Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-01

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

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

File:Quarto de despejo.JPG [edit]

Não entendi o motivo do apagamento dessa imagem, feita por mim mesmo com uma câmera fotográfica. Em que sentido há desrespeito à lei de direito autoral?

Obrigado.

Caio do Valle 29 de dezembro de 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caiodovalle (talk • contribs)

 Comment Our OTRS team needs to confirm permission of the file, which is why it was deleted. Read up on how to email them here. DLindsley Need something? 15:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send permission to COM:OTRS. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Okun1.jpg[edit]

{{Pd-self}} This file was deleted because does not have correct license. This file is own work, all right release (public domain) --Yannag (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)yanna.[reply]

Do you mean File:Шурик 1.jpg? That is the only file of yours that has been deleted and there has never been a file named File:Okun1.jpg. File:Шурик 1.jpg appears to be a formal portraint, B&W, with borders. Are you the actual photographer? You did not say that in the file description. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 20:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Images123456789.jpg[edit]

No debe ser borrado yo mismo la creé --Mundialero (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 20:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:estadio 10 de abril.jpg [edit]

Estoy haciendo wikipedias de los estadios de México, el 10 de abril es uno ubicado en Chetumal, y creo que el tener una foto del inmueble es de gran ayuda para la página enciclopédica, por favor, no la borren. Mybaby'sgotalocomotive (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done see Jim's comment --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:estadio Ensenada.jpg [edit]

I said it in the discussion of the "Estadio 10 de abril". I have been making the pages of some soccer stadiums in México, the photos are just to show in a better way the history of these stadiums. I'd like you won't delete them, thanks. Mybaby'sgotalocomotive (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done see Jim's comment --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Olimpico de tabasco.jpg [edit]

Hello everybody! I'd like that you could undelete my file, because I need it for a woek I am doing, without the file, this work would be not complete. Is a work about Stadiums in Mexico. Thanks. Mybaby'sgotalocomotive (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done see Jim's comment --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Lake of Memory CD inside.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014120210001991). --Mdann52talk to me! 14:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: ✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wheels.jpg[edit]

I am the editor Dr Cesar Izquierdo from Editorial VEBODI, I sign by the name of EditorCI in Wikipedia, I do represent legally the author Veronica Bonilla, I already send the authorization to verificate permisson to Wikipedia, the mail of the author is vebodi1@gmail.com so you may contact directly if the information I already send is not enough. I hold all the rights to publish in the name of Verónica Bonilla, graphic files, audio files and even video files. So please proceed to allow this publications or send me a note requesting exactly what else Wikipedia needs, I am requesting that Veronica herself address a mail attaching a written legal permission to free publication for Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorCI (talk • contribs)

In progress Replied OTRS ticket. For now,  Not done. Alan (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Alan (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ashok Kumar B.jpg [edit]

Hi, I'm Ashok Kumar and had uploaded my picture on my Wikipedia Page. I created an Account since Wikipedia mentions that I can upload a picture only if I sign up with Wikipedia for an account. I did just that and uploaded my picture after following the rules of uploading it in Commons and hence, getting my picture to feature on my Page. I'm an Actor by profession. It is important that I have my photograph featuring on my Wikipedia Page. I therefore, request undeletion of my jpeg photograph. Thank you.

The image appears at http://mimg.sulekha.com/ashok/images/stills/ashok-stills14.jpg which has an explicit copyright notice on its home page. Policy therefore requires that the actual photographer or copyright holder send a free license to OTRS.
Note also that WP:EN strongly discourages your working on your own page there -- see WP:COI. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Jim said, please email COM:OTRS -FASTILY 20:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bandera del Partido Agrario Laborista.png[edit]

For the same reasons that File:Emblema Partido Agrario Laborista.png; the flag was created in 1945 (see image related), so regarding the Chilean Copyright Law it is under Public Domain since 1995. --Warko (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - if those are undeleted, this one should be undeleted as well. Natuur12 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bing Crosby White Christmas.jpg [edit]

File:Bing Crosby White Christmas.jpg

I would like to request undeletion of this file due to an answer at the help desk:

The record label there (assuming that is what you are alluding to) should be fine because it is just typography and simple geometry, therefore it would fall under {{PD-ineligible}}. - Jmabel ! talk 01:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 03:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request undeletion - File:Anjum Anand in Amrithsar, India.jpg[edit]

Hi I am the owner of the above mentioned photograph, which I released to public domain. I have the photograph in RAW format with me to prove that. Please undo the deletion. The file was deleted without even notifying me. It's horribly un suitable for an administrator. Natasha Jinx (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 08:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pike_7_år.jpg [edit]

I have the permission from the living artist to post this photo. How do i prove this?

You and the original sculptor would need to follow the instructions on the page OTRS. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 20:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Manifestofuturismo.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Now (1 January 2015), the writer Filippo Tommaso Marinetti who wrote the newspaper article died more than 70 years ago (2 December 1944) --Clop (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Natuur12 (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PP Poster.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: That was the file which I designed. Saikiran.wiki (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a copy of the file on your hard disk, but you didn't personally create the entire original artistic design which appears on the movie poster, did you? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 07:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Léon Degrelle à Charleroi - 01.jpg[edit]

This file has been deleted with the reason : "License Anonymous-EU n this specific case means, that the file was published before 1944, this file therefore can only be published under Anonymous-EU on January 1st 2015. Pls delete and reupload next year". We are now January 2 2015, so I ask to undelete this file. Thanks. --H2O(talk) 08:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: INeverCry 09:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Satisne.jpg[edit]

File:Satisne.jpg was in use in an active discussion on en.Wiktionary when these was deleted, with the deletion reason basically being "out of scope".--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link with a copy of the deleted image to the discussion. imo this file is not in scope and really shouldn't be restored. -FASTILY 07:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that Wikimedia sites should depend on Dropbox instead of Commons to hold their images? COM:INUSE says "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough." It is crazy that we can't trust Commons not to delete the perfectly free images we are actually using.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment It's been uploaded locally at Wikitionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/File:Satisne.jpg. INeverCry 09:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support as per Prosfilaes. Yann (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC) OK, per Jim. Yann (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is an image of a short quote in English and Latin. There is nothing noteworthy about the typesetting or source. There is no reason at all why this could not simply by typed into any place it was needed. The fact that an editor on one of our sister projects did not follow policy is not a reason to keep it here. Commons:Project scope is very explicit:
"The following are not considered media files, and may not be hosted here:
"Files which are representative merely of raw text"

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. -- Geagea (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:giuseppeviscianowork.jpg [edit]

This file was taken from the official page of Giuseppe Visciano, The photo was taken by a photographer who does not hold gains no copyright. The photo is of the same artist of the page (Giuseppe visciano). No copyright infringement. I ask the release for use of the photo to fill the voice.

 Oppose Visciano's official website, http://giuseppevisciano.weebly.com/about-me.html, is clearly marked "Copyright 2014 © Giuseppe Visciano // All rights are reserved." What part of that tells you that taking an image off the page is "no copyright infringement"? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 19:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ubermensch.jpg Public domain granted permission.[edit]

Hello.

I contacted the author of the website where I found the image and he said the copyright has expired and its now in the public domain.

C super2 (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose These appear to be WWII images. If that is the case, it is unlikely that the copyright has expired for any of them, let alone all four of them. German copyright runs 70 years from the death of the photographer or 70 years from publication in the case of anonymous works. It is unlikely that all four photographers died before 1945. In order to use the "anonymous works" provision of the law, it is up to you to show that the photographs were all published before 1945 and that the four photographers all intended to be anonymous. Merely being unknown to us does not make them anonymous. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 19:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SomeFineOldChestnuts.jpg[edit]

Also:

This is not copyright infringement. The logo of Brunswick Records falls under PD-Logo:

This image or logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain. See Wikipedia:Public domain § Fonts or Wikipedia:Restricted materials for more information. Please note: The public domain status of this work is only in regards to its copyright status. There may be other intellectual property restrictions protecting this image, such as trademarks or design patents if it is a logo. --(Utzdman55 (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

  •  Oppose The logos are irrelevant. The major part of these three album covers are photographs and/or illustrations. The relevant copyrights may or may not have been renewed, but it is up to you to prove non-renewal. That's very difficult to do. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 19:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rehearsal Con Guitarra 04.09.2009.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I would appreciate the undeletion of the images listed above. Each image was corrected in a second version and they include a watermark of free license Creative Commons Karlweber-kw (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Although we very strongly discourage watermarks such as those here, we do absolutely prohibit them. We do, however, absolutely prohibit images that are NC or ND or both. These images are both marked CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0. If you want to upload these without the watermarks with a CC-BY or CC-BY-Sa license, you may do so. Note that if you include a watermark it will probably be removed, so why not just omit it and save us the trouble of removing it?.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done ND and/or NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 19:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:StudentCam Award.jpg[edit]

Hi,

The image above is mine and I can prove any information you need. However, for whatever reason, it was deleted. I submitted an ORTS request previously, and never received a response.

Thank you, --CSPAN (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email you sent -FASTILY 08:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pelosi_Confrontation.jpg[edit]

Hi,

The image above is mine and I can prove any information you need. However, for whatever reason, it was deleted. I submitted an ORTS request previously, and never received a response.

Thank you, --CSPAN (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CSPAN: The files were deleted as "No source since 25 December 2014: you may re-upload the file, but please cite the file's source". The files shouldn't be 'undeleted' with the information still missing, but you can re-upload them with the required information. If these are the images 'provided' by CSPAN (the television network, not the user) to 'fill the gap' after the student's cellphone battery died, however, they are almost certainly under copyright by CSPAN even if you own a copy. Revent (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@CSPAN: - there's a queue for e-mail permissions being reviewed, permissions-commons is at ~450 tickets today, so it will take a few days (or even a few weeks) to get to your e-mail and deal with it, but it's not being ignored and you will receive a response in due course. Nick (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email you sent -FASTILY 08:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1989 Joe 102.jpg[edit]

Please do not delete my photo that I took of skateboarder Joe Humeres. I took it, I own it and the copyright to it. email me direct if you have any questions: 2009@charliesamuels.com Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliesamuels (talk • contribs) 20:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image you uploaded is extremely low resolution. Do you have a higher-resolution version in your possession that you could use to prove that this image is not just a copy of one found on the internet? I'm not saying that it was, but I'm sure you will understand that we have a lot of apparently-professional images that are uploaded at low resolution by editors who claim to be the photographer. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at www.charliesamuels.com, I see that Charlie Samuels appears to be a professional photographer based in New York. From his portfolio on his web site (which, BTW, is atrocious auto-playing slideshows in an Adobe Flash widget--sorry, Charlie, but that's a usability nightmare, the HTML version that one gets if one switches off Javascript is much better) it looks as if indeed this might be his photo. The contact e-mail given there is "c at charliesamuels.com". The web site exists since 1997 and is registered to Charlie Samuels.[1] The photo, although low-res, looks like a professional shot. So I simply suggest that Charlie sends in a formal release following the OTRS procedure from his "@charliesamuels.com" e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Lupo 21:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: what I don't understand are two things:
  1. The photo was uploaded in 2011 and tagged within minutes as {{No permission}}. User:Charliesamuels edited the file page the next day, so he surely saw the "no permission, please send a release via OTRS" warning. But nothing happened until now, and so the file was deleted on 2011-08-24. How come that you didn't notice or react sooner?
  2. The other uploads of this account have all survived, even File:HillyKristal@CBGB's.jpg, which can be found at [2], which really should have triggered the OTRS procedure, too.
Finally, there was also File:Earl Manigault.jpg uploaded by this account and deleted as "no source" in 2012, even though it did have a source "{{Own}}". That photo exists at Charlie's web site at [3].
Charlie: if you as a professional photographer want to donate some of your work (even in low-res), that's great. But since we have no way of knowing whether the person behind the account User:Charliesamuels is indeed the Charlie Samuels, it is generally a good idea for pros to confirm the identity of their account via OTRS. It helps avoid confusions such as the ones seen here. See also Professional photographers' images. You can also send in a blanket release for all photos from www.charliesamuels.com uploaded by the account User:Charliesamuels. Lupo 22:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 08:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the strange 4-year gap between the deletion and this undeletion request, I have contacted the photographer via the e-mail address given on his website. Lupo 11:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:John Ausonius.jpg[edit]

I'd like a review of this deletion. Towpilot has been a long-term, communicative and established contributor. They're not particularly active anymore, apparently because of numerous deletion discussions from people doubting their authorship claims (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Desmond Llewelyn 01.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:I Rossellini A Hopkins.jpg etc. and User talk:Towpilot). As stated on sv:Användare:Towpilot, Towpilot has worked as a professional photographer. While such claims are commonly false, I personally find Towpilot's claims credible.

In the deletion closure, Ellin Beltz stated that https://emajmagazine.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/racism-behind-attacks-on-immigrants-in-sweden/ predated the upload on Commons and was larger. However, the Commons upload was made in 2007, and the blog post was published in 2010 (hence the URL). Last time I checked, 2010 happened after 2007. The size of the file is also not much to go by, since https://emajmagazine.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/john_ausonius.jpg has obvious upscaling artefacts. The blog post somewhat vaguely attributes the photo to Nyheter24 – presumably it was grabbed from http://nyheter24.se/nyheter/inrikes/481380-lasermannen-blir-utan-besked, which claims that the photograph was created by Privat (which just means "private" – a lazy non-attribution typical of today's Swedish journalistic professionalism). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I think you are right, but for professional pictures which copies (even smaller) are available on the Internet, a permission would be best. I think a general ticket saying that he works(ed) as professional and that all images he uploads on Commons are his would fix any doubt, especially for old pictures scanned from argentic. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's already been suggested by User:LtPowers. Since that hasn't happened yet, I don't it will. Nor do I think it should be required for undeletion. An e-mail wouldn't really add anything in a situation like this. We're not dealing with an online source published before the Commons upload, and there is no online source attributing an author whose identity an e-mail could help confirm. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 CommentYup & oops, you're right 2010 is after 2007; my bad. I think I transposed that 07 for July month to year incorrectly. I did see the @nyheter24 and also the "foto:private", but if the uploader is the photographer, why is the copy here so small? 167 bytes is really small, but most of his other uploads are just slightly larger which may be one of the reasons he has such trouble convincing people that these are his images. If I was wrong to close this the way it was closed, please feel free to reverse the deletion. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't reverse it myself, but yes, since your closing argument was that the file was a copyright violation from a site with a larger version published before our version when in fact it was an upscaled version published after our version, respectfully, I do think that this closure was in error and should be reversed. The anonymous nominator's suspicions are no more compelling in this case than in the deletion discussions for other files uploaded by the same user, which resulted in decisions to keep the files. I'm guessing the files are small because that's the largest size the uploader wished to share, as is often the case with professional photographers. As you mentioned, the other uploads are similar, so if you have any remaining concerns, any future deletion discussions should really take all of the user's uploads into account. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Was it not here in 2002, and credited to christer sidelöv? Эlcobbola talk 02:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you search that name, you'll find a person with a career path that sounds very much like the one the uploader describes on his user pages. (With that in mind, this discussion may now be in need of oversight... or maybe not.) —LX (talk, contribs) 10:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And if you look at COM:OTRS, you'll find that images published elsewhere prior to upload on the Commons require additional permission to be submitted using the procedure on that page. Towpilot may well be sidelöv, but may also not be. Fairness and good practice require OTRS permission here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcobbola (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
    That's just silly. There is plenty of evidence to link the two and nothing to suggest foul play here. Are you going to nominate the remaining 100+ highly valuable contributions as well? —LX (talk, contribs) 21:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, LX, OTHERSTUFF arguments are silly. COM:OTRS is not. Эlcobbola talk 21:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While COM:OTRS is not silly, all we are really looking for is that the Wikipedia user and the apparent author are in fact the same person. Just a confirmation of that fact from the external author would be enough (would not need confirmation on the specific files). Wikipedia accounts can be faked, and I'm pretty sure there have been some attempts to use impersonating usernames in the past. However... that doesn't mean we can't use common sense when it looks to be overwhelmingly obvious they are the same person. The above links are clearly the same person, one uploaded six years ago (so would not be a recent impersonation or anything like that) labeled as being the Wikimedia user, and the other is of the photographer. At some point, to me, that passes the threshold of reasonable doubt, and I would  Support restoring these. A private email from the author would be helpful of course so it could be stored on OTRS (and maybe the OTRS box be on the user's page) but at this point I really can't see a substantial reason to delete these. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per my comments above. OTRS required. Эlcobbola talk 17:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per nom. sv:Användare:Towpilot/Album is enough to prove he is a good photographer and so COM:AGF. OTRS is good if he has a website or blog; otherwise I didn't see much meaning. Jee 02:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per above arguments. It seems reasonable to restore the file, as it's obvious (to me, at least) that Towpilot and Sidelöv are the same person. --Diego Grez return fire 04:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Is needed a valid permission provided by email to OTRS team. Alan (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And which e-mail address should that come from in order to be of any use whatsoever? There are some things OTRS is good for (when the OTRS volunteers know what they're doing, that is) – like verifying corporate permissions – and some things that it's useless for – like verifying {{Own}} claims of private citizens without their own domain name. This assumption of bad faith in relation to this single photo by a prolific contributor is utterly arbitrary. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a general permission saying that all images uploaded by Towpilot, including those published elsewhere, are under a free license would be OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a declaration is already part of every upload. An email from an address like @gmail.com adds no credibility than this. (I see somebody mentioned a name of the photographer in this discussion. If same photographs are available off wiki crediting that name, we can demand the user to acknowledge it by a edit in his user page. If he prefer to continue here as anonymous, then OTRS can be used. But I see no benefit of being anonymous, as mentioning a real name/pseudonym as photo credit off wiki already outed him.) Jee 02:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, that permission is already there on the uploads. All we need is confirmation that the user is in fact the photographer, so whatever licenses are in the uploads are confirmed valid. OTRS is not needed in every case; for example if there was a website or forum which was a source of photos and the link to the uploader was made clear on the website (by whoever made the content available), that's also enough. And in this case... we have a (years-old) photo of the user, and an external photo of the photographer, and they are the same person. It's unorthodox but to me the same purpose is served. Mandating OTRS here seems to be following written policy to the point of not thinking through what purpose the policy is for. There are always going to be unique situations where the desired result can be achieved through unexpected means; we should allow those, and this is one of those cases to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The last global contribs I'm seeing from Towpilot are from June 12, 2014 on sv and en.wiki. We may be talking about trying to get OTRS from a retired editor... INeverCry 19:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am fine if this is restored. I simply worry that it could be used as an example for not sending OTRS permission. Yann (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done The identity of the person behind the account User:Towpilot has been confirmed by the above discussion, and the 2002 article in Aftonbladet credits this image to that person. Therefore, User:Towpilot is indeed the photographer and the image was rightfully uploaded here as "own work". There's nothing OTRS could accomplish beyond that. Lupo 22:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:QZ8501 Passenger Manifest.pdf[edit]

Chapter 1, Article 1, Number 3 of the Copyright Act of Republic of Indonesia states that a work is defined as "Work shall mean any result of works of an Author, which shows originality in the field of science, arts and literature." A passenger manifest does not fulfill the requirements as a "work" under Indonesian law, and if it is not a work, it cannot be copywritten. It is in the public domain for this reason, and should not have been deleted. 174.97.45.234 07:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done While that may be true, the file is out of scope and poses privacy issues -FASTILY 08:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning this back for further discussion. The file was deleted with a certain reason which was appealed. This appeal has now been dismissed with another reason. I believe that this deserves a full and credible discussion, not be to be arbitrarily dismissed without suitable and explanatory reasoning. Deletion discussions should not be arbitrarily decided, they are a discussion of the community, not that of an admin within an hour of starting the discussion. The purpose of the admin is to weigh the discussion, if they wish to express an opinion then they do so as part of the conversation, and do not do the deletion.

First deletion

The original deletion reason was that it was either due to a copyright violation, or a licensing issue (not fully explained), and concerns about BLP.

  • If it is a licensing issue, then let us have the review and decide if we can have this file kept with a more suitable licence.
  • If it is a CV issue, then please review the above information about the Indonesian copyright law and review and decide on this on a basis of fact.
  • If it is a BLP issue, the consideration should be given that this is news, not biographical or about living people.
Second deletion

Please explain how this document is out of scope. Please explain how a privacy issue is relevant when this is an officially released document and is available at other sources.

I could see that this document could be utilised at Wikinews or at Wikipedia, and as such that automatically puts it within scope. I can see how it may not be within scope, and would like to hear the opinions on both sides prior to seeing this undeletion request further decided.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment If it is useful somewhere, it is in scope. However, there may be privacy issues, so neutral. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - I was asked to delete this, on grounds of privacy/BLP/copyvio, and the concerns seemed reasonable. I would say that the file is most certainly within scope, although the licensing was clearly bogus (not a work of the Indonesian government). I should however point out that something being available elsewhere does not mean it is not a breach of privacy. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that the list of passengers of that flight is a breach of privacy? There is no detail, except the name of the passengers. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yann it is a very clear breach of privacy because it also includes the names of all no-show passengers. AirAsia has handled the providing of information brilliantly and very professionally, however in this case it's a small oversight to information that they should not have released. russavia (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I think that any list of names is a privacy issue. All of the people on any airline flight and certainly all of the no-shows have a reasonable expectation that the airline will not release their names to the public. This manifest shows not only names, but what people are traveling together, on the same Passenger Name Record (PNR), and what class of ticket they bought. While some of those traveling together are obviously families, others are not. I don't think any of us would like it if an airline released similar information when we traveled. In fact, I'd guess that such a release would be actionable in the USA and a breach of law in most of Europe.

I do not see why the fact that those on the plane are presumably dead changes that. That's doubly true of the no-shows -- this is an invitation for them to be harassed by the media and others.

I do agree that this is merely a list and therefore cannot have a copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lists like this are protected by w:database right in a lot of countries. The database right was created specifically to protect some things which are below the threshold of originality, so questions about originality are irrelevant. Does the database right exist in Indonesia? I also agree that there are various privacy issues with the document, including BLP issues for passengers who didn't show up. --Stefan4 (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree it sounds like it is ineligible for copyright (at least in the US; unsure of Indonesia but probably the same). It is also in scope I think -- it could be newsworthy for wikinews, for example (there is a reason the list was released in the first place). Privacy... I can see the concerns. Although to be crude, the right to privacy usually does end at death. There can be some other basic human rights though especially in situations like this, and it may rub some family members the wrong way. The point about no-shows is also valid. As for the database right... I have serious doubts. First, that is for the most part only in European countries, and second, there wasn't much effort in the collection of that little bit of data. Perhaps on a larger set of data covering many flights, but it's just a listing of which passengers bought the tickets, which they would need to operate the flights. I'm pretty sure the EU database right requires some substantial investment into specifically creating the database, not ones which exist naturally due to their other business. Indonesia mentions databases as part of their copyright law, but that is still subject to originality, so I don't think they have a separate right. So for me, it does hinge on the privacy aspect only, though I can see that point of view. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Privacy is a serious concern, and I think Jim has done a very good job of articulating the privacy issues in this case. INeverCry 19:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as above. Yann (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ed DeCosta, motivator, interviewed by Angie Guerrero of crhoy.jpg [edit]

Good day, Krdbot.

I would like to state my side in line with the file marked as possible copyright violation.

I got the photo from the article published by an online media[1]. The policy for the contents they publish, which can be found at the bottom, is marked under License Creative Commons Authorizing reproduce quoting the source provided is not for commercial purposes. I was unsure which wiki copyright tags apply so I marked it under the option not sure.got it from the internet and provided full details on the image description.

If I need to get an authorization from the author/publisher that this is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Share Alike 4.0 International, please let me know so I can secure that. Thank you very much.

  1. ↑ Guerrero, Angie (2014-10-11). "Busca el éxito? Cuatro claves para vencer los obstáculos en el camino". Crhoy.com. Retrieved on 2015-01-03.

--Pmanz2014 (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The license on that site is CC-BY-NC (non-commercial only). We do not accept that license. Of the CC licenses, we only accept CC-Zero, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA. Lupo 19:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, that site doesn't own the copyright on that image. They say "Imagen cortesía" (courtesy image). So they can't license it under any license. Lupo 19:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Lupo. Clearly unacceptable for hosting on Commons. INeverCry 19:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

The file in question is a photo representing myself (Mark A. Sammut, or Mark Anthony Sammut, Maltese ID card number 483973M) and the then President of Latvia Vaira Vike-Freiberga.

The photo was taken by my photographer in my office at 215/3a Triq il-Fran, Valletta, Malta, on February 17, 2004.

My photographer sold it to me (with all relative rights including future use, in terms of articles 1394 and 1398 of the Civil Code of Malta). I am therefore the full owner of said photo.

I then used the photo for an article I wrote for The Times (of Malta): http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20040307/opinion/the-non-political-nature-of-consular-relations.128263.

I am therefore not violating copyright, as I am the copyright owner.

I therefore kindly ask for undeletion.

Thank you and regards.

--Maltisafi (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Captain Chris Benetatos.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014112610029026). Sourcing issue appears to have been explained for original photo. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EmilyTaaffeHeadshot.jpg [edit]

Hello,

Please undelete the image of Emily Taaffe's headshot. She is the copyright owner of the image, I am creating her wikipedia page on her behalf and she would like the image to be included.

The image does not violate your copywrite rules.

--Beanboy23 (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Markus Werba 2011.jpg[edit]

This photos is from markus Werba. He gave it for Wikimedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marbelwer (talk • contribs) 01:52, 4 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose
1) Markus is the subject, not the photographer, and therefore probably doesn't own the copyright.
2) The file descriptions say they come from his Web site. There is no free license there.
3) "He gave it for Wikimedia", is not acceptable. Commons and Wikipedia require that images be free for any use anywhere by anyone, even commercial use, derivative works, and parody.
In order to restore these, we will need a free license from the actual copyright holder using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luka22.jpg [edit]

Hello,

Luka Stojanovic is my younger brother, and This photo is our own photo, please allow it on website.

Regards Stefan Stojanovic --Stefdza88 (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image appears at
in both cases with an explicit copyright notice. Policy therefore requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license, see OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Billy69150[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS permission recieved : Template:OTRS ticket Linedwell (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Linedwell: ✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sarfarosh (1999)3.jpg [edit]

dvd cover i bought — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackthomas321 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Just because you bought the DVD cover doesn't mean that you hold the copyrights to it. Please read COM:DW and COM:L. DLindsley Need something? 23:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as above. Yann (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1947-Earth123.jpg [edit]

i bought this poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackthomas321 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Just because you bought the poster doesn't mean that you hold the copyrights to it. Please read COM:DW and COM:L. DLindsley Need something? 23:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as above. Yann (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:La Nación Argentina Libre justa y soberana[edit]

110 files listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:La Nación Argentina Libre justa y soberana were deleted out of process, as discussed on User_talk:Russavia/Archive_21#Mass_deletion_of_kept_files_in_an_already_closed_DR. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Support These deletions are bordering vandalism. Yann (talk) 11:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The book is under copyright in the US, due to the URAA. Undeleting them due to some argument about 'process', merely so that they can be deleted again as not being PD in the US would be pointless. As far as any arguments about the URAA itself, neither a DR nor this page are appropriate venues for that debate, and describing someone as a vandal (or a 'borderline vandal') because you personally disagree with the decision of the community is not appropriate behavior for an administrator. As stated by Odder here, "at this time there is no community agreement to host files affected by the URAA." Revent (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose As per the deletion comments and as per User_talk:Russavia/Archive_21#Mass_deletion_of_kept_files_in_an_already_closed_DR. Yann please have some respect and stop calling policy-based deletions vandalism. russavia (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't find any other description of this attitude. Your own personal interpretation of a community decision doesn't make a new policy. There is clearly a disagreement how to process URAA-affected files, but your position is a minority. If you want to overturn a community decision, start a new RfC. Yann (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my personal interpretation, but the rigid application of policy and the results of the discussion that Revent mentions above. How about ou start a discussion to implement a non-US based Commons to host URAA imagery instead? You may very well be surprised by that it could just gain widespread support :) russavia (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of 'overturning a community decision', the community consensus was assessed by Odder at the link I gave, after a prolonged discussion. There is no consensus that the URAA should be ignored, but that potentially URAA-affected files should be assessed 'individually', which can be considered to apply to these as a 'group' since they are all pages of the same work. There has been no assertion, by anyone, that the URAA does not apply to these files, and 'new uploads' of files with a copyright restored by the URAA are not allowed by commons policy, since files are required to be in the public domain both in the source country 'and the United States, and the precautionary principle, as affirmed by the community in the discussion closed by Odder, does not allow us to 'pretend' that the URAA does not exist. Revent (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may be surprised that I already started such a project 9 years ago. It is called Wikilivres. Dcoetzee used to copy there files deleted here with a bot. Yann (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Per Yann. I can understand that Russavia was not happy about the close as  Keep, but in my opinion, deleting files already kept in a closed DR is wrong. DLindsley Need something? 22:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The result will be the same next time -- i.e. I will delete them again. It's a pointless argument that you are presenting....it's got nothing to do with me not being happy, but rather ensuring that policy is abided by. russavia (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yann then why not try and get some sort of functionality to be able to use Wikilivres on projects. The biggest sticking point will be en.wp for what should be pretty clear reasons. russavia (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's already strong support for a technical measure to avoid the US URAA problems, there's just a lack of agreement on exactly what to do and apathy in doing it. Nick (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nick so what do you see the solution as being? We are all too busy doing whatever it is we are doing otherwise. russavia (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still support Yann. @Russavia: Yann's arguments are not "pointless" like you claim. Yann is just trying to get the point across. He and I feel that your deletion of the files was wrong. In my opinion, deleting files after they were kept under a closed DR is wrong too. DLindsley Need something? 22:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DLindsley: If you really believe that such 'pointy' behavior on the part of an admin makes sense, I'll be more than happy to re-DR the same files again after they are undeleted on 'procedural' grounds, so that they can again be deleted by some other admin in line with actual policy and consensus, and inline with the ~1100 other DRs that have been closed as 'delete' for the same reason. A admin does not have the right to overrule existing consensus and policy just to try to make a point. If Yann has a problem with the requirements of COM:L or the consensus of the community, then he should either bring it up for discussion with the community in an appropriate venue, decline to take admin action at all in such cases, or resign. Revent (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Revent: You are only making this situation worse. Yann's behavior is not "pointy". He feels that he deleted the files in line with the deletion policy. Besides, Be..anyone thought that the deletion wasn't in line either. DLindsley Need something? 23:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even understand why these files were deleted or what their copyright status is in the United States ? Nick (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see what they looked like as they were already deleted. Maybe we can temporarily undelete them to assist this undeletion discussion. DLindsley Need something? 23:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you simply read my statement at the beginning of the initial DR, given that no one has contested the facts as I gave them at that time. Revent (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) @DLindsley: I think you mean 'kept' in line with the deletion policy, and you are the one you initially described him as 'trying to make a point', though I agree with that statement. Yann's initial close as 'URAA can't be the only reason for deletion' was blatantly not in line with COM:L, which states that "If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle." Noone, even at the initial DR, stated any doubt that these files were NOT affected by the URAA, and Yann's close was in blatant disregard of that policy, and with the consensus of the community as expressed at Commons:Review of Precautionary principle. If Yann, Be..anyone, or you have an issue with Russavia's 're-closure' of the DRV, then COM:AN/U is that way. A pointless 'bureaucratic' undeletion of files that should be deleted per COM:L, and would be redeleted, is pointless. Revent (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support. Please see my comment her. The Precautionary Principles policy is a general policy for the cases where we don't have specific rules. The new URAA policy is a specific policy that non of the changes of Precautionary Principles policy can deny. If we not accept this precautionary principle will be the only policy we need her. We just delete all the files as all of them have some kind of uncertainty.
When this decision accepted all the users were aware to the Precautionary principle but still choose to vote as they do. this vote was an attempt to change the Precautionary Principle policy (just check the proposal). that suggestion failed, therefore there is no influence regarding to the original decision. The understanding that the outcome of this discussion her by User:Odder was simply wrong. The last decision only rejected the attempt to change the Precautionary principle.
If we want to reverse the decision, it have to be by a new vote with the name "reverse the decision ..." or something like that. And it have to include the involvement of all the parties that may infected, with a note in the village pump of all wikipedia that may be affected. I was disappointed to discover that part of users mentioned that there are problems with the way in which the URAA discussion was closed. Why? may be because many users from he.wiki voted? Well, just remind all. Every user that join to one of wikimedia projects is automatically part of commons.
Russavia's deletion her - reverting of admin decition and the statment her is simply missusing of admin tools that should be com to AN/U. -- Geagea (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then COM:L needs to be changed, because it clearly and concisely states "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work". Russavia's deletion is in accordance with the Commons Licencing policy and the Precautionary Principle. If you wish to start another RfC on URAA and how it interacts with the Commons Licencing Policy and the Precautionary Principle, then please do so. The Precautionary Principle policy overrules the URAA guideline as it stands currently and deletion on URAA grounds is currently the active (if not exactly encouraged) policy. Nick (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To add up on the votes, we have had 3 support votes, and 2 oppose votes, so a lot of people must believe what I believe. DLindsley Need something? 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote, but as it's fairly obvious where I stand on such issues, you may include me as Opposing undeletion of the images for the time being. 3 Support, 3 Oppose and no consensus to undelete the images. You may archive this thread, DLindsley, if that's where you're going. I'd still be interested in learning what it is you believe, because you've not explained your position clearly, unfortunately. Nick (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ask Yann. My beliefs are also his. DLindsley Need something? 00:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you confirming that PRP have nothing to do with this. Commons is not the only place that cares copyright. There is a decision that accepted in Commons. It is not really clear if URAA is copyright violation and the decision of Wikimedia was that it is not - URAA can't be the sole reason for deletion. Ant they willing to fight in court if it is necessary. Regarding to Russavia. No matter what is the correct her, he shouldnt revert Yann. This is misusing of tools. -- Geagea (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Geagea: That is a gross misstatement of the position given by the WMF legal team. That works with copyrights restored by the URAA are copyright violations in the US is perfectly clear. The direction of the WMF legal team was that the status of individual files should be assessed and that if they were found to be infringing then they should be deleted per existing Commons policies. The (fairly obvious) consensus of the community was that the existence of the URAA should not the be basis for mass deletions, but that there would be no exception to the PRP to allow keeping files that were only under copyright because of the URAA. This is no way changed the 'general' policy, that files must be PD or freely licensed in both the source country and the United States. The only way the PRP affects this is that it does not allow us to 'guess' that some work 'just might possibly' fall under some exemption to the URAA in the absence of any evidence. COM:EVID says effectively the same thing, "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained."
Again, behavioral complaints are off topic here, and an undeletion of something so that it can just be redeleted is pointless. You can argue about whether or not this or that close was valid all you want... multiple Commons policies make it clear that these files cannot be hosted on Commons, because they are under copyright in the United States. Your, Yann's, or even my dislike of the URAA is irrelevant to that fact, though you can feel free to make an actual argument that the URAA does not apply to these for some reason. Otherwise, undeletion on some 'procedural' basis is pointless, and, again COM:AN/U is that way. Revent (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make this explicitly clear. This is not, based on the evident facts, which no one has yet to dispute, a case where there appears to be any doubt that this book is under copyright in the United States. It was published in 1950, in Buenos Aires, by the Peronist Government. Per the copyright page, it was a collective work, with only an editor and no specific authors listed (and if it was the work of identifiable authors it would still be under copyright in Argentina). It apparently was never published in any other country, which is made clear by a search of WorldCat showing that all extant library copies were printed were in Buenos Aires in 1950. It had a 50 year copyright term under Argentine law, and was under copyright on the URAA restoration date for Argentina (1 January 1996). Under US law, as a work of corporate authorship published between 1923 and 1963, it has a copyright term of 95 years, and does not enter the public domain until 2046. These are the simple facts, unless someone has some evidence otherwise that has yet to be presented.
Commons:Deletion_requests/All_files_copyrighted_in_the_US_under_the_URAA#Legal_team.27s_statement gives specific guidance on assessing works. There are four questions asked: 1) Was the work from an eligible country? Yes, Argentina was both a signatory of the Berne Convention on the date the URAA was enacted, and was a party to the Buenos Aires Convention in 1950. Per 17USC104b2, as a treaty party when the work was published, Argentina is an eligible country. 2) When was the work created? 1950. 3) Was the work in the public domain in it's source country on the restoration date? No, the restoration date for Argentina was 1 January 1996, and this work was under copyright in Argentina until 2001. 4) Why did the work enter the public domain in the United States? The first reason, failure to comply with the formalities. For the sake of this silly argument, a specific check of the CCE indexes from 1950-1956 shows no registration. In addition, the work appears in neither the Stanford renewal index, nor the one maintained by the USCO. The work was 'eligible' for protection in the United States, if registered, and the copyright holder failed to do so. Per the specific guidance given by WMF legal, "If a specific work obviously has restored copyright under these guidelines, Commons may choose to apply the regular speedy deletion procedure used for potentially copyrighted works." In addition, per the guidance given at meta:Wikilegal/Use of Foreign Works Restored under the URAA on Commons, "there will be cases when a foreign work is in the public domain in the source country, but still under copyright protection in the United States. Unless permission is given by the author or copyright holder, these works should not be posted on Commons pursuant to US law and community policies."
  • Just for the sake of 'completeness' here, the US and Argentina also have a bilateral copyright treaty that went into effect of August 23, 1934, which makes it even more clear that it is an 'eligible country'. For some reason this fact is missing from the 'non-us copyrights' reference on enwiki. Revent (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only real questions here (ignoring off-topic behavioral drama) is if there are other facts no one has yet brought up, or if there is a consensus to ignore the requirement that works hosted on Commons must be in the public domain in the United States as well as the source country. This is not a 'general concern' that the URAA 'might' apply, this is a specific case where it clearly does. It is not a case of 'delete it because the URAA exists', it is a case of 'delete it because it is a clear violation of Commons licensing policy'. If someone has some reason to think otherwise, feel free to bring it up, but the debate about 'mass deletion of files' is irrelevant, as this is about a specific work that is clearly infringing, and the discussion regarding the Precautionary Principle made it clear that there is no consensus to host works that are known to be copyrighted under the URAA. Revent (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Policy is perfectly clear, at COM:L#Uruguay Round Agreements Act, and states that "Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle." The formulation that "URAA can't be the sole reason for deletion" is wrong as a purported statement of policy if by that is meant that Commons will pick and choose which US copyright laws we will uphold. The only way that these files could lawfully be hosted here is if (a) the copyright owner releases them under a free licence or (b) it can be established that they are in fact not copyright-protected under US law. As Revent says, nobody has argued that either of those applies. A continuation of the old argument about what policy should be, rather than what it actually is, is off topic here. If anyone wants to argue that our policy is wrong, please do so on the talk page for the policy itself. If anyone wants to complain about the behaviour of a user, please do so at COM:AN/U. For those who would like to count !votes, this is legal/policy issue and popularity is not a relevant consideration. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zolotnitsky lamenina.jpg [edit]

Elena Zolotnitsky have sent you an email with permission to use this file

 Not done: You'll have to wait until OTRS processes the email before the image can be restored. You can ask about progress at COM:OTRS/N. INeverCry 04:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SPbGIPSR main building.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014120410009202). --Mdann52talk to me! 17:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the sender of the permission really know what he is doing? I don't believe that sender of the e-mail has enough rights to relays the logo under a free license. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so, yeah. I'll seek a further explanation on the logo point - I suppose local upload as a non-free file is a possibility. In any case, the second file should be ok. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: First one  Not done, second one ✓ Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steinsplitter (talk • contribs)

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

File:Jan Roelof Kruithof & Richard Drost.jpg[edit]

This picture was taken by a friend of mine, Anne Johan Mulder and tranquility here absolutely no coyricht on. I therefore think it is not right that the photo was taken away, it could be restored.

Ook deze foto is gemaakt door een vriend van mij, Durk Durkz uit Joure en hier rust absoluut geen coyricht op. Ik vind het dan ook niet terecht dat de foto is weggenomen, zou dit kunnen worden hersteld.
This picture was taken by a friend of mine, Durk Durkz from Joure and peace here absolutely no copyright on. I therefore think it is not right that the photo was taken away, it could be restored.
translator: Google

All the photos I have uploaded, I made or I received from the people themselves. I think it is not right that already have been taken away my pictures, I've been in the pages I'm Tracking down a lot of work and is in the photos absolutely no copy dir. I would really like to see all the pictures are put back, can I? That makes the pages again a lot nicer.

Sincerely,

Richard Drost Richard Drost (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose All works have a copyright, beginning at the moment they are created. In the case of photographs, in almost all cases, the copyright is owned by the actual photographer. On these images you claimed that they are your own work, when, as you say above, they were actually the work of friends. Commons requires that the actual copyright holder freely license works that are hosted here. Therefore, in order to restore these, we will need licenses from the actual photographers, see OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/s required. INeverCry 19:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lotus EliseS103.jpg[edit]

I am the photographer the car is mine image rights are exclusively MINE. If i decide to put this image under the cc rules free of use for wiki and other user but ruled by common creative policy you proposed its' my personal choice and i have the power to do it. So i ask why an user can claim a copyright violation. Sorry.

See my credits and my website at: www.grazianomancini.com

--Grazianomancini (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grazianomancini, there's no mention of a CC licence on your website, only "© Graziano Mancini 2013". If you're the author, please follow the procedure on Commons:OTRS. Regards, Thibaut120094 (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 19:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SaibouJoshiko1.jpeg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have a permission via ticket:2014122010011482 Emha (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Steinsplitter: or another German speaker: Queue: permissions-commons-de. Alan (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but Alan (or any other admin), for the next time: I am an OTRS user, have read the ticket and you can restore it. It's not my fist undeletetion request, you can trust me :) Kind regards, --Emha (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened. Edit conflict here. Before Steinsplitter, closed it, I looked at the ticket. I don't read German, but Google tells me that the OTRS representative told the sender that "A possible license is the "Creative Commons - Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Germany " [emphasis added]. The sender, then said simply that he accepted that license. That leaves us in the embarrassing situation of having to go back to the sender and tell him that the NC license is not acceptable, but I see no alternative. Meanwhile, this should be deleted again. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial use allowed. Maybe Google translate is wrong. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Google translates "Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen" as "Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike" but "Namensnennung" as "attribution" and "Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen" as "Share Alike conditions". We should all keep that in mind for the future. I should have realized that two German speakers were unlikely to miss that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC) .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate is wrong indeed. The German text we send the copyright holders says in very short: thanks for permission, but the licence is missing. A possible [emphasis added] licence is cc-by-sa-3.0 [just look at the given weblink in the ticket!]. Do you want to choose this one? Then the holder said: "Wir sind mit der Lizenzierung einverstanden." meaning: yes, we agree with this proposed licence. That's it. And at last: I know, what I am doing, when I write an undeletion request, really! Regards,--Emha (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my apology for accepting Google translate over two experienced German speaking users. Google is usually either very good or very bad, but this is the first time that I have seen it invert the meaning of something. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just chime in as a third party, German speaker. Google translate is indeed wrong here; unfortunately it seems to be translating "Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen" as a set phase (like an idiom) instead of a more literal word for word, and is drawing from an incorrect translation. If it would be helpful in the future, German uses a cognate with English (kommerziell v. commercial), so it should be relatively easy for English speakers to identify. Эlcobbola talk 16:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
everyone looking at the given weblink see the correct licence.
apologies accepted, happy editing! --Emha (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Photo of Maryann Corbett.JPG[edit]

Please consider restoring the file File:Photo of Maryann Corbett.JPG. This portrait was deleted as a copyright violation, even though the uploader made a credible claim to being the rights holder. She has been openly editing as Maryann Corbett on the English Wikipedia for the last five years, and there are no reasonable grounds for doubting her identity or her claim to the photo's rights. (But even if there were some doubt, in this case it surely would have been better to ask her to submit an OTRS ticket.) Note that I tried raising this issue with the administrator who deleted the image, but I've had no response in two weeks. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Since we see a great deal of identity theft, both by fans and by vandals, Commons policy is clear that we do not assume that User:Maryann Corbett is actually any particular person with that name, so this image was handled correctly. simply editing with the name for a long time proves nothing. The deletion note did suggest OTRS. I note, by the way, that she says that her husband actually took the picture, so that as a very technical matter, she does not own the copyright, he does. Whether to accept a license from her or insist on one from him is up to the individual OTRS agent. Certainly we would much prefer one from him. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, simply editing for a long time doesn't prove anything, though the long-term pattern and content of the edits can certainly lead one to believe a claim of identity is genuine. There are many dozens of famous Wikipedians (User:John Baez, User:James Cantor, User:Tom.jennings, etc.) who have contributed their own images to Commons without filing OTRS tickets. I won't disrupt the project by tagging them all as copyright violations. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done clear case. COM:PCP. COM:OTRS permission needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HCET Jabalpur Logo.jpg [edit]

Please restore this file so that it can be used on the college's Wikipedia entry. The logo is not a work from a professional logo designer and was released by the college without any prior copyright watermark or trademark. This means, legally, that the image is instead free to use as long as it is not modified. You can check the college website at this link. To be specific about the source of the file, it was obtained from the twitter handle of the college, LINK.

--Skulleagle (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose You have it backwards. Almost all created works (the few exceptions don't apply here) have a copyright until it expires. No copyright notice is required anywhere except for the USA before 1989. So, the logo has a copyright. The college web site, which you cite, has an explicit copyright notice and the Twitter site does not have a free license. Therefore, we cannot restore this without a free license from an authorized official of the college, see OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 19:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fr Looby.JPG File:Fr GERALD GREGOIRE.jpg File:Fr Tyler.jpg File:Fr Cherian.jpg File:Fr John Kuriakose.jpg [edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by St Eugene's (talk • contribs) 18:49, 5 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per Jim. Alan (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Luisa Posada Kubissa.JPG [edit]

Esta imagen me fue facilitada por la misma autora para que se añadiera a su página, es de su propiedad, y cumple con todos los derechos de copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanicano (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Necesitamos evidencia de lo mencionado. Para restaurar la imagen es necesario que el propietario original de los derechos envíe un email a COM:OTRS. Alan (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg https://www.air.bg/bg/co-branded-card[edit]

Dear Wikimedia/Wikipedia,

please, be advised that I've provided proper links regarding this picture, but here I'm sending them once again. This is from the official site of Bulgaria Air. Bulgaria Air and Central Cooperative Bank have the same owner - Chimimport Holding.

Please, let me know if you require any additonal information.

Kind Regards, Yossi Dakak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashine1984 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 5 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Per Jim. Please have Bulgaria Air send a free license to OTRS. DLindsley Need something? 01:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 06:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St. Eugene's1940 2014.JPG File:Merged sulatana 2014 2.jpg File:Committe1.JPG File:Committe2.JPG File:Committe3.JPG[edit]

These images are copyright free — Preceding unsigned comment added by St Eugene's (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Almost all created works (the few exceptions don't apply here) have a copyright until it expires. With the exception of the 1940's image, these are far too recent to assume that the copyright has expired. Photographs taken in Canada before 1/1/1949 in Canada are PD, but those taken after that are under copyright unless the photographer died before 1965. While the one image of the first file might be PD, the second image is certainly not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 06:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kapela Lord Alex.jpg [edit]

Hallo, please, don't make troubles with photo where I am. I really don't want to break copyright policy, but your suspicion is wrong. This is photo of me, and my friends, so, it's my photo. Please, restore it. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubec (talk • contribs) 19:34, 5 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Permission is needed from OTRS. Email them. They will restore the file for you. DLindsley Need something? 01:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per DLindsley -FASTILY 06:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maria victoria triumph.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We created the album with María Victoria, together, we are adding the album, to better provide people everywhere all the information regarding the last album she released. Please upload it again to her page. Reynolds.levaron (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Fair use files are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 06:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:vistra.jpg [edit]

source: http://www.vistra.com/css/images/vistra_logointernal.jpg

 Not done per COM:L. All rights reserved. Read COM:OTRS for more info. Alan (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rina Ben-Shachar.jpg[edit]

Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015010510008819). Eitan96 (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Eitan96, please check the details like author and license. Green Giant (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arras Memorial and Fauberg-D'Amiens Cemetery 14.JPG[edit]

We have a number of deleted images of this memorial, designed by Sir Edwin Landseer Lutyens (1869–1944). Most of them are routine restorations as of last Thursday, but this DR included mention of the sculpture by William Reid Dick (1879–1961) so it is not routine. I can find the sculpture in this image if I look hard, but if de minimis applies anywhere, it surely applies here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support I only found that memorial once I had googled around to find other pictures of it. Once I knew what it looked like, I was able to find it. De minimis indeed. Lupo 19:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: per COM:DM. INeverCry 19:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Titasos.com Shopping Logo.png [edit]

hello, I made this picture, and to prove you can visit the website www.titasos.com or this page http://titasos.com/Shop/index.php/about-us

thnks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashab2015 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done © 2014 Titasos Community & Talika Store. All Rights Reserved. Read COM:OTRS for more info about permissions. Alan (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AGM Exhibit Fdup.jpg[edit]

To undelete please.

This media was missing permission information. A source was given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. An email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Chen905 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 21:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Downtown Oklahoma City and Oklahoma River at Sunset.jpg[edit]

I would like to request the undeletion of the image "Downtown Oklahoma City and Oklahoma River at Sunset.jpg." As I am unfamiliar with this process, I inadvertently chose the wrong licensing for this when I uploaded it. Instead of the restriction "for editorial use only," I'd like to change permissions of the photo to "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)."

My company, the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, owns the copyright to this image and is giving permission to use it freely. My work email address is lbrinkman@okcchamber.com if you'd like to verify my employment.

You can see that I am an employee of the Greater OKC Chamber here: http://www.okcchamber.com/index.php?submenu=StaffDirectory&src=directory&view=staff&submenu=StaffDirectory&srctype=staff_lister_2014

The image came from the Greater OKC Chamber Flickr page and can be found here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/oklahomacity/8347784256. Since we at the Chamber own all the rights to the photo, we are giving permission to upload it to Wikimedia Commons with no reservations.

Please undelete this file. I had added it to the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma page at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City,_Oklahoma.

Thank you so much.

Lillie-Beth Brinkman User: lillie-beth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillie-beth (talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lillie-Beth:
  1. You realize that if you publish the image here under CC-BY-SA, everybody is free to use it anywhere, not just on Wikipedia? Therefore, you could just as well change the license at Flickr to CC-BY-SA.
  2. If for some strange reason you want to keep the "all rights reserved" at Flickr, do not post your release here. Send a release via e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as explained at COM:OTRS.
HTH, Lupo 21:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you so much for your answer Lupo. I will send the email. I forgot to change the Flickr link to the other page in my copy and paste of this statement.

Image:Downtown Oklahoma City skyline.jpg [edit]

I would like to request the undeletion of the image "Downtown Oklahoma City skyline.jpg." As I am unfamiliar with this process, I inadvertently chose the wrong licensing for this when I uploaded it. Instead of the restriction "for editorial use only," I'd like to change permissions of the photo to "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)."

My company, the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, owns the copyright to this image and is giving permission to use it freely. My work email address is lbrinkman@okcchamber.com if you'd like to verify my employment.

You can see that I am an employee of the Greater OKC Chamber here: http://www.okcchamber.com/index.php?submenu=StaffDirectory&src=directory&view=staff&submenu=StaffDirectory&srctype=staff_lister_2014

The image came from the Greater OKC Chamber Flickr page and can be found here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/oklahomacity/8347784256. Since we at the Chamber own all the rights to the photo, we are giving permission to upload it to Wikimedia Commons with no reservations.

Please undelete this file. I had added it to the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma page at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City,_Oklahoma.

Thank you so much.

Lillie-Beth Brinkman User: lillie-beth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillie-beth (talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lillie-Beth:
  1. The given Flickr link https://www.flickr.com/photos/oklahomacity/8347784256 is not that image.
  2. You realize that if you publish the image here under CC-BY-SA, everybody is free to use it anywhere, not just on Wikipedia? therefore, you could just as well change the license at Flickr to CC-BY-SA.
  3. If for some strange reason you want to keep the "all rights reserved" at Flickr, do not post your release here. Send a release via e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as explained at COM:OTRS.
HTH, Lupo 21:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alessandro Borghese.jpg [edit]

Undeletion Request File:Alessandro Borghese.jpg the picture's URL is mentioned. the photo is an AB normal's propriety (i think borghese's society) but it is used in interviews and in sociale posts. I have to change the copyright license, can i do it?

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 23:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mikey Glenister at the 'So I'm on a Bus' book launch, December 2014.JPG [edit]

I paid for someone to take the photo for me at my own book launch. I own the photo. It belongs to me, so I don't think it should not have been deleted? Can you please let me know why it was deleted if my ownership wasn't the issue here. --Mikeygtwin (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 06:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:restaurar fotos[edit]

ESTEFIF--Estefaniaferlito (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: These images haven't been deleted. Please direct your comments to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Estefaniaferlito. INeverCry 04:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ydc.jpg [edit]

I confirm that this logo do not have any licensing issue as this is the creation by Yi Da Chen. For any query, please call <redacted> to confirm.

Thank you

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 04:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yoogan-Yashmith.jpg[edit]

The file has been released under cc-by-sa-4.0 via OTRS ticket # 2015010410005476. Mike V • Talk 04:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: INeverCry 04:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Satisne.jpg[edit]

Re-opened. -- Geagea (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Satisne.jpg was in use in an active discussion on en.Wiktionary when these was deleted, with the deletion reason basically being "out of scope".--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link with a copy of the deleted image to the discussion. imo this file is not in scope and really shouldn't be restored. -FASTILY 07:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that Wikimedia sites should depend on Dropbox instead of Commons to hold their images? COM:INUSE says "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough." It is crazy that we can't trust Commons not to delete the perfectly free images we are actually using.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment It's been uploaded locally at Wikitionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/File:Satisne.jpg. INeverCry 09:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support as per Prosfilaes. Yann (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC) OK, per Jim. Yann (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose This is an image of a short quote in English and Latin. There is nothing noteworthy about the typesetting or source. There is no reason at all why this could not simply by typed into any place it was needed. The fact that an editor on one of our sister projects did not follow policy is not a reason to keep it here. Commons:Project scope is very explicit:
"The following are not considered media files, and may not be hosted here:
"Files which are representative merely of raw text"

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. -- Geagea (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opend. I opened this UDR according to request by User:Prosfilaes her. I closed this UDR as Jim bring to us the exact location in COM:PS that tel us which media may not be hosted in Commons. But User:Prosfilaes have more arguments to discuss and the file does not violet copyright. I personally dont mind to keep it as a special case. -- Geagea (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there is something noteworthy of the typesetting; the typesetting was in fact the exact reason it was stored here. The fact that that typesetting wasn't unusual by modern standards was exactly the point of using it. It helps if things are quoted in full; it's not "Files which are representative merely of raw text", it's "Files which are representative merely of raw text (e.g. ASCII files, raw source code listings as mentioned above, etc)", which is contrasting "photographs, scanned images, diagrams, animations, audio (e.g. music, spoken dialogue) and video clips" versus ASCII files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted Commons:Project_scope#Excluded_educational_content does say "Excluded educational content includes: Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text." But it also says "However, Commons can be used to host such material if included in a shareable media file that is of use to one of the other Wikimedia Foundation-hosted (WMF) projects." It's in use as part of discussions on another project; it's not being used for vandalism, etc. Let's not piss off other projects too much :) Keep deleted it's actually text from a 2008 book and is used under fair-use. It's not compliant with COM:L which explicitly disallows fair use. russavia (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Prosfilaes, please explain. It's a 2008 book.I see nothing at all unusual in the typesetting -- nothing that would have been unusual in English language typesetting for the last five hundred years. What is unusual about this that warrants keeping it in this form?
Geagea mentions copyright. It's a 2008 book by Mary Jaeger (1960- ). While the Cicero quote has been PD for around two thousand years (did the Romans have copyright at all?), about a third of the image is Jaeger's words. The image description claims that it is fair use, which, of course, we don't accept. The University of Michigan holds the copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose Wasn't planning on !voting, but to be honest this is getting ridiculous. In summary, the file is neither in scope nor is the content it depicts freely licensed. For reference: [4], [5]. -FASTILY 00:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that copyright issue does not mentioned in the UDR The discussion and the closer speaks about scope. The mistake is of course my, I had to check the deletion reason and not count the user's statement. copyright issue is no matter to vote. -- Geagea (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it has been deleted from Wiktionary for exactly the same reason as here:
"Unused file kept under what could only ever be a fair-use claim, contrary to WT:NFCC #4, and completely replaceable with the text it contained.)"
Therefore, aside from the copyright issue, the deletion for being an out-of-scope image of text was entirely consistent with Wiktionary policy as well as Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Sorry, no consensus to restore this file and the file is neither in scope nor is the content freely licensed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ZARROUATI-Olivier.jpg [edit]

Please undelete this file. It is free of rights.

--MonkeesMonkees (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ramon Ferrer llig Mediterrànies - TirantDeLlibres.webm[edit]

It had a Youtube-CC license which was properly checked, so it should'nt had been deleted.--Coentor (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because of the book cover, not because of the license... not sure what the de minimis guidelines for videos are, but I guess this might indeed be de minimis. The cover is shown in full for a very brief instant only. Lupo 09:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Some will argue that the cover is de minimis -- it's a very close call -- but the man in the video is reading from the text for at least thirty seconds. Since the text is copyrighted, the reading creates a derivative work which clearly violates the book's copyright. (Merely reading a book is, of course, not a problem, but a public reading or a recording of a reading for commercial use is.) .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The entire video is of a man reading out the text of the book. While the image of the cover may arguably be de minimis, there is clearly infringement of the copyright in the text. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AlessandroSalibraBove.jpg [edit]

This photo depicts ME and I have all the rights on the file, so I kindly ask you to undelete it.

--Alessandro Salibra Bove (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Identity theft is common here, both fans and vandals, and we have no way of knowing that User:Alessandro Salibra Bove is the actual person in the image. Also, since it does not appear to be a selfie, unless there has been a formal, written transfer of copyright, the photographer owns the copyright, not the subject. In any case, since the image has appeared on at least one copyrighted site on the Web, policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:United States Republican Party.png[edit]

The conjecture by the closing admin that the image dates back to "maybe 1965" is inappropriate for a closing reasoning. In fact, there is evidence that the elephant attributed as a symbol for the Republican Party dates back to at least the 1860s allowing for a much older age. Furthermore, this article states "Whether depicted as actual animals or as anthropomorphic representations, the Republican Elephant and its Democratic Donkey counterpart were firmly established in American pop culture at mid-century..." which suggests the image was created even before the 1950s. There was no consensus to delete the image and its level of originality is also in question. I believe the deletion is invalid. Fry1989 eh? 16:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I have no trouble stipulating that the GOP has used an elephant as a symbol since the 19th century, but that is completely irrelevant. The question here is when was this particular elephant created? It is up to those who would keep the image to prove that it was either published before 1923 or published with consent but without notice or renewal after that. Fry has provided absolutely nothing which speaks to the issue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support However, Эlcobbola has found this, which is clearly authorized use without notice. I have restored the image and changed the license tag. Thank you, E. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To suggest that I have provided "nothing on the issue" is incredibly dishonest, I have done quite a bit of research and have plenty of supportive evidence that your personal baseless conjecture that it dates back to "maybe 1965" is not true. You choose to ignore that. I never said we had an exact date, it is true that at the time of closure we did not, but that doesn't automatically mean delete or that we should ignore evidence supporting an age farther back than your conjecture for which you have provided no support and I can only assume you base upon personal opinion. Fry1989 eh? 17:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dishonesty like canvassing [6][7] only those who supported retention at the DR, but not the nominator (Sfs90)? Эlcobbola talk 19:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Restored by Jim. Эlcobbola talk 19:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

God sent ONE Message for Mankind[edit]

SIR / MADAM, I fail to see why anyone should request to have my book deleted. I have prodused proof from the Qur'an to substantiate my arguments with solid proof. The SAME person seems to have requested on a daily basis to request TO HAVE MY BOOK REMOVED.

It seems that he does not like the TRUTH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.169.10 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The TRUTH is that we cannot read minds. Unless you can explain more clearly what you are complaining about, there's nothing we can do. Lupo 19:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No image mentioned to undelete; no rationale provided to undelete. Эlcobbola talk 19:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/סילבי_שחור_לבן.jpg[edit]

the picture was given to silvi jean by the photographer ben lam to be used here --ויו65 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done File:סילבי שחור לבן.jpg is not deleted (yet). Nothing to undelete. Feel free to comment at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ויו65. Lupo 22:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Glamboy P in September 2014.jpg[edit]

Permission has been granted through OTRS (#2014121710013594) under CC BY-SA 4.0 ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 20:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A ticket has been opened and two emails received, but further evidence of identity is called for, in my view, as both messages were from free accounts, one hotmail the other gmail. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suppose another related ticket, #2014121810007303 needs to be checked as well. I did some searching and left a note there. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 04:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I responded asking for verification, so I think this should be closed for now. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 18:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. The second ticket relates to another image by an obviously different photographer, and doesn't seem relevant to copyright in this image. #2014121710013594 still needs to be followed up by someone, but doesn't seem to allow us keep this image, unless I have missed something. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Michael Maggs. The ticket needs more proof of copyright ownership. Green Giant (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion request File:Anjum Anand in Amrithsar, India.jpg[edit]

Hi,

I am the owner of the file File:Anjum Anand in Amrithsar, India.jpg. I clicked the picture when Anjum Anand visited Amrithsar, India in 2003. I allowed the public consumption of the image without any restriction way-back in 2003. I uploaded the file (a high resolution one) to wikipedia commons, an administrator deleted the file (without even a notification) stating copyright violation pointing to a website which was using a row resolution copy of the image. I requested for undeletion here and got an advice to mail to OTRS. I did send a mail to them on 1st Jan 2015 to which I haven't received any reply yet. Is it okay if I upload the picture again? Natasha Jinx (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a violation of policy to upload an image a second time and, if you do, it will probably be rapidly deleted. OTRS is all volunteers, and like the rest of us, has vastly more work than people to do it, so it runs a backlog that is often as much as a month. Please be patient and the image will be restored in its turn. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Confirmation of OTRS permission needed. INeverCry 23:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:So I'm on a Bus' book launch, December 2014.JPG [edit]

I've sent the email, how long will it be before they reply?

Also why would a photo I own be deleted so quickly without any notification or appeal? It's literally a photo I own. Surely if they were concerned for copyright, they would have contacted the page creator? It just seems a bit rash to me just to receive an email saying "we've deleted it because of copyright". If you'd done research, you could have easily found out who owns it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeygtwin (talk • contribs) 12:41, 7 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are the author and also the person in the photograph, note that there are two copyrights here -- one for the book cover and one for the photograph. In the ordinary course of things, the book's publisher or illustrator would own the first and the photographer would own the second. The fact that you own a copy of the photograph does not, by itself give you the right to license either copyright unless you have written agreements for them.
Policy is to speedily delete obvious copyright violations such as this. Commons get more than 10,000 new images every day and more than 1,500 of them are deleted. 25 Admins do 90% of that work and the backlog has been growing recently. We have no time at all to do research on images which appear to be copyvios -- it is up to the uploader to provide all the necessary information.
In order to restore this image, policy requires that we get a license for both copyrights from their owners, using OTRS. A license from you will not suffice unless you can show that you own both. As for "how long will it be before they reply", OTRS is also all volunteers and also understaffed -- they usually run a backlog of several weeks to more than a month. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! Will an email from the publisher and the photographer giving me permission suffice as enough evidence to licence both copyrights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeygtwin (talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Each of them should send a license directly to OTRS in the form shown at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/s required. INeverCry 23:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ryo Kawasaki -2008 - Tallinn.jpg [edit]

I am the owner of this photo and it is free for public to use it for any purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postmagicx (talk • contribs) 16:33, 7 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

The photo seems to have been copied from the official website http://ryokawasaki.com/navi.php. We would need evidence that you, the uploader, are in fact the copyright owner. Please follow the instructions on the page OTRS. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 23:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg [edit]

Entschuldigung wieso haben sie meine Tafel gelöscht Verhörzelle - es ist ein Mahnmal was ich selbst entwurfen haben und auch installiert nebst Erläuterungstafel , welche ich selbst kreiert habe. Die Kulturbehörde Hamburg gab mir die Förderung. Bitte erklären sie mir die Löschung ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.Stange (talk • contribs) 10:36, 8 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 23:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg [edit]

Ich bin der Urheber der Tafel sowie der Urheber der Verhörzelle -Mahnmal für die Geschwister Gescholl in Hamburg Eppendorf.

Gerd Stange www.gerdstange.de — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.Stange (talk • contribs) 10:39, 8 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Since you have only one deleted image and that request is above, I don't know what you are referring to here. Although we can usually figure it out, it helps a great deal if you both sign your requests and give the actual file name of the image. An unsigned request to undelete File:Example.jpg is a poor start. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Procedural close - no file given for consideration. INeverCry 23:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paris-carmen.jpg [edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Antisp02 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 23:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Max Olivier.jpg [edit]

I took this photo, and I own the rights. I request to undelete it. Bob Clemence 08/January/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Clemence (talk • contribs) 14:40, 8 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • This image appears without a free license in several places on the Web. Policy therefore requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. Please note that OTRS. like Commons, is all volunteers and is understaffed. They run a significant backlog, so it may be several weeks or a month before they get to your file and restore it, if that is appropriate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 23:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Here to Fall.jpg [edit]

The image is a poster that WE created for OUR film!

Hoss82 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoss82 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 8 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Assume Good Faith is one of our guiding principles, but the small size (214 x 317) and poor quality of this image make it hard to believe that the uploader actually created it -- even IMDB has a much better version of it. In any case, because the image appears in many places on the Web without a free license, policy requires that it be accompanied by a free license from the actual copyright holder, see OTRS. Assuming that the OTRS permission is received in good order and the image is restored, it would a very good thing if you would upload a much larger version. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 23:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Roxana soto.png [edit]

A photography labeled as "Roxana soto.png" has been deleted. I have the authorization of usage by the author and the person photographed itself. It would be nice if you could undelete the image. Please, let me know if you need a scan of the signed document. Thanks!

(7Antonio (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 00:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fortepan images[edit]

Hello!

I'd like to request the undeletion of the following files:

These images were taken from Fortepan, a Hungarian photo archive collection. Back then Fortepan's licensing did not allow commercial use of the images, therefore they were deleted. Since then they've changed the licensing to CC-BY-SA 3.0 (as it is transparently highlighted on their website), and they became OK to use in Commons, so I'd like to request their undeletion.

Thanks, Thehoboclown (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since Fortepan's attribution requirement includes the name of the donor, which is not included in the file descriptions, it will require significant research to restore and keep these on Commons. If our colleagues concur, I suggest the best way to handle this is for you to upload them again, using the same file names and including the donor names in the file description. Tag each one with {{Licensereview}} so the problem does not arise again. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I understand you correctly, but the donor and the date when the picture was taken is included in every image description. Taking the Judit Temes image for example (bottom on this list), it is clearly given that the photo was taken in 1949, and was donated by Kovács Márton Ernő.
It may be given at Fortepan, but it was not included in the Commons file description -- the one you cite shows Kovács Márton Ernő as the author, but not the donor, and several others show only Fortepan as the source and author. Therefore, as I said, restoring them will require each Commons image description to be modified to conform to the Fortepan requirements. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please re-upload the images and add the license review template as suggested by Jim. If you struggle to upload them, make sure that you check the "ignore warnings" box near the bottom of the upload form. Green Giant (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rene GUITTON.jpg Home made picture[edit]

Hello, I probably didn't fill in correctly the form. I have the entire copyright of this file, as it's home made. I agree to put it online and give a free licence. Please let me know what I should do to add it to your database. Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biancaguitton (talk • contribs) 01:58, 8 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you copied the picture from here: http://www.fondation-general-bigeard.com/images/Rene_GUITTON.jpg. As you do not own the copyright in it, we can't accept your upload. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: If you are the copyright holder or you can persuade them to license the image, please read COM:L and COM:OTRS and get in touch via email. Green Giant (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maithripala Sirisena.JPG [edit]

I got this photo on my camera. Please Undelete it--Chamath456 (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photoshopped version of an election poster - see https://www.facebook.com/maithripalas/photos/pb.365053451326.-2207520000.1420571533./10152931889656327/?type=3&theater and http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F5d%2FMaithripala_Sirisena.JPG. Please follow the instructions at OTRS if you have solid proof that you are the (professional) photographer who took the original photo that was later used in the poster. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per Michael Maggs. Green Giant (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:ROKA 7th Inf Div HQ - Chilseong Church 01.JPG[edit]

Per this discussion, I'd like to tranfer the images deleted per this DR to English Wikipedia, with FoP-USonly tag. User:Hyolee2 claims that taking photographs of the military facility is prohibited by Republic of Korea Ministry of National Defense (see other DRs, 1, 2), but I could not find any mention regarding such national security issue on current deletion policy page of Commons. --Puramyun31 (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will restore, invalid DRs, it is COM:NCR. — Revi 05:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Contact me when convert is complete. — Revi 05:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Juliette Lemaire.jpg[edit]

Cette photo est la propriété du théâtre du Trocadéro de Liège. Or, je suis la community manager et je me tiens à côté du directeur général, monsieur Jérôme Depas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coenencecile (talk • contribs) 08:24, 9 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There are two issues here. First, the photo itself appears at http://www.trocadero-liege.net/le-trocadero-de-liege/presentation-historique/ with a clear copyright notice. The theater may own a copy of the photograph, but unless the photographer transferred the copyright in writing to the theater, it does not have the right to license the image. Second, Mme Lemaire is holding a vase with an engraving of the theater's logo on it. The vase is an integral part of the image, cannot possibly be called de minimis and has a copyright of its own.
In order to restore this image, we will need free licenses from both the actual owner of the copyright for the photo and the creator of the vase, see OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holders required INeverCry 16:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Smokingroove Press Pic.jpg [edit]

I own all rights to this photo and request it to be undeleted asap.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluntWorthy (talk • contribs) 11:56, 9 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required INeverCry 15:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:East Jesus sculpture garden entry.jpg[edit]

We received OTRS (CC BY-SA 4.0) from the sculptor cum photographer: Ticket#2014120510013615. The picture in question seems available at http://www.zenzibar.com/CosmicSteel/default.htm and http://eastjesus.org/art-garden/entry-archway/. The sculpturer name is mentioned there too. A second confirmation from http://eastjesus.org/contact/ is possible; but not required, I think. Jee 12:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Support The OTRS permission seems to be in good order -- the e-mail comes from an address directly traceable to the sculptor/photographer. I see no reason not to restore this. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Jkadavoor: Please add the OTRS ticket as soon as you have a chance. INeverCry 15:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC) OTRS added. Jee 17:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jaffna Post Office.JPG [edit]

i have taken this picture using my own iphone6. its completely unnecessary deleting this image.

please restore this image.

Eeriyaka (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read the deletion-discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jaffna Post Office.JPG. --Túrelio (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Sri_Lanka, OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 15:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:York Prep School Logo.jpg [edit]

The school official logo File:York Prep School Logo.jpg is on their official Flickr page and logo has share-alike attribute. https://www.flickr.com/photos/yorkprepschool/16224620782/ Thank you Nycscenewatch (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The school's Web site, http://yorkprep.org/, which has both the logo and an explicit copyright notice, shows Google Plus, Facebook, and Twitter links, but not Flickr. We have no reason to believe that the Flickr account is actually authorized by the school. Restoring this will require a free license from an authorized official of the school, see OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:S. Kolling.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission via ticket:2015010910006162. Emha (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Emha: Please add the OTRS ticket as soon as you get a chance. INeverCry 16:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DugoniPortrait.jpg.jpeg [edit]

Hi, I missed the notice that this image was going to be deleted so didn't find out until today. I have permission from the copyright owner to upload this image. My workplace has authorized it under the terms of Creative Commons. Please restore it. Thank you.


--Webmaven87 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please ask the copyright holder(s) to read COM:L and COM:OTRS and then to send a license statement to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the sample statement found at COM:ET. An OTRS agent will handle the request in due time but be aware that there is a significant backlog. Green Giant (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rstar coffee shop.JPG[edit]

I submitted the permission for this image via email, as I am the creator of it. I'm requesting that it be undeleted. Thank you. Serena Lingo January 9, 2015

 Not done: An OTRS agent will handle the request in due time and if everythings checks out the file will be restored. Please be aware that there is a significant backlog. Green Giant (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Merged sulatana 2014 2.jpg File:St. Eugene's1940 2014.JPG File:Fr Looby.JPG File:Fr Tyler.jpg File:Fr Cherian.jpg File:Fr John Kuriakose.jpg[edit]

Hi, I tried to read the copyright rules but, I don't feel like going to law school.

The pictures above where given to a self published book as referenced in the article. They where given for free use to the community. No-one is alive who gave the pictures or donated the pictures. Some people who remembered the publishing of the book seem to remember that the pictures where given for free usage to the community.

The people who gave the picture on Sultana circa 1950 gave it to the community for free use as published in the book the second part of the picture in Merged sultana was a picture I took and is free for anyone. Similarly, the picture of St. Eugene's circa 1940 was taken before the fire in 1950 so locale people believe it was taken soon as the church was build around 1942, the second picture was taken by me 2014 and I give free usage to anyone.

  • File:Fr Looby.JPG This was given freely to the community by Fr. Looby and freely published in newspaper and the book
  • File:Fr Tyler.jpg This was a printed funeral card and freely given for disbursement also published on a funeral website.
  • File:Fr Cherian.jpg This was taken by a local person and gives free usage to anyone.
  • File:Fr John Kuriakose.jpg This was taken by a local person and gives free usage to anyone.

I am still investigating the status of the other pictures;File:Committe1.JPG, File:Committe2.JPG,File: Committe3.JPG. I believe the above comments apply to these pictures but, I have not yet confirmed it. I am trying to track down surviving relatives or other interested parties. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by St Eugene's (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The fact that someone may have donated copies (prints) of the pictures for use in a particular book says nothing about (a) whether that someone actually owned the copyrights to the images or (b) even if he did, whether he (or his heirs) would be willing to freely license the images for all uses by anyone anywhere, including commercial use. Giving away copies of a photograph says nothing about the copyright license -- licensing a copyright requires a formal written document and I don;t think you have any evidence of that. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per Jim. If you know who the copyright holder is, please ask them to read COM:L and COM:OTRS and then to send a license statement to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the sample statement found at COM:ET. An OTRS agent will handle the request in due time but be aware that there is a significant backlog. Green Giant (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shieldscharger.jpg[edit]

We got permission (CC BY-SA 4.0) from a site where the picture is published. Ticket#2014120710012112 Jee 08:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File looks like PD... not sure why it was tagged wit NP. Looks like permission was requested for the photography only (link) --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Updated; thanks. Jee 12:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Enrico Sirello, variazioni da matrici, effetti anisotropici, sovrapposizioni di carte, incongruenze ed altro, 2009.JPG[edit]

La foto è di mia proprietà e non ripresa da internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.40.86.233 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Enrico Sirello's heirs own the copyright to the work of art pictured in the photo. It will be under copyright for many years. See COM:DW. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Copyvio per COM:DW. INeverCry 23:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Barge-test-failure.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission was sent to 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org' 22 Dec 2014. Rackmount-guy (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS will handle the undeletion once they process the email (they normally have a backlog). Revent (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission must be processed and confirmed before this can be restored. You can ask about progress at COM:OTRS/N if needed. INeverCry 23:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:David Cameron arrives at 10 Downing Street 11 May 2010.webm[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are 1) released under "Crown Copyright", 2) published by central government, and 3) do not meet any of the exemptions in the license, so are available under the Open Government License, which is compatible with CC-BY. Rock drum (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fourth file, with same reason for undeletion, added. Rock drum (talk • contribs) 10:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Two more files with same reason added. Rock drum (talk • contribs) 22:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This would be best cleared up through an e-mail to Downing Street, asking them to confirm OGL extends to YouTube videos, I don't see any problems with them doing that. We would then create a custom copyright tag containing the OTRS ticket number for the permission e-mail. I know it's probably excessively pedantic but it's then definitive and saves future disagreement or re-interpretation, so is for the best long-term. Nick (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:Permission has been received (Ticket:2014122310002227) confirming permission for the above. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC) wrong ticket, caused by another section being archived.[reply]

Could you check the ticket number? That appears to be for something else entirely. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I may be misinterpreting what you've said but I don't think there's any ambiguity as to whether these files are available under the licence. The OGL extends to content published on any platform be it text, data, photos on Flickr - or anything else, as long as the criteria are met. Insofar as these videos don't meet any of the exemptions to the licence (as described on Meta-Wiki and in the licence text itself), nor is there - I think - any doubt that these files are not licensed under Crown Copyright in the first place, getting confirmation through OTRS seems unnecessary. Thanks, Rock drum (talk • contribs) 16:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As with Rock drum, there is little doubt that these files are covered by OGL (now at v.3). The Youtube stream is the official one managed by the Prime Minister's office as linked from here. All official publications from the PM's office are OGL by default per the statement at the bottom of the website's pages. Though an email to tell us this might be nice, it is not really necessary considering how clear government policy is. --Fæ (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. After this was closed as not done by Green Giant, I asked for it be be re-opened thinking that I should be able to support undeletion. Unfortunately I find I can't. Sorry.
The argument made by Rock drum is that all Crown Copyright material published by central government is released under the OGL. But unfortunately that is not correct: central government publications are by default copyright-protected (under Crown Copyright) and are released under the OGL or any other licence only when that is explicitly stated. In this case, the videos themselves state at the end that they are Crown Copyright, which means by default that we cannot use them.
So is there any explicit OGL release? As Fae notes, the website of the PM's office states at the bottom of each page that "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated". But that is a release for all content on that website, not all for "all official publications from the PM's office" as Fae suggests. Now it's true that the Youtube pages are linked to from the website, but nothing on the Youtube site suggests an OGL release. That conclusion is supported by noting that the official Flickr site is also linked from the website but that the still images there are released only under a non-commercial licence. It would seem doubtful in the extreme that the PM's office intends to release video content under a more open licence than it does still images, particularly videos that have built into them an explicit restrictive claim to Crown Copyright. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have written to the Prime Minister's office this morning (and have an email receipt) to clarify whether the default OGL does apply to the videos on their Youtube stream. I will publish any reply on Commons, if it is more substantive than 'we have passed on your letter to another department', and reopen this UNDEL if it closes in the meantime. --Fæ (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as moot. PM's office has been contacted and any new updates shall be handled/resolved via COM:OTRS -FASTILY 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mature metal Jail Bird.jpg[edit]

My Photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pet2014 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 8 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

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 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Christmas Truce 1914 IWM HU 35801.jpg[edit]

This is a photograph taken during the "Christmas Truce" event in 1914 (see lead photo at IWM). The photographer, Drummond, was in active service, part of the British Army, the photograph being taken in the middle of the battlefield. The Christmas Truce was not an official truce in the war campaign, in fact correspondence about this event in the days following made it clear that the Government and the Military would have preferred that this never had occurred. At the moment the shutter was pressed, Drummond was under active orders and not on holiday (you cannot be on holiday in the middle of battle). It is irrelevant that Drummond was not an "official" army photographer, the copyright act of 1911 applies, in particular ch. 46 para 5.1.b which legally makes the photograph Crown property in the absence of any verifiable contract or agreement to the contrary.

I have no idea what the contents of OTRS 2014121510009343 are, as it remains unpublished. However should the estate of Drummond wish to make a claim of copyright, they would need to demonstrate that a contract or agreement with the Crown (as represented by the British Army) waived the rights of the Crown to this photograph. No such claim can be verified at this time.

I note that it has been widely used in the press and across the internet, as it has been released by Associated Press for use by journalists, as well as being directly used as public domain material by Commons reusers.

I ask that the photograph be undeleted and we avoid setting a precedent by automatically complying with requests from the Imperial War Museum, who have a long track record of being unreliable for their statements of copyright and routinely make false claims of copyright on public domain material, such as the famous photograph taken in the USA of the Wright brothers first flight which the IWM claim copyright of and require payment for reusing for commercial purposes, even though they were informed two years ago that the claim was potentially an embarrassment for their organization.[8]. --Fæ (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support - the contents of the OTRS email are confidential and cannot be revealed here unless the correspondents agreed to do so. Irrespective, I believe this photo fits into the logic used for keeping File:Buzz Aldrin EVA Selfie.jpg, which was claimed as copyright Buzz Aldrin because he was "off-duty" when he took it. However, he was in the employ of NASA for the entire duration of his space adventure from the moment he set foot in his starship to the moment he landed back on Planet Earth. Therefore his selfie wasn't subject to his copyright but belonged to NASA. In the case of this photo, the truce was not officially sanctioned by the military top-brass, so all of these soldiers were effectively still "under orders to fight" and in some areas they did continue fighting or only had a truce to recover and bury bodies. Thus Drummond could not have been doing this in his leisure time. If it was taken at night, it could be arguably leisure time but this is clearly a daytime photo. It appears to me that this photo is subject to crown copyright. Green Giant (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As far as copyright claims by the IWM, I would note that this image, which was discussed by them with Fae here, was acknowledged by them nearly two years ago to no longer be under copyright, yet their website still claims it is (I would assume the change they made was to amend it from 'crown' copyright to 'their' copyright). The argument made by them that a digital reproduction of a photograph requires such a 'high degree of skill and judgement' so as to create a new copyright is clearly false, a 'faithful reproduction' of a two dimensional work is not a creative act. As they appear to uniformly claim they own the copyright in all such reproductions, it seems quite apparent that copyright claims in the name of the IWM itself, as opposed to the name of a third party, will need individual, and critical, review. Revent (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It is definitely true that copyright claims by the IWM cannot necessarily be taken at face value. Am looking into legal situation. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep deleted for time being. Whilst it is true that the photographer was a soldier, was the photo taken during his R&R period? Crown copyright may very well not apply here. russavia (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are on R&R you are sent away from the front line. No soldier is ever on holiday/vacation when in uniform, on the front line and facing the enemy. In fact when a soldier is on holiday, if they put on their uniform they are normally considered to be on duty at that moment. Military courts tend to be rather strict about that sort of thing. --Fæ (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is effectively no 'off duty' when a soldier is serving in an active combat zone (as opposed to a rear area). Soldiers are at all such times subject to military discipline, required to bear arms and stay in uniform, even when sleeping. A soldier in such circumstances does not have 'rest and recreation' time, that comes when their unit is rotated out of the battle area. At the time of the 'truce', the soldiers were under orders (which they were disobeying) to actively engage the enemy. Also, under military law (at least in the US, though British law would presumably be similar), soldiers are required to engage when in the presence of the enemy, and 'I was off duty' would not be a defense, as you would become 'on duty' when you became aware of the enemy. I don't think you can say he was plausibly 'off duty' as a moment when he could have been legally summarily shot for refusal to engage the enemy. Revent (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Rather complicated. TL;DR:  Keep deleted for now unless it can be shown that the image was first made available to the public before 1 January 1990.

The OTRS ticket 2014121510009343 is not visible to OTRS agents (at least not to me), and I have ignored it.

According to the IWM's 'object description', the photo in question was donated to the IWM by the photographer himself, which would support the suggestion that he was using a private camera - by no mean unknown by officers in WW1. No accession date is provided, but in 1976 Drummond provided some memoirs of the truce which bear a catalogue date of 1977.

Some of the recent interest in the image derives from its use in November 2014 on a series of commemorative stamps issued by the Royal Mail. The wording "special thanks to Malcolm Drummond" (perhaps a grandson or family member?) may suggest that the family retains some continued interest.

The relevant law as at 24 December 1914 was the UK Copyright Act 1911 (CA1911). Under that Act, what we now call 'Crown Copyright' required that the work be "prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department". As we know from the IWM that the photographer, Lt CAF Drummond (later Brigadier Drummond, OBE), was not an official war photographer (and they should know as they hold all the official service records), it seems highly unlikely that Crown Copyright can apply.

Under s21 CA1911, the author of the work was not necessarily the photographer, as now, but rather "the owner of the original negative at the time when said negative was made". The owner of the negative became the copyright owner unless the photo was commissioned by some other person or it was made "in the course of [the photographer's] employment" (s5(1) CA1911).

We don't know whether any of those terms applied in this case, but it does not matter since in any event by s21 CA1911 copyright in the photograph was set to expire 50 years after the making of the negative, ie on 24 December 1964. Nothing turns on who owned the copyright at any point.

On 1 June 1957 the Copyright Act 1956 (CA1956) came into force. It repealed the relevant sections of CA1911, and under the transitional provisions of the 9th Schedule, paragraph 2, redefined the expiry date to be "50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the photograph was taken", effectively extending the copyright to 31 December 1964. At that point, copyright expired.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CA1988) originally had no effect on the situation, but the terms of that Act were amended on 1 Jan 1996 by the Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performance Regulations 1995 (implementing the EU Term Directive 1993) with the result that some out of copyright works were brought back into copyright again. The works affected were those that remained under copyright in at least one other European Economic Area state on 1 Jan 1996. Although these provisions affected many works, it is most unlikely that any EEA state retained copyright protection on this image for the 31 year intervening period to 1996. It is therefore safe to conclude that there has been no extant standard copyright on the image since 1 Jan 1965.

CA1988 was further amended by the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996 (implementing the EU Term Directive 1993) which introduced into UK law for the first time a 25 year 'publication right', already standard in some other European countries and now standard throughout the European Union.

Under the 1996 Regulations - which were slightly amended again by the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 - the right was granted to anyone who makes available to the public for the first time a previously-unpublished out-of-copyright work with the permission of the owner of the corresponding physical medium (ie the original negative in this case). Making available to the public includes such acts as issuing copies, making the work available online, and exhibiting the work in public.

In practical terms, publication right is a new copyright (or at least a right stated to be 'equivalent to copyright'). It is in almost all respects the same as standard copyright, but excludes moral rights. Publication right expires at the end of the period of 25 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published.

If publication rights subsist, we cannot host the image on Commons as it will fall foul of COM:L which requires not only freedom in the US (OK, given the date), but also in the United Kingdom as Drummond was at the time a British subject.

As of January 2015, UK publication rights in this image will have expired if it was first made available to the public before 1 January 1990. I have not been able to discover online whether that is the case. The earliest copy of the image known to TinEye dates back only to 2008, though some dated folder names suggest that the image was online by 2005. It seems very likely that there were earlier publications in books or magazines, especially as the IWM has probably been in possession of it since around 1976.

Given the precautionary principle, we would need some better evidence than "it seems very likely", and if anyone could do some factual research, that would be most helpful. I have submitted a Freedom of Information Request to the IWM asking for details of the first instance they are aware of of the image being made available, a request that as a public body they are legally bound to answer. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a private copyright and had not been published before 1990, it is still copyrighted in the US with a term of 70pma. Since the author died in 1979, that would be until 2050. If it was first published 1978 or later with a copyright notice, the U.S. term is the same. Published 1964 through 1977 with a copyright notice, 95 years from publication. The only way it is PD in the US is if it is Crown Copyright, which would also make the term expire in the UK. Although... even if Crown Copyright, the UK publication right may well apply, since that is something owned by the publisher and not the author. I'm not 100% sure that we need to respect the publication right... strictly speaking, it is not copyright, though it has the exact same scope (I'm not sure that really counts as part of the "rule of the shorter term" for any other Berne countries). I tend to agree that it is probably not Crown Copyright though. Something can be a work for hire if it is done as part of duties, or using the employer's equipment (the latter is where the Aldrin photograph may come in, and taking photograph were part of their duties in general). But if this was the soldier's personal camera, then it gets fuzzier. It would have to be prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department. That might be the case if a superior officer asked him to take the photograph, but given the unofficial nature of the entire situation, that seems unlikely. Even though under active duty, personal photos are personal photos, to me. Even article 5(1)(b) (which is more corporate work for hire and not Crown Copyright) states that the work must be made in the course of his employment by that person, which again implies as part their expected duties. If someone takes a personal photograph at work using their own camera, it's still a personal photograph and not a work for hire. I'm also not sure that it was not restored to 70pma in the UK... I'm not as sure that all EEA countries had a separate term for photographs (or that they were based on date of creation), in which case it probably would have been copyrighted somewhere in 1995, which would have restored the UK rights to a full 70pma. So, I guess I'm also in the  Keep deleted camp, though possibly for different reasons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A small side point, though it won't affect the outcome: "No publication right arises from the publication of a work in which Crown copyright or Parliamentary copyright subsisted" - Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996, s16(5) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Strong oppose per otrs:2014121510009343 (A formal copyright complaint by a corporate and verified account). Alan (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, 'A formal copyright complaint by a corporate and verified account' would not, in itself, seem to be a valid reason to oppose undeletion; can I assume that you have seen the contents of the ticket and that you judge the complaint to be correct and legally justified? Can you see anything about the ticket which indicates why it is not available to other agents on the permissions list? Are you able to let me have a copy of the text in confidence by email? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MichaelMaggs, All OTRS agents with access to "sister projects:commons" can see. I moved to "permissions:permissions-commons. Alan (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, thanks. The content of the ticket doesn't add anything to the debate, though, as it's a bare claim that UK copyright subsists with no legal analysis to back up that claim. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus to undelete anything at this point in time -FASTILY 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bandeira do município de Guarani das Missões.jpg [edit]

O ficheiro File:Bandeira do município de Guarani das Missões.jpg , criado por mim de maneira totalmente independente, foi excluído do Commons em total violação a política de licenciamento. Estes outros ficheiros editados, de domínio público, também foram excluídos, sem ao menos apresentar uma justificativa válida:

Assim, solicito a restauração destes ficheiros com base nos elementos aqui estabelecidos. Ismael Silva Oliveira (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ismael Silva Oliveira. These are clearly scanned or copied from various sources. They are small, low res, and poor quality and are almost certainly not "own work" as claimed in the image descriptions. Since these are flags with Coats of Arms, the individual representations of the CoAs have copyrights. I also note that some of them are too small to be useful anywhere.
All but one of this user's uploads and image edits have either been deleted, been reverted, or have DRs pending.
The claim above that the deletions were outside of policy is silly -- the files had a DR which ran the full seven days and at which Ismael Silva Oliveira did not comment. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment De fato, os arquivos acima citados foram excluídos sem a apresentação de uma justificativa válida, em total desrespeito as regras aqui estabelecidas. Citação. Jameslwoodward escreveu: These are clearly scanned or copied from various sources. They are small, low res, and poor quality and are almost certainly not "own work" as claimed in the image descriptions. Since these are flags with Coats of Arms, the individual representations of the CoAs have copyrights. I also note that some of them are too small to be useful anywhere. Note que o tal usuário apoia sua argumentação em suposições infundadas, não havendo assim embasamento válido. Ismael Silva Oliveira (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" sem a apresentação de uma justificativa válida, em total desrespeito as regras aqui estabelecidas." There is no requirement that a DR prove that a file should be deleted. The burden of proof that a file should be kept on Commons is on the uploader. There was no such proof offered here and, as I said above, the files are almost certainly not your own work as you claimed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citação. Jameslwoodward escreveu: The burden of proof that a file should be kept on Commons is on the uploader. Não. O ônus da prova cabe sempre a quem acusa. E, acusar sem apresentar provas não é comprovar e sim difamar. Ismael Silva Oliveira (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not here. See Commons:Project_scope/Evidence/es where it says:
"En todos los casos, le corresponde al usuario que suba el archivo o proponga su conservación la carga de la prueba de demostrar que, en la medida de lo razonablemente confirmable:
  • el archivo está correctamente licenciado, o pertenece al dominio público; y
  • todo consentimiento necesario fue obtenido"
"In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined:
  • the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and
  • that any required consent has been obtained."
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pedro Nolasco Vergara Albano (1800 - 1867).jpg[edit]

Estimado señores Me dirijo a usted con el propósito que repongan la discusión de este archivo. Esta fotografía fue captada por su nieto en 1910 y este la puso en el álbum familiar respectivo. como he declaró este hoy se encuentra en mi poder. Esta fotografía tiene una antigüedad mayor a 100 años .

Muchas gracias y espero su respuesta . --Juanjose1956 (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diego Vergara Correa (1839 - 1891).jpg[edit]

Estimados Señores Pido por favor restaurar esta fotografía que tiene mas de 100 años de antigüedad. Yo tengo la original y esta fotografía fue dada a conocer en 1891 cuando fue elegido diputado. Una copia de esta fotografía esta en el congreso nacional en la ficha de este diputado.

Esperando tener favorable respuesta , los saluda --Juanjose1956 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pedro Nolasco Cruz Vergara (1918).jpg[edit]

Estimados señores:

Solicito a used reponer esta fotografía debido a que consta en ella que fue tomada en 1918 y esta en el álbum familiar que tengo en mi poder. Solicitó a usted por favor que reconsideren esto debido a su antigüedad supera los 75 años y esta mostrada a sus familiares y amigos desde ese mismo año. El personaje que aparece en esta fotografía falleció en 1939 por lo que también supera los 75 años de su muerte como último dueño de ellas o persona que las tuvo originalmente en su poder. Posteriormente a esta fecha no consta ningun otro dueño y la original la tengo yo.

Muchas gracias y espero que reconsideren su decisión. Los saluda --Juanjose1956 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:8milerd-Ryo_Kawasaki.jpg[edit]

Please refer to free license granted from the website owner ryo.kawasaki.com as indicated for the uploaded file, Ryo Kawasaki is also the owner of the album, record label, artist of the album as well as creator of the image. Album cover is very important element to identify that album at a glance. What is your ground for copyright violation? Who are you referring as an owner then? Please stop deleting my uploads blindly without any concrete ground of evidence for your claims and actions are legitimate, otherwise it is considered that you may be abusing your position to delete. it is a waste of my end of time if anyone can freely delete my uploads without solid legitimate evidence to do so. Also the image uploaded is very low resolution for visual identification of the album cover that cannot meet for any professional or commercial use under the copyright infringement or violation. Thanks! Postmagicx

 Comment Says Free license, ok. But, which? Public domain? CC-BY-NC-SA? CC0? CC-BY-ND? CC-BY? ... Alan (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unclear license status -FASTILY 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ZhongtianYi's History.jpg [edit]

这个照片由本人拍摄，是我自己创作的。

This photo was taken by myself,it taken by iphone5C , it is my own creation.

(This seems to be about File:Cover of "ZhongtianYi's History".jpg.)
穆雷夏, it may be true that you took the photograph, but you did not create the cover. Under copyright laws, we need permission from the book publisher. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 05:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Retrato de Pedro Nolasco Vergara Albano (1800 - 1867).jpg [edit]

Estimado señores
Me dirijo a usted con el propósito que repongan este archivo. Esto es un acercamiento de la fotografía fue captada por su nieto en 1910 y este la puso en el álbum familiar respectivo. como he declaró este hoy se encuentra en mi poder. Esta fotografía tiene una antigüedad mayor a 100 años .

Muchas gracias y espero su respuesta --Juanjose1956 (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Retrato de Pedro Nolasco Cruz Vergara.jpg [edit]

Estimados señores:

Solicito a used reponer esta fotografía debido a que consta en ella que fue tomada en 1930 y esta en el álbum familiar que tengo en mi poder. Solicitó a usted por favor que reconsideren esto debido a su antigüedad supera los 75 años y esta mostrada a sus familiares y amigos desde ese mismo año. El personaje que aparece en esta fotografía falleció en 1939 por lo que también supera los 75 años de su muerte como último dueño de ellas o persona que las tuvo originalmente en su poder. Posteriormente a esta fecha no consta ningun otro dueño y la original la tengo yo.

Muchas gracias y espero que reconsideren su decisión. Los saluda --Juanjose1956 (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diego Segundo Vergara Correa (1839 - 1891).jpg [edit]

Estimados Señores solicito por favor restaurar esta fotografía que tiene mas de 100 años de antigüedad. es un acercamientoque yohice a la fotografía tengo la original. Esta fotografía fue dada a conocer en 1891 cuando fue elegido diputado. Una copia de esta fotografía esta en el congreso nacional en la ficha de este diputado.

Esperando tener favorable respuesta , los saluda --Juanjose1956 (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pedro Nolasco Cruz Vergara en Cartagena.jpg [edit]

Solicito a used reponer esta fotografía debido a que consta en ella que fue tomada en el año indicado y esta en el álbum familiar que tengo en mi poder. Solicitó a usted por favor que reconsideren esto debido a su antigüedad supera los 75 años y esta mostrada a sus familiares y amigos desde ese mismo año. El personaje que aparece en esta fotografía falleció en 1939 por lo que también supera los 75 años de su muerte como último dueño de ellas o persona que las tuvo originalmente en su poder. Posteriormente a esta fecha no consta ningun otro dueño y la original la tengo yo.

Muchas gracias y espero que reconsideren su decisión. Los saluda --Juanjose1956 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vicente Correa Albano (1825 - 1884).jpg [edit]

Estimado señores Me dirijo a usted con el propósito que repongan la discusión de este archivo. Esta fotografía fue captada hace más de 100 años y esta esta puesta en el álbum familiar desde la fecha de su creación y conocida por la familia dedse desde su creación. Como he declaró este hoy se encuentra en mi poder. Esta fotografía tiene una antigüedad mayor a 100 años.

Esperando tener un respuesta favorable los Saluda --Juanjose1956 (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diego Vergara Albano (1803 - 1887).jpg [edit]

Estimados Señores
Solicito por favor restaurar esta fotografía que tiene mas de 100 años de antigüedad. Esta fotografía fue dada a conocer cuando era senador de la Republica de Chile. Una copia de esta fotografía antes de 1973 esta en el congreso nacional en la ficha de este diputado y señador. Yo tengo la original .

Esperando tener favorable respuesta , los Saluda --Juanjose1956 (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mercedes Lois Vergara.jpg[edit]

Estimado señores Me dirijo a usted con el propósito que repongan la este archivo. Esta fotografía fue captada por su nieto en 1910 y este la puso en el álbum familiar respectivo. como he declaró este hoy se encuentra en mi poder. Esta fotografía tiene una antigüedad mayor a 100 años .

Muchas gracias y espero su respuesta.--Juanjose1956 (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Caithnessshintyclublogo.jpg[edit]

cOULD THIS FILE BE UNDELETED, THE FILE WAS CREATED AS A LOGO FOR CAITHNESS SHINTY CLUB, IT IS NOT UNDER ANY COPYRIGHT WHATSO EVER. IF YOU GO TO OUR PAGE - WWW.FACEBOOK.COM/CAITHNESSSHINTYCLUB , YOU WILL SEE THE LOGO IS IN USE THERE.

THANKS


ALAN MACDONALD CAITHNESS SHINTY CLUB CAPTAIN

Macdonald26 (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is used online, it is still protected by copyright. Since there is an article on the English Wikipedia about the club, you should upload it there as a non-free image, which does not require permission. However, you should make sure that the resolution is low (150 to 200 pixels wide). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 05:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notify Macdonald26. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 05:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 09:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FDusa1488 Photo Wally Eaton.jpg & File:Flying Dutchman photo by wally eaton.jpg[edit]

OTRS request from Wally Eaton [9] (content removed) Jee 04:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ShelXle_screen1.jpg and File:Shelxle.jpg[edit]

Permission received from http://moliso.de/ otrs:2014120810006976. Jee 06:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jan Roelof Kruithof & Richard Drost.jpg[edit]

File:Jan Roelof Kruithof & Richard Drost.jpg

Deze foto is gemaakt door een vriend van mij en ik stat daar zelf op met Jan Roelof Kruithof. Op deze foto rust geen copyricht.

This picture was taken by a friend of mine and I stat there myself with Jan Roelof Kruithof. In this photo calm no copy dir.

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 09:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jan Roelof Kruithof & Richard Drost.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Restore the pictures. Defoto's I get aanngeleverd of athletes, I have made or by friends of mine. Can this be repaired? Richard Drost (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See above -FASTILY 09:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

thumb|Smokingroove B&W.[edit]

I have been granted use of this image by Smokingroove, the owners of the copyright for this picture.

Please un-delete asap.

I have asked the copyright owner to email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with the request to let me use this image.BluntWorthy (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as inactionable. This is being resolved via OTRS -FASTILY 05:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anne-Catherine Robert-Hauglustaine high.jpg[edit]

Permission received for picture depicted at http://icom.museum/the-governance/anne-catherinerobert-hauglustaine/ from that site. [10]. But I failed to locate that deleted file in Commons. Jee 16:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 05:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kondensstreifen Contrail.png [edit]

Ich habe das Bild mittlerweile neu bei commons eingestellt. Ich versichere, dass ich dieses Bild selbst gemacht habe. Bitte entfernen sie den Marker "user has been warned about copyright violation" von meinem Nutzernamen, da keine Copyrightverletzung vorliegt oder je vorlag.

Vielen Dank!

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 05:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Restore my files[edit]

At one time I had deleted two files (File:Весело, не так ли))).jpg, File:Большевики метро.jpg), when there was doubt about its authorship. Ask them to restore, because I am the author of them. Chippollino (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 05:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Video Palace 38.jpg, File:RGB BW comp arch DB 200145 K0405, 2014.jpg and File:Distribution 1, 2013.jpg[edit]

Permission received from the artist, forwarded by an address belongs to the site where those works are displayed. otrs Jee 06:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 07:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vlad In Tears 2014.jpg[edit]

According to this OTRS, User:Frau Molle is from http://www.mordhorst-music.com/ who owns http://vladintears.com/ and the photographer is in a work for hire contract. There seems a COI at EN; but not in Commons. ;) Jee 13:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paul Ekman.jpg[edit]

This OTRS confirms the uploader of this file is Publications and Permissions Specialist @ paulekman.com Jee 16:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeronis de Soysa4.jpg[edit]

As per Sri Lankan (and international) copyright laws, this picture is permisable. Both the artist and the person that commissioned it has died well over 100 years ago. In any case any rights are held by the family. So, I do not know why others fuss about it. The original is a colour portrait. This B&W copy was published in the autobiography (commissioned by the family) in 1904; De Soysa Charitaya by C. Don Bastian. All have passed away over a hundred years ago. How can Mr. de Soysa's page be barred from his own portrait !?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rippleworth (talk • contribs) 23:35, 11 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support The lesson for you should be that you must not claim "own work" when in fact you have just lifted an image from the web. This would not have been deleted if you had acknowledged the source and gave dates for the work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Works on the commons must be PD in both the US and country of origin. If this is a Sri Lankan work, as you imply, the copyright duration is 70 years pma per COM:CRT. While the publication may be 1904, that would only impact status in the US. Where is a source that identifies the author and his/her date of death? COM:L requires a source, "information sufficient for others to verify the license status even when not required by the license itself or by copyright laws". Your statement here, even if true, is not adequate. Эlcobbola talk 22:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I admit that it is remotely possible that this work is under copyright, but it's a stretch. Unless the portrait was done postmortem, it has to be earlier than 1862, see Jeronis de Soysa. Even if the portrait was painted postmortem -- very unlikely, I think -- we still know that it is older than 1904. Ordinarily, that's not quite old enough for me to want to assume that the painter had been dead for 70 years, but 1904 combined with the unlikelihood of a postmortem painting puts it beyond a significant doubt for me that the portrait is out of copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough. I didn't realize the subject was that old. Эlcobbola talk 22:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VenelinTsachevsky.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am new and maybe didn't chose the right License for the image. The file was provided to me by Venelin Tsachevsky with the request to use it on wiki for his biographical page. Ptopalova (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Since Venelin Tsachevsky is the subject, it is unlikely that he owns the copyright and has the right to license it here. Permission "to use it on wiki for his biographical page" is nowhere near sufficient for Commons or WP -- we require that an image be free for any use by anyone anywhere. In order to restore it, the actual copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KARA-YoungJi.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I took this picture. So I have the copy right of this picture. Eipemahc (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Per Jim. DLindsley Need something? 15:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:'Map' by Aram Bartholl, part of the show 'From Here On' during Rencontres Arles, France 2011.jpg and File:Map by Aram Bartholl at Skulpturenpark Berlin 2007.JPG[edit]

This OTRS confirms User:Arambar is Aram Bartholl at http://www.datenform.de/kontakteng.html

The permission given is a bit vague ("I decided to contribute these pictures under the mentioned license cc 4.0 share alike to the wikimedia commons."); but I don't see a need to contact again as permission is already in the file pages since author of the sculpture Map and copyright holder of photographs are same. So I think other pictures previously deleted can also be undeleted. Jee 11:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support the first,  Oppose the second. Since Aram Bartholl appears in the second image and it obviously isn't a selfie, unless he has a written agreement with the actual photographer, he is not the copyright holder and cannot license the image. In any case, we need an OTRS statement from the actual copyright holder covering the second image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First one done -FASTILY 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks; I replied through OTRS as Jim suggested. Jee 02:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Darrud1.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I own this picture. Mossmm (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The image appears at www.darrud.com with an explicit "All Rights Reserved". It also have a large watermark for that site. While watermarks are not forbidden on Commons, I see little point in keeping a poorly focused image of a forest brook with a large watermark across it. In any event, it will require permission from the actual copyright holder, see OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spanish-wiki.jpg[edit]

The file is a spanish version of the english infographic comparing visa requirements.

The infographic was made by me with the help of a designer colleague. We work at a social enterprise to help deliver free information for migrants on immigration. the infographic illustrates the text and current immigration rules for everyone to understand. We have it on the english wikipedia up. We wanted to have the information to be accessible to more via a translation in Spanish.

 Oppose Please email OTRS saying that you have permission for this infographic. They will restore it for you. DLindsley Need something? 15:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jimgelcerportrait900x1500.jpg[edit]

Permission has been provided for use by the rights owner. See email below:


from: Patrick Ross <email> to: "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> cc: "jim@gelcer.com" <email> date: Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:07 PM subject: Photo Use

To Whom it May Concern

I hereby affirm that I, Patrick Ross, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jimgelcerportrait900x1500.jpg I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. 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. Patrick Ross --Jimgelcer (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Thanks for the email to the OTRS team. However, please wait until OTRS confirms permission. They will restore the file for you. DLindsley Need something? 15:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email you sent. -FASTILY 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Renee James Intel President.jpg [edit]

Please undelete this file |Image=Renee James Intel President I am new to Wikipedia.I am the Technical Assistant to Renee James and trying to update her bio page. She has purchased the rights to this photo. This photo is also protected by the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. It is owned by Intel Free Press on Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/people/54450095@N05. It states, Copyright to all Intel Free Press content is owned by Intel, but words, photos and videos we share on this site may be republished, edited, and re-used free of charge unless otherwise noted. We ask only that you cite The Intel Free Press when republishing or linking to our stories, and that quotes and information posted here are not be taken out of context.

Can you help me cite the correct CC license and Intel Free Press so we can use this photo? Thank you!

--AmyLWarner2 (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way to do it is to have Renee James send a free license to OTRS. DLindsley Need something? 16:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AmyLWarner2: If the photo is already on Flickr, all you have to do is give us the URL to it. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 16:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I don't think so. "and that quotes and information posted here are not be taken out of context" is a restriction on use that precludes certain kinds of derivative works (parodies, for example). The stated source of the image, http://newsroom.intel.com/community/intel_newsroom/bios?n=Renee J. James&f=searchAll, has an explicit copyright notice. Therefore I think we must have a free license from an officer of Intel using the procedure at OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Unless I missed it, this image does not appear in the photostream of the Flickr account you've linked. Accordingly, I don't know why statements there would be expected to be relevant. Secondly, if James "purchased the rights to this photo," we would require a copy (e.g., scan) of the related document which transferred the intellectual property to her (or to an entity under her control) to be submitted using the procedure at COM:OTRS. Эlcobbola talk 22:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
E, I agree fully with your first point, but I think your second is overkill. We generally accept the word of a seemingly responsible party that he or she holds the license to the image. In this case, the image description says that it is Intel image -- a work for hire presumably taken by an Intel employee. A license from a corporate officer of Intel would be fine with me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The line I quoted ("She has purchased the rights to this photo") suggests it was not taken by an Intel employee (generally one would not expect a need to purchase the rights in such a circumstance.) I don't consider a company president to be adequate in this circumstance, as IP licensing is not a responsibility of or within the purview of that office. A member of Intel's general counsel, IP department or CEO/CoB would be sufficient, however. Эlcobbola talk 22:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's confused -- the image description says its an Intel photo, but, as you say, the "purchased" quote suggests not. We are, however, agreed that the Flickr "license" is not enough -- it needs OTRS from a responsible person. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TOM TAILOR Logo.png[edit]

Permission received from http://www.tom-tailor.com/ Jee 17:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bog Studio 2 wiki.jpg[edit]

This photo of my grandfather Abraham Bogdanove should not have been deleted. There are no copyright issues with it. I have the provenance and the actual photo in my possession. The photo was given to me by the artist's wife, who was my grandmother. I think my grandfather deserves to have his picture on his article.--Bogframe (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Seth J. Bogdanove 1/12/2014[reply]

 Oppose Please send a free license to OTRS. You are also asked to see the deletion request for reference. DLindsley Need something? 19:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I disagree. The copyright to a photograph of your grandfather belongs or belonged to the photographer or his heirs, not to the owner of the actual photograph. If the image has not previously been published, then it could well be under copyright for another forty years (the US rule for images not published before 2003 is 70 years after the photographer's death or, if the photographer is unknown, the earlier of 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation.) The description says it is circa 1935, so if the photographer is unknown, it will be under copyright until 2055. While the article may deserve an image, it needs to be one that is free of copyright or, of course, you may upload this image to WP:EN under Fair Use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Great Teachers Mural, CCNY.jpg[edit]

I own this photo, which was taken by my grandfather Abraham Bogdanove. It was taken upon his completing his Masterpiece "The Great Teachers" in the Lincoln Hallway of Shepherd Hall at The College Of The City of New York in 1930. The photo was taken in three sections. It was left to me by my grandmother who was the wife of the artist/photographer. I personally scanned it and digitally stitched the three sections together. There are no copyright restrictions on this image. I own the physical photograph and have the provenance. This should not have been deleted. Please replace it.--Bogframe (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Seth J. Bogdanove January 12.2015[reply]

 Oppose Please send a free license to OTRS. You are also asked to see the deletion request for reference. DLindsley Need something? 19:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose There are two copyrights here, both, apparently, originally owned by your grandfather. They are the copyright to the mural and the copyright to the photographs. As the closing Admin pointed out, owning prints of photographs does not make you the owner of the copyrights. They belong to your grandfather's heirs, as does the copyright to the mural. Since he died in 1946, I doubt if your grandmother is still living, but if any of their children are living, then, absent any special provisions in his will, they -- your parents, aunts, and uncles -- own the copyrights. Only if both of your parents are dead do you have an ownership interest, jointly with any living aunts, uncles, and/or cousins. I am not a lawyer and am not giving legal advice here, but as I understand the law, any one of you can license the copyrights, but whoever did so could be held responsible by the others for lost profits. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Edgar Melhem Salinas.jpg[edit]

Es necesario que restauren el archivo, el nombre de la imagen es del Lic. Edgardo Melhem Salinas como se indica en la ficha de registro. Es una foto que fue hecha por Edgardo Melhem Salinas.

La foto en mención es File:Edgar Melhem Salinas.jpg

Esa foto puede ser visualizada en wikipedia y wikimedia por así conceder el permiso y es necesario que se visualice en la pagina de https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Melhem_Salinas


JFroylanLM (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FAMACHA chart.jpg [edit]

I believe this file was deleted in error. That file had no copyright restrictions as I took that picture myself. Frankly, I find it annoying that wikipedia assumes this file has copyright restrictions, and promptly deletes it without fair warning for me to respond to it.

 Not done derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons. -FASTILY 02:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Glamboy P in September 2014.jpg again[edit]

After a bit of misunderstanding, the e-mail address in #2014121710013594 has been verified. (Refer to Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-01#File:Glamboy P in September 2014.jpg.) Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 06:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ClaudineNierth portrait s.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We have a permission via OTRS-ticket:2015011210014218 by the author. Emha (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Magnusdagon.jpg[edit]

Permission received from an address mentioned no his blog. Stated as copyright holder as transfer of copyright from friend who took it. Used on the back of his books. Jee 17:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Miriam Goldschmidt.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We have a permission via OTRS-ticket:2015011210013817. Emha (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Alan (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:World+Club+7+s+Day+Two+oZDtBlHrHGKl.jpg[edit]

Simply just trying to add a photo to my wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesCraigwell (talk • contribs)

 Not done Getty Images. See COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. Yann (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Books by Simone Aliprandi[edit]

These files were deleted years ago as out of scope because they were spammed (see here). Spam is obviously to be condemned and avoided but these are "freely-licensed educational media content" and could be used on Wikisource, so I believe they are in scope and should be undeleted. --Jaqen (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There are two issues here. The first is, are they in scope? Aliprandi has no WP article, so it is questionable whether he meets our requirements for notability. The second is copyright -- these are copyrighted works and we have no evidence of permission for them to be on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I'm not sure the notability of the author is a concern, for say something like Wikibooks. I think I see a version of the file above on Google Books here, and it says the entire content is licensed CC-BY-SA-3.0-unported . It does say it is self-published, so the upload was a part of self-promotion, but it is a legitimately licensed book and looks very much like valid educational content. Version 2.0 of the book is online here, same license, with HTML (version 1.1) and PDF versions, so there is nothing stopping anyone else from uploading it (or perhaps better, putting the text directly on Wikibooks or Wikisource). I guess the question is if there is value in having the particular PDF available. There is a 3.0 update of the Italian version here, which is from 2013 and newer than the upload above, presumably. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim: (1) I am not very familiar with en.wikisource but I'm sure that on it.wikisource the author does not have to be notable for the work to be published there; (2) The books are indeed CC-BY-SA, see here, here and here. --Jaqen (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Carl and Jaqen -- perhaps you should have looked a little more closely at the sites you listed above. The three listed below, all taken from your two comments above, show a book with a CC-BY-NC-SA-ND license on the cover. Since the subject of the book is CC licenses, I think we need to obey what the author actually put on the cover of the book.
The second and third of the deleted PDF files also show CC-BY-NC-SA-ND licenses prominently. I don't see how we can keep a file that on its first page displays an unacceptable license.
As far as scope goes, WikiSource deletion policy says that "Non-notable content, not significantly peer-reviewed or previously published in a significant edition or forum" is a reason for deletion. I cannot find any reviews of the books, even at Amazon (where the NC-ND license also shows up prominently).
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um no, the books are licensed CC-BY-SA-3.0-unported. It says as much on the copyright page of the book: "This book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribute - ShareAlike 3.0 unported license." It mentions some bits were taken from elsewhere which have their own licenses. The cover is merely a representation of all the Creative Commons licenses since that is the *subject* of the book. (If you think about it, it makes no sense to have an ND and SA portion of the same license.) The book cover is not a license declaration; the copyright page however is. You may have a point on Wikisource. It should be fine on Wikibooks. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes. I agree that the covers may be simply illustrative of the icons, but the second pdf on its page two, immediately below the copyright notice, clearly says "Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non Commerciale - Condividi allo Stesso Modo 2.5" which is CC-BY-NC-SA, with the URL http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/it/legalcode. so at least the second PDF does not have an appropriate license.
As for Wikibooks, I think it these are also out of scope there: Wikibooks is not for previously published texts. Since the book is available at Amazon, I think it cannot be hosted at Wikibooks and since the author is not notable, Wikisource is also out. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for undeletion request.
@Jameslwoodward On it.wikisource there are a lot of texts from not notable authors, the text is notable, not the author. Like in Commons: there are a lot of pictures by not-notable photographer (like me and you), because is the subject of the picture to be notable, not the photographer. Therefore issue n°1 does not exist. --Accurimbono (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus to restore anything at this time -FASTILY 07:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Resaca a València - 2.jpeg[edit]

Whole fileset was deleted due a theorical "Out of scope" reason, but that theorical "out of scope" was never justified in any deletion request. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Resaca a València - 1.jpeg, the second part of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Coentor and many others.--Coentor (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support In general, concerns about project scope should go through a DR. Some, for instance #5, are really blurry and not useful given that the set contains other photos with acceptable quality of these people; those can then be renominated for deletion. BTW, it appears that you only uploaded #1 to #18 plus #21. I don't see any trace of #19, #20, #22, and #23. Lupo 12:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe didn't existed. Its weird to have #21 but no #19 and #20, but I don't know what could happen.--Coentor (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I agree with you. In my opinion, I feel that the deletions were uncalled for, and that any files which are thought to be out of the project's scope should go through a deletion request first. Also, I am finding that the last two images that you mention were never created. Anyways: @Fastily: Pinging deleting admin. DLindsley Need something? 00:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 07:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VJS.png[edit]

I have the copyright to use this image. It's sad that without discussing it was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProudJain (talk • contribs)

 Oppose Even when a copyright owner does not, we still care about the copyright. If you really want this file undeleted, please have yourself or the copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. DLindsley Need something? 00:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2000 yr old Jain Sculpture.jpg[edit]

Hi, This is a copy of File:Thirakoil-Parsava nathar.JPG. So you can't upload it as own work. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but my question remains - Can't I use photos of my close friends (with their permission)?
Sure you can use them. With a important restriction: the owner has to send the permission to our support team, because you don't own the copyright. Look at Commons:Email templates for the processing. --Emha (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Galați Colaj.gif[edit]

I created this content myself : source Own work
I agree to leave it to public use.
--BelugaMaster (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may have made the montage, but did you personally take all the the photographs that are included? In order to host the montage here we will need licences in respect of each separate image. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I don't think any of the images are in Category:Galați or its subs, but at least two of them look like postcards and I'd be very surprised if all of them are actually our uploader's own work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MBELL_JOHN_GOTTI_SHADOWOFMYFATHER.jpg[edit]

Please undelete this file. This is my own Original Artwork. I am the Artist and I give permission to have this picture on my https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bell_(artist) Wikipedia page. Galleriared (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Galleriared: Here at Wikimedia Commons, we cannot accept permission only for Wikipedia or "fair use". Material must be free to use by anyone for any purpose (even commercially), with some restrictions like giving credit. However, you can upload it at the English Wikipedia at a low resolution. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 17:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tip-logo-wiki.png[edit]

Hi, the usage of that picture is not a copyright breach, I have full rights to use the image as the representant of the organization [[11]] where I have used this picture. --Juraj.tilesch (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Please have the organization send a free license to OTRS. Unless that email is sent and it is processed, we cannot keep the image here. DLindsley Need something? 00:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Creatio Fantastica-logotyp.jpg[edit]

(Logotyp pisma Creatio Fantastyka)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to ask you to not delete the file File:Creatio Fantastica-logotyp.jpg (Logotyp pisma Creatio Fantastyka) as I am in the process of obtaining licence from the author. If the file was deleted permanently, I would like to ask for the possibility of uploading it once again with proper information supplied.

Best regards,

Malgorzata_Mika — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malgorzata Mika (talk • contribs)

 Oppose The author needs to send a free license for the image to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). Unless that is done, we cannot keep the image here. DLindsley Need something? 00:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vedenie-plus-predsedovia-online.jpg[edit]

Hi, the usage of this picture is not a copyright breach, I have full rights to use the image as the representant of the organization [[12]] where I have used this picture. --Juraj.tilesch (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Please have the organization send a free license to OTRS. Unless that email is sent and it is processed, we cannot keep the image here. DLindsley Need something? 00:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ubuntu Touch Nexus 7.jpg[edit]

Permission received from an address mentioned as the registrant of the source site. Jee 17:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Alan (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IRINSGhadirsubmarine.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have created this picture by my OWN and i possess this file and I want to share it in public. مصطفی پلنگ (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IRINSJamaranFrigate.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have created this picture by my OWN and i possess this file and I want to share it in public. مصطفی پلنگ (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Guruness Brownie[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I myself, Guruness Brownie / Miriam Itot, hold the copyright for all deleted photos. The ref website gurunessbrownie-photography is my own and it displays all photos which I have personally taken at various concerts. The usage of the deleted photos is therefore entitled Guruness Brownie (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Identity theft is commons here, both by fans and by vandals. Since we have no way of knowing that User:Guruness Brownie is, in fact, the owner of http://gurunessbrownie-photography.com and that site has a clear copyright notice, policy requires that you send a license to OTRS. The e-mail must come from an address traceable to http://gurunessbrownie-photography.com. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent the requested OTRS permission just now from the website related email address

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 07:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Loonybin0 Larger Portrait.png [edit]

This is my own modification of a graphic in a freely available set of content from swtor.com, the site for the MMORPG Star Wars: The Old Republic. The original graphic (which is a much larger picture), is included in the downloadable Fan Site Kit available on that same site. I have used this avatar in numerous other places (not on Wikimedia) without any trouble.

The exact same is true for File:Loonybin0 Smaller Portrait.png which was deleted at the same time.

 Oppose Derivative works of other unfree works are forbidden on Wikimedia Commons. If you are, in fact, the copyright holder, please have the owners of swtor.com send a free license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. DLindsley Need something? 00:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 07:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:(KOVATS-BERNAT) 2010 - Childhood.pdf File:Muhlenberg Magazine - 2013.pdf File:(KOVATS-BERNAT) 2006 - Anthropologica.pdf File:(KOVATS-BERNAT) 2002 - American Anthropologist.pdf File:(KOVATS-BERNAT) 1999 - Critique of Anthropolo...[edit]

Files requested to be undeleted on the grounds that I am the copyright holder: File:(KOVATS-BERNAT) 2010 - Childhood.pdf File:Muhlenberg Magazine - 2013.pdf File:(KOVATS-BERNAT) 2006 - Anthropologica.pdf File:(KOVATS-BERNAT) 2002 - American Anthropologist.pdf File:(KOVATS-BERNAT) 1999 - Critique of Anthropology.pdf File:(KOVATS-BERNAT) 2000 - Peace Review.pdf File:(KOVATS-BERNAT) 2013 - No Balm in Gilead.pdf File:(KOVATS-BERNAT) 2014 - After the End of Days.pdf File:(KOVATS-BERNAT) 2013 - The Bullet is Certain.pdf File: No Balm in Gilead (2013).pdf

I hereby affirm that I, J. Christopher Kovats-Bernat, Ph.D., am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the articles in PDF form listed above that have been deleted from my Wikipedia article.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content 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.

J. Christopher Kovats-Bernat, Ph.D. Copyright holder and Author of all of the above listed articles in PDF form that have been deleted from my Wikipedia article 12 January 2015

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 07:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wikipedia user "Charles Kludge".jpg[edit]

OTRS confirms user is the copyright holder. :) Jee 08:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 08:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mass Mental Official Band Picture.jpg and File:Mass Mental Live Whisky-A-Go-Go August 26th-2014 by The Universe is Not Enough.jpg [edit]

Permission received from http://www.flyart.com/ who created those works. Jee 10:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Alan (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Alan, other picture has any issue? Jee 15:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pixelated Intifada.jpg [edit]

Permission received from an address belongs to the source. Jee 11:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Alan (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ekft 3.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014121310005163 Jee 16:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - those images might have a scope problem but that should be discussed via a regular DR. Natuur12 (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jacek Andrzej Kozlowski "Bruk Warszawski – Oczekiwanie 2004"; granit.jpg [edit]

Hello, Please undelete the picture. The phot has been added on the basis of permission of Jacek Andrzej Kozlowski who is the owner of webpage jacekkozlowski.com and owner of the picture and owner of the sculpture.

best regards bzomar --Bzomar (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission required. INeverCry 20:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Christmas Truce 1914 IWM HU 35801.jpg [edit]

This file recently came up for undeletion, which was rejected on fallacious grounds and then closed without further comment. The main argument basically came down to the claim that one person did something illegal, so we have to respect another person's right to do the same. The rest of the argument was based entirely on non-legal opinion and just as spurious as the original one from the IWM, which, as was pointed out, has a long history of making illegal copyright claims.

This is not a debating club, either we have legal cause to reject the image or we don't, and in this case we most clearly don't. Either restore the image, or offer a much better reason than "here's some reason I just made up".

Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Related discussion: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive#File:Christmas Truce_1914 IWM HU 35801.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christmas Truce 1914 IWM HU 35801.jpg. Yann (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Question The summary of the previous discussions linked above is that it was taken by Cyril Alexander Fraser Drummond (died 1979) with his personal camera, so that Crown Copyright doesn't apply, and that it will be under copyright for 70 years after his death, i.e. 2050. Why do you think this argument is not valid? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Imperial War Museum has informed us (Wikimedia Commons, via the OTRS system) of a extant copyright on an image that we, in good faith, believed to have expired. The fact that the IWM has now informed us that they believe copyright still exists on the image is all the legal cause we need to reject the image. There's absolutely no way that anybody should be restoring an image that has a credible copyright claim made against it. Nick (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Maury is relying on:
"where the author was in the employment of some other person under a contract for service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person..."
I don't know the court cases in the UK, but I know that in the USA, which has very similar language in the applicable law, a photograph taken by an ordinary soldier or sailor is not a Federal work and therefore PD unless his actual military job is as a photographer. I suspect that a UK court would interpret this the same way -- that Drummond's employment was to shoot Germans with artillery, not a camera and that this is does not have a Crown Copyright.
I also remind us all that we tend to give strong credence to the formal statements of responsible organizations such as the IWM even when we think they are wrong. (As noted above, in this case, I don't think the IWM is wrong).
Finally, OTRS 2014121510009343 amounts to a DMCA takedown notice and I don't think we can simply ignore it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to examine OTRS 2014121510009343, it is a pity it remains unavailable when the actions from it are public.
If it does "amount to a DMCA takedown" then it is beyond the pay grade of OTRS volunteers and should be passed to legal for review. --Fæ (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why the text of the message cannot be shown here, but I know that others have decided that is not appropriate, so while I'm in favor of it, I won't do it myself. The message states that the IWM wants the image taken down and why -- that's the essence of a DMCA notice. It does not have all the formal language of a DMCA notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is not actionable (legal should see this) by us, not to mention no consensus to restore -FASTILY 01:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tip-logo-wiki.png [edit]

Hi, the usage of that picture is not a copyright breach, I have full rights to use the image as the representant of the organization [[13]] where I have used this picture. --Juraj.tilesch (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rolene-strauss-crowned-miss-world-2014-at-the-ceremony-in-london 1.jpg ; File:Catalina-traje-tipico1.jpg; File:Andrade 1344.jpg[edit]

I want to apologize for my ignorance, because all I want is to continue contributing in good faith to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, also ask for help on how to correct the copyright of existing files, I expect a prompt response, Greetings

Quiero pedirles perdón por mi ignorancia, pues lo único que quiero es seguir aportando de buena fe para Wikipedia y Wikimedia Commons, además pedir ayuda de cómo corregir los derechos del autor de los archivos ya existentes, espero una pronta respuesta, saludos--Dimitra megest (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Copvios. INeverCry 20:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SislerHighSchoolMrS.png [edit]

Hello !

My teacher wanted me to create a Wikipedia page for him, so I uploaded a picture for him. He gave me the right to use the photo along with making a page for him. I didn't plan on making the page an official article, but more of a page for him to show his class stuff. I would greatly appreciate if the picture was re uploaded. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weesstt (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose Image appears here without a free license. Per COM:OTRS, additional evidence of permission is required in this circumstance, which may be submitted using the process on that page. Also note that copyright belongs to the author (e.g., photographer), so your teacher, as the mere subject, would not hold the copyright absent a conveyance from the photographer. Эlcobbola talk 18:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 20:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Resurrection.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014121410004448 Jee 06:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. I will leave putting {{PermissionOTRS}} and replying to customer to Jee. — Revi 07:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RJ Thompson The Cognitive Rules CD Artwork.jpg [edit]

Hi there,

I own the copyright to this image. I am RJ Thompson, the subject of the photograph / artwork. I would like to upload it so that I can use it across the web and wikipedia.

Please advise on the best way to achieve this, if not through commons.

Many thanks,

RJ Thompson Chicken Wire Records — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenwirerecords (talk • contribs)

Hi,
First please read COM:SCOPE, COM:L, and COM:DW.
For every document previously published, including album covers, a formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder/s required. INeverCry 18:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alfonso XIII de España by Kaulak.jpg[edit]

According the Spanish rules of copyright that I could read here, a photo previous to 1987 is public 80 years after the death of the author or, if the photo is anonymous, 70 years after the moment when this photo was taken. The photo of Alfonso XIII was taken in 1916 (99 years ago) and his author was the photographer Antonio Kaulak, who died in september of 1933 (81 years ago).

As an evidence of the authorship, the Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya.

--EeuHP (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Restored by Nick. INeverCry 18:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ADAM MARIAN PETE"ZEBRA FELIZ.jpg [edit]

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

auf Grund eines Fehlers beim aufladen meines Bildes File:ADAM MARIAN PETE"ZEBRA FELIZ.jpg meinerseits, ist das Foto gelöscht.Ich möchte Sie um Wiederherstellung bitten. Es handelt sich um meine eigene Arbeit

Maxemilian PT (MAX PT (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

auf Grund eines nicht vollständig ausgeführten Ladevorgangs, würde mein Bild File:ADAM MARIAN PETE "NUEVA ETERNIDAT".jpg gelöscht. Ich bitte Sie um Wiederherstellung des Bildes. Es handelt sich um meine eigene Arbeit.

Maxemilian PT (MAX PT (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

If you are, in fact, the artist Adam Marian Pete, then please send a free license to OTRS. If you are not the artist, then the artist must send the license. In either case, the e-mail must come from an address at www.adammarianpete.com or otherwise be traceable to the artist. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 18:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zainab Balogun Headshot.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014121510013249 from http://www.studiowellbrook.com/ received. Jee 15:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amr Diab at World Music Awards 2007.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014121510020321 from http://www.nayformedia.com/ received. Jee 17:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Please add the OTRS ticket as soon as you have a chance. INeverCry 18:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Artist Mohsen Attya[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS ticket received from author for his works (including permission: CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported), ticket no.: 2014120110017977 Ibrahim.ID ♒ 02:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Ibrahim.ID: Please add the OTRS ticket to each of these and remove the no permission tags, adjust the licenses if needed, etc, as soon as you get a chance. INeverCry 18:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Harsh, co-founder of MakerSquare.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014121610020097 from http://www.makersquare.com/ Jee 07:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Please add the OTRS ticket as soon as you get a chance. INeverCry 17:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

ADAM PETE "NUEVA ETERNIDAT" GEMÄLDE ACRYL AUF LEINWAND 2006 160 X 230 CM[edit]

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

durch eine nicht vollständige Ausarbeitung meines Antrages, würde mein Bild gelöscht. Ich möchte Sie um Wiederherstellung des Bildes "NEUE ETERNIDAT" bitten. Es handelt sich um meine eigene Arbeit.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Adam Pete ( MAX PT (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

 Not done: Procedural close. INeverCry 23:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zoic_logo_stacked_2009.jpg [edit]

I work for the company and this is not an infringement, but a request by management to update the brand on our wiki page. Please re-post ASAP. Brookebrigham (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that this is a copyrightable logo (I can't see it) it would need a formal release from the company (see COM:OTRS). Alternatively, it could probably be uploaded directly to Wikipedia as fair use... the company needs to specifically understand the specific license terms involved with releasing a image on Commons (specifically, that it allows anyone else to make derivative works, or use the logo commercially as long as they don't violate the trademark). Revent (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Per Revent. The company needs to send a free license for the logo to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. DLindsley Need something? 22:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the procure at OTRS and follow the instructions there. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just confirming for Revent and others that it is indeed copyrightable and not something that's covered under PD-textlogo or similar. Nick (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 23:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cover of "ZhongtianYi's History".jpg[edit]

一方面，这的确是本人亲手拍摄的图片；另一方面，关于版权许可，根据中国大陆著作权法规定，不具有商业性质的作品允许在未经著作权人许可之下允许发表。

Firstly, it is taken by me.

Secondly, about the copyright permission, this cover is free for use which is non-commercial.

 Oppose We need copyright permission which permits both commercial and non-commercial use and which permits derivative works, with the only limitations being either attribution for the creation (i.e CC-BY) or attribution and the requirement that derivative works are licenced under the same conditions (i.e CC-BY-SA). Please see our licencing guidelines for more information. Nick (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
reference[edit]

Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2010) Article 22 and list 2

 Not done: Non-commercial licenses are unacceptable for Commons. INeverCry 23:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:West Potomac High School's production of "Spamalot" being performing on the Kennedy Center Stage as part of the Cappies Gala[edit]

I did not fully understand the uploading process when I first uploaded the file, I now further understand the process and would like to go back and properly source the image. The image is the property of the Beyond the Page Theatre Company of West Potomac and is available to the public domain at http://www.westpotomactheatre.org/ --Emma.norville (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Emma.norville[reply]

The web page states '© 2014 Beyond the Page Theatre Company of West Potomac High School", so there is no indication there that the image has been released to the public domain. If you are connected with the school and can arrange for them to release the image under a free licence, or even better put it into the public domain, please ask them to follow the procedure set out at OTRS. To establish identity, the email should come from an official theatre address. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: OTRS permission from copyright holder required. INeverCry 23:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Byron D. Grays.jpg [edit]

I am not quite certain how any of this works however, I would like to request the undeletion of the file Byron D. Grays.jpg.

Reason for the deletion given was: out of scope.

Out of the scope of what? It was simply a picture of Byron and the fact that he started the advocate group. This is personal to me because, Byron was instrumental to me in that, when I was given only 4 to 6 weeks to live due to stage 4 cancer, an experimental treatment was suggested and my insurance company denied paying for it. Had it not been for (at the time, my co-worker-Byron) getting on the phone with my adjuster/representative,. who finally agreed to paying for the treatment I might not be hear this evening to type this.

From his assisting with me in my time of need, and assisting many of our co-workers who were injured on the job and the insurance company stopped paying, Byron decided to start an advocating group to help those of us, who during our worst times, had insurance companies poised to basically screw us over even let us die. It has been his vocal negotiating that has help many of us financially survive and more.

When you say out of scope? out of scope of what? Very smug for someone to set up delete acceptable pictures...walk one day in my shoes and you too would be thanking Byron and definitely not deleting a silly picture of him. Such arrogance... What he has started as a none profit is much more important in the lives of real people than pictures of kitty cats. out of scope? indeed you Sir are out of line.

Ms. M. S. Desoto Tx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.64.229 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This seems to concern File:Byron D. Grays.jpeg (note the "e" in the file extension). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 06:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose All of that may be, but the fact is that personal photos, even of people important to you, are not permitted on Commons unless the person is notable in a broad sense. There is no WP article on Gray and little other than Facebook and LinkedIn show up on Google. The image description linked to LinkedIn, which violates policy as personal advertising, see COM:ADVERT.
A secondary issue, not raised in the DR, is that of copyright. User:Killuminati817 claimed in the image description to have been the photographer. The image appears with a copyright notice at LinkedIn. That puts into question whether Killuminati817 is actually the photographer, but in any case, even if our colleagues disagree with me and decide that the image is in scope, policy requires that the actual photographer send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Out of scope and questionable copyright -FASTILY 03:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Сравнение размеров двух самых крупных теропод в истории - Spinosaurus aegipticus и Carcharodontosaurus iguidensis.png [edit]

I myself have created this file. I do not understand why it removed. Who deleted it, please explain why. To my mind, it is necessary to restore this file!Leogorgon (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose One dinosaur appears at [14] (uploaded there 2013-04-01), for which there is no free license. Don't know where the uploader there got the dinos from. Lupo 14:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took file from here https://laexuberanciadehades.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/clasificacion-de-los-dinosaurios/carcharodontosaurus-2/ File on this page differs from file on this http://es.dino.wikia.com/wiki/Archivo:Spinosaurus_vs_carcharodontosaurus.jpg page. Look at the resolution!!!Leogorgon (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing. Both dinosaurs changed. Images cleaned. I myself cleaned them before create a file.Leogorgon (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still oppose. Yes, the dino also appears at [15], but also there, it has no free license, and it's entirely unclear where that version comes from. Also, where did the second dino come from? You can't just take two images from somewhere from the Internet, combine them, and then say "it's all my work". Yours is a derived work, and for it to be published under a free license here, we need to have evidence that the two base images also are freely licensed. Lupo 15:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's also [16], and [17], and here it is published in a book. Looks like the artist was Sergey Krasovsky. Lupo 16:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The other dino is File:Spinosaurus1DBa.png; that one at least is freely licensed. However, even if Sergey Krasovsky's Carcharodontosaurus were also freely licensed, I don't think you can re-publish a derivative work of a CC-BY-SA/GFDL file (the Spinosaurus) under CC-0. Moreover, the hobbyist Spinosaurus drawing is apparently considered inaccurate, and there is no indication that the Carcharodontosaurus is in the same scale. So that's two more reasons to  Oppose restoring this. Lupo 21:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I agree with Lupo. Derivative works of non-free works are forbidden here on Wikimedia Commons. DLindsley Need something? 22:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 03:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

==[edit]

The below edit was made to the page: phil goldfeder . This was done in error as I have the copyright for this photo and am authorized to use it. Please reauthorize my use and restore the photo to the commons. Thank you

(cur | prev) 06:46, 15 January 2015‎ CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (2,914 bytes) (-36)‎ . . (Removing "Official_Portrait.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Fastily because: Copyright violation: If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to publish the file, ple...) (undo)

 Oppose Unfortunately, this was not done in error. You need to send a free license to OTRS. We care about copyright, even when a copyright owner does not. DLindsley Need something? 22:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 03:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Борис Тодуров.jpg[edit]

File:Борис Тодуров.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. I have made mistake by choosing wrong type of copyright. It is free content, that can be used by anyone . Please bring back this image. --Serogo103 (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Serogo103 could you explain what mistake you have made please. Nick (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 03:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:«Edda Flora» - IMO 9386380.JPG and File:«Normand Reach» - IMO 9687241.JPG[edit]

Please restore the pictures

See the response here User_talk:Siri_J#Copyright_status:_File:.C2.ABEdda_Flora.C2.BB_-_IMO_9386380.JPG. --Nsaa (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 03:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alfonso XIII de España by Kaulak.jpg[edit]

Excuse me, but I can't understand what happened with this. With the photo of Ricardo Samper exists a legal loophole, ok. But here? This nonsense. This photo has an author, Kaulak, and he died in 1933 (82 years ago). Do you really think that the National Art Museum of Catalonia is lying?.--EeuHP (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just awaiting another administrator or experienced user confirming everything is in order before undeleting again. Please be patient. Nick (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary by two reasons. First, we have an author, Kaulak (with two references), and he died in september 1933 (public domain since september 2013).--EeuHP (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly my mistake. This case is clear. Provided that the author is Kaulak (and I have not reason to think otherwise), his works entered the public domain on 2013. Please, restore them. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 16:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC) PS: EeuHP, you claiming something it's a loophole does not make it a loophole.[reply]

I will not argue. I thought "the old law says nothing about the previous anonymous works" and that "the new law fills the void and anonymous works are public domain after 70 years". If this is not so, okay. I only want that the correct edition will be restored.--EeuHP (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Restored (again), leaving just the copyright status surrounding File:Ricardo Samper, 1934.jpg to be resolved for the time being. Nick (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Does anyone know when and where this was published for the first time? (According to the source, it was taken in 1916.) What U.S. tag goes with it? Lupo 18:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mr.guru.jpg.jpg [edit]

--Cladia pavia (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Cladia pavia please detail your request for undeletion in this section, in order that we may proceed. Nick (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close, malformed, no reason request -FASTILY 03:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Penumbra Necrologue OST Albumart.jpg / Necrologuecover.jpg[edit]

I am the owner of both files. Those pictures belong to the games developing studio (countercurrent games) that i'm a part of. Those images are free to use to help identify our latest creation: Penumbra Necrologue. You can check all our released images on our moddb page: http://www.moddb.com/mods/penumbra-necrologue

--Gunslingerjh (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please send OTRS-permission to those pictures, it will help--Motopark (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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 03:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Briefmarke Deutsche Post - Deutsche Malerei 2004- Felix Nussbaum mit "Das Geheimnis" scanned 2.jpg[edit]

According to one of the last comments in the discussion on Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:German_stamps_review_delete the stamp is probably PD now. --Prolineserver (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stemma big.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the coat of arms of the Salesians. This file was deleted for being without a license as of 2 January 2011; This file is in public domain in US as it is published outside of US before 1894. The original author of the work is Professor Boidi, appeared for the first time in a circular letter of Don Bosco's on 8th December 1885. (src). Hence this will very well fit into {{PD-1923}} Also as per this Template:PD-Italy/US, it also satisfies {{PD-Italy}} (source country) too. Jayarathina (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Please add categories as relevant. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flag_of_ASEAN.svg[edit]

This is a flag of an international organization. It appears on many pages both on wikipedia and commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.112.15 (talk • contribs)

 Comment Relevant DR is Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of ASEAN.svg. Yann (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose ASEAN was founded in 1967. That is far too recent to assume that its flag is PD. The fact that it appears elsewhere on the Web is irrelevant, most things that appear on the Web have a copyright. The organization claims copyright in everything on its Web site. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done probably copyrighted -FASTILY 21:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Heather McGowan.jpg [edit]

I received this photograph directly from Heather McGowan, who owns its copyright. I have permission to post it to Wikipedia.

--Dickenspedia (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Chris Dickens[reply]

  •  Oppose
  1. McGowan is the subject. Therefore she is not the copyright holder unless she has a written agreement from the photographer assigning the copyright to her.
  2. "I have permission to post it to Wikipedia" is insufficient. Both Commons and WP:EN require that images must be free for all use by anyone anywhere including commercial use and derivative works, including parody.
  3. It appears "(C) All Rights Reserved" at http://m.americanacademy.de/home/person/heather-mcgowan.
Policy therefore requires that the photographer or other actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed new rule[edit]

We have two cases above:

where there is at least mention of discomfort with very fast closes of UnDRs. I think the subject deserves more discussion, see Commons talk:Undeletion requests. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this is not the right place to advertise this. Suggest using COM:RFC -FASTILY 21:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, you're right, but I put it here because I wanted to catch the eye of all those who frequent this page. I, for one, don't regularly read RFC -- perhaps I should, but there are only so many hours available for Commons work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portada de la Marcha Procesional Calvario - Expiración (San Fernando) - 01.jpg[edit]

Esta portada de la Marcha Procesional fue hecha por mi, para decorar el trabajo de mi amigo y compositor Dː José Ribera Tordera, el cual regaló la citada marcha procesional a la Hermandad de la Expiración bajo encargo mío. Por lo tanto soy el autor de la imagen borrada y por lo tanto no incurro en ningún delito. --Arkoki (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:A physics professor in Hawaii.jpg[edit]

The image is not a copyright violation. It has been taken by me, using my camera (check exif data and match with the camera on my user page). The image does not exist anywhere else on the internet. Anir1uph (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Anir1uph: This was used here to vandalize en.wiki. I've restored it, as it looks like that was the issue rather than the image itself being a copyvio. A description that identifies the man and indicates his notability is needed along with a category, or, if it's a personal pic, that needs to be indicated per COM:SCOPE. INeverCry 06:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Christmas Truce 1914 IWM HU 35801.jpg [edit]

Is it too much to ask that the threads not be closed before the original poster has a chance to get involved? I have a day job and a family, I simply cannot respond over a single day, and I suspect that it not uncommon for other people. Looking over the archives, it seems a whole lot, like the vast majority, never develop into anything more than a rapid close and I strongly suspect it is for this reason. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It seems to me that if we require that a DR be open for seven days, that an UnDR should be open for at least 24 hours, perhaps more. This one was open for a little less than 13 hours, which certainly doesn't give everyone around the world a chance to comment. With that said, however, I don't see how we could reach any other conclusion in this case. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Suggest that the closer might be asked to re-open.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ps refers to Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-01#File:Christmas Truce 1914 IWM HU 35801.jpg closed by Fastily. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily: note that it is the second undeletion request that is being referenced rather than my original, which was several days ago. A more accurate link to the archived thread is here. --Fæ (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I didn't even see that one, it was opened and closed so fast. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. That was a fast closure. I am thinking that Fastily was unhappy at the fact that the undeletion request was taking place. I can understand that, but closing a discussion before consensus is reached is, in my opinion, anti-collaborative and is also wrong. DLindsley Need something? 22:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the opposite actually; I literally could care less. As Jim says, there doesn't seem to be any other conclusion we could possibly reach. Feel free to discuss to your heart's content nonetheless, I'll recuse myself from closing it again. Regards, FASTILY 03:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The original question was addressed in the first discussion. The UK 1911 Act had a work-for-hire provision, which covered works "made in the course of employment". If you bring a personal camera to work, and take a picture of co-workers, that is *not* a work for hire -- it was not made in the course of employment, which is more about the work product you are being paid for. If your boss hands you a company camera and asks to take a few pictures of an event, that is different. It appeared, given the descriptions and history of this photo, that this was the former case -- a soldier had a camera and took some personal photos of the event. Just like today, if a soldier takes photos while on duty with a personal camera and later posts them to Flickr -- the soldier owns the copyright. If the photos had come from a British army archive, the assumption would be different, but it sounds like these were photos owned by the person and donated to the IWM late in his life. Given that, it would not be Crown Copyright nor a work for hire, but a personal copyright, which probably lasts 70pma (it would depend on if it was protected in any other EEA country in mid-1995, as it had expired in the UK at that point). And it appears it may not have been published until more recently, which would cause two issues -- it could be within the 25-year publication right in the UK, and that would also mean its U.S. copyright is definitely valid for a 70pma term. We would have to find evidence of publication before 1989 without notice, and would also need to show it was PD in every EEA country in mid-1995 to show that its UK copyright was not restored to a 70pma term. I suppose there is an outside chance for photographs, which often had shorter terms, but it only took one other country to have longer terms (or to protect unpublished works) and I don't think we've ever shown a work to be PD using that rationale. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As nothing new has has come to light in this further discussion, I suggest it can now be closed again. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done as per Carl Lindberg and MichaelMaggs. Yann (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion request by User:Roman Z[edit]

User:INeverCry stands RESPONSIBLE for the monstrous deletion of 66 high quality images (in fact ones of the best on wikimedia in terms of resolution) for no grounded reasons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Roman_Z Permission required from whom? I am the author who created (draw) and uploaded these images and explicitely stated on my deviantart page: "You may freely use my drawings wherever you like...no copyright problems with me. Download, use in your sites, blogs whatever...I am also sharing my drawings on Wikimedia Commons." http://zakharii.deviantart.com/ What else do you need? Out of scope? Why cant images of St. Nicholas, rabbi Nachman, penguins, birds, Ukrainian cossack, Jesus be used for educational and illustrating purposes on wikipedia? This is all great illustrative material. If someone has something against a particular image - that should be analyzed and approached INDIVIDUALLY! The reasons supplied by INeverCRy ARE NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR SUCH A MASS ACTION (The bulk deletion of dozens of high quality images that are FULLY in line with wikimedia copyright policies) what makes deletion act a GROSS VIOLATION AND ACT OF VANDALISM. Neither the excuse "non notable artist" (pls consider I am professional artitst with 4 years of art schooling) is a sufficient reason to delete dozens of images! Please consider depriving User:INeverCry of administrator´s rights. Thank you. --Zakharii 06:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All these images WERE FULLY IN LINE WITH WIKIMEDIA COPYRIGHT POLICIES and WERE AMONG THE BEST IN TERMS OF QUALITY ON WIKIMEDIA COMMONS:

List
* File:Universal Sacrafice 1.jpg

--Zakharii 06:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zakharii, thanks for uploading your images. The boundaries of project scope often come up in deletion discussions, the issue being that the project often has people uploading poor quality selfies from their mobiles, and sometimes we get people uploading their drawings which most frequently are unlikely to be of use to others or may appear overly self promotional in content. Self created artworks which are realistically of educational value, such as on Wikipedia or by reusers wanting graphics for presentations elsewhere, are welcome.
Looking at your gallery, I agree that your high quality sketches of birds and animals which remain unenhanced by computer colourization or similar, are of potential use for illustrations even if unlikely to be used on Wikipedia. The case is less obvious for religious topic based sketches as figures such as the Archangel Michael are widely portrayed in historical artworks as well as being well represented in modern fixed installations such as stained glass, which are much more likely to be preferred by reusers. This is not an opinion on the quality of your work, this is just how "scope" is pragmatically interpreted to judge the limitations of this project.
I  Support the undeletion of the sketches of birds and animals based on what I can see of your work off-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Oppose I note that there is no User:Roman Zacharij as you signed above. You changed your username six years ago. Attempting to misrepresent your identity is a serious violation of Commons rules. You also claim above to be a professional artist. Your user page says that you had four years of art schooling as a child, but does not support any claim that you are a professional.
It is well established Commons policy that we do not host art from artists who are not notable. That usually means that they have articles in one or more Wikipedias or, at a minimum, have had several shows in galleries or museums. In addition, I note that you have linked the file descriptions to your web site, which possibly violates COM:ADVERT. I suggest you continue to upload to your personal web site and, use Flickr if you want a more general audience. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Over the years I have been part of several DRs on artwork from non-notable artists that were kept, due to their likely utility for illustration. I do not recall anyone quoting policy stating that Commons does not host work from non-notable artists. Could you provide a link please? --Fæ (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We basically follow COM:EDUSE. In my experience, the majority of amateur artworks don't fulfill any educational purpose at all. If a few do, then I have no problem keeping them, but the former are much more numerous than the latter by far. INeverCry 03:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks INeverCry, I am familiar with the EDUSE shortcut, however I still do not know of any community agreed policy that we never host artwork from non-notable artists. Statements like this may be muddying Commons policy with English Wikipedia policy. --Fæ (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done no consensus to restore the files listed above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Juanjose1956[edit]

(es) El permiso se ha recibido en OTRS (no. 2015011210000509) bajo las licencias CC BY-SA 4.0 y GFDL ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}/{{GFDL}}).

(en) Permission has been received through OTRS (#2015011210000509) under CC BY-SA 4.0 y GFDL ({{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}/{{GFDL}}).

Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 07:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I think this is incorrect. If Google translate handled this OTRS message correctly, our user, from a gmail account, is claiming that he owns the copyright to all of these images, which are all around 70-100 years old. That is not reasonable. These are family photographs. In the DR, he said that he does not know who the photographers are, so he cannot know that he has inherited the copyrights. They may be PD, but in order to prove that, he must show that either (a) they were created more than 70 years ago and were not published until after 50 years of creation or (b) they were published more than 70 years ago. He has proven neither. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose agree with Jim. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Insufficient OTRS permission. INeverCry 04:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Several photos of golden wrapped chocolate bunnies[edit]

All Files had deletion requests per COM:PACKAGING // COM:DW and have been deleted. Reason: "Printed design is copyright-protected. There is plenty of originality and the fact that it is mass-produced does not negate the copyright protection". In the meantime I found a comment to a legal case between Lindt and Confisserie Riegelein. In 2000 Lindt got a trademark for their Gold Bunny. Since then, the Swiss chocolate manufacturer was trying to ban the sale of its competitors "sitting, sideways-looking chocolate bunnies in gold foil". But the Bundesgerichtshof (highest court in Germany) denied a copyright in 2013, finally. So this kind of packaging is not protected by law and photos of these objects are no copyright violations. Please undelete these files. -- Smial (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC) More info: http://www.presseportal.de/pm/80972/2441459/lindt-verliert-goldhasen-rechtsstreit-bgh-entscheidet-endg-ltig-zu-gunsten-der-confiserie-riegelein[reply]

 Comment The case you refer to marked the end some very long-running litigation regarding the trademark status of the bunnies, not their copyright status, and it's not correct so far as I am aware to say that that the Bundesgerichtshof denied a copyright in 2013. Copyright and trademark rights are quite different and a court decision made of the basis of trademark law is not of relevance here - we care about copyright only. Lindt no doubt tried to show copyright infringement as well but clearly failed for some reason. I'm not familiar enough with the lower courts' decisions to say why, but a more likely explanation than total denial of all copyright is a holding that, on the facts, the copyrightable elements (ie the printed design) was not copied. There would be no copyright in the gold foil itself, so the legal argument both before the courts and here is about the printing on the foil. Some research by a German speaker into the earlier court cases would be useful. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lindt claimed copyright not for the printing, but for sitting bunnies, sideways looking, wrapped in gold foil in 2000. The Bundesgerichtshof says, that this kind of design has been produced by many companies for more than 50 Years, so it is a traditional design which is not copyrightable. If, in Germany, the Bundesgerichtshof finds a final decision, all earlier court decisions in the same case are no longer valid. I'm sorry if I do not use perfect legal terms, I'm not a lawyer. Btw: "copyright" is not the same as "Urheberrecht" in German law. -- Smial (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is correct. Distinguishing between the various legal terms and concepts is actually pretty important here. The Bundesgerichtshof decision was an appeal against a refusal by OHIM to register the bunny shape and its packaging as a community trademark registration. The court held that the shape was 'devoid of any distinctive character' and that a mark which is devoid of any distinctive character cannot, in principle, be registered. It was a pure trademark law case and it says nothing at all about copyright. The text in English can be found here.
Other German courts may have expressed views on the quite separate copyright issues, and it would be nice to know exactly what they said. The very fact that the Bundesgerichtshof was not asked to determine a copyright law point strongly suggests that a claim to copyright infringement (I am sure there must have been one) was determined in some different court. Maybe the German courts held that the printing was too simple or generic to be granted copyright protection; that would be good to know. Can we have links to the actual court decisions, please? Lupo, are you there? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
http://openjur.de/u/307845.html -- Smial (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, these were at all levels pure trademark cases. Lindt sued Riegelein in Germany over trademark infringement and ultimately lost. I don't think copyright/Urheberrecht was ever considered in these cases; the Riegelein bunnies have a slightly different shape, and the packaging is different. A copyright infringement claim would have had no chance at all; the trademark case was about the question "is the Riegelein form & packaging so similar to the Lindt one as to confuse customers?". The two BGH decisions: 2006, 2010. See [19] for a summary. In the second decision, the BGH sent the case back to the Oberlandesgericht (OLG), which finally decided in [20]. (That's the link Smial found; it also discusses only trademark issues. It does not discuss copyright--nor Urheberrecht.)
Addendum: Lindt then tried to get that OLG decision overthrown, but the BGH denied revision without further discussion.[21] Lupo 23:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, Lindt also sued the company Hauswirth in Austria, who also sold gold-wrapped chocolate bunnies, again over trademark issues. In Austria, Lindt finally won the case in 2012 at the "Oberster Gerichtshof" (OGH) in Vienna. I have not found the OGH decision.
Austrian bunny (left); Lindt bunny (right), and Riegelein bunny.
So, I think neither case discussed at any time whether or not the Lindt bunny was copyrighted. Lupo 23:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done as per Lupo, except one, which is a blurred version of another. Yann (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

???? I didn't say they were copyright-free!! I said no court ever discussed whether or not they were copyrighted! That's a quite different statement! Lupo 12:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote "a copyright case would have had no chance", I meant "because the bunnies clearly are not copies". They're different. That's why these cases were not copyright cases, but trademark cases. But that doesn't mean that the bunnies were uncopyrighted. Lupo 12:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The logic conclusion of the above discussion is not that. It is much easier to prove a copyright violation than a trademark violation. So it there was a copyright, why Lindt didn't sue on copyright issue? Much probably because there can't be a copyright on these. Apart from that, I don't see what could get a copyright on these: the shape? the gold paper? Unlikely. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blason de Scarborough, Ontario.jpeg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I reuploaded this image from the English Wikipedia article as I was unable to link to it directly (the procedure according to point 4 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Finding_images_tutorial#Check_Wikipedia).

Under Licensing in its Summary, a justification is given that while it may be copyrighted, it is a low-quality image used to illustrate the symbol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scarborough,_Ontario_Coat_of_Arms.JPG#Summary

It does specifically state that it's for the English Wikipedia hosted on US servers, is there an equivalent provision for French Wikipedia? Grandevampire (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Commons:Fair use. INeverCry 04:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1940er Jahre Luftaufnahme Frauenkriche München nach Angriff.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Older then 70 Years Rongaman (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose One of these images shows a little destruction while the other shows most buildings partially or completely destroyed. It seems unlikely that such widespread destruction would have happened as early as 1940 -- much more likely that these are images from very late in the war or postwar. If that is the case, they are likely British or American rather than German and are not yet 70 years old. If they are German, the relevant period is 70 years from the death of the photographer, not the creation of the image, unless it can be proven that the photographer intended to be anonymous. If British, then it is also 70 pma and 70 years from creation applies only if you can show significant research into the identity of the photographer without result. If American military images, then they are PD, but if they were first published in America then other rules apply.
So, you might be able to establish that they are PD, but it will require more information..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. Unclear copyright status. Feel free to reupload if you can prove otherwise -FASTILY 07:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zhukov-books.JPG[edit]

Hi! I didn't have opportunity to update information on the two files I uploaded for using them in an article. THe following files are in question:

These two pictures are from a family album and are not copyrighted. I would like them to be undeleted if that's possible. If more information is needed, please advise which info is to be submitted. Many thanks, Zhuk Zhhhuk (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose With limited exceptions which do not apply here, all created works are copyrighted and these images (and the book covers in the first of them) are no exception.
The second image appears to be a formal portrait and the copyright almost certainly belongs to the photographer or his heirs. If it is Russian, then it is under copyright until 70 years after the photographer's death. Restoring it to Commons will require a license from the photographer or his heirs.
The first image is an out of focus collection of copyrighted book covers. I doubt that it is in scope and it infringes on the copyrights of the books shown. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing evidence of permission which needs to be forwarded to COM:OTRS -FASTILY 07:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ryo Kawasaki.jpg[edit]

I hereby affirm that I, (Ryo Kawasaki), am sole owner of the exclusive copyright of https://www.flickr.com/photos/129995107@N04/16117819598/ as well as any images available at http://ryokawasaki.com , http://satellitesrecords.com domains, and user at https://www.flickr.com/photos/129995107@N04/ in order to identify my likeness and archive of my works by the others.

You may also verify that the claimant of this note is authentic by contacting either through http://ryokawasaki.com/contact/ or ryo.kawasaki@gmail.com

Thereby and hereunder, I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

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.

Ryo Kawasaki

Sender's authority: Copyright holder January 18, 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by User1x!23: (talk • contribs) 17:26, 18 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Identity theft is common here, both by fans and by vandals. We have no way of knowing who User:User1x!23: actually is. Since the image has appeared at a copyrighted web site, policy requires that the copyright holder e-mail a license to OTRS. The e-mail must come from an address traceable to the copyright holder. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please email this to COM:OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 07:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ryo_Kawasaki - 2008.jpg [edit]

Please refer to the attached email copy below sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org 8 hours ago form the copyright holder of the image in question for you to stop abusive deletion of uploaded image files unless there is firm grounds supported by existing evidence or other claims to support your actions for copyright violation. So, please undelete (restore) it at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your attention.

from: Ryo Kawasaki <ryo.kawasaki@gmail.com> to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org date: Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 4:49 PM subject: Declaration of consent

I hereby affirm that I, (Ryo Kawasaki), am sole owner of the exclusive copyright of https://www.flickr.com/photos/129995107@N04/16119597979/ as well as any images available at http://ryokawasaki.com , http://satellitesrecords.com domains, and user at https://www.flickr.com/photos/129995107@N04/ in order to identify my likeness and archive of my works to the others. You may also verify that the sender of this email is authentic by contacting through http://ryokawasaki.com/contact/

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

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.

Ryo Kawasaki

Sender's authority: Copyright holder January 18, 2015

Please email this to COM:OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 07:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ryo Kawasaki.jpg[edit]

I hereby affirm that I, (Ryo Kawasaki), am sole owner of the exclusive copyright of https://www.flickr.com/photos/129995107@N04/16117819598/ as well as any images available at http://ryokawasaki.com , http://satellitesrecords.com domains, and user at https://www.flickr.com/photos/129995107@N04/ in order to identify my likeness and archive of my works by the others.

You may also verify that the claimant of this note is authentic by contacting either through http://ryokawasaki.com/contact/ or ryo.kawasaki@gmail.com

Thereby and hereunder, I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

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.

Ryo Kawasaki

Sender's authority: Copyright holder January 18, 2015

Also please note that both websites owned by Mr.Kwasaki clearly indicates that "* You're free to use any image file contained within this domain by indicating under free license either from (c) ryokawasaki.com or (c) Ryka Music." at http://ryokawasaki.com/navi.php as well as it states that "NB! Image above is owned by Ryo Kawasaki & Satellites Records, and you are permitted to use it for any place on internet with this low resolution format since this resolution is not subject for copyright infringement or violation." at http://satellitesrecords.com/artists/kawasaki.html

Please email this to COM:OTRS to get the file restored -FASTILY 07:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sacred Day of Leda and the Swan, 2014, metal screen over canvas, 150 x 150 x 20 cm.jpg [edit]

The aforementioned file images listed below have been chosen among personal archive of the artist, Ahmet Güneştekin, by one of his executive in order to edit his wikipedia page. And all the images are copyrighted by the artist. We kindly ask to undo / undelete the images.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nozten (talk • contribs) 09:35, 19 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose "in order to edit his wikipedia page" is insufficient permission for Commons or WP:EN. Images must be free for all use anywhere by anyone, including commercial use and derivative works. Since his works appear at http://ahmetgunestekin.com with a copyright notice, Ahmet Güneştekin himself must send a free license to OTRS. The e-mail must come from an address at http://ahmetgunestekin.com or otherwise traceable to him.
I note that User:Nozten is the only contributor to Ahmet Güneştekin. If he is, as implied above, one of Ahmet Güneştekin's employees, then he is in serious violation of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Rule which requires disclosure by paid editors and strongly discourages such work. While Commons does not have a similar policy, there is useful information at Commons:Guidance for paid editors. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing evidence of permission which must be forwarded to COM:OTRS -FASTILY 07:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reek, statue Smits facteurs d'orgues.JPG[edit]

Request temporary undeletion File:Reek, statue Smits facteurs d'orgues.JPG was deleted long ago for reason of no licence given. Can it be temporarely undeleted: I missed that deletion, i want to look if the file is worth keeping and I eventually may provide a licence. There is freedom of pnorama in the Netherlands. Idem for File:Reek, maison Smits facteurs d'orgues.JPG It concerns Category:Orgelbau F.C. Smits. --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: [22], [23] -FASTILY 07:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jan Roelof Kruithof & Richard Drost.jpg[edit]

File:Jan Roelof Kruithof & Richard Drost.jpg

Gelieve deze foto te herstellen. Deze is gemaakt door een vriend van mij; Anne Johan en ik sta zelf op de foto.

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 07:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Stranger_album.jpg[edit]

I hereby affirm that I represent Zeistencroix, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright http://www.zeistencroix.com/Stranger_album.jpg

I sent a e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with all evidence today.

--Wiki20147 (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC) 1/19/2015[reply]

 Not done: OTRS now has to process the email and confirm the permission before the file can be restored. You can ask about progress at the OTRS noticeboard. INeverCry 04:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stranger album.jpg again[edit]

OTRS permission at #2015012010002653. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 06:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 07:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ADR1FT development team.png[edit]

Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015011410017202). Eitan96 (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Eitan96: Please add OTRS ticket as soon as you have a chance. INeverCry 08:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lindsey McKeon.JPG[edit]

Why you deleted this image. I take this image from move on kmplayer (Ctrl+Alt+E). This image dont have copyright, please put image again.Manoooood (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Copyright violation. See COM:CB. INeverCry 22:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo Onav.png[edit]

IMHO it's non protected. It's the same for other Italian wine association, AIS: this logo didn't erase from commons! --Sistoiv (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That might have something to do with the fact that it's really hard to delete files from Commons if those files aren't actually hosted on Commons... —LX (talk, contribs) 18:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I'm going to upload on it.wiki. --Sistoiv (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 23:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

/File:Michael_Braun1995-04-12.jpeg[edit]

i sent the approval to the email provided weeks ago.... please undelete this image

--Trungpa6 (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider emailing OTRS again or posting an update request at the OTRS noticeboard -FASTILY 23:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EwanMcLennan.jpg[edit]

Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2014111710022228). –Fredddie™ 00:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: I don't see any deleted images with these titles. INeverCry 01:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They were on ENWP. Sorry. –Fredddie™ 01:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Procedural close. INeverCry 03:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Author Andrew.jpg[edit]

An OTRS-permission was sent by copyright owner/photographer Brad Newton on May 8, 2004 and again on Jan 15,2015. Can this photo please be undeleted. Thank you very much. --Icuraj (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)icuraj[reply]

File:Andrew Griffiths author.jpg is the file and we've permission at Ticket:2015011510004134. Jee 06:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 07:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ricardo Samper, 1934.jpg[edit]

This image is part of the historical archive of the newspaper Las Provincias (link inside). The photo was published on the Internet for the first time on the newspaper's website and the author (in contrast to the most recent photos) are not mentioned. The photo is anonymous, the notice refers to 1934 (the year where he was president a few months and when he visit the region for inaugurate a local exhibition) and the politician died in 1938.--EeuHP (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The page you link has an explict copyright notice, which says Copyright © Valenciana Editorial Interactiva S.L., Valencia, 2008. Also, there is a watermark in the bottom right of the image. Please have the newspaper send a free license for the image to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. DLindsley Need something? 22:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image was taken in 1934 and has no author. That was over 70 years ago. Is public domain.--EeuHP (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DLindsley please review copyright legislation and policy on old images before giving out incorrect advice here. Nick (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. It's another image deleted as unsourced, but which has a source on it and where an acceptable explanation is available from the uploader as to why the image is believed to be in the public domain. I'm not entirely certain what Discasto is doing, I know he's a long standing and highly respected Commons contributor, so I wonder if he's accidentally tagged some images, has used the wrong template to indicate some concerns about the source, or has some other (unspecified) concerns with the images. Nick (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, thank you for your words :-). After ten years in commons, six as an admin and more that 8000 uploaded images I tend to think that yes, I know something about [Spanish] copyrights :-)
First of all, I have to admit that, even after ten years, the information on Spanish copyrights is not really clear (in fact, I'm starting a personal project in order to clarify the status of the copyrights in Spain, see here) as the very same issues pop up again and again. Having said that, some comments about the statements written down in this request. First of all, EeuHP has a long track of misunderstanding of the Spanish regulations on copyright (just see his talk page). I assume good faith, but I have to remind that he conveniently "forgot" to mention that he uploaded an image that was deleted after a regular deletion request, which was started by me (but not closed by me, as I'm not an admin any more). I provided the reasons in said DR about why I don't think this image is admissible here. He also "forgot" to mention that his previous restoration attempts were not granted. To me, it's a clear admin shopping.
Secondly, I have to remind that the period that should be taken into account when it comes to Spanish IPR law is 80 pma (not 70; it a common misunderstanding, but we have to be strict with that... it was clearly stated in the DR EeuHP forgot to mention). Moreover, the applicable Spanish IPR law (that of 1879) has got a specific proviso with regard to anonymous works (which states that the copyright belongs to the editor; what could happen if the editor is a legal entity is not detailed).
Third, I have to deny your statement. The image does not have a source at all. At least when it comes to the Spanish legislation, source means author, as the protection period absolutely relies on the author's death date (in that sense, the 1879 law, the one that applies to this picture, does not state anything related to the publication date; when it was published is not relevant). Finally, an additional statement: not providing an author is not the same that being anonymous. Las Provincias simply hasn't provided a source (but haven't stated the picture author is unknown). It does not mean it's anonymous (moreover, being anonymous does not mean that the publication date is relevant).
To sum up, I can be wrong, of course, but the file was deleted after a regular deletion request, in which EeuHP was not able to refute my arguments. It's valid to come here to ask for restoration (sure), but he should have mentioned why the arguments considered by Fastily are not valid. We have a legislation that states that a work enter into the public domain 80 pma. We can imagine that the author died on Jan. 1, 1935, but in my 10 year' commons life, here COM:PRP is usually applies. I do think it goes against commons principles to create a rule (not supported by any legislation) stating that when the uploader hasn't got any information about authorship, simply 80 after publication is enough. I can't see this restoration as proper and think that it makes no sense to start a DR again with exactly the same arguments, as they haven't been refuted by anyone. Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 15:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC) PS: shouldn't have been more sensible to ask for my opinion before (and not after) making a decision (especially when it has been taken in less than a day)? Why this rushing?[reply]
Thanks for that. I've re-deleted the image pending additional clarification from EeuHP and a detailed explanation about their behaviour, such as not mentioning the COM:DR discussion. I've also re-deleted a previously restored image too which I and another administrator believed to be OK for restoration, until that can be looked into. Nick (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the newer law, in the second transitional provision, has declared that if a legal entity acquired copyright under the law of 1879 that their term is now considered to be 80 years from publication. Las personas jurídicas que en virtud de la Ley de 10 de enero de 1879 sobre Propiedad Intelectual hayan adquirido a título originario la propiedad intelectual de una obra, ejercerán los derechos de explotación por el plazo de ochenta años desde su publicación. I guess if the "editor" of an anonymous work is a single person, the term is 80 years from their death until an actual author is proven. The questions here though are does Las Provincias own the copyright, and if so when did they acquire it (term would seem be 80 years from publication if before 1996, 70 years from publication if acquired later), and when was it first published. If they simply republished a photo from another source, or simply had copies of wire photos distributed at the time and scanned those, then we don't know the term at all. But if it seems a reasonable argument that the newspaper did own the copyright in 1934 and published it that year, then it did become PD in Spain just a few days ago. However it may still have a U.S. term of 95 years from publication if restored by the URAA in 1996, which seems likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Carl, thank you for your remarks. I'm starting to work in clarifying the Spanish copyright so that we have a clear description of what is and what isn't in the public domain and possibly a set of templates to make it clear. Anonymous works are a contentious issue (works with identified author became public domain 80 years pma) and would like to have a clear cookbook to determine the conditions to consider a work as anonymous and therefore know when it can be considered public domain). Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 09:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, determining "anonymous" is always hard, and ambiguous, regardless of country. If you can show the initial publication was anonymous, that gives some strong evidence, and usually is a good reason for assuming anonymous unless there is some other information available (but it can still be subject to arguments). Also, the author would have to become known before the 70 year (or 80 year) from publication term runs out; if the identity was only disclosed after that then the work became PD and the status does not change. Also, part of the EU directive said that where legal entities own the initial copyright (i.e. allow work for hire) that the author must be named on the initial publication to get 70pma; subsequent identification would not change the 70 years from publication term. I don't know if Spain is one of those countries, but given the above transitional provision it's possible they used that clause to limit the term of corporate-owned works (regardless if anonymous or not) to 80 years from publication if the company simply owned copyright under the law of 1879, unless perhaps it just means that rights revert to the human author and the 70pma term after that expires. You probably have a better idea than me about that though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussions is going a bit off-topic, but I'm going to  Oppose on this file, since I think regardless of the copyright status in Spain today, it was almost certainly restored to a 95 year from publication term in the U.S. by the URAA, and thus still has a valid copyright in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. No consensus to restore -FASTILY 22:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bagatelle Walauwa.jpg[edit]

The artist and author have passed away well over 70 years ago and is therefore valid as per Sri Lanka copy rights law. This pic is from about 1860, when the house passed on to the De Soysa family. It is an important house in the transistion from the traditional to the contemporary, particularly so for socio-cultural reasons; for the first time in the recorded history of the island ordinary citizens were making big strides/impact in shaping it's future. It is where De Soysa had the unique privilege of entertaining the second son of Queen Victoria, Prince Alfred, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke of Edinburgh, where they dined off plates of gold. The prince later gave his name for the house. This is an important event in the history of the country, especially of the colonial period and in the emergence of a modern culture. It is where the Ceylon Agricultural Association was formed, which became the Ceylon National Association and then the Ceylon National Congress around the time of indipendence. I could go on a lot more about the importance of the house, but it is definitely well over a 100 years for copy right issues.

I am new to uploading pics to wikipedia and the information is too vast to fully make sense of and a bit complicated. So, if you can help that would be really appreciated. It is confusing and I do not know how (and what) to put all relevent info. This pic is available from the following web article which I have also used as a reference on CH de Soysa'a page (at the bottom / 16th paragraph of the article you get the info of this historic house passing on to the de Soysa family)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rippleworth (talk • contribs) 22:57, 19 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]


 Oppose There is no information whatever in the cited article about the date of creation of the drawing. It is noted in the article that the drawing is somewhat inaccurate -- it could well have been created from memory or imagination long after the building. The cited web page carries an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 22:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lee Petty with Heather the leather 29 September 2006.jpg[edit]

Hello. I really don't know why my photo was deleted. I never took the photo but I know who did and I have full permission from him to use where and how I please.

You may contact the person yourself for clarification. Mike Willmot http://www.essentialbaits.co.uk

Here is a copy of an email I received from Mike just this morning. 

-------- Original message --------
From: info@essentialbaits.co.uk 
Date: 20/01/2015 11:32 PM (GMT+00:00) 
To: martyn britton <email> 
Subject: Re: Message from Essential Baits 

Hi Martyn

Yes, no problem.

Regards

Mike.

----- Original Message -----

From: "martyn britton" <email>
To: <info@essentialbaits.co.uk>
Cc:
Sent: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:59:58 +0000
Subject: Message from Essential Baits
From:	martyn britton
Email:	<email>

------------------------------------------------------

hello, would it be ok to use your image of Lee Petty with Heather image for
the wikipedia page on heather the leather?

i did already use it, but they deleted saying i needed permission from you..
its a free advert to, i added exacly what it says..

------------------------------------------------------

Office Use Only:	
From:	martyn britton
Email:	<email>
Login Name:	Not logged in
Login Email:	Not logged in
IP Address:	82.38.234.65 - 82.38.234.65
Host Address:	cpc2-hawk5-0-0-cust64.18-1.cable.virginm.net
Date and Time:	Tue Jan 20 2015 18:59:58 UTC

ItsMartY3 (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS. Note that permission to use the image on WP is not sufficient. Both WP:EN and Commons require that an image be free for all uses by anybody anywhere, including commercial use and derivative works. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 22:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ides Dec 2014.jpg[edit]

The photo in question is a current group shot of the band The Ides of March. This photo is my own work, taken before a public concert last December. The copyright is my own.

Paul Braun, Cygnus Images Pbraun2102 (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image has appeared on the Web so policy requires that the actual photographer send a free license to OTRS .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Radovan Brenkus.jpg[edit]

Hi, I have the file directly from author. He gave it, so that I may to write the articles for wikipedia. The file is totally free, may be used e.g. by the publishers. Have I send paper with a signature? Linard (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The photo appears with a copyright notice in several places on the Web. Therefore policy requires that the actual photographer send a free license to OTRS. Note that "He gave it, so that I may to write the articles for wikipedia" is not sufficient permission. Commons and WP require that images be free for any use by anybody anywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alessandro Borghese.jpg[edit]

Hello. I really don't know why my photo was deleted. I'm the copyright holder of this work. This photo is my own work and I would like to release this file into the Creative Commons 3.0 License. I ask for the undeletion of this photo. Thanks--Emacontino21 (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image appears at http://www.paginafood.it/2013/12/alessandro-borghese-conquista-instanbul-0019436.php with an explicit copyright notice and "All Rights Reserved". Policy therefore requires that the actual photographer send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Charles Wiley Bio.pdf[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is my husbands bio I have no idea why this person would delete it 99.117.165.24 01:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 22:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PRIVATE COLLECTION MR BERNARD VINOIS 06.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: DANS LE DOMAINE PUBLIC - PAS DE DROITS D'AUTEUR ! Frédéric Dubar (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose There is no description or date and no informative file name. Therefore it is useless to Commons. Without knowing the date and place the photograph was made and any publication history, I cannot comment on its copyright status except to say that it is certainly beyond a significant doubt (Commons required standard of proof) that it is still under copyright. If you want this image restored, you must tell us more about the image, why it is notable and should be on Commons, and the dates. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unclear copyright status -FASTILY 22:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WalmorMarcellino.jpg[edit]

This picture belongs to Walmor Marcellino's family. We don't know who exactly took it, but was provided by his wife for this page. Thank you. Joana Marcellino — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoanaMarcellino (talk • contribs) 13:42, 22 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The image is obviously recent and therefore under copyright. The fact that his wife owns a copy of the photo is not relevant. Owning a copy of a photograph does not give you the right to license its use. The only person who can license its use here is the copyright holder who is almost certainly the photographer. Since you don't know who the photographer is, it is impossible to get a license from him and therefore it cannot be kept on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unclear copyright status -FASTILY 22:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nibiru-5.jpg[edit]

Hey. I wanted to use File:Nibiru-5.jpg in the wiki on the mythical planet, Nibiru. Right now, the wiki claims a star that is 20,000 light years away to have been purported to be Nibiru. But,a cursory search over google will show that much of this conspiracy theory is based on unorthodox lens artifact captured near the sun. I wanted to keep this image to archive that, as well better represent the wiki on Nibiru. P.S. I also edited several of these artifacts into File:Alberto's Nibiru compilation.jpg. thanks. Emphatik (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum - file has not been deleted as of now. -FASTILY 22:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sumitomo Electric Bordnetze.PNG[edit]

please undelete, our company has all rights to use this picture. Thanks. --Pia-maria.goerner (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in the deletion summary shown if you click the file name above: If you are the copyright holder/author and/or have authorization to publish the file, please email our OTRS team to get the file restored. You may also wish to read Commons:Guidance for paid editors. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Les langues du Maroc.svg[edit]

There no copyright violation, its a SVG Map produced by me and i use: {{PD-textlogo}}{{PD-shape}}{{Trademarked}}. — Mouh2jijel [Talk] 20:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jeronis de Soys[edit]

This picture was undeleated before, so I don't knoe ehy it is deleted again. Both the artist and the person 'Jeronis de Soysa' who comissioned it have died well over 100 years ago. This B&W pic is a copy of a colour potrait commissioned by the person who the page is about. It was published in 1904 in his biography written in Sinhala language of Sri lanka; Soysa Charitaya by Don Bastian. Both have been dead for over 70 years as per Sri lanka copyright laws. How can he be barred from his own picture??!!

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 22:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maariapaivinen.jpg[edit]

I have sent the following e-mail on 15th Of January concerning this photo file:

I hereby affirm that [I, (Maaria Päivinen), am] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of [Maariapaivinen.jpg] . I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. 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. [Maaria Päivinen] [Copyright holder] [5. January 2015]

Could it be possible to get it back on wikimedia commons?


--Toimhuom (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and is badly understaffed -- they often run a backlog of up to a month. Assuming you are, in fact, Maaria Päivinen (identity theft is commons here), there are two copyrights involved -- that of the book cover and that of the image -- so you may need to explain how you, the subject of the image, own both copyrights. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When OTRS processes the email that was sent they will restore the file -FASTILY 10:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cheryl Tiu BVLGARI.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I now have the letter from Cheryl Tiu releasing the rights to Commons. I sent a copy to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Samito1050 (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from above:

If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.

Quoting from Commons:OTRS:

Each ticket will be reviewed by a volunteer. If there is sufficient evidence of a valid permission, the volunteer will mark the file(s) concerned as reviewed. The volunteer will also act to restore any files which may have been deleted before the permission could be verified, so when following the procedure described here, there is no need to request undeletion.

—LX (talk, contribs) 13:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What LX said -FASTILY 10:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Samito1050[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have letters from the copyright holders that release the rights to commons. I recently sent copies of the letters to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Samito1050 (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from above:

If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.

Quoting from Commons:OTRS:

Each ticket will be reviewed by a volunteer. If there is sufficient evidence of a valid permission, the volunteer will mark the file(s) concerned as reviewed. The volunteer will also act to restore any files which may have been deleted before the permission could be verified, so when following the procedure described here, there is no need to request undeletion.

—LX (talk, contribs) 13:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What LX said -FASTILY 10:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zeistencroix1.jpg[edit]

I hereby affirm that I represent Zeistencroix, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright http://www.zeistencroix.com/Zeistencroix1.jpg

I sent a e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

(Wiki20147 (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

When OTRS processes the email that was sent they will restore the file -FASTILY 10:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portraitnocopyright-2.jpg[edit]

I am Nicole Stenger and this is my portrait

This file was deleted by a Bot on 1/6/2015, --Nicolestenger (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC) although I had given full permission for it.[reply]

I hereby renew my permission to share it on Wikicommons

Thank you!


1/23/2015

Nicole Stenger

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 10:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Guruness Brownie[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I myself, Guruness Brownie, hold the copyright for all deleted photos. The ref website gurunessbrownie-photography.com is my own and it displays all photos which I have personally taken at various concerts. The usage of the deleted photos is therefore entitled. I already have sent an undeletion request for the abovementioned files on 13. January 2015 and was advised to send a license to OTRS. It was said, that the e-mail must come from an address traceable to http://gurunessbrownie-photography.com. As advised I have sent the requested OTRS permission right away (13. January 2015) from the related email address miriam@gurunessbrownie-photography.com. I have never received any feedback or notification, neither a ticket, neither were the files undeled or whatever since then and I wanted to ask when I can expect the files to be undeleted? I'm new to this, so please excuse in case I should be wrong here. Guruness Brownie (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. When OTRS processes the email that was sent they will restore the file -FASTILY 10:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My question was not answered, instead was the same standard reply as before. When can I please expect the files to be restored? And will I get a notification, a ticket - anything?

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

File:I2P-31C3.jpg[edit]

Please undelete this file. I have confirmed with the author that this photo is able to be used. Please see his twitter feed (the same source as the photo) https://twitter.com/echeloni2p/status/558723088373014528

--Acebarry (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 10:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sarath Kumar.jpg[edit]

This file deleted, as it was against commons policy COM:ADVERT [[[24]]]. if the image was undeleted,we can just pixelate the advertising part and reuse in the article. Perumalism Chat 20:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Perumalism: - the image could certainly be undeleted, there's no copyright issue as best I can see, just someone using Commons to advertise their product. You want the photo for an article? -mattbuck (Talk) 02:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the image will be useful in wikipedia page en:Sarath Kumar. Perumalism Chat 08:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The image is of Sarath Kumar holding a book. His WP:EN article does not have a photo of him. I don't think the inclusion of the book in the image is a problem. The DR covered 57 such images -- one is OK, 57 is not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 22:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:I2P Mass Crypto Party.jpg[edit]

Please undelete this image. I have confirmed the copyright status of this photo with the authors (https://twitter.com/masspirates/status/558735095218311168).

--Acebarry (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 10:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Jaime Cruz R[edit]

File:Perfumes de Oriente.jpg File:RamonPeinador HombreConSombrero.jpg File:RamonPeinador Pulqueria.jpg File:RamonPeinador MujerEnElEstudio.jpg File:RamonPeinador CabezaDeHombre.jpg File:RamonPeinador LaMujer.jpg File:RamonPeinador ElPaisaje.jpg File:RamonPeinador HistoriaDelCine.jpg File:EsposaPeinador3.jpg File:Paisaje Acolman.jpg File:Ramon_Peinador_Checa_-_Acapulco.jpg File:Ramon_Peinador_Checa_-_El_Valle_de_Mexico.jpg File:Ramon_Peinador_Checa_-_Los_Dos_Guardianes.jpg File:Ramon_Peinador_Checa_-_Montanas_de_Taxco.jpg

El Arq. Carlos Peynador, es hijo de Ramon Peinador Checa, mismo que tiene los derechos universales sobre sus obras.

El Arq. Carlos me encargó subir la bioagrafía de su padre, la cual se llama Ramon Peinador Checa, enviándome las imágenes tomadas por él.

El Arq. le envió correo al usuario The Photographer (ahora llamado The Photographer), el cual borró las imágenes indicadas arriba, sin contestarnos con alguna evidencia a que lo llevó a tomar esta acción, en el cual se le informa sobre los derechos que tiene el Arq. en las obras y que no se está violando derecho alguno.

Esta es la segunda ocasión que se solicita la restaruación de las imágenes por este medio, ya que de The Photographer (The Photographer, The Photographer) no hemos tenido noticia alguna, a pesar de enviarle correos y notas a través de distintos medios.

--Jaime Cruz R (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 10:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Guruness Brownie[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I've already requested the undeletion on 13. January 2015 by sending the permission to OTRS as advised from an address traceable to http://gurunessbrownie-photography.com. I have never received a notification or a ticket, neither were the files undeled/restored.

My question for it in here was not answered, instead I got the same standard reply as before. But I really would love to know:

when can I please expect the files to be restored? And will I get a notification, a ticket - anything? 46.114.129.152 11:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from above:

If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.

Quoting from Commons:OTRS:

Each ticket will be reviewed by a volunteer. If there is sufficient evidence of a valid permission, the volunteer will mark the file(s) concerned as reviewed. The volunteer will also act to restore any files which may have been deleted before the permission could be verified, so when following the procedure described here, there is no need to request undeletion.

Also quoting from Commons:OTRS:

The current backlog for tickets in English is approximately 40 days

You'll note that January 13 was significantly less than 40 days ago. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been replied to above. Please refrain from making duplicate requests -FASTILY 22:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SegaJapanBusinesses.jpg[edit]

--Tripple-ddd (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it looks like you forgot to read point 4 in the little red box just above you were editing: State the reasons for the request. Also, I think you mean File:SegaJapanBusinesses.png. That was deleted as a copyright violation. Do you not agree that it was a copyright violation, or do you just think that we should host it anyway? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The source page given in the file description, http://sega.co.jp/corporate/profile_business/, has a clear (c). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - no reason given to undelete anything -FASTILY 22:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3720 stamp (Revolutionaries and Monument).jpg[edit]

This file was deleted as a duplicate of the file file:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3720 stamp (Revolutionaries and Monument).png in PNG-format. But it isn't exact copies or scaled-down, вудуеув file have another format JPEG. PNG- and JPEG-files aren't identical from the point of view of assignment: JPEG-files are more intended for use in Viki (they in miniatures are usually best of all displayed, is sharper), PNG-file as providing the best quality, - it is more for external users. --Matsievsky (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: OK, fine. Let have a discussion first. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A senior jumping up on a pile of steps.gif[edit]

Request for deletion was issued on 21:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC) by russavia with the reason: "Has imgflip.com watermark in the image. Clearly not own work." The file was deleted by Yann on 13:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC) despite of my explanation dated 21:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC) that imgflip.com watermark is a result of my using of their software for transforming my original video into the GIF animation acceptable in Commons. Besides, the following permission from the software provider was submitted by me:[reply] 

"Re: Imgflip Feedback
Dylan Wenzlau <email>
Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:12 PM
To: <email>
:Hey Valentin, You can use the gifs for anything you want. Imgflip will never claim ownership of images you create.
If you need to get rid of the watermark though, you can always use Imgflip Pro. -- Dylan Wenzlau Founder, Imgflip.com".

Unfortunately, there was no response to my arguments. ShustovVal (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment As I told you several times at several places, the issue is actually not the watermark, but the source used to make these GIFs, which are videos on YouTube, and not under a free license. I also said that since you claim that these videos are yours, it would be much more useful to upload them directly here, rather than poor quality GIFs. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Yann: Sorry, but your Comment is not relevant. You closed the case by saying "Deleted: as above" while above was nothing except "Has imgflip.com watermark in the image. Clearly not own work." And this was, apparently, enough for your sentence. However, if you are willing to provide additional proof, we may discuss it after you undelete the file, at least temporarily. ShustovVal (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Also, as I pointed out at the DR, the imgflip Terms of Service impose unacceptable requirements on anyone using images that have been processed with their software. Commons cannot keep anything that has been processed there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jameslwoodward: I beg your pardon, but your arguments are both untimely and irrelevant. Yann closed the case by saying "Deleted: as above" while above was nothing except "Has imgflip.com watermark in the image. Clearly not own work." We may, of cause, discuss the topics of your choice but only after the file is undeleted, at least temporarily. ShustovVal (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 22:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3788 stamp (Turkmenian Drinking Horn).jpg[edit]

This file was deleted as a duplicate of the file file:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3788 stamp (Turkmenian Drinking Horn).png in PNG-format. But it isn't exact copies or scaled-down, deleted file have another format JPEG. PNG- and JPEG-files aren't identical from the point of view of assignment: JPEG-files are more intended for use in Viki (they in miniatures are usually best of all displayed, is sharper), PNG-file as providing the best quality, - it is more for external users. --Matsievsky (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the template {{Archival version}} to make the situation more clear. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's very interesting. I knew templates {{PNG with JPEG version}} and {{JPEG version of PNG}} only. But its don't help... --Matsievsky (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seismic Sustainability through Earthquake Protector.gif[edit]

Request for deletion was issued on 15:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC) by Diego Grez with the reason: "Youtube video. Unlikely to be uploader's own work, he works as a professor and has uploaded in the past several copyvios." The file was deleted by Yann on 15:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC) without proving the accusation because: 1)YouTube video with the name "Seismic Sustainability through Earthquake Protector" was uploaded by vshustov or Valentin Shustov, i.e. me; it is clearly indicated on the screen. 2)The words "he works as a professor" do not necessarily mean that "he" or "professor" is a crook. ShustovVal (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC) ShustovVal (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Cthieblin[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: public domain but informations were missing. OTRS 2015012310013896. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cthieblin. Thank you very much. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 23:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvardek du: Done, please update the file description pages accordingly -FASTILY 01:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vistadarodoviaimigrantes2.JPG[edit]

Special:Diff/147720924 came with a red link for Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Loggan11. What's going on here, File:Vistadarodoviaimigrantes2.JPG is a POTY candidate. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The red link is because of the extra project code commons: (which User:CommonsDelinker shouldn't be adding here on Commons). It was featured in 2014, which is the criterion for candidacy to picture of the year. As noted in the deletion discussion, it was posted on skyscrapercity.com (a well-known hangout for people with nothing better to do than to post pages upon pages of photos – usually other people's non-free photos – I know, I don't get it either) on 2007-03-22, more than nine months before it was supposedly created according to User:Loggan11. Is there a reason to think it's not a copyright violation? —LX (talk, contribs) 00:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of "vanishing" going on here, 110 DRs closed as kept, an admin, a POTY candidate, what next? I dislike that, the criminal (maybe) activities of one user shouldn't disturb the annual highlight of commons, it can be handled later after before failed. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What, wait, back this train up. Are you saying that we should knowingly keep a file that we have evidence is a copyright violation uploaded by a confirmed copyright violator and let it stay as a candidate for picture of the year? Seriously? —LX (talk, contribs) 00:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, a picture available here as allegedly free for over 7 years can stay until this POTY round is finished. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It cannot. The fact that nobody caught it sooner and that the featured picture folks don't look more closely at the stuff they nominate is deplorable, but that's no excuse to knowingly keep copyright violations around. —LX (talk, contribs) 01:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation. -FASTILY 01:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rotate with overload.gif[edit]

    • Request for deletion was issued on 15:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC) by Diego Grez with the reason: "Unlikely to be uploader's own work, he works as a professor and has uploaded in the past several copyvios."

The file was deleted by Yann on 15:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC) without proving legitimacy of the accusation because the words "he works as a professor" do not necessarily mean that "he" or "professor" is a crook intending to undermine Wikimedia Commons. ShustovVal (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bothaina Kamel (9229020267).jpg[edit]

Mistakenly deleted as part of this mass deletion discussion (initiated by me, still ongoing). I was able to identify the real source of the photo and that it was free. I believe I corrected the file description, and I struck it out in the list of files to be deleted and stated that it should not be deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done OK, my mistake. Yann (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/All files in Category:Léon Printemps[edit]

Jim, please check Ticket:2014090310013625. The first mail itself is came from an address mentioned at http://leon-printemps.fr.nf/; so I didn't understand the need of further clarifications. Jee 07:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is from last October, so I may not remember correctly. I agree that the first of the OTRS e-mails ties to the web site, but, if I remember correctly, http://leon-printemps.fr.nf/ is a fan site -- there is no evidence there that its creator owns any of the copyrights. With that said, however, my instinct is that the exchange is valid and that the person giving the license honestly believes that he owns the copyrights. So, I am inclined to  Support this request. I don't know why it wasn't raised earlier..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim. I think the OTRS agent who handled this case failed to pick the related files on time. Jee 15:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admins with OTRS access, please look into this. Jee 15:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor: Huh, not sure why this wasn't done sooner. Anyways, done now -FASTILY 23:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inaccurate Commons:Deletion requests[edit]

The files which were deleted are:

When these files were proposed for deletion, I offered my explanation here. Further discussion occurred here.

These four documents have been legally released to the public domain, under advice from legal counsel, and yet they were unceremoniously deleted for 'not having been licensed'. This was an arbitrary action and ignored my explanations and provisions of Wikimedia Commons licensing, as well as U.S. law.

Also, I'll note that the newspaper clipping here [25] was improperly removed from the Cook article, as it is now public domain under provision of U.S. copyright law. (viz: Material in the public domain)

If I am unable to work without interference from a capricious and self-prideful editor, then improving Wikipedia articles is a waste of my time. I request that the referenced documents will be restored, but if not, I will understand that my technical knowledge is not valued and will go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsouthwell (talk • contribs) 01:14, 24 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose All of the deletions above were entirely within policy. Your technical knowledge may or may not be valuable to Commons -- I don't know -- but your attitude is not. It is up to the uploader to properly note the copyright status of uploaded files. Commons volunteers do not have time to do your research for you. It is also up to the uploader to read and follow the instructions on the various notices he might receive. I think an apology from you is in order.

1) I don't understand your comment about the Provo newspaper clipping -- the cite which you note above is still there. You began editing the article on December 4, 2014 and have made about 70 edits there. Only three other edits have been made -- one a minor correction to your cite, the second a bot formatting run, and the third the removal of the deleted doctoral thesis noted above. The clipping, which is, indeed, PD-no-notice, was never uploaded to the article and remains there unchanged except for the minor correction of your error.

2) File:An Analysis of Airborne Surveying for Surface Radioactivity - Doctoral Thesis, John C. Cook.pdf was deleted because it was written by someone other than the uploader and has no valid permission from the author or his estate. It is, in fact, apparently PD-no-notice, but that was not stated in the file description. It is up to the uploader to correctly note the copyright status of uploads; without the correct status, it was deleted after appropriate notice to the uploader. It is also unclear that it is in scope either here or on WP:EN.

3) File:The_Life_Story_of_Carl_and_Ella_Cook.pdf and File:The_Life_and_History_of_Phineas_Wolcott_Cook.pdf have the same problem -- third party authors and no evidence of permission. Again, it is not up to Commons volunteers to research the copyright status of works -- it is up to the uploader to correctly provide it. While both are pre 1989 and have no notice, they both contain material obviously taken from outside sources, probably without permission, so the books themselves are probably copyvios. Unless it can be shown that all the images and clippings in them were properly licensed, then they cannot be kept here. There is also the question of scope. Although John C. Cook is certainly notable, I don't think that biographies of relatives are in scope for a WP:EN on John C. Cook.

4)File:Courses_Taught_by_John_C._Cook_at_San_Antonio_College.pdf has multiple issues. It is a handwritten grade book from one of the two years that Cook taught at San Antonio College. First, it is almost certain that its publication here is its first publication. That means that the rule is 70 p.m.a.. Cook died in 2012, so the book will be under copyright until 2082. It also contains names and grades for students. Since the school and year are shown, the students are clearly identifiable. Such disclosure may or may not have been legal in 1954, but it certainly is not today. Regardless of its legality, I see little reason to keep a grade book from 1954. Cook taught math at San Antonio College for only two years -- hardly a vital part of his career.

Summary. There is nothing wrong with (1). If (2) is in scope, then it can be kept, but that is unclear. As noted above, restoring (3) will require significant research on all of the material contained within. (4) is out of scope and a gratuitous violation of the privacy of the students mentioned, so it should not be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded all four files, and do not know what more I could have done to annotate their public domain status. Perplexingly, the editor claimed that there was no licensing information, when it is required to specify license when you upload a file. Under advice of legal counsel, the heir to Cook's estate placed the proper wording in the metadata of each document, licensing them to the public domain. When I uploaded them I mistakenly tagged them with a CC license, but later changed that to PD when advised to do so on IRC. It was never necessary for anyone to research the copyright status, as it was in the metadata of each document. If one particular editor is willing to nominate it for deletion, then it is incumbent on him to properly investigate and request any supporting documents necessary, and that was never done. He simply (inexplicably) claimed that there was no license, when there obviously was in the metadata of each document, and it is impossible to upload without a licensing tag. It alarmed me that one editor could claim there was no license status when there clearly was, and then have his friend do the deletions, apparently for spite.
If there was something more that I need to do to substantiate these documents, I will do that. But the apparent bias of the nominating editor is shown as he gave no indication of how to substantiate or modify, and he simply ignored all of my factual explanations.
  • On # 1 (the clipping), the way I read the Cook article's history is that it had originally been pictured, but that was removed at some point. I then reinstated the link to it, at least.
  • The respective memoirs of Phineas and Carl Cook contribute useful background to the Cook article, which readers may wish to delve into, or not. This was intended as 'further study' and historical context as each memoir is a detailed account of Cook's ancestors and gives insight into why he chose his path. My intent and purpose was to give future scientists a clear understanding of Cook's development, in way that they can relate to and which would encourage them. An encyclopedia to me, should be about learning a subject in-depth, but also in a way which is applicable to the reader. That's why I go to all the trouble on articles I edit.
  • Cook's doctoral thesis? Seems self-evident that it's relevant to the article, and is properly in the public domain.
  • The gradebook, OK I concede that. I am rigorous in my work, and perhaps went overboard with that one.
I will note that the Wikipedia Ddos article is a mess and would have been my next project, but I'm not touching it unless this instant question can be resolved fairly, as I need to know whether this is all a waste of my time. You can get an idea of my technical rigor and accuracy from my additions to the Cook article. 70 edits? Yes, I make damned sure it's right, as you'll see if you review those edits. That shouldn't be counted against me. You'll also note a number of red links there --technical terms that Wikipedia has never heard of-- which I could also complete.
Wikipedia shouldn't be about a 'ruling class' of editors, to whom everyone must bow down. Life's too short for those of us who can give depth and meaning to Wikipedia articles, and it is discouraging when arbitrary actions are taken by editors, apparently on a political basis and contrary to the rules clearly laid out. I am a scientist, not a manager. I request that all the referenced documents be reinstated except the gradebook. I will make any licensing annotations that may be required. But, if this is actually about a given editor's buddies piling on without regard to the rules, I'll understand and withdraw as it's unsafe for people like me.Bsouthwell (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say:
"If one particular editor is willing to nominate it for deletion, then it is incumbent on him to properly investigate and request any supporting documents necessary, and that was never done."
No. It is firm policy here that it is up to the uploader to provide all the necessary information. We get more than 10,000 new files every day. More than 1,500 files must be deleted every day and we are falling behind. 25 Admins do 90% of the work and we do not have time to do research that should have been done by the uploader. The problem was that you cannot simply say that a file is PD -- that is frequently claimed when the uploader doesn't really know the copyright status or hopes he can get away with it. You must say why the file is PD, in these cases, because there was no notice, see {{PD-US-no notice}}.
You are correct about the newspaper clipping. When I made the comment above, I had gone back through the article history only through your edits, not earlier. It was deleted almost two years ago, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Call Cook newspaper article.jpg. The reason was similar to the problems above -- it was uploaded without saying why it was PD, in this case because it was not renewed -- see {{PD-US-not renewed}}. The uploader was notified of the DR, but did not comment there. I have restored it.
Commons (this is Commons, not Wikipedia) does not have a "ruling class of editors"; the 25 I mentioned above, which includes the three you have interacted with (Fastily, EugeneZelenko, and me), certainly don't expect people to bow down, but we do expect civility and a willingness to learn the rules here. It is certainly a steep learning curve, but those who come and say, "OK, what did I do wrong" will get considerable support and help. Those who use words like "inaccurate", "arbitrary", "bias", "improperly", "capricious", "self-prideful" and others like them will simply get the words thrown back in their faces. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So the whole issue seems to revolve around the reason it is PD. This is a subtlety which is not required in the upload process and was never explained to me, at least in a way that I understood. In response to the deletion nomination I thoroughly explained the background of the licensing, reasonably and calmly, but this was summarily rejected and he referred me to Commons:Licensing, which didn't say more than I already knew.
In exasperation I was asking on IRC what this is about, and it was pointed out to me that I'd tagged the documents CC rather than PD, and NotASpy (#wikipedia-en-help - 10:00:33 PST) specifically told me to change the licensing tags to "{[PD-author|Carl A. Cook]}", which I did right away. It didn't make any difference though and the files were deleted without explanation. Most rational people would respond negatively, I think. To an outsider, the inexplicable actions of EugeneZelenko appear brusque and arbitrary. It makes a difference to understand actually why something is done. It's not worth it to try, in a culture where this sort of treatment is tolerated, at least for those contributors you would actually want...
Now that I know what to look for, I find that there are 297 PD categories. Searching there on 'no notice' yields only "PD US no notice-old-25", which I doubt is what you mean. 'not renewed' is not anywhere on the list. The meaning of 'no notice' is not self-evident to me so I won't know when to use it in future. And it appears that 'not renewed' is not authorized, although I suspect it is since you note it.
I am of course willing to work within the guidelines of Wikipedia ecosystem, as long as I am not treated heavy-handedly. I doubt that 98% of the population understands the arcanities of the PD designation system, and the official reference for it seems to be incomplete, so surely this would call for further explanation and maybe links to references when a given editor takes such an action. Otherwise he will alienate contributors, and although that may not always be a bad thing, in some cases it will impoverish Wikipedia to whatever small degree. (though it adds up)
Thank you for reinstating the newspaper clipping. Is there something I can do toward reinstatement of the Memoirs of Phineas, and Carl Cook, and the doctoral thesis of John? Bsouthwell (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now I find this, your support of yet another deletion request. One step forward and four steps back. This Wikipedia adventure is hopeless and a waste of my time. Go ahead and delete all the work I've done. Bsouthwell (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 03:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2014/R1/v/Vistadarodoviaimigrantes2.JPG[edit]

Unauthorized manipulation of POTY, admin abuse. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Sorry, I don't understand. File:Vistadarodoviaimigrantes2.JPG was deleted after a discussion by several very experienced Commons editors, not including me. I've looked over the discussion and the deletion appears to be correct -- the uploader has uploaded a number of files that appear elsewhere on the Web credited to other people.
Since the file has been deleted, it seems to me that ending its POTY candidacy is not only appropriate, but essential. Our ongoing ability to have copyvio Featured Pictures is an embarrassment for Commons. Or would you prefer to have people voting for a copyvio for POTY? That simply means that they are wasting their votes. Indeed, I'd argue that all those who voted for this image should get their votes back. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's unclear without the first now archived undeletion request. I don't want any illegal activity in 2007 disturbing POTY 2014, some folks already voted for the picture. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid using the term "illegal". There may be a copyright problem, this is quite different from alleging that a crime has been committed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A copyright violation should of course not be chosen as the picture of the year. However, if the nominator only wants to keep an archived copy of a page containing discussions about the file, then I see no problem with undeleting this page in the project namespace. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with that, except that I'm not sure that we can do that and somehow ensure that the image will not get more votes -- votes which would, of course, be wasted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That could be solved by making the page fully protected. In that case, only admins can vote, and I don't think that any admin would vote on a deleted image. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Duh -- why didn't I think of that?  Support, with full protection. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The posting at skyscrapercity.com is an embedded file from photobucket.com by giov460. That profile also seems not trustworthy. Jee 15:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see the request is about the vote page and not the file; yeah, of course it's not okay to simply delete a POTY page, no matter whether the according file was deleted. With out current vote system it's not a big deal but *please do not do this in R2* where we most likely have some kind of weighted voting and we'll need the page for re-assigning votes (1->deleted; 2->1; 3->2). I guess I have to tweak the abuse filter to prevent such deletions in future. And guys, the POTY committee won't announce a deleted picture of the year (we have kind of common sense), so there is absolutely no need to delete a page, nor to move votes around during POTY; this will just mess everything up as I use a script that verifies each single edit of each voting page for vote counting.-- Rillke(q?) 18:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ fixed by Rillke. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Elly Akira[edit]

I need clarification for both. Both of them have been uploaded by User:Yamamotomasahiro, who supposed to be an author of them. Both of them have wrong description and content link to actress' blog, but only main page or some OTHER photos of actress. I don't know why User:Yamamotomasahir posted those links but it just wrong description nothing more. These photos were unique, with any copies on Internet or elsewhere. The first one were deleted by Fastil, because he noticed external link and with no doubts deleted file. I asked Fastily for clarification, but recieved chaotic response. I repeated question and Fastily just archived topic (the best way to solve all problems). For another picture anonim (oh yeah, anonim with watchlist) requested otrs-permission, bud does it have any sense if uploader didn't appear here for two years? So it was deletede too. I insist that deletion of both of files were incorrect and ask for clarification: can we suspect any uploader who upload files with uncorrect description, request otrs-permission and delete image in 7 days? --Алый Король (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I think Fastily's response was entirely correct -- It is not up to the deleting Admin to do any research. It is up to the uploader to provide the correct source information and if he does not, the image will be deleted.
These are both posed professional images. In the absence of any information about them, it is wrong for us to assume that they are "own work" of an uploader who has only these two uploads as his Commons contributions. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it so rare that uploader has only two uploads? Is it illegal? He provided correct information: he is author of these photos. Why you prefer to assume that he is NOT. It's 100% your own assumption, am I right? You don't have any reasons to suspect him. posed professional images what do you mean? They do have good quality but it's not professional photoset or something like that. --Алый Король (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has been my experience -- and I think my colleagues will agree -- that people who upload only one or two images are very much more likely to upload copyvios than others. That is ten times more true when the subject of the photos is a celebrity. That is why we now have an explicit program for tracking uploads from new users and examining them closely. That was not in place when these were uploaded.
We do not know whether he provided correct information or not -- he claimed that the images are "own work", but as I said, they appear to be professional publicity photos. I don't need to prove anything to justify their deletion. It is up to the uploader to prove beyond a significant doubt that they are freely licensed. Given the circumstances here, based on our experience with hundreds of thousands of files, both Fastily and I have significant doubts. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done - nothing has changed since the first time we talked about this -FASTILY 23:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jumping with overload.gif[edit]

Also:

On 15:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC), Diego Grez posted RD on my file with the reason "Unlikely to be uploader's own work, he works as a professor and has uploaded in the past several copyvios". On 05:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC), Yann, without any discussion, approved deletion "as above".[reply]

I wonder, aren't Diego Grez and Yann in a state of feud with some professors, by any chance?

Anyway, would you mind to perform undeletion, please? ShustovVal (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Although there was little discussion on these files, there has been extended discussion of similar files at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_ShustovVal.
The three gifs have been processed by a third party, imgflip.com. Although ShustovVal may or may not be the photographer of these, imgflip.com's Terms of Service are unacceptable to Commons.
File:Muscle Man from Hollywood.jpg is taken from YouTube where it has the standard YouTube license, which is not acceptable for Commons.
File:Bodybuilders.png is taken from http://www.kaganyalaman.com, which is marked "Copyright © 2014 KaganYalaman.com. All Rights Reserved".
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop manipulating with my Requests for Undeletion[edit]

Undeletion requests, which have been submitted by me to each file individually, happened to be distorted by (Jameslwoodward) who mixed them together. Please, restore Undeletion requests of mine. Thanks. ShustovVal (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done again. These files are ineligible for Commons. Please refrain from repeatedly re-posting the same request, thanks. -FASTILY 03:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The_Yakshagana_Puppets.jpg[edit]

Dear Ies,

The file File:The Yakshagana Puppets.jpg is my own work. Not downloaded from any website. You can cross verify with my name in the poster. Official poster for the documentary The yakshagana Puppets was designed by me. No copyright violation in this file. kindly undelete the file.

Regards, Rohith User:RohithKumarPatali — Preceding unsigned comment added by RohithKumarPatali (talk • contribs) 11:59, 25 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I see the name "Rohith" in the lower right corner of the image. However, there are two problems here:
First, do you actually own the copyright to the poster and, in particular, the photograph shown? I would think that in the ordinary course of business you would have transferred the copyright for the poster to the film company.
Second, identity theft, both by fans and by vandals, is common here. We have no way of knowing that User:RohithKumarPatali is the Rohith who designed the poster. Therefore, policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. Please note that OTRS is all volunteers and, like Commons, is badly understaffed, so it may be a month or more before your license is acted on.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:RohithKumarPatali

Reply: What can I do now to fix this issue..


Regards, Rohith User:RohithKumarPatali — Preceding unsigned comment added by RohithKumarPatali (talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

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 03:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ахбердил Мухаммед.jpg[edit]

see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ахбердил Мухаммед.jpg

Рисунок находится в общественном достоянии, он был сделан еще во второй половине XIX века. В настоящее время хранится в селе Хунзах. Файл был удален в виду отсутствия этому доказательств. Но извините, какие могут быть доказательства если информация о рисунке в сети интернет отсутствует. В пределах разумного, всю информацию на странице описания файла я указал. Хаджимурад (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The file description claims that this is "own work" which is obviously not correct. The file was uploaded out of process after the DR and then deleted again. It is up to the uploader to provide the necessary information. Without that information, images cannot be kept here. In order to restore it, we will need to know when the artist died. The fact that it was created in the second half of the 19th century means that is is possibly still under copyright -- not as likely as 50/50, but perhaps 80/20. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. Unclear copyright status. -FASTILY 03:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Miguel reina.jpg[edit]

Hello, this file cames from "Cordobapedia" [26] that works with creative commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported[27]. I don't know why it has been deleted. Thanks

--Anual (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It is correct that Cordobapedia is CC-BY-SA, but the image's description there has no information on Author or Source, so it is impossible to know the actual copyright status of the image. See COM:License laundering for a discussion of this problem. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 03:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IbnSaud.32.jpg[edit]

Hello, the file in question was a file of King Ibn Saud, taken in the 1950s. It was present on Flickr, and is also used at EnWP, where it is marked as "candidate to be transferred to commons". The author at enwp claimed to be the author of the file. So please provide a good reason why the image was deleted, or undelete it. Thank you. --Eptalon (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose, see this deletion discussion regarding the Flickr account. The English Wikipedia uploader has several deleted files in his log and is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer. It's unfortunate that copyright violations are such a low priority on English Wikipedia and that people carelessly transfer previously deleted copyright violations back here. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per LX -FASTILY 03:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Santa Prassede Grabmal Coetivy 1.jpg[edit]

Es handelt sich um eine eingescannte Ansichtskarte. Lizenz Inhaber ist Padri Vallombrosiani, Santa Prassede, Roma. Habe die Erlaubnis zur Reproduktion mit Mail vom 14.01.2015 erhalten: Gent.mo dr. Peter Festin, riproduca pure la cartolina. Se può, inserisca "per gentile concessione dei Monaci Vallombrosani" Grazie. P. Giuseppe CASETTA OSB Abate Generale

Il giorno 14/gen/15, alle ore 16:14, Peter ha scritto: Reverendo, La Tipografia B.N. Marconi s.r.l., Genova mi informa che i padri Vallombrosani in Roma presso la Basilica detengono i diritti di riproduzione di cartoline da loro stampate. Le chiedo gentilmente il diritto di poter riprodurre l'immagine scannerizzata della cartolina "ROMA – Basilica di Santa Prassede, Andrea Bregno, Monumento funebre del Card. Alano" su una pagina di Wikipedia tedesca sull'argomento Andrea Bregno. Ringraziando Dr. Peter Festin

Peter1936F (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may re-upload the file, but please provide a suitable license tag on the file description page -FASTILY 03:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo Jardins de Cocagne 600 pix wide.jpg undeletion request[edit]

Hello, A member of our cooperative has created this logo and wishes to licence it under Attribution CC BY. The cooperative les Jardins de Cocagne owns this work. Therefore, we'd like to have it on Wikipedia to illustrate the article on the cooperative itself.

Thank you, Regards, Raphaël — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radard (talk • contribs) 19:12, 25 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Comment CC BY 4.0 in the footer of http://www.cocagne.ch/c5/ Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 23:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done - apparently ok -FASTILY 23:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jordan 193.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I contacted the author of the picture and he agreed to change the CC licence. See https://www.flickr.com/photos/tautaudu02/15086876370. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 03:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BRENALLGM.jpg and also File:Brenal-El_Comienzo.jpg[edit]

This images are free to use, I am the owner of the company La Galaxia Musical and Brenal is my artist,and the pictures are free to use, because we are promoting him...

--Musickick (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Francisco Grimaldi, 1/25/2015[reply]

@Musickick: We would need a confirmation of this through e-mail. Please review the process here and make sure you understand what we mean by "free to use" on this site. The e-mail needs to come from an address that we can verify (for example, it is listed on a contact page or social media, or ends in "@your-website.com"). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 02:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 03:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo_Hafran.png[edit]

Es de mi autoria

Wrong forum - file has not been deleted, but it probably will be... -FASTILY 03:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Promethean-Logo RGB-BlackwFlame-0714.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is the newest logo that Promethean is using in all of their marketing collateral. It is to replace the old style Promethean deprecated logo that has been outdated for at least 3 years. If it is on the company page how can it be a violation when it is the corporate logo uploaded to replace the outdated corporate logo. Many people download the old logo from here and use it incorrectly. Why would you delete the company logo? How does the company get their logo to be correct. Or does this mean that we can't trust what is on Wikipedia to be correct? Truemoss (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. Being 'outdated' does not make something freely licensed. -FASTILY 03:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kritiknetz.gif[edit]

To whom it may concern:

Upon uploading the File:Kritiknetz.gif to wikimedia, a user hinted at the missing permission information. The image is taken from the website www.kritiknetz.de where a permission is explicitly granted in the imprint.

"Das Logo (http://www.kritiknetz.de/images/kritiknetz.gif) darf in Online- und Printmedien weiterverwendet und verarbeitet werden. You are free to share the logo in online and print media and to remix the logo."

Quoted from: http://www.kritiknetz.de/index.php/impressum

Best, Logos056

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 23:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LunaCityExpress by Eddi Kruse.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hiermit erkläre ich in Bezug auf das Bild [File:LunaCityExpress by Eddi Kruse.jpg] (siehe: [28]), dass ich der Fotograf oder Inhaber des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts bin.

Ich erlaube hiermit die Weiternutzung des Bildes/der Bilder unter folgender freier Lizenz/folgenden freien Lizenzen:

[Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen Deutschland“ in Version 3.0]

Mir ist bekannt, dass damit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritte das Recht haben, das Bild zu nutzen und zu verändern. Dies schließt auch eine gewerbliche Nutzung ein.

Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann und kein Anspruch darauf besteht, dass das Bild dauernd auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.

Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, auf Grund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen. [14.01.2014], [Eddy Kruse] Semimbatic (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The licensing at the source site (http://www.moonharbour.com/live/index.php) is ambiguous. Identity theft is common here, both by fans and by vandals so we cannot know that you are Eddy Kruse. Therefore, when an image has appeared elsewhere on the Web without a free license, policy requires that the actual copyright holder must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Erklärung, Jim's Anfrage in anderen Worten auf deutsch, genau diese oder eine ähnliche Stellungnahme per OTRS (also e-mail o.ä.) statt hier würde sehr wahrscheinlich reichen, um die Genehmigung zu archivieren, und das Bild mit einem Link zur (nicht öffentlichen) Genehmigung wieder herzustellen. Diese einfache Plausibilitätsprüfung ist hier leider bitter nötig, wenn eine ältere Quelle nicht mit der Lizenz hier übereinstimmt. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help here, BA -- note that OTRS is available in German as well as English. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 23:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:All Messier objects.jpg[edit]

What exactly is the problem here? The owner added a tiny CC tag in the bottom right corner. His blog has been linked to. The reddit was there was just a small "bonus". Please review this deletion, because if a CC tag in the image is not enough, then I don't know what is Tetra quark (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As pointed out in the deletion edit summary, the "tiny CC tag in the bottom right corner" is actually CC-BY-NC-ND. Neither NC nor ND are acceptable on Commons or WP. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per James. The license was clearly indicated in the image, which is sourced to http://i.imgur.com/Sk1uro0.jpg. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Huntster: @Jameslwoodward: NonCommercial NoDerivatives. I kinda understand why it can't be on commons then because people assume the file is 100% free. However, I don't see why not upload it to wikipedia, even if for fair use. Tetra quark (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tetra quark: What would be the rationale? I imagine that higher quality images from NASA or ESO sources could be found and compiled under a free license. Remember, fair use is only acceptable when it is impossible for a freely licensed version to be used *and* the image is being used in an article to specifically support the prose. It seems likely to me that this image would simply be decorative in nature. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wanted to construct such a chart here, we have images of all the Messier objects, see Category:NGC_objects_by_Messier_number. That makes a fair use claim on WP:EN impossible..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Huntster: @Jameslwoodward: Although all the 110 Messier images are on commons, I'd still have to cite the source of each one in my compilation, and doing that would be a pain in the @$$. Anyway, the owner of the compilation is going to review his cc tag and I'll re-upload it. You see, the thing is that most people don't care know about copyright stuff. Michael (owner) simply added the tag there indicating he didn't care if someone used it. Well, now he is going to change the tag to a more appropriate one. Tetra quark (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 23:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diderot 2014_Guida docenti.pdf Diderot 2014_Guida studenti.pdf [edit]

Diderot 2014_Guida docenti.pdf Diderot 2014_Guida studenti.pdf

The January 25, 2015 I added two manuals of SCRATCH (programming language developped at MIT) on your platform for make available to colleagues and students but were canceled. From the log it seems because they are catalogated to encyclopedia, BUT NOT 'SO' This are Manuals !!! not encyclopedias articles. I have not entered This on wikibook because I do not want a license Public Domain but Creative Common. I therefore ask you to restore files and give me notice

Thank You --Francycon (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 23:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Гамбурцев Г. А..jpeg[edit]

Good evening!

I was scanned this image from book from Gubkin University museum. I can get permission from museum to add this file to wikipedia. What can I do to approve right to publishing this image? I asked questions on Wiki Helpdesk, but nobody could help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Чекмарёв Сергей (talk • contribs) 20:13, 26 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose In order to restore the image here, you will need to have the actual copyright holder, probably the book publisher, send a free license to OTRS. Note that the museum cannot grant permission -- it may own a copy of the book, but not the copyright or the right to license it. Also note that permission for use on Wikipedia is not sufficient -- both Commons and WP require a license to use the image anywhere by anybody for any purpose, including commercial use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 23:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kalachakra 2014 (14515227658).jpg[edit]

The deleting admin is treating "obviously out of scope" as if it was a speedy deletion criterion and refuses to discuss it further. As we all know, "obviousness" is often in the eye of the beholder when it comes to scope discussions, which is why we have these discussions in the first place. The close should accordingly be overturned and the discussion re-opened.

As a side note, this is one of several images uploaded by Russavia that were recently nominated for deletion with very similar "out of scope" rationales. Several of these have met with "keep" results or are leaning in that direction, indicating that this may be another such. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going to close this as  Not done. I agree with Jim and the users who edited in the DR that this is out of scope, and very obviously so... -FASTILY 23:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3789 stamp (Persian Simurgh Vessel).jpg[edit]

This file was deleted as a duplicate of the file file:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3789 stamp (Persian Simurgh Vessel).png in PNG-format. But it isn't exact copies or scaled-down, deleted file have another format JPEG. PNG- and JPEG-files aren't identical from the point of view of assignment: JPEG-files are more intended for use in Viki (they in miniatures are usually best of all displayed, is sharper), PNG-file as providing the best quality, - it is more for external users. --Matsievsky (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. See Commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support See COM:VP#Pngs and jpgs of the same images. And Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive#File:The Soviet Union 1969 CPA 3788 stamp (Turkmenian Drinking Horn).jpg --Matsievsky (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support per Matsievsky, as here we deal with different format types, and the rule Andrey Korzun wrongfully refers to concerns only the same file types: "If the file is the same file type ...". --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support per Matsievsky and Leonid Dzhepko. As well Help:PNG has to be taken into account: „The major problem with JPEG is that, <...> it cannot be repeatedly edited, even at the best quality settings. As such, even where the PNG thumbnail is inferior, it's recommended to upload a PNG as well...“ Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

✓ Done as above. Yann (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Christopher Parkening 1975 USC Bovard Auditorium MHW046.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014121510017076 received from the address mentioned at MarkWestlingPhotography.com Jee 02:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 05:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gregory Coleman 2002.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014121510017076 received from http://www.markwestlingphotography.com/ Jee 06:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 06:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Example.jpg[edit]

Greeting,

I work for this company and we have the copy right please don't delete it I worked so hared on this page and don't block me for editing

 Not done: No valid reason. — Revi 07:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Výzkumný ústav meliorací a ochrany půdy.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Map GAEC 2.png has been deleted by false assumption that base map is copyrighted and therefore it is not permitted to be used in Wikipedia. The basemap (borders of Czech Republic and regions) is created and kept up to date by Czech Office for Surveying, Mapping and Cadastre. Those map are free to use, they are without copyright. Futhermore we are using this maps in Research Institute for Soil and Water Conservation where the map GAEC itself comes from at daily basis, no permission needed. There is no limitation to use or not use those base map in publication.


File Výzkumný ústav meliorací a ochrany půdy.jpg is found elsewhere, possibly as a profile of our institution at www.firmy.cz because it is me who uploaded the file: I am the author and I have uploaded the picture, because, as mentioned above, I work here. The hint should be that the file uploaded to wikipedia is bigger than the file on the other page.

I am happy to provide more information at this matter if possible. Tarenor (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joaquim Agostinho Besancon 1980.jpg[edit]

At least seven days delay is given to clear up the copyright status, but a minute after the notification the file was already deleted (in the middle of the night). As a matter of fact, I am not even sure I was the uploader at the time, but I am not pleased that I am not even given the chance to look into this. Tekstman (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the file's log, it was based on File:Jean de Gribaldy et Joaquim Agostinho Besancon 1980.jpg, which was deleted back in 2008 (log). That made this a candidate for speedy deletion. Really, the derivative should have been deleted along with the original. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 21:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Real Mulia FC.jpg[edit]

This logo is from it's official fanpage on the Facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakifahmi (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

When requesting undeletion, you need to provide a reason. The file was deleted as a copyright violation. Your statement that it was taken from a fanpage on Facebook does nothing to address that; in fact, it only strengthens the case for deletion. Please read Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Internet images. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 21:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Strangers Within poster.jpg[edit]

Image is called Strangers Within poster and was uploaded by myself earlier today after receiving instructions to do so on the files for upload page. The image is here: http://farm8.staticflickr.com//7482//16348623451_d5817f049e_k.jpg

I am requesting its undeletion because no copyright rules are broken by the file being here. It is clearly listed, by the author, as being Creative Commons Attribution here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/129128431@N02/16348623451/. After my original request on the Files For Upload page I was given this response "Symbol opinion vote.svg Hello, and thank you for your request. As this is a "free" file and you are registered, please login to the Wikimedia Commons (using your Wikipedia username and password) and upload the file there. If you have any problems uploading the file to the Commons please reply back here. Regards. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 08:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)"

If you require any more information please don't hesitate.

Kelly182 (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose There's no evidence whatsoever that the Flickr user "Liam Hooper" is indeed the director of that indie movie. I'd say this needs a OTRS release coming from 2050 films Lupo 16:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Hi Lupo, how would you suggest I prove this image's authenticity? Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamhoops (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
An e-mail from 2050 films from a verifiable e-mail address (I hope you do have @2050films.co.uk e-mail addresses...) as explained at OTRS should suffice. Once the release has been processed, the image will be restored. May take a few weeks; the volunteers handling our permissions e-mail queue are severely backlogged. Lupo 20:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please contact 2050films to verify that they are in control of the flickr account. Once you do that, forward a copy of your correspondence to COM:OTRS and they'll get the file restored -FASTILY 21:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to request that these files be undeleted.[edit]

I would like to request that these files be undeleted. The decision to delete them was made unilaterally by a single user without merit and there is nothing wrong with them. They also represent work on my part. User: Leyo has been policing my posts (stalking me) and deleting and changing much of what I post, all without citation to back his changes. Not sure how to fix that but I would like my files placed back where they were. They are perfectly good references as I have cited three other references which use the same format here in the 3d models discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry and below plus there are examples just like mine in terms of construction characteristics already in use here in Wikipedia which have not been deleted. These deletions were nominated solely because they are mine. Thank you for your time. Lazord00d (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations:


File:4-methylamphetamine.png

 Oppose Your position has already been invalidated on Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lazord00d. The only thing you do it repeating yourself continuously and verbosely. --Leyo 00:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Support - Not so much actually.. Last I saw in that deletion nomination thread and the myriad other threads that are going on about this debacle, the facts indicated that there are multiple acceptable ways to draw these molecules. I saw no conclusion to the discussion at all. You shared the link, did you even read all of it or just the parts you agree with? It's impressively predictable, and entirely in support of all of the above claims, that you're both the first post and the first opposition here.

Lazord00d (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder to all (I quote directly from WP:Consensus):

"In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." Lazord00d (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving true my statement above. ;-) It's not only about the quality of the arguments, it's also about the expertise that is behind: Multiple users who accessed your images as inappropriate are lecturers/professors in organic chemistry. On the other hand, your line of argument is to show that this type of representation is used elsewhere. You don't consider the fact that JSmol/Jmol is used for an automated creation of the images (since they want to have images for a lot of molecules) due to the lack of a more appropriate software only. On Commons, there should be appropriate representations, i.e. carefully created and if possible based on crystal data. There are already thousands of such images on Commons. --Leyo 09:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I can't view the images now but as I recall many contained incorrect representations of aromaticity and did not add to the articles they were included in. I respect your tenacity and appreciate your desire to contribute but unfortunately this is a very technical task that you've taken on and your lack of understanding on the topic seems to have lead you to believe that these images are just good as pretty pictures. Testem (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As per the above statement, alternating double bonds in fixed positions are incorrect for aromatic molecules. Cheers, --Ghilt (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support This deletion clearly broke policy -- some of these images were in use. It is firmly established Commons policy that we do not second guess editors on the various WPs when they have chosen to use particular images. Commons is not the place for debates over the selection of images on the WPs -- that takes place on the WPs, where there are far more likely to be a number of informed opinions on the subject. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need to be more Catholic than the Pope. Yes, some of the images were in use, but only due to the fact that the uploader continuously edit-wars them into articles against the consensus in the en.wikipedia WikiProject Chemistry. Members of this WikiProjects were informed about this DR here and participated numerously. The uploaders disruptive behaviour just resulted in being blocked on en.wikipedia and it can also be seen in this DR against the DR page. --Leyo 13:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Incorrect molecular configurations, and per Leyo editor warred to include these in articles, so I see no issue with original deletion. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose completely inappropriate images, disruptive discussion, edit warrior and completely non-consent with other chemists. The account Lazord00d should blocked indefinitely. Less is more. --JWBE (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose incorrect images should be deleted. --Linksfuss (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus to undelete anything at this time -FASTILY 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cartel Wikimedia Género Mexico 2015.jpg borrado-[edit]

Hola

Borraron un archivo que subí hace unas semanas por representar problemas de copyright, pero, yo ultilicé para ese diseño, fotos con permiso Creative Commons, acá los links de ellas: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kanaka/4655501075 https://www.flickr.com/photos/javigvidal/2730225569 https://www.flickr.com/photos/nanpalmero/14000201198

Será posible restituír el archivo, o qué es necesario hacer?

--Irene Soria (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Irene Soria[reply]

@Irene Soria: ¿A cuál de los enlaces de Flickr corresponde la foto? Parece que ésta es la sola foto que usted ha subido. Sobre el permiso: Sólo la tercera foto de Flickr tiene permiso suficiente para este sitio, porque no permitimos las licencias con la condición NC («NoComercial»). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 07:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose File:Cartel Wikimedia Género Mexico 2015.jpg was a collage including derivatives of 5 other images plus a number of logos. Three of these other images are the above Flickr images; the two remaining ones have not been identified so far. Of these three Flickr photos, two are under NC licenses (CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-SA-NC). Therefore the resulting combination of images cannot be released under a non-NC license, and thus cannot be hosted here. Lupo 09:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:野狼与玛莉海报.jpg[edit]

--Snxsd123 (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Jennifer by SKT international Pictures Sdn Bhd[reply]

Please consider reading Commons:OTRS and Commons:Email templates. --Leyo 09:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed request - no reason given to undelete anything -FASTILY 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pardis Parker - Comedy for a Cause.jpg[edit]

I hereby affirm that I, Michael Tullberg, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File:Pardis Parker - Comedy for a Cause.jpg.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

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.

Michael Tullberg Copyright Owner of Photograph/Photographer 27 January 2015

Hello, Michael. I'm sorry to say this, but we can't accept this as a permission, because we cannot be sure that any user is in fact who they say they are. The proper way to grant the permission is to send that text in an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The e-mail should come from an address that ends in @michaeltullberg.com (I'll assume that's your website). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 07:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please email this to COM:OTRS to get the file restored. -FASTILY 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Výzkumný ústav meliorací a ochrany půdy.jpg and File:GAEC 2.png[edit]

Please, restore these two files. There is permission in OTRS (ticket:2015012810015223 in info-cs queue). --Harold (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the first, but was unsure about the base map in the second. --Leyo 21:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IRNDT fig 02 cz.jpg, File:IRNDT fig 03 cz.jpg, File:IRNDT fig 04 cz.jpg, File:IRNDT fig 05 cz.jpg[edit]

Please, restore these four files. There is permission in OTRS (ticket:2015012810012922 in info-cs queue). Thanks. --Harold (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:When Joris Ivens meets Hraesvelgr.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014120910017408 received from http://bryanmccormack.com/ Jee 17:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mission Kids celebrates 5th year anniversary.jpg[edit]

To whom it may concern, I have permission to use an image I uploaded under the username:GalenSylk. Does this suffice or is there more I need to do to use the picture? The news responded to my email claiming I had to credit CBS3 and hyperlink the story, I did both and my picture was still deleted.


Thank you,

Galen

E-mail
Forwarded message ----------

From: Sullivan, Lauren L <sullivan@cbsphilly.com> Date: Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:59 AM Subject: Re: Regarding using picture on webpage To: Galen Sylk <galen.sylk@gmail.com>, "commons@wikipedia.org" <commons@wikipedia.org>



You can use as long as you credit CBS3 and hyperlink to the story. 



On Jan 28, 2015, at 10:47 AM, "Galen Sylk" <galen.sylk@gmail.com> wrote:




Hello, 


 I am writing the Wikipedia page for District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman and I would like to use the picture from this website:

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/10/29/mission-kids-child-advocacy-center-marks-5th-anniversary/.

Would it be possible to use this photo? In order to not violate copyright I would need the photographers permission sent to commons@wikipedia.org Re: GalenSylk photo permission


Thank you very much,

Galen Sylk 

--



Galen Sylk

215-313-2113

galen.sylk@gmail.com

Intern

District Attorneys Office

2 East Airy Street

Norristown, PA

GalenSylk (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Galen B SylkGalenSylk (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GalenSylk: Sorry, but we need more permission that that. Images must be free for everyone to use. To make sure they understand this, we ask copyright holders to send a form letter, available at COM:CONSENT. They should send that letter directly to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 20:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sedona Sky Academy Logo.jpg[edit]

The image is Sedona Sky's logo, and I'm their marketing manager.. I don't understand the issue. The existing image for their wiki site is WRONG. As you can see, I'm a contributor to their Website as well. Thanks, Mark

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 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vanessa Rubio Marquez.jpg[edit]

1.- srealc 2.- en el asunto 3.- Fotografía de perfil, nombre a archivo en el asunto 4.- Se solicita hace deshacer el borrado de la imagen, ya que se utilizará para poder realizar el perfil de la Subsecretaría. Es una fotografía tomada por el pool oficial de la Secretaría, la cual se utiliza dentro de la página de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores:

http://www.sre.gob.mx/

http://www.sre.gob.mx/index.php/oficinas-centralesmenu

Yo laboro dentro de la Subsecretaría, por lo cual cuento con la autorización de poder subirla, si así lo requieren puedo enviar una documento firmado por el pool oficial así como el encargado jurídico de la secretaría autorizando el que puedo subir dicho archivo.

¿Cuál fue el motivo para eliminar la fotografía? ¿Qué procedimiento me salte para poder subirla? ¿De qué forma puedo volver a subir el archivo?

Saludos

5.- --Srealc (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 06:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Larry Potterfield Head Shot.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014121710015412 received from http://www.midwayusa.com/ Jee 05:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted, leaving tagging to Jee. — Revi 05:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KevinMichaelSmitz.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014121710020121 received from the photographer. Jee 10:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Jkadavoor: Please add the OTRS ticket and license. INeverCry 05:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Annia, comic precuela de Hill of Hell by Ángel Suárez - elduendesuarez 07.jpg[edit]

Esta imagen es una obra exclusivamente realizada por mi, pertenece a un comic que yo mismo he hecho. Yo soy el autor de esta imagen por lo que no procede su borrado bajo ningún concepto de los planteados por esta plataforma. Solicito su activación inmediata.

This image is a work exclusively by me, belongs to a comic that I've done. I am the author of the image so that it is unnecessary deletion in any way from those raised by this platform. I request immediate activation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elduendesuarez (talk • contribs) 10:56, 29 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

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 07:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jaffna Post Office.JPG[edit]

@Túrelio Thanks for marking this as DR and suggesting a discussion. this is a genuine and professional. I was late but i have a question. @Bandara - This is built by the Government of Sri Lanka and is a public building. not a private owned building. do we need copyright/architect holder for government built buildings? and this is a low resolution image. this is to represent the post office in Jaffna. Eeriyaka (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is no FOP in Sri Lanka -FASTILY 07:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:File:Niels Korte.jpg[edit]

We are the copyright owner of that picture.

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 07:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cégep Garneau.jpg et File:Cégep Garneau_adresse.jpg[edit]

Bonjour,

Nous sommes le Cégep Garneau. Ce fichier a été produit par notre graphiste Francis Brisson. Nous avons le droit de le diffuser. J'aimerais que le fichier puisse réapparaître sur notre page.

Merci.

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 07:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kashy-Keegan-portrait.jpg[edit]

I am requesting to undelete the File:Kashy-Keegan-portrait.jpg as I am Kashy's manager and took the photo myself and retain all copyright.

Regards, Eva Li--Evalimg (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Breteau.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2014121810003478 confirms uploader is a representative of http://www.asiainspection.com/ Jee 18:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Jkadavoor: Please add the OTRS ticket and license. INeverCry 04:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vanessa Rubio Marquez.jpg[edit]

Pueden deshacer que eliminaron la fotografía File:Vanessa Rubio Marquez.jpg es una foto de perfil institucional y la utilizamos para todos nuestros subsecretarios.

O me pueden decir el procedimiento para que no la eliminen.


Can undo that eliminated the picture File: Vanessa Rubio Marquez.jpg is a picture of institutional profile and use it for all our secretaries.

Or can you tell me the procedure to not removed.


--Srealc (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Srealc: Requeremos que todas las imágenes en este sitio estén bajo una licencia libre. Una licencia libre significa que todos pueden copiar, usar, y modificar la imagen para cualquier fin, incluso fines comerciales.
Si usted desee liberar la foto así, por favor envíe un mensaje por seguir las instrucciones en esta página.
Usted debe eligir una licencia. Recomendamos uno de tres opciones comúnes:
Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 21:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alwara-hoefels.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received in Ticket:2015012910012082. Thanks, XenonX3 (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @XenonX3: Please add the OTRS ticket and license. INeverCry 04:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BNSRajon.jpg[edit]

its free to use. it was taken by my brother. please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsrajon (talk • contribs) 21:11, 29 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

There was no such image at the Commons. If you mean File:BNS Rajon.jpg, it was deleted on May 23,2014 because it also exists at [29]. Lupo 21:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MoulanaBhasaniHockeyStadium.jpg[edit]

it free to use file. and it was taken by my friend. so please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsrajon (talk • contribs) 21:14, 29 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

There is no such file at the Commons. However, I've just tagged File:Maulana Bhasani Hockey Stadium.jpg as missing permission. It exists already at panoramio (larger and uploaded earlier) and thus needs a OTRS release from the panoramio account owner. Lupo 21:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And if you mean File:Moulana Bhasani Hockey Stadium.jpg, that was deleted because it was posted to skyscrapercity on February 9, 2010. Lupo 21:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 07:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Official "SAIKO" Short Movie Poster.jpg[edit]

Hello Wikimedia, I want to ask why my OWN COPYRIGHTED POSTER deleted from recent upload? I am not break the rules or copyright law since the poster is made, copyrighted and owned by myself, so please undelete my poster so i can continue my article~! thanks!

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 07:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-01&oldid=296807364"