Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]

Shortcut: COM:UDR · COM:UDELC · COM:UNDELC

Request undeletion

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

Contents

Files uploaded by Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: @Hystrix, Josve05a: Most of these files were deleted as "out of scope" but they seem to be acceptable images, mostly of natural landmarks. They were indeed uploaded with the intent to promote tourism in Nigeria, but there is no conflict with our project scope. Also, the uploader has verified via OTRS their identity as a representative of the Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation, which should resolve most copyright concerns. Guanaco (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Restore Providing images and other media about tourism in any country is educational at its core. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 17:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Please see homepage of Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation [1], Point 3: “Unless expressly stated otherwise, you may not reproduce, modify, disseminate or otherwise exploit our Content in any way or form without our prior express approval. ... Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation trademarks and Tour Nigeria logos may only be used in conjunction with goods produced by Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation or with the express prior approval of Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation For the avoidance of doubt, the Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation corporate logo may only be used by Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation.” and also com:L and com:advert. --Hystrix (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but since the account is verified, dual-licensing applies and should be good. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
As for the mention of COM:advert it links to the section that the file must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Simply stating that something is an advertisement is not sufficient reason to delete it. That section is intended to say that advertisements are not automatically useful, not that they are automatically unuseful. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Guanaco: the e-mail to OTRS contains only the permission for the user account (NTDC). All photos are missing the name of the photographer. Some were previously published on Instagram. If NTDC is the rightholder, a permission must be shared for all photos. (Die E-Mail an OTRS enthält nur die Genehmigung für das User-Konto Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation (NTDC). Bei allen Fotos fehlt der Name des Fotografen. Einige wurden zuvor auf Instagram veröffentlcht. Wenn NTDC Rechteinhaber ist, muss eine Freigabe für alle Fotos erfolgen.) Hystrix (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hystrix: These should be OK if they were not previously published elsewhere, or if the EXIF data is consistent. The logo should also be OK. That's the point to have a verified account. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The logo is restored. However, the photos are so different that they probably come from different photographers or websites. There is currently no approval. EXIF data are not available on any photo. (Das Logo ist wiederhergestellt. Die Fotos allerdings sind so unterschiedlich, dass sie vermutlich von verschiedenen Fotografen oder Webseiten stammen. Es gibt derzeit keine Genehmigung. EXIF data sind bei keinem Foto vorhanden.) Hystrix (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unless the photographers are named (here or via OTRS).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question @Hystrix: does the OTRS ticket confirming the status of the uploader include a claim of ownership for the photographs ? If so, to whom should they be attributed ? — Racconish💬 17:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Aspahbod[edit]

In the deletion request here a person said that "No indication of own work on any of these" images, but the user's page on English wikipedia [2] shows they claimed them as own work and have a consistent artistic style. (A few images survived the deletion request because they were uploaded first to WP, then to commons by other users).

Streamline8988 (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Restore per nomination ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 09:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aspahbod. Please send the permission and the original, unretouched, high resolution photos with intact EXIF metadata via OTRS for verification.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The files in question are CGI images uploaded in the PNG format. They don't have EXIF. I'm also not the user who created them. Streamline8988 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @Aspahbod.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Restore for evaluation. Images like w:File:Mohajer_2.PNG are obviously not photographic. Jeff_G.’s “original, unretouched…” are risible and demonstrate poor knowledge of computer graphics. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
See "pictures" at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aspahbod. If these are not pictures, they should be in svg format.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Can’t realize what Jeff speaks of. Isn’t wikt:picture a synonym for “image”? Why did Jeff introduce a new noun into this thread? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Some images, including those stated above, have arrived with information which suggests they are not "own", for one example: " (diff) 03:57, 24 September 2012 . . Aspahbod (talk | contribs | block) (589 bytes) ({{Information |Description =
English: Iranian Raad air defense system
|Source =http://gallery.military.ir/albums/userpics/10187/_DSC1171.jpg |Author =M-ATF, from military.ir and iranmilitaryforum.net |Date =2012-9-21 ||Permission =The author gave me permission to upload this here with Creative Comons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license. A link here.)" Each item must be considered carefully, those which require OTRS be done, and any which are actually drawings should be in a suitable format. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not trying to restore that image, or any similar photo. Everything I'm requesting to be undeleted is a CGI drawing made by Aspahbod, as evidenced by the png extension. Streamline8988 (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
_DSC1171.jpg is evidently a photo. Ellin shouldn’t bundle photographs with images of unclear genesis, at least some distinction had to be explicated on the delreq – it could conserve a lot of time for Commoners. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: didn’t you notice the word “Raad” in Ellin’s post? Why do you expect to find any wrongly deleted media among nineteen JPEGs listed on 17:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)? License reviewers can make mistakes. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Read the deletion request and understood that Ellin misinformed the community about files to be deleted – not every file was claimed by Aspahbod for themselves. Also, deletion by Steinsplitter was rather irresponsible – he didn’t check Ellin’s allegations. An exemplary poor job by two Commons sysops. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Striked out sentence above. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral since description on File:ArashRockets.PNG is unclear whether it was merely inspired by photos or a trace of such photos. Temporary undeletion to evaluate seems reasonable though. Abzeronow (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • looking at a few of those, I agree with Incnis Mrsi now. Abzeronow (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Currently, I undeleted PNG files temporarily for evaluation. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    Good. Such things as File:Nasr1.PNG cannot be copyrighted in most jurisdictions and are {{PD-trivial}} – can we consider this undeletion permanent? Also, waiting for Ellin’s comments. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

File:앞산전망대.jpg[edit]

those pictures are free copyright pictures, those are from Daegu City, and Daegu City permit use it as the Korea pubilc certificate it call 공공누리. and also i have been got OTRS with 공공누리 when i edit 대구광역시, so i think it is not wrong about my upload (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 공공누리 does appear to be a valid free licence. I cannot see the pictures, so I can say nothing else. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Symbol redirect vote.svg Restore If all the files are like File:스파밸리.jpg then they are freely licenced. Tineye shows no other uses. However, the licence is 공공누리 and not CC-BY-SA 4.0, so it needs to be templatised and and properly stated. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Symbol redirect vote.svg Restore I mean is that It is only used in korea, and also i have got OTRS before, I think u can see the file 'File:동대구역.jpg' that i got OTRS with the '공공누리'
        — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxpooun (talk • contribs) 09:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Received an OTRS ticket, but non-government-controlled email address asserting government agent. Directed them to re-send using Government email address. The license in permission ticket was CC BY SA 4.0 Intl, not {{KOGL}}. — regards, Revi 10:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Lettera Boratto p2.JPG[edit]

Please compare to File:Lettera Boratto p1.JPG which still exists on the commons. Evrik (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You are right, there is a dissymetry of treatment. I renominated File:Lettera Boratto p1.JPG for deletion to have a community discussion on the neighbouring rights. Should the file be deleted, we would have to also delete Lettera di Boratto per guasto Alfa di Mussolini. Should it be kept, we should IMO undelete this one. — Racconish💬 19:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I lean towards supporting undeletion here. Abzeronow (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The author died in 1970. So I suppose it is under a copyright until 2050. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Willem van Waning (1897-1968).jpg[edit]

I took and modified this photo from [3]. It is said in their copyright page, [4], that Verder geldt dat de auteurswet niet van toepassing is op materiaal afkomstig van de overheid, mits het auteursrecht uitdrukkelijk is voorbehouden. Roughly translated in English as "Furthermore, the copyright law does not apply to material originating from the government, provided that the copyright is expressly reserved." (My apology that i don't speak Dutch) Since this photo is a work of the city government of Leek, could this photo is considered copyright-free? Any help from Dutch users here would be really appreciated, Thank you. Afrogindahood (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not see any statement, however, that all the photos there are the work of government. In fact on many of them it lists specific photographer. Since I do not know which specific photo it is, I am unable to comment further. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 16:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Professeur Nathalie Ros.jpg[edit]

File:Professeur Nathalie Ros.jpg; you have deleted this image I have uploaded as an illustration in my project of contribution "Nathalie Ros" because you have found it on a website (Koufa Foundation) and thought there was a copyright violation. I have taken this picture myself and I offered it to Nathalie Ros in order for her to use it in her CV; I am the autor and not Koufa Foundation that has no copyright on this image.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagrimardière (talk • contribs) 2018-10-31 10:00:00 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: I can't see it. It's redeleted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Indded. Maybe I managed to glimpse it before its actual deletion, or was it redeleted. Eitherway, here’s the UDEL request, based on COM:AGF, if possible. -- Tuválkin 19:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Turns out I might have glimpsed it as re-uploaded. Eitherway, it should be undeleted. -- Tuválkin 17:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question @Lagrimardière: Es que c’est possible de faire apparaitre dans un page ouaibe officielle de la Professeur Ros (et/ou bien ici) une declaration informant que l’auteur de cette photo c’est l’utilisateur Wikimedia Lagrimardière, que a le droit de la licenser comme CC-BY-SA? Ça eteait le plus simple. -- Tuválkin 19:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Marek Michalak and Tymon Radzik.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file shouldn't have been deleted as it is not a copyright violation. It is an official material and therefore, by the law of the Republic of Poland, it belongs to public domain. Please note, the photo has been published in .gov.pl domain (governmental domain extension). It has been misleadingly marked as copyright protected by some newspapers, which used it. These newspapers could use it without mentioning the original author only because it's an official material. Rembertow02 (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As far as I can tell, the exemption in Polish copyright only applies to "normative acts and drafts thereof as well as official documents, materials, signs and symbols" (see {{PD-Polishsymbol}}). Publication of a third-party photograph by the government would not make it an official work though. De728631 (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Haldjad ooperist Midsummernights Dream Madis Nurms.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It has been tagged with {{npd}} by User:Mitte27 most probably by mistake (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carmen Finale.jpg as another example). It has a valid OTRS ticket (ticket:2009122810016222). If there is any issue with this file, it should be clearly explained in a regular DR. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The same story for the following files:

4nn1l2 (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't think these OTRS tickets should ever have been accepted. The permission comes from the organizer of the event, apparently not from the photographers. Jcb (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I added five other files to the list. Each file should be evaluated separately, preferably in a regular DR. For example, see ticket:2009122810016357 in which the customer has stressed they are both the designer and the photographer. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, maybe one or two files can be saved. But most of the files have no valid permission. Also many deleted uploads of this uploader had no OTRS ticket at all. Jcb (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Generałowie podczas Święta Wojska Polskiego 2007.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The license was valid. The photo was taken in 2007 and the licensor's license terms for photos from MON were changed in September 2013. There's more photos taken by MON on Commons. File:Gen. Marek Dukaczewski.JPG, and File:Jarosław Kraszewski.JPG were uploaded in January 2018. Both files were kept after starting the deletion request. User:Nemo5576/MON doesn't specify if the license is valid for files uploaded to Commons or MON before September 2013. Photos taken by MON before September 2013 don't mention their authors. ElCet (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Tontonyua[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable and extremely important part of Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020) announced by People's Government of Beijing Municipality. According to Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China, as well as Article 9 of Urban and Rural Planning Law of People's Republic of China ("All units and individuals shall abide by the urban and rural planning approved and announced in accordance with the law, ..."), these files are out of copyright protection. Where are copyright violations? WQL (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Shizhao, Jcb: Pinging sysops concerned. --WQL (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - We do not work for the Chinese government. I see no valid reason why these files would be PD. None of the reasons for {{PD-PRC-exempt}} applies. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose How can urban planning law make something public domain? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jcb, Gone Postal: Because in China, all plans are enforced according to these texts and maps in the plan. Government shall enforce the plan in reference of these maps according to the planning law. And, in many time, maps are the ONLY legal reference. So, these maps have an obvious administrative nature, and are not subject to copyright, which meets the criterion of "resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs". --WQL (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Ok, that sounds reasonable, but I do not know enough about China's law to say more. There was that case where annotated legal documents were judged as public domain in the USA even though they were created by the private entity[1], so this is not unreasonable to believe that something that appears not to be "law" is still in public domain. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 10:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
        • In fact, all content created by government with administrative nature to all people are in public domain, and all these maps have this nature. In the letter Reply of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on the "Beijing Urban Master Plan (2016-2035)", the State Council said, "XIII. (The Beijing Municipal People's Government shall) [R]esolutely safeguard the seriousness and authority of the plan. The "Master Plan" is the basic basis for the development, construction and management of urban areas in Beijing. It must be strictly implemented. No department or individual may arbitrarily modify or violate regulations." Also, if there are any parts that are not covered in the planning text, planning maps shall be followed as the only reference. --WQL (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I disagree that these maps would be documents with an administrative nature. They are also derivative works of maps that are unsourced and probably not in the Public Domain. Jcb (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I have given sources in this request before (repeat them again:Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020)), and I affirm that my view is right. Also, in China there is no doubt that all government planning documents' copyrights held by the government. WQL (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
            • Symbol support vote.svg Support This appears to be a benefit to us of China's system of government.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
            • copyrights held by the government ≠ public domain (in China). and see [5]: "以北京市城市规划设计研究院、中国城市规划设计研究院、清华大学三家研究单位牵头,30个国家级和市级权威机构、近200名专家学者参与了研究工作。",很难说这些文件与图表全部都属于PD(特别是政府完全可以以行政司法名义合理使用受著作权保护的作品)--shizhao (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
              • 或许我们也得看是相关机构做了这些工作是为了谁。您看,此类大型规划,政府必须向符合一级城乡规划资质的机构公开招标,同时也一定会拨给一定款项,所以我基于这一原因也相信政府拥有相关版权。--WQL (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Inclined to support restoration and keeping files that were reuploaded by a different user out of process. They appear to be "indispensable" to the proposed city planning Abzeronow (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

References

File:印军越界现场照片(一).png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable part of The fact that the Indian border guards crossed the border into the Chinese territory in the Sikkim section of the Sino-Indian border and China’s position(《印度边防部队在中印边界锡金段越界 进入中国领土的事实和中国的立场》), a diplomatic statement announced by The Department of Foreign Affairs, People's Republic of China. According to Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China,, these files are out of copyright protection. Also, a part of vandalism of INeverCry. WQL (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Why there pics is "laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature"?--shizhao (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • It's an original (author: a part of PLA, affilated to Chinese Government) and indispensible part of a diplomatic statement, which clearly shows its administrative in nature. --WQL (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • It depends on the context, I think. My understanding is that if the pictures are merely illustrative - if the document is understandable without the pictures - then it wouldn't be "indispensable" and can be treated separately, copyright-wise. --whym (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Teatro de Hierápolis, Pamukkale Theater 10216841227333395o.jpg 2[edit]

In Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2018-11#File:Teatro de Hierápolis, Pamukkale Theater 10216841227333395o.jpg, I asked DIEGO73 to overwrite the file in full size with EXIF metadata intact per COM:HR.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Type/Size/Px/Ppp DIEGO73 (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@DIEGO73: By "overwrite", I meant for you to use the link "Upload a new version of this file".   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Pauli Heikkilä - Tampere - 26.10.2005.jpg[edit]

I'm the photographer of this portrait and therefore also the copyright owner. I was requested to upload it myself because previous version which was uploaded by a person to whom I gave my permission to use it here was deleted. I accepted that this portrait is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0. What did I do wrong?

--Zabex (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The other user who uploaded the photo was asked to use Commons:OTRS to verify the license. You can do that as well. Thuresson (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I sent official release of rights statement to Finnish OTRS (permissions-fi@wikimedia.org). --Zabex (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zabex: Unfortunately, that queue is backlogged 294 days.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh my God! I need it much faster ... Is there any way to speed up the process? If I publish this image under a domain owned by me with correct license information, is that enough? The backlog of English OTRS is quite long too, I assume? --Zabex (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
En queue is 170 days. I see the ticket in the fi queue Ticket:2018110510009544. I can tell you now that a gmail e-mail address is going to be a stumbling block - the whole purpose is to validate that the permission is correct, anyone can create any unused gmail address in seconds - your best option might be to put it on your web site (add the logo from https://creativecommons.org/choose/results-one?license_code=by-sa&jurisdiction=&version=4.0&lang=en) so long as that web site can be properly traced to you. Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok then. If I'll register a fresh new .fi-domain and put this image under it with correct lisence is that proof enough? Finnish Communications Regulatory Authory verifies me when allocating domain to a private person (via my Finnish personal identification number). The owner of the domain in the whois-database will be me (Petri Sabel). --Zabex (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: The 300 day backlog doesn't meant that it takes that long to solve new tickets in the Finnish queue. Maybe there is one problematic ticket that has been abandoned and it makes the backlog seem so long. Unfortunately there is only one Finnish user handling the queue, so it depends on how he has time to check it. -kyykaarme (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Максим Кучеренко.jpg[edit]

Прошу срочно восстановить удаленную "по подозрению " в неправильном использовании личную фотографию Максима Кучеренко. Фото принадлежит мне.

Комментарии по английски я не понимаю,даже через гугл переводчик, в связи с чем прошу ответить мне на русском языке, почему я не могу использовать фотографию Максима Кучеренко для оформления личной страницы Максима Кучеренко??

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Тётя Юля (talk • contribs) 14:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Planetshakers_band_en_concierto_en_vivo.jpg[edit]

No estoy de acuerdo que se me haiga borrado esa imagen, puesto que lo tengo desde hace dos años desde el 2016 que yo lo subi esa foto y no tuve problemas porque fue por creación propia, no viole los derechos de autor porque esa imagen nunca fue subida al facebook como lo afirma el usuario que lo nomino para el borrado. Considere mi petición de poder restaurarla mi imagen. Por favor considera mi petición. Bendiciones. Chico sensación (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Mercedes de Vega 2015, Feria del Libro de Madrid.jpg[edit]

Solicito la recuperación de mi archivo fotográfico: Mercedes de Vega 2015, Feria del Libro de Madrid.jpg Este archivo es de mi propiedad en exclusiva. Sin derechos cedidos a terceros. Espero que pronto lo restituyan. Gracias,

Mercedes de Vega

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercedesdevega (talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

El archivo es de mi propiedad y mantengo todos sus derechos en exclusiva. Ruego su restauración

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercedesdevega (talk • contribs) 10:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

File:461472 144118915720601 141251566007336 176409 1205232217 o.jpg[edit]

The file was deleted by User:JurgenNL for having no permission. However, it is found on English Wikipedia as en:File:Whangarei airport upgrade.jpg with sufficient author and permission information. Therefore the file can be considered to be undeleted. (But anyways, major cleanup and renaming process is needed.)廣九直通車 (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Uploaded to Commons on May 17, 2012, deleted on January 16, 2014, uploaded to en: on June 6, 2014. Thuresson (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@ThuressonThank you.Then how can I transfer the file to Commons without using Commons Helper? It just returned that the file was uploaded to Commons previously but was deleted here.(ERROR: Warning duplicate-archive : 461472_144118915720601_141251566007336_176409_1205232217_o.jpg)廣九直通車 (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
You have asked for the file to be undeleted. If the file is OK an administrator will undelete it. Thuresson (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Сипягин В.В..png[edit]

глупое основание для удаления - использование этой фото на регнуме, где указано, что АП принадлежат мне АнатоликДАМ (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Planetshakers band en concierto en vivo.jpg[edit]

Foto borrada sin motivo y sin sustento. Soy el propietario de los derechos de autor de esta imagen. Por favor restauren la foto. Muchas gracias.Chico sensación (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Files of WIKIBASIA[edit]

I do not understand why this photo has been removed. I am its author and I agree to use it according to Wikicommons principles --WIKIBASIA (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)WIKIBASIA

Do you mean File:NOVI SINGERS IN WHITE PORTRAIT 2 (1977) fot. Barbara Szeremeta.jpg? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Polimerek: Are these files covered by Ticket:2018102910006334?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

File:2018年台风玛利亚登陆前连江一户人家凉台花盆舞蹈.webm and so on[edit]

I request to undelete these files:

My reason: These files are uploaded to Commons first, so, I think, I do not need to do any claiming of copyright attribution. If these files can be found in other websites, they must be later then Commons.

Think about it. Other websites use files of Commons, then Commons delete its own files. It is ridiculous. - I am Davidzdh. 06:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

One year ago, a reply to Ticket#2017071410005022 has also pointed this out: If a photo is not appeared in other websites, you are no need to send the e-amil to OTRS. (It is also ironic that the photo mentioned in Ticket#2017071410005022 was requested to be deleted one year later because it has not been confirmed by OTRS volunteers.)- I am Davidzdh. 07:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

{{support}} nominated by B dash, deleted by Jcb → support. I know both these users for various careless edits and actions. If there are FoP cases they should be dealt with in a DR. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Go away with your clueless personal attacks! Jcb (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Factual observations are not personal attacks. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - not own work by uploader, no permission from authors - Jcb (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: is this true? Are you not the author? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:Thank you for your attention. Please see my latest reply.- I am Davidzdh. 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: at least File:福州三中罗源校区走廊 01.jpg from the list was uploaded by Cyclohexane233. You converted a "no permission" from B dash to this DR. Any comment? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:, please see Special:diff/328083588. I checked half of the listed files (mostly those uploaded by User:Cyclohexane233). None of them can be restored without OTRS approval. Their source is WeChat or QQ. Some of them have been claimed to be own-work, but that claim is obviously questionable. I will check the other half later. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: thanks for this information. I have a question though: according to Davidzdh, some authors did send permission to OTRS, but were declined for using a free mail address. These are not professional photographers, so they can't be expected to have paid mail addresses. Does that mean it's now impossible to release the rights for these photos, even by the authors? That can't be how this was meant to work. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
This depends on the circumstances. I have accepted many permissions from free mail addresses in the past 10 years. Permission from a free mail address is not a problem per se, sometimes the statement is credible anyway and sometimes we can verify a free address to belong to the author. Jcb (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I checked every single file listed above. At the moment, I can only Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion of File:华南优教研究所大门远摄.jpg, File:华南优教研究所大门及牌匾.jpg, File:华南优教研究所内.jpg, File:华南优教研究所大门.jpg, and File:高盖山公园大门.jpg per Ticket:2017043010001331 which has been processed by User:Taiwania Justo and partially by User:Wong128hk. I can confirm that the customer had been told that OTRS ticket was not required for their submitted files. This has also been reflected on the file history page with edit summaries written by User:Taiwania Justo (example).
Regrading your question, as I had already told you, OTRS agents do accept permission statements sent from free email addresses.
Each case should be evaluated separately, and there is no hard and fast rule. I may accept a permission statement which another OTRS agent does not accept. Such things are common at OTRS. I am not sure why these people send their works to User:Davidzdh and User:Cyclohexane233 rather than uploading them themselves, but if it has anything to do with Great Firewall, I would be happy to help them upload their works to Wikimedia Commons, as a user who himself suffered and suffers from Internet blockage. Maybe they can send their files to photosubmission@wikimedia.org which is a different queue from permissions queue, or maybe we can arrange a custom license template similar to {{George Bergman permission}} for this special situation. However, these issues should be discussed and resolved at COM:OTRSN. Feel free to ping me there. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I know, but the messages from Davidzdh would seem to suggest the authors were turned down for using a free mail address. It's a special case and I hope a solution can be worked out. I doubt they can (or even: should) send anything to a wikimedia.org address. Even if the firewall doesn't stop all communication: what if they take a photo of something the president doesn't like? This would result in passive censorship as they would hold back photos that may get them into trouble. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2:The OTRS numbers I have collected so far are:
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002114
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002098
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002892
  • Ticket#: 2018081310006494
  • Ticket#: 2018081210005988
  • Ticket#: 2017071410005022
If things are as you said, at least check these first, thank you.- I am Davidzdh. 04:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: I checked them. Some are still open. Some have been abandoned by the "customer" (i.e. copyright holder). That last one has been processed successfully: File:2017夏福州三中滨海校区址环境.jpg.
Nothing more can be done at this venue. Other enquiries should be raised at COM:OTRSN. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2:What does "Some have been abandoned by the customer" mean? “Abandoned” refers to giving up copyright or giving up authorization? - I am Davidzdh. 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: It means the correspondence has not been continued by the "customer". 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2:Hello, after checking, these users were told in the email "it was impossible to prove that the person who sent the email was able to represent the websites that originally posted the content", they were asked to post their own email address on the "original source website". However, the first time these files were uploaded was Commons. Does this mean that they should announce their email address at Commons? I am worried that this will damage their personal privacy. - I am Davidzdh. 07:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
No, they should tell the OTRS agent that there is no "original source website" and they have no "official email addresses". Please note that using boilerplate responses is common at OTRS system. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me explain in detail. These files were taken or recorded by who were able to do and sent to me. I went to their consent, filled in the author's name as they wished, and released it at Commons using designated copyright agreements.

Previously, after uploading the file, I would also ask them to send emails to OTRS. After I got the reply to Ticket#2017071410005022, I safely omitted the step to seek confirmation from OTRS volunteers. Because no website publishes these files before Commons.

In the summer of this year, these files were deleted (including the files which had sent emails to OTRS). I was told that I am not them (of course I am not them, I have already filled in the authors' names) and asked the real authors to send emails to OTRS. So I asked the authors to send emails. Some people (such as Ticket#2018081310006494) received replies from OTRS saying that "it was impossible to prove that the person who sent the email was able to represent the websites that originally posted the content". This is strange because the site that originally published these files is Commons. I think maybe OTRS volunteers think that these files were first published on other websites, and they want to declare copyright ownership on other websites. Other sites use Commons' files, but Commons wants to delete them, asks authors to request other websites that use Commons files post their names and copyright agreements, and then treat other sites as the sources of these files. This is not reasonable.

These files were not released on other websites first, then with the author's permission, the authors' names were clearly filled out and the specified copyright agreements were used. They had already satisfied the copyright regulations.

Many of these files have been used by the Mingdong Wikinews. This mass deletion has seriously damaged the confidence of the Mindong Wikinews volunteers. The enthusiasm of volunteers to post photos and videos on the news scenes is far less than before.

Please end this boring game of "deleting" as soon as possible.

P. S.: Some of the files were uploaded by Cyclohexane233. Since their problems are the same as the files I uploaded, they are presented together here. - I am Davidzdh. 10:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Skipping the OTRS process was not 'safely', it was a mistake. As you can read at Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS?, you should contact OTRS in cases where this applies: "I have received permission from the original author (not me) to upload the file to Commons.". If the permission is valid, this case can be resolved by going to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb:Thank you for pointing this out. Does it means that I can use my own email to declare that I have obtained permission from the original authors? If so, I am willing to do so. This is not difficult. Because "I got the authorization of the original author" is a fact in itself.- I am Davidzdh. 04:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: You can, but we still need permission directly from copyright holders via OTRS. Have them carbon copy you on their messages.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 04:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb:Thank you for explaining. So what you mean is that, only I send emails stating that the original author is authorized is not enough, and I must have the original authors' email to participate in the authorization process, even though their email address will be treated as free emails and will be considered invalid, right?- I am Davidzdh. 05:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: Validity should be considered on a ticket by ticket basis, and I am not Jcb.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:I am sorry, but I don't understand the meaning of "ticket basis". Does it means that it depends on the specific circumstances and cannot give a unified rule? And, I am sorry to have pinged wrongly. 😂 - I am Davidzdh. 05:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: Yes.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 06:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A message from the copyright holder is necessary. It depends on the circumstances whether we sometimes may accept forwarded messages. Often the easiest way is to send a proper release text to the author with a CC to OTRS and ask them to 'reply to all' to say that they agree with the release. Jcb (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. - I am Davidzdh. 01:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Uploads by Accipite7[edit]

File:USSR_territorial_claims_to_Turkey_1945-1953.png[edit]

Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: this may be derived from file:Soviet_claims_to_Turkey_in_1945-1953.png. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Historical_regions_of_Georgia.png[edit]

Прошу сообщить по какой причине был удалён этот файл?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Accipite7. These files were deleted because there were doubts about your authorship, i.e. other editors did not believe you made these maps yourself. De728631 (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Overturn all this burst of paranoia, restore files and redirects. Look above – Steinsplitter may not be trusted with deletions when the pretext is own/not_own. Similar nominations by Christian Ferrer should be watched, too. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, i received a ping. There was doubt about the autorship of the maps, therefore the files has been deleted as per COM:PCP. As per COM:PS (COM:EVID) the user has to provide evidence, the user did not participated in the relevant DR such as confirming that the file has not been taken from a book. Especially the first one lookes like a COM:DW (scan) from a book (a professionaly drawn map). Please note that the user uploaded File:Холмская губ..jpg claiming own work, which has been taken from here. As far i can see the user just asked why the map has been deleted, if it is indeed his own work as claimed i am fine with having it restored and would thank him for those hig ql contribuations. Best--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    Convinced about Холмская_губ..jpg – the server date for http://bre.mkrf.ru/media/2017/11/19/1238436794/%D0%A5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%B1..jpg is November, 2017, earlier than the Commons upload. Such things should be documented on deletion requests, not here. Yes, this episode damages Accipite7’s standing, I can’t now state that this user possesses a reputation any better than of these two sysops. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Добрый день! Да, я загрузил на страницу о Холмской губернии изображение с её картой (File:Холмская губ..jpg). Английским языком я не владею в совершенстве, поэтому не обратил внимание на то, что поставил галочку в том, что файл был создан мной. Прошу прощения - буду в дальнейшем более внимательным. Что касается двух других файлов - они были созданы мной. Прошу их восстановить.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipite7 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Lenz Klára 00.jpg[edit]

After deleting this file (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lenz Klára 00.jpg) the user uploaded this file to Hungarian Wikipédia: hu:Fájl:Lenz Klára 00.jpg. He claims that this photo was made in Venezuela after her emigrating to there, the end of the 1940s (see the article of en:Klára Lenz for details). She was born in 1924, so I think this statement is true. And if the photo was made in Venezuela, it is in public domain due the {{PD-Venezuela}}. The photographer is unknown. --Regasterios (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as no proof that this was first published in Venezuela before 1958. Photo looks like it could be a 1950s photograph but need date of publication to evaluate claim. Abzeronow (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
And what about if it is an unpublished photo from the family archive? The user is Lenz Klára's grandson. He live in Caracas. What more information would be needed to evaluate? --Regasterios (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
If it's unpublished, date of creation becomes important to see when it would be free of U.S. copyright. {{PD-old-assumed}} uses a 120-year rule.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abzeronow (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC) (UTC)
The uploader claims it was unpublished. But 60 years have passed. --Regasterios (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any info on how Venezuela treats unpublished material. Hopefully someone can clear that bit up. Abzeronow (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Anna Barkova.jpg[edit]

File:Anna Barkova.jpg Photo from the investigation file. The photo was taken by an official photographer for the needs of the state and the court. The materials of the investigation file are a state document. {{PD-RU-exempt}}: "other materials of state government agencies and local government agencies ..., including ... other materials of ... judicial character". Like Category:Mug shots of people of Russia, Category:Victims of political repression in the Soviet Union. Original photographs with attributes exhibited by several museums[6]. --Терпрп (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anna Barkova.jpg. Abzeronow (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

File:1933-01-22 Henri André Hillewaert potloodtekening.jpg to undelete[edit]

Re: [Ticket#2018102910006138] or send an email with copy of awritten permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org)

Geert, zijn de afbeeldingen al geupload? Kun je deze anders emailen, liefst met de bestandsnamen zoals Ilse deze heeft doorgegeven? Yours sincerely, Edo de Roo

Waren geuploaded, nu gedeleted, ik heb ze ook al eens per reply mail OP JULLIE AKKOORD doorgemailed. KUNT U DIT AUB REGELEN ? -- Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/

> > > > Bestand:1933-01-22 Henri André Hillewaert potloodtekening.jpg|1933 potloodtekening > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert kerkje van Vlassenbroek olie op doek.jpg|Kerkje van Vlassenbroek (olie op doek) > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert schilderij landschap olie op doek.jpg|Landschap (olie op doek) > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert schilderij landschap en boom olie op doek.jpg|Landschap en boom (olie op doek) > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert schilderij boeket bloemen olie op doek.jpg|Boeket bloemen (olie op doek) > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert schilderij landschap en velden olie op doek.jpg|Landschap en velden (olie op doek) > > Bestand:Henri André Hillewaert schilderij kerkje Vlassenbroek olie op doek.jpg|Kerkje van Vlassenbroek (olie op doek) > > ALL his other painting images > > > > Mvg, > > Geert DEBLIECK

> > 0471 888 884

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geert Deblieck (talk • contribs) 17:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ticket:2018102910006138 is in process by an OTRS volunteer. You should be patient, and correspondence should continue via email. Please note that OTRS has a backlog of 192 days, and you have been lucky to receive a response within a week. Nevertheless, it may take some time (maybe months) to process the ticket completely, because OTRS is entirely staffed by volunteers and is shorthanded. Thanks for your understanding. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream

List of files

Discussion[edit]

Maybe the closing admin didn't read the deletion discussion. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @BevinKacon, Gone Postal, Incnis Mrsi, Jcb, Slowking4 Pinging @Tm, Tuvalkin, Yann - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg KeepPictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is totally unbelievable. Did Jcb even read the all DR and the undeniable proofs that this files were taken by the same photographer? Or again this is another speedy reading and speedy wrongfull closing. I´ve showned that the photographer was the one that took all this images and another 600/700 deleted before this DR by Yann. The quantity of images in use that were deleted. JCB sole reason to delete is "uploader has given convincing arguments why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted.". Well, i dont know about other uploaders, but i´ve shown that this images were correctly licensed, by the photographer and copyright holder. This is another example of someone not reading all arguments, as the ones pushing to deletion showed zero evidences of copyright violations, but i´ve shown irrefutable evidence that this files should be kept and the ones deleted by Yann should be also undeleted, after the closure of this DR. But it seems that evidences, proofs and links are of zero value, but only hearsay and unproven suspicious are of value. This is very, very sad. Tm (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC).

Some of the evidence, taken from JCB talkpage:

  • Now files are deleted without any proof? Yann didnt show a single image that was a copyright violation, only links with suspicions and nothing of evidence.
  • On the contrary i´ve shown that this photographer was the same. Need to read again some of the evidence? Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen, aka Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, is the same as the photographer "Lies thru a lens" or the Narratographer
  • This site http://liesthrualens.com was the website of Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen. The fact that this is the same photographer can be confirmed in the internet archive, where he says "Ive recently become a Getty Artist and have started licensing images through there".

Another proof that image File:WTF (8439080666).jpg, taken with a Nikon D3s, with metadata of authorship Dan Mullan/Pinnacle, is attributed to Dan Bowen Photography in https://www.gettyimages.pt/detail/foto/coming-at-you-imagem-royalty-free/167436138.

  • See all the archived pages in the Internet Archive and you will only see images taken by him, as he says several times.
  • Images, of the same person, in Getty Images and in Commons, with metadata
  • So as i´ve shown, by crossing this images with Getty Images is that Dan Mullan/Pinnacle is the same Dan Bowen Photography. As i´ve shown that the photographer in Getty is the same as in liesthrualens.com. If you see the url "Portfolio" in https://web.archive.org/web/20130902213017/http://liesthrualens.com:80/blog/?page_id=38, you will see that it links to http://ww1.danbowenphotography.com/.
  • Cameras
  • As i said before by Yann that said "have found at least a dozen different cameras, all high-end gears, and from different brands*Also why he used several cameras", dont you know that professional photographers change gear periodically, and as i said before he changed from cameras from time to time, always from medium ones to better ones.

Except for four images, one a family photo of 1914, three of Cameras (two where sourced from Sony with free licenses, and one from Nikon, albeit the three were without attribution), show in the first links of photographers sites were are the copyright violations. "Dan Bowen from Dalton, GA, USA (see also [7]" was an completly different style of shooting and models. https://www.instagram.com/danbo1946 and http://www.pictame.com/user/danbo1946/1259935847/1477806513251096546_1259935847 has zero images that were uploaded to Commons. The same with the websites of Daniel Rocha https://500px.com/monochromatique and https://www.flickr.com/photos/79376323@N03/ that has zero images.

So, why in the hell did you deleted this images? Where are the "convincing arguments (...) why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted. Unlike Yann that links to sites of photographers that have nothing to do with this photographer, claiming that the images come from there, but shows zero proofs of any copyright violation on that sites, i´vw shown that this files are properly licensed and by the author of the images. Tm (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

A link to the original source of all this clusterf*ck of happy triggers. Tm (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • So the "irrefutable evidence" that these licenses are valid hinges on the contention that Dan Rocha, Dan Bowen, and Dan Mullan are all the same person? That's a tough pill to swallow. Then again, [8] has someone named "Dan Bowen" claiming to own liesthrualens.com and [9] claims that the owner of liesthrualens.com is Dan Rocha. But I'm not seeing any evidence that Dan Mullan is these people. But his website has a contact page - has anyone considered just asking him if he is this other person or if they were stealing his photography? --B (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • And these two links were used to justify the deletion? You have the author, the same flickr user Dan Rocha, complaining of being stolen, and yet Commons deletes his images and accuses him of being the thieve?


      • The site http://liesthrualens.com was the website of Dan Rocha, aka Dan Bowen. The fact that this is the same photographer can be confirmed in the internet archive, where he says "Ive recently become a Getty Artist and have started licensing images through there". What images, the above

Dan". Tm (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

        • Obviously, Dan Rocha = "Lies Thru a Lens" = "colossal growth" and did not steal his own photos. This is Dan Mullan, formerly of Pinnacle, who now a staff sports photographer at Getty [10]. "The Narratographer" is unquestionably Dan Bowen. http://narratographer.tumblr.com/ is named "Lies Thru a Lens Photography" and links to the Dan Rocha Flickr page. So I'm completely convinced that Dan Rocha = Dan Bowen. That seems completely indisputable. The EXIF data from the former File:WTF_(8439080666).jpg (viewable at [11]) does seem to link Dan Mullan with Dan Rocha/Bowen and I'm puzzled to think of another explanation since Dan Rocha/Bowen is so clearly and indisputably the author of this photo. That's the only evidence they are the same - because they otherwise seem to have completely separate histories. Dan Mullan is a professional sports photographer and Dan Rocha/Bowen seems to be more a hobbyist. I'd still say email Dan Mullan and ask. --B (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - there are so many questions here, that I see no other option than to delete all files from this stream per COM:PCP. Please note that in the five months this DR was open, not a single administrator has stated that these files could be kept. Jcb (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jcb: That's a disturbing comment - I wasn't aware that only administrators' opinions mattered on Commons. --B (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • That's not what I said. But if one of the most experienced admins of this project nominates the files for deletion, actually an admin who keeps and undeletes files way easier than most of his colleagues, and then in 5 months not a single admin considers to keep-close the DR, then that is at least an indication that it's not evident that the file should be kept. Jcb (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Or that it's TL/DR and so when there are a whole bunch of DRs in the backlogs, no admin looked at this lengthy one at all. But none of that is even relevant - what is relevant is that you aren't talking about the quality of the evidence, you're talking about the people who proposed or !voted. --B (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment JCB, first the administrators are not better or above the rules that others must follow. The fact that a single administrator did not said a thing about this files does not bear one thing and this is related to the second question, that you seem to forget, as to the fact that there is an backlog of DRs of almost 6 months and this DR is long as it is.
          • But much more important, what are the " so many questions here" to apply the  COM:PCP. Yann showed zero copyright violations. He merely found 4 images with problems, as 2 images had free licenses provided by Sony (not attributed originally but were kept and rectified), one was an family photo of unknown copyright status and only one was a copyright violation of Nikon. In 1231 images, 4 images with problems is not a proof of mass copyright violation. How many copyright violations did Yann found in the links he provided? Zero, that could prove is claim that the images "were collected from 3 or more photographers".
          • So an opinion of an Administrator is Golden Rule, but the opinions to the contrary of 8 regular users, as Alexis Jazz put it well, what me the uploader of a great part thinks, 3 other license reviewers besides me (Tuvalkin, Gone Postal, B) one file mover and GWToolset user (Slowking4) and extended uploaders+rollbackers (Alexis Jazz and Incnis Mrsi) also think.
          • My experience values zero, the original uploader of most of the material, and as someone that dealt with it for years and know it from the inside out, that has uploaded hundreds of thousands of files of hundreds of flcikr sources (museums, archives personal) and with a huge gamut of subjects, the experience and opinions of 3 other license reviewers, 2 uploaders+rollbackers and one file mover+GWToolset user values zero. Even the change of opinion of BevinKacon to keep this files, the one user that started this all deletion of files, values zero. But the opinion of 2 administrators, without any evidence of massive copyright violations, is the lsw, even if against the opinion of other 6 users and massive evidence provided to keep this files. 8 users with all the evidence to keep against 2 administrators with only their opinions to delete and than... i was delete because... because just yes, we can. Tm (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • comment i have just one question: how can i have any confidence that closing admins will reflect the broad consensus, rather than their own personal views in a summary way? i guess commons is not safe for good faith uploaders who are not prepared to run the gauntlet of endless questions. and it's great you appeal to an admin super-vote. it is unclear what it has to do with being an image repository. where is the standard of practice that might earn some trust: for rest assured, until you have one, you shall have none. at least the images here are at flickr, and not gone from public use, as the many previous personal collections, that have been deleted. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • As such a small percentage of images are copyvios, users should be given the chance to try and identify and list those for deletion. As meta data is all there, this shouldn't be too difficult. Yann accidentally began speedy deletion before the DR, so this was not possible. They should all be undeleted to allow this to happen. Otherwise, then a mass delete would be the next step. There is a chain of errors here started by yours truly.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that this makes the most sense - undelete all (including the 600 that were deleted before the DR) and then examine them separately. It's indisputable that Dan Rocha = liesthrualens = The Narratographer = Dan Bowen. So anything that we can source to one of them is a definite keep. Alexis Jazz had a very good point on the DR - that the ones with "Dan Mullan" EXIF data may have just been that they know each other and Dan Bocha borrowed a camera from Dan Mullan for the shoot. But Dan Bocha/Bown and Dan Mullan have completely different things they photograph - Dan Mullan is a sports photographer and none of the images in the DR were sports. --B (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Different names, different subjects, so how can you conclude to keep the images from that? Regards, Yann (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
        • @Yann: The same way you do with anyone else - if there is evidence of the image being published elsewhere by someone other than {Dan Rocha, Dan Bowen}, then consider it unlikely to be a valid license. If there is no evidence of the image being published elsewhere and it has EXIF data that matches multiple other photos he has uploaded, then we accept the license at face value. If you consider the assumption that Dan Rocha = Dan Bowen and that he borrowed a camera from Dan Mullen, are there any definite provable copyright violations? From looking at the DR, I don't see any - they are only copyright violations if Rocha and Bowen are different people ... and all of the evidence we have is that they are the same person. --B (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
          • As I have shown in the DR, from the available evidence, I arrived at a different conclusion. I find the reasoning that the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted, and much beyond what we usually accept here (not even talking about borrowing a camera from a professional photographer). Now, if you find an admin willing to support this claim, great. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment@Yann: No, Yann, you started your deletion spree based on links provided in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/07#Mass_delete_help, that you latter desmised asthat you latter desmised, in the DR, as "the discussion on [2] and [3] is certainly not a proof of anything". If it proved nothing, why then you started the speedy deletion of 630 images? You´ve shown zero copyright violations in the links that you provided (except in 4 images). In 1231 images, 4 images is not a proof of mass copyright violation, as 2 images had free licenses provided by Sony (and were kept and rectified), one was an family photo of unknown copuright status and only one was a copyright violation of Nikon
            • You now say that you "find the reasoning that the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted". Funny, but it seems that this has to be brought again. As you said in the DR, you used File:Shelby (8917502965).jpg and its metadata (EXIF: Author: Dan Mullan/Pinnacle; Copyright holder: PPAUK) as "proof" of massive copyright violations.
            • Aside that this is the first time that i see a mass copyright violator using always the same first name (and mind you i´ve uploaded hundreds of thousands of files from Flickr), interestingly you have forgotten to use the same criteria to show that all Dans are the same Dan.


            • Besides the fact that this three images were in Flickr in Dan Rocha stream, that they had full metadata, full resolution, you have the same person depicted in 3 cameras, in three different times almost three years apart.
            • But the nail in the coffin is the fact that Dan Rocha as The Narratographer gave an interview were he says the following " I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it". Of what images is he talking? He is talking of the images of his friend Anthony, the person depicted in the five photos above. He has to say about it "Probably the images I used to take of my best friend, Anthony. He had this ability to make the stupidest faces I have ever seen and he was always the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with. The last time I saw him, he pulled this ridiculous face and I managed to get a photograph of it. I uploaded it to Flickr and Getty Images signed it. It is now for sale across the world.". What image is he talking? He is talking of File:WTF (8439080666).jpg, as the text is right below this image. You have the same person (Anthony), "the person who I tested my new camera’s/lenses out with" (3 cameras), in 3 dates, 3 years apart. And remember that The Narratographer is the same as Lies Thru a Lens, as from at least January 10, 2016 www.liesthrualens.com redirected to thenarratographer.com.
            • So will you continue to say that "the 3 names are all the same person quite convoluted"? Tm (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


@Yann: How is it convoluted? It seems pretty straight forward and indisputable that "Dan Bocha" and "Dan Bowen" are the same person. I'll try to lay it out very carefully and clearly:
  1. At https://keepsnap.com/blog/post/thenarratographer-photographer-interview, "The Narratographer" is interviewed about images that Getty identifies as being Dan Bowen's images, such as [12]
  2. This interview, which was on February 2, 2016, links to narratographer.com ... a link to the site as it existed at the time is available at archive.org - http://web.archive.org/web/20160204014528/http://www.narratographer.com/ - and if you scroll down to the bottom, all of the flickr links go to the "danrocha" user, aka "Lies Thru a Lens".
So either this was all a really big elaborate hoax - "Lies Thru a Lens" made up several websites solely to falsely take credit for Dan Bowen's work - or the more likely explanation is the simpler one - Dan Bowen was an amateur photographer who used an alias (Dan Rocha) for anonymity, then once he was discovered by Getty he decided to pull down all of the "free" copies of his work so that he could monetize it. --B (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion per comments from BevinKacon & B. This should have been closed as Keep and any particular problematic files should have been dealt with in a separate DR. Abzeronow (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I see a lot of deletion closures on that day by Jcb, all of them appear to completely ignore the arguments (note: I am not talking about the votes, I do know that it is not a job of the admin to tally them up, but rather to look at the points raised). I do not have a desire to go through and look at all of those deletion requests, but I think that somebody should, there're more than just this one that should probably be reverted. This is not a good way to fight the backlog. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
{@Gone Postal: This page is not and ought not to be a referendum on Jcb or any other admin, all of whom have a very tough job to do with the huge backlog. --B (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Admins have a tough job with the current huge backlogs. They can err from time to time, as they are human after all. UDRs should not be construed as anything personal about a particular admin, just relevant facts to a particular discussion. Abzeronow (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@B: I agree, so this is not a referrendum on any admin, only on deletion requests. And those deletion requests were closed without careful consideration. It feels that some people attempt to turn this into internet drama, this is not a place for that. In this specific case Jcb has made an error. I do not care if such an error was done on other days, and I do not care if this was done by Jcb. In this undeletion request I only care about the fact that a damage was done to a project, and we can undo that damage pretty easily unless we as the community will decide to bring up other issues into it as well. Admins have huge backlogs, I am a reviewer, we also have huge backlogs. If I were to review tons of files incorrectly to clear those backlogs the community would revert those reviews, and it would be absolutely correct in doing so, it would not matter if it were a referrendum or whatever. Not any opposition to a specific action of an admin is somehow a personal attack, but I stand by my words, that on that day it appears to me that there was a serious lapse of judgement. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Avistamiento de delfines con Pescaturismo.png etc.[edit]

Buenos días

Me pongo en contacto con vosotros porque se han borrado archivos de imagen y de vídeo de artículos que ya estaban publicados y de otros que estaba preparando. Todas las fotos y vídeos son de mi propiedad o tengo autorización para poder utilizarlos. Es posible que al ser novata haya cometido algún error a la hora de documentarlas.

Por todo ello os solicito que reconsideréis vuestra decisión o me indiquéis cuál es el error para que pueda solucionarlo.

Muchas gracias, Merce García --Mercè Garcia Roca (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This is mostly Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mercè Garcia Roca. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Kannada and culture department Govt of Karnataka Declaration-Dec-27-2014.pdf[edit]

This was a declaration from the Department of Kannada and Culture, Govt of Karnataka (GoK), India, releasing the books published by them under CC-BY-SA. This is the second set of books released by GoK. First set is mentioned in this file - File:Kannada and culture department Govt of Karnataka Declaration.pdf. Hence I request to undelete this file.--Pavanaja (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Mimiko-inauguration.jpg[edit]

This photo is my work. I took it at Governor Olusegun Mimiko's inauguration in Febuary 2013. I was his official photographer from 2010 till date. I was a staff of the government at the time. A wikipedia user interested in Mimiko's profile (two of them in fact, one is a student in Ekpoma university and another a graduate student in Germany) notified us of the need to add photos to the governor's profile.

One of them had added the photo and it was removed because the reference to Flickr profile of the Mimiko Campaign Organisation was considered "not evidence of copyright ownership".

I, Sam Olusegun took the photo and I had added it to Wikipedia by myself. I have a whole gallery of photos to add to Wikipedia from Ondo State and about the governor. I wish to request that the photo is undeleted.

I want this matter resolved before I add other photos.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samolusegun (talk • contribs) 18:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO, you should contact COM:OTRS with a verifiable email address. While, [13] is licensed under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license, I see some concerns with regard to this Flickr account. [14] has been taken by Obi Somto, [15] has been taken by Andrey Komissarov, etc. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:huntingtontheatreco[edit]

Some had redirects:

And no, undeleting these won't even come close to repairing all the damage. But I guess we need to start somewhere. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - no reason for undeletion specified - Jcb (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Un-fucking-believable. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info From this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:huntingtontheatreco. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral until there is a specific reason to undelete these. Abzeronow (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Jcb is untouchable. How dare you suggest that he could possibly make an error. Don't you know that admins are infallible and must not be questioned?
There will be no review of the content here, or the question of licensing (and Jcb gets to make simple untrue statements about this and get away with it, as always). But Jcb is an honourable man and plebians do not get to question him.
Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Jcb Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_71#User:Jcb Andy Dingley (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

4nn1l2 (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @4nn1l2: What is the basis for believing that [24] is either a valid license from The Huntington or is a public domain photo? I think that there are three categories of photos in their flickr feed: (a) PD or otherwise free photos they collected from elsewhere - Symbol support vote.svg Support restoration but they should be properly credited and not credit huntingtontheatreco, (b) Symbol support vote.svg Support photos of performances in their theater - from spot checking the flickr feed, these have the same EXIF data so presumably these licenses are legitimate, (c) Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose photos of unknown origin or that are obviously publicity stills like [25] or that explicitly credit a third party like [26] - these are highly unlikely to be valid licenses and should stay deleted. --B (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    @B: File:Soldiers-stairs (7096386073).jpg [27] is in the public domain. Please see [28]. Library of Congress is superb, but maybe better sources can be found here. I agree with your analysis. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    Actually, this particular photo has already been uploaded to Commons: File:Civil-War-US-Army-band.jpeg. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    @B: most of the photos from The Huntington were categorized by photographer. I sank many, many, many, many, many, many hours into that. The Digital Content Manager from the Huntington Theatre Company also responded in the DR and they adjusted the license for many, many, many photos in their Flickr stream. Per 4nn1l2, File:Soldiers-stairs (7096386073).jpg can be redirected to File:Civil-War-US-Army-band.jpeg. Based on its location in the Flickr stream, I knew it would almost certainly be PD. And as it turns out, it is. It's simply luck the file wasn't redirected before the DR was closed, else File:Civil-War-US-Army-band.jpeg would have been deleted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Cover-Flip2007.jpg[edit]

all of the cover, which includes photo, logo of the magazine as well as the whole design was created by myself. I am also owner and publisher of this magazine. Please put the photo back. Thanks Kassner (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Junoflo SXSW 2018.jpg[edit]

I took the photo myself, and missed the Request to Delete to discuss it. Although it is not very good quality, it is the only one currently available for use on the Wikipedia page for Junoflo (rapper).--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC) I found the reason given on the Deletion log..."This image is a screenshot of a non-free program or other copyrighted material. Although the image may be usable in certain circumstances under the doctrine of fair use, fair use claims are never allowed on Commons: see COM:FU. This file may be deleted without further notice.".......which seems to indicate I took a screenshot of some program. The photo showed my camera details and is the same Samsung phone camera I always use. The stage lighting was not good and none of the photos for his stage came out very good for me. The photo was also not of a large screen, it was a photo taken of the stage and performer directly.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

See comments below. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Junoflo SXSW 2018 -2.jpg[edit]

I previously uploaded this, it is my photo and missed the Deletion request. These 2 photos are the only ones currently available for use on Wikipedia page Junoflo (rapper).--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While you may have taken the photograph, it looks like you took a screenshot off a TV. In this case, the original TV show is copyrighted too and you are not allowed to republish any such photos without consent from the TV station or the show's producer. Please see our guideline about derivative works. De728631 (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC) I just read your statement in the section right above. If you took these two images at a live show, I think we can undelete them. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Bonnielou2013: Did you take photos of the actual performer or photos of performer on the screen or jumbotron? For example, consider File:2017 Lane Stadium Military Appreciation Day Flyover (ODU@VT).jpg. If you were to crop that photo to only show the screen, then that would not be permitted because it would be a derivative work of the copyrighted image showing on the screen. (As it is, it's likely fine because it is minimal use of the copyrighted image.) --B (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. No, the photos are not taken of a screen or jumbotron but of the actual performer directly. The venue, The Belmont in Austin, Texas at SXSW, see K-pop event: Korea Spotlight has a small outdoor stage and no screens...the audience is in the hundreds. For some reason some of the lighting from the stage seemed to come from the back of the performers. This photo of mine File:DRR Live SXSW 2018.jpg was also deleted and you can see the contrast of a professional photographer who was standing just below the stage [29]. I am trying to get her to donate more of her work to Commons. As I said, the quality of the Junoflos photos, taken on my Samsung camera phone, in poor lighting, is not the best, but they are authentic.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support based on the affirmation of authorship from the author. @Bonnielou2013: if a third party would like to donate their photos, please ask them to submit the form at Commons:Email templates/Consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --B (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Abzeronow (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Animals-picture.jpg[edit]

I need this photo to my account page. I'm not copying photos.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by A.ker.zso0223 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Park Jung Min at BIFF on October 6, 2018.jpg (2).jpg[edit]

The proposed removal reason is not valid.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexuth (talk • contribs) 17:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per deletion log "Copyright violation: https://www.twgram.me/tag/%EB%B3%80%EC%82%B0/" Abzeronow (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this photo (probably taken by a pro photographer during the 23rd Busan International Film Festival - BIFF) can be found in multiple place on internet, so the reason seems valid. @Mexuth: if you are the owner of the original picture, can you upload it in full resolution (so we can be sure you are the photographer and that you didn't just steal it somewhere on the internet). VIGNERON (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Spessartviertel - Dietzenbach.png[edit]

Taken from http://arts.hendek.de/?page_id=393

The Owner of the website changed the copyright.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dietzenbach (talk • contribs) 22:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what was the previous indication but the current wording is a bit strange, probably ok thought (why not simply indicate a license that would be immediatly understandable?). Notification to @Hedwig in Washington: what do you think? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Looks a lot like {{Attribution |1= |2= |nolink= |text= }} now. Yeah, sometimes I wonder why people have to reinvent the wheel. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 16:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tyunik Ksenia - 1.jpg[edit]

The author of photograph has responded on the deletion request explaining that this is a photo of a relative, not a selfie. To the best of my knowledge {{own}} has not been deprecated and is still a valid template. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure, who is the photographer and who is the protographed? (both seems to be the lawyer Ksenia Tyunik) @Well-Informed Optimist, JuTa: what do you think? VIGNERON (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I deleted it because the authorship is as minimum unclear. And even if the author is a relative to the uploader, we would need an OTRS-release. --JuTa 16:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I thought it was self-promotion from the “official” account. Now the image is out of scope because the depicted person is not notable. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Not notable as the reason would be rational enough. I do see her winning 'Best Lawyer of 2017' award and some other awards as well, but I am unsure how selective they are. As for unclear authorship, I never heard of a policy disallowing photographs of relatives or requiring OTRS, can someboy point me to it. My understanding was that OTRS is required when an image is already present on the web somewhere. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Aktu logo.png[edit]

File:Aktu logo.png


Dear Wiki,


This is official Logo of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

Source: https://aktu.ac.in/university-logo.html

Kindly upload and change the below wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._A.P.J._Abdul_Kalam_Technical_University


REgards

Yaser Arafath (Yasercs89)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasercs89 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unlikely that a Commons user owns copyright for a university logo. Thuresson (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Jon Medved Headshot.jpg[edit]

Hi, The photo was uploaded to Flicker by OurCrowd and was given a Public Domain Work status, see here: https://www.flickr.com/gp/162556271@N05/C5NZLh. If this still does not meet the Wiki Commons requirements then I will reach out to the company for a written permission.

Thanks!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KNatan (talk • contribs) 07:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose PDM is not valid on Commons. If they wish to release the picture into the public domain, they need to affirmatively do so via CC-zero. Abzeronow (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Simon Kiselicki.jpg[edit]

Hello,

The File:SimonKiselicki.jpg file which I uploaded to Wiki Commons, for no particular reason, has been deleted, among other files I have uploaded. The images I uploaded were all made by myself 'Nicoljocic', and I have the right to put them on Wikipedia under my own will. There is no sufficient reason why the images have been deleted.

Please undelete them.

Thanks,

Nicoljocic (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Nicoljocic, 10/12/2018

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nicoljocic. Small, no EXIF makes it look like these were gotten via the internet. Abzeronow (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Nicoljocic: if it's really your images, please upload the original files with EXIF and in bigger resolutions. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Goergen_1960_2.jpg[edit]

Hallo, ich habe die Freigabe mit der Vorgangs-Nummer: 2330-1c8a0024f8b4e4df beantragt. Ist da etwas verkehrt oder nicht korrekt beantragt worden??? Bitte das Bild wieder freigeben oder soll ich es neu hochladen??

MfG Fannigo

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fannigo (talk • contribs) 12:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Gurbani Judge at premiere of Bright 6, Mumbai 2017.jpg[edit]

This photo is originally posted to Bollywood Hungama and it was uploaded here on commons using the license {{BollywoodHungama}}. Please see the source of the file- link. Thanks--Biplab Anand (Talk) 15:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:AMADOR CERVANTES CHRISTOPHER ALEXTER.jpg[edit]

Christopher Alexter Amador Cervantes (Poeta Mexicano)

https://culturabcs.gob.mx/directorio

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmlo89 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Gmlo89: I do not see the deleted file on this website (which itself is not clearly compatible with Commons). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:A soldier in a lunatic asylum. Lithograph by Conrad Felixmüller.jpg[edit]

This image was deleted for "license laundering", but it's freely licensed by Wellcome Collection. I don't know of any reason to doubt that they own the rights to have permission to license the work. clpo13(talk) 17:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Clpo13: the copyright (as opposed to the physical artwork itself) is likely owned by Conrad Felixmülle's descendants, unless it was contractually transferred to the museum at some point in time. (This is unlikely and not typical.) In Germany the copyright is life + 70, so the copyright will not expire until after 2047. The Museum's permission to use their scan or photograph of a two-dimensional object is irrelevant - what really matters is who owns the copyright of the artwork itself. --B (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Clpo13: that is very strange. Do you know how they could have turned a work from an author who died in 1977 into CC BY (and bonus question: why are they using the same licence for works obivously in the public domain?), it's would be very unusual (but also very interresting) for a museum to have purchased the copyright of a work. Until there is more explanation, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@B, VIGNERON: According to [30], Wellcome tries to get permission from copyright holders for free use (my mistake for saying "own" originally). Wellcome will put non-commercial or non-derivative restrictions on images if the copyright holders insist upon it (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AIDS Poster from Wellcome Images (check needed) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wellcome DR request for RAMC), so in this case, I think it's safe to assume that Wellcome does have permission from the copyright holders, since the image is CC BY. As for VIGNERON's question about applying CC BY to obviously public domain works, while exact digital reproductions of PD works are public domain in the United States per en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (and by extension on Commons with {{PD-art}}), that is not the case in the UK and elsewhere (see en:Sweat of the brow#United Kingdom and en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute). clpo13(talk) 19:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Clpo13: Oh, thanks for sharing that's indeed interresting and unusual, I will have to read it more carefully but it seems to be ok. @Mutter Erde, Well-Informed Optimist: what do you think? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Clpo13: I'd feel better about this particular image if someone wrote to them and they said "yes, we have contacted the heir of Conrad Felixmülle and he agreed to the CC license". I'm not hugely convinced just from reading this since they do say "However, we cannot guarantee to have traced or contacted every potential rights-holder." --B (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
It's a typical disclaimer for sites with content that has unclear license status. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Laurent De Backer.jpg[edit]

dag beste , Deze foto is door mijn ma getrokken in 1992, ik heb het negatief en het positief in mijn bezit . Heb de originele op mijn wiki commons geplaatst . Was een openbare plaats op podium buiten . Heb hem verkleind omdat het een kleinere pagina is . Op wat baseert u zich dat deze foto niet ok zou zijn dan kan ik er in de toekomst meer info bijgeven .

groeten

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivo Van Damme (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:File:Walter 0 závodní (1924) na Zbraslavském náměstí.jpg, File:Walter WIZ (1921), kresba Milan Tošnar 1981.jpg[edit]

A valid OTRS permission has been provided – ticket:2018120210003366.

As an OTRS agent (verify), I will investigate the undeleted media and make sure that the permission is sufficient to keep it (rights on media work + depicted work, FOP, copyright owner, country specific restrictions, etc.). I will also update the license (if needed) and add the appropriate OTRS template.
If you want, you can apply {{temporarily undeleted}} on the media page to make sure a follow-up is done.

Feel free to notify me and thank you in advance. Face-smile.svg --Michal Lenc (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Image:Laurent De Backer.jpg[edit]

This picture was taken by my mother in 1992 ; it's made smaller because it fitted in better (small page) , I uploaded the whole picture on my common account , I thought it was ok because the picture came on the page ? Ivo Van Damme (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)10/12/2018

Buenos Aires 2018 Countdown clock (42149138255).jpg[edit]

Involved: File:Buenos Aires 2018 Countdown clock (42149138255).jpg

It seems too simple to be an artwork, and it's in a temporal place and possibly used one time, so COM:FOP#Argentina not apply here, furthermore it was a speedy deletion, the DR was because another motivation. Ezarateesteban 22:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Painting & Mural 6.jpg[edit]

Would like to undelete this file properly in order to re-upload using the correct copyright. Did not know how to upload/re-upload previously. Am looking to upload these images for Tom Cramer's page.

--Josephlaferla (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Painting & Mural 5.jpg[edit]

Would like to undelete this image properly. Did not understand how to upload/re-upload previously. As I own these images I now know how to post these.

--Josephlaferla (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Painting & Mural 3.jpg[edit]

AM looking to remove this image properly, as to not being knowledgeable of how to upload/re-upload correctly. I do own these images and now know how to correctly state that, am new to this so apologies.

--Josephlaferla (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Painting & Mural 4.jpg[edit]

Am looking to properly remove this image in order to re-upload correctly. I am new to this so did not understand the correct way to claim ownership of these. my apologies. Looking forward to doing this correctly, any suggestions would help. I do own these images.

--Josephlaferla (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Carved Wood Relief 1.jpg[edit]

Am looking to properly remove this image, in order to re-upload it correctly. Did not understand how to upload images, I do own them.

--Josephlaferla (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Painting & Mural 1.jpg[edit]

Am looking to remove this image correctly in order to re-upload. I do have ownership of these images.

--Josephlaferla (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

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

File:Painting & Mural 1.jpg[edit]

Looking to remove this image the correct way in order to re-upload. I have ownership of this image and would appreciate any guidance on how to upload this correctly. Will give it another go once these are approved for removal.

--Josephlaferla (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 Procedural close, redundant request. --B dash (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

File:MaxRaedlinger.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I've proven my ownership of this file and granted all the rights and permissions under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International on 2018-08-31. My full name can also be found in the metadata of the image. Therefore the deletion is unjustified. I'd be thankful for a revision. ArtphilBN (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)