Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2014-07

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

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

Contents

Images uploaded by user:Delphico[edit]

Delphico is apparently connected to the International Delphic Council. In 2010, that user stated permission had been granted by the IDC to post the first images they uploaded. Those have been kept, but more recent uploads have in the past two weeks started to be deleted in bulk. They all have appropriate license tags. This user has been visiting Commons regularly every year since then, uploading more original files from the IDC. (They also did not respond to another couple of talkpage messages in 2011).

A week ago, NBS posted 'delete in a week' tags on 25 of these files (listed tersely on Delphico's talk page; those were deleted after getting no response. NBS just now listed another 30 in the same way. Some of those 30 are in use on ru.wp; no idea if this was also true of the deleted files.

I request undeleting those 25 files until an update can be gotten from the IDC. There's no urgent reason to delete, and we can wait to discuss with the uploader. It seems likely that Delphico is connected to the council - as noted by DarDar who is using some of the images and left me a kind message about them - and could get more explicit permission if necessary (or can explain if they are personally the rightsholder / authorized to license such documents). --SJ+ 17:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell none of the images have (at the time of writing) been deleted, I would recommend that Delphico gets the International Delphic Council to follow the procedure set out at COM:OTRS and then mark the files with {{subst:OP}}. LGA talkedits 04:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Missing evidence of permission which must be forwarded to COM:OTRS -FASTILY 23:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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

File:PedroTeixeiraSilva.jpg[edit]

Boa noite!

Foi apagado, indevidamente, o ficheiro PedroTeixeiraSilva.jpg da minha box de informação sem qualquer razão aparente. A fotografia é minha e gostaria que fosse novamente reposta. Muito obrigado. PTS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro Teixeira Silva - "PTS" (talk • contribs)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image has appeared elsewhere on the Internet (e.g., here as a YouTube profile image). Per COM:OTRS, previously published images require additional permission. Эlcobbola talk 22:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please email COM:OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 23:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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

File:UUVs.jpg[edit]

Shortly after this was deleted due to lack of source on Commons, a source was added to the file information page on Wikipedia: w:File:UUVs.jpg[1]. With the new source, it should be possible to undelete the file again. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done - checked it and added the source. Natuur12 (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:MIVB TRAM 51 AT HEYSEL BRUSSELS BELGIUM JULY 2012 (7690226222).jpg [edit]

I wonder why the file has been deleted, because there was a DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MIVB TRAM 51 AT HEYSEL BRUSSELS BELGIUM JULY 2012 (7690226222).jpg and the file was kept. It was a Flickr file reviewed, then the license was correct at the time the file was reviewed. And the derivative file File:MIVB TRAM 51 AT HEYSEL BRUSSELS BELGIUM JULY 2012 (7690226222) (cropped).jpg still exists. Then, is it possible to undelete this file? Or maybe to open a new DR if needed to have other opinions? Thanks for your help. Jeriby (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This looks clearly to be a derivative work. The Flickr review was performed by a bot that merely checks for a license match and cannot judge the visual content (see COM:LL for the notion), so that argument is non-responsive to the reason for deletion. The derivative file cropped out a significant portion of the sculpture, thus making it more likely to be COM:DM. The original seemed clearly posed to include and frame the sculpture; I would not expect a de minimis argument to prevail given what appears to be deliberate inclusion of the sculpture. Эlcobbola talk 19:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The only reason to want the un-cropped version back is that it has a better view of the Atmomium. LGA talkedits 21:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done As was said above, the deleted image is likely a derivative work, while the cropped version eliminates that problem. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:National Waterways no 4 (NW 4).jpg[edit]

In reference to - deletion request and subsequent deletion of the files I would like to clarify . No where in the site its mentioned as "This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context" . Could you please point it out . I clearly see that in the site http://nroer.in/home/# its given under "All material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License unless mentioned otherwise. " . I contest the deletion and others which were deleted along with this are :

--Commons sibi (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support It seems that the license is OK. Yann (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image description gives the source as http://iwai.nic.in/. At the bottom of that page, there is a link to "Copyright Policy" which says:
"Copyright Policy
Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site, which is identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned. [emphasis added]
It seems, therefore, that the DR quoted the source site correctly and that the DR was appropriate.
If the images are also hosted at http://nroer.in/home/# , then that license can apply. However, you will need to provide links to their location on that site.
It is also possible that the images are available through a link on http://nroer.in/home/# but are actually hosted at iwai.nic.in. In that case, the more restrictive license at iwai.nic.in applies.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The sentence Jim highlights speaks to moral rights, which is a non-copyright restriction (see COM:NCR). While I expect that Jim and I agree that the Commons ought to consider these rights in addition to economic rights (i.e., copyright), it is not currently our practice to do so. Indeed, moral rights are treated like trademarks; they are issues left to the reusers of Commons content (per COM:NCR, "It is up to the reusers of Commons-hosted media to ensure that they do not violate any non-copyright restrictions that apply to the media.") Эlcobbola talk 14:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I disagree strongly.
"subject to the material being reproduced accurately"
is a very clear statement of an No-Derivatives license, which we do not permit. I agree with Эlcobbola that the rest speaks to moral rights, but that is not important. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The Copyright Policy says “Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media.” A change of format is, by definition, a derivative work. An interpretation of “reproduced accurately” as meaning “no derivatives” causes the policy to become self-contradictory. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the site hosted an image of Mickey Mouse (and owned all copyrights thereto). Would you agree that the aforementioned statement would seem to allow one to create a sculpture of Mickey Mouse (“may be reproduced […] in any format”)? If so, would not the sculptor be adding dimensional information--moving from 2D to 3D--not present in the original, an action inherently unfaithful (i.e., inaccurate) to the original? At a higher level, this copyright policy is more or less verbatim boilerplate of the UK open government license (in this case Indian government – also used by UK, Wales, New Zealand, etc.) that address "material" - a "one size fits all" for both images and text. I think it is clear that accuracy is meant to refer to the reproduction of facts and figures (i.e., literary works) rather than transformations of images (visual works). To interpret it otherwise is, as above, to introduce logical contractions within the policy. (This is quite labored, but another consideration is that a derivative work is, by definition, a work based on an existing work - i.e., a new, separate work. The requirement for accuracy applies to “material being reproduced” not to, for example, “material being transformed/adapted/etc.” Inherently, then, it may be interpreted as not speaking to derivatives.) Эlcobbola talk 17:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Another reasonable interpretation is that, since the permission to reproduce in any format is subject to being reproduced accurately, adaptations to formats which cannot inherently be accurate are not permitted. Another major flaw in your argument is that even if you infer from the "any format or media" passage that adaptations are permitted if they are necessary in order to transform the content to another format, there is nothing in the statement that explicitly states or even suggests that any other modifications are permitted. LX (talk, contribs) 18:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't consider that a reasonable interpretation, as it ignores, among others, convention and parlance of legal writing. It's a moot point, however, because the "reproduced accurately" is a moral right, not an economic one. I should have made clear in my follow-up that Jim is incorrect in believing the contrary, and that my comments were meant to examine the problem of the argument even if we adopt that erroneous notion. The aforementioned boilerplate is largely an invocation of the Berne Convention. Article 6bis thereof speaks to Moral Rights, which include "the right [...] to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work". The verbiage of "reproduced accurately" is merely an alternative wording--a distillation--of the "object[ion] to any distortion, mutilation or other modification". Indeed, I was deliberate in my initial comment that "The sentence Jim highlights speaks to moral rights" and did not, as Jim implies, ignore the third through ninth words. Per COM:NCR, moral rights are not considered. Эlcobbola talk 19:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Moral rights generally prevent you from modifying an image, unless explicitly permitted by the copyright holder. For example, if you use an image illegally in Sweden, a court would fine you. If you use the image illegally and additionally mirror or crop the image, or make a parody of it, then you would receive a greater fine. Moral rights are essentially a non-derivative restriction (and on top of that an attribution restriction: use without attribution also increases the amount of the fine). The image needs to be available under a licence which allows modification (including mirroring and cropping). Otherwise, the licence is the equivalent of a CC-BY-ND licence. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
We agree. The point is that the clause highlighted by Jim speaks to moral rights, and the Commons does not consider moral rights. Indeed, the Commons should consider moral rights, but it currently does not. We must evaluate images based on the guidelines as they are (COM:NCR), not as we might wish them to be. A corollary is the nonsensical decision to ignore UK law which gives a copyright to faithful copies of 2D PD works. Эlcobbola talk 20:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean? Disregarding moral rights is the same thing as accepting CC-BY-ND, and {{cc-by-nd}} is a speedy deletion tag. The only place where modifications are discussed in the Swedish copyright law is within the section for moral rights, and the moral rights prohibit all modifications (unless absolutely needed, for example you may typeset text yourself instead of using a scan of the source you're quoting, but you can't e.g. crop an image). It may be different in countries where the economic and moral parts of copyright do not expire at the same time. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the restriction "This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately" is restriction that is not acceptable on commons, it is not in keeping with the wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy and the Freedomdefined:Definition which require media we host to have a licence that alows the "freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works". LGA talkedits 21:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose reproduced accurately is clearly ND and not suitable for Commons. Did anyone ever contacted the (c)holder? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done "Reproduced accurately" is outside of the boundaries of the license given, and is outside of what Commons allows. On a related note, I feel that I should point out that Commons sibi pointed to a 3.0 license in asking for the undeletion, but used a 2.5 license on the file I checked, File:National Waterway no. 3 (NW-3).gif. Please be careful with this in the future; cc-by-sa-2.5 and cc-by-sa-3.0 are not the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Jeankarl El que todo lohace.jpg [edit]

This image should not be removed because it was specifically made ​​to be published in wikipedia for the author of the article which refers to the best picture of the artist and company referred to which is not used for any other purpose. Who can prove it with our editable files if necessary if there is a problem appealed to copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeankarl85 (talk • contribs)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image previously appeared here, here, etc. Per COM:OTRS, additional permission is required in this circumstance. Эlcobbola talk 19:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

COM:OTRS permission is necessary to host the file. -FASTILY 23:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Dio Zambrano.jpg [edit]

Is a picture of me --Dio Zambrano (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done Procedural close: image is not deleted. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was deleted. Dio Zambrano apparently didn't have the patience to wait more than seven minutes for an answer here before bypassing proper procedure and just recreating it unilaterally instead. LX (talk, contribs) 11:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reopened the Undel. I have deleted the image and put a {{Dont recreate}} on his talk page. It does not appear to be a selfie, therefore it cannot be "own work" as claimed. Since it has appeared elsewhere on the web without a free license, in order to restore it, we will need a license from the photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - if the user is indeed "Dio Zambrano" then it shouldn't be too difficult to comply with the OTRS requirement. Until then the image should remain deleted. Interestingly, the image was uploaded for use on the corresponding articles at en:Dio Zambrano and es:Dio Zambrano. The former is the subject of an AfD that will almost certainly result in deletion and the latter was speedily deleted earlier today. Green Giant (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done per above. "Is a picture of me" implies you are merely the subject, not the photographer (the author who would hold the copyright). If copyright has been transferred to you, follow the procedure at COM:OTRS to provide us evidence of the transfer; the volunteer who processes the ticket will restore the image if permission is in order. Эlcobbola talk 20:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Logo eso-divina2.jpg[edit]

toute ses photos sont miennes alors ou est la violation des droits d'auteurs?


If you are the copyright holder/author, please email COM:OTRS to get these restored -FASTILY 09:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Desiriusmage.jpg[edit]

elle est faite par moi?


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Tor-Arne Moen Spring is here, I hear.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There is a permission ion the Norwegian OTRS queue [2] for the paintings. Jeblad (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Didym (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Dorje Tseten.jpg[edit]

This under {{VOA}}, therefore there is no copyright violation, it should be restored isn't it ? --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


No consensus to restore. Template nominated for deletion, here -FASTILY 00:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Tom meets Zizou – Kein Sommermärchen.jpg[edit]

Also:

Ich bitte um Wiederherstellung der o.g. Datei. Folgende Webadresse des Urhebers enthält die die entsprechenden Lizenzinformationen zu o.g. Bild: http://pausefilm.de/license_wikicommons.html

Besten Dank! --TFB75 (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment These are two movie posters and a portrait photograph. While we would usually assume good faith with respect to the portrait, the claim of "own work" on the film posters puts that in doubt. Usually, I would say that we need a license from the actual copyright holder of each item using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
However, I note that the linked licenses are in satisfactory form and are on the web site of the maker of the movies. It is therefore possible that these are OK, but I'd still prefer to see a license at OTRS..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS to get these restored -FASTILY 00:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Arabs in Madagascre.PNG [edit]

hello Sir, I would like to know why do you delete my personal photo? Thanks


COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 00:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File: Foobar2000 - black color scheme.png [edit]

This approach here is a sham. It was speedy tagged by Codename_Lisa. I converted it to a regular DR, I removed the speedy tag but the DR (link) function made a page reload of the original page. Then comes Fastily, here it is clearly visible (he don't recognize the clear visible DR) that he used a kind of bot for his admin work (at his own screenshots of course, he voted to keep). Both users are fully aware of what they are doing (as we can see here Commons:Deletion requests/Mac Screenshots).

At the same day (with the same issue) a speedy tag of Codename_Lisa were simply reverted (by McZusatz).[3]. That is also the only thing what I do now, good day. PS: Maybe you can wait what Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ReplayGainScanResults.PNG is saying. User: Perhelion09:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


✓ Restored - for normal DR. JurgenNL (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Than Than Gopal film.jpg [edit]

File:Than Than Gopal film.jpg the file not has been copyright violation. --shreeraj (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done If the poster author provides a permission following COM:OTRS image will be undeleted. The {{own}} template applies only to not yet published images. Ankry (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

5074 RCE photographs[edit]

5074 (yes, that's more than five thousand) of my uploads have been deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/RCE images without a valid reason. These files have been published at the RCE site. How do you think I could download them? For the reason for deletion Commons:Photographs of identifiable people is cited. We're talking about photographs of buildings here, not people. I'm really appalled by this process. Multichill (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you misread the reason. It is copyright problem / courtesy reason. Please, read the DR carefully. Ankry (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose any restore. It would seem that the Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed have alerted us to problems with some of the images sourced from their website, that should not have been uploaded, apparently they were either not accessible via the search tool and only via a direct URL due to a bug which is now fixed; or have other copyright issues. Given that they have over 500,000 images and we are talking about 1% of those I think we can cut them some slack and believe it was not their intention for such works to be released to us and therefore we should we respect that and not host them. If we want outside bodies to contribute works to our project we need to respond in a positive way when issues like this arise, it is right and proper that we respect their wish and thank them for the 99% that are left. LGA talkedits 00:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is true that COM:Person is linked in the closing and is not actually the issue here. The issue is copyright and the privacy of images taken in private places without permission to publish them. Since these were available only by directly calling them up from the web site, it could also be argued that the general web site license was not applicable.
So, we have a major contributor to Commons (2%+ of all of our images) who has told us that a small fraction of their total contribution is problematic. I think the deletion is appropriate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. This is a courtesy deletion of a small fraction of images not intended to be a part of the original donation. -FASTILY 17:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Paps'n'Skar.jpg[edit]

Hi, I've sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org an email as requested from the user that tagged my media as 'No License/Permission Given' but the file was deleted anyway without any new communication.. I'm here to ask if may I have the file restored.

Thank you for your time.

Michael Siddi


Great, thanks for doing that. Once COM:OTRS processes the email that was sent, the file will be restored -FASTILY 17:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ethnographic map of Slavs, Lubor Niederle.JPG[edit]

Wiki states that copy write expired June 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.255.226 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 5 July 2014‎ (UTC)


✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


Not true. The copyright period is counted in full calendar years and it will expire on 1 January 2015. Renominated for deletion. Ankry (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

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

No subject[edit]

I am disappointed with the Wikipedia administration’s interpretations of two images I uploads. I own the copyrights and do not understand what the concern is. I have tried exploring the links in your email below and it is so confusing! My apologizes if I am doing something wrong and I need help to understand what and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.172.42.153 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 6 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Firstly, this is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. Just above where you typed this in, there's the following text:
Click the "Signature and timestamp"-button to sign your talkpage contributions

When adding a request:

  1. Make sure you are logged in if you have an account at Commons
  2. Use a descriptive subject/headline, such as [[:File:Name of the file to undelete.jpg]]
  3. Identify the file(s) in question if you didn't already do it in the subject/headline
  4. State the reasons for the request
  5. Sign and date your request by clicking the "Insert signature"-button (see image to the right) or by typing four tilde characters (~~~~)


You somehow managed an impressive 0/5. I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no way anyone is going to help you unless you follow those basic instructions and tell us who you are, what files you're concerned with and why. LX (talk, contribs) 08:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Nothing to work with in the request. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:PedroTeixeiraSilva.jpg [edit]

please undelete. {{OTRS|2014070110026066}}. Thanks.Willy Weazley 03:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Angel left Urtijei.jpg[edit]

The template Own work has been added --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Although we require an author and source, we need to take more care and not blindly enforce the requirement. This file was marked

Author= Wolfgang Moroder

when it was uploaded in 2008 by Moroder. Rather than simply adding {{Own}} to fix the oversight, User:Billinghurst marked it as {{No source}}. Moroder then added {{Own}} which fixed the problem completely, but User:Fastily deleted it anyway. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done The {{no source}} templates were not removed when the source information was added to this and the other related image. @Moroder: I have resurrected the images as they do now contain the required source information.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Ies[edit]

Please undelete the files of this delition request. Firstly, and as I already remarked, the delition request based on a wrong statement. Secondly there should be a discussion do decide whether or not a file is to delete. But there was no discussion. Thirdly the delition reasons are inapplicable.

  • "I think it is a stretch to assume that "similar works" includes photographs and other flat works" is incomprehensible to me. Reliefs may be very flat, also facades and walls may be flat or at least take effect without relevant thicknes – like most signs. Facades and walls may include flat artwork like frescos, murals, and mosaics.
  • "it certainly does not include text" is quite wrong. Reliefs may contain text. Moreover inscriptions (Category:Sculptures by type) are usually plain text and sometimes hard to tell apart from signs.

Certainly signs are not equal to sculpture and architecture, but they are similar in many ways. And nothing more than similarity is required in the current case! -- Ies (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This are photos of recent info boards, so we not talk about murals or mosaics here. Photographs and text are not "... a work of architecture or sculpture or similar works" but different kind of works explicitly listed as copyrighted works in the copyright law. See article 2 of the copyright law where sculptures (c) and architecture (d) are clearly separated from photographs (d) and literary works (Copyright (Amendment) Act No. IX of 2009). Therefore FOP is not applicable. --Martin H. (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The law calls out
"... a work of architecture or sculpture or similar works"
as being eligible for FOP. As I said in the DR closing, that phrase certainly does not include text -- text is covered by FOP in only a very few countries and this isn't one of them. Therefore, those images that show text are clearly copyvios.
I also find no justification for believing that "similar works" includes photographs. Photographs are not similar to sculpture or architecture. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. That a map or photograph is attached to some support structure does not magically make it a sculpture. Similarly, if I were to carve a page of a novel into stone, regardless of the classification of the resulting carving, the text still has a separate copyright (as a literary work). The Malta copyright act categories include "(a) paintings, drawings, etchings, lithographs, woodcuts, engravings and prints" and "(b) maps, plans, diagrams and three-dimensional works relative to geography [...]" which are separate from "(c) works of sculpture". One would thus expect the "or similar" verbiage to apply to other works in the "works of sculpture" category, which maps, text, and photos implicitly do not. Эlcobbola talk 16:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Per Martin H., Jim, and elcobbola. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Lalla-Hirayama.jpg[edit]

Please undelete as it is allowed to be publicly published by anyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovikap (talk • contribs)


 Not done File is marked "All rights reserved", no evidence of a free licence. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg [edit]

The books Why GESITI

and Why GESITI/Hospitals

should not be deleted since booth books subjects regards Information Technology and a free for downloading.

Thanks

Antonio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballonia (talk • contribs) 16:46, 6 July 2014‎ (UTC)

I'm guessing this isn't really about File:Example.jpg but rather about File:Por que Gesiti Gestao Sistemas.pdf. I don't see anything in the above that in any way addresses the arguments for deletion presented in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Por que Gesiti Gestao Sistemas.pdf. LX (talk, contribs) 18:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per LX and initial deletion rationale. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:mooddisorder.jpg[edit]

This work by David Horvitz has become notable. I would like to add it to the artist's Wikipedia page. See “brilliant takedown of online image culture”, "is at the Berlin Gallery chert." , "It’s not just the rules of time that Mr. Horvitz has toyed with in his practice. Mood Disorder..."--Nowa (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't agree with your assertion that the work is notable, but either way, if he is not formally community banned, he should be (in fact, he should be global locked). As such, none of his uploads should be on this project. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    Good point. If he is banned, should we delete his bio page?--Nowa (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    No, that's not how it works. If he's (or you if you are him) banned he's simply not allowed to contribute to the project. If this is all some ruse to get the bio deleted it's no dice.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Can you suggest a more appropriate image to represent his work for his bio? Right now there is nothing.--Nowa (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose As I stated in the recent DRs of Horvitz's works, while I could accept some of Horvitz's works being kept if they were of acceptable quality and weren't unduly self-promotional, this is not one of those works. This image is a stock image. It belongs on istockphoto, flickr or similar, not Commons or any other Wikimedia project. While stock imagery may be useful for some illustrations, it must make sense. This image does not. It's a person cupping his face with a blurred beach in the background. In my view, that alone would make it a marginal case. But given Horvitz's demonstrated promotional intent, the scales are tipped in my view. Moreover, I hope that consideration is given towards formally banning Horvitz from this project. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose I agree with both Ryūlóng & Mendaliv and have yet to see a photo that would be considered professional in any regard out of David Horvitz's "sockpuppet farm". Further adding to the confusion now is the ID of, USER:NOWA whom has claimed to be Horvitz, creating further WP:COI furthering the argument that he is here to disrupt the site. --WPPilot (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done no consensus to restore -FASTILY 02:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Auguste Brouet, Wikicommons : dates and prints[edit]

Hi, related to the following deletions : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Post-1923_works_by_Auguste_Brouet I have found a number of documents dating most prints (see my web site auguste-brouet.org - hum, it is mostly in french, though). These include notes by print dealers, by collectors, copyright data and exhibition catalogues. My conclusions are listed below

I would suggest to reconsider these deletions based on this information. All the best, Etienne Barthel

Could you, please, provide more precise information: where these arts were published at the pointed dates? (Note: we need evidence when they were published not when they were created). Ankry (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Restored: Please add the date in the description. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Alemania nazi.png[edit]

This image was clearly in scope as part of the Polandball set of images that we host. The nomination was based solely on the offensive nature of the subject, despite Commons not being a censored project. Also, the closing admin's choice to place artwork in captions suggests a bias in their reasoning to delete. Fry1989 eh? 23:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I will give Yann an opportunity to respond, but I Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. Don't get me wrong, I find the whole Polandball thing mindbogglingly stupid, but Polandball is (or was, I've never been good at keeping up with this stuff) a meme of considerable prominence, and Nazi Germany ball was (unlike a bunch of the images at Polandball) actually used in comics, so this is in scope. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Restored: For me, this is junk, but if you want it, well... Yann (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg [edit]

These books GESITI should never be deleted. Who asked for to delete these books do not know the Wikepedia Mission >>> http://www.wikimedia.org/ <<< Wikimedia is a global movement whose mission is to bring free educational content to the world

Both GESITIs books are in the scope form Wikipedia Mission. Thanks reinserting the books or to attend this undeletion request for both books. Both are free for distribution as you may by yourself find in these links>

GESITI HEALTH - is available for downloading > > in our Ministery of Healthy site - > > > > http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/por_que_gesiti_gestao_sistemas.pdf > > > > ou even in the site of our work place: > > http://repositorio.cti.gov.br/repositorio/bitstream/10691/272/1/Por_que_Gesiti_Gestao_Sistemas.pdf > > > > or even in the site of important Brazilian of Science Journal: > > http://www.jornaldaciencia.org.br/Detalhe.php?id=82495 > > > > The Other GESITI book - blue one - , is also available for downloading in the > > sites above as well in this one > > > > http://www.cti.gov.br/noticiaseeventos/2006/gesiti/pdf/livro_por_que_gesiti.pdf

Best Antonio

Once again: File:Example.jpg is not deleted and not intended to.
The file http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/por_que_gesiti_gestao_sistemas.pdf in under cc-by-nc-nd license which is not acceptable in commons. Tha fact that it is available for download is irrelevant here. A Wikipedia article can link the file in its original location, if necessary.
Ankry (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 02:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.png specifically the 4 June 2014 image, description and copyright tags[edit]

I uploaded an image from the cover of a newspaper, which as noted in the description, is from http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=UHZIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=o4IMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1024,6134586 , where you can see it was published w/o notice, to commons, using the same filename as a deleted image that is also a (DIFFERENT) derivative of the same famous photograph. This means that from a copyright law perspective, it's quite a different image indeed. The copyright status of the image I uploaded is PD because it was published w/o a copyright notice, and I've provided rock solid proof of that. So I expect the folks who were angered by the deletion will be happier with this version in place than with nothing here, and expected those who were pleased by the deletion would be OK with this version being here as well. Just the same, someone acting like a wingnut cowboy has deleted it and won't discuss it. I wish there was a way to de-admin Denniss... NOTE: THERE WAS NO DELETION DISCUSSION OF THIS FILE. TOTALLY OUT OF PROCESS DELETION.

Request temporary undeletion BECAUSE THE image, description and copyright tags WERE COMPLETE AND THOROUGH.--Elvey (talk) 06:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Relevant DR is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.png. Yann (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
No, Yann. That's for a different image. Please don't spread false information. Please READ and respond to the request. What part of "NOTE: THERE WAS NO DELETION DISCUSSION OF THIS FILE." do you not understand? What part of "it's quite a different image indeed" do you not understand? --Elvey (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support After reading the DR, I support undeletion. I think Pete's comment is the most relevant: Unless we are adopting stronger standards than these federal agencies (which I believe would be silly), I think we have enough information to close this ticket. It's reasonable to guess that AP's lawyers would assert that there is still an active copyright, even if they're wrong; what would we do in that event, delete the file? In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think it's appropriate to assume NARA and the LoC did their jobs and got this right. Yann (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There may have been examples published without notice but the original has always been copyrighted and the copyright subsequently registered/renewed. The no notice publication in a newspaper is irrelevant for this case as a failure to put a correct notice regarding source/author/copyright does not tangle the original's copyright. The image was speedy deleted because it was uploaded in known violation of this DR and its outcome and for being a copyvio. --Denniss (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
You should be ashamed of yourself for falsely accusing me of intentionally violating an existing DR. I didn't violate an existing DR; you should retract what I believe is an unfounded, malicious, defensive, false accusation. You did not provide evidence that a copyright on the image I uploaded has been registered/renewed, or retracted what I see to be an unfounded claim, or provide any evidence that the renewal applies to both images. I don't dispute that a copyright on the image previously uploaded has been registered/renewed. --Elvey (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe image on the cover of the Youngstown Vindicator cited by Elvey is not relevant. Copyright notices in newspapers and other periodicals did not have to appear on every photograph and article -- the only required notice was in one place. Even if the Vindicator did not have a general copyright notice -- and I can't find one -- that does not affect the copyright on AP photographs. The omission of notice by a third party does not affect the copyright unless the omission was deliberate and was done with the permission of the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I would agree if there was any basis in law for your claim that the only required notice was in one place. In fact there is plenty of basis in law for the opposite. I see no evidence that the notice was omitted in violation of an express requirement in writing, binding on the Youngstown Vindicator, that, as a condition of the copyright owner's authorization of the public distribution of copies, they bear the prescribed notice.
Withdrawn. On the other hand, § 405 suggests enough doubt that I don't see a chance of this surviving references to the precautionary principle. --Elvey (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Denniss and Jim --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This case highlights the dangers of relying on "it was published w/o a copyright notice therefore there is no copyright". as Jim points out if the omission of notice by a third party was done contra to requirement from the copyright holder then that does not invalidate the copyright. Also when a publisher uses an image without the consent of the copyright holder such as fair use does not invalidate the copyright. LGA talkedits 21:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn, per nominator's comment, above. (Plus, there's been some confused voting.) --Elvey (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Metzerlen-Mariastein, Klosterkirche Mariastein.jpg[edit]

Sysop abuse by User:Leit. I have warned the user time ago about this, but he keeps deleting redirect for his friend Rauenstein. Now he is redeleting redirects. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. On Leit's talkpage he is saying the he will redeleting this file again and again (=deletion war) --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the redirect was deleted with the reason "Copyright violation", i can't see a copyright violation O_O. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Undeleted on the basis it could be in use off-projects. Even if the redirect is wrongly named, if others are using it elsewhere we should still be able to serve them the file. russavia (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:AraucariaProject - BEP.jpg [edit]

The image File:AraucariaProject - BEP.jpg uploaded to Wikimedia Commons has been wrongly requested for deletion by user Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus (19:01, 17 June 2014) and finally deleted by FASTILY (17:25, 24 June 2014)

The Araucaria Project, the science collaboration based in Astronomical Observatory of University of Warsaw, Poland has exclusive copyrights to the aforementioned image. It is used on the official webpage of The Araucaria Project: http://araucaria.astrouw.edu.pl - the subdomain of the official .edu domain of Astronomical Observatory of University of Warsaw, Poland: http://www.astrouw.edu.pl Moreover the image was used as a press release material for Nature Journal peer-reviewed publication: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10966.html

Please consider undeleting the image File:AraucariaProject - BEP.jpg .

(Piokon (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC))


 Not done The website clearly states: 2013 Araucaria Project | All rights reserved We need free licenses in order to host media. Please see Com:L. If you can get permission from the copyrightholder, OTRS would be the way to go. Please see Com:OTRS for instructions. Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Wikimedia November Metrics Meeting Photo 21.jpg[edit]

Hello,

Could you please restore this file on Commons, which was deleted too fast, before I could add additional metadata:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_November_Metrics_Meeting_Photo_21.jpg

You can read more about this and other files recently submitted for deletion on my talk page:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)

Please notify me by email or on that talk page to let me know if you can restore this file, so that I can provide the proper attributions, as I have for other files in my collection.

Thank you!

Fabrice Florin Product Manager, Multimedia Wikimedia Foundation https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)


Restored: Yann (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Wikimedia November Metrics Meeting Photo 19.jpg[edit]

OTRS 2014070810007421 raised with an offer to release copyright - I would like to see the image page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Restored: To be fair, {{No permission since}} should've been added in the first place, not a copyvio tag. Bidgee (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Francisco Arias.jpg This is a family picture[edit]

The request estates on the fact that this image of the author comes from a family photo. Thanks. --Pedro Barea (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That the physical photo is in possession of your family does not necessarily mean accompanying copyrights are in your family. If the copyrights are in your family (either through transfer or because a family member was the author), we require evidence that 1) your family indeed has those rights and 2) you are authorized to license those rights. This evidence can be provided using the procedure at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 21:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. OTRS permission is necessary to restore this image -FASTILY 02:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Retrato de su madre, 1956.jpg[edit]

I hold the permission of the author heir for this picture. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro Barea (talk • contribs) 16:15, 8 July 2014‎ (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is apparently the work of Francisco Alvarez, who died in 1977. You would need to provide evidence that his estate conveyed copyrights to you (merely owning a physical painting is not sufficient) using the procedure at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 21:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. OTRS permission is necessary to restore this image -FASTILY 02:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Örö.jpg[edit]

I have now recieved an answer from the Finnish armed forces. The answer is "there are no obstacles to publish the picture". /ℇsquilo 07:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That is by no means a sufficient license. It says nothing about commercial use or derivative works. In order to restore the image we will need a license directly from the Finnish armed forces using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Pleas send permission to COM:OTRS --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Протоієрей Микола Щербань.jpg [edit]

File:Протоієрей Микола Щербань.jpg Файл, был взят с сайта моего факультета. Он имеет свободную лицензию и мне разрешено его поместить на википедии. Но, я только недавно зарегистрирован, поэтому не знаю как именно его поместить, чтоб его не удалили. Если можно, то посоветуйте как это сделать.--Nikolask1992 (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"All text, images, illustrations and other content of this website is the property of Theology department." (Google translation)
Therefore in order to restore it we will need a license from the Theology Department using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done To restore the file we will need a license/permission from the Theology Department using the procedure at OTRS. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:EITB logo 1982-1999.svg [edit]

User LX deleted a file I uploaded to Commons some days ago. It was a vector graphic showing the first logo ever used by the Basque Country's public radio and television corporation, Euskal Irrati Telebista. It was intended to be someday used on its articles on Wikipedia. I strongly believe that Basque people, and just everyone in the world, have full right to see a good picture of this public broadcaster's former logo, just as they can see the current one.

The problem might have been that I specified wrong licensing information on the file. I was the author of the vector file itself, but not the designer of the artwork it depicts, which was done over 30 years ago by other people. This is the reason why I never wanted to say that "I was the author" of it, and wrote the name of the corporation instead. I also specified "Google" as the source of the picture, since I actually took a version the logo from it, in order to generate the final graphics. I also applied a template to tell readers that it only contained shapes and/or text, and therefore, it had no copyright restriction, and was in the Public Domain. It was the logo of an organization until 1999, but never a trademark.

Of course, I would like to have it allowed back into Commons. It took me some hours of my life to vectorize it, and I must demand respect for my efforts and contributions. I really cannot understand why some other logos in the "Euskal Telebista logos" category can be accepted, while most of them are fake, or not accurate enough, while mine was indeed. I promise to improve the accuracy of the licensing info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euskaltzain (talk • contribs) 11:41, 9 July 2014‎ (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The problem here is that your work is a derivative work of the original logo and therefore infringes on the logo's copyright. Thirty years may seem like a long time, but copyright lasts a very long time -- in Spain it lasts 70 years after the death of the creator, or 80 years if the creator died before 1987. If the creator cannot be identified, it lasts for 70 years from first use.
Of course we respect your efforts -- the logo is well done -- but we cannot overcome the copyright issues without a license from the organization. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I did not delete anything. (I can't, since I'm not an administrator.) As clearly shown in the deletion log displayed if you click the filename above, the deletion was carried out by NahidSultan. I nominated it for deletion because the stated PD rationale clearly did not apply. {{PD-textlogo}} is only for logos that consist entirely of simple geometric shapes and/or text. The graphics in this logo are not simple geometric shapes. I can see no other reason why the logo would be in the public domain, and no such reason has been presented above, so Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. LX (talk, contribs) 13:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim's and LX's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Zeek-app-buy-sell-gift-vouchers-logo.png[edit]

Hi, this image shouldn' be deleted because :

- I'm the creator of the image - I'm working at Zeek, and allow anyone to publish or modify the content - This image has the right to be under WikiCommons, and everybody is able (and invited) to make any changes at the logo.

Yofisimon (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As an employee of Zeek, your work product would generally be expected to be a work for hire, the copyright belonging to Zeek Mobile Ltd, not to you (i.e., we would require evidence that you are an agent authorized to license on Zeek's behalf). While it's possible that this logo could be too simple for copyright protection, your affiliation with the firm, the title of the image, and the speedy deletion of the en.wiki article suggest the logo is not within COM:SCOPE (be it COM:ADVERT or otherwise). Эlcobbola talk 14:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done see COM:ADVERT --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Train 24 Ulaanbaatar to Beijing.jpg[edit]

Deleted 22:19, 7 July 2014 because "[n]o source since 29 June 2014". The file is sourced from an image on Flickr which is licensed through CC-BY-SA 2.0. Apologies; because I was unfamiliar with the new Flickr uploading procedures, I did not know how to include the source. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done per above. Эlcobbola talk 14:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Bernard Mate as a student in Bangor University.jpg[edit]

Also

I have literally just logged in for the first time in a number of months (3dr world internet)and seen that the deletion debate was long ago opened and closed without my contribution.

Anyway the jpeg file uploaded is/was created by the user scanning an original photo, from the original 1950s photos, that were in possession of the subject's daughter, who happens to be the user's aunt. In that sense it made sens to indicate that the file is/was in fact the user's creation Kimemia Maina (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You aren't the author, it is an scanned photo, you must provide the source and author of it Ezarateesteban 13:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The owner of the photograph is not the owner of its copyright. The copyright belongs to the photographer or his heirs. This is not the user's work in any sense. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Owning a photograph does not in fact give you the right to publish it. -FASTILY 06:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Julio Ríos Gallego 2014.JPG[edit]

The closure of this DR is an excesive interpretation of our policies. The wife of the subject took the photo, she didn't want appears named here neither as "wife of Julio", this is too clear. The picture must be undeleted Ezarateesteban 13:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

In what way is it "an excesive (sic) interpretation of our policies"? When is it, in your opinion, okay for file descriptions to contain misleading claims? LX (talk, contribs) 13:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing, absolute nothing, to doubt that the wife of the subject didn't give the permission to upload the photo under a free license, this is an excessive process Ezarateesteban 14:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support My Spanish is poor, but as a principle I am a bit worried that our concern here is excessive. F.e. if I upload a picture of me taken by wife, and I send a permission explaining the situation, I expect that the permission is accepted. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Well it was hard to find the arguments between the ad hominem and other fallacy. So what is so excesive about this closing when most arguments given by the persons who want to keep the file are false Ezarate? Natuur12 (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
what argument is false, the wife of Julio Ríos doesn't give the authorization? Ezarateesteban 15:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
This is what happened. The file was deleted as a copyrightviolation by Ezarate and was originally uploaded by Marinna. Marinna reuploaded the file without a request for undeletion but evidence of permission was send to OTRS. Jcb processed the ticket and added the correct atribution. At 16 june Marinna removed OTRS-ticket and changed the correct artibution to a wrongfull one. Eitght minutes later he correct this. And almost an hour later he undid his own correction. Jcb corrects this and suddenly a sock or meatpupet shows up to add the wrong atribution again. On the second of july an obvious meatpuppet changes the atribution back to the wrong one. Jcb corrected it in the meantime. After this meatpuppet starts to editwar Jcb nominates the file for deletion. Suddenly Ezerate shows up in the DR with mostly ad hominem. Later Jcb found out that the uploader was canvassing. Tell me? Does this look okey to you Ezerate? It does not look okey to me and yet nobody gave any arguments why atributing the subject instead of the photographer was correct. Natuur12 (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, who is the meatpuppet? That may be an injury to another user Ezarateesteban 16:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
This mysterious IP-adres mysterious IP-adres and the other ones are the person who continued the editwar out of the blue. (If you enter the debate/ edit war on behave of someone else I would call it meatpuppetry epecially since that persons have not been really active on Commons.) I know that you are all good colleagues but you understand why I am a bit suspicious? And even now the key argument about the atribution is ignored. Natuur12 (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
So, you are saying that Alhen, a very experienced administrator of Commons and Ralgis, the OTRS member who attend the ticket first are meatpuppets? Ezarateesteban 17:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
PS: This IP is from Montevideo, so may be Marinna and she may be forgotten to login Ezarateesteban 17:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm if that IP is from someone who forgot to logg in it changes. But no Ralgis was dealing with the ticket (eventuelly Jcb was the one who processed it of course) so of course he was involved the file. And why do you use superlatives to make my comments look bad? How would you call it if someone with 900 edits pops up to enter the editwar while he has not been active on Commons? You tell me. Natuur12 (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I certainly agree that there is a lot of nonsense associated with this file and deletion, but, at the end of the day, we have an image with a valid OTRS explaining that the subject's wife took it after he set it up. Since the OTRS e-mail came from the contact e-mail on the subject's web site, I think we can safely assume that it is a genuine permission. Given that, I'm inclined to grumble at the bad actors and restore the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


Done -FASTILY 06:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:1-pnhw2.PNG new logo made by National Police for their new 4G eLTE communication system[edit]

hi there, This logo has been made by National Police for their new 4G eLTE communication system in collaboration with Huawei. We request undeletion please. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Stroject (talk • contribs) 14:20, 9 July 2014‎ (UTC)

That's interesting. When you uploaded it, you claimed that you personally created it yourself. Now you're claiming it was created by the National Police. So which is it, and is there any reason to believe that the logo is free? And who are "we"? pluralis maiestatis, or is your account used by more than one person? Questions abound. If you represent the National Police of Somewhere, you might want to have a look at Commons:Guidance for paid editors. LX (talk, contribs) 15:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To LX's comments, I would add that at 189x101 pixels, I doubt very much that this is an authorized version and that, in any event, it is too small to be useful. If you are really involved with the organization that created it, please have the organization provide a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS and then provide a version at least ten times bigger in each dimension. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done See Jim's comment --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

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

km01.png [edit]

I own this file and uploaded same — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parker011 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 10 July 2014‎ (UTC)


Procedural close/inactionable. No such file has ever existed under this title -FASTILY 06:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Kanyada.jpg [edit]

Request to undelete file "Kanyada.jpg" because this one is not copyrighted and agreed to be used by the picture owner.--Supanita (talk) 02:57, 10 July 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 06:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Bernard Mate as a student in Bangor University.jpg[edit]

The user in question is the grandson of the subject in question and was acting nder the direction of Amy Kagendo, and Anne Keeru, also heirs to Bernard Mate Kimemia Maina (talk) 06:58, 10 July 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 07:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:DJLeko2.jpg [edit]

This file was deleted because of lack of proof of ownership. Please accept the following as such:

I hereby affirm that I, (Craig Bare), am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the deleted file File:DJLeko2.jpg .

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

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

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

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

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

Craig Bare (leko@djleko.com) Creator and Copyright Owner July 10, 2014


 Not done Please use the procedure at COM:OTRS to submit this permission. It's not usable in this format (i.e., a post instead of an email from an @djleko.com domain). The file will be restored for you once the ticket is processed. Эlcobbola talk 18:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:ECTA Members Map of Europe May 2014.jpg[edit]

Dear,

Our file appears to have been deleted and yet we are the creators and legal owners of this image. Please can you undelete it.

Thanks you,

Marcus Benson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusabenson (talk • contribs)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This appears to be a derivative work of the underlying stock map image (e.g., as seen here, purportedly copyrighted by "zentilia"). Merely adding various ECTA logos would not remove the copyright of the stock map image. Эlcobbola talk 15:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed. The underlying map is from Shutterstock, which is by no means a free license. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 20:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:SquareheadMarek-avatar-size (14267196781).jpg[edit]

File was nominated and deleted before I had a chance to comment, in part due to the July 4 holiday and work duties taking me away of Commons duty. The image is of value because it shows an automated photo effect made available to users of Mac Os X application Photo Booth. Photo Booth allows for introducing any one of 6 distortions of which this one was the "squaring effect". Granted, the file did not YET contain a good description, but the metadata indicated Photo Booth. Also, this is a picture of a Wikipedian (me), and pictures of Wikipedians are in scope. Again, the file did not contain YET the appropriate categorization (or description). I will fix those when the image is restored. Thank you. --Mareklug talk 17:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Pictures of Wikipedeans are in scope only if they are in use, usually on their user page. If you're going to put it on your user page, then it should be restored, otherwise maybe. Note to all -- Mereklug is a user since 2006 with 1800 edits here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You may go ahead and re-upload the image when you're ready to make use of it. -FASTILY 20:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by SugarHenderson[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The original sources were documented and links were provided. The proper attributions were given, if applicable. Some images were taken by Federal Government employees. Thank you. SugarHenderson (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done per above. These appear to be non-free derivatives, blatant copyvios, or the result of license laundering. -FASTILY 20:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:President Barack Obama 2014-07-07 12-22.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The images are of the President of the United States and were either taken by a government employee or received from a site run by the government. SugarHenderson (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a collage of two images, the first of which is this, an image taken by Marc PoKempner in 1995. Marc PoKempner is not a government employee. Эlcobbola talk 19:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Marc PoKempner is not a government employee -FASTILY 20:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Marigny Recording Studio Control Room.jpg [edit]

Verbal permission of use was given by Jack Craft (author)

--Jessemansfield2014 (talk) 21:03, 10 July 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 21:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Logo-Unr.jpg[edit]

This is the logo of an argentine public university, and I'm sure there is no problem of the use. I'm requesting a temporary undeletion till I can find a way where the logo can be used permanently --Ojota (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain what makes you so sure? According to the upload log, you tagged the file with {{PD-AR-Anonymous}}, claiming that it was anonymously published at least 50 years ago. However, the Rosario National University (UNR) was not founded until 1968, which is less than 50 years ago. LX (talk, contribs) 09:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The university's logo appears on its web page, http://www.unr.edu.ar/english/, immediately above the logo for CC-BY-SA, which would make it OK. However, the CC logo is linked to the CC-BY-NC license, which is not OK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim. NC licenses are prohibited on Commons -FASTILY 20:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by User:Drongolex[edit]

I might be wrong but I believe these images were from maraquia.com and at the time of deletion there was no indication of them being released under a Commons-compatible license. However, it appears the website owners have now modified their FAQ and licensed everything under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Thanks in advance. Green Giant (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thats a small photo of putin on a screenshot from Google Maps, the (C)Google watermarks are visible. --Martin H. (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Martin H. These are Google Maps images with a small image of Putin overlayed. Go to www.maraquia.com/en/map to see what Maraquia is doing (merely adding certain information on top of Google Maps). Эlcobbola talk 19:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 20:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Marle[edit]

IMO, Category:Marle was useful in disambiguating Category:Marle, Aisne, Category:Marle, Hellendoorn, Category:Marle, Wijhe and possibly others. It is much easier to place images in Category:Marle into the right categories than to try to follow additions in (and under) Category:Marle, Aisne. --80.114.178.7 21:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done you can easily recreate the category yourself, list the categories as above, and put {{disambig}} at the top. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't easily find the "possibly others". --80.114.178.7 22:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
And you could far more easily undo the deletion. If I may re-create the entry (as you seem to suggest), why don't you restrore it? --80.114.178.7 22:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Content --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Recreated as disambig; other categories you may wish to include are listed here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Luca Leonardini.jpg [edit]

Hi Wikimedia Commons,

this picture is featuring myself in front of the sea, is not offensive, it was taken by a family member with my own camera, I saved it in Photoshop with my name and post it. I have also used this same image in some of my public profile such as LinkedIn, GooglePlus. As far as I understand I am the only owner of any possible existing copyrights on this image.

If I missed to add some metadata or description tag I apologize and I ask you to illustrate how to do it.

Thank you and best regards,

Luca Leonardini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luca Leonardini (talk • contribs) 08:20, 12 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Because, as you say, the image has appeared elsewhere without a free license, Commons policy requires that the actual photographer send a license to Commons using the procedure at Commons:OTRS..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


not done per Jim, and it's a personal photo, so out of scope Ezarateesteban 15:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Tulcan.jpg [edit]

El principal archivo por el que realizo la solicitud es el siguiente: File:Tulcan.jpg subida el 12 de julio de 2009. Quien colocó la solicitud de borrado de este archivo coloca como referencia un foro http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=242904 en el que el "post" puede ser editado luego de ser creado, es decir, a pesar de que fue creado en el 2005, si su autor lo decide puede modificar las fotos ahora mismo y colcar enlaces de fotos subidas hoy, con esa lógica se puede entrar en conflictos. Por otro lado se pone como segunda referencia búsquedas de google antes de la fecha mencionada, pero de la misma manera no se tiene en cuenta que google toma las fechas de creación de las páginas, si colocamos búsqueda únicamente de imágenes antes de esa fecha no obtendremos ningún resultado, pues la imagen fue subida por primera vez desde mi cuenta en Wikimedia Commons. Por favor solicito verifiquen mis argumentos y quiten la plantilla lo más pronto posible ya que de todas mis contribuciones esta foto es la que más usos tiene en muchas páginas de varios idiomas. Saludos cordiales. --Jhalvico (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Solicitud improcedente Aún no fue borrado. Aquí debes argumentar Ezarateesteban 18:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Holger Zürch 2005.jpg - no copyright violation[edit]

Hi there, this is not a copyright violation.

This picture was originally made with my photo camera in 2005 - it is my picture, and I am the owner of its copyright. That is why I want you to undelete this jpg-file.

Thanks.

Bye

Ghostwriter123 (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Please email COM:OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 08:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:AlanHofmann.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the copyright holder and have updated this on wikiMedia Jrfw51 (talk) 08:36, 13 July 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 08:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:John Raese.png [edit]

I took this picture and did not put a copyright on it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMaster1998 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 13 July 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 09:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Jmcasals[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: licence CREATIVE COMMONS RECONOCIMIENTO-COMPARTIRIGUAL 3.0 UNPORTED (CC BY-SA 3.0) is shown at the bottom of the [original source] Jmcasals (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose These images are derivative works of art that is still under copyright because the artists have not been dead for 70 years. The license applies to the copyright of the image, but the source cannot license the art because the copyright to the art belongs to the artist's heirs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The source has been published by the son of the autor: Miguel Gómez Losada. If it's not enough, would be a solution getting the permission in a letter? Thank you.--Jmcasals (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per COM:PCP - The copyright holder should send permission to COM:OTRS --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Facundo Cabral retrat.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: File from Flicker with CC Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) . May you check it here. Jmcasals (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Flickr account links contains link to the artist's web site on profile and it has lots of works by this artist. Might be the official account. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image is a derivative work of art that is still under copyright because the artist has not been dead for 70 years. The license applies to the copyright of the image, but the source cannot license the art because the copyright to the art belongs to the artist or his heirs.

It is indeed possible that the Flickr site is official. It is far more likely that the Flickr user is simply a fan who may own some of the art, but does not, of course, have the right to license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done The copyright holder should send permission to COM:OTRS --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Request for Undeletion File:72MM 14 DominicJames 2550 (a).jpg[edit]

This photo has been deleted in spite of having the owner/creator's 3.0 Authorization on file--provided to Wiki on 8 April 2014. It was approved according to an email from wikimedia dated 27 April with this in the subject line => Re: [Ticket#2014040810014633] Wiki Media - OTRS Authorization .

The photographer who created and owns this image would like to have it re-instated. Please explain in layman terms why it was deleted and be as specific as possible so the two of us can understand the issue and solve the problem. Thanks, LauraLeeT (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done Please respond to the OTRS-email --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Pelley 2014.jpg[edit]

File:Pelley 2014.jpg

I don't understand why this photo was deleted. How do I prove that I have consent to release it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Test1test (talk • contribs)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image is copyrighted by AP Photo/CBS Broadcasting, Inc., John Paul Filo. To restore the image, John Paul Filo and/or authorized representatives from the Associated Press or CBS Broadcasting, Inc. would need to email permission to us using the procedure at COM:OTRS. Note that emails would need to be from @cbs.com, @associatedpress.com, or analogous domains. Эlcobbola talk 16:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I have emailed permission as you suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Test1test (talk • contribs)

Per above: OTRS will restore once ticket is processed, if valid. Эlcobbola talk 16:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:14th_Feb_Short_Film_Banner.png [edit]

Already send Written permission mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:42 PM. Please verify it, and don't delete the file.--Amitdatta29 (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Procedural close: Image is not yet deleted. If the file does happen to be deleted before the ticket is processed, the OTRS member who processes the ticket will restore it for you. Эlcobbola talk 16:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:72MM 14 DominicJames 2550 (a).jpg [edit]

Image was speedied per Commons:Deletion requests/File:72MM 14 DominicJames 2550 (a).jpg but we now have OTRS permission from Dominic James of jamesesq.com under CC-by-SA-3.0 & GFDL dual license. This is under OTRS ticket:2014040810014633. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Alexeev_Rus_poster_small.jpg [edit]

Also: File:AA-Cillessen-PA4-R.jpg
No Copyright violation as the submitter is making the page of the new movie on behalf of the film director Mikhail Segal and the picture is the official poster. Please undelete.

No Copyright violation : As manager of AFC Ajax Amsterdam i send you this Ajax picture with we took and created ourselves 0031203111715 kind regards Bas v Rossum

14 juli 2014

--Rossumderin (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In both cases an authorized officer of the production company must send a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.

Also, I caution you that most WMF projects have strict rules about paid persons writing articles or submitting material. You should disclose the fact that you are being paid to edit both at User:Rossumderin and on your user page of all the projects on which you work. Failing to do that may cause you to be blocked from editing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done Please send permission to COM:OTRS --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:LilianeTannoury.jpeg and File:Liliane&Ronaldo.jpg [edit]

I Have Lilianes permission for the use of the photos. And beside that they are all over the net and everybody has access to it. It was not a copyright violation.

Best Regards

--DNNTannoury (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)DNNTannoury

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 1) Liliane is the subject of the photos; permission needs to come from the author (i.e., the photographer). If the photographer transferred rights to Liliane, evidence of the same needs to be submitted using the procedure at COM:OTRS. 2) The rest is not an acceptable rationale - see #5 on COM:PRP. Эlcobbola talk 22:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
How do i prove the permission??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNNTannoury (talk • contribs)
"If the photographer transferred rights to Liliane, evidence of the same needs to be submitted using the procedure at COM:OTRS." What was unclear? Эlcobbola talk 22:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

COM:OTRS I don't know what this means and i don't understand, when followed the link, what i have to do. I have to have a link to upload that proves the permission? Or change the permission option? I've choosen the one that said recomended.I have to send a email with the photographer permission to the Email on the link? Is that it? Sorry if i'm taking your time, is my first wiki page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DNNTannoury (talk • contribs)

That's right. You have to send email to the address pointed on the link with a permission from the photographer. Link also has a form which can be filled with the information you need to send.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 22:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Thank you so much. i'm taking care of it. after i send the Email with the confirmation will i have to upload the photo again?

^^Yes --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Uploader will send permission to COM:OTRS --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Arabi,SC,1stcrest.jpg please undelete this file[edit]

this file is entirely my work sketched by the old logo of the club on paint and --khalid sadeq 15-7-2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid sadeq (talk • contribs)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a football club logo (see here, here, etc.) That you created a faithful copy ("sketched by the old logo of the club") merely makes it a derivative work. It cannot be freely licensed without permission of the original author/rights holder. Эlcobbola talk 14:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done It cannot be freely licensed without permission of the original author/rights holder --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Peter Knudson MG 5178.jpg[edit]

My boss emailed me a group of pictures to put on wikipedia. I placed them on and wasn't sure how to get that permission. I have complete permission to post these to the cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssilverstein (talk • contribs)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image has appeared here with a CC-NC-ND license, and here also with limitations on commerical use; COM:OTRS requires additional permission in this circumstance. Permission needs to come from the photographer, not merely "your boss," and allow derivatives, commerical use, etc. (see COM:L). Эlcobbola talk 15:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done see Эlcobbola's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Small420.jpg [edit]

hi this file has been deleted but it should not have to be! because i get credeit to the artists and the source whats the problem ? --TGGOP (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image is here, which says "© MythBeasts 2014. All rights reserved. Any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form is prohibited other than the following: you may print or download to a local hard disk extracts for your personal and non-commercial use only" and "You may not, except with our express written permission, distribute or commercially exploit the content. Nor may you transmit it or store it in any other website or other form of electronic retrieval system." Unambiguously unacceptable - see COM:L. Эlcobbola talk 18:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Эlcobbola Steinsplitter (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - Per discussion Natuur12 (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Hayel,FA,kuwait,cup.png its my free work that site account is mine[edit]

i took File:Hayel,FA,kuwait,cup.png that photo and used it on my instagram account.--khalid Sadeq 15-7-2014. i didnt sign it because its an open account anyone can take it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid sadeq (talk • contribs)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image appeared here prior to upload to the Commons. COM:OTRS requires additional permission in this circumstance. Even with that permission, however, the image is still a derivative work of the picture in the background, not to mention the trophy. It could not be freely licensed without permission from all rights holders (background picture, trophy, and photo itself). Эlcobbola talk 22:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Эlcobbola Steinsplitter (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - Per discussion Natuur12 (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ash Carter.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please restore the subject image. I own the picture copyright and mistakenly stated otherwise. Many thx/Dave Winchester1747 (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - for starters, you put "sdds dffs" as the source and "fsfdsd fsdfsdf" for the author. Otherwise, the image appeared here before upload to the Commons. COM:OTRS requires additional permission in this circumstance from an @wwsg.com or analogous domain. Эlcobbola talk 22:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Эlcobbola Steinsplitter (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - Per discussion Natuur12 (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Egil_Aslak_Aursand_Hagerup.jpg [edit]

Please undelete this file.

This is a PR-picture of the author, and can be used by anyone.

I am the person on the picture and owner of its copyright.

Best regards, Egil Aslak Aursand Hagerup — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egilaslak (talk • contribs) 12:33, 15 July 2014‎ (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jim. The site credits "Kagge Forlag". Permission will need to common from them. Эlcobbola talk 14:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - Per discussion Natuur12 (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Kristel van Eijk 2014.jpg[edit]

This is a new press photo of Kristel van Eijk. It's free to use/share/etc., under license of Creative Commons.

--Danielbom (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Daniël Bom, 14-07-15

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per here, the photo was authored by Lutske Veenstra. As a previously published image, permission would need to be submitted by Lutske Veenstra with a @lutskephotography.com domain using the process at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 18:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Эlcobbola --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - Per discussion Natuur12 (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:RISAS STANLEY.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: THIS IMAGE IS MY, I HAVE ALL RIGHTS RESERVE 190.240.205.8 23:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose
  • The image description says that the name of the subject and the Username of the uploader are the same. Since it does not look like a self portrait, our user probably does not own the copyright.
  • "I HAVE ALL RIGHTS RESERVE" is not allowed on Commons.
  • Since the image has appeared on the Web previously without a free license, any restoration will require a license from the actual photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.
  • It looks to me as if it is out of scope -- it is an image of a person who has no particular notability.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - Per discussion Natuur12 (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:دریاچه-گهر-1393.jpg [edit]

I am author this photo and attach the original version of this image and send to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org for proven then I am photograph this picture. Please undelete this picture --Qalebfa (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


Procedural close. OTRS has been sent per above. The volunteer who processes the ticket will restore the image if everything is in order. Эlcobbola talk 16:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Portada Dentro de la Ley.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I see that https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Portada_Dentro_de_la_Ley.jpg picture has been removed by not indicating the proper permissions, but I sent them an email (OTRS) with a Written by the author of the file that gives me full rights to their free play, as you can see in my other uploads release.

The author of the file is the son of the person who wrote the book (Concha Ramos) which has recently died. As heir has all rights to images I'm uploading to wikimedia commons and are being used for article https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concha_Ramos

Please, I thank you not erase anything on article "Concha Ramos" as part of an investigation of his life and work and I have full rights to its use.

Please, could you undelete https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Portada_Dentro_de_la_Ley.jpg?

Thank you very much. Alexwp (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


Procedural close. OTRS has been sent per above. The volunteer who processes the ticket will restore the image if everything is in order. Эlcobbola talk 16:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:San Javier (Beni).jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I created the map myself, using OpenStreetMap. {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} Meister (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done OpenStreetMap cartography is under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license. Эlcobbola talk 16:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:PQAAAB-mqwWntxqJg4UinnwqfrMLis6mI6agpR-ZXKlhmdKe7bOjaYRqLZA4YjaTVQNf1VI3jcN56-P8i7-xScsiQekAm1T1UEp6R2JwwnweX9 HmZSP5mx d9Gm.jpg[edit]

This is the picture of our band leader and we're the representatives of him and the ministry, why was it deleted? I require Undeletion, pls.

Voltadosparati (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done It hasn't been deleted; you need to follow the instructions on the file's page to make sure it isn't. It would also be a great improvement if you would use a more descriptive (and certainly shorter) filename. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Derrick-f-057-edited.jpg[edit]

This photo was taken by photographer David Noles (www.davidnoles.com). I represent Derrick Fung - the photos were taken to be used online and I have permission to use them.

--ChiChen123 (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A permission that only allows you to use the photo is not sufficient for it to be hosted on Commons. What we need is a permission from David Noles to publish the photo under a license that allows anyonw to use, modify and redistribute the photo for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Please read and follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS to obtain a proper permission. You may also wish to read Commons:Guidance for paid editors, and you and en:User:Derrickfung should read en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest considering your activities on English Wikipedia without proper disclosure of your conflict of interest. LX (talk, contribs) 19:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please send permission to COM:OTRS --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:The Pond - Albert Dolmans - 1970.jpg[edit]

We have been working to research this artist, and have just asked him to communicate the necessary release to you. A copy of his e-mail regarding his position follows below. We would be grateful if an undelete would be arranged for the file may now be arranged. Many thanks and best regards, T909


From: Albert Dolmans <abdolmans@gmailcom> Date: July 416,15 20142010 21:59:00 GMT+02:00 To: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Cc: Albert Dolmans <abdolmans@gmailcom> Subject: Release & Undlete: [File:The Pond - Albert Dolmans - 1970.jpg]

To Whom It May Concern:

Copyright Release & Undelete Request: [File:The Pond - Albert Dolmans - 1970.jpg]

I hereby affirm that I, Albert Dolmans, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [File:The Pond - Albert Dolmans - 1970.jpg]. I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

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

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

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

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

I would be grateful the current delete placed on this [File:The Pond - Albert Dolmans - 1970.jpg] is also reversed as soon as possible.

Please let me know if you require any further information.

Yours sincerely,

Albert Dolmans Artist & Copyright Holder abdolmans@gmail.com --Titan909 (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done Please send thid permission to COM:OTRS --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Laly-wiki.jpg [edit]

Deletion of the pictures on "LALY VALLADE" wiki page. (FR)

Hello, you deleted the picture I added on Laly's profile for possible copyright infringement. We appreciate your efforts to protect intellectual rights but in this case we own the rights on that picture... My name on Wiki is Tristan Seagal, I'm Laly's husband and partner in her production company: Laly Production LLC, we are based in USA (Las Vegas) and can be reached by email: laly.productions@gmail.com, or by phone: +1 (702) 372 9754. We are registered under the licence # NV20111421030. As a production company we off course produce and shoot tons of pictures and videos and we use this shooting for promotional purpose and communication on Laly. How can we remove the deletion tag and post this pic on her wikipedia profile? Thanks a lot for your time and help! Best regards.

here is Laly's wikipedia page: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laly

the picture: File:Laly-wiki.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristanseagal (talk • contribs) 20:48, 16 July 2014‎ (UTC)


 Not done Please send permission to COM:OTRS --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Sanedhip bhimjee 1 2014-07-01 16-30.jpg[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to confirm that the above mentioned image was taken by myself and the person in question is my brother. He passed away on 24th June 2014 and I created a wiki page for him and he was a very popular person in Mauritius. What would I be required to do to reinstate the picture?

Thanks.

Regards, Gawshan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawshan (talk • contribs) 15:09, 17 July 2014‎ (UTC)


 Not done Please send permission to COM:OTRS --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Elvester-Records-Logo.jpg [edit]

This was sited as copyright violation. I drew the picture. I created the name. I paid for the business license. I'm not sure why someone else can say I violated anything. http://www.elvesterrecords.com/


 Not done Please send permission to COM:OTRS --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Maayan Aloni - 2014.jpg[edit]

Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014071610002385). Hanay (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:BANEX logo.jpg[edit]

It was Logo of company I have created of BANEX. Please give it back to wiki commons --Qestor (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done Please send permission to COM:OTRS --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Serbian2014 desktop.jpg [edit]

I am the author of Serbian logo and background and I am the owner by Debian Srbija --Dpserver (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done Please send permission to COM:OTRS. Thank you! --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Otmar Szafnauer Portrait.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We took the picture - not really sure how we can prove it but as Sahara Force India's media department, we are taking hundreds of pictures that we make available for copyright-free. WilliamPonissi (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The instructions for how to prove it are on your user talk page. Quoting from there: "Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org)." LX (talk, contribs) 19:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

ticket #2014071610014391 --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Yoon Bo-mi at 2014 K-pop Awards red carpet..jpg[edit]

Reason: This image is cropped from the original image File:A Pink at 2014 K-pop Awards red carpet 01.jpg by me, Keaclamviectot. The original image's copyright allows me to adapt the work, in this case, it allows me crop the image.

I think this image is deleted by mistake.

I hope you will undelete this image and 2 following image:

(these 3 images are cropped together from the original image).

Sincerely, Keaclamviectot (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done Keaclamviectot: The CC-BY logo was really hard to spot (the people that put it up for deletion could easily have missed it; I did the first time I looked at the page too), and I had to dig into the inspect element mode in Firefox and root around the website to verify that it was CC-BY-2.0-KR specifically, but everything checks out.I've undeleted the files and added the {{LicenseReview}} template to each of them, so they won't get deleted again. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Files in Category:Pierre Lemaitre[edit]

As per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pierre Lemaitre and this recent Village Pump discussion, the files in question have been deleted with no alternative offered, neither from the uploader nor the subject nor another(s). As I said at Village Pump and a discussion with a WMF staff, I fear that Commons:Courtesy deletions (Which is the reason of the deletions) can be misused by thousands of public figures as a form of censorship at this way, since "just they don't like hosting their image here", and will possibly affect Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and will significantly affect WMF's licensing policy, since en:Wikipedia:Non-free content: "Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people." (In fact, no Wikimedia project may allow fair use for such images according to foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy), If we fail to get free images of him who is a world-known writer and has his articles on several Wikipedia editions, including English Wikipedia. Although I'm not sure whether the subject refused hosting his images taken by the uploader at Salon du livre de Paris 2014 specifically or hosting any his images on Commons, I request undeletion of Files in Category:Pierre Lemaitre due to the reasons as I mentioned above, and French law would permit Files in Category:Pierre Lemaitre because of the reason that the images depicting public figures performing their public functions or activities (A world-known author perfoming his normal business in a public event). --Puramyun31 (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - It is a pitty that there is no recplacement but I see no problems with this courtesy deletion myself. This should not be a big deal. Courtesy deletions are allowed per policy and in this case I think that it is for the better. Natuur12 (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see Natuur12's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support User:Natuur12 and User:Steinsplitter, please note that Commons:Courtesy deletions is not policy -- it has not achieved the consensus required to become policy. In fact, it is nothing more than a proposal that has not gathered any particular community consensus. Furthermore, it says nothing about deletion at the request of the subject -- only at the request of the uploader, and then only relatively soon after the upload because of a mistake or change of heart. I strongly agree with User:Puramyun31 that we should not allow notable public figures to censor or eliminate images we have of them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jim, Commons:Deletion policy which is an policy says: Even when not required to do so for legal or other policy reasons, Commons may at times choose to delete images, for example as a goodwill gesture to a photographer who has made a mistake. so imho it is allowed to do a courtesy deletion when the subject wants the images gone. Natuur12 (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support While I am not entirely opposed to courtesy deletion, I believe it should not be used without very good reasons, and so far, I have not seen any convincing argument as to why it should be applied in this case. Unfortunately, there was no link or quote of the subject's supposed request in the deletion discussion, but I assume if there had been any reasons more compelling than "do not want!", they would have been mentioned. Natuur12's comment does not provide any further enlightenment either. Why should deletion of free content with no replacement not be a big deal, and why is it for the better in this case? LX (talk, contribs) 16:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
It is for the better since the subject doesn't look like prince charming on that images. Natuur12 (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I have been behind a couple of celebrity photo deletions this year, in those cases there were either direct invasion of privacy issues, or the photograph could be replaced by a better free alternative. It is not the norm on Commons for us to delete the only photographs of a notable person (such as this Prix Goncourt-winning author) when there are no alternative images available. Yes the photograph may not have been flattering, however unless there was an element of intrusion, such as being ill, drunk, surprised by a fan when excessively tired, or similar which might be argued against IDENT, being "prince charming" is a poor rationale for a courtesy deletion, especially when the subject is not notable for their physical appearance. -- (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support If the courtesy deletion was due to matters that a model or photographer would like to keep private, then an OTRS ticket could be quoted, if this were an oversight matter then that can be stated in the deletion log. Courtesy deletions are often sensible, but there needs to be a bit more evidence than being because it is possible.
PS I have noticed ticket:2014040810004537, mostly in relation to fr.wp; if this is related, it would be useful to make that clear, even if the contents should be kept confidential as a courtesy. -- (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, per LX, Jim, and Fae. -- Tuválkin 16:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support After reading the ticket (ticket:2014040810004537) and looking at the pictures, I think there is no valid reason to keep them deleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support for a normal 7 day DR. Since the OP and closer are from the same community and the two minute gap smells like an arranged case, I failed to see neutrality and community approval for this deletion. BTW, I'm a strong supporter of "courtesy deletions for subject or author/uploader interests". (If there is a special reason for such a speedy deletion, I will change my mind.) Jee 02:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Please avoid making heavy implications of a conspiracy or conflict of interest, this can only serve to make everyone defensive. Reporting evidence and a reasonable presumption of good faith is sufficient here. -- (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done There is no consensus for this courtesy deletion despite my personal opinion ;). There is no need to keep them deleted any longer. Natuur12 (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:The Official SummerSlam 2014 Poster 2014-07-05 11-30.jpg[edit]

The poster for the 2014 WWE SummerSlam PPV was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyhh2002 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 21 July 2014‎ (UTC)

That is a correct observation. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, since no reason for undeletion has been provided. LX (talk, contribs) 05:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Эlcobbola talk 20:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Osmand.png [edit]

This file is a logo for the OsmAnd Android application. Its use on Wikipedia falls under fair use in US law.

Windsock92 (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair use is not allowed on commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Most parts of OSMAnd are open source. If I get this right, however, the icon is CC-BY-ND, so not suitable for commons. --El Grafo (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above - fair use and/or no derivatives are not acceptable. See other request related to this file (below) for link to ru.wiki version if fair use is desired on other projects. Эlcobbola talk 20:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:紅印花郵票八枚全套.jpg[edit]

I, ebay5678, am the uploader for the image file File:紅印花郵票八枚全套.jpg. Now, I has the source and license for this image file. However, I did not have the backup of this image file in my HD, so I hope wiki can undelete this image file for me. After the image file is restored, I will attached the source and license tag on the image in wiki immediately. Thanks, Ebay5678 (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done and source and license fixed. Эlcobbola talk 20:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Amy Pleasant.jpg [edit]

As stated on the Talk page for the proposed deletion of this photo, I contacted the author of the photo, Jason Wallis, on June 29th via e-mail and asked for him to re-license the photo he took under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License. He responded to me on the same day and agreed to the re-license of the original photo to Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License. I uploaded the picture today and stated that in the original upload, but the photo has subsequently deleted. Please Undelete this image, or tell me what I need to do to verify the re-license of the image.

To restate, I received permission from the original copyright holder to upload this image and have it licensed as {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}.

Thanks,

Hunter

Jarsonic (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have sent an e-mail to OTRS with the corresponding release; waiting to hear back a response.

Jarsonic (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done Per above - OTRS has been submitted. The volunteer who processes the ticket will restore the image for you. Эlcobbola talk 20:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Osmand.png [edit]

Request temporary undeletion

I would like to use this image on English Wikipedia, where it is covered under fair use. From what I understand, it can be transferred. Windsock92 (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done The image is still available at its ru.wiki source. Temporary undeletion is not necessary, as it can be gotten there. Эlcobbola talk 20:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Lola Blanc, 2013.jpeg[edit]

Tolga Katas has given explicit permission via email to share this photo on Wikipedia.

{{Information |Description=Lola Blanc, 2013 |Source=Direct from author |Date=2014-07-17 |Author=Katas, Tolga |Permission="Yeah sure, you can use any of my photos on wikipedia as long as I'm credited." {{Cc-by-3.0 |1= }} |Other_versions= }}

Adamstrangelove (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A permission that only covers use on Wikipedia is not sufficient for a file to be hosted on Commons. You cannot take a statement like that and assume that the author is okay with publication under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license or any other license that allows anyone to use, modify and redistribute the content for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Please read and follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS to obtain a proper permission. LX (talk, contribs) 19:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as per LX. Please use the procedure at COM:OTRS for providing a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Example.jpg [edit]

I took this picture! Me! With my camera, and my hands! What more do you need?!... The photo album credits have my name...

Note: The person making this request is Franksy and the file he/she is talking about is probably File:Birds are Indie.jpg, which was deleted as a copyright violation by Steinsplitter. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Since the image appears without a free license at http://thespecblog.com/music-2/bandcamp/learned-bandcamp-birds-indie/, policy requires that the photographer, Francisca Moreira, provide a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. That is true even if User:Franksy is Francisca Moreira. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done A permission from the copyright owner is needed. Please see the procedure at COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Softy2.gif[edit]

Also: Please undelete this file Softy2.gif ; it's a design made by our own company. We wanted to put it on our company wikipedia page.
Also:

--Marketinglomaco (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC

Please undelate this file Deuxiemelogolomacoag.jpg ; it's a design made by our own company (Lomaco) for our subsidiarie LOMACO AG. We wanted to put it on our company wikipedia page.--Marketinglomaco (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In order to restore these, Commons policy requires a free license from a corporate officer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Also, please read Commons:Guidance for paid editors..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Please use the procedure at COM:OTRS for providing a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:The Duck Pond at Playa del Rey.jpg[edit]

This image was given me by the author/photographer to use for any purpose as I see fit.MoyeWicks (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per below. Uploaded with the "permission" of "A friend gave it to me for use on the Playa del Rey Wiki page". Giving you permission to use as you see fit is not equivalent to agreeing to a free license. The author will need to submit permission using the procedure at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 20:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Not deleted yet, please use the procedure at COM:OTRS for providing a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Breakers on The Shore at Playa del Rey.jpg[edit]

The author/photographer of this image gave me permission to use it for any purpose as I see fit.MoyeWicks (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per here, here, etc., the author is Mike Izzo. Izzo would need to submit permission using the process at COM:OTRS. Giving you permission to use as you see fit is not equivalent to agreeing to a free license. Эlcobbola talk 20:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Not deleted yet, please use the procedure at COM:OTRS for providing a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Edwin cardona jugando.jpg [edit]

buenas me pueden restaurar el archivo/imagen File:Edwin cardona jugando.jpg no es nada de violación y por el estilo es una foto del jugador Edwin Cardona bedoya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillo026 (talk • contribs)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No reason for undeletion given. "no es nada de violación" is nonsense; the image is credited to El Mundo, whose site says "Reproduction in whole or in part is forbidden." Эlcobbola talk 21:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as per Elcobbola. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:N039s06f4.jpg.jpg [edit]

I am the grandson of Martha Chopyk. Photo, which alleged a violation of copyright made ​​her daughter (my mother). How can I prove the copyright for a family photo?

Я внук Марти Чопик. Фото, в якому нібито порушено авторське право зроблено її дочкою (моєю мамою). Як я можу довести авторське право на сімейне фото?


 Not done Please use the procedure at [[COM:OTRS] for providing a permission. Picture can be undeleted after a permission is received. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:marina_tomassi.jpg[edit]

This picture is free, The author gives it to me himself for the wikipedia page ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.20.108 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 22 July 2014‎ (UTC)

No file by that name has ever existed on Commons. LX (talk, contribs) 07:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

The file was deleted, but i don't know why. The Picture is free to be used, the author gave it to me to put it on wikipedia. Can you undelete the picture? Thank you, François — Preceding unsigned comment added by Framitri (talk • contribs) 07:24, 22 July 2014‎ (UTC)

No file by that name has ever existed on Commons. Perhaps you're thinking of File:Marina Tomassi.JPG. Unfortunately, a permission that only covers use on Wikipedia is not sufficient for a file to be hosted on Commons. We need evidence of permission from the copyright holder to publish the content under a license that allows anyone to use, modify and redistribute it for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Please read and follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS to obtain a proper permission. LX (talk, contribs) 07:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done A permission from the copyright owner is needed. Please see the procedure at COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Mikel Laboaren omenezko plaka, Antigua (Donostia).jpg[edit]

I see that there is an specific Spanish law that covers this photographical reproduction:

{{FoP-Spain}}

The plaque shown in that picture is in a public place of the Alfonso XIII square of Donostia-San Sebastian, so it is covered by this law. --Xabier Armendaritz (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You can see the plaque in this Google Maps street image, on the right hand side of the lamppost. --Xabier Armendaritz (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done {{FoP-Spain}} applies. Yann (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Tom meets Zizou – Kein Sommermärchen.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I would be grateful if you could restore these files. I send permission to OTRS two weeks ago, as required. Thanks a lot! TFB75 TFB75 (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Please send another email, and be sure to follow the procedure at COM:OTRS, exactly. If nobody responds to you, please inquire at COM:OTRS/N -FASTILY 10:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Konstanze Krueger.jpg [edit]

I added the file the first time with the remarks "with permission from Konstanze Krueger" as it it law in some countries to ask the person on the picture to show the picture in the web. An I did not write down my ownership. This was the reason to delete the file the first time

The second picture was uploaded with the right permissions and was accepted. I am not able to see what could be wrong this time I did an upload of the original picture also to show that I am the owner of the original picture. File:Konstanze_Krueger1.JPG Maybe the reason to delete the file was that I was using the same filename,- I thought the name it the best filename for the picture or a person. Etron770 (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions given in Commons:OTRS. -- 32X (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Please note that the uncropped, full resolution original file is NOT available elsewhere on the web, so I think it's safe to assume that the uploader acually is the photographer. Still, a written permission via COM:OTRS would be best of course. --El Grafo (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done -- 32X (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Jan Mladek.jpg [edit]

I am an official administrator of RU page Jan Mladek - Minister of Industry and Trade of Czech republic

and that file has permission to be published

thank you

regards Jitka Mzikova press dep. Minister of Industry and Trade of Czech republic

--MpoWiki (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No file by that name has ever existed on Commons. Presumably, you're talking about File:Mladek Jan.jpg, and it looks like you didn't have the patience to wait more than 78 minutes before bypassing procedure and recreating the file yourself as File:Jan Mládek.png. Please understand that a permission that only covers publication is not sufficient for a file to be hosted on Commons. We need evidence of permission from the copyright holder (usually the photographer) to publish the photo under a license that allows anyone to use, modify and redistribute the content for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Please read and follow the procedure at Commons:OTRS to obtain a proper permission. You may also wish to read Commons:Guidance for paid editors. LX (talk, contribs) 21:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 10:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Congresista Luis Horacio Gallon Arango.jpg [edit]

Buenas tardes.

la imagen eliminada, hace parte del trabajo legislativo del congresista colombiano, Horacio Gallón Arango. en la web, dicha imagen se ubica en el perfil del congresista: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=179572775580509&set=a.112708202266967.1073741825.100005833633100&type=3&theater.

dicho facebook, lo administro yo; como encargado de las comunicaciones del congresista. Por lo tanto solicito que muy amablemente se reponga dicha imagen y las que tienen que ver con el Municipio de Andes (Antioquia), ya que las imagenes que aparecen en internet; están en la pagina web de la entidad pública o están en los perfiles de facebook que yo mismo administro.--Alejolopezortiz (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Alejandro López Ortiz - 18 de Julio de 2014


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 10:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by Piotr.duraj[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Niniejszym zaświadczam, ze jestem PRAWNYM REPREZENTANTEM WŁAŚCICIELI wyłącznych majątkowych praw autorskich do prac zawartych w ww. plikach. Pliki zamieszczono w serwisie Wikimedia Commons jako Maciej Stefański.

Wyrażam zgodę na wykorzystanie wspomnianych utworów na zasadach licencji CREATIVE COMMONS: UZNANIE AUTORSTWA, NA TYCH SAMYCH WARUNKACH, WERSJA 3.0 POLSKA (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.pl)

Jestem świadomy(a), że udostępniając tę pracę na wyżej wspomnianych licencjach zgadzam się na jej komercyjne wykorzystanie i modyfikacje w zależności od potrzeb użytkowników.

Wiem, że autorzy zachowują osobiste prawa autorskie do wspomnianej pracy i że, o ile wyrażają taką wolę, ich autorstwo musi być uznane na zasadach wybranej powyżej licencji. Modyfikacje wprowadzone do pracy nie będą natomiast przypisywane tym autorom.

Jestem świadomy(a), że licencja odnosi się tylko do kwestii prawno-autorskich, zastrzegam sobie prawo do podjęcia działań w stosunku do osób wykorzystujących w/w UTWORY w sposób sugerujący paszkwil czy zniesławienie oraz w przypadkach naruszania przez takie osoby praw osobistych, praw pokrewnych czy ograniczeń związanych ze znakami towarowymi.

Przyjmuję do wiadomości, że wyrażonej niniejszym zgody nie mogę cofnąć i że pliki na wykorzystanie, których wyraziłem(am) zgodę mogą być bezterminowo przechowywane w projektach Wikimedia.

21-07-2014

Piotr DURAJ

[Przedstawiciel: Macieja Armina Stefańskiego] Piotr.duraj (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The copyrights to these images belong to the actual photographers of each one. It is very hard to believe that you were the photographer of all of these images dating back to 1957 as you have claimed. In order to restore them to Commons, we will have to know who the actual photographers were and have licenses from them for each image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 10:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Blue ensign in official portrait.jpg [edit]

The image in question has been published here:

http://www.flagsociety.org.au/what_happened_to_the_eureka_jack.htm

According to the Australian government the 1920s portrait it was taken from is in the public domain now.

Jodyrootes (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A 1920's Australian portrait is out of copyright only if the artist died before 1944. That has not been demonstrated and while the Australian Government may have said it, we would need a cite before restoring it.
However, copyright is not the principal issue here. The issue is that this is an extreme magnification that shows a blob. Even given the title, I cannot see a Blue Ensign here -- I can barely see that it might be a flag. Therefore it is not at all clear that this has a useful educational purpose. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above -FASTILY 10:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Pic ACDT.jpg [edit]

The english lang page has same file with licence from publisher it seems Eomurchadha (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are referring to File:Cover Air Cuan Dubh Drilseach.jpg, it was uploaded under fair use rules solely for English Wikipedia. Such images don't need licenses but they do need fair use rationales. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, ga-wiki does not allow fair use images. Green Giant (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done non-free content is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 10:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Catalog-1.jpg [edit]

این تصویر جلد طراحی شده برای کاتالوگ شرکت آرشه کار میباشد و به صورت آزاد در سایت همان شرکت منتشر شده و استفاده از این تصویر آزاد میباشد. لطفا این تصویر را احیا نمایید . با تشکر --Arshehkar (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:लोहितदुर्गम्.jpg [edit]

http://incredible-india.sanjeevnitv.com/red-fort/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by NehalDaveND (talk • contribs)

Apparently not published under a free license at that source and therefore not ok to upload here according to our project scope, Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as per Martin H. Yann (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:भारतस्य ऐतिहासिकविजयः.jpg [edit]

http://epaper.navgujaratsamay.com/details/1465-5818-1.html


Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 10:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have taken my pic from this source. It is not proper ? NehalDaveND (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

In that case,  Not done per COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 10:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Image:Corrida poster spain 1955.JPG[edit]

Please could you undelete the file Corrida poster spain 1955.JPG, deleted yesterday around 23:30 UTC by the user named Steinsplitter. The quoted reason for deletion is No license since 2014-07-15.

Reason for asking: yesterday around 18:45 UTC I have tagged the file with a license which I think is proper (CC BY-SA 3.0). I do not understand why the person who deleted the file wrote "no license", since for 5 hours the license had been there.

All right, I am not sure the license is appropriate (twice I have sent e-mail to OTRS permissions forwarding a permission from the image holder - with no reply, I have logged an issue on helpdesk (and than applied the advise suggested), I have explained the issue on the image talkpage). In this case, I would understand we would have a discussion on the license itself and if my license is found inappropriate and no alternative appropriate license is identified, the file gets deleted.

cheers, (Dd1495 (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC))

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please understand that Commons gets around 10,000 new images every day and that around 1,600 images are deleted every day. Ten administrators do most of that work and they simply do not have time to have detailed conversations about deletions. OTRS is, like all of WMF, staffed by volunteers. There are not enough of them either, so OTRS often runs a backlog of several weeks. It would, of course, be better to offer more and quicker communication to uploaders like yourself, but without more people that simply isn't possible.
The source site, bibliotecadigital.carm.es, is apparently down at the moment, so I can't see what license is on the site. However, there is no reason to believe that a poster from 1955 is in the public domain. Spain was 80 years pma until recently, which means that any work later than 1934 must be under copyright and any work later than 1875 is suspect.
There are, of course, circumstances under which the library could own the copyright -- if the creator of the poster had explicitly deeded the copyright to the library in writing, but that is not usually the case for this kind of material. Even if that is the case,
"its usage on wiki has been explicitly permitted in an e-mail note, forwarded to the OTRS permissions"
is not sufficient on two grounds. First, "usage on wiki" is not sufficient. We require a free license to use images anywhere for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative works. Second, we do not generally accept forwarded permissions. It is, unfortunately, too easy to counterfeit a permission and send the result to OTRS, so we generally require that the license come directly from the source of the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim and all,

Thanks for your prompt reply. A couple of points:

  1. Your reply does not explain why my image was deleted as having no license while in fact it did had a license tagged to it
  2. You write we require a free license to use images anywhere… etc. I have obtained an explicit permission to upload the image as copyright free into wiki with the only reservation that the source is quoted. Doesn’t such an explicit permission cover a free license to use images anywhere…?
  3. You write we do not generally accept forwarded permissions. This leaves me puzzled. An instruction on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS says clearly (in case one has received permission to upload the image to Commons): Please forward us the permission to the address listed above – which is exactly what I have done.  :-/
  4. You write that the source site, bibliotecadigital.carm.es, is apparently down at the moment, so I can't see…. I am sorry about it. I had successfully accessed the site 1 hour before you tried and few hours later. Looks like you have suffered from an extremely bad luck. I will send the Regional Library of Murcia a note asking to explain why they were not accessible on July 23 mid-day.
  5. You write there is no reason to believe that a poster from 1955 is in the public domain. Spain was 80 years pma until recently, which means that any work later than 1934 must be under copyright and any work later than 1875 is suspect. Well, I have written on the image talk page what I had been advised on the commons helpdesk and linked it, not sure whether you had a chance to read, anyway here it goes: IMHO Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) license for the photograph, according to Europeana User contributions, article 5. The poster itself should be PD, according to Com:CRT#Spain The pieces of work situated permanently in parks, streets, squares and other public ways can be reproduced, distributed and communicated freely by using paintings, drawings, photographies and audiovisual procedures. A poster glued or thumbtacked to a wall/pole is permanently displayed. Otherwise (unknown author) it would be in the public domain 70 years after publication. I am neither a lawyer nor a law expert, so not sure whether this is correct: hope someone more competent can pronounce here where the truth is.
  6. You write Please understand that Commons gets… . I do understand that wiki is the work of all of us, the volunteers, and I like to get it hammered down like in your note. I also appreciate that you admins have a tough job, especially at the customer end ;-). What I do not understand is why a license-tagged image gets deleted as untagged, why an instruction says to forward while an admin says not to forwards, why an admin can’t access a site while I can the whole day long, why a legally unclear case is closed by an arbitrary decision with no discussion on it, and why some users are demanded to stick to deadlines why the others can quote excuses.
  7. Summary: I believe the image in question is license-free as explained in point e). I again ask the image to be undeleted.

cheers (Dd1495 (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC))

Hello again,

one more thing. Since I am not an expert on Spanish copyright law (and I guess neither are you) to pronounce on what I think is a legally unclear issue, why don't we apply common sense? And the comon sense is as follows:

there is a self-government of the region of Murcia. This self-government maintains a library. A person representing this library sends me a note saying the image is copyright free. Do you feel expert enough to challenge one of the Spanish regional governments and tell them you know Spanish law better?

(Dd1495 (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC))


As per statements by Dd1495, this is clearly now a case of missing evidence of permission. Permission from the copyright holder must be emailed to COM:OTRS, who will restore the file if all is found to be in order. -FASTILY 09:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Luiz Biajoni.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this photo has no copywrites. It belongs to the author's files. CrisVieira1986 (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:United Flight 811 view from inside hole.png[edit]

Picture is public domain, as source is NTSB. The picture can be found in an NTSB report (see page 8 of original report AAR90-01, superseded by page 9 of AAR92-02.pdf). In a previous discussion, I quoted AAR92-3.pdf as a source, which does not contain the picture in question. Thus it was deleted. Took me some time to find the initial NTSB-report. -- Wo st 01 (talk / cont) 12:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question The page references you provided seem to show a photo that differs from the deleted image here on Commons (a bot hard to tell, granted, since the sources appear to be photocopied). Are those the correct page references? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Procedural close as a stale request (no new activity for a week) without clear consensus to restore. -FASTILY 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:ArcSoft Image100.jpg[edit]

Also includes File:ArcSoft Image103.jpg and File:Suprapubic Catheter Image 02.jpg in the same case. Yann (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This image were nominated by Jim (talk · contribs) and therefore deleted by Steinsplitter (talk · contribs), argumenting than ArcSoft is the copyright holder due to a copyright notice in the EXIF. I opened a thread in the Village Pump to discuss this huge copyright problem.

So please restore this image inmediatelly until the discussion closes, because an imaging company can't take the copyright of the images made by end users using their products, that is ridiculous. --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support The camera manufacturer is certainly not the copyright holder. Yann (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose How is it that you are both so sure that the camera manufacturer is not the copyright holder? Camera manufacturers take pictures with their equipment to use in their advertising all the time. ArcSoft clearly appears in the EXIF as the copyright holder. It's hard for me to believe that the camera manufacturer makes any attempt to claim copyright on images that don't belong to it -- customers would not allow that.
Absolutely no evidence has been offered by User:Amitie 10g that this was, in fact, taken by User:Terryyes15, as claimed. Although we usually assume good faith, when a user's only uploads are marked in the EXIF as copyrighted by someone else, we drop that assumption. Also, the uploader, Terryyes15, has used at least one sock in this effort, another reason to doubt his good faith. Terryyes15 has not appeared here or at the DR in support, even though he had been active on Commons in the last week.
Finally, this was obviously taken in a medical setting. If ArcSoft does not own the copyright, then who does? As in the case of medical X-rays, it is not clear whether the technician who pushed the button or his employer owns the resulting image.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Jim, the evidences are in the thread in the Village Pump opened by me. There is exposed various images that has been used inm ArcSoft products used by end users. Also, a little research in Wikipedia answers them, too. Amitie 10g (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jim: Although I agree that "camera manufacturers take pictures with their equipment to use in their advertising", I really think that it wasn't the case here. These are certainly not images that could be used as advertising because of the subject. Beside, I find the quality really poor for professional works used as advertising. It is IMO very much probable that the default setting has ArcSoft in the EXIF data, and the photographer was not aware of that. Mind you most people who own a camera don't know what is EXIF data, and much less how to change the default settings. Did you see these? File:ArcSoft Image344.jpg, File:Image196_finanzas.jpg. These are certainly not advertising pictures. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense, particularly the last two pix you cite. However, that still leaves us with an uploader who uses at least one sock and who has not bothered to respond here or at the DR, as well as the question of who owns the copyright to images taken in this kind of setting. Under the circumstances, I am very much disinclined to assume good faith and accept that these are actually Own Work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
ArcSoft is a software company who products are usually bundled with equipments like my Panasonic FZ28. Such tools usually add their names in author field while processing an image. No comment about other matters. Jee 13:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Suprapubic catheter is most probably a sock (was it formally checked by a CU?), but this gives little information for or against the assumption that Terryyes15 owns the copyright. I think asking once more may be useful. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I checked it and although we can never be absolutely sure about socks, this is as strongly indicated as any I have seen.
To summarize, we have a user with 93 edits on Commons, 48 of which have been deleted for one reason or another. He has used at least one sockpuppet. He has not responded to this DR or UnDR. All of his uploads are suspect first because in a medical setting it is not clear who owns the copyright and second because of his record. I see no reason to assume good faith and accept that he both actually took this image and that he actually owns the copyright and has the right to freely license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Questionable copyright status, seeing how ArcSoft is named as the copyright holder in the EXIF. Since we have no tangible evidence indicating otherwise, COM:PCP applies -FASTILY 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Ana Olcina a l'FNAC de València - 2.jpeg[edit]

I've had some portaits of comic-book authors deleted without any explanation! It's the case of this file, the whole set (more than 20 photos!) of Resaca a València and even a photo of the Tennis player Marcel Granollers. Some of those photos were even in use in articles in some chapters of Wikipedia! What the hell happened!? Please, someone check the Fastily historial becaseu he could have mistaken, but for sure he deleted some photos he didn't had to!. They're sportspeople and artist with articles in some chapters of Wikipedia. Miguel Gallardo even has a national price of comic-book in Spain!!! Please check, I don't know how many files have been deleted, but are quite a bunch.--Coentor (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If someone doubts: All the files were taken by me with my cell-phone, the Samgsung I've use to upload most of my photos. Maybe some of the deleted files were cropped and edited with the cellphone tool, which could have altered the info in it, but at least the "Resaca" fileset has all the information. I'm the author, that's sure!--Coentor (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support at least the four images mentioned here. Quality is a concern, however, so the ones that were not in use may need to be nominated for a COM:SCOPE DR. Эlcobbola talk 16:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Done, sent to COM:DR -FASTILY 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Logo PSPV 1977 (xicotet).jpg[edit]

Also, due "theorical" Fair-use, I've deleted some logos which should be allowed in Commons. They are simple geometrical forms so no Copyright elygibility at all should be considered. The PSPV Logo is just a romboidal form in yellow and red, and the UPV logo is similar (a circle or a square, depends on version). Files are File:Logo PSPV 1977 (xicotet).jpg, File:Logo PSPV 1977.jpg, File:Unitat del Poble Valencià.png and this one who could have more doubts about its admissibility, but a message in my discussion could have been OK: File:Esquerra Nacionalista Valenciana.gif.--Coentor (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose These aren't unambiguously too simple, and without an entry for Spain at COM:TOO I'm inclined to believe COM:PRP applies. Эlcobbola talk 16:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
At least the PSPV logo is (basically) a romboidal-stripped logo like a simplified version fo the coat of arms of Valencia. The UPV and the ENV logos can have more art (ENV for sure) but PSPV was very simple.--Coentor (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
See File:Royal arms of Aragon (Lozenge-shaped).svg.--Coentor (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The Coat of arms of Valencia is from at least the 14th century. It is here because it is PD due to age, certainly not due to simplicity. File:Royal arms of Aragon (Lozenge-shaped).svg is even older. Per Feist v. Rural, "the requisite level of [originality] is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, no matter how crude, humble or obvious it might be." The PSPV logo appears sufficiently different (i.e., original) at least to trigger COM:PRP in the absence of Spanish case law to provide guidance. If you have examples of Spanish case law related to the threshold of originality, that would be helpful; OTHERSTUFF is not persuasive. Эlcobbola talk 19:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per COM:PCP, see also Эlcobbola's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Uniroyal tire.jpg[edit]

  1. Not a copyright violation, for the reasons stated by User:Centpacrr, User:Baseball Bugs, & User:EuroCarGT
  2. Closed against consensus
  3. Closed too quickly

Thanks. 86.153.57.241 00:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose
2) DRs are not votes:
"The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy." from Commons:Deletion_requests#Overview.
3) It was closed after a week, which is the standard open period for DRs.
1) It certainly has a copyright. It is, as User:Elcobbola pointed out, a scale model of a tire, larger than life. The fact that it may have once been used as a ride is irrelevant, as the shape of the object is entirely a model, with no utility. The portion of the work that once held the passengers has been filled in with tread. The fact that the object has been drawn and photographed and that images have been published without notice is irrelevant to the copyright status of the object itself. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jim . Closures are based on weight of the argument(s), not volume. Copyright subsists "in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression" (17 U.S.C.§ 102). The wheel/tire is original, has an author, and is fixed in a tangible medium. The arguments for retention on the basis that it does not seem a "sculpture" in the colloquial sense are uninformed at best. The reason cars, chairs, etc. escape this otherwise all-encompassing scope is that they are useful articles - meaning they have an intrinsic utilitarian function. While this sculpture may have once been part of a Ferris wheel, we know from Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories by Pearl Inc., 632 F. 2d 989 (2nd Cir. 1980) that useful articles (there, belt buckles) whose utilitarian function (part of a clothing article) is subordinate to their aesthetic use (as jewelry) are eligible for copyright protection. Here, the purported utilitarian function (part of an amusement park ride) was subordinate to the aesthetic use as sculpture. Indeed, the sculpture’s current use plainly demonstrates the intention for and primary purpose of aesthetic use; to claim otherwise is disingenuous. As a Ferris wheel need not look like a wheel/tire to function, Jim may also be quite right that there wasn't even a subordinate utility to begin with (indeed, the proponents of retention made no analysis or consideration of the conceptual separability doctrine, as they similarly ignored the legal definition of copy.) Эlcobbola talk 13:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above -FASTILY 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The close and re-close was bogus. Dishonest. Bad-faith. Ramrodded by deletionists. No point in having a discussion if you're bound and determined to delete it anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:WEB-bimpassport_w216.jpg [edit]

Why was it deleted? It says "Per Stafan" but that vote was neither 50% +1 infavor of Keeping or Deleting. There simply was no consensus on second vote. CaribDigita (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DRs are not votes.
"The debates are not votes, and the closing admin will apply copyright law and Commons policy to the best of his or her ability in determining whether the file should be deleted or kept. Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy." from Commons:Deletion_requests#Overview
Barbados became independent in 1966. We do not have a summary of its copyright law, but under a 70 year rule, the coat of arms of the nation will be under copyright until at least 1/1/2037. Even under the 50 year rule common in the Commonwealth for government works, it will be under copyright until 1/1/2017. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Barbados is pma 50, and the creator (Neville C. Connell) died in 1973, thus not PD until 1.1.2024. Alternatively, if this is "folklore" as defined by Barbados Copyright Law ("all literary and artistic works that (a) constitute a basic element of the traditional and cultural heritage of Barbados; (b) were created in Barbados by various groups of the community; and (c) survive from generation to generation") then "the rights of the author vest in the Crown to the same extent as if the Crown had been the original creator of the folklore" (s.22(5)). I understand from Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Crown_copyright that "Crown copyright works have a basic term of protection of 50 years from date of commercial publication." As this crest was presented in 1966, it would not be PD until at least 1.1.2017, per Jim. Эlcobbola talk 16:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Copyrighted until 2017 -FASTILY 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Buchvorstellung des neuen Bildbandes "Auf ein Bier mit Stars & Sternchen – das Beste aus 35 Jahren RUND UM DEN BECKER TURM" Bild 6.jpg[edit]

Sie haben keine meiner eigenen Dateien hier zu löschen. ICH bin Urheber, bzw. mein Bruder Marc Schneider für die SAAR REVUE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micha Schneider (talk • contribs) 10:02, 24 July 2014‎ (UTC)


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Jake Headshot 2011.jpg [edit]

File:Jake Headshot 2011.jpg

Reason for request:

The file was deleted because of the following: "• 17:25, 18 July 2014 Krd (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Jake Headshot 2011.jpg (Copyright violation: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.designboom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/jake_barton_local_projects_designboom_01.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.designboom.com/design/interview-with-jake-barton-local-projects-03...) (global usage; delinker log) "

The admin that deleted the file claims a copyright violation - that is, claims that the image belongs to Designboom.com. As with the other sites this photo was published on, the image was given to the sites by Jake Barton, and was taken for him. The image does not belong to designboom.com. Jake Barton has given permission to make this image public, and thus post it on Wikipedia.

Please get back to me with your decision. Thank you.

--Dcarofano24 (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Dcarifano24 Jul 24 2014


 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Company founder Luke Hughes and associate Marcus Cresswell-Turner..jpg [edit]

This is an original image taken by myself with creative commons attributed to it. Please undelete this file.

Handbaglover101 (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Uttar slain2.jpg should be undeleted[edit]

The images were deleted as you say that its a copyright violation. It is not. I have drawn this image. It is part of a novel that I have written and drawn. Let me know how should I prove it. I have the original editable file with me. Should I share that


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Sudakshina- the ruler of Kambojas drawn by Mrinal Rai, from his novel "Kurukshetra Yuddha".jpg[edit]

The images were deleted as you say that its a copyright violation. It is not. I have drawn this image. It is part of a novel that I have written and drawn. Let me know how should I prove it. I have the original editable file with me. Should I share that. -Mrinal Rai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rai.mrinal (talk • contribs)

As for all images which were published earlier, we required a formal procedure. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:King Shalya of Madra kills Prince Uttara of Matsya on the first day of Kurukshetra War, drawn by Mrinal Rai, for his novel "Kurukshetra Yuddha".jpg[edit]

The images were deleted as you say that its a copyright violation. It is not. I have drawn this image. It is part of a novel that I have written and drawn. Let me know how should I prove it. I have the original editable file with me. Should I share that. -Mrinal Rai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rai.mrinal (talk • contribs)

As for all images which were published earlier, we required a formal procedure. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Buchanan Promo Shot.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I own the picture. Rawimagination101 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Permission sent to OTRS. --Sphilbrick (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:ArcSoft Image100.jpg (again)[edit]

I requested the undeletion of this file, and I provided suficient evidence than ArcSoft Inc. is not actually the copyright holder of many images taken using the ArcSoft USB Webcam. Some files affected to a deletion was File:ArcSoft Image344.jpg and File:Image196_finanzas.jpg (by COM:SCOPE, but not for Copyvio).

I need to repeat: ArcSoft Inc. (see the article before continuing) is an imaging and multimedia company, and as them, they can't take the copyright of the files generated or procesed in their products, used by the consumers. A simple copyright notice added automatically by an USB Webcam (mostly used by end and home users) does not mean than ArcSoft is the actual copyright holder. The same case is if Photoshop puts Copyright by Adobe in a file edited by an end user, that is ridiculous, really ridiculous.

I understand the problem very well. Unfortunatelly, various admins are failing to do a deep research before deleting files and simply ignoring the evidences presented, and their actions may be harmful to Commons and the community. A huge problem that may make a precedent in Commons about the relationship between Copyright and Vendor-Consumer (and specially, the consumer rights and the laws to protect them, pressent in almost all countries).

I'm technically repeating that I said laterly. Is necesary to explain this case with pears and apples in order to the rest of the community understand the obvious? This is not an unclear copyright status issue, is a severe misunderstanding of an obvious problem with the end users and the products manufactured by ArcSoft and pruchased by they.

Please be serious in this second UnDR discussion. If I opened a second UnDR is because I have solid reasons and evidence than the file should be restored. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with you that ArcSoft is not the copyright holder. However, in the last UnDR discussion, Jim made some useful points about the copyright status of these files. Do you have any imput about these? See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive#File:ArcSoft_Image100.jpg or [6]. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is obvious that you have not bothered to read the previous UnDR. Therefore you are simply wasting our time. By halfway through the last UnDR, all the parties agreed that the ArcSoft copyright notice was not an issue -- therefore all of your comments above completely miss the point.
However, we had serious doubts that the uploader actually owned the copyright. That was based on the fact that over half of his Commons edits (48 of 93) have been deleted, that he has used at least one sockpuppet to edit on Commons, and that, in a medical setting, it is unclear who owns the copyright -- the photographer or the institution. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Jim, but is obvious than ArcSoft Inc. is not the copyright holder of the file and the all files affected (not limited than the exposed here), the actual origin of this discussion. The file have many copyright issues, but (I repeat) a vendor can't take the copyright of the works made by it's end users.
And also, the tread that I've opened in the Village Pump was intened for a general discussion about this copyright issue, and not limited to the files affected by the Copyright by Arcsoft in the EXIF.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitie 10g (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jim. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done per previous closure and the reiterations above. Again, for those with difficulty reading: consensus is against undeletion not because of anything related to Arcsoft, but because there is significant doubt that 1) the uploader created these images given a history of copyvios (i.e., it is suspected that someone other than the uploader may have used an Arcsoft device to take the images. That person--not Arcsoft, of course--would need to license them freely); and 2) there is uncertainty regarding whether medical images are considered works for hire (i.e., property of the institution rather than the doctor/employee). Эlcobbola talk 18:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Badger herald logo.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: be safe for correct translation Condemore (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

??? Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't understand the reason given, but this is ancient history -- the file was deleted in 2006. The uploader acknowledged that the image was copyrighted, but claimed "fair use". Since Commons does not accept fair use, it was deleted. Now, for some reason, there is no image for Admins to look at -- something wrong with the file? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Am I crazy, or is there not even a file here to restore? The view/restore page has page history, but no file history. Is it too old? Эlcobbola talk 19:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    File undeletion was introduced in Mediawiki 1.7, released in July 2006. Files deleted before that cannot be restored. LX (talk, contribs) 19:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No reason given to undelete anything -FASTILY 21:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Escalada_en_Hatun_Machay_-_Peru.jpg [edit]

Buenas días, quisiera saber por qué eliminaron las imágenes que he contribuido, ya que esas son las imágenes que realmente me pertenece, me podrían indicar en todo caso cual es exactamente mi falta para poder corregirlo a futuro. Espero su pronta respuesta. Imágenes eliminados: "Escalada_en_Hatun_Machay_-_Peru.jpg" "Infografia_del_Canotaje_en_peru.jpg" "Canotaje_peru.jpg" Gracias.

Miriam vb (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Miriam vb


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Hewanorra Int. Airport, view of the runway.jpg[edit]

I am the owner of File:Hewanorra Int. Airport, view of the runway.jpg and I request that my file not be deleted. I have no intention of theft and am using my file to provide Wikipedia and knowledge seekers the sufficient information they deserve of the Hewanorra International Airport, St Lucia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zidane hadeed (talk • contribs)

The photo features a gigant logo of Airliners.Net, the name of the author and the info that the photo is copyrighted to its author. And that authors name seems not to be your name.
The second photo File:View of Hewanorra International Airport Terminal, June 2014.jpg that you uploaded now shows the airport in fact in March 2005, not 2014. The photo is stolen from a travle report posted by Dazbo5 (signed: Darren) at Airliners.Net [7]. Dazbo5 (Darren) is not the photographer of File:Hewanorra Int. Airport, view of the runway.jpg. So you uploaded two photos from two different photographers claiming that you are the photographer of both photos... Sorry, I completely disagree with the discribtion of your intention. --Martin H. (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 21:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Prøysen photos[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This has an OTRS ticket, so I don't understand why the images were deleted. If there are something lacking, then spell it out – now it is impossible to figure out what is wrong. There is also a note on User talk:Fastily#Deletion. Jeblad (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done as per Jeblad. Yann (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Kroatien 2.jpg [edit]

I don't see how this image would be out of scope: the justification is "unused nudism". This cannot be a valid reason.--Nordela (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


Restored: as per Nordela. Yann (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Haiifa-mjk.jpg [edit]

plz open this pic. i need use this pic in thumbnil page haifa 26/07/2014 - a.morteza206

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image is "All Rights Reserved" at the source Flickr account, https://www.flickr.com/photos/91746512@N04/14554349820/ . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:NanoBCA-Logo-Official.png[edit]

This file is not in violation of copyright laws and shall not be deleted. This image/photo was recently uploaded by a volunteer writing an article about NanoBCA. It was realized that NanoBCA should upload its own images, not the volunteer, so I created an account on WikiMedia Commons to upload my images/files. Please, do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NanoBCA (talk • contribs)

@NanoBCA: This logo requires a permission. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please send a permission. Yann (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Dr. J. C. Combs Wichita State University.jpg[edit]

Permission is granted from the web site where the picture resides at www.c-alanpublications.com providing this information is listed with the photo: Used with permission from www.c-alanpublications.com a web site from C. Alan, Inc. I wish to add this information and request the photo be "undeleted". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScribeWiki (talk • contribs)

@ScribeWiki: Please send a permission using the procedure shown at COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please send a permission. Yann (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Bella Ratchinskaia.jpg [edit]

Dear Administrator,

this is my own picture, I made it!!!! Please, don't delete the picture of Bella Ratchinskaia and put it back on her profile.

Thank you, Daria Rachinskaya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheia&nous (talk • contribs)

To retain the image, we are going to require for you to undertake the process at Commons:OTRS. The process is about collecting a declaration regarding authorship of a work, and submitting that to us as a record. Once that statement is submitted, then please come back here and let us know and we will go through the process of review for bringing the file back.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as per Billinghurst. Yann (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Blason ville fr Soual (Tarn).svg[edit]

This file was deleted for no substantive factual reason whatever, but merely a verbal/semantic equivocation on the word "Source". Template:Blason-fr-en-it has fields for the sources of English-language, French-language, and Italian-language heraldic descriptions of the coat of arms. These fields are exactly the same as the "ref-en" and "ref-fr" fields of Template:COAInformation (scroll down to the filled-out example on the Template:COAInformation page to see how this is intended to be used). This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the image source, and it's semi-stupid that this image was deleted merely because one user incorrectly conflated heraldic description source with image source (two completely different things)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons:SOURCE would require that the source/original is in the public domain, so addressing that aspect seems relevant. Demonstrate that and the interpretation would seem irrelevant, and be evidence based.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Billinghurst -- The file was uploaded using the template Template:Blason-fr-en-it with all critically necessary fields in that template filled out. If Template:Blason-fr-en-it is inadequate, then the response should be to deal with that template as a whole in all its occurrences, but not take it out on one individual file. Especially a file should not be deleted on a mere verbal quibble, given that the sourceen=, sourcefr=, and sourceit= fields of Template:Blason-fr-en-it have nothing to do with image source in the usual sense... Also, I'm pretty sure that I remember that it was under a CC-license (not public domain), and is overall not particularly different from many thousands of other uploader-created SVG coats of arms images (I've uploaded a few myself). -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Source seems OK to me. Yann (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Restored: as per AnonMoos. Could you please fix the description? A proper {{Information}} would be better. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Flag of the Lugansk People's Republic.svg [edit]

Simple geometric shapes are public domain as {{PD-trivial}}. Eagle came from File:Coat of Arms of the Russian Federation.svg - this image is public domain as {{PD-RU-exempt}}. Coats of arms of Luhansk is public domain as {{PD-UA-exempt}} As was pointed out in the original DR by Butko.

This same rationale lead to a keep of File:Flag of the Donetsk Republic (Organisation).svg. How is one ok and the other not? Pro-Kiev nominations and delete votes aren't policy. Policy is what should decide the matter. Rosario Berganza 20:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Why this was deleted, and the others kept? It seems completely arbitrary. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose at this time as Ankry pointed out at the DR "Derivative work of PD symbols is another work and can be copyrighted" so this needs permission is send to COM:OTRS before we can host it. As an aside anything that is {{PD-RU-exempt}} is not necessarily PD in either the Ukraine or US. LGA talkedits 21:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a very simple derivative combination of PD elements. The idea that it would make a new copyright is wrong. It's a simple PD flag.
Flag of the Donetsk Republic (Organisation).svg
LNR flag.png
They're almost identical! But one is ok and the other isn't? There's no more creativity or originality in the one than in the other. Simple. OK for Commons. Shouldn't have been deleted. Also, we have all keep votes for the PNG... Rosario Berganza 00:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You may feel it is wrong, but sadly it is true, if anyone uses pre-existing works to create a new work, that "new" work has it's own copyright which is separate and distinct from any copyright attached to the pre-existing works. If the pre-existing works used are PD then the new author is free to licence the new work how they see fit; if the pre-existing works are still in copyright the righsholders of the pre-existing works used need to consent to their work being used in the "new" work. LGA talkedits 08:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support What user LGA & Ankry is telling is clear and simply copyfraud (there is no legislative basis for this) User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)09:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Restored: as per Perhelion and Berganza. Yann (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Мемориальный знак.jpg[edit]

The deleted file was uploaded by me according to a permission from its author Alexander Brodsky, and on 22-nd of July he sent a formal letter to OTRS with confirmation of his agreement. Please let me know what can I do now to keep the file in Wikimedia? Thank you. Mlarisa (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The message sent 5 days ago by Alexander Brodsky does not mention any image, and seems related to something else. May be somebody speaking Russian will have more clue. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This must be my fault as I instructed him: instead of image name, Brodsly's letter contained an external link to the page where the image was referenced: Последний адрес. Could you please look into the page history? Sorry for that mistake. Mlarisa (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Should I ask Mr. Brodsky to send another letter with a file name, or is the sent letter enough for making a decision? If so, could you please decide without a big delay, because the image is of great value for the article: this is a memorial sign, and it is important for readers to know how it looks like. Thanks. Mlarisa (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please ask Mr.Brodsky to send a permissions email to COM:OTRS, with a URL to the file somewhere in the body of the email. If everything is in order, OTRS will restore the file -FASTILY 09:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Wikimedia_Metrics_Meeting_-_June_2014_-_Photo_11.jpg[edit]

@JuTa, Natuur12, Peteforsyth, Fabrice Florin (WMF): I've temporarily restored the image after reading Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikimedia Metrics Meeting - June 2014 - Photo 11.jpg in order to add source images in the description. However, I'd prefer to have opinion of the COM:UDR active admins in order to decided whether the file should be restored or not.

PS: I don't understand why the image was deleted in the first place and not the description improved. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @PierreSelim:. But if you found and documented all the sources, why did you re-delete? Weren't they freely licensed? -Pete F (talk) 07:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
If the sources are fixed the file can be undeleted. What worries me more is that WMF-staff doesn't give proper atribution to the photographers. The reason why it was deleted and not fixed, everyone had more than 7 days to find the sources. I am not going to do other people's homework and without those sources the image is a violation of the cc-license. Natuur12 (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: I prefer droping a line here, there is no deadline to restore the file. Now it seems we agree ✓ Done, I have restored the file and add some information. --PierreSelim (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:María Casal.jpg [edit]

Esta es una fotografía para uso exclusivo profesional, contamos con todos los derechos necesarios para su utilización, la autoría de la misma corresponde a Dña. María Consuelo Casal Mínguez. Que es quien aparece en la misma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesarcarrera (talk • contribs) 10:07, 29 July 2014‎ (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image appears many places on the Web. Therefore policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 10:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:British Steel Logo.svg[edit]

I' believe now I found another possible reason for keeping this file. I found completely random another registred trademark with exactly the same logo S: hr:File:STV.PNG This logo seems registered and used over 10 years, so there can't be a copyright by the British Steel author anymore!? If not, there is also an act on customary law!? (The deleting admin has me encouraged to an UDR.) User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)21:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The logo will remain copyright in the UK regardless of what someone else does. It can be uploaded to enwp as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} but can't be hosted here. LGA talkedits 22:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done see LGA's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Flag of the Lugansk People's Republic.svg [edit]

Simple geometric shapes are public domain as {{PD-trivial}}. Eagle came from File:Coat of Arms of the Russian Federation.svg - this image is public domain as {{PD-RU-exempt}}. Coats of arms of Luhansk is public domain as {{PD-UA-exempt}} As was pointed out in the original DR by Butko.

This same rationale lead to a keep of File:Flag of the Donetsk Republic (Organisation).svg. How is one ok and the other not? Pro-Kiev nominations and delete votes aren't policy. Policy is what should decide the matter. Rosario Berganza 20:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Why this was deleted, and the others kept? It seems completely arbitrary. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose at this time as Ankry pointed out at the DR "Derivative work of PD symbols is another work and can be copyrighted" so this needs permission is send to COM:OTRS before we can host it. As an aside anything that is {{PD-RU-exempt}} is not necessarily PD in either the Ukraine or US. LGA talkedits 21:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a very simple derivative combination of PD elements. The idea that it would make a new copyright is wrong. It's a simple PD flag.
Flag of the Donetsk Republic (Organisation).svg
LNR flag.png
They're almost identical! But one is ok and the other isn't? There's no more creativity or originality in the one than in the other. Simple. OK for Commons. Shouldn't have been deleted. Also, we have all keep votes for the PNG... Rosario Berganza 00:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You may feel it is wrong, but sadly it is true, if anyone uses pre-existing works to create a new work, that "new" work has it's own copyright which is separate and distinct from any copyright attached to the pre-existing works. If the pre-existing works used are PD then the new author is free to licence the new work how they see fit; if the pre-existing works are still in copyright the righsholders of the pre-existing works used need to consent to their work being used in the "new" work. LGA talkedits 08:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support What user LGA & Ankry is telling is clear and simply copyfraud (there is no legislative basis for this) User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)09:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Restored: as per Perhelion and Berganza. Yann (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yann - you should not close discussions that you have participated in, I am relisting this discussion to allow another administrator, uninvolved with the discussion to determine relevant legislation, policy implications and consensus. Nick (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


✓ Done I cannot see a valid reason to delete this files. Other flags with the same design were kept, this is completely inconsistant. See Perhelion and Berganza comment above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by User:Christian Rößler[edit]

Please restore

Neither of these deletions were requested. The deletion requests that were given as reason do not refer to these files, but to uploads by User:Agricolax (reduced size of same images) which had already been deleted and redirected to the undisputed files that were now deleted. These files were original size out of camera, which had not been published before. So there's no obvious reason to demand a permission or even to delete without a warning. User:Christian Rößler has an upload history dating back to 2005, these files were fully consistent with his earlier uploads. On his own website http://kartan.de/index.php?id=bergwerke, Rößler publishes the reduced file size only (768 × 1024 px, which Agricolax had uploaded here), so you can be sure that files sized 2000 × 3000 px were uploaded by the author himself. --Sitacuisses (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You make the assumption that User:Christian Rößler owns the web site http://kartan.de/. I agree that that is a reasonable assumption, but we have no actual evidence of it. As I said at the DR, we get many imposters here on Commons, so, as a matter of policy, we do not act on such assumptions unless they are proven beyond a significant doubt.
The images appear on the web site as CC-BY-NC-ND. Therefore, policy requires that the owner of http://kartan.de/ confirm that he is User:Christian Rößler, or at least that User:Christian Rößler has permission to upload images to Commons with a different license. This can be done easily with OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Did you actually read my above text? If you did, please answer my argument about original file size and an upload history lasting nine years. In the light of this, your objection is just paranoid rubbish, which would justify, at the most, politely asking for permission, but NOT the immediate deletions of files uploaded by a respected user. Your attitude is harmful for this project. --Sitacuisses (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
We have over twenty million images on Commons. My best guess is that at least 1% of them, 200,000+ images, have copyright problems of one sort or another. Since we have no systematic way of looking at every image, that includes many images that have been here for many years. It is not beyond a significant doubt that an imposter has been uploading images here for nine years. As for the size, who knows how the user got them?
I agree that for a nine-year user, we might better have asked before deleting, but now that they have been deleted, I see no reason to break policy and restore them without the required confirmation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
You make the assumption that somebody has been continually stealing original files from Christian Rößler's computer for nine years, and that this unknown imposter has registered a Wikipedia account with Christian Rößler's name, and and that the original Christian Rößler hasn't noticed all of this during the past nine years. Are you serious? At least, I won't take you seriously from now on. Are there any wise persons left here to take a second look? --Sitacuisses (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, completely serious. We see imposters here all the time. If Christian Rößler was not a WP or Commons user, there is no reason at all for him to know that he was being faked here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
There are several references to Wikipedia on his website, he has an active guestbook with another reference to Wikipedia. Also, his contributions to de.wp are consistent with everything else. You still haven't answered where the original files should come from if not from the original author. So please stop wasting my time with utter nonsense if you don't know what you're talking about. --Sitacuisses (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Also, what's so special about the three files that makes you want to delete only those, but not all the other files uploaded by Rößler? If, at least, you were consistent in your actions. It's just incredible. --Sitacuisses (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
You keep saying that this is incredible. That's not particularly helpful -- policy is very clear that when images appear on a non free web site and also on Commons, that we require OTRS verification that the upload to Commons is with the permission of the owner of the web site. That can be as simple as the owner of the web site confirming that he is the same person as the Commons user, or can be done on an image by image basis. There is no exception to the policy for longevity on Commons.
If you don't like the policy, then you are free to try to change it, but as long as the policy exists. Administrators are required to enforce it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward, I wasn't asking for another comment from you. I came here for an unprejudiced second opinion, not for the continual repetition of the person's view who started the whole mess. And the original file size did NOT appear on a non free web site. Is there anybody who will actually take the facts into account rather than repeat the old song? --Sitacuisses (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Unfortunately we cannot host the files on commons for now (See COM:PCP). The images appear on the web site as CC-BY-NC-ND. The policy requires that the owner of the webpage confirm that he is User:Christian Rößler (or that User:Christian Rößler has permission to upload images to Commons with a different license). This can be done with COM:OTRS. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:FIBA EuroChallenge logo.png[edit]

Kann nicht nachvollziehen, warum es gelöscht wurde. Die Datei ist frei zu herunterladen auf den Seiten der FIBA Europa und in der EN-Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroChallenge) ist das Bild anscheinend auch gestattet. Was soll das also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petruz (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 July 2014‎ (UTC)

I suggest you read Licensing carefully..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Pelley_2014.jpg[edit]

OTRS 2014071410013644 raised with an offer to release copyright - I would like to see the image page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be a valid license. The e-mail comes from an address at cbsnews.com. The image attached to the OTRS e-mail appears to be the same as the deleted image. Therefore, I am restoring this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer to either close the OTRS ticket myself (not getting any notification, means investigating what happened to vanished tickets takes as much time as closing it myself), or I can skip future undeletion requests on OTRS and presume that volunteers can take ownership who are also Commons administrators.
My apologies if you think I jumped on your turf. The OTRS ticket had been open for two weeks and did not have an owner, so I thought it best if I took ownership and closed it. If you (or anyone else) had been the ticket owner, I would not have taken it over. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Please email back a courtesy reply to the correspondent so they know their request has been handled. Thanks -- (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Already done -FASTILY 19:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Liz Taylor By Ufuk Kobas.JPG[edit]

Hello,

This image was granted to the big picture and all copywrites were cleared from the artists UFuk Kobas , the clearance stated a permission given to the big picture to use it as the lead image for the campaign of 2013 and all future marketing online, please check with the artists directly to confirm the above. documents can be presented if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramnath88 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 29 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose:

  • The source site, http://www.ufukkobas.com/paintings-2012/, has a clear copyright notice. That is not necessarily a problem, because the photograph itself does not have a copyright under the WMF 2D art policy.
  • The image is a painting on a photograph of Elizabeth Taylor, and is therefore a derivative work of the photograph, which is probably under copyright.
  • The painting itself has a copyright and there is no evidence of permission from the artist.
  • The painting is the work of an unknown artist and is therefore probably out of scope.

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done per Jim's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Osrius requests[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Media/Photo includes permission information including a source and proof the author and copyright holder agreed to license the file with permission under the given license which was already sent to Wikimedia administrator at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org email dated Dec. 10, 2013 Osrius (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


  •  Not done Procedural close: if OTRS permission has been sent, the volunteer who processes the ticket will restore the image for you if everything is in order. There is nothing for COM:UD to do at this point. The queue can at times be several weeks, so please be patient. Эlcobbola talk 16:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Maini Sorri.jpg[edit]

Hi, I know for a fact that the photographer has sent the permission for this photo to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the correct template for licensing. Please help me undelete this file. --The80Dude (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Undeleted. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done by DerHexer above. Эlcobbola talk 17:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:ErnestoKreplak.png [edit]

I am the owner and photographer of this picture. Thanks --Tiopappo (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The uncropped image appears here (fourth in carousel) credited to "Blas Martinez". COM:OTRS requires additional permission for previously published images. Martinez would need to submit permission using the procedure on that page. Эlcobbola talk 17:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing evidence of permission which must be sent to COM:OTRS -FASTILY 18:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Boy George in 2014.JPG[edit]

I was sent the image I submitted directly from Boy George and told that it is not a copyright infringement. Please advise as to what I did wrong. thanks Joanikin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanikin (talk • contribs)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image metadata and this page both credit the image to Dean Stockings. Generally the author (photographer), not the subject (Boy George) would be expected to hold the copyright. Either Stockings or Boy George would need to follow the procedure at COM:OTRS to submit evidence of permission (in the case of the latter, this would include providing evidence of a conveyance of copyrights from Stockings). Эlcobbola talk 17:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing evidence of permission which must be sent to COM:OTRS -FASTILY 18:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:ZeroTheorem-FinalPoster.jpg to UNDELETE[edit]

Hello,

This is an approved US one-sheet that may be replicated, duplicated and used commercially in perpetuity for the known universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qohen Leth (talk • contribs)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nonsense request. This is a movie poster. Permission to release it under a free license would need to come from the right's holder (e.g., the studio). Эlcobbola talk 18:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above -FASTILY 18:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Tank Combat.jpeg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Most Wikipedia pages of games have their covers. I want it so in the page I created for the game Iron Warriors: T - 72 Tank Command so please tell me what I have to do to avoid this picture to be deleted. Isma94 (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 Not done non-free content is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 22:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Israeli Air Force jets Fly-over Auschwitz concentration camp.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted by User:Fastily when he deletted pictures in category Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images taken by Israel Defense Force. I asked him to stop to delete because there is a war now and we can not meet now with the IDF Spokesperson's Unit. But this picture recieved another permission that I my self got. There is no problem here. Every picture in this category should be checked before doing anything. Thank Hanay (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC) s

After his actions in this case that he never denied. he considered an invovled admin in this case. there are meny uninvovled admins that could do it. Geagea (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done (Pls add the "another permission" to the file. Thanks) --Steinsplitter (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Brownie do Rapha[edit]

Im here to explain why this is not a copyright violation. My name is Daniel and im company administrator of Brownie do Rapha and all registered images and videos here are released and can be used by anyone, our company allows it. This is the reason why this file is not a copyright violation.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Regadas (talk • contribs)

Please send a permission following the procedure of COM:OTRS. Please read Commons:Guidance for paid editors, COM:L, COM:SCOPE. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

File:Logo russ.jpg [edit]

Добрый день, мой ник Ellandia, я являюсь сотрудником компании ФГУП "Госкорпорация по ОрВД", этот логотип собственность моей компании, чьи интересы я представляю, в логотипе появились изменения, поэтому мы обновили дизайн, прошу разблокировать логотип

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Прошу разблокировать новый логотип ФГУП "Госкорпорация по ОрВД", в дизайне появились некоторые изменения (добавили территорию Крыма), поэтому мы изменили логотип. Заранее спасибо Ellandia (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 08:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Files uploaded by User:Christian Rößler[edit]

Please restore

Undeletion was previously rejected referring to Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle: "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." Note that the word "significant" is highlighted, which means that a minor doubt is not sufficient to delete a file. The files in question were uploaded by a respected user, User:Christian Rößler, who has been active here for many years. 15 files upoaded by him since 2005 are still online. Christian Rößler is also the name of the person who runs the website kartan.de, where smaller versions (768x1024px) of the same files have been published under a NC licence. Just like User:Christian Rößler's contributions to commons, Christian Rößler's website is centered around ancient mines. After someone had uploaded small versions from kartan.de to commons, which I placed deletion requests on (based on the NC licence), Rößler was generous enough to upload the original, large versions of the files under an adequate license, using his own Commons account. For many years Rößler has shown that he is ready to upload certain files to Commons under a free commercial license. Deleting these files is an insult to Rößler's generosity. Not a single evidence has been shown for the assumption that User:Christian Rößler is not the same person as Christian Rößler from kartan.de. On the contrary, his recent uploads to Commons of files much larger size and better quality than the ones he published on his website, prove that he's the same person. Deleting files on the very unlikely, refuted and defamatory assumption that User:Christian Rößler is an imposter, is a violation of the guidelines. Please undelete the files.--Sitacuisses (talk) 06:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


Restored: I think that Sitacuisses is right here. EXIF data of these pictures match other uploads from Christian Rößler. I don't think there is any much doubt about the copyright of these files. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)