccioline.jpg

I ask you to undelete this file because I made this screenshot on my own and it's not a copyright violation. --khsmg, 29 April 2014


 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 07:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

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

For Which WE Stand (One Queer Music Nation in The Visible).jpg

Hello,

I am requesting my image: For Which WE Stand (One Queer Music Nation in The Visible).jpg be undeleted.

This is a cover story for Pink Magazine's 2014 Winter Issue. I am updating the cover for Pink (LGBT magazine). It was obtained from the official website. This image is fair use because it is low-resolution.

Sean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandles0 (talk • contribs) 13:07, April 29, 2014‎ (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please read COM:Fair Use as Commons does not accept fair use images. LGA talkedits 03:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done fair use is blanket banned on Commons -FASTILY 07:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

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

File: The Puritans.png

I hereby affirm that I, (Sean Robinson), am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of The Puritans

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.

Sean Robinson (robinson.smr@gmail.com 323 600 3303) (director/Producer) 4 28 14

--Sandles05 (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


Wrong forum. This needs to be emailed to our COM:OTRS team -FASTILY 07:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Adrián Expósito.png

Hi, this photo is not a copyright violation Thanks!

Jorgeaznarn (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 20:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

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

covers of books by Jozef Heriban

OTRS team has received permission (ticket:2014040910014855) to publish the following book covers:

under cc-by-sa-3.0 license terms. Please undelete. Ankry (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

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

File:BC Sparta Prague logo.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am owner of this file 78.102.79.175 23:05, 29 April 2014 (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 07:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Stuart Styron.jpg

OTRS team received permision (ticket:2014042910017985) from copyright holder of this photo tu publish it on cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL license terms. Please restore. Ankry (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done Two deleted fieles , i have restored the last one. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Por._Stefan_Jan_Dąbek.jpg

Please restore picture Por._Stefan_Jan_Dąbek.jpg to article Stefan Dąbek on Polich Wikipedia. Picture was deleted with no any reason and any explanation by Commons admin named Masur. I'm the owner of this picture, so I don't understand what is going on. Regards Tomaszkrak (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, at upload you claimed to be the author/photographer, though the depicted person is said to have died in 1939. Now you say to be the owner of the image, whatever that means. --Túrelio (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image appeared here in 2012 (credited to "Teresa's family Krzyżanowska"), whereas Tomaszkrak uploaded it March 2014. Per COM:OTRS, previously published images require additional permission. Per Túrelio, presumably Tomaszkrak is not the photographer by virtue of age, so evidence of conveyance of copyright would be needed. Эlcobbola talk 16:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Answer

1)Turelio - to be owner of sth means thet sth belongs to the owner. Simple. 2)Cobbola - what kind of evidence you need ?? Who should I apply for it ? To myself ?? WHAT IS GOING ON HERE ?? Tomaszkrak (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Owning a paper or digital copy of an image does not make you the owner of the copyright -- that is owned by the photographer or his heirs. Although it is not impossible that you were the photographer more than 75 years ago, it is unlikely. Since you claimed that you were the photographer, and now have changed your story, we are naturally skeptical, so a full explanation of why you think you own the copyright for this image will be necessary. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Owning a digital copy of an image does not make you its copyright holder, and so therefore you cannot freely publish it under any license you choose. -FASTILY 18:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Larksky, my WCRPG roleplay character..jpg

I do not know how it could be a copyright violation. I made it myself in the Windows Paint Program, and I made the idea of Larksky's name and appearance solely by myself. The only time I put my picture online was where you found it.

Thank you,

Larksky12358 (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Larksky12358



 Not done Out of scope -FASTILY 09:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Spirit littlenorway cc0.jpg

This file is licensed CC0 at Europeana [1], the license is right below the thumbnail to the left on the page. It is a bit unclear which resolution this license apply to, but that is an issue for discussions between Europeana, Norvegiana and Digital Museum. The rights (licenses) Europeana is using has been added at Norvegiana, and Norvegiana adds rights (licenses) according to permissions given by DigitalMuseum and the museums delivering content through that portal. I can initiate a discussion internally how we can make the rights (licenses) easier to interpret, but for now it is pretty safe to assume that this image is CC0 – at least until further notice.

Europeana is a meta data aggregator project for the European Union, focusing on GLAM content, while Norvegiana is a meta data aggregator for Norway operated by Arts Council Norway. I work for the later one. Jeblad (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done - If there are any problems it should be discussed in a DR but it seems fine to me. Natuur12 (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Royal Standard of Sweden (1844–1905).svg

Was deleted as a copyright violation, however that is incorrect. Besides the obvious age of the image, this flag uses the same coat of arms as File:Royal Standard of Norway (1844-1905).svg which is File:Coat of Arms of the Union between Sweden and Norway.svg and is not a copyright violation. Fry1989 eh? 20:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It is also known as "Sildesalaten". I can't say anything about the accuracy of the rendering, but given who wrote most of the article in nowiki (w:no:Unionsmerket, w:en:Union mark of Norway and Sweden) I find it likely that the rendering is accurate enough. In essence, the original is old enough. Jeblad (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The issue was not the flag itself but rather the coat of arms. The coat of arms is free, and if there is a problem with any element it would have been more prudent to change that element than to delete the whole thing. Fry1989 eh? 00:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently ok -FASTILY 23:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

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

SimonGipps-Kent.gif

This is a request for undeletion of SimonGipps-Kent.gif.

I am the holder/owner of this item.

It is NOT an internet download.

I find the fact that it was deleted without a minimum of 24-hours to respond unprofessional and distasteful.

This is an unprotected, uncopyrighted image manufactured before 1989. It was "enhanced" by the addition of the signature/autograph of the celebrity depicted. As a one and only "original" by the addition of said autograph, its further duplicated use was copyrighted in 2014 as a "work of art".

As an item issued prior to 1989, I might remind you that:

Copyright Notice Before March 1, 1989, the use of a copyright notice was mandatory on all published works, and any work first published before that date should have carried a notice.

SOURCE: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf

FURTHERMORE:

United States[edit] Public domain[edit]


Publicity photo of Nanette Fabray in 1950 As explained by film production manager Eve Light Honthaner,[10] publicity photos taken to promote a film actor or other celebrity were not usually copyrighted prior to 1989, and were intended to remain free for publications to use wherever possible:

"Publicity photos (star headshots) have traditionally not been copyrighted. Since they are disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain, and therefore clearance by the studio that produced them is not necessary...."[11] Honathaner distinguishes "Publicity Photos (star headshots)" from "Production Stills (photos taken on the set of the film or TV show during the shooting)", noting that production stills "must be cleared with the studio".[11] Creative Clearance offers the same text as Honathaner, but adds that newer publicity stills may contain a copyright.[12]

In 2007, media lawyer Nancy Wolff,[13] wrote with respect to the "photo archive of entertainment industry publicity pictures, historic still images widely distributed by the studios to advertise and promote their then new releases":

It has been assumed that these images are most likely in the public domain or owned by studios that freely distributed the images without any expectation of compensation. Archives will lend these images for a fee to publishers and producers of documentaries for 'editorial' uses, in keeping with the original intent to publicize the movie or promote the actor. Seeing these images in print years later, some photographers, or their heirs, attempt to assert rights that most believed to be extinguished or abandoned.[14]

As a result, she indicates:

There is a vast body of photographs, including but not limited to publicity stills, that have no notice as to who may have created them.... Without knowing where the photos came from, or what long lost parent may appear and claim the 'orphaned work,' licensing the work becomes risky business. For publishers, museums, and other archives that are risk-averse, this leads to a large body of works that will never be published.[14]

Film historian Gerald Mast[15] explains how the new 1989 copyright revisions only protected publicity works that complied with all earlier requirements in addition to filing a copyright registration within 5 years of first publication:

According to the old copyright act, such production stills were not automatically copyrighted as part of the film and required separate copyrights as photographic stills. The new copyright act similarly excludes the production still from automatic copyright but gives the film's copyright owner a five-year period in which to copyright the stills. Most studios have never bothered to copyright these stills because they were happy to see them pass into the public domain, to be used by as many people in as many publications as possible."[16]

In the 2011 Eighth Circuit case Warner Bros. Entertainment v. X One X Productions, the court recognized that a selection of publicity stills from two 1939 films were in the public domain because they had not been published with the required notice, or because their copyrights had not been renewed. Although Warner Bros. argued otherwise, the court found that these stills did not share the films' valid copyrights, and that the images' dissemination constituted general publication without notice. Other arguments related to derivative uses of the images were upheld, and an injunction against X One X was granted because certain "products combining extracts from the public domain materials in a new arrangement infringe the copyright in the corresponding film". The decision quoted from Nimmer on Copyright, which explains that, while films were generally registered for copyright protection, "much less care was typically exercised during production and in the publicity office" with photographs taken of the actors on set being "sent off to newspapers before the film’s release, in order to generate a buzz about its opening."[17][18]

Fair use[edit] Kristin Thompson, committee chair of the Society for Cinema and Media Studies writes in the conclusion of a 1993 conference with cinema scholars and editors, that they "expressed the opinion that it is not necessary for authors to request permission to reproduce frame enlargements. . . [and] some trade presses that publish educational and scholarly film books also take the position that permission is not necessary for reproducing frame enlargements and publicity photographs."[19]

Thompson also notes that even if such images are not already public domain, they could be considered "fair use" under its guidelines:

"Most frame enlargements are reproduced in books that clearly fall into the first provision's categories of "teaching," "criticism," "scholarship," or "research," and hence there seems little doubt that such illustrations would qualify as fair use by this criterion. Since most university presses are nonprofit institutions, illustrations in their books and journals would be more likely to fall into the fair-use category than would publications by more commercial presses."[19] In addition, Thompson refers to the argument that the burden of proof of copyright for such publicity images would fall on the studios producing them:

"One important argument has been made concerning the publication of publicity photographs. If such a photograph has been circulated for publication at some point and reproduced without a copyright notice accompanying it, it should then fall within the public domain. Throughout the history of the cinema, many publicity photos have appeared in newspapers and magazines without such notices. If a scholar or educator were to publish a publicity photo, the burden of proof would then fall on the studio or distributor to prove that the still had never been published without the copyright notice."[19][old info]

SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_still

Under British law, the appearance of signatures (not the names themselves) may be protected under copyright law.[5]

SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature#Copyright

Consequently, I argue that this image, now copyrighted by me, was removed both prematurely and unnecessarily.

Whether you believe my copyright is legitimate is irrelevant for 2 reasons as:

a.) the only one that can challenge a copyright is one claiming the copyright.

b.) by the very definition of the 1989 copyright revision, if the item does not display the then required copyright notice it remains "public domain".

A copy of the United States copyright can be requested, in writing, from: Administrator, Post Office Box 71, Nanticoke, Pennsylvania 18634.

Trezjr (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2014 (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 09:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Mademoiselle de Beaumont or The Chevalier D'Eon LCCN2006685290.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: According to Commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates, a duplicate file must be the same file format. A file that is not falls under the category of redundant, which means it is to go through the proper deletion request process. Trlkly (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment by nominator: This may just seem to be a procedural nitpick, but I think this is quite important, as the uploader is a prolific contributor to Wikimedia Commons, and is afraid to upload even necessary JPEG thumbnails because they might be deleted without discussion. TIFFs have limitations here that other filetypes do not, and we often need JPEG versions just to get the files to display at all.
I also don't think this is the place to talk about changing the policy. I do agree that we need to revisit needing a full deletion request for near-duplicates, but that's a discussion for later. Right now, we need to stick with what the policy says. And what it says is that redundant files of different filetypes get a full deletion discussion. Trlkly (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem fixed. Closing as moot -FASTILY 23:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Thegnumies.png

Hi, I'm new to Wikipeadia so I don't know if there was some extra step required to upload this file.

I own and created The Gnumies and all it's art assets. All images, videos and more belong to the uploader.

Please, let me know if I have to provide something else to restore it.

Thanks, Leandro

--Leandro6758 (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The Gnumies appear to be out of scope. The WP:EN article on your studio, Trick gaming studios, has been moved from mainspace to user space at User:Leandro6758/Trick gaming studios because it violates the WP:EN rules on conflict of interest. The appearance here violates COM:ADVERT. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above & COM:SCOPE -FASTILY 23:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Ludwik Konarzewski

OTRS team received permission (ticket:2014012910006868 ) to publish the following files:

under cc-by-sa-3.0 license terms. Please, restore them. Ankry (talk)


✓ Done If something doesn't turn out properly you can just use a speedy tagg. Natuur12 (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Denise_Piccioli.jpg

É a primeira vez que coloco uma imagem no wikipedia e não o que tenho que fazer. A imagem é legítima e caso tenham dúvidas pode entrar em contato diretamente comigo. Muito obrigada.

Valquíria Farias


Close as inactionable: page has not been deleted. -FASTILY 23:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by User:Zhengan

Hi Steinsplitter and Taivo. I am new to Commons and am not completely familiar with all the policies. My understanding is that there is Freedom of Panorama in China for buildings and it is not clear what the policy is for 2D artwork. Please see Commons Freedome of Panorama Table. Please let me know if this is not correct. Thanks, Zhengan (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Zhengan reached the correct conclusion, but did not fully explain the reason. While there is, in fact, FOP in China for all artistic works, it applies only if the work is in an outdoor public place and if the author and the title of the work are cited. As far as I can see, these are not outdoors and the author(s) and titles are definitely not cited. See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#China.2C_People.27s_Republic_of. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done FOP in PRC is only applicable to public, outdoor works of art. -FASTILY 09:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Royal Standard of Sweden and Norway (1815-1844).svg

Supposed copyright vio in the lions, but the image uses File:Coat of Arms of the Union between Sweden and Norway 1814-1844.svg which is PD, and even if that wasn't free it would have been more prudent to just change the lions than delete the whole thing. Fry1989 eh? 00:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


Apparently ok -FASTILY 09:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Spartak Bayern.webm

--Blacklist Sparta (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Blacklist Sparta - a reason for undeletion is required. Nick (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close as a no-reason request -FASTILY 09:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Carlos Trupp image.jpg

save this picutre. I took the picture

 Not done Image hasn't been deleted yet, please comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carlos Trupp image.jpg. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Vladislav Kurasov 30.jpg et all

  1. File:Vladislav Kurasov 30.jpg
  2. File:Vladislav Kurasov 31.jpg
  3. File:Vladislav Kurasov 32.jpg
  4. File:Vladislav Kurasov 33.jpg
  5. File:Vladislav Kurasov 34.jpg
  6. File:Vladislav Kurasov 35.jpg

We have OTRS permission from Marina Khadzhinova under CC-by-SA-3.0 & GFDL for ticket 2014043010002658. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:H-M. Boccara.jpg

Je demande que le fichier H-M.Boccara.jpg soit restauré (undeleted) J'ai signalé que j'étais l'auteure de cette photo je suis une collaboratrice de la troupe de Henri Michel Boccara sur lequel je consacre une page. Je suis seule à posséder les droits sur ces images et les déclare libre sur commons Merci Verluisant (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

why do you say unlukely not own work. ? I have long been a collaborator of the author Henri Michel Boccara and I accompanied his work throughout his production. These images were my personal work Thank you not to delete these files Verluisant (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2014 (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 06:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Fanny Bouyagui (Profil 1).jpeg

Concerned file URL : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fanny_Bouyagui_(Profil_1).jpeg

Reason for the nomination: Commons:Derivative works form modern art and promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).

Request : This portrait of french artist Fanny Bouyagui has nothing to do with "works from modern art and promo photos". The photographer, Joseph Chiaramonte, sold the entire license to Fanny's collective, Art Point M, whom decided to share it under Creative Common license.


Procedural close as an in-actionable request: file has not been deleted -FASTILY 09:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Otunba-gbenga-Daniel.png

Hi My Reasons are, that the last picture used in the file does not speak well of gbenga daniel, and i dint know how to ans wiki question that is y i selected other options in wikipedia online form, msybr it could be seen verify eiy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.211.193.250 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 5 May 2014‎ (UTC)


 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 21:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Tubophon-topview.jpg

Copyright liegt vor und wurde per mail an permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org gesendet.

--Starfish 42 (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


Already done by DerHexer -FASTILY 21:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Mao Zedong and Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama

This category was deleted last year because it was empty, but it's since been repopulated. Please also restore Category:Mao Zedong and 14th DL — it was a {{category redirect}} to this category, and deleted because its target got deleted. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


Recreated -FASTILY 03:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Año Nuevo Musulmán.jpg

Este archivo es un trabajo propio (Guritxu) y no he violado ningún derecho de autor ya que como he explicado es netamente individual o personal esta infografía. Muchas gracias por su atención. Atentamente.

Fernando T. de Gorocica 00:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Fernando de Gorocica, user: guritxu

Procedural close as an in-actionable request: file has not been deleted -FASTILY 09:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Some Files

See: Comes from here The following files were deleted:

File:MarcoChina10.JPG File:Marco Rocha Canal Plus 68 Pasos.jpg File:Mr perfil edit.JPG File:MR Indianapolis.JPG File:Marco Rocha Campos.jpg

And I am the owner of the files. The reason you gave to delete them is that "Lower-resolution versions of some of your uploads are found on the Internet, which are credited to television companies. You need to prove that you are related with those companies." If there are lower-resolution and I have the highest resolutions is because I'm the owner of the photos! The Lower resolutions found on the internet were taken from the wikipedia!

Please, restore them. Thanks. --Gizmou (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)gizmou Gizmou (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)gizmou


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 10:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Hello,

The company who created the logo itself says it is PD-textlogo. See ticket:2014032610009091 and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apollo-Optik Logo 1024px.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support The legal departement of this company thinks that it is okey and they want the logo's here. Natuur12 (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 22:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Martin Felsen.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file in question is owned by UrbanLab (an architecture firm) where Martin Felsen is the principal and owner. On occasion, this same file has been licensed to organizations to publish in print or on the web (therefore, it can be found on the internet). To Wikimedia Commons, the author, UrbanLab, wishes to release this image for common use with attribution, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Urbanlabwiki (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Non-commercial and No Derivative restrictions are not accepted on Commons. Yann (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done NC & ND licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 22:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Beni1.jpg

File:Beni1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · find cats · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel)
Please restore the file, as min, till finishing it's processing at OTRS.
To add to what I've wrote at OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Beni1.jpg yesterday:

  • As I know the e-mail from "the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright" To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org has been sent at May 1, 2014
    after LGA's notification of April, 29 at my User_talk:Igorp_lj#File_tagging_File:Beni1.jpg.
  • But as I see it doesn't appear in any category since 1.05 till today.
  • Any way, I've resent it just now to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with the following subject "Declaration of consent for all enquiries - 2nd send attempt".
  • Please let us know about steps of the file processing & approving. --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not find any reference about it in any OTRS_received category since 1.05 till today. --Igorp_lj (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


Already done -FASTILY 20:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:"W Cudzych butach" okładka.jpg

OTRS team received permission (ticket:2014050510008493) to use this file under cc-by license terms. Please restore. Ankry (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Beni1.jpg

OTRS team received permission (ticket:2014050610010166) to publish this cover under cc-by-sa-3.0 and/or GFDL license terms. Please restore. Ankry (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:FaTDunvqwqU.jpg

 Not done This file exists. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Anais21

OTRS team received permission (ticket:2014031910002332) to publish the following files:

under cc-by-sa-3.0 and/or GFDL license terms. Please undelete.

Related DR: here. Permission for other files uploaded by this user is pending. Ankry (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:The broken bridge in Calicut beach.jpg

Please dont delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bidunkrishna (talk • contribs)


 Not done Not yet deleted. Please provide a source, a free license, and a permission if the images were published somewhere before, or if you are not the photographer. Yann (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

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

rest of files uploaded by Anais21

Please restore also this file (also permitted under ticket:2014031910002332):

Ankry (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


Already done -FASTILY 22:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Dj Ruben Amaya.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS has received the ticket under ticket #2014040110003121 and has confirmed and verified that the license is under the CC-BY-SA and the GFDL licensing. Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Amararshad

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Amararshad was closed while I was making the case to keep 2 of the listed files. This was unreasonably swift, one hour after the DR was filed. Please undelete to allow for discussion. Quick trigger fingers surely can find better targets than these argably usable photos — for example: this very week I found and filed DRs for two blank images (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Test020.pdf and Commons:Deletion requests/File:WWC Logo 6 21 12.JPG); these two DRs are still pending… -- Tuválkin 02:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't accuse peeps of quick trigger fingers. If you think those files are usable, just contact the deleting admin. In this case me. I'll undelete the two files and nominate again. OK? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Not an accusation, but a statement of fact: You decided to go ahead and close the DR after one hour, while it is usually expected a wait for feedback and discussion for one week (=168 h). (Just like it is a statement of fact to say of a train that goes at 168 km/h that it is faster than a baby stroller at 1 km/h.) I did’t want to imply that this is your usual behaviour, and for that I apologize. -- Tuválkin 04:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Delinski-homepage.png

I uploaded a screenshot of delinski.at and linked to it in the article de:Delinski, but the screenshot was deleted for alleged copyright violation.

I thought that I can upload screenshots, because the delinski.at website is public and anyone can access it. I´m not that experienced with the copyright law so sorry if I´m wrong, but I read it in the Wikipedia article WP:Image use policy. Because there it says that it is possible to upload screenshots and I´m certain that I don´t violate any copyrights. Thus I think that it can be published, because I´ve seen other articels that you can consider comparable. Maybe someone more experienced could help me with choosing the right copyright tag for the screenshot?

Screenshots can only be uploaded if the copyright holder published the content under a free license. Beeing published or public or accessible for free is not the same as a free license, see de:freie Inhalte or de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte. Unlike English Wikipedia Any exemption from this free content doctrine will not apply on Commons, see Commons:Licensing and Commons:Fair use. The website is not published under a free license (https://www.delinski.at/meta/impressum) --Martin H. (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Martin -FASTILY 20:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Delinski-homepage.png

I uploaded a screenshot of delinski.at and linked to it in the article de:Delinski, but the screenshot was deleted for alleged copyright violation.

I thought that I can upload screenshots, because the delinski.at website is public and anyone can access it. I´m not that experienced with the copyright law so sorry if I´m wrong, but I read it in the Wikipedia article WP:Image use policy. Because there it says that it is possible to upload screenshots and I´m certain that I don´t violate any copyrights. Thus I think that it can be published, because I´ve seen other articels that you can consider comparable. Maybe someone more experienced could help me with choosing the right copyright tag for the screenshot?

Screenshots can only be uploaded if the copyright holder published the content under a free license. Beeing published or public or accessible for free is not the same as a free license, see de:freie Inhalte or de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte. Unlike English Wikipedia Any exemption from this free content doctrine will not apply on Commons, see Commons:Licensing and Commons:Fair use. The website is not published under a free license (https://www.delinski.at/meta/impressum) --Martin H. (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Martin -FASTILY 20:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Alfonso Bayard1.jpg

OTRS ticket:2014041110009348 releases image by photographer Rosa Merino under cc-by-sa-3.0 & GFDL licenses. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Coat of arms of Malaysia.svg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The original file was deemed to be under copyright until 2013. This period has now expired for what is a very useful vector graphic. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 20:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright in works of Government, Government organizations and international bodies shall continue to subsist until the expiry of a period of fifty years computed from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work was first published. So 1963 + 1 +50 = End of 2014 as I understand it. Transferred this discussion to the Village pump here: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#CoA Malaysia --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't the period from Jan 1st 1964 to Dec 31st 2013 be the required fifty years? NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 16:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
No, 1963 + next Jan 1st ( Jan 1 1964) + 50 years meant it would expire on January 1, 2014. Not sure I agree with the original deletion anyways, if it was purely based on the design being from 1963 -- see Commons:Coats of arms. Symbol support vote.svg Support Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, per Carl -FASTILY 21:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Aito.jpg

i m the author of this picture. It's the picture of my documentary. Sébastien Joly Tks


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Template:pt-br

This template was deleted and thousands of files were altered (I quote): "per consensus at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Pt-br". This "consensus", albeit formally correct, had the participation of two users, one of them the proponent. The other left a question, but did not came back to share his opinion after it was answered. No one from the Portuguese speaking community knew about this, none of the Portuguese speaking sysops was even contacted to weigh in their opinions and our "Village pump" was never notified. Again, everything strictly speaking "within the rules". After that, @Fastily:, the user who actually closed it, deleted the template and used a script to modify thousands of files (upwards of two thousand of them, files I donated and watch). When I [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFastily&diff=122948261&oldid=122885429 asked him about the deletion and the way it was done, he was very rude with this answer: quoting the law against its spirit, he dismissed the issue harshly and went on to criticize the way I work and about how many pages I watch and the number of "spam" he saw in my page, finishing with a very childish "lol". I was appalled with this kind of ad hominem, but explained him anyway. In the meantime, other user noted that he forgot that this template was being used by Upload Wizard (the reason why virtually everyone of the pics I donated made use of it). Finally, yet another user asked him and received another rude response, recomending us to "start a COM:UD". That's why I'm here.

It would be very helpful if one of the portuguese speaking sysops participate (@Darwinius:, for instance). José Luiz disc 20:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward, bear in mind that your own replies/comments haven't exactly been saintly (ex: [2]). However, the mud has been slung, and the apologies have been made, and frankly that's all that matters to me. As for the DR, I will say that it was a month old at closing, and that there was consensus amongst the participants to merge {{Pt-br}} with {{Pt}}, of which I have duly performed. -FASTILY 06:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Fastily about all the drama involved in this DR (solved), but the issue at hand remains (IMO) opened: the consensus, albeit technically correct, could/should be improved with more portuguese speaking user's opinions. José Luiz disc 02:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I cannot see why you think this DR is only valid with portugese users participating? You have already pinged them several times, and they did not show any interest. Also, note that explicitly wanting a certain group to participate in a discussion/vote can be seen as canvassing. I think this template should Symbol delete vote.svg stay deleted as it only makes file description pages unnecessarily long without having any real use.    FDMS  4    13:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
First, I don't think its "only valid with portugese users participating" (as you said) but "could/should be improved with more portuguese speaking user's opinions" (as I said). As I've already said, I do not challenge the legality of the deletion, but I think portuguese speaking users have a much, much better understanding of the issue than users that don't even speak the language. About the description "have any real use" (as you said), that's your POV. My own (and, I'm sure, of ptwikipedia, where ptPT and ptBR are two different things), it's important (only POVs, really). Third, this is not my home project and if here two opinions (the proponent's and the deleter's - a third guy did not leave his opinion) is a "consensus achieved" to delete something just because "time ran out" and no one sees anything wrong with that, then just ignore me. What I'm proposing is that more people (and specially but not exclusively those who actually understand the difference between ptPT and ptBR) have a chance to participate (annoucing on Commons:Esplanada, for example). Finally, about the ONE user I pinged (not several nor 'several times' like you said) to come here (the other TWO, I pinged on Fastily's DP, where the issue is solved), he's inactive since Feb 4th... Is there a time limit for things here also? José Luiz disc 20:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Ops! I almost forgot: the "unimportant" template deleted in this "consensus" was used by more than 3.000 pages and the language pt-br is still available on the drop-down list of the Upload Wizard (so someone else thought it was an important distinction, I guess)... José Luiz disc 20:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hehhehee
...
Just one thing
The Wizard is based in MediaWiki languages, as far I know.
And even with the option to use en-UK in the preferences, we don't use that to describe things.
Keep it simple, pt-eu/pt-br/pt... is totally understandable, is not another language. We don't have es-eu/es-ar/es-ch... why do we have to have pt-br/pt-eu? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Ps:I'm a very hot Brazilian dude.
Thanks for your participation, but from my testing Britih English is (fortunately) not an option in the UploadWizard (Fastily, me or anybody else should probably fill a bug report about pt-br in it). @Jbribeiro1: Hm, I think that pretty much every deletion request ever closed could be improved with the participation of a wider audience. Yes, except when there are legal issues an unobjected request is after a certain amount of time automatically considered consensus (that can be overthrown), but I do not know any Wikimedia project where this is not the case (probably pt.WP is very special, how do you elect admins?). For me, one plus two means several, and although the place was different the reason was certainly not. And last but not least remember there are a lot of small languages on the planet, and a lot of small languages that no Commons user is able to speak at all.    FDMS  4    22:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm very glad you asked. In ptwiki, policy is that an elimination proposal MUST have at least 3 people participating (excluding the sysop closing it) or it'll be closed as "inconclusive" and the article will be kept (it can be renominated after 3 months). And as this template is particularly useful to pt speakers, I see a connection here. But I'm sure you're not trying to judge a community in relation to others, right? And about the "several languages" problem, I can't see the problem at all: is there any limit of languages Commons can accomodate? Finally, I can't fathom why you brought admin elections to a discussion like this but we do things there the same way Meta elects their stewards: we vote. José Luiz disc 22:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Elimination is a rather ugly word, and this requirement is as far as I know a rather unusual procedure. Which connection exactly? Should Commons follow local Wikipedia policies when deleting stuff related to their language? If there was a fixed limit of languages {{pt-br}} would have probably been deleted without any formal request for deletion at all, but as I'm sure you noticed there is none and it is up to the community to decide which language templates to keep and which ones to delete. If you ask (only) me, {{pt-br}} should not be the last template to become deleted or redirected. (BTW, I'm (obviously?) not a native english speaker either.)    FDMS  4    23:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Our motives have nothing to do with this discussion, but as a courtesy I'll tell you this: in a education-deficient third-world country like Brasil, if you delete everything right away, you will not have ANY community, so we have to have an inclusionist bias and make eliminations more dificult. Back to the point HERE: this deletions request should have had more people participating IMO. I'm not calling for a reversal of all the edits Fastily has done (legally), but only for (i) the undeletion of the template and (ii) the reopening of the discussion after an announcement is done in Commons:Esplanada. If after that a "consensus" can be reached, ok. If not, then we start talking about reversals. And,Q.E.D., this is a matter better discussed in portuguese by portuguese proficient speakers.... José Luiz disc 23:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Commons is a database of 26,968,573 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute, but I am asking myself if people that are not able to communicate in English at least on a basic level have anything valuable to contribute at all. After all, education is (often) a matter of money, and if people cannot even afford learning basic English, they might not be able to afford a camera or scanner either (but a computer or mobile device, why there probably is pt.WP). However, I doubt no one in Brasil understands English (you do).    FDMS  4    10:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@FDMS4: Yep, that's what I had sad, we don't use en-uk to describe things, that's the reason why we don't have that option in wizard...
And now all the decisions had to pass by the JL approval...
This a international community, is not a reunion of separate language communities. Again, is preferable to have only pt, as es, en, fr... I'm not seeing any other language that have this type of stupid division. This division make the maintenance of pages 2 times more difficult, because we need to replicate the work for nothing.
The last observation, if this division was important, and significant, pt-br and pt had to have the same number of pages, or pt-br, that have more volunteers, had to have more pages, but most of the pages here just one option of pt is developed: compare, Lusophones fully understand any formal written in pt, so "translations" is not necessaries. Backing to WP-pt, we don't have WP-pt-br... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Er... What? "It's preferable", "stupid division" are POVs, of course and should be presented to the community at large. The use of adjectives does not help us a bit. Again, what is the downside of presenting this issue to the community at large? I'm not defending one side or the other, but I really do think that this "consensus" failed to represent the opinion of the "community" in whatever way we choose to represent it. José Luiz disc 02:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Erm … if you want to present this issue to the community at large, why do you ask for a deleted page or file […] to be restored? This is not the Village pump, where you could bring this "issue" to, but I doubt this largely unknown language template has any relevance for the whole community at all – although 1624 (!) users watch this page, only one person showed interest in this debate, and no one wanted this template to be undeleted so far.    FDMS  4    10:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
So we done here?
How we remove pt-br from the Wizard? Any clue?Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's wait for an admin to close this (or Luiz to reply), then it's time for bugzilla:.    FDMS  4    20:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I really don't have time to be here. I'll edit all my 3000+ uploads already done to include a "Brazilian portuguese" in the description and do it for all my future uploads. Now I know why people work so hard to fork wikipedia projects from Commons ("local uploads" + "keep local templates")... You THREE can decide what decide what to do, I really do not care and I'm unwatching this page... José Luiz disc 00:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I doubt (some) people at the English Wikipedia don't like us because there is too little language diversity at the Commons, they just hate us because we care about copyright and we are not censored :) .    FDMS  4    09:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done no consensus to restore, and de facto withdrawn by nominator -FASTILY 10:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Sam_Walsh,_CEO,_Rio_Tinto.tif

OTRS ticket:2014051010005593 from a representative of Rio Tinto for CC-by-SA-3.0&GFDL. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


Done -FASTILY 10:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Evenure login screenshot.png This is a screenshot of my own website. I have all legal rights.

The image/screenshot that I have posted is taken from my own website, and I have all legal rights to upload it. Sincere request to undelete my uploaded file.


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 11:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Elle Fanning.jpg

Hello, File File: Elle Fanning.jpg is with the correct licensing. I removed the image link (https://www.flickr.com/photos/daniela_elle/4956903358) And the author has authorized the use of the image under Creative Commons. I hope you save this image since the page Model and Actress Elle Fanning is in need of images. Sincerely, LolitaAKA — Preceding unsigned comment added by LolitaAKA (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello Lolita, the photo is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0, the last two bits of which are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. NC means the photo cannot be used for commercial purposes, and ND means you can't change the photo and then publish it or distribute it. Commons only allows media that is free for re-use by anyone, even commercially. Green Giant (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done ND & NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 05:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Encylcopedia of Tropical Plants.jpg

I am the author of the publication and all the images and hold the copyright of the publication and all the images associated with the publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmed.phire (talk • contribs) 19:42, 11 May 2014‎ (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 05:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

file:Centro empresarial.png

--Edwansogamoso (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)esta imagen la tome yo en el centro de la ciudad de sogamoso


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 05:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:ChazGuest.jpg

File:ChazGuest.jpg This photo was taken by Lisa Butler, a friend of the artist Chaz Guest. I tracked her down and requested that she upload the file to Flickr so it could be used on Chaz Guest's wiki page. I have provided the header from the email that was sent to me with the link for the file.

Please undelete.

--AEN2013 (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2014 (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 05:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Trailer Park Sex - Broken Skulls.wav

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014030110006817). --Mdann52talk to me! 08:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Hideki Kikuchi at World Cup 2014.jpg

I have authorization to use this file on Wikipedia. --GGabriele (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 Not done - OTRS permission is required. JurgenNL (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Hideki Kikuchi.jpg

I have authorization to use on Wikipedia. --GGabriele (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 Not done - OTRS permission is required. JurgenNL (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:LEE Seungyun.jpg

I have authorization to use it on Wikipedia. --GGabriele (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

--DMasseyBooks (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 Not done OTRS permission is required. JurgenNL (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Books-TAKEN HQ.jpg

I am the author of TAKEN (owner of copyright in the work) and took the picture of the books in my kitchen last week. I own copyright for this image.


 Not done - OTRS permission is required. JurgenNL (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Lorie Tour 2Lor 2008.jpg

Hello, I'm wondering why this file was tagged for "no permission" and deleted, because as I stated in the talk page, this file has EXIF data, and just seems to have been taken in a concert by the author. Maybe the contributor who added the "no permission" tag thought it was the same as the "personalty rights" template? Or is there special rights for indoor concerts? I've already seen a lot of other concerts pictures on Commons. I really don't know the real reason so I'm requesting your help about it. Thank you! Jeriby (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The file shows that the author is the same as the uploader and it has had {{PD-self}} on it since it was uploaded in 2008, so I agree that this deletion appears to be incorrect unless, of course, someone has a good reason not to Assume Good Faith. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Done -FASTILY 01:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

The history of interior design.jpg

We have the permission of the owner of this graphic to use it and as stated on the page the graphic is housed (http://www.iconwallstickers.co.uk/the-history-of-interior-design) they have allowed for it to be used on any website "Please feel free to... use the video or graphic on this page on your webpage"

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is not an irrevocable free license. It has two problems -- first, and most important, the site could change the license wording at any time, so it does not pass our requirement "The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable." Second, "use the video or graphic on this page on your webpage" is limited to web use -- it says nothing of print or other possible uses. Commons images must be free for all uses. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 01:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Professor Galdino.jpg

File:Professor Galdino.jpg Sou assessor do vereador em questão, e a foto é de domínio público, tendo em vista que está publicada no site da Câmara Municipal de Curitiba http://www.cmc.pr.gov.br/ver_det.php?ver=69 --Jean Felipe Sirigate (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

© 1997 - 2014 - Câmara Municipal de Curitiba - todos os direitos reservados. Onde é que explicitamente dizer domínio público? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:17, 12 May 2014 (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 01:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg

I don't understand hoe can a cretive work is nominated for deletion as -non educational purpose this work was used for many years in a page so I request to put it back in my Gallery


Invalid request, no file(s) linked. -FASTILY 01:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Thewoman with flower.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I dont understand the reason of deleting "as self created art work"-every art work is a self created one and a creative work has value of itself and has educational purpose shakeh (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We do not keep art created by artists who are not notable. While a WP article is not required, it is a good indication of notability. Another good indicator is mentions in the public press or reviews by known critics. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done See COM:SCOPE --Steinsplitter (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:ADELI suit.jpg

We have OTRS permission ticket:2014040310011627 CC-by-SA-3.0 & GFDL from ADELI Media Center. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done Two files restored. Pleas check for which version the permission is. Thank you. --Steinsplitter (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:SimonGipps-Kent.gif

I can attest, per information in ticket:2014050910000466 the image is indeed published around July 5, 1979 by Southern Television, complete in its form without copyright markings (on front or back). See {{PD-US-1978-89}}. In addition, I find no evidence that the image has been registered for copyright anytime around that time. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


Done -FASTILY 01:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Borderline1974.jpg

WMF OTRS team received proof (ticket:2014051210022838) that this image was published in 1973 without copyright notice. So, accordig to this table it is already in Public Domain. Please restore. Ankry (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done Yann (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Files of Category:Raúl Alfonsín

Taking into account this resolution, I request the restoration of the following files, as the only argument raised to erase them was the application of URAA.

Thanks,--Zeroth (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done Yann (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:DavidRundblad1.JPG

The license for this Flickr photo has been changed to allow it to be uploaded and used on Wikipedia. Lihtning (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done Yann (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Recordings of Richard Stallman's talks

WTF? http://web.archive.org/web/20060516091441/http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=3020 says "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License."--Elvey (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure this is a license by Stallman, not just by the person who made the video? I do not see any reference to Stallman behind your link in the first place. If behind the link is actually a video of one of Stallman's talks, and Stallman has given permission, which specific file is this about; I doubt it concerns all files deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Recordings of Richard Stallman's talks? darkweasel94 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, because either that's the case, or WGBH is making false copyright claims. It says "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License" -- and links to the license. The work includes his talk, by definition. If you have reason to believe WGBH is making false copyright claims, provide it. --Elvey (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Elvey Could you say a bit more about the link you are providing? The word "Stallman" does not appear on that page. I see the Creative Commons declaration, but what which Stallman file are you saying is connected to that declaration? It is not obvious to me that that link has any connection to the files listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Recordings of Richard Stallman's talks - please say more about what you are seeing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
"It is not obvious to me that that link has any connection" => Look at the deletion request. Again. ("Some of the links go to...")--Elvey (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Just because someone offers a license, doesn't mean that they've been careful to make every scrap of fair use material covered by it. Stallman does not have a history of offering his talks under a Free license; see the GNU website for many of his writings under no-derivs licenses. And given his connection to the concept of copyleft, I'd be very surprised if he used CC-BY instead of CC-BY-SA if he were driven to use one of them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Arrgh; long reply lost. Summary: OK.--Elvey (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Per above: no evidence that these are available under a free license. -FASTILY 09:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Elvis the misadventures of a boy and his father.png

File:Elvis the misadventures of a boy and his father.png

I am the creator of the coming soon cartoon web serie named elvis: the misadventures of a boy and his father . my name is oliver paul, and my youtube channel is www.youtube.com/in6seconds, I am trying to make a wikipedia page for my show that I drawn and own all copyright rights to, but my logo was delete because it seemed like it "violated copyrights" but I own everything about that picture, I drew it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In6seconds (talk • contribs) 13:44, 13 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello In6sconds and thank you for your message. Leaving aside the copyright issue for a moment, could you tell us how your image fits into the scope of Commons or what its realistic educational value is? As a longtime Wikipedian, I can tell you that an article about your show won't last long on Wikipedia if your show does not meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. This isn't the place to discuss whether it fits the Wikipedia requirements but you should also be aware that there is the issue of conflict of interest involved in writing about your own work. Green Giant (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Green Giant. I suggest you read COM:ADVERT. In order to have a presence here, you must show notability and, generally, anything posted here should be done by independent third parties. Even stronger rules apply on WP:EN. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above: COM:SCOPE -FASTILY 09:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Brev fra General Ruge 17.02.1945.jpg

This was a letter sent to my grand father. I would very much like you to repost it, or at least send me a copy of it, since my old computer crashed, and I no longer have a copy of this. The original has disappeared over the years. I would also like to know why it was deleted in the first place.

You can respond to: heidi.spenning@stenarecycling,com and/or: heidi.s.berg@gmail.com

Kind regards

Heidi Spenning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berhei (talk • contribs) 13:46, 14 May 2014‎ (UTC)


 Not done Ownership of physical property (like this letter - or a DVD, book, etc.) is distinct from ownership of the associated intellectual property (the copyright), which is retained by the author or his heirs. You must own the copyright (not just the object) or demonstrate it is no longer in force to upload a work to the Commons. In this case, Otto Ruge died in 1961; accordingly, the copyright will not expire until ca. 2031 (1961 + 70). Эlcobbola talk 14:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

  • ✓ Copy sent. I have sent the requested copy. It was deleted because the author of the letter died in 1961 and therefore it is still under copyright. The copyright is owned by the heirs of the author, Otto Ruge. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:MASSAR L 270114.jpg

لقد تم حذف الملف بدون ذكر أي أسباب موضوعية فقط إحالة على قوانين رفع الملفات ، في حين أنني المالك للملف ، فقط أرجو توضيح الاسباب التي تدعوا الى حذفه و إلا فأريد إسترجاع الملف . --أيوب الاسماعيلي (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 Not done No rationale for undeletion provided. Image was claimed as own work, but is a logo that has appeared here and numerous other sites before upload to Commons. COM:OTRS requires additional permission in these circumstances. Эlcobbola talk 14:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:JarekusSingleton live3 byMarilynStringer.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Josh Lindner/Alligator records holds the copyright for this image. It is on our website http://www.alligator.com/artists/Jarekus-Singleton/ We'd like to file it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license Josh Lindner (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Josh and thank you for the message. The clearest way is to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from an email address associated with your website. Use the example email format given at Commons:Email templates. Then the nice people at OTRS will get in touch. Once they've verified everything, the file can easily be restored. Please note that the OTRS system can be backlogged so patience is recommended. P.S. I think they are all really OTteRS which is why they picked that name, but don't tell them I said that. Green Giant (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I sent an email using the template you suggested through to OTRS requesting an undeletion and attached a separate email from the photographer granting her permission as well. Hopefully that will do the trick. Thanx Josh Lindner (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Josh Lindner (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


Procedural close: OTRS permission submitted per above. If the permission is acceptable, the file will be restored by OTRS when the ticket is processed. Эlcobbola talk 14:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Stanley Pastucha

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am author of picture: Stanley Pastucha (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Stanley and thank you for posting your requests. I've merged them into one larger request for the sake of simplicity. If you click on any of the red-links, it will show you why the file was deleted, albeit in smallish font. If you made the images, then the best route is to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the format given at Commons:Email templates. The volunteers at OTRS will contact you to verify everything and if it checks out, the files can easily be restored. Please note that the OTRS system can be backlogged so patience is highly recommended. Green Giant (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

What Green Giant said. Please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 01:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Francesco Cereda.jpg and File:Ángel Fernández Artime.jpg

Please undelete File:Francesco Cereda.jpg and File:Ángel Fernández Artime.jpg. Now these files are under cc-by 3.0 license ( Ticket#2014040410009067). Thanks --Melos (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Victoria Roldán Méndez.jpg

Please, I request for the undeletion of the the file Victoria Roldán Méndez.jpg, because I work for her at the Legislatura de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires (Buenos Aires' Town Council), and this is a file of public domain that we usually use for insitutional purposes. Regards, -- Nicolás Rivara, Assessor to councilwoman Victoria Roldán Méndez.(Nicorivara (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC))

Hello Nicolás. The file was deleted as a copyright violation so it is best to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from an official email address, using the format given at Commons:Email templates. The volunteer OTRS team will contact you to verify everything and if it checks out, the file will be restored. Please be patient with them because the OTRS system is often backlogged. Green Giant (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What Green Giant said -FASTILY 07:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Xigua.PNG

As per the message I left for LX, I am requesting an undeletion. I am pasting the message I left for him.

The said file cannot be a copyright, as you can yourself see that the image had been created with different images clubbed together, and all of these images were taken from google images, with no copyrights on them. I edited the image file myself, and created the image for to be used in WikiJunior Fruit Alphabets. I am not sure, why the file was deleted without having any talk, and just leaving a message? If this file would have been a copyright, I would have given the same reason out there and anyways would not have uploaded it. If you take into consideration my previous mistakes, please do not do so, as I am way out of that. I am raising a undeletion request.

Also, to let you know, I have created this file with MsPaint, and only uploaded it to be used for WikiBooks[3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrybrowne1986 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Please read Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Internet images. You cannot upload random files grabbed from Google Images searches, regardless of whether you upload them one by one or combined into collages. LX (talk, contribs) 18:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Arbiter 2014 Edition 2 Cover.jpg

As the legal owner and creator of this image, as well as authorised representative of the Arbiter organisation, I request the immediate undeletion of this image - as the reason for its deletion is not valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjwill1991 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 17 May 2014‎ (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 07:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Cd-no-doubt-rock-steady-frete-gratis-14595-MLB2902646449 072012-O.jpg

A imagem em questão não esta senda usada com mal- uso, ela esta sendo usada por uma pagina, e que esta imagem esta ajudando a pessoas a identificar melho o album, ja que aqui não existe imahens da capa do album...pois ja tentei usufruir da mesma imagem que foi eliminada por nada... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiago alves 11 anos (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 May 2014‎ (UTC)


 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 20:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:El_escote_de_fran_undurraga_se_le_cayo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1

File:El escote de fran undurraga se le cayo.jpg

Mr Tinny (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 Not done no reason given to restore -FASTILY 20:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Several files of the argentinian football players

Taking into account this resolution, I request the restoration of the following files, as the only argument raised to erase them was the application of URAA.

Thanks, --Zeroth (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done Yann (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be reviewed further :
  • File:Argentina 1975.jpg - No details of when this was first published, will be copyright in US if published in a publication displaying a notice.
  • File:Argentina 1978 trophy.jpg - No proof was published without displaying a notice and will be copyright in US if there was a copyright notice.
  • File:Argentina 1978.jpg - No details of when this was first published, will be copyright in US if published in a publication displaying a copyright notice.
  • File:Argentina 1986.jpg - No proof was published without displaying a notice and will be copyright in US if there was a copyright notice.
  • File:Argentina Brasile 1983.jpg - No proof was published without displaying a notice and will be copyright in US if there was a copyright notice.
  • File:Argentina italia 1986.jpg - No proof was published without displaying a notice and will be copyright in US if there was a copyright notice.
  • File:Argentina youth 1979.jpg - No proof was published without displaying a notice and will be copyright in US if there was a copyright notice.
  • File:Argentina-Bolivia 1979.jpg - No details of when this was first published, will be copyright in US if published in a publication displaying a copyright notice.
  • File:Argentina1978 campeon.jpg - No proof was published without displaying a notice and will be copyright in US if there was a copyright notice.
  • File:Argentina1986 vs england.jpg - No proof was published without displaying a notice and will be copyright in US if there was a copyright notice.
  • File:Argentina78.JPG - No proof was published without displaying a notice and will be copyright in US if there was a copyright notice.
  • File:Argentinos juniors 1983.jpg - No details of when this was first published, will be copyright in US if published in a publication displaying a copyright notice.
  • File:Argentinos juniors 1985.jpg - No details of when this was first published, will be copyright in US if published in a publication displaying a copyright notice.
  • File:Argentinos maradona1.jpg - No details of when this was first published, will be copyright in US if published in a publication displaying a copyright notice.
  • File:Argentinos maradona2.jpg - No details of when this was first published, will be copyright in US if published in a publication displaying a copyright notice.
  • File:Argentinos talleres 1976.jpg - No proof was published without displaying a notice and will be copyright in US if there was a copyright notice.
In all cases there is not enough evidence to show they had to rely on the URAA to be copyright in the US. LGA talkedits 21:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done COM:MRDIU: In dubio pro reo. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg redeleted Commons is bound to follow US law, and these files are still in copyright in the United States and/or no evidence has been provided to show they are out of copyright in the US. russavia (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense argument by Russavia. URRA is not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Just to make it clear, my issue here is that there is nothing to indicate any of these images have ever been PD in the US and that they ever needed the URAA to remain copyrighted. In the ones without details of first publication they could to this day still in fact be copyright in Argentina as to be PD in Argentina the image has to be both older than 25 years and have been published 20 years ago. LGA talkedits 20:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with LGA and Russavia. The issue is not URAA, but whether they are in fact PD in Argentina, which requires evidence of publication. In addition, if they were published previously, then if that publication had notice, then they are also under copyright in the USA without relying on URAA. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. The issue is not the URAA, but whether they are PD in Argentina, which is unclear. -FASTILY 06:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Images of Charly García

Commons is bound to follow US law, and these files are still in copyright in the United States and/or no evidence has been provided to show they are out of copyright in the US. russavia (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


Taking into account this resolution, I request the restoration of the following files, as the only argument raised to erase them was the application of URAA.

Thanks, --Zeroth (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense argument by Russavia. URRA is not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless and until it can be shown how the images entered and remain PD in the US. LGA talkedits 20:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Yann and none of that pictures has copyrights signs so USA copyright laws doesn't apply here Ezarateesteban 22:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It is not that simple, only the publication they first appeared in had to have the notice not the actual picture, and if they were not published before March 1989 (even if created before that) they did not even require a notice. More evidence is needed such as when and where they were first published before it can be determined they have ever been PD in the US. LGA talkedits 05:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per LGA unclear copyright status -FASTILY 06:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Images of Enzo Francescoli

Commons is bound to follow US law, and these files are still in copyright in the United States and/or no evidence has been provided to show they are out of copyright in the US. russavia (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


Taking into account this resolution, I request the restoration of the following files, as the only argument raised to erase them was the application of URAA.

Thanks, --Zeroth (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC):

Nonsense argument by Russavia. URRA is not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless and until it can be shown how the images entered and remain PD in the US. LGA talkedits 20:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Restore ídem above Ezarateesteban 22:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per LGA. unclear copyright status -FASTILY 06:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Cryptolocker.png

Reason: This is a screenshot of a ransomware virus called cryptolocker that i myself took off an infected computer. I believe that this file (in general) isnt copyrighted by anyone considering that this is a computer virus screenshot. Realfintogive (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All created works, including viruses, have copyrights. The text here, and possible the design, are certainly beyond the threshold of originality. While it seems unlikely that the creator of the virus will step up and claim copyright, arguments to that effect are explicitly forbidden by Commons:Precautionary Principle #2. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. COM:PCP -FASTILY 06:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Fernando Manoel Alves Machado.jpg

I had uploaded to Wikipedia several photos that were deleted on the grounds of copyright violation. These are all very old family photos of people that passed away long ago. It seems that because some time ago I had uploaded low-resolution copies to a Portuguese genealogy website, now someone thinks that I’ve committed some kind of copyright violation. Which I did not. I have higher resolution copies of these photos (because I own them) and I also have more photos of all these people.

Please guide me on how to restore the photos and please advise should you require any further information. T

Affected:

And also:


Note: The complete list of the deleted photos can be found in my talk page.--Otripeiro (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You refere to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Otripeiro likely. You uploaded the photos saying that you are the author/photographer ('own work'), that information has been identified as wrong, correct information is required. The problem is that in most cases the copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject. The photographers copyright will expire 70 years following the photographers death. --Martin H. (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help Martin H..
*General Jose Carlos Conrado Chelmicki died 1890, photo taken c. 1880 (134 years ago)
*Manuel Joaquim Alves Machado died in 1915, age 93, photo take c.1890 (124 years ago)
*José Júlio Goncalves Coelho died in 1926, photo taken c.1906 (108 years ago)
None of the above mentioned photos has any indication that it has been shot by a professional photographer or any copyright signs.
*Fernando Manoel Alves Machado died 1991 but the photo is an amateur photo taken by his son, not a professional photographer.
*6º Conde de S. Vicente. Died in XVIII century. The photo is mine. It is a photo of an old painting I own.
Is this enough? We will need to wait another 50 years? Or there is something that can be done? your help is appreciated.--Otripeiro (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although there is no firm rule on the subject, most of us accept that any image taken before 1880 is probably OK in countries where the rule is 70 years after the death of the author. That allows for a photographer born in 1860, taking the image at age 20, and then living to be 84. Obviously it is possible to assume a younger photographer and and older death, but Commons calls for "beyond a significant doubt". It is apparent that none of these except the last meet that test. Also please understand that all works are copyrighted and no notice of copyright is required, except for some works in the United States. In the case of Fernando Manoel Alves Machado, a license from the son, using the procedure at OTRS would solve the problem. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Details of when these works were first published would also be needed, if first published (as defined by US law) between March 1989 and December 2002 US copyright would not expire before before 2048. LGA talkedits 02:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. unclear copyright status -FASTILY 06:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Cantoira Alda Perdigão.jpg

Arquivo pertencente ao acervo pessoal da cantora Alda Perdigão de quem eu sou filho — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afonso Duarte (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Files belonging to the personal collection of the singer Alda Perdigao son who I am.
translator: Google
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Owning a photograph does not mean that you have the right to license it. That right belongs to the photographer or his heirs. In this case, the image appears to be a screenshot, so the copyright probably belongs to the television station. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. If you are in fact the copyright holder, please email COM:OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 03:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Planet trails

OTRS team has received permission ticket:2014031210018507 from the artist who created the works presented on photos:

so lacking FOP in France is irrelevant here. Please restore. (Related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Planet trails) Ankry (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


  • ✓ Done 20:07, 19 May 2014 by Odder. 21:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC) .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:James Paige Morrison.jpg

The reason for deletion was unsatisfactory. I am James Morrison's representative and was provided this image by him, on behalf of his photographer, David Zaugh. The moderator claimed that if the image was provided by the photographer (implying I was lying) then it would not be low resolution. We are not providing high resolution images into the public domain: they are the property of James and the photographer. That is why we uploaded a low resolution image.

I do not appreciate the highly unprofessional implication that I am lying about where I obtained the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinesister (talk • contribs) 11:43, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any implication can be made as to if you are lying or not, the fact remains that uploading a low resolution image is a good sign that the editor does not have full rights to the file. I am also not sure that if an image is released in a way acceptable to commons (see COM:L) that the owner can limit what resolution that licence applies to. I would recommend that you follow the instructions set out on Commons:OTRS and have the photographer provide details as to what it is EXACTLY they are releasing and if it all checks out they wlll restore the image for you. LGA talkedits 02:11, 20 May 2014 (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 03:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Andrew_Rossi_portrait.tif

I have been given permission by the photographer to use this image freely as I wish, as I indicated when uploading.

Andycoff (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2014 (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 06:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Farmingdale State College Logo.png

This file is a fair use of a university logo

just like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cornell_Seal.svg

--Batiste93 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 Not done Fair use is forbidden at Commons. Natuur12 (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Seal of Minnesota.svg

This SVG is a faithful derivative of the Minnesotan state seal, which was created in 1983. The seal was never copyrighted, thus is in the public domain per "Template:PD-US-1978-89". Under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation, any faithful derivatives would be in the public domain as well.

  • The seal itself was created in 1983 and never copyrighted, thus is in the public domain (per an inquiry to the U.S. Copyright Office's records from 1978 to 1989).
  • Under the ruling of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation, any faithful derivatives would be in the public domain as well.
  • The creator of the SVG has requested that it be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (or undeleted, in this case).

The creator of this SVG, "Svgalbertian" at the English Wikipedia, has asked that I request it be undeleted at the Wikimedia Commons. Regards, Flag of Arlington County, Virginia.png Illegitimate Barrister 09:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no reason to keep a B&W version of something we have in svg color. Anyone who needs a B&W version can easily create it. We have only half a dozen state seals in B&W and all but two of those (Oklahoma and Vermont) are earlier versions of the seal with different pictures. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fair enough, I've removed the B&W from the request. The monochrome version isn't really needed here anyway. Regards, Flag of Arlington County, Virginia.png Illegitimate Barrister 12:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I see that you uploaded a new version of the file today without waiting for the outcome of this UnDR. That's a violation of the rules and confuses the whole process. Rather than delete your new upload and block you to prevent a recurrence, I'll let it go because I think this should remain on Commons, but please don't go around due process again. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question The requirement for a copyright notice prior to 1989 was only for the "first publication of the work" (see here) since you are sure that there was not a notice, can you provide details of the first publication ? Secondly, I agree with Jim in that you should have waited until this had conculded before uploading a new one and if this closes without consensus to restore it should be deleted. LGA talkedits 22:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fry1989 eh? 01:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Already done -FASTILY 08:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:HRF Logo Flame.jpg

OTRS team received permission (ticket:2014051410001008) to publish this file under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and/or GFDL license. Please restore. Ankry (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


Done -FASTILY 08:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Loncew.jpg

OTRS team received permission (ticket:2014051410001008) to publish this file under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and/or GFDL license. Please restore. Ankry (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


Done -FASTILY 08:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Lassaad Saïdi.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I asked the permission from the author of this photo. Mrs Sylvie Richir. She sent the mail to permissions giving the authorization. I paste here a copy of that mail. Is there any step missing? Than u very much in advance for your help, Mikeel14 (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


(Mails) :

"To whom it may concern:

" I hereby affirm that I, Sylvie Richir am the creator of of these two pictures (attached below, who are published on www.lassaad.com. and they exactly appears on http://www.lassaad.com/?page=2 ( photo of Mr Lassaâd Saïdi ) and http://www.lassaad.com/?page=34 (Photo de Mr Saïdi with Mr Lecoq)

I agree to publish that work under the free license " Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License. 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.

Sylvie Richir , administrative director of Ecole International de Théâtre LASSAAD. Creator and copyright holder for these images.

Brussels, 14th May 2014.


De : miguelangel.gutim [4] Envoyé : mercredi 7 mai 2014 10:59 À : Ecole LASSAAD Objet : Permission for Wikipedia. ( 2ème Mail)

Dear RICHIR Sylvie, I am addressing to you as you are the director of Ecole International de Théâtre LASSAAD in Brussels, Belgium. I am writing an article about Lassaâd Saïdi for the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia, and I thought that some images on the site www.lassaad.com might be appropriate to be included in my article concerning Mr Saïdi biography section but also for the section dedicated to his professional relation with Mr Lecoq. I am specifically seeking your permission to use images which are in these pages from your site: http://www.lassaad.com/?page=34 ( the one on the right ) and from http://www.lassaad.com/?page=2 The images concerned are attached below. I would like to include these images in these article: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Mikeel14/Brouillon

Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/) is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited by volunteers from around the world. Our goal is to create a comprehensive knowledge base that may be freely distributed and available at no charge. Normally we ask permission for material to be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License. This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting permission for all Others (not just Wikipedia) to use, copy, and share your materials freely — and even potentially use them commercially — so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, nor prevent others from using or copying them freely. You can read this license in full at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License This license expressly protects creators from being considered responsible for modifications made by others, while ensuring that creators are credited for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights We choose the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License because we consider it the best available tool for ensuring our encyclopedia can remain free for all to use, while providing credit to everyone who donates text and images. This may or may not be compatible with your goals in creating the materials available on your website. Please be assured that if permission is not granted, your materials will not be used at Wikipedia — we have a very strict policy against copyright violations. We also accept licensing of images under other free-content licenses. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags With your permission, we will credit you for your work in the image's permanent description page, noting that it is your work and is used with your permission, and we will provide a link back to your website. Please explicitly state under which license you grant permission. That said, allow me to reiterate that your material will be used to the noble purpose of providing a free collection of knowledge for everyone; only if you agree. If that is the case, please copy the form at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries> into the e-mail by which you grant us permission to use your content, and make any necessary amendments before sending the e-mail to our email response team ("OTRS") at permissions-enwikimedia.org We invite your collaboration in writing and editing articles on this subject and any others that might interest you. Please see the following article for more information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction Thank you very much in advance. I am looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely,

Miguel Angel Gutiérrez."


Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 2014.0.4577 / Base de données virale: 3931/7471 - Date: 10/05/2014 Mikeel14 (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


This needs to be emailed to COM:OTRS. Be sure that the procedure was followed exactly, and any replies from OTRS were followed up on; otherwise the request probably won't be processed. -FASTILY 21:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ljubljana - Town Centre (8657753497).jpg

Please undelete File:Ljubljana - Town Centre (8657753497).jpg. This door relief is work by the sculptor Svitoslav Peruzzi (d. 1936),[5] which makes it free per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Thanks, regards. --Eleassar (t/p) 11:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


Done -FASTILY 21:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:موزه مردم شناسی لرستان.jpg

این عکس گرفته شده از عکس درون موزه مردم شناسی فلک الافلاک می باشد — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apiculate (talk • contribs) 15:36, 21 May 2014‎ (UTC)

The image was deleted because it also exists at panoramio. If it is indeed, as you say, a photo of a photo in some museum, then that still does not make the photo free. Who took the original photo, and what's its license? Lupo 16:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
{{oppose} I agree with Lupo. A photo of a photo in a museum violates the copyright of the original photo. I also note that it is on Panaramio with All Rights Reserved. If the Panaramio user is the original photographer, then we need his permission. If not, his ARR is meaningless because a photo of a photo does not have a copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. -FASTILY 21:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Eratóstenes. Perímetro de la Tierra I.png

Este archivo es de investigación y trabajo propio.

Fernando T. de Gorocica 17:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close, files have not been deleted -FASTILY 21:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Observación Astronómica en la Escuela.jpg

User:Guritxu File:Observación Astronómica en la Escuela.jpg

Este archivo es de investigación y trabajo propio.

Fernando T. de Gorocica 17:36, 21 May 2014 (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 21:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Fortinet-us-headquarters.jpg

I took this picture my self out side the Fortinet Headquarters in Sunnyvale California

ForrestLyle (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2014 (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 21:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ramon Cugat.jpg

Se trata de una foto que yo misma hice, que subí a Wikimedia Commons con Licencia CC precisamente para que existiera su foto con esta licencia para compartir. No comprendo las razones del borrado. --mboix (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2014 (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 21:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Gayle Chong Kwan Georgia Kuhn cut.jpg

I've sent consent form from the author to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Thanks


If this file checks out on COM:OTRS, they will reinstate it. This may take some time due to backlogs. Please be patient. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Metta permadi model actress.jpg

we have the rights on the photos we are posting


What Jim said, please email COM:OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 21:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Tim ejaculation.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file was first deleted in October 2011, undeleted in December 2011, moved in March 2012 and has now been deleted out of process just a few days ago. I don't want to comment on whether or not this image should be hosted here but I think we should at least have a proper deletion debate as it is not obviously out of scope. I would also like to hear from @Fastily: what prompted him to delete an image that was undeleted following an undeletion request without a deletion debate. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 15:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


Meh -FASTILY 21:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:A-fellows-story.png

out of process deletion. copyheart is allowed. see also Category:Copyheart. Template:Copyheart Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 21:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am the closing Admin. The main issue here is not whether or not copyheart is allowed, but the fact that this image is derivative of three others, two of which are CC-BY-SA and the third (the WMF globe) is ARR. CC-BY-SA requires that any derivative works be similarly licensed, so copyheart cannot be used here, whether or not it can be used elsewhere. I believe that the WMF globe cannot be used at all, but I acknowledge that the issue is not completely clear. It is clear, though, that the only license you can put on a CC-BY-SA derivative is CC-BY-SA.
Aside from license issues, my other reason for deletion was that this is simply personal art and therefore out of scope.
Finally, since copyheart is not irrevocable, I do not see how it can be permitted as the only license on Commons content. The fact that we have a template and category for it does not change that. See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Copyheart. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
comment, the derivative works are clearly marked in the work. see the previous discussion about the use of globe. if you think it is revocable, (unlike say a flickr license) then remove all copyheart licensed works. do you have a consensus for that? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 22:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, you cannot license a derivative of a CC-BY-SA work in any way but CC-BY-SA. Your attempt to put a copyheart license on a CC-BY-SA work is a violation of the license terms. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Максимус Емельянов

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Photos have watermark maxemel1979.io.ua. Author of this site is Емельянов Максим Викторович. And uploader's nick is Максимус Емельянов. I claim that Емельянов Максим Викторович and Максимус Емельянов is the same person, and these images are own works. Anatoliy (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, the reason for deletion was Promotional, includes web-addres in picture which is irrelevant. The website in question is user's personal website, and the usual reaction in such case is removing watermark and not deleting the image. These images should be restored and tagged with {{watermark}}NickK (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted becouse of possible copyright violation per COM:PCP and not because of a watermark. --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio from where? Google found nothing for me.--Anatoliy (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Following Steinsplitter's clarification for reasons why the files were deleted and taking into account I can't see the images, I would recommend that the COM:OTRS procedure is followed so we are sure the correct permission has been given before we restore. LGA talkedits 23:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    Well, who should give permission? Did you find original image on different site?--Anatoliy (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    No, but (and again I stress I have not seen the images) when there is a case of question over the release and there is no proof that the images have been released correctly the editor who uploaded the images is asked to get the copyright holder to provide OTRS with the proof the images are licensed correctly then the images get restored. LGA talkedits 00:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    Hipothetical example: user Steinus Splitter uploads images with watermark stsplit.de, which author is Steinsplitter. Do you mean that Steinus Splitter should ask permission from Steinsplitter? It is nonsense.--Anatoliy (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    If you are asking "Would I flag the images as needing permission" then it would depend on a number of factors, however it is not unreasonable to ask for clarification from new editors for images they upload especially if they are watermarked. LGA talkedits 00:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think LGA's proposal makes some sense here, judging from the (albeit somewhat limited) information I can see here, ie it's difficult to prove that what a user says is his own work, is really his own. In this case, I would think that an email sent out from the website owner, ie "user@Ahonc.de" for example via OTRS, then I would imagine this to be a simple fix unless I'm missing something here. trackratte (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you will find image on that site, you are right. But now I cannot find image there. And in this case LGA's claims are non-sense because it will be first publication of this image and permission not needed.--Anatoliy (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Apparently I am missing something here, as Ahonc/Anatoliy has apparently been an Admin and OTRS member for several years, so I would imagine they would know the process inside and out. Maybe a third-party admin could step in and provide some advice. trackratte (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) @Ahonc: Commons:Project scope/Evidence policy seems to cover it when it says "If there is any question, evidence may need to be supplied that the copyright owner has indeed released the file under the given licence" the very fact we are having this discussion goes to show that there is at very least a "question" as to the copyright release, so there is no harm in having it confirmed. LGA talkedits 01:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
As OTRS-agent I know that we need permission if image was published somewhere else, but now there is no evidence that image was published elsewhere, and it does not need permission.--Anatoliy (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
@Ahonc: @LGA: @Steinsplitter: @Trackratte: @NickK:
I restored the files so everybody can play around with google a little. Face-smile.svg
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I find a a little dubious that there's one file with exif data and three without. Actually 5 of his six uploads have no Metadata attached. Steiny, if you guys come to a conclusion, feel free to delete again (if applicable). Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I see no harm in them remaining for the moment, I have tagged them for "No permission", lets hope OTRS confirmation is forthcoming. LGA talkedits 07:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Permission from who you want see?--Anatoliy (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The copyright holder, most likely the person who took the picture. LGA talkedits
But who is copyright holder? From who OTRS-agents should get permission?--Anatoliy (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
That's the issue, we don't know who for sure who the copyright holder is, that's why we use OTRS system so we have a record.LGA talkedits 11:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The situation with permission looks funny. I can hardly see what an OTRS permission can clarify. We can no guarantee that no one else was involved: it is not impossible that user A took the photo, user B published at with watermark of a website belonging to user C. There is strictly nothing that can be proved via OTRS as these photos were never published before. However, if every single photo will require an OTRS proving that uploader is indeed an author, we can easily delete up to 90% of Wikimedia Commons — NickK (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    Of course this a case for COM:OTRS: previously published material. For instance, File:Бердянск.Верзовая.jpg was published at [6]; large version at [7]. The image itself is sent with a last-modified header of Sat, 30 Mar 2013 21:48:22 GMT, about a year before the upload here. Just navigate a bit through his albums; this one is from the album entitled "Азовское море, Бердянск город - курорт (2011-2012-2013)". I don't see anything on his websites that would indicate a free license, so a confirmation via OTRS from one of the e-mail addresses given at the bottom left at [8] that the uploader User:Максимус Емельянов is indeed the owner of the site (who appears to go by the name Максим Викторович Емельянов; Maxim Viktorovich Emelyanov) is needed. Personally, I think that's highly likely, but we all know that just registering an account under some name here doesn't prove anything. Lupo 11:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    P.S.: @Ahonc:, could you please contact him via e-mail and see if you can get an OTRS release? It'd certainly be good if somebody who speaks his language could do this. Lupo 11:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    i have sent a letter to all three e-mail addresses given here --アンタナナ 12:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    i have got his confirmation that the account Максимус Емельянов is his own indeed ;) here is the question - am i supposed to ask for an OTRS permission for these files or to send a letter to info-commons@wikimedia.org confirming the account? (Commons:Username policy) the issue here were our doubts about the uploader User:Максимус Емельянов being the owner of the site. it would be just ridiculous if he uploads more files in (near) future and these files ends up deleted because there is no permission from him, wouldn't it? --アンタナナ 17:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    That's great! IMO, it's enough to forward that to OTRS now to confirm the account. We can then tag the user page with the OTRS ticket, with a statement that this is the owner of maxemel1979.io.ua. That should be good enough to prevent confusion in the future for his uploads of his own photos hosted at that site. After all, the only question was whether person behind the account was really him. Since he confirmed that, that's good enough. He is free to license his own photos any way he likes. Lupo 18:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks Lupo for providing the links, now it is clear that the issue is that this material was previously published on the author's website. This means that problem is not with watermark, and the issue with previous publication can indeed be resolved via OTRS — NickK (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Restored for now, but flagged no-permission. This needs to be resolved via OTRS -FASTILY 04:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:A-fellows-story.png

out of process deletion. copyheart is allowed. see also Category:Copyheart. Template:Copyheart Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 21:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am the closing Admin. The main issue here is not whether or not copyheart is allowed, but the fact that this image is derivative of three others, two of which are CC-BY-SA and the third (the WMF globe) is ARR. CC-BY-SA requires that any derivative works be similarly licensed, so copyheart cannot be used here, whether or not it can be used elsewhere. I believe that the WMF globe cannot be used at all, but I acknowledge that the issue is not completely clear. It is clear, though, that the only license you can put on a CC-BY-SA derivative is CC-BY-SA.
Aside from license issues, my other reason for deletion was that this is simply personal art and therefore out of scope.
Finally, since copyheart is not irrevocable, I do not see how it can be permitted as the only license on Commons content. The fact that we have a template and category for it does not change that. See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Copyheart. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
comment, the derivative works are clearly marked in the work. see the previous discussion about the use of globe. if you think it is revocable, (unlike say a flickr license) then remove all copyheart licensed works. do you have a consensus for that? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 22:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, you cannot license a derivative of a CC-BY-SA work in any way but CC-BY-SA. Your attempt to put a copyheart license on a CC-BY-SA work is a violation of the license terms. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Canadian Army Flag.svg

The closing comment states that "specific realizations of Coats of Arms and flags bearing them have a copyright belonging to the artist..." and that "an SVG newly drawn from the blazon would be free of copyright....", which is in agreement with my argument that original drawings are therefore not a violation. While the nominator based their arguments upon the age of the flag not being old enough, they did not provide any evidence this image is an offending derivative of the original work by Graham Bartram, and in fact comparing our drawing to that original, ours is different and original. The swords of our file originate from this badge which is PD-old and therefore the swords are not copyrighted while the maple leaf was completely different than the original drawing. Therefore the closing as a delete is invalid and the closing comment would support immediate restoration. As raised in the DR, there is also the concern that the flag has recently being redesigned, to use the new badge which actually dates back to WWII and is therefore too old to be copyrighted. The file must be restored and overwritten with the new unquestionably PD badge, while the file as deleted should be restored under a name including the dates of use. Fry1989 eh? 21:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The original drawing of the Land Force Command Badge is nearly the same as the SVG rendering, with the maple leaf being drawn in the exact same style, even so far both of them having the same 23 points in the same places. The swords are both the same, even having the same four rondels on the pommels. None of this is described in the description (blazon), which is simply "Argent in the fly two swords in saltire proper hilts and pommels Or surmounted by a maple leaf Gules veined Or, a canton of the National Flag of Canada" (Two silver crossed swords with golden hilts and pommels surmounted by a red maple leaf with golden veining). As you can see, nothing in this description provides the exact same detailing as provided in the SVG derivative. If an image were to based solely on the blazon, then it would be PD, however this image is clearly derived from the copyrighted original from 1998. Second, it is not clear that the new Army Badge was ever published prior to 2013, especially as the Canadian Army flag/badge used during the Second World War is completely different than the new one.
Lastly, keep in mind that this image isn't being deleted completely, but being ported to En Wiki (and any other supporting wiki) under fair-use). trackratte (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Our drawing is not an offending copyright of the original drawing of the Land Force/Army badge. The swords are PD-old from a badge that is over 70 years old and the maple leaf is completely different. And Fair Use is just as bad as complete deletion, highly restricting where an image may or may not be used and does not allow for it's use on other language projects. The closing comment and the fact our drawing is different can support no other option than restoration. Fry1989 eh? 22:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Fry, are you saying that this image is not the Graham Bartram drawing, but a new drawing for which we have a license? If so, I misunderstood -- I won't apologize very hard -- there's over 4,000 words in the DR and I didn't read every one. If that is the case, then I will restore it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I am saying that the arguments made by Trackratte in the DR are based on factors such as age and an extremist interpretation of what constitutes a "derivative work" which are not supported by the community at large, while ignoring that our drawing is significantly different from the original image. It is not a copy, it is not a DW. Fry1989 eh? 22:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose on procedural basis, this was started 9 mins after the close of the DR with no attempt to discuss this with the closer on their talk page. LGA talkedits 22:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I have every right to initiate an unDR as I please and if my points are valid and correct there is no reason to ignore them just because of "procedural grounds". We delete and undelete things based on truth, not on whether someone thinks proper procedure was followed. Fry1989 eh? 22:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) 1. No proof of PD has been presented. 2. The argument that the swords were taken from a PD image is, at this point, simply made up, as the link to that file clearly says that it is copyrighted. 3. None of the details are explained in the description, so are clearly derived from the original drawing. 4. Case law, like in in this case, where "the judge's ruling relies on the defendant having both prior knowledge of the existing photograph, and be attempting to mimic it", ie "the photos are different, while being stylistically very similar". Ie, the derivative image is sourced from the copyrighted one (prior knowledge), and it is attempting to mimic it (ie naming it as the army badge/stylistically very similar). trackratte (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary no proof has been provided that our image is a DW or copy of the original but rather points in the opposite, and the claims made by Trackratte both here and in other DRs they have participated in suggest a belief in absolute terms where once one person has created an image, all other drawings that in any way "mimic" (an over-encompassing term) it offend the original copyright. That belief both contradicts the principle of COM:COA and is not supported by the community at large. It is a fringe extremist interpretation. Under that interpretation, any person who draws two crossed swords with a maple leaf on top of them is offending the copyright of the original. Fry1989 eh? 22:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
No, there's a difference between drawing a maple leaf on top of two crossed swords, and drawing the same styled 23-point maple leaf on top of the same styled swords with the same style hilt with line details, and the same circle pommel with four rondels within it.
You are missapplying COM:COA to mean that anytime an image is redrawn, it is scrubbed of any copyright, which is not what COM:COA states. It states that "Arms drawn by users based solely on the blazon without any reference to the original drawing are usually safe for upload".
Also, in another Canadian Army badge case, the Department of National Defence Intellectual Property Office had this to say:

Firstly, Zscout370 is not the author of the RMC Flag and therefore has no authority to release it to any organization. That individual may be under the mistaken belief that because they have translated the flag into an alternate form (e.g. a vector image) that it is their original work and they are free to distribute it. This is incorrect. A digital version of the flag is an unoriginal derivative work which cannot be used without the permission of the owner of the underlying work - in this case DND.

.
So, there are a variety of reasons why this is a derivative of a copyrighted works, most of them which I havn't mentioned here as I've already mentioned them elsewhere. trackratte (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the interpretation espoused by Trackratte in this DR sums up quite easily a view in which the elements do not matter, what matters is "the composition" and "attempt to mimic" an image overall. Such an interpretation of what constitutes an offending image would entirely wipe out COM:COA and force us to delete thousands upon thousands of images on Commons from flags to coats of arms to many other subjects. The claim quoted above from DND by Trackratte would also support a belief that any re-creation of the Army badge no matter how different would be offending the original copyright. Such claims are completely inconsistent with the manner in which Commons has interpreted and conducted it's affairs regarding copyrights of heraldic and vexillogic works. Fry1989 eh? 22:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Actually, that interpretation is simply the legal test applied by His Honour Judge Birss, QC in [2012] EWPCC 1, which also states "What is decisive are the arrangements (motif, visual angle, illumination, etc.) selected..." in determining copyright infringement. trackratte (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
And I don't believe I am misapplying COM:COA at all, I am applying it in the manner in which it has been applied for the 5 years I've been here both as a registered and unregistered user and years before that, while you are new on the scene and instantly believe your different interpretation is the only true one. Fry1989 eh? 22:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The principle behind COM:COA is pretty clear, arms and badges must be created from nothing but only the blazon in order to be PD. COM:COA is also not a Commons policy, but an essay. If a consensus has been used which is against Commons Policies and/or copyright law, then that should be rectified. COM:DR "consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy". trackratte (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The overriding policy of Commons relevant to this file is to delete images that offend the copyright of an original. You have not established to my conviction that our drawing offended the original, instead you made baseless arguments which fly in the face of how the Commons community has interpreted this particular concern for many many years. On the contrary consensus can trump your interpretation of copyright law. The law says what it says, Commons as a community interprets it and applies it where relevant, but that does not make any one user's interpretation of the law the correct one. Consensus is everything. Perhaps you should refer to the issue surrounding URAA in which is was the consensus of both the copyright lawyers who work for the Wikimedia Foundation and of Commons users to ignore URAA as a sole reason to for deletion of images. There are a handful of users who disagree, but the consensus was what matters and is what is being applied, and your belief that consensus does not matter simply is not true. Fry1989 eh? 22:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is indeed everything. I'd wait for some additional input Fry1989 and see what others think. Nick (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Once again, I do not have a "belief that consensus does not matter", nor did I ever say that. I simply quoted COM:DR ("consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy") which seems pretty clear to me. URAA is 1) unrelated to this discussion, 2) keywords there are copyright lawyers, and Wikimedia foundation issued direction. There are no copyright lawyers here saying that copyright law can be ignored in this case. What there is though, are legal tests established by judges, copyright law, and Official Policy (for example a list of simple quotes from laws, legal experts, and policy here). trackratte (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
What you have said is that consensus can never override policy. As policy states copyrighted images can not be hosted on Commons, that would mean images considered copyrighted under URAA provisions would not be acceptable here. And yet two consensuses, one including copyright lawyers who are experts in such matters, decided to ignore URAA. Policy is not absolute, Wikimedia is run by consensus as much as it is policy. The only time I ever see you bring up "consensus can't override policy" is when it appears that others may consider the opposing view than you present as a last defence. Fry1989 eh? 00:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Not particularly. Commons says consensus can never override policy or copyright law, not me. If the policy changes to "consensus is indeed everything" then we're all good then I suppose. I'm a huge fan of En Wikis 'ignore all rules' policy, amongst others, but as far as I'm aware such a policy doesn't exist here. trackratte (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The source description says, "based on Image:Flag of Canada.svg and an image at the World Flag Database". That tells me that it was not created de novo from the blazon, but copied from the Graham Bartram version at Flags.net. Our understanding of the law is that Bartram's realization of the flag has its own copyright, so this infringes. The deletion was correct. Please get someone to draw a new realization from the blazon, without reference to Bartrams version, or, perhaps, get a license from Bartram. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Again this ignores that the flag has now been redesigned to use an older badge which is PD, which is why it is imperative to undelete this file, return it's usages, and overwrite it with the change in badge. The old version can be re-drawn and uploaded separately. Fry1989 eh? 17:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand. As I quoted above, the file description clearly states that is copied from Bartram. There's no mention of any redesign. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

2013 Canadian Army badge

The redesign was mentioned in the original DR. The Canadian Army (re)adopted this badge last year, however it originally dates back to WWII which makes it too old to be copyrighted any longer. The change on the flag hasn't officially been released but can be seen in the following PDF (www.kvacanada.com/newsletterpdf/RestorationofCAID_e.pdf). That's why the file should be restored and over-written with this file, which yes contains an embedded raster but we can get it re-drawn eventually. The previous version which is the one we were arguing about and which was deleted, should be uploaded separately with dates like "Flag of the Canadian Army 1998-2014" or something similar, and it too can be redrawn, I've already even made the request for a redraw and if no-one else will do it I can do a makeshift one myself. Fry1989 eh? 00:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
That completely different copyrighted image on Wikipedia has no bearing on this discussion.
Even if it did, you have yet to offer any proof that the new flag has ever before been published. The only legal mechanism to publish state badges and Arms is through Letters Patent announced in the Canada Gazette and/or applied to the Register, which for the new Flag was done in 2013, and the old one in 1998. You keep saying that the new flag was used during the Second World War, which is a complete fabrication, this is the flag used during the Second World War, as can be seen here.
If you want to create a new work based solely on the blazon and nothing else, then go ahead and upload it, keeping in mind however, the legal test of avoiding mimicking a known copyrighted work. Uploading a different image has no bearing on this one. trackratte (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
It has every bearing on this discussion as I attempted to explain to you in the DR. And that image is NOT copyrighted, the Canadian Army website itself confirms the age of the badge. I am not saying the new flag was used in WWII at all, you completely misinterpret what I am saying. The badge is from WWII, and simply adding it to a white background with the Canadian flag in the upper corner doesn't give the new flag a copyright when all it's elements are PD. Having a white rectangle with the Canadian flag in the upper left corner (a simple blank white ensign) would not be considered original enough to garnish copyright, and simply adding a PD-old badge in the lower right corner does not add anything new or original. The new flag is PD because of that. Also, I NEVER said the new flag was used in WWII, which would be impossible since the Maple Leaf flag wasn't adopted until the 1960s, I'm not a moron. Fry1989 eh? 01:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
So why don't you show us the proof of the badge being from the Second World War over at that relevant discussion page. Second, even if, for arguments sake, the new badge were to have been used during the Second World War (of which I've seen no evidence), it would still have to be proven that it was published (Copyright Act: "2.2 (1) For the purposes of this Act, “publication” means (a) in relation to works, (i) making copies of a work available to the public,...") during the Second World War. The only reliable way of which to do this is to find its entry in the Register, or to find its publication in the Canada Gazette. trackratte (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
How and where I choose to make my arguments is not your concern, the truth of them is. The age of the badge is confirmed both directly by the Canadian Army in that PDF where they state "...our WWII to 1968 badge used by our historic Canadian Army", in this press release on the website of the Canadian Army, and on secondary sources such as FOTW. It's too old. As for the flag, putting two PD things together in an unoriginal manner does not create a new copyright, that would be like Sodacan claiming copyright to File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (Both Realms).svg even though they released the two files as free just because they put them side-by-side. Fry1989 eh? 02:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Right, so not at all related to the copyright status of the topic image of this UnDR discussion (1998 badge) but to this image here (2013 badge):
The PDF refers to the Second World War Badge, as well as possibly the Mobile Force Badge, or either of the ensigns used in between, none of which are the 2013 badge. That news release you reference makes precisely zero mention of the Second World War, only that "The new primary badge, based on the pre-Unification badge of the Canadian Army, is encased in a modern version of the badge frame and features crossed swords bounded by three maple leaves", ie the new badge is based on a pre-1968 badge to an unknown extent.
  • So, 1. You have to prove that this prior badge was published (released to the public), 2. The exact date of official publication, 3. That the new badge is a derivative of the old one, and 4. The old badge was ever released into the PD, if applicable. trackratte (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I have tried explaining this to you enough times already and you refuse to understand, but I will explain for Jim because I know they will. When a flag is changed, we usually over-write it and upload the old version separately including dates of use in it's file name. The bext exmaples of this is when Malawi and Libya changed their national flags. Why do we do this? Because it's a lot cleaner than doing renames. Trackratte does not understand this at all, or how file namespace works on Commons, and they constantly overcomplicate the issue. As for the badge, I don't have to prove anything, the evidence I have provided is enough. It;s too old and PD by the very nature of it's age. The PDF as well as the other two sources I linked clearly refer to the new badge, nobody could possibly think otherwise. The source from FOTW confirms that the "new" badge is what is being referred to, and is PD-old. The Army sources are not referring to any flags, they are very specific about a badge. Fry1989 eh? 03:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict)Except the 1998 flag just deleted was the flag of Land Forces Command, as opposed to the flag of Mobile Force Command which came before it, and the new flag of the Canadian Army which comes after. Each flag reflecting an organisational change significant enough to warrant a completely different name for the organisation along with a completely different set of symbols. So, it's not as simple as uploading an "updated" image, when in fact they're two fundamentally different things. Also, the Canadian Army article at En Wiki already has the Land Force Command badge there just below the infobox under fair use to illustrate the organisational change.
  • And your "I don't have to prove anything" approach is problematic. Without a date of official publication, you cannot tell how old something is. All FOTW shows is that the badge depicted on that website was drawn by Glen Robert-Grant Hodgins in 1998, and that it was based on a post Second World War badge which was later 'Canadianised', and may have been used unofficially internally, or it may have been published, its unknown. So, based on all three sources presented, we're still left with no idea 1. If it was ever officially published prior to 2013, 2. The date such a publication would have occurred, 3. If such a badge ever entered the public domain. Ie, zero proof of PD at this time. However, we have proof of copyright in the Letters Patent issued for the Arms in 2013, registration with the intellectual property office in 2013, Registration in volume VI of the Public Register of Arms, Flags, and Badges, the Army publishing it in 2013, and an explicit copyright all rights reserved licence on the image on the Army's flickr account from 2013. trackratte (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Adding to a closed discussion is usually considered very bad form, and I see no problem in my arguments except the constructed ones you use which have major holes in them. I have plenty of proof the image is PD and will present it when I am ready to continue this matter in a more effective way. Fry1989 eh? 03:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Since you're continuing to edit here: I clearly have an edit conflict template there, so you closed the discussion while I was editing it, causing an edit conflict. It's a bit hypocritical to accuse me of something which I didn't do, and then doing it yourself (ha, fully realizing I'm now doing it to respond to your post-close edit, getting sucked in). If you would like to carry on the conversation further, feel free to hit up my talk page! Cheers. trackratte (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I am closing my request as the constant blather and deliberate misinterpretation by Trackratte makes simple review of the truth impossible. I will pursue this in a different and more appropriate manner. Fry1989 eh? 03:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Acid test.jpg

out of process deletion. properly licensed as PD-no notice. no sign of US formalities on this item. source does not have notice. no sign of renewal here [9] Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 21:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This is your second accusation of "our of process deletion" today. While it is possible that one or both of these deletions was an error, neither was out of process in any way. Please refrain from making unfounded accusations.
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose According to the chronology at the source site, http://www.postertrip.com/public/department37.cfm, this poster was not seen in public until 1987, when it was sold at a poster show. It was probably not published until 1999, in High Art by Ted Owen. That publication date eliminates the need for notice and, since {w|Paul Foster (cartoonist)|Paul Foster}} died in 2003, the poster will be under copyright until 2073. In order to restore it, we will need proof beyond a significant doubt that it was published before 1989 or permission from Paul Foster's heirs. Note that post-1978 exhibition in public does not constitute publication for copyright purposes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
do not speedy delete items with a disputed copyright license, take them to deletion review. are you supporting summary admin "justice"?
according to website : "this poster was given Reggie Williams owner of the Straight Theater in 1966 ... years later it was sold at a poster show in 1987." published and transferred in 1966; subsequent resale in 1987. you might want to address the issue of no notice. this poster is by Norman Hartwig "This Acid Test poster dates back to 1965 and is for the Muir Beach Acid Test." [10] [11] Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 11:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
No notice is required because the first publication was after 1989. The neither the 1966 gift nor the 1987 sale at the poster show constituted publication under the different applicable law on each date. You have offered no evidence of any other pre-1989 publication. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. The first real publication seems to have occurred after 1989, meaning this work is protected via copyright, and therefore not eligible for Commons. -FASTILY 04:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Aretha Henry.JPG

I am requesting the undeletion of File:Aretha Henry.JPG. Permission to use the file has been sent to the Wikipedia Commons email address.

Thanks, --Le Creator (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The OTRS-Team will take care of it as soon as everything checks out fine. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 15:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please email COM:OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 04:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Lorenzo Bini Smaghi.jpg

Please undelete File:Lorenzo Bini Smaghi.jpg. Now it is under cc-by-sa 3.0 license (ticket:2014052210007667) --Melos (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


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

File:el escote de fran undurraga se le cayo.jpg

por favor pueden borras esto por favor !

--Mr Tinny (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


Wrong forum? Page has been deleted. -FASTILY 04:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Imelda Marcos in 1954.jpg

This file is public domain in the Philippine and other country which introduces the principle of reciprocity. but, the copyright did not become extinct in a recovery date of URAA. Therefore, I voted for deletion at 24 February 2014.

However, as a result of this argument Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA, URAA is never a sole reason for deletion. As a result, I cancel a deletion vote and demand the continuation of this file.--Y.haruo (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


Restored: URAA cannot be the sole reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Quick note - I've added the correct copyright notices to the page. I don't know if we've agreed on a process to follow for URAA related undeletions yet, but could I ask my fellow administrators to add the {{Template:Not-PD-US-URAA}} copyright notice and to check the correct public domain copyright notice (country specific where possible) is present too. Nick (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Cometa McNaught.png

User:Guritxu File:Cometa McNaught.png

Este archivo es una observación del Cometa en fecha e investigación y trabajo propio!!!... (I)

Fernando T. de Gorocica 11:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close as an in-actionable request: file has not been deleted --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Cometa McNaught.png

User:Guritxu File:Tránsito de Mercurio.png

Este archivo es una imagen tomada por mi mismo (¿se nota?) en fecha y el Sol proyectado sobre un block de hojas blancas, además de ser trabajo propio!!!... (I)

Fernando T. de Gorocica 11:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close as an in-actionable request: file has not been deleted --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Tránsito de Mercurio.png

User:Guritxu File: Tránsito de Mercurio.png

Este archivo es una imagen tomada por mi mismo (¿se nota?) en fecha y sobre un block de hojas blancas proyectado el Sol, además de ser trabajo propio. (I)

Fernando T. de Gorocica 11:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close as an in-actionable request: file has not been deleted --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Anatoliy Solovianenko - Soviet Life, October 1984.jpg

cf. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anatoliy Solovianenko - Soviet Life, October 1984.jpg

Hello,

There doesn't seem to be a valid reason for deletion. LGA nor Fastily do not offer any coherent reasoning against arguments by others. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

See also Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/05#PD-US-1989-tagged images produced outside the US. Arguments for deletion look like a deadlock situation: in order to use {{PD-US-1989}}, we must prove that the image was not published abroad, which is technically impossible. I cannot check this file right now (as it is deleted), but unless there is a proof this file was ever published abroad, I believe we should assume it meets {{PD-US-1989}}.
P.S. If someone really wants to push COM:PRP and wants to see a proof that an image was never published abroad, I invite him to go through any of PD US categories and provide proofs that none of this images was published in Côte d'Ivoire (a country with copyright length of 99 years pma) within 30 days after being published in the USA. I would be very interested in seeing what such proof looks like... — NickK (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The question is if for this photo and for File:Soviet Life, 1984-10, № 337.pdf PD-US-1989 covers both COM:L requirements: The US and the country of origin. At Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anatoliy Solovianenko - Soviet Life, October 1984.jpg the uploader says ..the rights holder, at time of publication, was either the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the United States of America, or Novosti Press Agency.., and ..we know that much of the magazine is completely original material that was never published in the country of origin. Thats incorrect. If the material has been licensed or given from Novosti Press Agency to the publishers of SOVIET LIFE, then this alreadey constitutes a publication. And it occured in the Soviet Union because thats where the publisher (Novosti) is located. A valid copyright tag for the country of origin is missing. --Martin H. (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, if this image is unfree and DW of File:Soviet Life, 1984-10, № 337.pdforiginal pdf contains unfree images and will be unfree too, and should be also deleted. So I suggest that this image should be restored unless File:Soviet Life, 1984-10, № 337.pdf is not deleted, and start discuss deletion of File:Soviet Life, 1984-10, № 337.pdf.--Anatoliy (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I restored this as DW of free book. If someone disagree, please open DR for original PDF firstly. And if it will be deleted than this image and other derivs should be deleted too.--Anatoliy (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree with the result (to be sure, it is a close call), Anatoliy's reasoning is faulty. The magazine as a whole is free because it is free (no notice) in the USA, which is its place of origin. However, if individual parts of the magazine, either text or photos, were first published elsewhere, they could easily be unfree elsewhere even though they would be free in the USA. Thus the magazine as a whole meets our test of free both in the USA and the country of origin, but some parts may not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: But we have precedent when whole book published upon CC-BY-SA was deleted because contains some unfree images. Here may be similar case.--Anatoliy (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Escuela Politécnica Superior de Huesca.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Per #4 of Section 2 of Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities "When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)."

The picture in question was published content on the Public setting. At time of account creation, the user has agreed to allow everyone to access and use the content that they intent to post. This appears to be in complete compliance with Wikimedia Common's licensing policy, "Wikimedia Commons accepts only free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose."

https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms Tm3kb (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not a compatible license. You forgot to mention this part: This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it. Commons only accept non-revocable licenses. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done license not compatible with commons --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:The Ribbon Route.jpg

We have evidence via OTRS (ticket:2014052510000417)from the original user of this map image (from 1985) who was the director of the organization who used this (The Center for a New Creation) that the original map was given to her from the National Park Service, and her organization added the route to it. The added route was released into the public domain by the organization, and the base map is {{PD-USGov-NPS}}. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Restored. Any idea for a category? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! We should probably create a The Ribbon International category and include much of what [this editor has uploaded https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Susan_Macafee] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLSuda (talk • contribs) 03:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done by Hedwig in Washington --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Maillol Pierre-Auguste Renoir.jpg

Please undelete the subject file. The sculpture was in PD in US according to PD-US-no notice per analogiam to the following:

File:Baigneuse Debout by Aristide Maillot - Corcoran Gallery of Art - DSC01386.JPG
File:Baigneuse Debout by Aristide Maillot (detail) - Corcoran Gallery of Art - DSC01390.JPG
File:Bust of Venus by Aristide Maillol (1861-1944), 1920-1936, cast bronze - Chazen Museum of Art - DSC01879.JPG

Published e.g. in [12] (Los Angeles, 1955, p. 12) without indication of copyright. What's more there are no restrictions to take photos in a museum and some reproductions of this sculpture and the sculpture itself were in public domain in Soviet countries (as per file description, 20yrs copyright). Vert (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

  • That doesn't make a museum a public place. Natuur12 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, can someone competent verify this? the file is PD according to PD-US-no notice, thanks Vert (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The statue is located in Poland according to the file discription. This file is not covered by FOP since a museum is not a public place. The FOP page actually says The copyright act from July 4, 1994 in article 33 point 1 allows to propagate works that are permanently exhibited on the publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens provided that the propagation is not for the same use. and this certainly not includes museum's. This sculpture is still under copyright in Poland since the period for the copyright to expire is 70 years after the authors dead which mean that this file can be undeleted on january the first, 2015. Natuur12 (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
That is how I read it as well. We just have to wait until 2015 to restore. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
It is not FOP!! You cannot read or something? The work is in PD according to PD-US-no notice!! it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice Vert (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
If it's not about FOP why the heck you begin about whetever it is allowed or not to take pictures in the museum? Natuur12 (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not!! This work is in PD according to PD-US-no notice. Please undelete it. It is my last request in this pointless and crazy discussion! Vert (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
You are not? Let me quote you Keep, there are no restrictions to take photos in a museum, considered as public space then... and in this discussion . What's more there are no restrictions to take photos in a museum and some reproductions of this sculpture and the sculpture itself were in public domain in Soviet countries (as per file description, 20yrs copyright). Natuur12 (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The statue may well be PD in the US, however not necessarily so in other countries, and (given I can't see the image description) if this was taken Poland it would need to be taken when the statue was "permanently exhibited on the publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens" no indication that it was. LGA talkedits 02:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It's a joke or some Kafkian novel? This work can be published in commons under PD-US-no notice (it is fully applicable here as per my initial entry), just as above mentioned files. Is there someone rational here? I am not claiming that it is FOP so stop using this argument!! Vert (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
But {{PD-US-no notice}} only applies to the work in relation to the US, how can a US copyright template apply to a photo taken in Poland ? Who was the person who took the photo ? LGA talkedits 12:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
According to the table there is it clear (regarding sculpture by Maillol) - Works Registered or First Published in the U.S. - 1923 through 1977 Published without a copyright notice. Copyright Term - None. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities, hence this work is PD irrespective where the photo was taken. Besides the file was realised to PD by uploader. Vert (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Not true, as Jim makes clear below the sculpture is in copyright in Poland and the a picture taken in Poland will not benefit from any US copyright status. LGA talkedits 21:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It is a bronze cast of exactly the same sculpture, are you aware of bronze casting? Just enter Maillol Renoir in google. If this is PD in the US why it should not be in Europe? I would appreciate a competent remark, but since I cannot count on such, I'll not discuss any more. Vert (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I fully understand the process of making cast of sculpture. You say "exactly the same sculpture" without offering any evidence. Sculptors do make changes between casts, so they may not be the same.
More important, though, is the status of the image. It is often the case that a single work, or multiple copies of a single work, have different copyright status in different countries. There is no reason to believe that the Polish version of this sculpture is PD. While an image of a PD sculpture located in the USA can be freely licensed anywhere in the world, it is clear that the Polish sculpture and images of it are not free anywhere in the world but the US. It is entirely analogous to the reverse situation which happens when identical casts of the same sculpture are in the USA and an FOP country. We cannot host images of the USA copy, but do host images of the other. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus to restore -FASTILY 03:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Haig Barracks Berlin (Geoportal Berlin DOP20RGB).jpg

There is no "unclear copyright status" here. The license from the Berlin Senate clearly states the terms of use. The license (similar to the Open Goverment License) complies with all must-conditions from Commons:Licensing.

  • ✓OK Republication and distribution must be allowed.
  • ✓OK Publication of derivative work must be allowed.
  • ✓OK Commercial use of the work must be allowed.
  • ✓OK The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable.

--Alexrk2 (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The only open question from the DR was, whether this can be relicensed as CC-BY-SA or whether we should create a separate license template. IMO there are no terms in NutzIII, that are not compatible with CC-BY-SA. So there is no need for extending the license zoo on Commons. --Alexrk2 (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Alexrk2, the license ou refere to only covers Geodata, not images, aerial images or any visiual representation of geodata i.e. maps. --Martin H. (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No, we already discussed that point at the DR. As I already pointed out: look at the download page...
Kurzbeschreibung:  Digitale Orthophotos für das gesamte Berliner Stadtgebiet mit einer Bodenauflösung von 0,20 m im Blattschnitt 2 km x 2 km.
Ebenen: Luftbilder 2011 (Orthophotos)
Nutzungsbedingungen:    Für die Verwendung der Daten gelten folgende Nutzungsbestimmungen: http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/geoinformation/download/nutzIII.pdf.
And of course aerial images are also covered by "Geodaten und Geodatendienste". The term geodata is also defined in the EU INSPIRE Guideline and the german INSPIRE implementation the Geodatenzugangsgesetz --Alexrk2 (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose significant doubt about the freedom of this file (COM:PCP). --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you also have any constructive arguments? On the download page clearly stands the terms of use and it is out of any doubts that these ToU comply with all of the above must-conditions. It is a shortened version of CC-BY-SA and pretty much the same like {{OGL}} in the UK. I can't belive what happens here. Why we work against each other here in the community instead of of working together to make use of open data? --Alexrk2 (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Disussion moved! I moved this discussion to Village pump/Copyright so we can hopefully put this issue to rest asap. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Furusvillagemap.jpg - Un delete my village map

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have made this image/map by referring Google maps and WIkimapia. The places shown are real and existing to the best of my knowledge. It is my village and this map can be used for many fruitfull purposes.. I request you to undelete it and replace it back to its original position en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furus

Most of that file is a screenshot from Google Maps which is not freely licensed. --Martin H. (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed. It is clearly a copy of the Google map, right down to the number of dashes in each segment of the border. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jim. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 03:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Brian Rice profile picture.png

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The user has contacted OTRS with a valid license (CC-BY-SA-3.0/GFDL). —Microchip08 (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

According to that ticket, Brian Rice is releasing it himself. I believe we should need some evidence from the photographer/original copyright holder. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The user has now responded with information about the photographer; I think it is sufficient for undeletion. Thanks, —Microchip08 (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be resolved via COM:OTRS. Once an OTRS member processes the email that was sent, the file will automatically be restored -FASTILY 03:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:AOO unrooted trees.jpg

Hi, concerning those 2 images, I confirm they are free of rights, since I'm the artist, did them and let them free... so I don't understand why you arased them, considering they were not free... Marion

Image:AOO la machine à méditer sur le sort des oiseaux migrateurs.JPG was uncategorized on 12 October 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Image:AOO unrooted trees.jpg was uncategorized on 12 October 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You've uploaded a derivative work

We're sorry, but File:AOO unrooted trees.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 03:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Bonobo in 2013.jpg

The OTRS team received permission ticket:2014052110019227 from the photographer to publish this photo on cc-by-sa-3.0. Please restore. Related DR is here. Ankry (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


Done -FASTILY 07:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Georg Germann, photo passeport, 2007.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission obtained through otrs:2014052610007151. —Microchip08 (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done by Nick --PierreSelim (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Image: Deleted file File:Georg Germann, photo passeport, 2007.jpg

File:Georg Germann, photo passeport, 2007.jpg

Please restore the above file, which has been deleted under suspicion of copyviol. Georg Germann has sent his personal consent by e-mail to the following address: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Thanks,--Peb45 (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


✓OK same as previous request. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:The Word Class Wreckin' Cru on tour in 1988..jpg

Hello, I am requesting undeletion for the image stated above. I don't think there is any reason to delete it, because I am the original owner of anything image I publish online, and I publish images to other websites first and then here. If you need evidences, or sources, I have them all. I am tired to run behind your *** for all the original pictures I post. You could have corrected the copyright tag instead being so harm, thank you. --OGmuthafkkinDoc (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because these appeared elsewhere on the Web before Commons, our rules require a license from the photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Without OTRS, we have no way of knowing that User:OGmuthafkkinDoc has any relationship to the previous Web posts. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

What Jim said. Email COM:OTRS to get the files restored -FASTILY 09:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:SD-logotype.jpg

The image was uploaded by the press secretary of the party. There is no reason to suspect that the party does not have the rights to their own party symbol and there is no reason to believe that the press secretary of said party isn't authorized to make decisions regarding their brand profile. Furthermore, the image was released under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported,(CC BY-SA 3.0). Such a license allows the free use of the image by anyone for any reason forever. Creative Commons-licenses are non-retractable, even by the licenser. Removing the file makes it harder to use the image under the conditions it is allowed. I therefor request it to be undeleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themanis (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 May 2014‎ (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Last November, I closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:SD-logotype.jpg, which explored the issue thoroughly. In the image description, User:Emyrin claimed it was "own work". At the DR, he said it was someone else's work. While it is likely that User:Emyrin is in fact, Eric Myrin, it is by no means certain -- we often get imposters doing exactly this kind of copyright violation, which is why we require a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS when the image was not created by the uploader. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose at this time, the DR close makes it clear that OTRS clearance was all that was needed for us to host the image, Themanis should contact the party and ask them tk follow the procedure set out at COM:OTRS so we have conformation on file. LGA talkedits 21:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Per above, email COM:OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 09:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Unicef symbols

The files deleted in this DR should be considered PD under our license PD-UN. This disclaimer, which states "The unauthorized use of the UNICEF name and logo is against international law and is expressly forbidden", does not address the copyright status of the logo but rather is more in keeping with international law regarding the misuse of internationally-recognized protection signs such as the red cross. PD-UN states that it is the intent of the United Nations to maintain most of it's documents in the Public Domain unless otherwise stipulated, and under section 2 this includes any United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol. As Unicef is an organ of the United Nations, the license would clearly apply. As an excerpt, the Unicef flag and logo would be safe under our license. Fry1989 eh? 18:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The policies of the UN clearly allow for copyrighted material. The full statement on the Unicef site, from which Fry took the sentence he quoted above is as follows:
"UNICEF offers its information on the Internet essentially for the benefit of individuals interested in its efforts to uphold the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to protect and promote the well-being of children and to foster human development.
If you wish to mirror, reproduce, republish or translate any of the information for wider dissemination, please make use of the copyright permission option on our feedback form with details of such proposed use, including the nature and size of the intended audience. Please email nyhqdoc.permit@unicef.org regarding the use of UNICEF publications issued in New York.
UNICEF reserves all copyrights on material on its Web pages, including photographs and graphic designs. In the case of some publications, UNICEF has licensed the rights to third parties.
The use of UNICEF Internet material for any purpose, including repackaging in hard copy or compilation for CD-ROM or any other electronic media, is prohibited unless prior written permission is obtained.
The unauthorized use of the UNICEF name and logo is against international law and is expressly forbidden." [emphasis added]
This explicitly claims copyright and I see no room for misinterpretation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Whether the UN allows for copyrighted material or not isn't the question. The question is "is the UNICEF symbol copyrighted?" and the answer is not a simple "yes". The UNICEF website's disclaimer does mention what is copyrighted when it states "UNICEF reserves all copyrights on material on its Web pages, including photographs and graphic designs.", but in regards to the UNICEF symbol it only says "The unauthorized use of the UNICEF name and logo is against international law and is expressly forbidden.". International symbols such as the red cross or letters "U N" are considered protective symbols and their misuse is a violation of international law, but they are not copyrighted. Misuse of any UN symbol is against international law for the same reasons, but there is no statement on whether or not the UNICEF logo is copyrighted, the section discussing the logo leaves the copyright status in question. Now, the UN has released documents regarding the UN flag and symbol, there is no reason not to believe the same has been done for the other organs including UNICEF. Any excerpt from those documents (unless they are otherwise stipulated) are in the Public Domain. Fry1989 eh? 18:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The full disclaimer, which I did read, had the opportunity and was detailed enough to state that all UNICEF symbols and logos are held in copyright along with any web content and photographs and other material so stipulated. Instead it separately addresses the use of UNICEF symbols in a different sentence and does not state that it is copyrighted, but rather that misuse is a violation of international law. It does not address the copyright status of the UNICEF symbol directly or in an implied manner. It may in fact be copyrighted, but that is not what the website says. Fry1989 eh? 19:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The UNICEF website makes it clear they view them in copyright, and we should respect that. If Fry1989 would like them hosted here then he should email nyhqdoc.permit@unicef.org and ask UNICEF to contact OTRS confirming a free licence. LGA talkedits 20:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jim and LGA. The crucial element in that disclaimer is the sentence that says "UNICEF reserves all copyrights on material on its Web pages, including photographs and graphic designs". That leaves little room for manoeuvre other than the OTRS route. Green Giant (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per "...reserves all copyrights...". In addition, Commons policy makes it explicitly clear that it is the responsibility of those wishing to keep the file to provide proof of PD. No such proof has been presented here, in fact quite the contrary. trackratte (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
LGA, they do not make it clear the symbols are copyrighted in the least, they do not even list them in the same sentence regarding what content is considered under copyright. At minimum they are ambiguous, and best it is questionable, and at worst you are all completely misinterpreting what they actually say. Fry1989 eh? 01:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but I fail to see any ambiguity in the statement UNICEF reserves all copyrights on material on its Web pages, including photographs and graphic designs, it's logo being on the website and being a graphic design and all that. LGA talkedits 01:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I've already pointed out the rather obvious ambiguity in the fact that when they were addressing copyrights held by UNICEF they stipulate a variety of materials from photos to artwork, but when it comes to specifically addressing the status of the UNICEF logo they are suddenly silent of stating "the UNICEF logo is copyrighted..." and rather simply say that it's misuse is a violation of international law, which is no different than several other international signs that are protected from misuse but not copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 01:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Logo = graphic design. LGA talkedits 02:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
How many different ways do I have to say that they are silent on the copyright status of the UNICEF logo and flag and only mention potential misuse? Fry1989 eh? 18:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The reasoning of LGA and Jim is perfectly sound. We cannot host these images. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Kobo Aura Comparison.jpg

The file was deleted because the Flickr user did not use the right license (it was CC-BY-SA-NC); the user has changed the license to CC-BY. This file should now be compatible with Wikimedia Commons.

Photo and license can be viewed here.

--Cheeseisdisgusting (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no proof the Flickr user has the authority to licence what is shown on the devices. LGA talkedits 02:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Book covers clearly visible, not Com:DM. The covers are very likely (c). --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Mdoorduijn

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I've uploaded the images a while ago but at that time I did not have an official confirmation from the Designer. Now i do, I've got an e-mail from him in which he states that the images are his and that they are free to use under the "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 don't see a place where i can upload the e-mail or an adress I can forward it to. So I will paste it at the bottom of this post. I hope that with this confirmation from the designer the images will be undeleted. So I can continue making the the "AERIUS (PAS)" wiki-page.

Kind regards, Maarten Doorduijn


E-mail-----

I hereby affirm that I, Taco Zwaanswijk, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of attached infographics and illustrations: 'AERIUS_Calculator_Screenshot.png', as found on Wikipedia on: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AERIUS_Calculator_Screenshot.png and 'Aerius_logo.png' , as found on Wikipedia on: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aerius_logo.png and 'AERIUS_4_lagen.jpg', as found on Wikipedia on: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AERIUS_4_lagen.jpg and 'AERIUS_datamanagement.png', as found on Wikipedia on: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AERIUS_datamanagement.png and the movie 'AERIUS - Rekeninstrument van de PAS' (not attached, but as found on Wikipedia at): https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:AERIUS_-_Rekeninstrument_van_de_PAS.webm

I agree to publish that works 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.

Taco Zwaanswijk, taco@aerius-team.nl, +31651069358 Copyright-holder, designer and producer/editor Mdoorduijn (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Send this to the OTRS team. -- Tuválkin 13:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:גיא בוקאטי.jpg

Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014051810009155). Hanay (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


@Hanay: ✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Brian Rice profile picture.png (2)

Please undelete this image, as the copyright holder has asserted ownership (ticket:2014052310002697) and released the image under a compatible license. A previous undeletion request was declined, but I don't understand the reasoning (what automatic restoration?). Thanks, —Microchip08 (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done You didn't leave a ticket number. That's why Fastily declined the UDR. Restored, OTRS / CC3.0 tagged. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Carlos Mayorga 2014.png

la imagen me fue entregada por el propio Carlos Mayorga no puede tener violación de derechos de autor. por favor encargo se vuelva poner en linea la foto.

Saludos

Aaron B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alebrije77 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 May 2014‎ (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 21:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Pyramid of Red Bull cans.jpg

The file was deleted without a warning (this is not the reason for a undeletion), but, if a remember, this is a pyramid made by cans, is not a can with a clear distinguish background, the subject was the pyramid, not the can... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


Done by Jim -FASTILY 22:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry, no -- that was a slip of the click which I deleted again a minute later. It then was restored again by Fastily. I'm neutral on this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Can this be called Com:DM? The cans are taking up a lot of space and the design is visible. Not opposing the UDR. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
For me, yes, because the can it self, the cylinder, is not under copyright, as the the Coke bottle.
What is under a copyright, is the logo, and the draw, but this is not clear in the photo, non of the cans have a clear shot of the logo, and the style, because of the flair, the bad quality, and bad photographer (me), have a lot of silver things, and the logo and the style is not highlighted here, occupying a little space in the whole photo, I counted only seven cans turn to the cam.
Even if they had a clear shot, as this, the subject is not the can, is ridiculous pyramid made by cans, non that I can easily read "Red Bull".
Of course DM is quite subjective, I look to this (2) and for me the subject is the can, but you think differently (I'm supposing, because you not marked this one).
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close - image is not currently deleted; if concerns remain, they can be discussed in a DR. Эlcobbola talk 19:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Unicef symbols

I am opening this appeal again, because the reasoning is not sound at all. Not only does this ignore the fact that the website notice does not address the status of the UNICEF logo and flag and is suspiciously silent on the matter, the idea espoused by LGA that a website copyright notice can apply to all images no matter what is simply impossible. If I design a website and it hosts a variety of images, I do not get hold copyright on all of those images just because I put up a notice if one or more of those images are in fact PD. There is zero evidence provided either the notice applies to the UNICEF logo or that the UNICEF logo is copyrighted at all. Fry1989 eh? 00:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Again ...... Fry1989 copyright is not a game where each side tries to out fox the other with clever words. The days of having to put a copyright notice on things in order for protection are long gone. Now unless you have a link/citation from a credible source explicitly declaring these images to be freely licensed then you are wasting every ones time. LGA talkedits 01:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a fox game, this is a matter of text and truth. It's a fact that the notice you hold in such high regard does not address the copyright status of the UNICEF logo and flag, and can not apply to all images hosted on a website where an image originates from the Public Domain. Fry1989 eh? 01:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The revised UNICEF logo in use today was adopted in 1986. Prior to 17 September 1987 it was the position of the UN to not seek copyright protection (see UN ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2), although they did make some exceptions. I was unable to find any exemption granted for the UNICEF logo under the prior policy. The revised logo appears on the cover of a UNICEF Annual Report in 1986 (prior reports have an older logo). The first year in which a UNICEF Annual Report has a copyright notice is 2000. I reviewed all items registered with the U.S. Copyright Office by the U.N, UNICEF, and related names from 1984 to 1992 and I was unable to find any indication that the revised UNICEF logo was ever registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. So the UNICEF logo is almost certainly PD in the U.S. It's unclear to me if the preceding facts are sufficient to undelete these files, as I don't know how the Commons "PD in US and Source policy" is applied to works that originate with international organizations like the U.N. —RP88 01:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Considering the nature of the United Nations as an organisation, I believe the "source country" requirement can not apply in the normal fashion. UNICEF is headquartered in the United States however, if "source country" did matter. Fry1989 eh? 01:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
There is an issue with the AI, in that it that was raised at the DR, it does not meet the requirements of COM:L in that it completable revocable and the UN are free to ignore it if they want. They also seem to be doing that as we can see on the UN website's copyright notice. There is way more than a significant doubt as to the free status of these images and the only way we can be sure of the status of the UNICEF logo is to ask them if they will confirm to COM:OTRS that it free to use. I see nothing new since this was closed as "We cannot host these images by MichaelMaggs less than 12 hours ago. If Fry1989 is so sure they are free he should email UNICEF at the address on the website and ask them to confirm the status to the OTRS team and that will be an end to the problem.LGA talkedits 02:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
And what makes you believe I haven't already? What you consider a "waste of time" I consider a worthwhile pursuit, the truth matters to me and if I believe people are misinterpreting what something actually says I will try my hardest to find out what the reality is. Fry1989 eh? 03:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, I am not taking a position on whether or not {{PD-UN}} is a valid tag under Commons policy (it may well not be) or a position on the public domain status of the images in Category:PD-UN. I'm only saying I am of the opinion that the UNICEF logo is PD in the US for the reason that it was published in the US from 1978 to 1 March 1989, without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years. —RP88 03:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, and I also don't know how the legal status of the UN under international copyright law further complicated matters. However I do know that we have a very simple way to resolve this and that is "Ask them", I see no reason why Fry1989 should not just drop them an e-mail and ask them to confirm it rather than re-debating the issue here. LGA talkedits 04:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for truly prooving you never read anything I say, least of all with any bit of thought put into it. I have emailed them and I am waiting a response, but whether I get one or not does not mean it is the only way. Fry1989 eh? 04:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I did read you had, my point was that was all you needed to do, either they would come back and say "Yep it is PD" and the OTRS member could ask for the file to be restored or they would come back and say "No it is copyright" in which case nothing more to do. But no you instead want to debate it out more and waste more time. Will for the love of sanity will the next passing admin close this down as awaiting OTRS conformation. LGA talkedits 04:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done

MichaelMaggs explained why this undeletion will not happen not more than 24 hours ago. The images will only be undeleted if and when you can provide 100% certainty that the images are in the public domain or they have been suitably licenced by UNICEF and there exists no question of any legal issues for either Commons or downstream reusers of this work. You may well be correct in your assertions Fry1989 and hopefully your contact with UNICEF confirms your line of thinking. Nick (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:RudraCover.jpg

File:RudraCover.jpg DO NOT DELETE THIS, THIS IS MY OWN WORK!

AbHiSHARMA143 (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

First, it's not deleted yet. Second, it will be deleted soon: book covers are copyrighted in general. It doesn't matter that you took a photo of the book cover yourself, you still don't own the copyright on the book cover itself. Your photo is a derivative work of the book cover and can be published under a free license only with the express permission of whoever owns the copyright on the book cover. Lupo 09:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close - file not yet deleted. Эlcobbola talk 12:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Anna Pabis.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Following up ticket:2014052710020348 —Microchip08 (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Edward-furlong-mugshot-01.jpg

file should NOT have been deleted.

closing admin completely disregarded commons' policy, the template info (public domain, gov. california), & the discussion. citing a "Los Angeles County Sheriff's web media guide" (website) DOESN'T CUT IT. they can write whatever policy "guide" they like, doesn't mean a DAMNED THING; court decisions superceed gov't dep't policy "guides".

if the closing admin disagrees with the pd-gov california template, they are welcome to discuss it @ a policy-level, NOT by making ad-hoc decisions that violate it.

Lx 121 (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Top tips for persuading an administrator to restore the file for you :
  1. is to beat-up on the administrator who deleted the file;
  2. keep making post like this;
  3. Make sure you SHOUT and use bold a lot.
may be you would like to try it again? LGA talkedits 07:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
the case for undeletion stands or falls on its own merits.
a prima facie reading of relevant policy & templates CLEARLY indicates that the admin's close & delete was wrong.
OBVIOUSLY WRONG
if the matter is decided because you "don't like my style", or if one can no longer point out when admins make a mistake, then commons is a lost cause.
if that's really where things are at, then i quit trying; let me know if/when things get less broken?
Lx 121 (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Or perhaps not. OP is now Blocked indefinitely so see no reason to carry on with this. LGA talkedits 21:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done I reviewed the Los Angeles County Sheriff's web media guide, & they state that mug shots are non-releasable unless for "bolos" (be on the lookouts), & as I find no record of this image being bolo'd, THE DELETION seems to be OKAY. --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Acid2 IE 6,7,8.png

I fixed the errors just before it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBoland1 (talk • contribs)


  •  Not done : The image was deleted as a copyright violation. Unless evidence can be presented that it is available under a free license, it does not belong on Commons. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Haitham hakki.jpg undeletion request

I'm his son and the picture was taken by me. I can send you a copy of my identity card as a verification — Preceding unsigned comment added by HollyBlade (talk • contribs)


  •  Not done - Image has previously appeared here, here, etc. COM:OTRS requires additional permission in this circumstance. Please follow the procedure on that page and a volunteer will restore the image if the permission received is adequate. Эlcobbola talk 17:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Tamil language flag.jpg

Hi There,

This is a creation of an artist.

A similar creation on 'Tamil Language Flag' exist in Wikimedia (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tamil_language_flag.png).

Please can we restore it. Its a lot of hard-work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anubes666 (talk • contribs)


Please email COM:OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 22:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Please undelete my file Adaptación del sol egipcio para el Vazquecitos.jpg

Please tell me what to do in order to keep it working!

Thanks!


 Not done see COM:SCOPE. Commons is not a personal online album or webhost -FASTILY 22:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Colby's Clubhouse Cast Members.jpg

Hey Can You Please Undelete That Photo Right Now!

My Email Is bryantmaquito@gmail.com --SANTABABES (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)SANTABABES--SANTABABES (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, this appears to be a screenshot and therefore infringes on the copyright of the TV show. Second, it infringes on the copyright of the Colby sculpture/costume. The only way it could be restored to Commons is if you got a license from the TV show's producers. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 22:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Lindsey Baum At Her Age Of 11.jpg

Hi! Help Me Can You Please Undelete This Image And Email Me!

My Email Is bryantmaquito@gmail.com

Thank You!

--SANTABABES (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)SANTABABES

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You have given no reason why the deletion was not correct. It seems very unlikely that this is actually your own work, as you claimed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No reason given to undelete anything -FASTILY 22:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Rachel-marsden.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission may have been obtained through ticket:2014052910012399; I'd like to look at the image itself before proceeding further. —Microchip08 (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It was this image scaled to 500×500px. Twitter profile image; also used on linkedin. Lupo 11:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Microchip08: I've undeleted the image, and have taken over the ticket as I've helped Rachel in the past and have dropped her a note to let her know all is ok. Cheers, russavia (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

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

File:3devises.jpg

Hello,

I work at Sportchaser.com and we would like to create a page for the company. The picture I uploaded is just screenshots of the website. Anybody can use it.

I'm looking forward to receiving your approval.

Best, Tamara Prud'homme

Since the images have appeared elsewhere without a free license, Commons rules require a license from an officer of the company, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:55, 30 May 2014 (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 22:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Ramon Langa.jpg

Hi there,

In the source page you can read in Spanish "Puedes enviar la fotografía por email como postal, pulsando en Enviar foto." what means that can be redistributed.

Regards.


 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. Sure, redistributed, but apparently not under a Commons-compatible license -FASTILY 22:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)