Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

This photo was took from mobile camera and it is cover page of tamil vedha magazine and same was mentioned in the description. Since it has god and goddess image it will be similar to many and more over the image represents the sentence in the periyapuranam (epic/vedha/bible of shiva ethnicities). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumaravels (talk • contribs) 00:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC) File:திருக்கயிலையில் இருந்த நின் கோலம்.jpg

Current requests[edit]

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

Files of Fotoscot for Wiki Loves Monuments Italy[edit]

The institution owning all artworks depicted gave a perfectly regular authorization to Wikimedia Italia. All photos were shot according to the rules of Wiki Loves Monuments Italia and according to Italian laws. It's not acceptable to ask for any further authorization, as per Italian laws the artwork owner has the full rights also on images (and no one here is entitled to doubt about it without any factual proof of the contrary, also AGF should be mandatory). All GLAM projects (galleries and museums) were always based on this very basic principle. --Marcok (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose owning an artwork doesn't make you the copyright holder. It's sad but Wikimedia Italy screwed this one up. Natuur12 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Italian law seems to be:
Art. 109. In the absence of agreement to the contrary, the transfer of one or more copies of the work shall not imply transfer of the exploitation rights afforded by this Law.
However, the transfer of a mold, an engraved plate or any similar medium used to reproduce a work of art shall be deemed, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, to include the right to reproduce the work, provided such right belongs to the transferor.
It's possible Italian law is different in this regard, but which law in particular (or ruling) makes the artwork owner have full rights on images? They often are allowed to publish pictures of the work (to advertise or whatever) but that is usually not the same thing as the right to license it to others. The above law seems to say that transfers of works does not imply transfers of copyright, unless a mold or something was transferred as well. But laws may also have been different when a transfer was made in the past, or there may have been an agreement we are not privy to. If a careful copyright examination was done beforehand, I'm not entirely sure we should assume we know better. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although the request above uses the word "institution", the response to the DR used the word "municipality". I think this is simply another case of one or more municipal officials believing that owning the physical work gives them the right to license it. As Article 109 quoted above makes clear, in the absence of a written agreement to the contrary, that's not the case in Italy or in any other country that I know of. The copyright remains with the creator.
In any case, Commons does not accept unsupported statements from the uploader that the copyright holder said it is OK. No matter who owns the copyright, we still need a written license from the copyright holder via OTRS. So, as I said in closing the DR, in order to restore these we will need either (a) free licenses from the creators or (b) licenses from the towns including copies of their written agreement with the creators which allow the towns to freely license the works. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Wikimedia Italy obtained written authorisation from institutions (municipalities, museums, sopraintendenze ai beni culturali, whatever...) granting rights to take and use the pictures of selected works of art "under [their] own jurisdiction" in agreement with Italian law. Sorry if I'm a bit too upfront, but I find it ridiculous that users like us (even more so if not familiar with Italian laws and procedures) argue on the validity of an authorisation issued by the relevant authorities. Commons is not a right management company, and if an institution authorises the use of a work, and certifies that it has the right to do so, we must not argue with that. In my opinion, these pictures must be immediately undeleted and, at most, a copy of the authorisations obtained by WMI should be archived in the OTRS. It is the institution's duty to keep the documents of the agreements with the authors, not ours. Full disclosure: I'm Italian, member of Wikimedia Italy and involved in WLM.--Japs 88 (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood what Wikimedia Commons does. When we would process such a release via OTRS the better agents ask for further details regarding the arrangement made between the institution and the artist. Even multinationals with huge legal departments often confuse being granted a license with being able to sublicense a work for example. Not because their legal department is incompetent or something similar but merely because someone not familiar with copyright law deals with the situation. This is one of the most Common scenario's when dealing with releases from company's, institutions etc. Follow up questions are always required.
You don't have to be familiar with all the details of Italian copyright law to make a valid assessment of this situation since copyright law is pretty much the same everywhere in the European Union. Some details differ like when dealing with the definition of anonymous works or copyright durations in some countries for older works but not when it comes to the basics as only the copyright holder can license a work and this is always the creator in the EU unless the copyright was explicitly transferred or the employer of the employee owns the copyright.
Carl has a point when he states that If a careful copyright examination was done beforehand, I'm not entirely sure we should assume we know better. but WMI should have asked details and provided documentation via OTRS. And I have to say that the huge amount of fallacy used by the persons who want to keep the files is clouding the discussion.
@Cristian Cenci (WMI): perhaps you want to reply in this discussion as well? Natuur12 (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Japs 88, but it is not at all ridiculous. I would guess that nine times out ten when an organization that does not deal with copyright law every day, including almost all municipalities and most museums, claims that it has the right to freely license images of works that it owns, it turns out to be incorrect.
I am going to guess that the permissions "granting rights to take and use the pictures of selected works of art "under [their] own jurisdiction" in agreement with Italian law" actually speak only to the actual photography and not to the question of licensing of the copyrights. I will further guess that they do not speak at all about copyright and do not state that they are irrevocable. I'll give three to one odds on the first being correct and even money on the second.
As I said above, the appropriate thing to do here is to forward the permissions to OTRS and have our experts examine them. That's required anyway -- as I also said above, we never accept assertions from the uploader that the use on Commons was authorized. If an image is not "own work" or does not come from a source clearly marked with a free license, we always require that copyright holder send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : At the very least unclear (c) status. Needs individual review and probably OTRS persmission from the original artist. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 19:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File:EL BANANERO.jpg[edit]

Hola que tal, yo soy el autor de la fotografía, y es una imagen de un personaje célebre de internet que se caracteriza por su humor obsceno, humor negro o humor verde. El fin de la foto es ilustrar su biografía, la cual estoy trabajando, y no con la intención de ofender o por ocio, pues todas las imágenes que he subido son con el fin de ilustrar artículos acorde al tema. Así como existen artículos sexuales que contienen fotografías con esa tonalidad cruda. Aquí les dejo algunas fuentes sobre el futuro biografiado del que estoy trabajando:

Así que esta imagen debe mantenerse en Wikipedia.--LocoWiki (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - out of scope, even if the depicted person would be in scope, which is not supported by an existing Wikipedia article - Jcb (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The subject, Adrián Nario, is listed as a member of Once Tiros, but otherwise does not appear to be notable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Lo que quieres decir es que si tuviera el artículo ya creado no se borrabas la imagen? qué sentido tiene? aunque tenga o no artículo propio, puede estar mencionado en un anexo o en una lista de celebridades de internet como ya existen, solo es de agregarlo con las referencias correspondientes, la foto seguiría ilustrando a la celebridad de internet, además que ya de por si fue parte de la producción de Once Tiros, entonces no le veo la lógica del porqué borrar la fotografía? además que soy yo quien la está donando pues soy el autor.--LocoWiki (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

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



The deleted image Mangla_Rai2.jpg has no copyright violation at all. This from my personal family collection and very first time it is uploaded by. If you have any doubt about my claim, I can provide you the desired document or affidavit. Therefore kindly accept my request of undeletion.

The deleted photograph titled Mangla_Rai.jpg is my personal property. This image is not published any where till date. It is only the wikipedia where I uploaded this image. If desired I can provide proofs or provide affidavit. So, please accept my request for undeletion. Thanks and Regards, Yavarai (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Yavarai

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Owning a paper copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it any more than owning a copy of a book gives you that right. These both say that Mangla Rai (1916-1976) was 38 when they were taken, so they were taken in 1954. According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/India, these will be under copyright until 60 years after first publication. If, as you claim, they have never been published, then that will be until 1/1/2078. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : per Jim. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Annuler la suppression du fichier portrait Alphonse TARIDE[edit]


Pouvez-vous restaurer le fichier portrait "Alphonse TARIDE" ? Celui-ci est un tableau famille qui m'appartient.

Merci. Thomas ROLLIN (Arrière petit-fils d'Alphonse TARIDE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomtomdegif (talk • contribs) 18:33, 18 October 2016‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Owning a paper copy of a photograph does not give you the right to freely license it any more than owning a book gives you that right with respect to the book. This file has no listed source and is probably not actually "own work" as you claimed. The copyright is almost certainly held by the photographer or his heirs. If we knew when and where it was taken, and if published, when and where, it might be possible to restore the file, but it is not likely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Report on the Riots in Kowloon and Tsuen Wan cover chi.jpg, File:Riwajat Kangdjeng Nabi Moehammad s.a.w..djvu[edit]

Please temporarily undelete both files to transfer to Canadian Wikilivres.--Jusjih (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Please leave a note here after the transfer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Just wondering, but why is an admin requesting undeletions instead of just using his own undeletion button? lNeverCry 09:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I assumed it was because Jusjih was being very careful not to use Admin powers for a personal reason. I probably would not have done the same thing myself, but it's not unreasonable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Jusjih is obviously a highly trusted admin, but I guess you can't short a guy for being extra careful. lNeverCry 11:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Voice of Korea logo.svg[edit]

Hello! I created an SVG file to represent the logo of the North Korean radio station Voice of Korea. I thought it was necessary because the only instance of the logo found on Wikipedia was this. So far, Commons did not have any of it. So I decided to create it from scratch but it was considered as a derivative work which might be true but I would like to ask you to review the deletion of this file because even if it is considered as a derivative work, according to the Copyright Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea we can use it without their permission.
“Article 32 (Use of copyrighted work without permission)
A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright holder in the following cases:
2. when a copyrighted work is reproduced for the purposes of preserving, displaying, reading or lending in such places as a library, an archives, a museum or a memorial hall;
5. when a copyrighted work is broadcast or carried in newspapers or periodicals for the purpose of its introduction;
7. when a copyrighted work is performed free of charge;” Oppashi Traditional Chinese character Sheng.svg talk 00:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If it is close enough to the original to be useful, then it is clearly a derivative work. The three cited paragraphs are not helpful.
Commons requires that all works here be free for any use by anybody anywhere, including commercial use, and does not permit restrictions to specific uses such as those listed at (2) and (3). For example, a Commons image must be free to be put on tee shirts or posters, neither of which are included in (2) and (3). .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
If this is true, most of works here (except photos) must be derivatives. Would help if I had put {{PD-textlogo}} as a license? Oppashi Traditional Chinese character Sheng.svg talk 10:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
We delete several hundred images a day because they are derivative works. The many derivative works we do keep are either PD or are properly licensed by the creator of the original. Since we do not know the threshold of originality in North Korea, {{PD-textlogo}} would not pass the test of significant doubt. The logo would probably not be eligible for copyright in the USA, but probably would in the UK. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per the reasons I gave on my talk page (they are along the same lines as Jim gives above). Since Oppashi has uploaded a number of similar derivative works, I advise that they (or someone else) looks at them from the same perspective. Finnusertop (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I guess my other works are simple text logos or are made of simple shapes so they don't enjoy any copyright. Or some derivative works are made from free images. I want to ask someone to patrol them though. Oppashi Traditional Chinese character Sheng.svg talk 17:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I have gone through Oppashi's contributions as requested and posted three DRs:
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : per above. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Soudabhe Moradian.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The removed/deleted picture was taken by me from my wife. Please advise what information is needed to process the undeletion.

thank you. Regrami (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about any copyright problems. Why did you remove a good quality photo of Moradian from the English Wikipedia article about her and replaced it with this low resolution, dark and blurry photo? Thuresson (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Out of scope: "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.". Thuresson (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Pilarski & Korenchuk.jpg[edit]

I have all the copyrights from the owner (photographer) and from the persons depicted. There is no violation of any rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackieJohnson (talk • contribs) 09:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @JackieJohnson: This file was deleted since it is a copyright violation and it has an extended detail saying "this picture is not to be shared", which violates COM:L. If you are the copyright holder and you want to release this file under a free license, please read the procedure on OTRS. This is done to protect your copyright and Commons. Thanks, Poké95 10:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question I do not understand the original deletion request. Where does it say "Bilder sind nicht freigegeben"? --Jarekt (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : (c) Kai Schulz Fotodesign, needs OTRS permission. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Musée de l'Art Brut.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: OTRS 2016101210011603 - Valid permission Scoopfinder(d) 12:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The first of these is a journal article, which includes a B&W photo of a painting. The painting is not one of the four shown on the OTRS ticket, so, while we apparently have permission for the article's text, we do not have a license for the painting. The second is a 1978 letter addressed to M. Visson. The OTRS ticket includes a permission document that purports to be from the sender of the letter, but it came from a third party, is not on letterhead, and has no manual signature. Since the uploader here has shown a significant disregard for copyright (30 deleted files), I am not inclined to Assume Good Faith. I think we need an e-mail or letter directly from the man who sent the 1978 letter. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : per Jim. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Eric Aho Images Deleted - Artist send an email to wikipedia giving permission![edit]


I was told to have Eric Aho email wikipedia himself to give me permission to use the photos (I took) on his wikipedia page.

This is the email that was sent to the wikimedia commons: <email redacted>

The images should not have been deleted, based on your guidelines all necessary steps were followed. Please re-publish both images that I previously uploaded. They were both installation shots.

Thank you,

Alison Palizzolo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apalizzolo (talk • contribs) 12:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please do not post emails, they are considered private and I have redacted the one above. This is Ticket:2016101710021085, which is in the queue. It has not yet been dealt with... there are a couple problems right off the bat, but they may not be insurmountable. It will require at least another back-and-forth, and once the ticket is validated, and agent will request the files' undeletion. Storkk (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict × 2) Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Apalizzolo: permission to upload any necessary images for her addition to my Wikipedia page (from email that has been recently redacted, I am not an OTRS volunteer) Sorry, but Eric Aho must not only give permission Wikipedia to use their images but also give everyone permission to reuse their images for any purpose including commercially and derivative works (they may add conditions like giving credit to Eric Aho and copyleft, as long as it is not too restrictive like non-commercial). You should ask Eric Aho to release their images under a free license (like CC-BY-SA-4.0) to restore these images. Thanks, Poké95 13:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the image will be restored automatically when and if the e-mail is received, processed, and approved. If the e-mail has been properly received there, then the sender should receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be several weeks before the e-mail is processed and the image is restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Restaurar dos fotos borradas[edit]

Buenas tardes, solicito que dos fotos que fueron borradas porque me las había atribuido personalmente, cuando en realidad no eran mías, vuelvan a ser reintegradas, ya que ahora ya disponen de los correspondientes permisos en Flickr como se puede comprobar a través de estos enlaces: - File:Miguel lluch.jpg - Muchas gracias. Un cordial saludo, --Hard (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Please restore the following pages:

Thank you.--Hard (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Miguel_lluch.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel), flickr
File:LeonardoP1996.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel), flickr
Hi, the two images above were deleted in a deletion request, after User:Hard acknowledged he did not take them, but they were provided by the University of Navarre Archive in a verbal fashion (along many others...). Hard has managed personally this stuff, and the University of Navarre uploaded these two in its Flickr account with a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license. I hope it's enough to grant the permission. Probably they would not be the only ones requering undeletion. Thanks in advance. Strakhov (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)