Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2015-03

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

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

File:Vitsebsk Uspenski sabor.JPG[edit]

Restored buildings in Belarus have the same status as the historical buildings. Legally, the year of construction of Assumption Church considered in 1803([1], code 212Г000062, Успенскі сабор), and the architect of the project is considered to be Józef Fontana. Igor Rotko not the author of the project, he is the author of working documentation for measured drawings, ie there is no creativity in his work (this would be contrary to the Venice Charter). 195.50.31.213 21:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain the consequences of the assertion "Restored buildings in Belarus have the same status as the historical buildings" on copyright? --Dereckson (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the true architect of the church. First it was built in 1800s, in 1960s it was demolished and in 2000s restored. However the authors of the restored church don't own the rights on the building. --195.50.31.213 18:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done as a stale request(no new activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 23:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Выдающиеся деятели культуры и искусства Кыргызстана.jpg[edit]

Данные фотографии являются фото моих родственников взяты из моего личного семейного архива, на загруженных файлах изображены мои родственники, я не нарушил авторских прав. В связи с чем, прошу Вас восстановить загруженные мною изображения.--Дилдорбек (talk) 20:43, 27 February 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 07:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alexander Hauff 1.jpg request undelete[edit]

i woke up the morning with the information a file i contributed to the wiki commons had been deleted because of "copyright fringe". I not only do own the copyright, i am the photographer of the picture and have the permission to upload it from the actor. i understand and respect your wish to take care about the misuse of pictures. but after clicking from page to page only getting to another page with lot's of lists and links i still have no idea what went wrong or even better what i have to do. why not ask for all the things one has to do on the upload page. if you check my name and the actors name you will see that i make a lot of the pictures from that actor for his agency and press kits. so what exactly do you want me to do when i upload one of my pictures. --Iolukana (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Iolukana: Please submit a license verification per the instructions at COM:OTRS. Thanks. The OTRS volunteer will request undeletion once the permission is verified. Revent (talk)
Iolukana, the file's metadata shows a copyright for Jordana Schramm. Attempts at identity theft are common here, both by vandals and by fans, so to protect the copyright holder, when an image shows an explicit copyright, we require that the actual copyright holder confirm his or her identity through OTRS. I know this is a nuisance, but you only have to do it once. After that, we will know that Iolukana is Jordana Schramm. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 28 February 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 23:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Iglesia y Claustro de San Pedro Claver 3.jpg[edit]

Also:

Las fotos publicadas en la pagina de Panormaio con el usuario "La Imagen de Colombia" son de mi propiedad. Puede verificarlo ingresando por http://www.panoramio.com/user/martinduquea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinduquea (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose Because these appear on Panaramio without a free license and we have no way of knowing if User:Martinduquea is the Panaramio user of the same name, policy requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Otra posibilidad es que tú mismo cambies la licencia de las fotos en Panoramio y les asignes una licencia CC-BY o CC-BY-SA. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 15:49, 28 February 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 23:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Didacta Stand Autostadt-by-RaBoe 01.jpg[edit]

Moin zusammen, dieses Bild wurde auf der Messe Didacta aufgenommen. Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 17:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 23:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files deleted by Jcb[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015011310017213 Signed permission received from National Archives of Malawi through Wikipedian-in-Residence, Malawi. Jee 12:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Jee, call me a skeptic. Notwithstanding the declaration of its Director, I doubt very much that the National Archives of Malawi is actually the copyright holder. The Director gives no explanation of why the National Archives owns the copyrights to this varied assortment of images and I think we probably should have such an explanation.
I also note that while the authorization letter (which was forwarded to us and did not come directly from the Director) is on letterhead and looks very authentic, it is dated October 13th, 2014, and it is now 4 1/2 months after that. The date on the letter is in a different typeface from the letter's body, so I have my doubts about the authenticity of the letter as well. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim for the opinion. I too have some doubt about the "ownership of copyright"; so I had discussed it at IRC prior to posting here. But The National Archives of Malawi is a government department in the Ministry of Information, Tourism Culture. I didn't see much meaning in doubting a state department. The mail was forwarded; but Michaelphoya is Wikipedian-in-Residence, Malawi. From the log I see those deleted files are uploaded before 1 August 2014. The delay may be due to the communication between many people and departments. I can't see deleted contents; but from the file names, it looks like many of they are taken by govt. agencies.
If further clarification is needed, it is better the Wikipedian-in-Residence him/herself handle it as it is difficult for us to communicate with them. Jee 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like violating PRP, but I suppose we can always take the position that we have an official government authorization to use them. Let's see how our colleagues feel about it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. As this is a mass upload, it is wise to see more opinions. I pinged the uploader too; let us see his/her arguments too. Thanks. Jee 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Perso, I would accept a permission from such a government agency. We usually accept claim by other government agencies about copyright (i.e. from the French National Library about pictures being in the public domain). Regards, Yann (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reasonable doubts. Restoring. Ankry (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkadavoor: ✓ Done Ankry (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks . So there was an old ticket too which Jcb attended. So pinging for his opinion too. (I don't think it was good he deleted those files straight away even without a DR.) Jee 16:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkadavoor: you may have missed something basic about our standard procedures: if a file has been tagged with {OTRS received} for over 30 days, we delete it. Not sure why you suggest why that would be 'not good' or need a DR. Jcb (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saint Xavier Alumni Magazine - Spring 2000.jpg[edit]

This is a magazine article appearing on page 15 of Saint Xavier University Alumni Magazine. The article is about Christine Mouser, she is an alumnus of St. Xavier University. The Wikipedia article the magazine article pertains to is about her.

What gives you the impression this published article constitutes a copyright violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3rdi-info (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No evidence of free license provided. Ankry (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the question posed by User:3rdi-info: The alumni magazine is copyrighted -- copyright is automatic now in the USA and everywhere else. It is extremely unlikely that it is freely licensed. Without a free license, the deleted image is a copyright violation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:34, 1 March 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 Henry Austen[edit]


All of these files are owned by the subject of the page "Norman Lacy". They are photos taken for the subject and are owned by him. They were given to me for use in the writing of this page. The owner has communicated to me that he wishes for these photographs to be in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry Austen (talk • contribs) 05:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment If you don't mind, I've edited your post to make it more readable. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 05:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Ownership of photos does not automatically mean ownership of copyright. A photographer selling a photo may still restrict its use. If uploader is not the photographer who made the photos, they should follow OTRS procedure to send a permission from the photographer (or from another copyright owner if copyright transfer can be proved). Ankry (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Delitzsch 19 20081118 1872720780.jpg[edit]

Thias picture was taken by me so there is no copyright violation. Thx

Frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyla (talk • contribs) 08:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Watermark suggests the photo is copyrighted by the club. Follow OTRS procedure.

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

File:Régal'ad (Kréma).jpg[edit]

and File:Régal'ad (Kréma)2.jpg

I am obviously not the copyright holder of the packaging.
But I do not understand how in the world this copyright could possibly applies, whereas it is not even represented in its entirety!
I assume that with such accusations, we could argue that this pic is a violation of the packaging of the podium, that one might be a violation of the tailor's copyright ? And maybe this one could obviously be a violation of the gardener that grow the plants.
Oh, you might want to look at my aviations pics, as most of them featured airlines logos and liveries that are surely submited to copyright.
With such accusations, we could delete most of the documents currently on Commons.

If you're not satisfied with my examples, let me tell you that I am actually angry and dissatisfied with the way it happenned: two of my pictures has been proposed for deletion — months after they've been uploaded — by a new user that has been blocked a few days later for abuse of multiple accounts. Two opinions has been given on those deletion requests, both in favor of conservation. And a month later, without any warning, there are deleted. Two possibilities: whether you don't give a fuck about how many people are opposed to deletion, or you don't give a fuck about what they are actually saying and you delete anyway using argument that have been disapproved.

If you disagred, I would have appreciated that you intervened in the discussion so we could have addressed the issue.

I am NOT SATISFIED with the argumentation of the admin that deleted the file, and I considered the deletion abbusive and unfounded. Gyrostat (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the images you mentioned in the text above:
  • The "logo" on the podium is {{PD-simple}} and {{PD-text}} PD-Old (the rings were once copyrighted, but it has expired).
    The "logo" on the podium is {{PD-simple}} and {{PD-text}} PD-Old (the rings were once copyrighted, but it has expired).
  • The tailor doesn't own the copyright to these logos, the companies they represent do. But they are however De minimis since the logos are not the focus for this image, it is the person. If the logos were removed, the image would still be as useful in the articles they are in, as it is now.
    The tailor doesn't own the copyright to these logos, the companies they represent do. But they are however De minimis since the logos are not the focus for this image, it is the person. If the logos were removed, the image would still be as useful in the articles they are in, as it is now.
  • 1. In Russia there is something called Freedom of panorama for specifically, and I quote from that page, "buildings" and "works of garden design". 2. The "style in which the gardener has planted is not "creative enough" to warrant copyright per Commons:Threshold of originality.
    1. In Russia there is something called Freedom of panorama for specifically, and I quote from that page, "buildings" and "works of garden design".
    2. The "style in which the gardener has planted is not "creative enough" to warrant copyright per Commons:Threshold of originality.
Josve05a (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, in general we don't care 'who' nominated an image at DR, or even what rationale was originally used. The point of the process is to comply with policy and copyright law... the copyright status of an image is an 'objective fact', though still open to opinion. Deletions where the image is a problem even though the nom itself was questionable are not uncommon. Revent (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad {{PD-simple}}, {{PD-text}}, De minimis and Commons:Threshold of originality are mentioned above. Now you can have a look at the deleted pictures (well...) and you'll realise that those concepts apply to my pictures. Gyrostat (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose No,sorry, they do not. De minimis can apply only when the copyrighted items is so insignificant that it could be deleted without changing the picture significantly. Since the copyrighted items are the only things in your images, that cannot be the case with them. The Olympic Rings were actually under copyright, but it has expired. The product packaging in your images is far too complex to qualify as PD-Simple.
As for the handling of this, please remember that Commons get around 10,000 new images every day. We delete around 1,500. 25 Admins do 90% of the work. Much as we might like to be able to give personal service, we are fundamentally working very hard to stay ahead of the flood and, at the moment, are falling behind.
Finally, you say:
"Two possibilities: whether you don't give a fuck about how many people are opposed to deletion, or you don't give a fuck about what they are actually saying and you delete anyway using argument that have been disapproved."
That is, in fact partly true. DRs are not votes and any comments that are not well grounded in the applicable law will be ignored. The closing Admin is required to use his or her judgement and knowledge of the law and to use the comments only to help that decision, not vote on it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(endorse comment, tho closable) "DRs are not votes and any comments that are not well grounded in the applicable law will be ignored. The closing Admin is required to use his or her judgement and knowledge of the law and to use the comments only to help that decision, not vote on it." is quite correct. Revent (talk)

 Not done per above. -FASTILY 04:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Irene_Hannon.jpg[edit]

This image replaced a press photo image that attached a photo credit. I am the originator of this photograph and it free to be used by Wikipedia users, without restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCarrington (talk • contribs)

 Not done: OTRS permission from the copyright holder to host this image under an acceptable free license is required. INeverCry 02:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portrait of Bernard Cathelin.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There is no alternative, public domain or free-copyrighted replacement available. Inclusion is for information, education and analysis only. Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s) because it shows the subject, or the work of the subject, of the article(s). The image is a low resolution copy of the original work of such low quality that it would be unlikely to impact sales of the work. 90.60.185.90 18:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see the deleted image, but this reads like a 'fair use' claim that would allow uploading on a local project, not on Commons (fair use is not allowed here). Revent (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Fair use is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 04:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Poster-sm.jpg[edit]

I created the image and own the trademark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmal66 (talk • contribs)

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 04:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

My photos deleted[edit]

I did nothing wrong I did NOT steal other people's work I gave credit, cites, and sources of correct and valid information to every picture I contributed and every page I contributed to. I did not violate anything. There was only 1 photo that I recall citing incorrectly, as it was the first time I ever used the website and it would not let me edit and fix my mistake after it. All my other 3 photographs were accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conattack (talk • contribs)

Well, at least you cited things. But can you forinstance explain why File:Stephen Amell's Facebook Photo.jpg, copied from Stephen Amell's Official Facebook is under a {{Cc-0}} license? (“The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. ”)
By default, all imagess have copyright, and cannot be used without permission. You can't copy a random image from the internet and just upload it as if the author allowed it. Unless of course the author allowed it.
Platonides (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 04:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Roger Hodgson Breakfast in America World Tour Montage.ogg[edit]

Please attribute copyright tag: {{Non-free fair use in|Roger Hodgson}} --Zenithstar (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Fair use" media files are not allowed on Commons. See Commons:Fair_use. Platonides (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Fair-use is prohibited on Commons. INeverCry 02:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nabiha.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Can you please show proof that im infringing any copyright?

I own this picture together with Nabiha and her mangement and record company Sarahhesselbo (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we find photos that appear to be taken from the Internet (i.e. we find that they were published elsewhere first), then we need an indication of a free copyright license at the original source, or we need a communication from the rights holder to COM:OTRS to verify the permission. If you follow the instructions at the OTRS link, that is the process which will get the photo undeleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Hi Carl! @Sarahhesselbo: It's not a matter of 'proof of copyright infringement', but of 'signifigant doubt' of licensing that is compatible with Commons (see COM:PRP). It's standard to disallow uploads of images that were previously published with a copyright notice, for the sake of preventing 'theft' of images from websites. Please follow the procedure at COM:OTRS, if all is in order the file will be restored. Revent (talk) 23:06, 1 March 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 04:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Záběhlická, krabice a plyšový pes.jpg[edit]

My argumentation at the discussion page was completely ignored. I argued the Czech copyright act use the word "rozmnoženina", not the English word "reproduction". The meaning of the word "rozmnoženina" means rather "a copy" or "a multiplication". A photo of myself CANNOT be considered as a "rozmonoženina" of myself. A photo of a three-dimensional toy cannot be a "rozmnoženina" of the toy, as well as a narration about the toy cannot be considered as a "rozmnoženina" of the toy. --ŠJů (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 04:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2008 Krystal Meyers 20 years old at radio interview.png[edit]

Apparently you are not looking at the license on flicker. Maybe you should do that before saying it is what you say it is.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/131723308@N08/16057562384/

 Not done License laundering -FASTILY 04:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sr. Luis Ortiz Mendiola en huajuapan.jpg[edit]

Hola me interesa saber por que fueron borrados mis archivos de imagen, yo soy el dueño original de estas fotografías, soy nuevo en wikipedia y mi interés es contribuir con su desarrollo, ademas yo si conozco bien la historia o pagina que edite ya que mi origen es huajuapeño, por favor restaure mis proyectos gracias por su atencion, saludos.

Affected:

File:Sr. Luis Ortiz Mendiola en huajuapan.jpg And also:

File:Primer recuerdo de feria huajuapan 1981.jpg File:Tienda antigua de la mixteca 1945 01.jpg File:Parroquia de San antonio en huajuapan 1945.jpg Yours sincerely EugeneZelenko (Discusión) 15:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


--Ingpue01 (talk) 04:57, 2 March 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 08:41, 2 March 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: Ticket:2015011310024554 received from http://gurunessbrownie-photography.com/ Jee 06:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Jkadavoor: Please add the ticket. INeverCry 07:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Karim El Kerem 2015.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015011410003539 received from the subject/ http://www.horustribu.com/ There is an early ticket Ticket:2012062810013231 for similar works stating work for hire. Jee 06:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Jkadavoor: Please add the ticket. INeverCry 07:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Guy birenbaum.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have the rights and authorization Facel (talk) 08:14, 2 March 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 08:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg[edit]

Hello, i found that the file File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg was deleted with the assumption it has copyright by AP wich is not true, since on 1984 the argentine autor of the photo (Martin F. Sgut) did take legal actions and a judge of a New York court ruled that the photos were stolen from him, the real autor. The photo was originally taken by "Capitán de fragata Martín F. Sgut" (Argentine Navy, Frigate captain, Martin F. Sgut) and was stolen and then published illegally at the US. and its under public domain on Argentina. because it was published on argentina (one of the many that punblished it on argentina) may 13, 1982 on the Argentine megazine "revista Gente" (numnero extraordinario/special edition) you can see the photo on the magazine cover at this website that collect covers from magazines here [2] buth even that you can find that photo published in argentina and since those US publications had it ilegaly, then they never had any copyright over that photo.

the same apply to any other photo of the Belgrano sinking, since he did take several photos and he was the only one taking pictures so there is no place for doubts.

you can read here (spanish), but the info its all over the web and if anyone know how to search through NY Court files it should not be that hard to find those records,

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1461073-la-foto-robada-que-hizo-historia http://www.elobservador.com.uy/noticia/221590/una-foto-robada-que-hundio-a-argentina/

here you can see the photo used citing the true autor

http://blog.yaninapatricio.com/tag/belgrano/

is so obvious as you can see on this Daily Mail Australia news site that the photo is public domain, as you can see on the article i link bellow every photo is with a copyright on the bottom corner BUT the one taken from Martin Sgut. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256369/Argentina-accuses-UK-colonialism-holding-Falkland-Islands.html


the photo is this one File:ARA Belgrano sinking.jpg and where i foudn why it was deleted is this link here Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ARA_Belgrano_sinking.jpg

i hope that i did gather all needed info to futfill all it was needed to restore the photo and give proper recognition to the original autor even if it is under public domain and does not need to, will be great to let ppl know who did take the picture here at commons.

the licence should PD-AR-Photo

BTWː the autor, Argentine Navy, frigate captain, Martin F. Sgut, died on january 4, 2010 --WiZaRd SaiLoR (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I've read the links provided by Wizard Sailor and seem to clarify that the copyright belongs to captain Sgut. Therefore, according to {{PD-AR-Photo}}, it's in the public domain in Argentina. As the picture was published in Argentina on 13 May 1982 and in the US on 8 May 1982, it can be covered by one of the exceptions of the URAA applicability (Works simultaneously published in the US and abroad (defined as publication in the US within 30 days) are not affected.). Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 22:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's IMO worth pointing out for the record that if the publication in the US was 'pirated' (without the permission of the copyright owner), which is apparently the case, then it would not count... publication must be legal. Revent (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I pointed this out during the original deletion request, AP couldn't have copyright. WCMemail 22:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Unfortunately, due to the age of the case and the vagueness of the description of the venue (just 'a New York court') it's probably not possible to locate the actual decision online... it was probably a federal court case, and predates the electronic archives by well over a decade. My attempts to find it, at least, were unsuccessful, but we can probably proceed on the basis of RS articles documenting the decision. Seems fairly clearcut, tbh. Revent (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also make some searches and only found Spanish-speaking references (mainly Argentinean and Uruguayan news papers). They're mainstream newspapers so that I think they're reliable references. My only concern relates to URAA. If the US edition is "pirate" (it was done without the consent of the copyright owner), URAA would bee applicable, wouldn't be? --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 00:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment i dont know the judge name, but the info from the links i found, and already provided, state that on 1984 Captain Sgut, did start legal actions on "those NY courts" aganist The New York Times, Newsweek, Associated Press and an agency called Gamma-Liasson. maybe this may help to search--WiZaRd SaiLoR (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WiZaRd SaiLoR: The (presumably) relevant online archive only goes back to 1996 (unfortunately). To get the actual ruling would require a request for a search of paper archives, but we can 'presume' that the reporting in reliable sources of the judgement was accurate (i.e. that AP does not own the photo). Given that, the photo seems to be obviously PD in Argentina, the only real question is if it is not PD in the in the US because of the URAA. Revent (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored: {{PD-AR-Photo}}. Yann (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Russian FOP cases[edit]

Due to the generosity of the State Duma (they have cancelled and took away all the copyrights of all the architectors) we may undelete those masterpieces.

As soon as the Russian architect cannot claim any rights anymore, these images appear to be free. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PereslavlFoto: For the sake of non-admin watchers (who cannot see the images) can you possibly give a bit more context please? (like the name of the architect, or a link to the Duma ruling?) Thanks in advance. Revent (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: All files that qualify under {{FoP-Russia}} have been restored. INeverCry 19:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saint Takla Haymanot.JPG[edit]

Why this high quality image was deleted when it was used to illustrate article in wikipedia? Its my drawing and I gave permission to publish it on commons. Its the only modern drawing of this saint on commons! Pls restore. --Zakharii 01:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose As noted at the DR, Commons does not keep personal art from artists who are not notable. The usual test of notability is an article on one of the WPs, although Google hits showing independent gallery or museum shows of the artist's work will also suffice.
I note that the sig above links to a non-existent username (User:Roman Zacharij), which redirects to User:Roman Z. Please change your sig so that it links to your actual name as the way it is now is misleading and violates Commons rules against using multiple names. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. Commons is not a personal web host -FASTILY 01:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Untitled section[edit]

It appears AndyTheGrump disagrees with my viewpoint and is trying to censor while citing copyright infringement.

He does not recognize the author's permission to use work given here [[3]], which was provided with the photo.

If there is any action you can take to help protect my work from AndyTheGrump, I would appreciate it.

Dcrsmama (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The cited page says:
"All the information is presented free of charge as a public service so there are no fees or charges of any type."
This far from being freely licensed, which is required for Commons. It is clear that the cited site does not check copyrights and that users are free to post material from other sources that may or may not have a copyright. The first article on the site that I clicked on was lifted in its entirety from a copyrighted newspaper web site without even a credit on the summary page. There is no reason to believe that the same is not true of the deleted image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 01:56, 3 March 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 Timseman[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015011410005868 confirms that User:Timseman is the copyright owner of above images and content associated with Wacky Bones and related books and images. Jee 12:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Jkadavoor: Please add the ticket. INeverCry 19:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bild hält sich an die gesetzlichen Bestimmungen eines Bildzitates[edit]

Das Bild ist ein Bildzitat aus einem Youtube-Video von de:Ken Jebsen und ist entsprechend für diesen Artikel gedacht. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neodraccir (talk • contribs) 15:17, 2 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Neodraccir, Bildzitate sind derzeit weder auf Commons noch lokal in der deutssprachigen Wikipedia erlaubt. Siehe dazu auch de:Wikipedia:Umfragen/Bildzitat. --El Grafo (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - malformed request: no files linked, no valid reason to undelete anything. FASTILY 01:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files deleted by JuTa[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The image is taken from a document that is freely available on the web. This image is taken form a manuscript found at : http://enu.kz/repository/2009/AIAA-2009-1392.pdf Igargurevich (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment 'Freely available' does not mean compatible with free commons licensing system. Can you provide further information about the document? On the other hand, what does the document you point out have to do with your request? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discasto (talk • contribs)
 Comment, same question, I don't recall controversional "JuTa deleted something" cases, and I'd try user talk before COM:UNDEL. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. Also, no valid reasoning given to undelete anything -FASTILY 01:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Daniel Peddle 2014. jpg[edit]

File:Daniel Peddle 2014. jpg This file is self owned. I was not able to get the source correct with the editing tools. I would like to use {{own}} as the source and {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} as liscensing. This was first time uploading a picture and am not sure of correct formats. Agpingle (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)March 2, 2015[reply]

No undeletion discussion before a successful upload followed by an also successful deletion, please. I've switched your templates to code examples, looks good so far, for further questions check out the Help desk, Upload help, VPCopyright, or similar until something actually was deleted here. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Max Kampelman saves a million.webm[edit]

I, Vanroc, am the representative of Ulli Kampelmann. She and I own the copyright to this video. She did the interview, I shot and edited it.

Steve Van Stone 2 Mar 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 03:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cucumbertown feed.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015011310010943 received from http://gingerjoos.com/ confirmed by http://www.cucumbertown.com/ Jee 02:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Jkadavoor: Please add the ticket. INeverCry 02:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Capyventslogo to undelete.png[edit]

They said this will be a image with copyright, but it isn't. --Jurgen Wester (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 18:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mapa Lojas.jpg; File:Img fachada.jpg; File:Logo Brico.jpg[edit]

Hello! My name is Paulo and i'm the digital marketing responsable in Bricomarché Portugal. Last week i've tried to upload 3 images of our website - www.bricomarche.pt - into wikimedia, to use them to create/edit, our wikipédia page. But they were deleted, and now i can't re-upload them again... Can you please help me? Thanks (PGadeiro (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

 Comment Please send an email to OTRS, following the guidelines described in there. Explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 10:45, 3 March 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 18:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sandnes City Map.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015011410013126 received from stavanger-guide.no/contact.php (I get a message stavanger-guide.no is in black list while posting; don't know why.) Jee 11:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is in the global spam blacklist: [4]. Reason is given here. Lupo 12:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; but hope it has nothing to this user or permission. Jee 12:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 18:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wong Jack Man.jpg[edit]

The photo is courtesy of a unidentified wong Jack Man disciple, signed by Wong Jack Man, like himself. (Arnon Novais (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

 Oppose In that case, the "unidentified wong Jack Man disciple" owns the copyright and only he can license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 18:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Robert Schaefer Verfassungsschutzpräsident Hessen.jpg[edit]

Das Foto ist eine eigene Arbeit von mir selbst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspixx (talk • contribs)

There was no license. Please add that. I think you should mention on your user page that you are Andreas Ständer, that would avoid confusion and mistakes. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum - file has not been deleted -FASTILY 18:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JC-512Transparent.png[edit]

This pic was taken by me and created by me and i accepted to share. Why would it be a copyright violation? Am I violating myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JChandanais (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Two reasons. First, the stated source page, http://JeremyChandanais.com/jeremy-chandanais, has an explicit copyright notice. Second, Jeremy Chandanais appears to be the subject and the uploader. It doesn't look like a selfie, so that raises the question of who the actual photographer is. In any case, policy requires that the actual photographer submit a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:40, 3 March 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 18:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Himno-Nacional-Orquestado.ogg[edit]

Previous DR
This file has been nominated by Green Giant, indicating the Privacy Policies of the SECOM (based on the the Decree 100 of 2006) forbids the comermcial uses of the media published in the government Websites.

But, in 2010, Ena von Baer wrote and published the Oficio Ord. 112/14 in reference of the Law 19.032, that explicitilly instructs all the media released by the Government of Chile and its institutions must be licensed under the CC-BY. Therefore, all the media works (pictures, audio and video) released/published after the December 30 of 2010 are automatically covered under the {{CC-GobCL}}, according to the current Law.

Also, the Article 4 of the Decree 14 0f 2014 derogated the Decree 100 of 2006, making the Privacy Policies indicated by Green Giant also derogated and not longer valid. Only the Oficio Ord. 112/14 of 2010, the Law 19.799 and the Law 19.032 (and other Laws) are now valid and legal for this effect. So, this older file is also covered under the CC-BY license.

In summary, the file is efefctivelly covered under the CC-BY license according to the current Chilean Laws. So, please undelete this file.

Anyway, I' ve contacted to the Government of Chile according to the Ley de Transparencia, in order to clarify the doubts of the non-chilean people that are not familiar with the Chilean laws, and specifically, the licensing of the National Anthem of Chile. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues here. Amitie has explained here (for the first time) that the decree on which the problematic privacy policy is based has been overruled. That's good. However, there is also the question of whether the Chilean government actually owns all of the necessary copyrights in order to make this performance PD. The national anthem, as a work, is probably PD, but musical performances have many copyrights and it is not clear that all of them are PD in this case.
Orchestral works have separate copyrights for the music, for the lyrics (if any), for the arrangement (the composer of a national anthem usually writes it for one instrument -- an orchestral performance requires that it be arranged separately for each of the orchestral instruments), and for the performance itself. Even if the government says that the work is PD, please make sure that you can prove that the government actually owns the copyright to the performance -- I don't know the Chilean law on the subject, but in the USA for that to be true, all of the orchestra would have to be employees of the Federal government. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No doubts about all the works released after December 30 of 2010 are automatically covered under the CC-BY (that the Chilean Laws say clearly), but the licensing of the works released between June to December of 2010 (like this specific file) is disputed, I agree; as I know, these works are also covered under the CC-BY (unlike the Patrimonio cultural común or PD, as I previously mentioned). So, as I said, I've contacted to the Government of Chile, so the answer will clarify the actual licensing of the National Anthem, and will be the definitive answer to the case. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just recived the answer from the Government of Chile. The official answer says the file is efefctivelly covered under the CC-BY license. Bellow is the email recived (in spanish) (publicly available according to the Ley de Transparencia):


Message from the Government of Chile:
De: Transparencia <transparencia@presidencia.cl>

Fecha: 17 de noviembre de 2014, 12:00

Asunto: Respuesta a solicitud de información

Para: "david.munoz.vergara@gmail.com" <david.munoz.vergara@gmail.com>

ANT.: Ingreso Nº AA001W-0000915

Estimado David Muñoz Vergara:

Se ha recibido en esta Institución, la solicitud de información pública citada en el antecedente, mediante la cual requiere lo siguiente:

“Estimados. Solicito información sobre el uso y licenciamiento de los símbolos oficiales del estado, específicamente el Himno nacional dispuesto para descarga en http://www.gob.cl/himno-nacional/ Según la información provista, dichas versiones del Himno están publicadas bajo la licencia CC-BY-SA, la cual permite usos comerciales, pero en otro documento contradice eso. El problema es que el archivo fue convertido de MP3 a OGG y subido a Wikimedia Commons para ser usado en Wikipedia, pero ha sido borrado debido a las inconsistencia en el licenciamiento de esta "obra derivada" de un trabajo del siglo XIX. Si el himno original está en el Patrimonio cultural común, ¿Eastán estas versiones del Himno Nacional en el Patrimonio cultural común también o bajo una licencia específica? Agradezco una pronta respuesta Atte: David Muñoz V.”

Al respecto, informo lo que a continuación se indica:

1.- La Presidencia de la República, tiene como función apoyar en todo lugar, a S.E. la Presidenta de la República y sus asesores, brindándoles los servicios necesarios para su gestión, administrando eficaz y eficientemente los recursos humanos, financieros y materiales disponibles, fundados en los valores de lealtad y transparencia y entre otros suscribir los contratos de suministros de bienes y servicios que se requieran para el desarrollo y funciones de esta institución. Aclarada la misión institucional, la Presidencia de la República no concentra la información de todos los órganos y servicios públicos que forman parte de la Administración del Estado, solo aquella que dice relación con la misión institucional.

2.- En virtud de lo dispuesto en el artículo 13 y 30 de la Ley Nº 20.285 y Reglamento respectivo, dispone que: “En caso que el órgano de la Administración requerido no sea competente para ocuparse de la solicitud de información o no posea los documentos solicitados, enviará de inmediato la solicitud a la autoridad que deba conocerla según el ordenamiento jurídico, en la medida que ésta sea posible de individualizar, informando de ello al peticionario. Cuando no sea posible individualizar al órgano competente o si la información solicitada pertenece a múltiples organismos, el órgano requerido comunicará dichas circunstancias al solicitante”, por lo cual informo a usted que derivo la solicitud en referencia, a la Subsecretaría General de Gobierno, del Ministerios Secretaría General de Gobierno, mediante Oficio Nº 1001, de fecha 17 de noviembre de 2014, el que adjunto.

Saluda atentamente a usted,
Director Administrativo
Presidencia de la República

Therefore, please restore this file. Anyway, I sended a message to OTRS. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The people at Presidency have, basically, derivated the request to another State organ, the Government General Subsecretariat. We will have to wait until the guys at the Subsecretariat respond to your query. This email does not prove the anthem is CC-BY. In fact, it does not say anything of value. --Diego Grez return fire 19:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is just the message recived. The original message with an attached document with the ORD.: 001 has been sended to OTRS. Si, I'll update any newer answer and I'll send the to OTRS too. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have made several transparency requests over time to the Presidency of Chile, and based on the text you've attached above, they haven't given you any response in regard to the copyright status of the Chilean anthem. As I told you, we'll have to wait until the Subsecretariat responds, regards, Diego Grez return fire 17:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I'll just wait. And also, for the other UD bellow, I'm waiting for more than a month from the Gendarmerie of Chile. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as currently inactionable; this needs to be resolved via OTRS when we hear back from the presidency of Chile anyways -FASTILY 19:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reopening this UnDR, because I recived the answer from the Government of Chile with several official documents attached, and resended it to OTRS team. This request has been sended more than two monts ago and OTRS did not answered them.

In summary, and according to the official documents from the Government of Chile, the file is effectivelly covered under the {{CC-GobCL}} license and must be restored as soon as possible.

Most of the DRs of files from the Government of Chile were opened by non-chilean users those are unfamiliar with the Government of Chile's licensing. This issue has been discussed several time. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then you need to make a post at COM:OTRS/N. This is the wrong forum to request or discuss that OTRS handle tickets... -FASTILY 18:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thread moved to COM:OTRS/N. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to OTRS noticeboard -FASTILY 22:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr. Bakshi.jpg[edit]

This photo is copyrighted by Carly Gillis Photography. We have consent for this photo to be freely shared and distributed. --St771 (talk) 17:06, 3 March 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 18:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion request for OTRS #2014120210015575[edit]

// Martin K. (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Krd 18:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Krd: Sorry, I missed two of them:
Thanks! // Martin K. (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done --Krd 18:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BaltazarHinojosa2.jpg[edit]

Hi!

This is Alberto Perez and I’m the administrator of Mr. Baltazar Hinojosa’s information pages such as the one with you in Wikipedia and the following ones:

http://www.baltazar.org.mx/trayectoria.htm

http://www.aserca.gob.mx/somosaserca/Jefe/Paginas/default.aspx


Today I noticed the picture I uploaded in February it’s been deleted and that’s why I’m writing this, Mr. Baltazar Hinojosa is a Mexican Politician who has been congressman for 2 periods, mayor of his City and right now he’s a General Director of ASERCA with the Ministry of Agriculture. The picture was taken while he was on his last period as a member of Congress back in 2012.

Theres a file with the picture that hopefully can be used.



Thank you very much,

--Mexbmg (talk) 18:29, 3 March 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 18:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Desperate Mind - Welcome To Your Nightmare Single Cover.png[edit]

This picture is owned by me, and it should not be deleted, since i am the lead singer and guitarist of the band, and i do own rights to this picture - it is my own work, and i added it here by myself.

--RockstarStrafe (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Martin J. Polák, 3.3. 2015[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 22:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hero, Hub, Hygiene.png[edit]

I have contacted the owner of the blog, Brendan Gahan, who gave me permission to use screenshots of his infographic on my wikibook.

Wrong forum, file has not been deleted. Please see COM:OTRS. -FASTILY 22:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Unccpcjdohaqa.jpg[edit]

Dear Sir,

I represent the Ministry of Interior Qatar which is the local organizer of thirteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. We along with United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime are the owners of this logo. please find here the website of local organizing committee of this mega congress. http://www.moi.gov.qa/UNCCPCJDoha/English/index.html

We had created a page in Wikipedia on this event Wikipedia Arabic https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%A4%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%B1_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%85%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AB%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AB_%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1_%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%85%D8%A9_%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%A9_-_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%AD%D8%A9_2015

and uploaded this logo. so please undelete this image.--Prmoi (talk) 06:22, 4 March 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 07:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:重慶葦子135.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission granted in Ticket:2014123110001712 to use under {{Pd-self}}. Without seeing the file in question, I cannot comment further. Thanks --Mdann52talk to me! 13:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Обложка альбома Hidden Tribe "Bardo EP".jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015011610018314 received from artists at http://www.hiddentribe.ru/ Jee 15:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 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 718imaginations[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015011710010623 received from www.718imaginations.com as work for hire. Photographer Vincent Peters's bill for copyright transfer attached. Uploader account verified earlier. Jee 16:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plakat.jpg[edit]

Herein I confirm I own copyrights for the photo entitled Plakat.jpg which I included in the Wikipedia entry entitled Rock Galicja. Tomasz Paulukiewicz, Rzeszów, Poland (user accunt: Promoganda)

Nothing to do here. Yann (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr. Patricia Aden.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Hello,

the uploaded picture showing Dr. Patricia Aden I uploaded last week was deleted. I couldn't see in the Delete Log what was the reason for this. I'm currently working with the Deutscher Akademikerinnenbund e.V. in Germany and am in the progress of completing our wikipedia article. Mrs Aden is our Chairperson. She personally send me this image and told me to upload it. Did I something wrong? I appreciate your help and advice. Best reagrds Elisa Bilko ElliBil (talk) 11:55, 4 March 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 08:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fahad Albutairi at the Abu Dhabi Film Festival 2014.jpg[edit]

I believe in good faith that there has been no copyright violation committed by uploading this file. I represent Mr. Fahad Albutairi and have contacted both the photographer and Image Nation Abu Dhabi, and they have both assured me that I'm allowed to upload this photo.

--Postdepartum (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please email OTRS with the evidence of permission. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:46, 4 March 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 08:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:40belowsummer.jpg[edit]

On the website which it came from it states that any of the photos can be used by anyone as long as you let the owner of the content know, which I did prior to uploading. --Noobbusterz (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The description says that it comes from [5] and that the author is Adam Leota. So a permission is needed before restoring it. Yann (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Yann -FASTILY 08:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anonymous and personal OV-chipkaarts.jpg[edit]

See village pump. File was deleted on suspicion of copyvio, yet similar files are kept. See also the original nomination page. The file is of the exact same nature as File:Oystercard.jpg and File:Metro Card of Taipei London NYC DC Boston Atlanta collect by Howard61313.JPG. PPP (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose while Oystercard.jpg could be very well below TOO that doesn't mean that the files deleted at this DR are. They are clearly derivatives of non free content and certainly above TOO in the country of origin. (the Netherlands) Natuur12 (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 08:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gerrit Jan Heijn.jpg[edit]

I ask to undelete these files (2 files). After a lengthy discussion they were deleted with the argument "We can't accept those files per com:PCP". The PCP says "significant doubt". The discussion shows there is no significant doubt. In fact there is a statement that these images are free of copyright. Doubt has been raised (but not substantiated) about the interpretation of this statement and later about the ownership of the copyright. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose First of all, I referred to the discussion and the PCP. Secondly I agree with Jim's comments about significant doubt plus the release is a bit odd. Sloppy and I'm not sure that it has a legal basis since it is unlikely that you can waive all the copyrights in the country of origin. The Netherlands. The fact that we are dealing with a content provider who isn't careful with the copyright of others and makes vague copyright statements equals significant doubt imho. Natuur12 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather odd that you vote here. As the deleting authority you should prevent any appearance of bias. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm allowed to clarify my statement and I'm allowed to say that I oppose undeletion and I'm allowed to give extra arguments.... Especially since you misquoted the closing. Natuur12 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Natuur12 -FASTILY 08:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

This image from a book I had it personally for last 50 years as the author is my late uncle so please undeleted as now I own the copyright

(Raafat (talk) 22:14, 4 March 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 08:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GIEFF-Logo.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015011610006676 received from http://www.gieff.de/ This is a duplicate of de:File: GIEFF-Logo.jpg. Jee 06:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 08:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BFS Logo.png[edit]

I am representing Busan Foreign School (please see my BIO in the school's website: head of marketing and communications). http://www.busanforeignschool.org/about-us/faculty/

The school does own its own logo.

Please undelete this file.

Thank You.

Vanessa

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 08:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gang Of Four Official.jpg[edit]

I have permission to upload this file to wikipedia from the photographer:

To Andy Gill and Catherine Mayer,

I David J Markham, the copyright holder of the attached images, agree to release under free license to Andy Gill and Catherine Mayer the images of Andy Gill and John "Gaoler" Sterry, Gang of Four.

Yours sincerely,

David J Markham 10th February 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. Thanks. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dudley Moore Beyond the Fringe 1962.JPG[edit]

This was deleted because it's claimed that the New York Public Library owns the rights to the photo. The photo was not obtained from the NYPL and it has both front and back uncropped copies of the photo with a date stamp on the back. The photographer is Friedman-Abeles, who at one time, took photos of many Broadway performers on and off stage. A Commons search for "Friedman-Abeles" The entity who would have owned the copyright, photographer, Friedman-Abeles, did not copyright mark the photo, therefore it's before 1978 and not marked. NYPL also claims copyright on their copy of File:Tsuru Aoki (ca. 1915).jpg; the discussion is here. NYPL doesn't own the rights to the Dudley Moore photo any more than to the Tsuru Aoki one. We hope (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The photos for the "Beyond the Fringe" revue are not even online from NYPL. One has to visit the libary to view them. Basically, we can't know what photos they claim to own copyright on unless we go to the librar.y I've now localed their Friedman-Abeles Collection and note the NYPL doesn't display any backs for their photos. We hope (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The fact that a pre-1978 photo does not have a copyright notice proves nothing -- it was not necessary that notice appeared on the photo. Notice was required only when the photo actually published, and a single copy of a photo was not publication under the 1911 law (or under the new law, for that matter). In order to restore the image, you will have to prove that the photo was published without a copyright notice.
This is widely misunderstood on Commons. Photos that were used in newspapers and magazines almost never had copyright notices on the prints because they were seen only internally, or, in the case of wire services and outside contract suppliers, were subject to a separate contract which included a notice requirement for all publication. The only photos from that period of importance to us that would have to have notice are those that accompanied widely distributed press releases.
An example: A free-lance photographer takes 20 pictures at an event. He sends prints to a magazine, which selects one for publication and returns the other 19 to the photographer. He puts the 19 in his archive. At some point after 1989, the photographer or his heirs sell or donate the archive. At no point in this process do any of the 20 prints have a copyright notice on them -- it wasn't needed because sending them to the magazine is not publication. The print of the published image is in the magazine's archive without a notice, but is covered by the magazine's masthead copyright notice. The other 19 are all unpublished before 1989, therefore they are all under copyright until 70 years after the photographer's death.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for undeletion: File:Yamaton1.jpg[edit]

Please put this back up:


This image was taken from another Wiki fan page named "Wikifur". All their images qualify of Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0. Attribution share-alike, International. Evidence is here. There was even an option of selecting which type of CC it was when I was uploading the photo, and mine was at the very top. I have given all the credits to who uploaded the images there.HanSangYoon (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I currently see the link isn't working. Just go here, and check the link "CC-BY-SA" on the bottom of the page. HanSangYoon (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...both are not working on my mobile device. Search "Kemospo" on Wikifur, then the second image on the page is what I'm trying to upload here. HanSangYoon (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose We don't know who uploaded the Wikifur page or anything about who created it. It also appears with a CC-BY-NC license at http://adjectivespecies.com/2012/04/18/guest-post-furry-cons-of-the-world-zik/. That page also says nothing about its creation. I think the Wikifur page is probably license laundering. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: That's surprising...I wish it would be used, but I guess I have nothing to comment. Should I report on the other Wikipage to get rid of the picture? HanSangYoon (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose per Jim. It's also worth noting that there is no license at the Wikifur fan page, just the general site license. The argument above is generally akin to saying this image is actually free because the English Wikipedia has a CC-by-SA license. This is clearly license laundering. Эlcobbola talk 15:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So should I report at the other page to take the image down? Since its license has an NC, they don't have the right to put it up at their own wiki, too. HanSangYoon (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about the rules at Wikifur. It is entirely possible that they don't care about licensing or that they accept NC licenses. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo Umweltcenter.jpg[edit]

OTRS permission received. // Martin K. (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Krd 10:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Asot Michael.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this file is legitimate and properly added from the source. if there is any issue please let me know 69.50.73.221 10:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose You say:
"this file is legitimate and properly added from the source"
In the image description the uploader claimed this was "own work". Which is it -- from a source or own work? It shows up on Google at cuopm.com, but that URL is dead and Google says the image was taken down in response to a DMCA claim. That does not look legitimate to me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alan Weisenfeld's head shot[edit]

Alan Weisenfeld is a friend who took a head shot photo of me. He gave me written permission to post the photo on my Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elleneagle (talk • contribs) 14:00, 5 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose In that case, Weisenfeld will need to provide a free license using OTRS. Note that "written permission to post the photo on my Wikipedia entry" is insufficient -- both Commons and WP require that images be free for any use anywhere by anyone. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 5 March 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 22:49, 5 March 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]

Пожалуйста восстановите удаленные фотографии, они все взяты из семейного альбома. Фотографии принадлежат мне так как орегиналы хранятся у меня, кто автор их неизвестно. Но изначально собственником фотографий был Алексей Михайлович Пронин. (Please restore deleted pictures, they are all taken from the family album. Photos belong to me because I kept oreginals, who the author is unknown. But originally the owner of the photos was Alexis Pronin.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Никита1976 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 5 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I assume this is related to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Никита1976. Family albums are difficult because the owner of a print of a photograph is not the owner of the copyright -- that belongs to the actual photographer or his heirs. In order to restore these on Commons, we will need to know that the photographers died before 1945 or they must send free licenses to OTRS.
I also note that at least of one the images has a sculpture in it, which has a separate copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 22:49, 5 March 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:Orthodox Cathedral Tirana.jpg - Needs to be undeleted[edit]

The file was deleted based on No-FoP in Albania . I will assume good faith here , however let me be very clear , the photo is not a Panorama , and even if so according to the law of Albania as per text : ' "It is allowed without the author’s approval and without payment or remuneration the reproduction, broadcasting or the communication to the public by wire of a picture of an architectonic work,'. I find this deletion very unmerited , and excluding wp:goodfaith very intentional , because it removes one of the 3 main religions present in Albania , in a way diminishing its presence in wikipedia . As an adherent of this religion i am extremely offended by this - to say the least- unmerited act of deletion Gjirokastra15 (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I suggest that, as a brand new editor here, before you make wild accusations about the deletion of an image that you learn a little more about Commons and about Albanian copyright law. Albanian law is clear -- the image infringes on the architect's copyright and cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from the architect. I don't know if it was deliberate, but your quote from Albanian law did not include the whole sentence:
"It is allowed without the author’s approval and without payment or remuneration the reproduction, broadcasting or the communication to the public by wire of a picture of an architectonic work, of a fine arts work, photographic work or applied arts work placed in a public area, excluding the cases when the picture is the main theme of the reproduction, broadcasting or communication and when it is used for commercial purposes." [emphasis added]
Commons requires that images be free for commercial purposes. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So let me understand this , because i must be obviously dumb , even if some iq tests do say otherwise . In other words you say that the church cannot be represented by a photo in Wikipedia because the architect of the church does not want his work to be seen by other people ? Human stupidity does reach a climax when laws are interpreted automatically en bloc -and selectively- . It requires a level of independence as well , and common sense . So let me understand is there a definition as to when a photo is defined as the main theme of the reproduction ? But anyways .... P.S I am a brand editor here , and as such i shall remain . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Jim. Gjirokastra15 ignores the rest of the relevant paragraph that excludes commercial usage. "[T]he church cannot be represented by a photo in Wikipedia because the architect of the church does not want his work to be seen by other people ?" is nonsense and not remotely what is being claimed (see also COM:PRP #3). Copyright is granted upon creation and, in the case of architecture, the world is free to view the work, but not necessarily to exploit it for their own commercial purposes. If you continue to make such absurd and inappropriate comments about other editors, a blocked editor is what you shall remain. Эlcobbola talk 21:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

MFBTY performing at Kollaboration[edit]

This is in regards to the article MFBTY. I took the photo myself at the show cited. I also work for the artist. Why do you guys delete before even asking?

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 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bizzy album photo.jpg[edit]

I work for the artist and have permission to use this photo for promo or information purposes. This photo also comes from the Drunken Tiger 9th album and is cleared for such use.

--Drs RC de Jong (talk) 19:29, 5 March 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 22:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:West Valley Fault Line Carmona Estates.jpg[edit]

Deleted according to INeverCry due to copyright violation. This work is a final product of my illustration exported as image using Google Earth's Save Image option which allows such use. Schadow1 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly consider undeleting these files, basis in support of appeal has been provided. Please consider favourably.

Kindly undelete these files. There is actually an error with the Author. Its not J H Furneaux, but CH Doveton. The photos are from the book Picturesque Bangalore, published in 1900. Please see these links for further info http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Picturesque_Bangalore.html?id=f6f1SAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y http://wiki.fibis.org/index.php/File:Bangalore._Trinity_Church.jpg http://wiki.fibis.org/index.php/File:Bangalore._St_John%27s_Church.jpg


Could the Tucks cards be restored, as the scanned images have cc by-sa. 3.0 licencing site design and logo © 2015 justin tanner. data and images licensed under cc by-sa. http://www.tuckdb.org/postcards/58478


These are low resolution scans of photos inherited by Jane Smith and have been uploaded by her This item has been licensed for reuse under the Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Creative Commons Licence.

WestCoastMusketeer (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 05:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for undeletion of some files[edit]

Kindly consider undeleting these files, basis in support of appeal has been provided. Please consider favourably.

Kindly undelete these files. There is actually an error with the Author. Its not J H Furneaux, but CH Doveton. The photos are from the book Picturesque Bangalore, published in 1900. Please see these links for further info http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Picturesque_Bangalore.html?id=f6f1SAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y http://wiki.fibis.org/index.php/File:Bangalore._Trinity_Church.jpg http://wiki.fibis.org/index.php/File:Bangalore._St_John%27s_Church.jpg


Could the Tucks cards be restored, as the scanned images have cc by-sa. 3.0 licencing site design and logo © 2015 justin tanner. data and images licensed under cc by-sa. http://www.tuckdb.org/postcards/58478


These are low resolution scans of photos inherited by Jane Smith and have been uploaded by her This item has been licensed for reuse under the Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Creative Commons Licence.

WestCoastMusketeer (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 05:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ken Poirot "Mentor Me" Book Cover.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015011710010589 received from Ken Poirot. He said the first two are self portraits taken by him. Third is his book whose copyright owned by him; the photograph is commissioned including transfer of copyright. License granted is PD-Self. Jee 03:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 05:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AliPahlavanPortrait.jpg[edit]

Hi, I already updated the copyright section of that file and provided explanation on the discussion page of the file, please read that.

As I mentioned, the file is not copyrighted. I added the name of the photographer to the license title just as a courtesy.

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 05:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anonymous and personal OV-chipkaarts.jpg[edit]

See village pump. File was deleted on suspicion of copyvio, yet similar files are kept. See also the original nomination page. The file is of the exact same nature as File:Oystercard.jpg and File:Metro Card of Taipei London NYC DC Boston Atlanta collect by Howard61313.JPG. PPP (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose while Oystercard.jpg could be very well below TOO that doesn't mean that the files deleted at this DR are. They are clearly derivatives of non free content and certainly above TOO in the country of origin. (the Netherlands) Natuur12 (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Has it become policy to remove a request before one even has the opportunity to respond?) Oystercard.jpg and Metro Card of Taipei London NYC DC Boston Atlanta collect by Howard61313.JPG are the very same type of pictures as Anonymous and personal OV-chipkaarts.jpg. I would like to know why exactly the first two are TOO and the OV-Chipcard pictures are not. Otherwise, either restore the OV-Chipcard pictures or delete the other two. There is no reason to believe specifically the OV-Chipcard pictures are DW but other public transport tickets are not. PPP (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The File:Oystercard.jpg contains only basic geometric shapes, while File:Anonymous and personal OV-chipkaarts.jpg contains photos that are copyrighted to the original author. For File:Metro Card of Taipei London NYC DC Boston Atlanta collect by Howard61313.JPG a deletion request has already been opened. See also other stuff exists —Wuzur 09:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you say that? File:Oystercard.jpg doesn't only contain basic geometric shapes, it contains a picture of an Oyster Card, including Oyster Card logo and Transport for London logo. It's exactly the same as the deleted OV-Chipcard image and the file that apparently is now suddenly nominated for deletion. PPP (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:DW, not COM:DM, of copyrighted content with COM:TO --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Von Wahldresdner gelöschter Adminproblemfall.png[edit]

Please restore the following:

I need this file on German Wikipedia, it is part of an official complaint I made there that details wrongdoings of an admin. As the person who deleted this file is also active on German Wikpedia, I wonder if the real reason they deleted it is that they or somebody that got them to delete it wants to censor inconvenient information about one of their friends.

--Distelfinck (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I agree with the deleting Admin that the file is out of scope. Commons is not a repository for screenshots of WP history that can be easily created from the history of the page in question. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page in question is deleted, so this screenshot is the only way for most people to view the page's contents. --Distelfinck (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but it still doesn't put it in scope on Commons. Commons does not exist to make it possible to see images or pages that have been deleted from other parts of the project. We do not interfere in the work of WP:DE and we expect that WP:DE will not interfere here. If the page needs to be seen on WP:DE, then it should be restored there, not here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The German Wikipedia page the image was put on about a month ago has been viewed by hundreds of people, and nobody there has ever said that they wouldn't like the image. So this is not interfering with German Wikipedia. --Distelfinck (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Support If the German Wikipedia accepted local uploads, this file could be regarded as out of scope. But, as it seems, the German Wikipedia does not accept local uploads, and therefore, commons is the only place where to upload it. Commons must also support each project (remember that Commons acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation) and supporting its internal procedures is also part of commons mission. Once the complain has been sorted out, it could be deleted, but not before. Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 18:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Discasto: You are misinformed. Local uploads are possible at de:wp. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Out of scope. This is a screenshot of a discussion that took place on de:Benutzer_Diskussion:2A02:810A:8FC0:1CD0:C817:F560:BE6E:8481. Any admin at de.wiki can restore that page and move it to a temporary discussion page. No local uploading would be required. INeverCry 20:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, if that event does not happen (an admin restoring the page)? If Distelfinck's statement is true (admin wrongdoing), they it's highly likely that no admin will restore it. Again, commons is the repository of all the Wikimedia projects and whatever is needed for the normal way of working of any internal procedure in any Wikimedia project is IN scope. Commons not only serves readers. Also editors. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 21:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose A screenshot of a de.wiki talk page is not within or scope. If you believe the content is necessary for a discussion on de.wiki, upload it to Flickr or a similar service and provide a link to it. The Commons simply is not the place for such an image. Эlcobbola talk 21:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:INeverCry and User:elcobbola, why do you think the screenshot is out of scope for Commons? Is it because maybe all files that are useful on only one Wikimedia project are out of scope for Commons? Usefulness for at least two projects is a requirement? --Distelfinck (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Sorry guys, but the more I analyze the case, the more disturbing it seems.

First of all, this file seems to have been speedy deleted. Speedy deletions are regulated in Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion and, out-of-scope is simply not a criteria for speedy deletion. So, to start with, this discussion should not be in 'Undeletion requests', but in a proper DR. Even worse, the file was speedy deleted, but by any unknown reason, the uploader was not warned or notified (it's not required by the policy, but it'd have been needed considering that the uploader and the administrator had a previous relationship involving this file and the complaint it supports, see below).

Secondly, you mention out-of-scope, but fortunately we have policies that explain our mission:

The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository:

  • that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and
  • that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.

You seem to focus on the first item but carefully avoid the second one. Commons is the "repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation". As such, it hosts thousands of pictures (in Category:Wikipedia screenshots) that lacks any educational value at all but supports internal discussions, troubleshooting requests, help files... This screenshot is exactly the same as any of the screenshots in the category I've mentioned.

However, what seems more disturbing is the final effect of the deletion: alleged admin (in de.wiki) wrongdoing, official complaint in de.wiki with evidences, and eventually the evidences are removed by a German Wikipedia admin (which happens to be an admin also here) on the grounds of out of scope!!! Even if it isn't censorship for sure, it looks exactly like that, especially considering that the very same admin that removes the file is, at the same time, an admin taking actively part in the complaint discussion in the German wikipedia (see here) and extensively discussing with the uploader of the file (see here). Thus, if we go back and quote Jim above (We do not interfere in the work of WP:DE and we expect that WP:DE will not interfere here) it seems that the very same admin that is taking part in the discussion in the German Wikipedia is the one that brings interference here by deleting a file that shouldn't have been {{Speedydeletion}} (it does not fulfill any speedy deletion criteria), and therefore should have deserved a proper DR. @Reinhard Kraasch: 's conflict of interest is pretty obvious and I do think that he shouldn't have, under any circumstance, interfere here by speedy deleting a file that should have, in any case, undergone a proper deletion request procedure. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 23:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This begins with the deletion of the page at de.wiki. If a screencap has to be uploaded here because of a deletion done at de.wiki, what's that say about the de.wiki deletion of the original page? Why should users have to bypass deletions on de.wiki by uploading screencaps here? That sounds like a problem to me. Perhaps this is something that should be brought to the attention of de.wiki Arbcom? INeverCry 23:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
German Wikipedia doesn't have anything against this file, to the contrary it is included in one of their pages (although currently it is not shown, because: the deletion here on Commons we're talking about). The reason I chose to upload this screenshot file, instead of posting the same information as text on German Wikipedia, is that the former was the easier of the two methods --Distelfinck (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support No matter if it is to any real educational value, Commons is a repository for all kinds of images used on Wikimedia sites and since German WIkipedia do not have local uploads, Commons is the place to go. It is not our job to judge how the file is used, for as long as it is in use on a project it is also in scope for Commons. Josve05a (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support If it's in reasonably valid use, it's in scope. Commons should not undercut other projects. This sounds like it might have a time limit on its usefulness on the de-wiki project though, so once that matter is resolved, it would be appreciated to nominate it for deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a screencap of a discussion from de:Benutzer_Diskussion:2A02:810A:8FC0:1CD0:C817:F560:BE6E:8481. Why is it a better option to host a screencap of the de.wiki page here, rather than simply having the page itself restored on de.wiki and moved if needed? Why are we advocating the circumvention of the deletion of the page at de.wiki? INeverCry 10:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete This is a screenshot of a discussion which was subsequently speedily deleted as a trollish case (original quote: IMHO schnellöschfähige Trollerei (siehe AP-Intro). Bitte um zweites Augenpaar). Admins of de:wp find the original content here. There is no valid reason to revive this anywhere else and at Commons it is surely out of COM:SCOPE. All regular procedures to review this deletion exists at de:wp, i.e. de:WP:LP and the local arbcom. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Out of scope. Conflict/drama imported to commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On German Wikpedia, not one word has been said to date in opposition to this screenshot file. There is no conflict about this file on German Wikipedia, so there is no conflict that can be imported from there into Commons. User:Reinhard Kraasch, who deleted this file here on Commons, could have first tried to have this file removed from the page on German Wikipedia where it's embedded, but he didn't do that, because he would'nt have been successful with that. Commons:Project scope says that Commons "acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation", and as the file is embedded on German Wikipedia, it is in scope for Commons. --Distelfinck (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this file could be uploaded to WP:DE, which does permit local uploads. It could be uploaded to Flickr and linked from there. Or, the page could be restored at WP:DE by any Administrator there. The fact that Distelfinck apparently can not get any of the 247 Admins on WP:DE to restore the page there suggests strongly that Steinsplitter is entirely correct -- that it is a trollish case. In any event, there is no reason why we should be interfering in WP:DE's affairs. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is long overdone. We have some quality opinions from 5 of our most experienced admins opposing undeletion for various reasons. I don't think that I have to repeat their arguments again but here is some motivation: I believe INC hits the nail on the head with his rhetorical question. Why are we advocating the circumvention of the deletion of the page at de.wiki? Well, we don't. That will import drama to Commons and more important it would undermine local communities. The file was not legitimately in use, I see no educational value and if the German Wikipedia has nothing against this file it can be uploaded locally. Commons isn't some storage for complaints deleted from local wiki's. This can create a very, very dangerous precedent. This is gaming the system in it's purest form. (Just to be sure, I don't have any ties with de.wiki whatsoever.) Natuur12 (talk) 15:26, 6 March 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 Photoyi[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: 電影公司有寄授權書 Photoyi (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I've found the corresponding OTRS tickets and have processed them. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request for undeletion coat of arms[edit]

L.S.

Reason for request of undeletion: the file was deleted due to lacking copyrights (according to the moderator). This specific file is a coat of arms issued by the State of the Netherlands. Based upon the Royal Decree of 23 April 1919 (published in the Netherlands Government Gazette no. 181) and Royal Decree of 21 October 1977 (published in the Netherlands Government Gazette no. 605) the right to carry the coat of arms of any city or municipality lays with that city/ municipality. The copyright is NOT owned by those cities/ municipalities if the coat of arms is used in scientific publications (e.g. an encyclopedia or other) as stated by the Netherlands Ministry of the Interior, letter B79/2199 of 3 September 1979. This implicates that any coat of arms of any city or municipality in the Netherlands is free of rights/ copyright in scientific publications.

Regards,

drs. Rudy C. de Jong Scholar

File requested for undeletion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wapen_van_Ens.jpeg#file — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drs RC de Jong (talk • contribs)

Pinging deleting admin: Teles. Josve05a (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drs RC de Jong: File is now restored at your request. It is still lacking a proper license to be added to file description, so it will not be deleted again. If you need help, feel free to ask or read COM:L.
You may want to use {{PD-NL-gemeentewapen}} that seems to be specific for the file, unless you prefer to use {{PD-because}}. Thanks for your contribution.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 21:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

==[edit]

Good day!Sorry for the late reply.

This is the permission sent from her Facebook page sent last August 11, 2014:

"Hello, Maria.You have my permission. Thank you!

Ange Gomez ".

I hope you restore this file ASAP.Thank you!!!--RenRen070193 06:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@RenRen070193: You should give a link to the Facebook post, hopefully from an account that verifiably belongs to the copyright holder. Thanks. Revent (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That "permission" is insufficient in two ways -- it does not say permission for what. Commons requires an explicit free license such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. Also, permission from the subject is not useful -- we need permission from the actual copyright holder, which is usually the photographer. Since the image includes an award plaque, we will also require permission from the creator of the plaque. In order to have the image restored, please have both copyright holders send licenses to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:07, 6 March 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 07:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Missing[edit]

This is a picture of Brad Maloney. I can guarantee it. Can you undelete the request please? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinknori (talk • contribs)

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 07:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nýlistasafnið_-_The_Living_Art_Museum_1978-2008.jpg[edit]

These images were deleted from my wiki page although I have permission to use them and copyright. How can I have them restored?

Sincerely, Becky Forsythe 06.03.2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beforsythe (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose The first is a printed work for which there is no evidence of a free license. The second and third are from http://sarpur.is which has an explicit copyright notice. There is no evidence of permission on the image page. In order to restore them we will need free licenses from the actual copyright holders in each case, using OTRS. In all three cases, the images appear to be of 3D artworks. If that is correct, then actually two licenses will be required for each, one from the photographer and the other from the creator of the art work. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 6 March 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 07:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lysenko-14 (at the depth of 3461.5m below earth surface, Mponeng Mine, South Africa).jpg[edit]

This photo of Vladimir Lysenko made by his photocamera (by any worker) at the depth of 3461.5m below earth surface in Mponeng Mine, South Africa. This photo used for pages of Vladimir Lysenko in Vikipedia: in Russian page Лысенко, Владимир Иванович and in English page Vladimir Lysenko. Vladimir Lysenko (his e-mail: vl@itam.nsc.ru) gave me this photo specially for his two pages (in Russian and in English) in Vikipedia. I ask to undelete this file. How can I have it restored? I ask you to restore it. СОРАН (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose You probably cannot have it restored. The copyright is owned by the unknown worker who took the picture and in order to restore it you would have to get him or her to provide a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 07:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rahuldhir1.jpg[edit]

This was a picture taken by me and copyrighted under my name. Please restore this image as it does not violate any Copyright laws.

Anjalijain17 (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It has a watermark from Ashish Photography. Watermarks are not prohibited here, but they are strongly discouraged. The easiest way to prove that it is your image is to upload it again without the watermark and with full camera resolution. If you do this, use the same file name. Alternately, you can have Ashish Photography send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 07:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

My.Kali's January-February 2014 cover featuring the edior of the publication and openly gay, Khalid to undelete[edit]

Dear People at Wiki,

I have uploaded an image to the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Jordan to the Media and Press section, where the cover images was relevant to the content written. The image is a free content, allowed to be used by the public, permitted by the magazine itself. Please find attached link, stated by the magazine itself, at the end of the description, on the magazine's official Facebook page: "(Feel free to share this cover; reblog, repost, instagram, regram, Tweet... etc.)"

Link:

https://www.facebook.com/mykalimag/photos/a.195619710449436.52011.149318815079526/745055582172510/?type=1&theater

I'll make sure to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OrpheusInMarin(2014).JPG[edit]

Yann is now banned? Please tell us more!

This image file is owned by the band Orpheus, which has a an official website located at www.orpheusband.com and wikipedia account (orpheusband). The image is copyright protected. Confirmation of this can be obtained from the band's management via e-mail (info@orpheusband.com). The image was been removed by wikipedia user "Yann" who is now banned from making any further changes to this page. Undelete and restore this image to the page immediately. Orpheusband (talk · contribs) 2015-03-07T00:01:38‎

It should be noted that the relevant deletion request was open for a week without a peep from this user, although they were warned. Also of note uncollegial behaviour, unappropriate ideas about file page ownership (Yann is banned by fiat, apparently), and about copyright and the nature of Wikimedia Commons: So, the images belong to the uploaders, therefore nobody is intitled to delete them — instead of the very opposite. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 07:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Story Kathe.jpg[edit]

This Image is free. this dont have any copyrights... I dont knw why its deleted --Abhinand1234 (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sameer Gehlaut Image.jpg[edit]

Hi,

The file has been deleted for what I believe is a copyright issue. I can provide a permission from them on email to upload this image. Can you help me as to what would be needed in the permission. You can find further details at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sameer_Gehlaut_Image.jpg

Thanks Chints247 (talk) 07:12, 7 March 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 07:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Positive Nut Cover for Kindle.jpg.pdf[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015011810005379 These files are uploaded by the author of those books herself. Account verified. I hope those files have already proper license tags. Jee 02:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 07:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, please do not close requests so fast. Yann (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 20:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Autobahnüberführung Katharinenplatz Frankfurt.jpg[edit]

OTRS-permission received. // Martin K. (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

OTRS permission received[edit]

// Martin K. (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 20:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Que_Pasa_logo_2015.jpg[edit]

Ese logo es de la revista Qué Pasa y me cuesta hacer uno por mi cuenta. --Danrolo (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has not been deleted and will not be, it is {{PD-textlogo}}. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do. Yann (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:스즈키 교본 바이올린과 첼로 교본 1권-5권 전체 앞면.jpg and 스즈키_바이올린_한국어_교본-_신형.jpg[edit]

Please undo these image deletions:

These two images are both pictures from me which were the covers of Suzuki Violin Violin and Cello Methods. I do not know why these are considered copyright issues, for all I know is that there were no CC to this, and I took the pictures of it. Please revert these images if possible. They are to be used at the Wikipedian pages of Suzuki Method. HanSangYoon (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons can only use free-use images. The individual wikipedias can use fair-use images, with an appropriate rationale, which is what would be required for a copyrighted book cover. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Fair use is forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 05:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tanner Fresh images[edit]

I own the copyright on the following files and would like them reinstated as the wiki pages I wrote require them. I also uploaded them to flickr if that helps. File:Tanner Fresh Live on stage in Winnipeg, MB.jpg File:Tanner-Fresh-canadian-rapper.jpg

I own the copyright on the following files and would like them reinstated as the wiki pages I wrote require them. I also uploaded them to flickr if that helps. And they are available on multiple social media platforms inlcuding T

EugeneZelenko requested the deletion of my images at 15:35 28 February 2015, citing "Promo photos and abum covers. No evidence of permission(s)." as his grounds to do so. The files were then deleted by User:INeverCry 00:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC). I have since correctly uploaded File:Fresh City - Bottles Up Cover.jpg and File:Fresh City Records.jpg under the "Fair Use" policy. As for the following files I am the copyright holder and in addition the pictures are being used as "news" and could fall under fair use policy as well. The images were also published online via Tanner Fresh's Website, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Flickr, and Tumblr.[reply]

--RichardAlexander22 (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Fair use is not accepted on Commons. If you own the copyright for these images, please send a permission following the procedure at COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:54, 8 March 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 05:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:El increíble perofesor Zovek.jpg[edit]

please refresh the page File:El increíble profesor Zovek.jpg to Article El increíble perofesor Zovek please restore CDGJ965commons (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This looks like a movie/TV screenshot. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by CDGJ965commons for the context. Yann (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 05:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IBU Logo.jpg File:3 Schritte zur EPD.jpg[edit]

OTRS-permission received. // Martin K. (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 05:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Prof. Dr. Dr. FSO Int.JPG[edit]

OTRS-permission received. // Martin K. (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 05:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

OTRS-Permissions[edit]

We recieved OTRS-Permissions for the following Files and need them restored to check the tickets:

Thanks // Martin K. (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:20, 9 March 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 in Category:Albert Heijn[edit]

I believe that I overlooked some important aspects that where not mentioned in the discussion so I would like to ask for a second opinion. While it is not an anonymous work since it was credited to Albert Heijn and not to an artist. Some of the images of the bottom of the cans might only show details that are be below TOO. If we call Albert Heijn the author the copyright term would be 70 years after publication since it is a work of a company without an idenvidual author listed. That could mean that the design of the cans has run out of copyright years ago. Any thoughts? (This request is not about the files mentioned by Discasto) Natuur12 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a general "make it so" for any admin–of course excl. the admin who changed their mind and suggested/requested the undeletion, for a "four eyes" effect—amending any archived deletion request log as required to document what happened. Apparently COM:UD is no guideline or policy, maybe that could be simply implemented without much ado. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I read Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Netherlands to mean that the argument above requires that the tins do not have an artist's signature. So, although Natuur12's argument is tempting, it rests on something that is unproven. There could easily be the artist's signature or initials in the fine print on the side of the tin. There are two reasons that a corporation would give the artist credit -- first, it's a small reward to the employee who did the work that doesn't cost anything. Second, since naming the artist would increase the copyright life of the tin (from 70 years after publication to 70 years after death of the artist), it would be routine for a corporation to it. Therefore, I do not think we can restore these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those cans are collectors items in the Netherlands so perhaps some Dutch users have them at home. Let me ask in the local village pump. Natuur12 (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A local user checked his three Albert Heijn cans he has at home and he can't find a name or an autograph. It is not uncommon that this kind of cans are not credited in the Netherlands. Especially back than. Natuur12 (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a step in the right direction, but it still remains unproven that the tins shown here are older than 70 years and that they in particular do not have a signature. Unless the cans have a date on them, how do we know their age? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The desing of one of the cans (File:Albert Heijn blik met koets, onderkant.JPG + file:Albert Heijn blik met koets.JPG is from 1920. There is some bug that prevents me from viewing the images so I'll have a look for the other ones after it's fixed. Natuur12 (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "gestampte muisjes" cans are from 1960 so those need to stay deleted. Natuur12 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any dates of the other cans (the uploader mentioned from the 30's but since one of the cans is way younger we can't use that statement imho) so I believe this one can closed by an uninvolved admin. I could mail the company who produced those cans of course but that seems more like a job for the uploader to me. Natuur12 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: No reliable evidence found that the works are free. INeverCry 04:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:용마한신아파트 침하 조사위치.jpg[edit]

This is published by SEOUL goverment. S.Korea goverment revised copyright act in 30 Dec 2013. "Copyright Act Article 24 2(free use of public works) ① State or local government contract work or publication by creating business can use without permission." For more information at https://www.kogl.or.kr/open/info/character.do Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 용마산뚜벅이 (talk • contribs)

Procedural close of a stale request (no new activity for over a week) without any clear consensus to undelete -FASTILY 06:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sons of The American Legion Emblem.jpg[edit]

Hi. I'd like to have this file undeleted as it can be used like the American Legion's emblem and the American Legion Auxiliary's emblem. All it needs is the exact same permissions as those. It would only be used for Sons of the American Legion. Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Commons:Fair use. INeverCry 04:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dit was het nieuws 200.jpg[edit]

Reason for deletion: "found on http://img1.bdbphotos.com/images/orig/b/o/boi5vq5b8t3lbli8.jpg?skj2io4l dated from 01.10.2014 (prior to commons upload)."

My defence: Yeah, right! This episode was recorded on 10 October, 2014 and broadcasted on 11 October, 2014, as everyone can check here. Caudex Rax (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 06:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bodo Ramelow (DIE LINKE).jpg to undelete[edit]

Ich erkläre in Bezug auf das Bild File:Bodo Ramelow (DIE LINKE).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bodo_Ramelow_(DIE_LINKE).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1, dass ich

b) Inhaber/in des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts oder

Ich erlaube hiermit jedermann die Weiternutzung des Bildes unter der freien Lizenz „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0“ (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.de).

Ich gewähre somit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritten das Recht, das Bild (auch gewerblich) zu nutzen und zu verändern, sofern sie die Lizenzbedingungen wahren. Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann.

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, aufgrund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.

Gleichwohl erwerbe ich keinen Anspruch darauf, dass das Bild dauerhaft auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.

9.3.2015, Mark Seibert (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Markseibert)

--Markseibert (talk) 09:13, 9 March 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 06:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

A photo from Facebook[edit]

Good day!!! This is a conversation between me and a copyright holder that started since 11 August 2014 using this link:https://www.facebook.com/messages/angedionegomez and also the link of this photo you have been wish for : https://www.facebook.com/angedionegomez/photos/a.791260397568591.1073741838.774543395906958/791262400901724/?type=3&theater.I'm apologized for my fault that I've been done.I hope you understand this situation.Thank you!!!--RenRen070193 09:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 06:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fruity-tanvihegde.jpg[edit]

Why always the pictures that i upload are deleted. I have explained many times that this is the picture of a Child Actress and it is not copyrighted. but you delete it, I can't understand how to upload the picture that it should not get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ans.fahmad (talk • contribs) 12:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that, in most countries, photographs are copyrighted when they are created, even if they do not display a copyright notice ("Copyright © 2015 Some Person or Entity"). If the photograph is recent, it is most likely copyrighted.
The easiest way to upload pictures that will not be deleted is to upload only pictures you've made yourself. If you want to upload something you haven't made yourself, you should check if the creator gives permission for everyone to use it (for example, by using a Creative Commons license). This permission must allow commercial use and changes to the picture.
Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notify Ans.fahmad. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 18:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 06:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SIN TITULO (2014).jpg[edit]

File:SIN TITULO (2014).jpg File:Sierra de Cameros 70x50.jpg File:Paisaje VIII 122x100 encáustica 87-97.jpg File:Sierra de Cameros 70x50 Obra en la encaustica 1997.jpg File:SIN TITULO al acrílico.jpg File:MUTANTE.jpg File:SABRA Y CHATILLA.jpg File:BODEGÓN.jpg File:BAILARINAS.jpg File:Obra de Requena Nozal.jpg


Quiero publicar todos estos archivos bajo la licencia CC BY-SA 3.0 y la GFDL

Wikidabad05 (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Wikidabad05Wikidabad05 (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

¿Tomó usted mismo las fotos? Solamente en ese caso puede publicarlas bajo las licencias CC BY-SA 3.0 y GFDL. Además, si desee publicar fotos de esculturas, debe leer sobre trabajos derivados. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:49, 9 March 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 07:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sean-matgamna.png[:File:seanmatgamna.png]]File:matgamna.png[edit]

All these three pics are scans by me of photos supplied by the person depicted. I can't think of any other way of reinforcing their authenticity, but authentic they are.Dlandmj (talk) 13:54, 9 March 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 07:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Peter-Grzan_(Weltkulturerbe).jpg[edit]

Hello.

You deleted a file that I upload for Peter Grzan (German artist) on wikipedia. It is my father, he died, so I have got the copyright, wich licence do I have to choose? What do I have to write, so that user users don't think it is a copyright volation? Can you put the image back on his wikipedia page?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by KuHnst (talk • contribs) 14:03, 9 March 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 07:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salvador Aulestia ritratto 3.jpg undeletion request[edit]

Dear Sirs, I've already asked for the undeletion of the file in object. This photo is my property and copyrights are also mine. I want to use this image for the wikipedia page dedicated to Salvador Aulestia that's in the editing phase. Kind regards, Luca Temolo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidero65 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 9 March 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 07:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo Universidad ESAN.jpg[edit]

I made it myself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lockermade (talk • contribs) 15:22, 9 March 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 07:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Återställande av Affisch i Halberg & Venn-butiken 1992[edit]

Denna fil som jag laddade upp raderades för att det saknades ett upphovsrättsöverlåtande från upphovsrättsmannen fotograf Henrik Halvarsson. Henrik Halvarsson har nu mejlat ett sådant till info-sv@wikimedia.org så bilden ska nu vara i sin ordning att använda enligt [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (unported) och GNU Free Documentation License]. Följaktligen så begär jag härmed att filen återställs.

Vänligen --EronOsa (talk) 16:37, 9 March 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 07:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LOGO-UNIVERSIDAD-CATOLICA-DE-SALTA-UCASAL.svg[edit]

Este archivo tiene licencia CC3.0 . Lo cual no viola ningún derecho de copia registrada. Por favor no borrar los archivos y todo el trabajo que ello lleva.Muchas Gracias

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

UCASAL_Universidad_Catolica_de_Salta_-_Argentina.jpg undeletion[edit]

Dear Sirs, I've already asked for the undeletion of the file in object UCASAL_Universidad_Catolica_de_Salta_-_Argentina.jpg. This photo had Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license . I want to use this image for the wikipedia page dedicated to Universidad Católica de Salta that's in the editing phase. Kind regards Paulodic

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulodic (talk • contribs) 18:37, 9 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 07:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ML Kelly.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Emailed copyright confirmation from holder to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Emitchell62000 (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Received at #2015030910018155. This message was forwarded from Katarina Price (verifiable address). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Anon126: Please add the OTRS ticket. INeverCry 05:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:4Shows_Layout2-21.jpg[edit]

OTRS permission received. // Martin K. (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Martin Kraft: Please add the OTRS ticket. INeverCry 05:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cruizin 4.jpg[edit]

OTRS permission received. // Martin K. (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Martin Kraft: Please add the OTRS ticket. INeverCry 05:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mauricio-vila-dosal.jpg[edit]

The picture went and that was deleted is my authorship and want to use it for an article. Thank You March 9th --PonteBuzo (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)PonteBuzo[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 07:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Koji Enokura , "Intervention No. 1", 1987.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image was provided and permitted to use freely on Wikipedia by the gallery, Blum & Poe which represents Koji Enokura as the other 2 images deleted. Bandeapart jeanluc (talk) 05:07, 10 March 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 07:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

OTRS-Permissions[edit]

// Martin K. (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Martin Kraft: Please add the OTRS ticket and source/author/license info. INeverCry 09:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coocazoo.jpg[edit]

OTRS-permission received. // Martin K. (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marie-Claude Pietragalla French Dancer and Choreographer.jpg[edit]

I own the copyright of this picture.

Zoomelliott (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done 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. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Visto forlag Black.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015012110011169 received from http://www.idusforlag.se/kontakt Jee 11:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:13, 10 March 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 Oursmili[edit]

Derivative works of insignia. No information provided to determine copyright status.

Эlcobbola talk 21:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oursmili 11:50, 8 August 2014 ( UTC). Je voudrais savoir pourquoi vous les supprimer, Il s'agit d'un travail personnel en vue d'améliorer une page wikipédia. Information about copyright was add on

Deleted: The descriptions assert that these are PD without giving any reason. It is possible that they are PD-old, but without information explaining that, they cannot be kept. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nouvelle donné : Suite à une recherche de fond, les photos et images d'insignes sont en : {{PD-old}}

Donc ils sont autorisé sur communs, pourriez vous les remettre. Cordialement Oursmili (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Down through my sig, the material above is a copy of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Oursmili, which I closed last August. I don't see that there is any new information here -- these are military badges and insignia which may or may not be PD, but no evidence has been provided to prove that. In order to keep them we would need to know the designer's name and when he died.
Note that a DR with the same name and issues is open now with new uploads. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Les insignes et logos français sans auteur sont en PD-Old et deviennent libre de droit 70 ans après leurs premières publications donc les insignes du 42eRT et des FFA et de la majorité des régiments sont libres de droits, c'est juste la loi française. Oursmili (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, I see nothing in the French law that makes these any different from any other created work -- copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator, not 70 years after publication. Second, you have done nothing to prove that these are even 70 years old. Third, there is the issue I raised at the current DR, that these are all very small images -- that is unusual for "own work". Unless you can upload images at camera resolution, we will have to assume that these are not in fact your work, but that of some other photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are claiming {{Anonymous-EU}}, which is 70 years from publication. I can't see them but the other concerns sound valid. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that we don't know the creator's name does not make them anonymous works. To claim {{Anonymous-EU}} you have to prove that the work was, in fact, anonymous. I doubt very much that there is no record in the French military archives of who created each of these. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The author's identity needed to have been made public within 70 years of publication, and not simply recorded in private archives. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the 70 years from publication term also holds if the work is created by multiple people, and when the "personal contributions of the various authors who participated in its production are merged in the overall work for which they were conceived, without it being possible to attribute to each author a separate right in the work as created." (Article L113-2). I think they are stating that is the typical situation for military insignia. So it may not even be enough to know someone was involved; they have to be able to identify portions which are solely that person's work. I think 70 years from publication is a reasonable guess as to the copyright term of the original insignia. But there may be a separate right on photographs of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copied to Anonymous-EU for future reference. Some of your comments SHOULD be copied to the relevant guideline or policy, to raise the level whatever is discussed, counting the coins as all-time "wikiverse" low.:tongue: –Be..anyone (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour messieurs : Lien d'explication.
Oursmili (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In short, this discussion was about allowing these ensigns on the French Wikipedia under fair use when needed. As Carl said above, these ensigns have a copyright, but this copyright is owned by the regiment, not the person who created it. So ensigns older than 70 years are acceptable here. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Anonymous-EU is not a get out of jail free card. Whatever may be the case "in the real world," the Commons has proprietary policies of COM:EVID, COM:L and COM:PRP. Anonymous-EU may conceivably be true, but supporting evidence is mandatory, even when it's inconvenient. I don't see that anyone here has made a genuine effort to determine provenance of these insignia; we don't host images on baseless speculation. However, even if we were to stipulate that the insignia are public domain, there remains significant doubt that Oursmili is the author of the images thereof. The technical characteristics are radically different between images; for example, File:7eme Cie.jpg and File:Insigne 5eme Cie.gif are similar in what they seek to depict, yet, for no discernible reason: a) one is a .jpg and one is a .gif; b) one is relatively large (720 × 960) and one is very much smaller (201 × 246); and c) one is amateurish (for File:7eme Cie.jpg: note the mismatch in red backgrounds from the animal to the greater insignia and the blurred top line contrasted with the sharpness of the text) while File:Insigne 5eme Cie.gif has uniform sharpness and color. Similar issues exist through the whole of the images listed and I find it very difficult to believe a single author would have such significant variation from one image to the next. Эlcobbola talk 15:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No consensus to restore. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ben Breedlove Memorial Fund for Africa New Life Missions.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015021910000727). --Mdann52talk to me! 13:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS ticket appears to be OK, but I question the educational value of the second and third images -- they are fundamentally advertising and violate COM:ADVERT. The subject is a young man who died at age 18 of a heart defect. He does have an article on WP:EN, largely written by his mother..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jim; The issue here is, while I can see the images mentioned in the ticket, I have no idea which one is which on here, hence why I defer undeletion to the admins discretion. If you think the page has enough images already, I'll happily pass that on, and I'm already going through and rewriting the article on en, and judging notability. In any case, please let me know what action will be taken. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a photo of him parasailing, which seems OK. The second is the cover of his book (and, by the way, depending on the publishing arrangements, his mother may not have the right to license it here), which seems to me a bit too much. The third looks like a billboard advertisement -- very wide image of him with text over advertising the fund, which seems way too much a problem with COM:ADVERT.
I'm leaving the decision to our colleagues because I know I have a POV that may not be universal. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing I agree with the first one then, the other two probably shouldn't be restored. Even if not used in an article, guess we could stick it in a category with the others on here. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done for first one. No consensus to delete other two -FASTILY 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Marie-Claude Pietragalla French Dancer and Choreographer.jpg[edit]

I own the copyright on that photography

Zoomelliott (talk) 11:23, 10 March 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 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:"Lo que las modelos callan", Christine Hart.jpg[edit]

The copyright of the image is in the book. I have permission from the owner to use this picture in the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Davidjanelopez (talk • contribs)

File:Christine-Hart.jpg

I have the permission from the owner to use this picture in the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Davidjanelopez (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose In both cases there are two problems. First, "permission from the owner to use this picture in the wikipedia article" is not sufficient. Both Commons and WP require that images be free for any use anywhere by anyone, including commercial use. Second, we do not accept third party permissions. In order to restore these, the actual copyright owner of each one will need to send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 11 March 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 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amores Tangos Vivo.jpg[edit]

El archivo es de mi autoría y tengo los derechos 100% de la imagen.Julieta86 (talk) 15:37, 10 March 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 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amores Tangos (2014).jpg[edit]

Tengo los derechos de esta imagen, es de un CD que editamos. I hace copyright from this image.--Julieta86 (talk) 15:40, 10 March 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 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orquesta de Carnaval, Amores Tangos (2011).jpg[edit]

Tengo los derechos de esta imagen / I have copyright from this image--Julieta86 (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Julieta86: Necesitamos confirmación de eso, en forma de un e-mail enviado según las instrucciones acá (véase la «Declaración de permiso para todas las peticiones»). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 20:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Para indicar la obra, podría mencionar los nombres que comienzan con «File:». Para la licencia, no debe revisar la lista completa: Nuestra recomendación estándar es la Creative Commons Atribución-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 20:58, 10 March 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 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wolfman1.jpg, File:Wolf. Big screen.jpg, File:Alfonso Noel by Tavo[edit]

Hello dear sirs

These 3 files are the first file I have tried to upload ever after many years as a contributor.

1) File:Wolfman1.jpg, is a photo that was taken of Alfonso Noel Lovo, my real name, me, with a paid photographer, Yusnel Suarez, for my upcoming show at the Rio Loco festival 2014 in Toulouse, France. It has no actual copyright, and it belongs to me, so there is no real infringement. This was my artist photo, and I own it. It will be used in my next album.

2) File:Wolf. Big screen.jpg is a photo I took watching my performance at a TV show, in Miami FL on 2013, where I performed, Fernando Hidalgo Show, in Mega TV, which is a show that has been pulled off the air.

3) File:Alfonso Noel by Tavo is a photo of a painting that was given to me by my childhood friend and amateur artist Tavo Cervantes in my hometown in Managua Nicaragua.

There is no rela infringement of anybody's rights to the best of my knowledge in any of these images. And I thought is was necessary to have some artists images, or photos in Wikipedia for Alfonso Noel Lovo.

If there has been a mistake I apologize for not being an expert in this system ..

Thank you and I respectfully request undeletion on these images, so the public can have some images of me as an artist in Wikipedia.

Tigreman 16:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigreman (talk • contribs) 16:18, 10 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose all three.
1) All such images have a copyright and in the absence of an explicit written agreement with the photographer, the copyright belongs to him. Restoration here will require the photographer sending a free license to OTRS.
2) The TV show also has a copyright and that copyright still exists even though the show is no longer seen. The only thing in this image is a monitor showing the TV show. Therefore, again, restoration will require that the owner of the TV show's copyright send a free license to OTRS.
3) Owning a painting does not make you the owner of the copyright to the painting. That is almost always owned by the artist or his heirs. Restoration will require that Alfonso Noel Lovo send a free license to OTRS.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Susan Boyer.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Emailed copyright permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Emitchell62000 (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You've sent it to OTRS, so the page should be restored when they handle it. In the future, though, if you are uploading images that need OTRS, tag them with {{OTRS pending}} and they'll stick around for up to a month while the process works through. - Jmabel ! talk 20:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email -FASTILY 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flight of Fancy.jpg[edit]

This file is entirely owned by Noel Quiñones. Noel hired me to create this page. I have explained this more than once and I am a bit confused. He wrote and directed the movie and all of the assets associated with it are his. I have notified him of this concern and we will do whatever we need to do to clear up this confusion. Dfgasser (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 10 March, 2015[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 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nive sings.jpg[edit]

The photo is found on the Web. However, the photographer has ok'ed the use of the image and the image is - to the best of our understanding of the Danish copyright law - not licensed off to the news site. It was uploaded by a new user during an editathon where I supervised the user. If an OTRS is required we should be able to do that. — Fnielsen (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OTRS permission is required. -FASTILY 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amanecer en Palermo-Boyacá.jpg[edit]

the person that take this photo posted it in her faacebook page and she talk to me for upload tho the article https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palermo_(Boyac%C3%A1) http://www.panoramio.com/photo/117602970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabotechv (talk • contribs)

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 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

A photo from Facebook[edit]

Good day!!!I have a conversation between me and the copyright holder,hopefully that verifiably belongs to the copyright holder (https://www.facebook.com/messages/angedionegomez). I hope you restore again the file I've been uploaded and you will give a "ticket" from OTRS.In fact,I wrote in OTRS, proved that the copyright holder granted permission to reuse the file.Thank you!!!!--RenRen070193 07:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 09:12, 12 March 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]

Уважаемый господа, Я изучил страницы других крупных советских военачальников, у них ситуация с фотографиями точно такая же. Но их фотографии размещены на их страницах. Хотя по законам Российской Федерации все удаленные фота могут использоваться в открытом доступе. Так как прошло более 70лет. Прошу востановить фотографии. Или дать мне полную информацию почему они удалены. (Dear Sirs, I have studied the pages of other major Soviet military leaders, they have exactly the same the situation with photos . But their pictures posted on their pages. Although the laws of the Russian Federation, all deleted photos, may be used in the public domain. Because has passed more 70let. Ask You to restore photos. Or give me full information why they removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Никита1976 (talk • contribs)

Procedural close - malformed request with no links/urls to any files -FASTILY 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alur Seelin Kiran Kumar.jpg[edit]

He is a Social Personality, and that image was available in many websites without any tagline.

He is not a scenic view, no one can copyright his image except him, surely he will not copyright this image.

So Please add the image to the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autbitset (talk • contribs)

"He is a Social Personality" is irrelvant.
"that image was available in many websites without any tagline" is also irrelevant. Only images with explicit free licenses are permitted on Commons.
"He is not a scenic view" I don't understand
"no one can copyright his image except him" -- not so -- the photographer owns the copyright
"surely he will not copyright this image" -- perhaps not, but it is not his choice and we do not guess, we require proof.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sierra de Cameros 70x50.jpg[edit]

Restaurar archivo borrado

--Wikidabad05 (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RaymondValli5.jpg[edit]

Hello,

Cette image a été placée avec l'autorisation express de l'auteur Raymond Valli productions. Que dois-je faire de plus, pour qu'elle soit approuvée ici ?

2015 03 11

--JOUHANNET Erick (talk) 14:09, 11 March 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 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vignette CDArcobaleno.jpg[edit]

This image was placed with the express permission of the author Raymond Valli productions. What should I do more for it to be approved here?

2015 03 11 --JOUHANNET Erick (talk) 14:11, 11 March 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 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

OTRS-Permission received[edit]

// Martin K. (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Krd 15:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:19405-pesquera-de-duero.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: El autor de la fotografia soy yo. Puedo ver la imagen ? Jan dimas zelenka (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done So? Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Park_Jordan_pominiki_mapa.jpg.tif[edit]

When I uploaded this file I think there will be someone more experienced than me who can authoritatively say wheather edited google.maps has appropriate licence to use it on wiki. Automated deletion is not wise answer to this question in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skabiczewski (talk • contribs)

 Oppose There was no "automated deletion". It was marked as a copyvio by one of our most experienced editors and deleted by one of our most experienced Admins. Google maps are copyrighted. We cannot keep them on Commons in any form, edited or not. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyvio -FASTILY 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trinity_College_School_Terraces.jpg[edit]

Also:

Several school photos were added to the "Trinity College School" Wikipedia page several years ago and were deleted in January 2015 (I will send separate requests with the deletion information of these other files shortly). The note with the deletion states that there were two different types of cameras used to take the photos that were uploaded. We often have photographers come to our campus and have our own campus Communications department (where I am a staff member) who take photos for the School as well. We are looking for these completely inoffensive and factual photos to be undeleted and reinstated onto our page. While I understand having two different camera types in the meta data would look strange, these were actual photos of our campus and crest and we would like them to be back on the page in order for there to be a visual to go with the text. We have students, alumni, parents and prospectives from all over the world who use this page as a source of information and to not have these photos will impact their perception of the School.

Thank you,

Heather MacKinnon Communications Coordinator Trinity College School www.tcs.on.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommunicationsTCS (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Ref:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tcscommunications

  •  Oppose There are several problems here. The principal reason that the images were deleted is that a single user, User:Tcscommunications, claimed "own work" on images taken with two different brands of camera within a few minutes of one another. Since very few photographers use both Nikon and Canon on the same shoot, it appears that the "own work" claim is incorrect. Also at least one of the meta-data sets shows a third party professional photographer's name.
I also note that you are now using a different user name, User:CommunicationsTCS to request undeletion. While the connection between the two is obvious, please understand that using two user names in this way is a serious violation of Commons rules. I suggest that you stop using the organizational names altogether and register individual names for each person who acts for the college -- either real names or pseudonyms.
If Trinity College in fact owns or has licenses for the copyrights for all of these images, the problem is easy to solve. Note, however, that that will probably require that written work for hire agreements are in place with all of the photographers. If that is the case, please have an authorized official of the College send a free license to OTRS. When the license has been reviewed, the images will be restored. Please understand, however, the OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers, is badly understaffed, and has a significant backlog. It may be several weeks before the license can be reviewed.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fachada de Escuela de Bellas Artes Lola Mora.jpg[edit]

Restaurar File:Fachada de Escuela de Bellas Artes Lola Mora.jpg soy autor de la foto y tengo derechos sobre la misma. y represento a la Institución en cuestión Chirulin (talk) 19:39, 11 March 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 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fachada de Escuela de Bellas Artes Lola Mora.jpg[edit]

File:Fachada de Escuela de Bellas Artes Lola Mora.jpg ha sido borrado. quiero la restauración de dicha imagen ya que yo soy el propietario de la misma Ruwette 2 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 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 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jaffin David 2014-05-26.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have a permission of the copyright owner via ticket:2015012010013472. Emha (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 09:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

OTRS-Permissions[edit]

Otto Nowak Ticket

Trude Waehner Ticket

Thanks! // Martin K. (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Kraft: A few files (the red linked) does not exist, For the other files done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Steinsplitter: Ups, sorry. I just fixed the typos. Can you try again please? // Martin K. (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Syria's foreign minister Walid al-Moualem - Flickr - Al Jazeera English.jpg[edit]

The reason for this image deletion is totaly bogus. Al Jazeera has tons of images released with permissive licenses. The file was sourced from flickr, it was even checked to be ok. See flickr source here for the license: https://www.flickr.com/photos/aljazeeraenglish/6371435931/in/photolist-aH2gVD-sQfpB Tholme (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. Was the source link not mentioned on the image, such that it was hard to verify? Anyways it was verified by FlickreviewR so there does not seem to have been any reason to delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done The source link is (and always has been) available, and the image had passed a Flickr review. The nominator even withdrew the nomination (but apparently forget to close the DR, which was later closed as delete). Эlcobbola talk 16:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

OTRS-permissions[edit]

// Martin K. (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin Kraft: ✓ Done --Krd 15:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tamar Golan.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I'm the copyright holder (as noted in the upload done by Itzike), and the upload doesn't violate my copyright. The CC license requires credit and it was given.

Also, I would expect to be contacted when such a deletion is proposed, especially when my username is mentioned as part of the file info. Liorkaplan (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Taivo, this us following Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tamar Golan.JPG Thanks Hanay (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done permission confirmed --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mayo Fuster Morell, portrait photo.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: See m:User_talk:Mdennis_(WMF)#Ticket:2015012310013387. I will fix the info when restored. Jee 17:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor: ✓ Done Natuur12 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FERROBAIRES 2012.png[edit]

That file was deleted in 2012 per copyright violation. In 2015, I opened a deletion request for File:Ferrobaires logo.png (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ferrobaires logo.png) and the result was "Keep" per PD-Textlogo. --Mega-buses (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I suppose I agree this is {{PD-textlogo}}, by why is this image needed when we already have File:Ferrobaires logo.png in the same format (.png) and of much higher quality. What is the difference between the two? I don't see it. Эlcobbola talk 16:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate, no need to restore. Yann (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SkylarGreyByNatalieWall2015.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015012310020342 received from http://www.natalieshootspeople.com/about/ Jee 06:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -mattbuck (Talk) 08:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EmergenSee all 3 platforms.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015012410011074 received from http://emergensee.com/ Jee 07:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, though I'm disappointed, I saw "platform" and expected a railway. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo JudoClubWetzikon.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015012310004833 received from http://www.judo-club-wetzikon.ch/ Jee 08:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -mattbuck (Talk) 08:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Du-hattest-es-besser-als-ich-Nonnenmacher-Buchcover.jpg[edit]

OTRSpermission received // Martin K. (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

OTRS-Permissions[edit]

Ticket // Martin K. (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

ProteinFragment.png, ProteinFragmentActiveSite.png[edit]

About 5 days ago two files I uploaded were deleted. They were both png files belonging to the Protein Database of RCSB. RCSB has a free use policy, and I don't think I made that clear when I uploaded the files. Would you be able to undo the deletion so that I can specify their free use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajit Vakharia (talk • contribs) 15:57, 10 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

since they are your only uploads. The source is http://www.rcsb.org which has a mixed policy, see:
http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/static.do?p=general_information/about_pdb/policies_references.htm
Some files are free, with attribution requested, some are CC-BY, and some are copyrighted.
I think these images are from the "Structure Summary pages" which fall under:
"... are free of all copyright restrictions and made fully and freely available for both non-commercial and commercial use. Users of the data should attribute the original authors of that structural data."
If that is correct, then I  Support this request. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much James!

✓ Done I restored these, please add the license, the exact source and permission link. Then ask for license review. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VarahaVadivu.jpg[edit]

Hello There, This is a request to please undelete the image File:VarahaVadivu.jpg since the author/owner of the media (image) Ranjan Mullaratt has sent in a mail on Mar 5, 2015 releasing the images for Wikipedia Commons use. The mail addressed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from the email id ranjanmullaratt@yahoo.com has released eight images of which the present image is included. The image source is from the author's book - Mullaratt, Ranjan (2014). Kalari Margam - Ancient Secrets for Modern Living. Bangalore: Kalari Gurukulam, Kalaripayattu Training and Research Center, 102, Maple Meadows, Chikkagubbi, Bangalore. ISBN 9789351963349

Please peruse the details and allow me to upload the image to the topic page I have been creating for the Indian martial arts form Kalriipayyattu - Vadivu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amymy/Vadivu

My user id for Wiki is Amymy and my personal email id is anuym@yahoo.com

Thank you, Amymy (anu) Mar 12, 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aymym (talk • contribs) 12:47, 12 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose OTRS which processes such requests, is, like Commons, all volunteers and badly understaffed. Their backlog may be as long a month or more, so please be patient -- the images will be undeleted when the request as been processed. Note also that if the permission is, as you say, "for Wikipedia Commons use", it will not be accepted. Commons and WP require that images be free for all use by anyone anywhere, including commercial use. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This seems to be received in #2015030510008361. Someone who is both an admin and an OTRS member should check if the pictures match. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am reluctant to take OTRS items out of order unless there is a very good reason. If users learn that they can bypass the OTRS queue by making a request here, we will be deluged. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I just want to note, though, that a free license has indeed been granted, not just a Commons-only permission. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 18:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Yann (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Robert Köbler.jpg[edit]

I own all rights on the subject picture. It has been deleted twice and I don't understand, what I can do to avoid. There maybe copies of that picture on the internet, but I'm anyway the rights-holder, because the person on the photography is my grandfather and the photography was made by family members..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrleh (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose Firstly, merely being a relative of the photographer (being a relative of the subject is irrelevant as the author of the work would generally hold the copyright) does not make one a copyright holder. Copyrights would be formally assigned to an entity (e.g., an heir) upon the author's death, so we would require a copy of the conveyance to be submitted using the process at COM:OTRS. Secondly, the image is clearly attributed to GFF Dresden at the following link, which contradicts your claimed ownership. The aforementioned evidence would need to be submitted from GFF Dresden. See here (cannot be linked normally due to brackets in URL): http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Pic-NonVocal-BIG/Silbermann-RL01-1b[Eterna-LP-825561ra].jpg. Эlcobbola talk 15:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 22:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Retouching.jpg[edit]

File:Retouching.jpg I demand un-deleting of this file. this file is my personal work , and there are no copyright claims on it. I'm the model in the pic and I used a timer to photograph my self. Im the one who retouched it. there is no valid reason for removing it from the page Photo manipulation [[6]] and deleting the file. --Mohammad Al Khalid (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may re-upload the file if you can provide source information proving that the original images you used are available under a commons-compatiable license -FASTILY 22:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LOGO_DE_FSB.JPG[edit]

SOLICITO, POR FAVOR, LA RESTAURACION DE ESTE LOGO, NI SIQUIERA ME FUE EXPLICADA LA RAZON DE SU BORRADO--Sergio Portugal Joffre (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergio Portugal Joffre: Usted ha recibido unos mensajes en su página de discusión. Es decir, no estamos seguros de que usted sea el autor del escudo o que sea oficial de esa organización. Necesitamos permiso de los propietaros de los derechos de autor para usar todas las imágenes. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 01:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 22:56, 14 March 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 User:Orpheusband[edit]

Permission has been received through OTRS (#2015031310001879) under CC BY-SA 3.0/GFDL ({{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}/{{Gfdl}}) for these files:

Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 05:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 22:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:YU Gao.jpg[edit]

已寄出授權電郵--Photoyi (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email -FASTILY 22:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plakat Atomstaat 630KB.JPG: Zur Veröffentlichung hergestelltes Plakat, Keine Schöpfungshöhe (ohne Foto).[edit]

Siehe Betreff. Gruß, --Hungchaka (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 22:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alan Shirahama.jpg[edit]

Good day!!! Did you remember the file uploaded by Chantaru?If so, I'm the first one who requested to the copyright holder but unfortunately it was uploaded by the user.But since I saw that file had been deleted, I tried to restored the file came from the JpOpAsia website (http://www.jpopasia.com/celebrity/alanshirahama/) and the first one who I've been contact is the copyright holder who uses the pen name "Miki".In fact I'm already contact him via email and he stated that I'll use the particular photo. Earlier,I sent an valid OTRS permission granted by Miki to reuse the image under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International and Free Art 1.3 Licenses.I hope you command to my request and if you have any questions/requests you have,please feel free to reply at my [talk page] as soon as possible.Thank you!!!--RenRen070193 09:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please send an email to OTRS and explain your situation to them. If all is found to be in order, they will restore the file for you -FASTILY 22:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fahad Albutairi at the 2014 Abu Dhabi Film Festival.jpg[edit]

Reason: I sent an valid OTRS permission granted by Fahad Albutairi to reuse the image under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. Postdepartum (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose OTRS, which processes such requests, is, like Commons, all volunteers and badly understaffed. Their backlog may be as long a month or more, so please be patient -- the images will be undeleted when the request has been processed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Yann (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email -FASTILY 22:56, 14 March 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 Mdrake3[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015011010008425 received from the artist cum photographer. One photo depicts the subject too; so I asked for clarification, and he confirmed as he is the photographer. Jee 02:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:David S. Chang Profile Photo and Headshot.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015012610002651 received from Chang Holding Company as the copyright holder as work for hire. Uploader account verified. Jee 03:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Banksy CCTV Corrupted Oil Number 12.jpg[edit]

I don't understand why this was deleted, while other works by Banksy are not?

I took the photograph btw.

--Uskeller (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Some of the others probably should be deleted. Others are protected by our policy (with which I do not agree) that graffiti is not covered by copyright. This image, however, is clearly a derivative work of a copyrighted work and cannot be kept without a free license from Banksy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 22:56, 14 March 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 Cthieblin[edit]

For your information, the following message was posted on this page:

For information (OTRS received) : the painter for several images is Diogène Maillart (dead in 1926) so the images are in public domain. I ask for restoration of these images and add missing informations. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 23:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(OTRS ticket is #2015012310013896, but access to info-fr is required.)

Elfix 13:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Could you ask a version without watermark for File:Diogène Maillart vers 1910.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fahad Albutairi at the 2014 Abu Dhabi Film Festival.jpeg[edit]

Reason: I sent a valid OTRS permission granted by Fahad Albutairi to reuse the image under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. Postdepartum (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Jeffrén.jpg It's a free image of the football club.[edit]

The Jeffrén's Image is a free image of his football club. It's on the Web for public use.

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 22:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

MadriCR II[edit]

List
* File:Reunión CELAC-CARICOM durante la III Cumbre, 2015 en Costa Rica 05.JPG

OTRS will restore the files once they process the email that was sent. If you'd like to inquire about the status of a ticket, please do so at the OTRS noticeboard -FASTILY 07:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, there were some requests by many people not to close requests so fast. Please do it this way. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The OTRS ticket was already responded to. It releases all images at https://app.box.com/CELAC2015 under {{Cc-by-2.5}} Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 19:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Anon126: Any idea if the above mentioned images are included in the set you mention? -FASTILY 20:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That ticket was processed by Superzerocool and I already pinged him on his talk. But the difficulty is only an admin can cross check whether deleted contents and what in app.box matches. Otherwise files need to temporory undeleted for inspection. Jee 02:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the first group (around 14 Feb), was covered by the OTRS ticket and I validated them. I didn't saw the images in this group. When I asked to @MadriCR: about the naming rules and Commons, there is not a concordance. Superzerocool (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, seems to be ok. @Jkadavoor or Superzerocool, could you please add OTRS templates as necessary to the file description pages? Thanks -FASTILY 09:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fabian C. Barrio.jpg[edit]

This file is not copyrighted.The author himself states in his website "Todos los contenidos son de dominio público" = "all contents are public domain". See at the bottom of the website: http://www.fabiancbarrio.com/ --Taromotes1965 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The web site does say "Todos los contenidos son de dominio público", but the site contains much material that is obviously copyrighted, so the statement is not correct. We cannot, therefore, use it to keep images from the site. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, thanks for your message. I can see your point, but the file is a portrait of an author, obviously done by himself, therefore he owns the copyright for this file, and he states it's public domain. I could understand your objection if I uploaded a file of a Hollywood movie present in the website, but for the file Fabian C. Barrio.jpg it's pretty obvious it's not the case. --Taromotes1965 (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say
"the file is a portrait of an author, obviously done by himself...."
While I grant that it is conceivable that he set a camera on a tripod and used a self timer, it is not at all obvious to me that it is a self portrait. Unless it actually is a selfie, and that is proven, we must assume that the photographer was another person and, of course, the photographer owns the copyright in almost all cases. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:PCP. If this is the case, then the copyright holder will need to email COM:OTRS and confirm that the file is indeed available under a Commons-compatible license. -FASTILY 09:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Tamizha-album-pressmeet.jpg.jpg[edit]

Actually, a different user uploaded the image file using the seemingly correct licence. The image was just not well tinted, that is why I uploaded a newer version of the same image which was tinted. But I hope my actions were not the cause of its deletion. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyvio -FASTILY 09:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kajsa Ekis Ekman at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted as it had been found on the author's website as well. This file is my own work - I have sent it to the author as a sign of courtesy, and she may of course use it as well as anybody else, which is why I uploaded it to Commons. Bokmal2 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ticket:2015031510004247 concerning this file. Ankry (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bokmal2: If you gave the writer a permission to publish the image without referenco to the image published on Wikimedia at the same time while publishing the image on Commons, we need a written permission from you following COM:OTRS and a proof that you are the copyright owner (eg. original image from your camera enclosed) Ankry (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, where do I send it? Bokmal2 (talk) 11:04, 15 March 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 19:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Presentador virtual de Telecartaojal.JPG[edit]

Hola! Solicito la restauración de este archivo porque se trata de una captura de pantalla de un vídeo hecho por mi. El logo de la esquina superior es también mío, ya que soy el propietario de la televisión online. Os envío el enlace donde tengo registrado el logo con licencia Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 que me permite publicarlo en Wikimedia Commons: https://www.safecreative.org/work/1502143254085-telecartaojal --Bandolerox (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 19:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mina de Barruelo.JPG[edit]

Una mina propiedad del estado, entiendo que a baja resolución se puede usar en el artículo. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mina_de_Barruelo.JPG

--Kim for sure (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Rationale does not address FOP concerns -FASTILY 00:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amons.png[edit]

First of all, on which premise did you delete my personal work - in this case, the logo that i designed and created? The logo isn't found "on the internet" it's designed personally by me.

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 00:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CarsonMansionImg.jpg[edit]

this is my photo i am david safier. redwoodimage.com https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidsafier/5287153343/

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 00:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files deleted here[edit]

Files in public domain in Brazil but were marked as "own work". It's just the case to use {{PD-BrazilGov}} and {{Insignia}}. Nakinn 01:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose To support {{PD-BrazilGov}} you would 1) need to provide a source demonstrating these images were published prior to 1983 and 2) provide a source demonstrating that the university is considered "federal, state, or municipal" Brazilian government, not merely, say, a financial beneficiary thereof. Both of those may well be true, but evidence is required to support that license. Эlcobbola talk 16:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This coat of arms, created in 1965, belongs to a federal brazilian university, and is commissioned by this institution. The university was created in 1954. Nakinn 10:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done - Open for over a week without any clear consensus to restore -FASTILY 05:38, 17 March 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]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Ticket:2015012410007221 points me to http://www.kritiknetz.de/index.php/impressum where it is written "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." Is it enough? Jee 07:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkadavoor - Here's a copy of the image: [7], [8]. Should this be restored? -FASTILY 09:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fastily, I know that image. The problem is whether that permission is enough to consider as {{Attribution}}. It covers reuse and remix; but there is a limitation about the medium. It says "You are free to share the logo in online and print media"; but what about the possibility of other mediums like a broadcast, projector slide, or something like that? Jee 13:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case I'd say that permission to host this file on Commons insufficient. You're right that the image may not be used in a broadcast or projector slide -FASTILY 19:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So you can close this as "not done". :) Jee 04:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jee -FASTILY 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Presidential Standard of Sri Lanka (Maithripala Sirisena).svg[edit]

Was deleted unilaterally without a DR or review by INeverCry. The vector image was created by the uploader, they hold the rights to their rendition. Fry1989 eh? 22:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Fry1989 eh? 02:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IIT-Guwahati.jpg [edit]

Dear Sir, The image IIT-Guwahati.jpg is my own work and donated to Wikimedia by me ling ago . I am the original owner of the image . Kindly un-delete the same . Thanks Vikramjit Kakati — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donvikro (talk • contribs) 02:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Donvikro: The photo appears at http://www.panoramio.com/photo/57911010. Panoramio allows you to set a Creative Commons license to allow everyone to use it (this is the equivalent of "donating" to Wikimedia). The license you set must allow commercial use and changes to be made ("share-alike" is your choice). If you've done that, or if you are stuck, please reply below. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 05:14, 16 March 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 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dandu mariyamman sculpture ,Sivaji nagar ,bangalore.png[edit]

i am photographer of that image . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshwar.om (talk • contribs) 06:45, 16 March 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 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:"Lo que las modelos callan", Christine Hart.jpg[edit]

and File:Christine-Hart.jpg

I have permission from the owner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjanelopez (talk • contribs) 08:33, 16 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose You made the same request last week. Do you really expect a different answer this time? The source and author of these files are shown as "Christine Hart". That's a problem two ways -- she is the subject, so she cannot be the author, and, of course, she is not you, so you cannot give a free license. As you were told before, in order to restore them, the actual author (the photographer) must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 16 March 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 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Naked_2013.jpg - This file is not violating any copyright - I own it![edit]

This file was not under any copyright violation as I own it, I don't understand why it is being deleted? Kind Regards, Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.226.128 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 16 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • The uploader username is the same as one of the members of the band... it's possible the photographer signed over rights. But we'd still need some declaration of that from a verifiable address using the process at COM:OTRS, and it's also good to credit the original photographer anyways. Is the photo different than File:Naked .png, also uploaded by the same user? That also looks to be the same as the image you linked. That is used on en:Naked (band), where it looks like in January the same user overwrote a previous stub article for a different band and replaced it with info on his own. Hrm. Both would seem to be notable enough to exist as articles, though neither are linked on en:Naked (disambiguation). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, Carl. The deleted image looks the same as the PNG, except the deleted image is bigger and, of course, a different format. I think that if we get an OTRS license for the JPG, it should be restored and the PNG deleted. If User:AlexanderJohnston is, in fact, the member of the band, then he has violated WP:EN rules in several ways, most notably WP:COI. As you say, both bands appear to be notable, so a WP:EN admin should probably split the two. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 16 March 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 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Popplewell Inquiry Interim Report Bradford City Fire Front Cover.jpg[edit]

Hi, the file in question that has been deleted does not fall under any copyright law. This is the cover of a document produced by Lord Popplewell that is in the public domain. Published in 1986 the document was funded by the British Tax payer and is a standard cover of all inquiry documents published at this time. There is no copyright. The document was purchased by me from the Law Society and I scanned it in, (RedJulianG40 (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

 Oppose With minor exceptions which do not apply here, every created work has a copyright from the moment of its creation. British Government works are covered by the fifty year Crown Copyright, so this will be under copyright until 2036, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Crown_copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim. Copyvio. -FASTILY 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MELVIL_P.jpeg undelection[edit]

Hello,

You have deleted the file i uploaded MELVIL_P.jpeg. It was for reasons of copyright, but i got the photographer of the pictures (owner of the rights), she did sent Wikipedia an email authorizing the uploading of her photo on wikipedia (and putting her photo under the Creative Commons licence). I can re-send you the email, if you can't find it in your files.

Please, let me know if the photo can be restored on the site (and on Melvil Poupaud's page), or if i have to do anything else,

Thank you,

ADEQUAT agency — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adequat GW (talk • contribs) 11:49, 16 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose OTRS is, like Commons, all volunteers and badly understaffed. They usually have a backlog of several weeks to a month or more. If the photographer has submitted an appropriate license, the image will be restored when the request is acted on. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks for getting that done. OTRS will restore the file once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KAS-Logo.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have a permission via OTRS-ticket:2015020510014935. Emha (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Didym (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Karlshuld 002.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have a valid permission via OTRS-ticket:2015021310008016. Emha (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Didym (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Matthias Buth 2014.tif[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have a valid permission via OTRS-ticket:2015021610009421. Emha (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Didym (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Geschichte MWA.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have a valid permission via OTRS-ticket:2015031610022725. Emha (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Didym (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Canovu (61).png license allowed on Wikimedia[edit]

Please restore the following files:

Affected: 

   File:Canovu (62).png

And also: 

   File:Canovu (61).png
   File:Canovu (60).png
   File:Canovu (59).png
   File:Canovu (58).png
   File:Canovu (53).png
   File:Canovu (46).png
   File:CANOVU (44).png
   File:Canovu (25).png
   File:Canovu (24).png
   File:Canovu (32).png
   File:Canovu.jpg

Reason: the files were listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. I contacted the author (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canovu) and checked the official website of the images I posted on Wikimedia in order to check the licence. Both the text and his works are licensed under the CC-BY licence and allowed therefore to be shared on Wikimedia.

Wrong forum. Files have not been deleted -FASTILY 07:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GC54171.png[edit]

Hello everybody,

I have just discovered that my image https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/GC54171.png is deleted. I read the reason at the URL https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:GC54171.png :

Out of scope - unused image of plain text INeverCry 23:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

But I don't really understand. For your information, this image doesn't contain only text, but also hidden information (except for geeks !).

Would it be possible to undelete it, or advise me where I could upload it ?

Best Regards

Natacha

 Not done Text in image form is typically disallowed on Commons. See COM:SCOPE -FASTILY 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Выставка в Москве.jpg:Выставка Ольги Дубинской в Еврейском Музее. Москва. 2014 год:.jpg[edit]

My name is Dmitri Minchenok and this is a photo of my wife

 Not done Commons is not a personal photo album -FASTILY 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Toyota TES-ERA Sports EV Concept.jpg[edit]

i got permission to use this picture i have proof of the email sent to me https://plus.google.com/105233872930050779885/posts/ATfXRs4KZtq here's the image I want undeleted File:Toyota TES-ERA Sports EV Concept.jpg

@Niftyweegee: We need more explicit permission. They should send the e-mail to us using this form. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 01:41, 17 March 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 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FairCoop logo.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: See https://fair.coop/license/ Ref: Ticket:2015012210020675 Jee 02:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo Kirche Berumerfehn (kleiner).jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have a valid permission via OTRS-ticket:2015020410005205. Emha (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done--Steinsplitter (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Child porn blurred.png[edit]

Reason given for speedy deletion was "Out of project scope". This seems to me clearly a spurious rationale for removing this image. It clearly is fit to illustrate both articles on child pornography, on censorship, on blurring, on pixellation. It thus apperas to me that an ordinary nomination for deletion should be submitted if someone still considers the file to be inadmissible for Commons. __meco (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does it show anything which could visually be recognised as child pornography? In that case, the image probably violates child pornography laws, and therefore needs to be deleted. If that is not the case, the image is probably out of scope: a blurred out image is not useful for illustrating a topic. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done we can't host blurred content as defined in U.S. Code Title 18 Section 2256 - included are retouched images. I have filed a report to the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team for further investigation if needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files deleted here[edit]

Since it was absurdly closed "without any clear consensus", I will put this here again:

Files in public domain but were marked as "own work". It's just the case to use {{PD-BrazilGov}} and {{Insignia}}. This official document states in portuguese that this coat of arms, published in 1965, belongs to a federal brazilian university, so these files are supported by {{PD-BrazilGov}} and were deleted with no justice. Could please someone be caring, not disregardful, kind enough to restore these? Or will I have to post this here every week until someone pay attention? Nakinn 20:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose per previous nomination. You have not established that a university constitutes "federal, state or municipal government." Being a "federal brazilian university" does not necessarily mean it is a government agency as contemplated by PD-BrazilGov; it could mean, for example, that it was merely established by or receives funding from the federal government. Further, if government entities do not enjoy copyright in Brazil, why does its site say "© 2015 Secretaria de Tecnologia da Informação/Divisão de Portais Universitários"? Again, as previously, you may indeed be right, but you must provide evidence that this is a bona fide government entity. Эlcobbola talk 20:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Law nº 2.373, 1954 - The President of the Republic: be it known that the National Congress decrees and I approve the following law - Art. 1 University of Ceará is created, based in Fortaleza, Ceará state capital, and incorporated into the Ministry of Education and Culture - Directorate of Higher Education. This university, like all other public federal universities in this country, is under the hierarchy of the Federal Government, specially under the Ministry of Education. The content of this website, like news, photos and such, are under copyright, not an official federal symbol published in 1965. Nakinn 21:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Эlcobbola talk 21:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Per above. Эlcobbola talk 21:41, 17 March 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]

Estimada Comunidad

Como usted pueden ver en el historial de estas fotografías ya fue discutido el borrado de estas, atraves de esta misma pagina pedi el restablecimiento lo cual fue aprobado finalmente por la comunidad y comunicado por Anon, esta fotografia esta sacada del album familiar lo cual fue discutido por Anon, EugeneZelenko y User:Jameslwoodward y otros , lo cual a traves de Anon fue aprovada la licencia {PD-Chile} para las fotografias que tuvieran 70 años de antiguedad como minimo. Estas fotografías superan dicha antiguedad y desde siempre a sido conocida por estar en album familiar.


Esperando que lo anterior aclare lo expuesto y reponga la fotografias que fueron discutida por la comunidad y dio su respectiva repuesta. Agradesco la colaboracion de la comunidad en cuanto han la valorizado lo hecho por mi, y me han explicado con mucho respeto los pasos a seguir, con el propósito de respetar las respectivas normas, los Saluda --Juanjose1956 (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)--Juanjose1956 (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Juanjose1956: Deseo aclarar que mi aprobación no es final. Las leyes de derecho de autor se varían mucho por los países del mundo y es posible que otros miembros de la comunidad son más expertos en estas leyes.
Pido que los demás revisen este caso. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 20:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done. This has been open for over a week and there is no clear consensus to undelete anything -FASTILY 04:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Boy with duplo blocks.jpg[edit]

File was uploaded few years back to enwiki and used in a wikipedia article en:Lego_Duplo. I transferred it to commons together with translation to other language. The file was deleted, because of "missing source information", although an url to Flickr album was provided. The name of the enwiki user (uploader) and Flickr user were same. In my view, the fact, that the Flickr album was removed with time (probably because of luck of space) does not make the source wrong - urls must not stay same all the time. I have questioned the user, who deleted the file with no answer User_talk:Fastily/FAQ, and also the user, who tagged the file in question as lacking source User_talk:1989 was warned for improper tagging. Enwiki user NiggardlyNorm seems inactive. Macuser (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Unfortunately, the file does not have a {{Flickrreview}} tag, so we have no way of verifying the Flickr license. Unless someone can get a license from the photographer, it must remain deleted.
I note that it shows an identifiable child -- it is very possible that it was removed from Flickr because his parents decided they didn't want his picture so publicly displayed. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your last point is absurd - even close relative would not recognize a child grown from that small age if they meet after few years of not seeing each other. Fоr the first one I am not sure - as I said the image was uploaded to en:wiki, and I transferred it to commons only recently. There seems to be no Template:Flickrreview in there. So it could not possibly been set on the file when the url was still working. However, the recent policy seems to disallow free images in enwiki, I do not know when it was enforced. Still, as of 2012 (when it was) free Flickr images were still uploaded to enwiki an my case is not unique: when there's a lag time between the uploading and the move to commons, we lose confirmation of free status, see the link again. Macuser (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The source link provided points to [9], which is a dead link. Since there is no way to verify the license details of this file, it is going to have to stay deleted -FASTILY 04:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Graham (Wake Up Daddy! album).3.jpg[edit]

I would like to request the following files (images) to become undeleted.

These images have been given permission to me by the photographer to use it anywhere. There is no evidence of this because we did not sign any contracts or did anything formal to give permission, except the fact that I've been told that I could use these photos anywhere I want. Hence the reason I have the original photos. If it is still unacceptable, I can give credit to the photographer in each of the pictures, as part of the description. But the photographer really does not mind, for he already gave me permission to use those photos. Thank you. Ness1814 (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Transfer or licensing of copyright requires a formal written agreement, so your oral agreement with the photographer is not effective. In order to restore these to Commons, the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 17 March 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 04:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Braatz-Egbert.jpg[edit]

Es soll das Foto von Egbert Braatz wiederhergestellt werden. Als Quelle hatte ich eingegeben: eigenes Werk, da ich das Foto selbst aufgenommen habe aus einer Zeitschrift "Ostpreußische Artzfamilie"; Adventsrundbrief 1964, S. 15 Als Urheber hatte ich wohl die Franz-Neumann-Stiftung eingegeben, deren Vorsitzender ich bin. Diese Zustiftung in der "Stfitung Königsberg", in dessen Kuratorium ich ebenfalls bin, verwaltet die wissenschaftlichen Beiträge der "Ostpreußischen Arztfamilie". Dies ist nachzulesen in dem Link unter Punkt 8: 

http://franz-neumann-stiftung.net/FranzNeumannStiftung/Franz-Neumann-Stiftung.html

Es existiert bereits seit langem eine wikipedia-Seite: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egbert_Braatz mit Literaturangabe - aber das Bild wurde rausgelöscht. Ich bitte um Wiedereinstellung des Bildes, wie ggf. auch alle anderen gelöschten bisher unveröffentlichten Bilder - siehe meine Diskussionsseite. Gruss E. Neumann-Meding --Neumann-Meding (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The 1964 magazine is certainly copyrighted. The copyright for the photograph will last until 70 years after the death of the photographer. It can be restored to Commons only if the actual photographer sends a free license to OTRS or if the magazine sends a free license. In the latter case, the magazine must show that its license from the photographer allowed it to sublicense the image to Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 04:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tarrawhite6.jpg[edit]

تصویر آپلود شده مطابق با دیگر تصاویر‌آپلود شده در گالری مربوط و مغایرتی ندارد — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiteyami (talk • contribs) 14:33, 17 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 04:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CAllinCornellatStanford.jpg[edit]

The photo in question is provided by myself to the public. Please set the license type as {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divamva (talk • contribs)

  •  Oppose If you are actually the copyright holder (i.e., authorized to "provid[e] by myself to the public"), why do you claim "No free image of Dr. Cornell is currently available" and credit "Philip Caldwell, Schneider Electric, South Carolina, USA" on the en.wiki version? As this image has appeared numerous places on the Internet, and is purported to belong to Philip Caldwell, COM:OTRS requires permission to be submitted using the process on that page. Эlcobbola talk 21:03, 17 March 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 04:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Screen_Shot_2015-03-16_at_21.11.34.png[edit]

Hi.......I uploaded this image (Screen_Shot_2015-03-16_at_21.11.34.png) and its been removed, the photographer we commissioned for the picture is Jeremy Murch and I'd be happy for it be to credited to him even though it was a direct commission for us with no copyright given to him, it was taken in 1996 for our own use as a company and is freely available on the internet, its the only existing portait of all of the original lineup and would be a nice addition to the Antirom Wiki page.


Helen Aver (Antirom)

Synthiaks101 (talk) 21:18, 17 March 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 04:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

From the authorized copyright owner himself[edit]

We are the one and only copyright owner of DKT online, authorized by the one and only copyright owner of DKT, the game itselt.

So, all images regarding DKT postet by us are authorized by us or the original copyright owner (if appropriable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackware (talk • contribs) 22:36, 17 March 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 04:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frutillar rod.jpg[edit]

this file is from my property I posted it as a contribute and was deleted because of licence I am the author — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcarrasj (talk • contribs) 01:29, 18 March 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 04:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Belen Landáburu.jpg[edit]

Soy autora de la fotografía. Soy periodista y asistí a la reunión del Senado en España como homenaje a las senadoras y diputadas que participaron en la Legislatura Constituyente en 2006 en Madrid. No comprendo porque se ha borrado. Quizás mi falta de experiencia en hacer el seguimiento de mis aportaciones. Tengo toda la colección de fotografías de ese día que son históricas y mi voluntad era aportarlas a Wikimedia Commons para el uso libre.

I am author of photography. I am a journalist and I attended the meeting of the Senate in Spain as a tribute to the senators and deputies who participated in the Constituent Legislature in 2006 in Madrid. I do not understand because it has been deleted. Maybe my lack of experience in keeping track of my contributions. I have complete collection of photographs of that day are historical and my will contribute them to Wikimedia Commons was for free use. --mboix (talk) 01:31, 18 March 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 04:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

DieMonsterDie[edit]

I edit the page for them and I photograph them. My husband used to play guitar for them. Why were my files deleted? It irritates me that someone can just pull all of the stuff off that I spent time creating. Promo photo and logo. No evidence of permission(s).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelleybauer (talk • contribs) 02:31, 18 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I've improved the formatting of your post. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 02:40, 18 March 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 04:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

rimrocklogo.jpg[edit]

Rimrock's logo was deleted because of copyright infringement. I created this page for Rimrock Foundation and had full permission to use that logo, there was no copyright infringement. And it's been up for over 5 years and now you are saying that it's copyright infringement. That is just wrong. And there was no copyright infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsegna (talk • contribs) 03:34, 18 March 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 04:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LGHS Maps.JPG[edit]

This is a Google maps screenshot. As google maps is publicly view-able, I believe this Image is not be deleted. --Sayom Shakib (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the correct name is File:LGHS Map.JPG. Free to acess is not the same as free to use. Files here must be free to use. Google Maps are copyrighted and cannot be copied and used on other sites.
You can take a screenshot of OpenStreetMap because it is in fact free to use. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 04:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 04:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Daniel_Montenegro.jpg[edit]

Can you tell me why did you deleted the file? It's a CAPTION from Public TV (official gov channel) in Argentina, which I personally made with my computer. It's PUBLIC!!! A public image edited by myself. So, I don't understand the deal with it. Did somebody called blaming about it? I don`t think so, because it's public. May be I've mistaken the license... Should have I used PD-AR-Gov?. Can it be restored? I'm getting a little tired of getting files deleted, I'm trying to do the best work for Wikipedia and learning from it, you can check my contributions. But if somebody can delete something so easily without taking any care, I'll feel no longer involved with this project. Or at least, can somebody explain it gently to me, without any of those standard messages?

Adannoes (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't completely understand your comment. It is not a "Caption" -- it is a photograph of a soccer player, probably Daniel Montenegro. Just because it appeared on a public television channel, does not make it PD -- government works in almost all countries (the United States and, to some extent. the United Kingdom, are major exceptions) have copyrights. I you have any further questions, feel free to ask on on my talk page..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 06:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Child porn blurred.png[edit]

Per this decision by Steinsplitter my undeletion request for this file was turned down. Steinsplitter's rationale was "we can't host blurred content as defined in U.S. Code Title 18 Section 2256". Looking at U.S. Code Title 18 Section 2256 Steinsplitter does not seem to have an adequate reading of this section of the U.S. Code. __meco (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done again. The file is oversighted by the WMF because it is illegal in US and cannot be restored. Next time you will be blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SS Faith launching First Concrete Ship Service Studio Photo.JPG[edit]

The original file can be located for free at http://photocollection.alonsorobisco.es/faith_samples.html

Furthermore, the picture was taken in 1918, (more than 70 years ago), so the copyright is deprecated as of today.

Thanks, Manuel (Manulonso (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

  •  Oppose{ The source almost certainly does not own the copyright or have any right to license this image. It may be PD, but 1918 is far too recent to assume that the image is PD without knowing where and when it was first published. That informationis not given at the source. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 04:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Norwegian_Wood_nr_1-1980.jpg[edit]

The file is a scan of the first issue of the fan magazine "Norwegian Wood", by Norwegian Wood, the Beatles fan club of Norway. I have been president of the fan club as well as the editor of the magazine, and the fan club allows the depiction of the magazine. The magazine is also depicted on the fan club's blog http://beatlesklubben.blogspot.no/p/blog-page_9.html and a pdf of the full magazine is [here|https://www.dropbox.com/s/vba75yisnbtk7d0/nw001.pdf?dl=0 here]. The front and back cover is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wogew (talk • contribs) 09:31, 18 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose That may be, but I doubt very much that the Fan Club has a license for the photograph shown and can freely license its use elsewhere. In any case, an authorized official of the Fan Club must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 04:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

near_space.jpg[edit]

I created this image back in 2002 by launching a weather balloon in Hutchinson, KS. The balloon recorded that image at 86,000 feet and I have placed in Wiki Commons for anyone to use.

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 04:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mohammed Ghouse at his residence.JPG[edit]

Sir/ Madam, This is to inform you that the Photo of Mohammed Ghouse , uploaded by me is a sole work of mine taken from my camera. I also inform you that I am one of his Grandson and also, I do have other photos of him. Unfortunately I can't get a letter of permission written by him as he is no more.

I can only assure you that there will not be any copyright claims for his photograph. If it happens to arise, you may delete it.

Also at this juncture I would also like to provide you with article on him along with his younger photograph

http://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/umpire-ghouse-passes-away/article6458765.ece

I was the the one who provided that photograph to the Newspaper "The Hindu" from one of his old albums

Hence I kindly request you to undelete his photo and publish in his page.

Regards, Dr. Z. Thanveer Ahamed M.B.B.S., — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanveer (talk • contribs) 13:47, 18 March 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 04:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ana Sofia by Artur Cabral.jpg[edit]

I'm Ana Sofia's (a portuguese model, presenter and actress) social media manager. I've added this photo several times and it keeps being deleted. However, we have explicit permission from the author (photographer Artur Cabral) and from Ana Sofia to use this photo on wikipedia. I've made it clear to Artur that he's waiving the rights for the photo under the reffered license, and he agreed.

How do you suggest I proceed, to keep this photo undeleted from Ana Sofia's page?

--LadyVicarious (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LadyVicarious Your file was at File:Ana Sofia by Artur Cabral.jpg. Copy that file name into the template at Commons:Email templates/Consent and email it to the address on that template page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:26, 18 March 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 04:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JJ Grey & Mofro.Jpg[edit]

I wish to request undeletion on the image in the subject line above. I was given permission to use this image, what would I need to keep it from happening again. --MascotIntern (talk) 17:59, 18 March 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 04:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Variations in tissue stiffness..png[edit]

This file is published under the creative commons license.

See original article at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3046088/. Under article information, it is stated:

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided that the original work is properly cited and all further distributions of the work or adaptation are subject to the same Creative Commons License terms.

Dansapozhnikov (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done NC licenses are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 04:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo revista vea.png[edit]

No borren el archivo, lo saqué de un escáner, yo lo escaneé --Danrolo (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 04:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La Revue nouvelle.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I'm the director of the Revue nouvelle and I took the photo myself. There's no copyright violation. Could you please undelete the photo? Thanks XtopheMincke (talk) 08:12, 19 March 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 08:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MonarchDistribution2-2a.png, File:MonarchDistribution2-3.png[edit]

Please undelete both files. They are derived work of File:MonarchDistribution2-2.png and are based on this File:BlankMap-World-Borders.png map that was deleted for some strange reasons years before (It was not a duplicate of BlankMap-World.png as it show the Americas in the center and not on the left). 

2010-12-16T18:57:40‎ CommonsDelinker (Diskussion | Beiträge)‎ K . . (1.149 Bytes) (-68)‎ . . (Removed BlankMap-World-Borders.png; deleted by Jcornelius because: faded/sloppy duplicate of File:BlankMap-World.png and not in use.)

Will this mean that derived work will be deleted if the source gets deleted? BTW the crappy commens delinker removed the source link to File:BlankMap-World-Borders.png. That's the reason why my files were without source. Regards, --Hsuepfle (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently ok -FASTILY 08:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ECHT KUH-L! Wortbildmarke.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have a valid permission via OTRS-ticket:2015030510012481. Emha (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Emha: Please add the ticket. INeverCry 01:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BurningChristmas Schroeder-Art.de 158 8529.JPG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have a valid permission via OTRS-ticket:2015031810023873. Emha (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Emha: Please add the ticket. INeverCry 01:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Philippe Ghanem.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015031010026232). --Mdann52talk to me! 12:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Mdann52: Please add the ticket. INeverCry 01:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:pg-promise.jpg[edit]

Please un-delete the file.

The image is my property, created by myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitalytomilov (talk • contribs) 11:23, 19 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 04:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stazione_Santa_Maria_la_Bruna_RFI.jpg[edit]

Questa foto è di mia proprietà per il semplice motivo che lo scattata io che ci abito nelle vicinanze di quella stazione. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuego2806 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 04:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Buchschrauben_Auswahl.jpg[edit]

Please restore the image because it was my own work --Toshiks (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file description shows the author as Timo Huber (klebeshop24.de). Identity theft is, unfortunately, common here, so while that may be you, and the image does not actually appear on the site, the fact that you referenced a site that does not have a free license requires that the actual copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:53, 19 March 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 04:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete request for File:RP -21 200x269.jpg[edit]

This image is a magazine cover owned by mthink LLC who also owns The Blue Book Top 20 Networks Rankings and which requested the inclusion of this image on the Blue Book Top 20 Network Rankings page and also requested inclusion of images of the actual rankings that have yet to be uploaded. I am an employee and authorized agent of mthink LLC who can legally distribute images owned by mthink LLC.

--Solarfox617 (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Sheila Fox[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 04:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:5.צמד המגדלים המסומנים בצהוב, הם מהשרידים היחידים הידועים לנו כיום משלב הבניה הצלבני הראשון..jpg[edit]

Also File:שלב ב' בשלב זה נבנה חפיר רחב ועמוק סביב המצודה. לא קיימים שרידים נוספים משלב זה..jpg

Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015031810029001). Thanks Hanay (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Hanay: Please add the tickets. INeverCry 17:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr. Jassim Haji picture.jpg[edit]

Permission received via OTRS (Ticket:2015012910016935). Thanks in advanced. Vitor MazucoMsg 18:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Vitor Mazuco: Please add the ticket. INeverCry 18:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:89 SE-i - 3-Quarter View (Rt Side).jpg[edit]

I have previously uploaded several photos that I have personally taken and own. One of which (unbeknownst to me) was deleted by ElinorD in 2007. These files were all properly registered at the time on Wikimedia commons with the appropriate creative commons license. The only possibility for it's deletion I can think of is the possibility of a name (description) change which I attempted to do while revising an article.

Kindly reinstate this photo back to it's correct status and let me know who I can send my request to have it retitled...

Thanks, Hy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hip (talk • contribs)

Nothing to do: not deleted. Yann (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dressed tree (40752939).jpg[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dressed tree (40752939).jpg

Meaningless picture?? --Benzoyl (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done see COM:SCOPE. Commons is not your personal photo album/webhost -FASTILY 06:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr.Saundarya Rajesh.jpg[edit]

This is a free image and can be used for this article. A kind request to undelete the image file.--Abhiramineela (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 06:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sandra Monterroso.jpg[edit]

On March 13 I sent in information about the permission given to me by the owner of the photo to use it. I was granted permission by Ciudad de la Imaginación:


Ciudad Imaginación - Comunicación Mar 13 (7 days ago)

Estimada Leslie Martínez,

es un gusto saludarte, nos parece una bonita iniciativa que hayas desarrollado la entrada de Sandra Monterroso, parece mentira que haya ese brecha entre las publicaciones de hombre y mujeres en Wikipedia.

Respecto a la fotografía, no existe ningún problema por parte de Ciudad de la Imaginación a la hora de utilizar la captura de imagen del documental de Sergio Ramírez.

Saludos cordiales,


Alba Carrasco Coordinadora Comunicación 5ta calle 14-10 z 3, Quetzaltenango, Guatemala, C.A. Tel. 7767-7094 Cel. 3034-9865 www.ciudadimaginacion.org

--Lamartinez1225 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for doing that. OTRS will restore the image once they process the email that was sent -FASTILY 06:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Siouxsie Medley -Lemon Scent Video.PNG[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is my personal property that I am donating to the public domain/ creative commons. I took this picture and it appears nowhere else as I have never used it before. Arthurf333 (talk) 05:36, 21 March 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 06:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pa Rus oktober 2014.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission has been granted in ticket:2015032010029792 Mbch331 (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 19:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20120224 17 26 JacquesPassy mxpt.jpg[edit]

Kyo 37 (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Looks like you forgot to state the reason for requesting undeletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close of a no reason request -FASTILY 19:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Odisha_Montage.jpg[edit]

There was no copyright violation in the Odisha Montage, Citations were given with licenses. I hope you consider my undeletion request.--SaUp2014 (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Derivatives of non-free content are forbidden on Commons -FASTILY 19:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alex Cendron.jpg[edit]

Sono stato incaricato dal signor Alex Cendron stesso di creare la sua pagina in Wikipedia (Alex Cendron), quindi concedendomi il permesso di usare anche una sua foto. Ora lo informo del permesso scritto necessario, che vi arriverà prima possibile. Buona giornata

--GiGBiG (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Giuliano Bombieri, 21 Marzo 2015[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 19:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Siouxsie Medley -Lemon Scent Video.PNG[edit]

There is no copyright violation here. I own the property. I took the picture at the videotaping of the music video. It appears nowhere on the internet as this is the first time I have uploaded it anywhere. I am donating it to the public domain. Please undelete.

I am new here so I hope I did this right. I did it last night but the request disappeared with no explanation or comment. If I have done something wrong please tell me. Arthurf333 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 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 19:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why they were deleted?[edit]

I am interested why File:Pioneer 10 at Jupiter.jpg and File:2003 UB313.jpg were deleted based on some bogus claims? Ruslik (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pioneer 10 at Jupiter.jpg has never been deleted, and I've restored File:2003 UB313.jpg so the DR can continue -FASTILY 19:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant File:Mercurypictures.jpg. Ruslik (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File from the category Photographs by SpaceX[edit]

Please can the photos that were in the category Photographs by SpaceX be undeleted? They are all available under the correct licence on Flickr here, even the category has been deleted, is this vandalism? I'm not sure how to work out the file names that were contained within it.

Thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose These were uploaded and the category created by a WMF banned user in violation of his ban. Russavia is banned from editing all WMF projects. Is there nobody else who's capable of doing uploads of these images from Flickr besides one lone banned editor? INeverCry 20:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean the only way to get them back on to commons is for someone else to upload them again? Mrjohncummings (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. The files are good, so they can be undeleted. --Fæ (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Stop the drama, go back to work. If you want the files here, any non banned user can import them. BTW I recreated the cat, and imported one. Yann (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was an out of process deletion. If you want polices to be changed, change them first rather than suppressing valid community discussion. --Fæ (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anders Miolin Pictures.jpg[edit]

Bonjour,

Ce fichier est autorisé pour l'utilisation sur wikimedia par son créateur!!

Merci

Freddy Moulard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.204.104.142 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 21 March 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 23:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Imagen 044.jpg[edit]

This image was tagged as 'No source' and deleted in 2009. It had been uploaded in 2008 and was available, with no concerns, for one year and a half. Its uploader, @Argento100: claims it's his own work, stating that it was a picture that [he] took with a Nikon coolpix many years ago and was set in his home town article. As the other picture uploaded by him (File:Imagen 043.jpg) is also an amateur picture taken, according to EXIF information, with a Nikon coolpix machine, I can't see any reason not to trust Argento100's authorship. Can any administrator determine if the picture has been taken with such a camera and, therefore, restore it? Many thanks into advance --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 11:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: @Discasto: I've restored it and marked it as own work per your link. Can you clean up both files? This one needs categories and the other needs a description. INeverCry 03:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Belén Fernández.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Belen Fernandez took the photo of herself and sent it to me - her mother - for the precise purpose of uploading it to her Wikipedia page, which I rewrote. Please restore. Thank you. Tower1109 (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 OpposeThere are three problems here:
First, I'm not sure I believe this is a selfie, but it might be, so I'll pass on that.
Second, you uploaded it as "own work", but now say that it was not.
Third, it appears without a free license at http://belenfernandez-writings.blogspot.ca/p/reviews-of-coffee-with-hezbollah.html
The second and third items require that the actual photographer send a free license to OTRS. It will be restored after that is processed, which may take several weeks -- OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and badly understaffed.
I also suggest strongly that you read and obey WP:PLAINANDSIMPLECOI -- your edits on Belén Fernández seriously violate policy there. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 20:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plakat Davoser Kurzfilmnacht Roland Eugen Beiküfner KUNST UND DRAMA.jpg[edit]

Ich habe das Plakat selbst gestaltet und erstellt. Nutzername friedland 2015-03-22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friedland (talk • contribs) 08:38, 22 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose In order to have it restored here, you must both:
1) Tell us why it is educationally useful and not just your personal artwork
2) Send a free license to OTRS.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 20:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AndreasBieber2014.jpg[edit]

OTRS-permission received. // Martin K. (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 20:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

OTRS-permission[edit]

// Martin K. (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 20:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Unberath.jpeg[edit]

Hallo, welches ist der genauere Grund weshalb diese Datei gelöscht wurde? Danke im Voraus für die Antwort. --L.Kenzel 11:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose It was deleted because it was taken from https://idw-online.de/de/image44013 which has a clear copyright notice. Therefore it is a copyright violation and cannot be hosted here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 20:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FOREO logo.svg[edit]

Added trademark to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FOREO_logo.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assalych (talk • contribs) 12:07, 22 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason to undelete anything -FASTILY 20:42, 22 March 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 100 socks and no content deleted and Indoavia[edit]

Clearly educational, freely-licenced content imported from Flickr by Russavia, deleted in blatant breach of Commons policies. odder (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support I would like to be able to trust Wikimedia Commons administrators to adhere to community agreed policy. These deletions show that is not currently possible. --Fæ (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I would like you two to respect Commons policies: a user banned is banned. Yann (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 1#Content added while evading a block or ban that I linked to from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Deletion of files in Category:Photographs by SpaceX? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re-opened as the closure was just 33 minutes after the community discussion started.
Yann, please respect community processes. As an admin it is not your "job" to tell the community what to think, nor are you granted with a divine right to overrule existing policies because you personally believe it is more important to punish Russavia. "banned is banned" is an overused and meaningless mantra from the English Wikipedia, it does not exist as a policy on Commons. --Fæ (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what policies the uploaded files violated; in lack of any proof otherwise, they should be undeleted immediately. odder (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. Here we have a bureaucrat and Fae, who lost 5 RfA, joined to support a banned user. You both make a mess of Commons. Yann (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here we have a former bureaucrat and a current admin who doesn't give a flying fuck about Commons policies. You make a mess of Commons. odder (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks? How bizarre for an administrator. You are obviously far too emotional about Russavia to act in relation to his uploads. --Fæ (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done the files that where deleted have already been reuploaded. No further admin action needed and please stop playing war games. Natuur12 (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that they have not all been reuploaded yet. As the upload log has been suppressed for some unknown reason (by the WMF?), how can we tell? --Fæ (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files nominated by User:Jcpag2012[edit]

No copyright violations. This user seems not to understand what copyright is. I urge all administrators not to delete any files nominated by this user without a thorough review. Ruslik (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this user is filing a large number of bogus deletion requests (may indicate a fairly deep misunderstanding of copyright). I commented on a few but it seems as though lots have been deleted without much review. These must have been filed with both speedy and regular Drs; there is Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Phobos Deimos orbit Mars.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Phobos Deimos orbit Mars-nn.jpg which are unclosed but the files have been deleted. The deletion reason was "Showing orbits of Mars using JPL Solar System Simulator", which is no reason at all.  Support undeletion. Would suggest a review of any file deleted due to User:Jcpag2012. A number of DRs seem to be completely bogus, reason given is that a copy of a NASA picture was found on another website. I did see some other speedies which did get deleted of (apparently) modified NASA images, things like a picture of the sun with a red tint and a description of "artists impression of a red giant" or something like that. Those are more borderline. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done & Done -FASTILY 20:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AsianU_1.jpg[edit]

Dear Wikipedia,


I am just trying to update a page about my university. I don't understand how my work or my colleagues' work and pictures have violate the terms and conditions? All the artwork, graphics and pictures belong solely to the University. So I don't see how I have violated those terms.

Could you suggest any other ways of uploading pictures to wikipedia without these issues if you would not allow us to host them on your site?


Kritsadadej --AsianU (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done see COM:L. All original works are copyrighted by default -FASTILY 06:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yuvaraj adhikari.jpg[edit]

I hereby affirm that i Ashim Adhikari am, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of yuvaraj adhikari.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yuvaraj_adhikari.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. Ashim adhikari copy right holder 03/23/2013-- Ashim nep (talk) 06:02, 23 March 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 06:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JennyTwitchell - 1860.jpg[edit]

This photo was incorrectly deleted with no basis. The photo was taken around 1860, is a photo of my great great grandmother, and is in my possession. This photo is unpublished elsewhere. No clear explanation for deletion was given or a credible basis for a copyright violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonesSF (talk • contribs)

✓ Done 1960 is old enough. Yann (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Miss Earth 2014 Jamie Herrell.jpg[edit]

Actually, I don't know why the admins wanted to delete File:Miss Earth 2014 Jamie Herrell.jpg this is my own work, I captured this by myself, I am the author of this work. Please remove the deletion request. Thank you. The source and permission are already there, to proof that it is my own work. So please, remove the deletion request of this photo..

File has not been deleted, but please send a permissions email to COM:OTRS -FASTILY 05:11, 25 March 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 Alinkaua[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have a valid permission via OTRS-ticket:2015030210017516. Emha (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sonnenareal in Löchgau8.jpg[edit]

Bild hat Panoramafreiheit --Tintenklecks (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like a permanent installation to me, so FOP would not apply. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Das Bild wurde auf wetterfestem Material an einer öffentlich zugänglichen Stelle aufgehängt und sollte dort auf Dauer und zur Erinnerung an das zuvor dort stehende Gebäude ausgestellt bleiben. Paul Happold hatte das Bild zu diesem Zweck aufhängen lassen. Allerdings werden sowohl das jetzige Gebäude als auch das Bild wegen Bauarbeiten vermutlich noch in diesem Jahr abgerissen. Viele Grüße --Tintenklecks (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Like sand castles and ice sculpture, works that are expected to stay in the same place for their entire life may qualify for FOP. I'm inclined to think that this does, but I'd like a German speaker to confirm my understanding of Tintenklecks's comment.  Conditional Support.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Complex case like this needs a proper DR nevertheless. Yann (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Danke für die freundliche Kommunikation. --Tintenklecks (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bust of Antoni Gaudi by Josep Maria Subirachs.jpg[edit]

I think i missed adding the licence-type. Otherwise i don´t have a clue why it was removed reffering to a copyright violation. Picture was taken by me in 2014.

  •  Oppose In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Spain. The sculptor, Josep Maria Subirachs, died in 2014. Therefore his works will be under copyright until 2084 and this image cannot be kept on Commons without a free license from his heir. See OTRS for the procedure that the heir must follow. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done copyrighted until 2084 -FASTILY 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CNP bureaulogo.jpg[edit]

I work for the Company CNP that the logo and offices belongs to.

Brobertz (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Brobertz[reply]

 Oppose We have here a montage -- a {{PD-textlogo}} together with two images, one of which appears to be a photograph and the other an architectural rendering. The company probably does not own the copyright for the rendering -- in such cases the copyright is almost always retained by the architect.
In order to restore the image to Commons, we will need a statement from an officer of the corporation that the corporation actually owns the copyright to both images and wants to freely license them. That should be sent to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr. Patricia Aden.jpg[edit]

Dear Wikipedians,

I'm currently working for Deutscher Akademikerinnebund e.V.. Dr. Patricia Aden is the chairperson of this society and I uploaded a picture of her upon her request. Maybe I did something wrong, which lead to the deletion of my upload. Could you undelete it and assisste me in correcting my mistake? Thank you very much in advance.

Elisa aka ElliBil --ElliBil (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The file description shows that the author of this image is Patricia Aden. Since this is a studio portrait of her, that is not correct. In almost all case, the copyright for such images remains with the photographer. Since this image appears on the Web without a free license, policy requires that the actual copyright holder, probably the photographer, send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 25 March 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 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Biographies of artists Francis Howse Cruess and Helen Rutter Cruess.pdf[edit]

I am the owner of the copyright of this file and request an undelete.

The file's address is File:Biographies of artists Francis Howse Cruess and Helen Rutter Cruess.pdf

Thank you.

Lynn Kreiser Miller — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.187.250.179 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 25 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose undeletion. You haven't addressed why the reasons for deletions provided in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Biographies of artists Francis Howse Cruess and Helen Rutter Cruess.pdf don't apply. Please read Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:21, 25 March 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 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily, that's bad advice. OTRS can't do anything about out-of-scope content being out of scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Noel Quiñones Emmy for his Film 17.jpg[edit]

The permissions for this photo were sent in a letter to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on March 12, 2015. That e-mail contains a signed letter from Noel Quiñones, owner of the images. I am not the most experienced contributor however, I believe I have met the burden of proof for this image to be undeleted. Thank you. David Gasser Dfgasser (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for getting that done. OTRS will restore the file(s) once they process the email that was sent. -FASTILY 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20120224 17 26 JacquesPassy mxpt.jpg[edit]

Hola quisiera que restauren el archivo solicitado ya que no encontre ningun problema con el autor, para ocuparlo con fines de informacion y no de luicro, encntrandose en un dominio de caracter publico e informatico. gracias. Kyo 37 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 21:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aurora Snow recent.jpg[edit]

This picture was taken by me at Disney World in 2014 and Ms. Snow requested an updated picture be posted to her Wikipedia page which I did. It should be reposted to her wikipedia page. Thunderbolt47d (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The image appeared first at pic.twitter.com/NDCFk40E4z. Because that raises questions about its copyright, policy requires that the photographer send a free license to OTRS. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and badly understaffed. Its backlog runs from several weeks to over a month. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:18, 25 March 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 21:33, 25 March 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 ShustovVal[edit]

Request temporary undeletion (Clarifying that this is for transfer to Wikiversity, not only for review for possible undeletion here, see fair use policy linked below. --Abd (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

request to Yann, as the closing admin, who declined. It is not necessary to review that request, linked for disclosure.

I request these files be temporarily undeleted, so that I may review them; there have been a series of arguments presented for deleting these files, and as one argument dropped, another was raised. There are two new arguments, which were not present in the DRs, that these were derivatives of youtube videos (in which case I may suggest to Shustov that he go through OTRS, these would all have been his youtube uploads), and that they were out of scope. Some of these files were in use and therefore not out of scope. However, because of multiple issues, I want to see the files and obtain all the data before proceeding with a formal undeletion review, should that be appropriate.

If they are undeleted, I will cooperate with an undeleting admin, as requested, to make this easy and efficient. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose These files have already been reviewed by several admins. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yann was the only administrator who decided to delete these files. Each file may have different circumstances, and I know that some of the arguments given for deletion were specious. Instead of creating a contentious undeletion request, I am only asking for temporary undeletion so that I can see what was actually in the files. I will appreciate support in this, because otherwise I will need to request undeletion with specific arguments, possibly file by file. I'm hoping to avoid unnecessary discussion. I would only request undeletion, then, later, for files where the issues are clear and the files are ready. As well, many Shustov (=ShustovVal) files were in use, some on Wikiversity. We may claim fair use there, if needed. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Yann was the only administrator who decided to delete these files" is, strictly speaking, true, but only because it is true of all DRs that only one Admin makes the final decision.

Abd entirely ignores the fact that there was an extended discussion at the DR that included me, Elcobbola, and Russavia. INC has also been involved with Shustov's many problematic uploads. So, including Yann, five highly experienced Commons editors have agreed that these are not files that Commons can keep.

As I understand it, it is this kind of disingenuous and unhelpful behavior that got Abd permanently banned on WP:EN. We don't need similar behavior here and should not encourage it by any positive response to this request..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "ignore" the discussion, I linked to it. I've reviewed it in detail and am supporting the process of restoring what is legitimate about Shustov's files, with minimal disruption. This is not AN/U. The argument above is misleading: Russavia's argument was rejected (by Jim!), and the arguments in the DR closed by Yann were questionable; Yann closed "as per Jim and Эlcobbola" and it's a moving target; Yann refused to undelete because of completely different arguments, not raised in the DR.
I'm working on this set because the last DR was opened by Jim with ShustovVal is the subject of all of these images and therefore his claim of "own work" is clearly incorrect. These were bystander selfies, apparently, and it is controversial whether such are own work or not. See the current draft of Commons:Own work, permanent link, and see the legal arguments on the talk page for Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie. That's not resolved, but these files might be suitable as test cases. That undeletion request has not been made. They were in use on WMF wikis, so deleting them caused disruption. Was it necessary? I don't know yet, but the most that will be needed, I suspect, is OTRS, depending on youtube and file creation timing here. Those gears won't start turning until I know more about the photos and videos, specifically.
Shustov's claim (privately to me) is that, in some cases, he used a self-timer to start a video and had the bystander hold the camera (thus the visible movement of the camera), giving a plausible reason (I had questioned him incredulously). The draft policy would make it unnecessary to resolve this. Shustov did not understand Commons or Commons practice, it's obvious. He is, however, coachable. He stopped all disruptive activity.
I'm requesting copies of the files, following procedure, opposed by two admins who have already expressed their opinions before, and it's irrelevant here. This request has a legitimate purpose entirely aside from Commons image hosting, i.e., provision of files for fair use on en.Wikiversity, per instructions for this page. It's a routine request, easily satisfied, and not disruptive.
I neglected to include the temporary undeletion template, I had intended to do that (but I was clear about what this was). It is now at the top. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Thanks, Эlcobbola. I see that I also failed to follow instructions completely. See Commons:Undeletion requests#To allow transfer of fair use content to another_project. While I gave that reason, it was also with another reason, related to possible undeletion filing, which I wanted to postpone until I saw the files. I did not provide the link to Wikiversity fair use policy. Here it is: [11]. Without seeing the files, I cannot specifically determine if they are eligible, but they probably are, or could be made so. --Abd (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above -FASTILY 07:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum photographs and texts[edit]

File name Licence tag on Commons uploader Source website copyright information on source website
File:Buchenwald Congressman Views Crematorium.jpg {{PD-USGov}} user:USHMM United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Photograph #00653 Copyright: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
File:Buchenwald DP Service 08731.jpg {{PD-USGov}} user:USHMM United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Photograph #08731 Copyright: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
File:Buchenwald Children 08730.jpg {{PD-USGov}} user:USHMM United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Photograph #08730 Copyright: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
File:Buchenwald Children 76693.jpg {{PD-USGov}} user:USHMM United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Photograph #76693 Copyright: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
File:Buchenwald Children 44254.jpg {{PD-USGov}} user:USHMM United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Photograph #44254 Copyright: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
File:Buchenwald Children 44251.jpg {{PD-USGov}} user:USHMM United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Photograph #44251 Copyright: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
File:Buchenwald Crematoria 82224.jpg {{PD-USGov}} user:USHMM United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Photograph #82224 Copyright: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
File:Buchenwald Ohrdruf Corpses 38099.jpg {{PD-USGov}} user:USHMM United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Photograph #38099 Copyright: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
File:Buchenwald Forced Labor 81242.jpg {{PD-USGov}} user:USHMM United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Photograph #81242 Copyright: Agency Agreement
File:Buchenwald Forced Labor 81241.jpg {{PD-USGov}} user:USHMM United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Photograph #81241 Copyright: Agency Agreement
File:Buchenwald Children 07454.jpg {{PD-USGov}} user:USHMM United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Photograph #07454 Copyright: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
File:Buchenwald Children 26146.jpg {{PD-USGov}} user:USHMM United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Photograph #26146 Copyright: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
File:Buchenwald Forced Labor Railroad 85878.jpg {{PD-USGov}} user:USHMM A : ushmm ; B = Gedenkstaette Buchenwald A = Copyright: Public Domain (Why ? 1943 German picture); B = Copyright : Thüringisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Weimar
File:Buchenwald Forced Labor Railroad 85879.jpg {{PD-USGov}} user:USHMM A : ushmm ; B = Gedenkstaette Buchenwald A = Copyright: Public Domain (Why ? 1943 German picture); B = Copyright : Thüringisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Weimar

This is disgusting!

It seems to me that these prominent Holocaust photographs were deleted on extremely spurious grounds.

The USHMM says on its website that it owns the copyright. An OTRS ticket seems to have been deemed inadequate merely because it does not jive with some of the boilerplate on the USHMM site. Some (now ex-)admin, on evidence of their own POV, decided to delete the files anyway, implying that the USHMM must be lying. That reeks of antisemitism. AGF should apply to the USHMM. It's OK for admins to assume the USHMM is lying without clearly identified, specific evidence? Of course not. Am I missing something here? The USHMM site clearly indicates it claims ownership of the copyright. Who is this ex-admin to insist the USHMM is lying? Taking one bit of overly aggressive legal boilerplate out of context which redefines the term "Content"! and fail to note the redefinition or that it also says, "Some Content is in the public domain" is highly inappropriate too. What's common, and legally sound, is that we host lots and lots of content that is free despite overly aggressive legal boilerplate that claims otherwise. Like POTUS photos posted with non-commercial restrictions on flickr ("The photograph may not be manipulated in any way" means no derivatives - example). (Aside: Even this OTRS search is oddly blank. Why? [Edit: Answer: because of the miscoded # symbol. this OTRS search works. ] )

Due to the sensitive, political nature of the images, I feel the justification for any sustained deletion would need to be on much more solid ground than the original deletion in order not to give the impression that the deletion was politically motivated. It must AGF on behalf of the USHMM and be based on clearly identified, specific evidence. IMO. --Elvey (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose The accusation of antisemitism here is insulting. Commons, as a community, has never, to my knowledge, acted in such a way. The issues in this case are complex and it is not helpful to accuse us of racism. We are all volunteers trying to be fair and to apply complex law to difficult situations.
There are two problems with these images. The first is that the source site, http://www.ushmm.org/, has terms of use that are unacceptable here:
"The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (“Museum”) invites its web visitors to use the content of its website for personal, educational, and other noncommercial purposes."
That was true when these images were uploaded and it is true today. There is an OTRS ticket #2007071910012533 which discusses a temporary intern uploading images to Commons with the consent of the museum. It does not, however, mention the username USHMM, so we have no way of being sure that these uploads by that user are in fact images that the Museum has decided should be freely licensed. The OTRS communications are from a junior person, one who does not have the apparent authority to freely license valuable content in conflict with the organization's stated licensing policy. The museum has been asked to confirm the license, and in fact, to change its web site to show the free licensing of these images, but it has not done so.
The second problem is that the museum probably does not own the copyright to these images. As it says on its website, much of the material on the site has copyrights owned by others. It is not at all clear that the person uploading these images from the web site understood the copyright issue. At least one of the images shown above has a "courtesy of" note in its source. That generally means that the image was given to the museum by the photographer for the museum's use but does not mean that the museum has the right to freely license it. Museums are notorious for not understanding copyright -- we have many examples of museums claiming copyrights which they obviously did not own. While I would accept a statement from an officer of the Museum that the Museum both owned the copyrights to these images and was willing to freely license them here, I see no reason to accept such a declaration from an anonymous username.
This deletion can easily be reversed if an officer of the Museum sends such a declaration to OTRS. Since it has not done so in the intervening five years, it is hard to conclude that it wants them restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done basically per Jim. There is no clear evidence of permission for these files to be hosted under a free license on Commons -FASTILY 07:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Munchausen illustrations[edit]

The files File:baron06a.gif, File:baron07a.gif, File:baron08a.gif, and File:baron17a.gif were deleted in 2008 for lack of licensing information. However, these files are engravings from the 1780s, scanned in from a public-domain book, so no copyright difficulties should exist. Indeed, Commons already hosts inferior re-etched copies of the first two engravings in question, scanned in from a different book: File:Bürger Münchhausen (1786) 50a.png and File:Bürger Münchhausen (1786) 56a.png, respectively.

Most of the engravings from this book are already on Commons, at Category:Baron Munchausen. There's no conceivable reason why these four files should be treated any differently than them.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please take a moment to update the file description pages accordingly -FASTILY 07:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Heino Hansen.jpg[edit]

Heino Hansen har rettighederne til dette billede, og har givet mig lov til at benytte dette på wikipedia siden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilla 91 (talk • contribs)

I think you mean File:Heino Hansen.jpg, so I have changed the header for you. As for the undeletion, I will mark as  Not done. Please ask him to send permission to OTRS. If all is in order, they will restore the file for you. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logo 3i4.jpg[edit]

Simple enough logo to fall into PD-textlogo.--Coentor (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Set of images by Penyulap[edit]

I think there is no valid reasons to delete those images. This is a narrow reading of COM:SCOPE.

Pleclown (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a perfectly valid reading of COM:SCOPE. Those files were neither in legitimate use in a Wikimedia project, nor were they demonstrated to be "realistically useful for an educational purpose". Keφr (keep talk here) 10:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Although files that do not load properly might, in some circumstances, be useful to demonstrate problems with the system, these were unused. That very limited possibility of use does not justify restoring them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done out of scope. Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Köder 1956.jpg[edit]

Köder_1956.jpg

das file: Köder_1956.jpg soll wiederhergestellt werden.

begründung:

man staune: es gibt auch ziemliche alte boys bei wiki. ich, user meisenstrasse, bin 1938 geboren und habe dieses photo von meinem lehrer sieger köder im Juli 1956 bei einem landschulheimaufenthalt in der nähe von oberstdorf gemacht. insofern ist die argumentation des löschers, daß das wegen des alters kein eigenes werk sein könne, hinfällig. ich möchte deshalb die wiederherstellung der datei beantragen.

meisenstrasse, den 26. 3. 2015

Meisenstrasse (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

=b  Support –Be..anyone (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PalestinaPuerto.jpg and File:PlaestinaIglesia.jpg[edit]

This images was deleted by "no license since..." But this images was made under this [youtu.be/1XPnH_rF9ks?t=3m48s] circumstances, and it's away more noxious we simply delete than put some cc-by and a warning about the conditions that this images was taken and whys of this images received this licence. I know I know, but think about this particular case... I made tons of workshops, I saw the look when beginners tried to show their friends/relatives the work that they contribute, and it was deleted. -- RTA 08:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The only entry by the uploader on the file description page of either of these images is "Author = Michael.Kleiman". There is no description, no category, no location, no source, and no license. Quite aside from the lack of a license, the images are useless because we don't know anything about them. The second is very poor quality. The first is better, but still unusable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jameslwoodward did you at last have the decency to saw the provided link? We know a lot, we now what it is, the location, the source, the whys, the whom... this is unusable in your mind... -- RTA 21:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand your point here, but the basic fact is that the images have no license and only the uploader can fix that. Without a license, there is absolutely no way that we can keep them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear that you are not barely near to understand, and are nothing close to make a effort on that direction.
It is too much to use the same license used in other images of the sequence File:RioPurus.jpg...
Meanwhile I tracked him, entered in contact, I bet my kidney that whom deleted made this, so, could you pleas restore, and put a flag... He will not be able to change the licence, if this images are not editable... -- RTA 09:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing further is going to happen with these images unless Michael.Kleiman himself comes here and tells us what license to put on them. We cannot add licenses to unlicensed images without the permission of the uploader. Even with a license, I would recommend against restoring these, as they are very poor quality. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going to re-mark this as  Not done as this doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive. As Jim said, we're going to need Michael.Kleiman to come here himself and tell us what license to use. That said, these are at best, still missing evidence of permission -FASTILY 20:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Akshardham Airpano wide view.png[edit]

Added license info (email exchange with Airpano). Please remove the deletion tag. I could not reach the orginal admin who put the tag. I am not aware how and where to request removal of deletion tags. So thought of using this portal. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 08:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum - file has not been deleted -FASTILY 20:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:How to Edit Article in Arabic Wikipedia.ogg and File:How to Create Article in Arabic Wikipedia.ogg‎‏[edit]

Hi. These videos have been deleted because of "copyright violation", although it is available under the terms of CC-BY-SA 3.0., and a part of set of introductory videos was produced in 2011 as part of the Wiki Arabi competition. File: Arabic Wikipedia Introduction.ogg is one of that set and still exists.

These videos are used in more than 125,000 pages in Arabic Wikipedia, so we need to retrieve it as soon as possible. Thank you. --Shbib Al-Subaie (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second contains pages from Google, also copyrighted.
Also, I have {{Speedy}} deleted File: Arabic Wikipedia Introduction.ogg because it begins with copyrighted pages from Google.
     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 20:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sydenham Cricket Club Pavilion.jpg & File:Sydenham Cricket Club Logo.gif[edit]

These files aren't copyrighted.

The pavilion photo was taken by me of my cricket clubrooms for the Official website of the Sydenham Cricket Club (www.sydenhamcricket.com/Joomla). The Logo is that of the cricket club too.

I'd like to have them undeleted as I want to add the photo of the pavilion to the article on Sydenham, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Knjulian (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose With limited exceptions which aren't applicable here, all works are copyrighted, including these. Because they appear on a Web Site with an explicit copyright notice, policy requires that the copyright holder (usually the photographer) send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Jim -FASTILY 20:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Clandestine-absinthe-bottle.jpg[edit]

OTRS recived (ticket:2015020210006226). Thanks in advanced. Vitor MazucoMsg 14:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 20:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AGERNSHEIMIG 10313152530.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: François Verdier (1651-1730) is the author of the image. According to the Copyright policy by country of France copyright on works published during the author's lifetime expires no later than 70 years after the death of the author (p.m.a.). http://www.ashmolean.org/ash/objects/makedetail.php?pmu=770&mu=772&gty=asea&sec=&dtn=25&sfn=Artist%20Sort&cpa=88&rpos=2194&mat=&pro=&anum=&col=French&art=&ttl=&sou= Mivanova7 (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done clear case of PD-old. Natuur12 (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rat-catcher.jpg[edit]

žaloba - judgement - www.repfilm.eu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Produkce (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

You need to state the reasons why you think the deletion should be undone. Two words and a URI aren't going to be enough. Use your words! —LX (talk, contribs) 18:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it is a Google aerial image, which makes it a clear copyright violation, so no matter what you say, it is not going to be deleted. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done blatant copyvio -FASTILY 05:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Christen Gerhart.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Christen Gerhart (the subject of the picture) herself e-mailed me the file, telling me that she owned it, then granting me the copyright for the file in an email dated Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:42 PM, with the following statement:

"Yes, that's the correct time and date for the photo. Here's the authorization: I, Christen Gerhart, the owner and holder of the copyright to the attached image X.JPG, do hereby grant its copyright to Mark William Renton."

The prejudiced conclusion that I violated a copyright and presumptuous deletion of the image, in spite of my uploading copyright statement, is heavy-handed and seems to violate the presumption of good faith. My Wikipedia username is mwr0; you can contact me there. Mwr0 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwr0: Such grants of permissions need to be forwarded to OTRS so they can be verified and archived, then the OTRS team member will request undeletion. See COM:OTRS for details. Revent (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unfortunately we get our fair share of bad guys here, people who will say anything to get an image on Commons, so we require that third party licenses be verified through OTRS. The actual copyright holder must send a freelicense to OTRS -- forwarded license are not generally accepted.
Words like "prejudiced" and "presumptuous" are not helpful. You claimed that this image was "own work". Now you say that the copyright belonged to Christen Gerhart and that she transferred it to you. That raises two questions -- why you said it was your own work, when apparently it is the work of an unnamed photographer and how it is that Christen Gerhart owns the copyright when it is obviously not her work either. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:53, 28 March 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 05:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

==[edit]

Please un delete this image. This image has been taken at a public or an award function which this actor has attended. It is under free licensing and there is no breach of copyright involved.--Jazz.291 (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every picture has a copyright by default. So we can't host this unless we have a permission from the photographer. Please read COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Yann -FASTILY 05:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Osca-Movies-M-Baskar.jpg[edit]

It is the photo of M Bhaskar, film director and producer, who founded Oscar Movies. There is no ambiguity in it. And the photo is not copyright protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.59.111.234 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 29 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

 OpposeWith a limited number of exceptions, none of which are applicable here, all created works have a copyright. This work certainly does. Although the uploader claimed to be the author, that does not appear to be correct. It appears in several places on the Web with an explicit copyright notice, see, for example, http://nilachsaral.blogspot.com/2013/07/m-movies-oskar-director-and-producer.html. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 23:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rajini-Bairavi-Oscar-Movies-M-Baskarsnake.jpg[edit]

It is the photo of Rajini Kanth from the Film Bairavi, directed by Oscar Movies M Bhaskar. You may do a google search and ascertain the fact. It is not copyright protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.59.111.234 (talk • contribs)

 Oppose With a limited number of exceptions, none of which are applicable here, all created works have a copyright. Both above and in the file description this image is said to be a still from the film Bairavi, which was released in 1978, so this will be under copyright until 2038..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 23:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IRNSS-1D Solar Panel Test.jpg[edit]

Hello, I think there is some mistake the file is not a copyright violation but the file is freely available on ISRO public website for multiple public use. So, kindly plese undelete the file or please state the violation terms violated if not so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prymshbmg (talk • contribs)

Hi,
Files from ISRO are not in the public domain or under a free license. Only available under fair use, for education, etc. Yann (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose From http://www.isro.gov.in/terms-of-use:
"The copyright of the material of ISRO contained in this website belongs to and remains solely with ISRO. If any user is interested to use the material of ISRO featured in this Website, then, the user is required to take the permission from ISRO."
All pages on the site have an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 23:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PoW.ogv[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Permission has been sent in ticket:2015032810014588 Mbch331 (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -FASTILY 23:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Scuzzies 1965-3.jpg[edit]

Please.. I keep getting targeted for deletion, at least 3 times now, and I have pleaded my case AGAIN, less than 6 months ago … and believed all was resolved when I communicated with Andrzej Krzysztofowicz at Wiki Commons. Please read below:

Re: [Ticket#2014091710035479] Copyright Permission 2014-10-17 04:08 -

[Commons] You clearly stated that the photographs are from your collection. But we need to know whether you take the photographs yourself, or somebody else was the photographer. 

    Yours sincerely,
                            Andrzej Krzysztofowicz

My answer to the above question at that time was: All three of the photographs in question are from my family’s photo album and were taken by my mother back in 1965 with a Kodak black & white instant camera. I am the only person from our family that has these original photos, and I thought I did everything correctly and answered all questions to the best of my ability when releasing the photos to the public and uploading to Wiki Commons. I assumed everything was OK with the “Free” Licensing to the public. In any case, 2015 will be 50 years since the photos were taken. Aren’t they considered “Public Domain” by then?

[Commons] Moreover, the File:The Scuzzies 1965-1.jpg looks like a published folder. In this case we need information *when* it was published and a proof that it was published without copyright notice (that can be present on each page / side of this folder. Yours sincerely, Andrzej Krzysztofowicz


My answer to the above question at that time was: The File:”The Scuzzies 1965-1.jpg” is not a folder as it appears to you. It was intended to be a CD Cover for an album of songs recorded by the Scuzzies. In this case, I made this CD cover myself in 2008 using Photoshop and one of the photos my mother took with the black & white instant camera back in 1965. All the artwork is completely original, made by me. The music CD, which also contains the 3 photos in question, have been on sale, through me, to the public since 2008. The only proof I have that it was published without copyright notice is my word that I released the photos to the public when the first CD sold back in 2008.

[Commons] Acoording to our guide:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Hirtle_chart unpublished photos become PD in US 120 years after they were taken or 70 years after the photograpger death. I am not a US copyright expert, however, so if you can prove your claim (50y) we are open to listen your arguing. However if they were taken by your mother who transferred the copyrights to you, or (if she died already) you are her the only heir, then you are the photos copyright holder and your permission can be accepted.

I also stated that I believe said photos are vital to, and go hand-in-hand with the text to assist in giving accurate details and information to the history of The Scuzzies musical group Wikipedia project page. The deleted photos have destroyed the quality of said project page.

So, again, I hereby affirm that I “Michael S. Cappetta” am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of The Scuzzies photos that were photographed in 1965 and were taken from my own collection. The three photos in question have been previously uploaded to Wikipedia Commons originally by Me, then were removed by Wikipedia Commons and also “Replaced by Wikipedia Commons” after I appealed my case in previous emails, proving said photos belonged to me and I am the sole creator & owner for use regarding information about The Scuzzies music group from 1965 .. and in the event that positive proof of identification was necessary at that time, I have previously attached a copy of my California Driver License.

The web URL for the Scuzzies Wikipedia project page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scuzzies

The three URL’s to said photos on Wiki Commons are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Scuzzies_1965-1.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Scuzzies_1965-2.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Scuzzies_1965-3.jpg

These files have been licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license (as I originally agreed to publish the work). The permission to use this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. Full documentation is available to OTRS volunteers as ticket #2014091710035479.

I acknowledged, at that time, 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 and I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement

Reiterating, I believe that said photos are vital to, and go hand-in-hand with the text to assist in giving accurate details and information to the history of The Scuzzies musical group Wikipedia project page. Therefore, deleting said photos would Only destroy the quality of said project page.

P.S. After my last communication with Wiki Commons Andrzej Krzysztofowicz last October, I have made a donation to Wikipedia using my wife’s Paypal account and I will continue to do so as the donation campaigns come up.

I thank you “again” for your consideration. Respectfully, Michael Cappetta Username: Mscappetta

not signed with time, 19:23, 29 March 2015‎ by IP, apparently User:Mscappetta (talk).

 Not done Non-admin closure. There appears to be no file under deletion request that I could find, I also looked for a Wikipedia deletion, for a file possibly transferred here, and found none. Perhaps saw the user rename notice, looked at his talk page, and saw old deletion requests, resolved. Please revert this close if there is admin action needed here. The user should read the rename notice carefully, and link his accounts. --Abd (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Five photographs of bb Polos[edit]

The following file have been inadvertantly speedely deleted:

However, these files have been copied from a genuinely creative commons licenced Hungarian blog. In the right column, in the 14th box from the top it shows the CC BY 2.5 HU licence under the header "Licenc". Could you please check this and get the photographs re-installed? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you would ask me about these on my talk and post here at the same time? I'll repeat the answer I gave there: These all have "Processed By eBay with ImageMagick, R1.0.1.M2b" in the EXIF, which is why they were deleted. Is that where the blog got them from? INeverCry 06:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That suggests that the blog is license laundering and, at a minimum, we should get a license from the actual copyright holder via OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above. Files are missing evidence of permission -FASTILY 22:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elvin Aghayev.png[edit]

Though taken from the web, it has been reworked accordingly to nullify any copyright claims. --Ruthurl (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose What?
"it has been reworked accordingly to nullify any copyright claims"
Well, it's 2% smaller and a PNG rather than a JPG. It's close enough so that Google images came up with it and at a glance I can't see any difference at all.
As a legal matter, if you take a copyrighted image and rework it, even if you rework it extensively, the result will be a derivative work -- that is almost the definition of DW. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done COM:NETCOPYRIGHT -FASTILY 22:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bust of Alexander the Great, Walker Art Gallery.jpg[edit]

La autoria del trabajo es mía. Cierto es que la imagen de portada no está referenciada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendoo (talk • contribs)

1) This file has never been deleted, or even nominated for deletion. 2) Your only deleted contribution is a PDF deleted for scope issues, not copyright issues (although those are there too: the cover image would need evidence of a free license, as it is not the same image as File:Bust of Alexander the Great, Walker Art Gallery.jpg). Эlcobbola talk 14:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I added {{Licensereview}} to the file description. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File has not been deleted -FASTILY 22:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-03&oldid=303778069"