Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]


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


Por enésima vez borran archivos de billetes y monedas que subí y que están en dominio público y que no tengo los escaneados disponibles ya. Los 100 años no son válidos para trabajos de hasta de 1952 y los trabajos de gobierno se refieren a los del gobierno posrevolucionrio. Por lo que solicito restauren de nuevo primero fue el usuario ARTEST4ECHO y ahora Mattflaschen el que borra mis archivos sin mas ni mas. Además los billetes pertenecen al gobierno de Yucatán y la Comisión del henequén, NO AL GOBIERNO FEDERAL, ya que los estados y particulares al monento de la creación del Banco de México empezaron a tener prohibido emitir billetes y monedas.--Inri (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons debe respetar la Ley local, en este caso México, y la de los Estados Unidos por estar alojado en su territorio. Por lo que no se permite nada que no cumpla con ambas legislaciones. Ver VOM:L y COM:URAA.
Además las moneda y billetes de México deben respetar lo siguiente: Commons:Currency#Mexico
En base a lo anteriormente mencionado y en vista de que no cumple con todo, Symbol delete vote.svg NO corresponde restaurar las imágenes.
Un saludo. Alan (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

 Not done : as above. Yann (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Benedict XVI coat of arms with Tiara and Pallium.svg[edit]

The image in question is a "fastasy" in the official sense, it is true that the coat of arms of Pope Benedict XVI uses a mitre, but there is documentation where the papal tiara has been used. This includes on gifts to the Pope and at the Vatican Gardens. Fry1989 eh? 00:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This UDR does not address the point addressed in the DR close, that the image is not in scope. Fantastical versions of a real COA are not in the scope of Commons unless they have actually been used in some notable context. Please actually cite the contexts in which such a variant CoA was used... if you can show that it's not literally 'fantastical', then it would be in scope... without such evidence, it would be just 'something someone made up' as far as we are concerned. Revent (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
It's cited here, and various photos including File:Rom - Vatikanische Gärten Papstwappen.jpg, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, need I continue? Fry1989 eh? 00:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I think that adequately makes the point, lol. Symbol support vote.svg Support Revent (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg[edit]

The previouly deleted File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg Haven't problems with copyright, because is the flag of an municipality of Parana State, in Brazil, which have the official flag defined in the law 1636 of 2005, July 18, which says in her chapter II, Article 3 (translate not official, made by me)

“Art. 3º The Jaguariaíva Municipally Flag is originary form a aggregate of studies, elaborate by the artistic and cutural comunity of jaguariaiva, based in advanced search with base in the description maked by heraldist Arcinoé Antonio Peixoto de Faria, of Municipalist Heraldic Encyclopedia, and present the following characteristics and forms

I - Quartered in saltire, forming the loaded quarters of geometric figures irregularly cubic, green in color, and consist of four yellow bands, arranged two by two, in-band and bar, and starting from a central circle, where the Municipal coat is applied in accordance with the descriptions provided for in Article 9 of this Law.

a) The quarters are loaded with yellow pine brought into abyss

II - The Municipal Flag in accordance with the tradition of Portuguese heraldry, which inherited the canons and rules, obey the general rule laid down for making municipal flags.

III - The coat at the center of the flag represents the Municipal Government and the circle where it is applied is the host city of the municipality.

a) The circle is the heraldic symbol of eternity, for them not to be found beginning and no end.

IV - The tracks departing this circle, dividing the flag into quarters, symbolizes the irradiation of the Municipal Government, to all parts of the territory of the municipality and thus constituted barracks symbolize the existing farms in territorial extension.

V - The green color alludes to the abundant natural forests and plant extraction and is the pastures where cattle are apascentado, symbolizing this context abundance, victory, courtesy and hope.

VI - The yellow color represents great fortune, the splendor and wealth arising from the plant extractive industries and agriculture production from the labors of the field.

VII - The white color is the eternal symbol of peace, labor, prosperity and peaceful coexistence among its inhabitants” (Font: Law 1636/05 - Municipal Chamber of Jaguariaiva)

In chapter 4, article 9 of this same law, is descripted the coat of the municipallity, as is, the image share the same license of File:Brasaojaguariaiva.png, which was maintained in common even being from the same law

because this i think that the exclusion of this image from commons was of no reasoned explanation, based on a legal provision which another picture which is still held shares

no more to treat, wait return


Jose8122 (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

  • You tagged this as {{PD-BrazilGov}}, but it doesn't meet the conditions there. It is post-1983, and is not a text.
  • However, if the rendering is your own, based on the verbal description (vs. someone else's graphics), it should be possible for you to license your rendering.
  • Can someone who's more familiar than I with how to proceed give him some more specific instructions? - Jmabel ! talk 22:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Google indicates that this is indeed not a unique depiction of the flag by the uploader, but instead an image taken directly from an official government website... an identical image, at exactly the same resolution. While a independent depiction of the flag as described usually would be ok, just grabbing the image from a website is not (unless you can show that the particular depiction of the flag is PD or freely licensed). Revent (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Arsenal FC 1920-21.jpg[edit]

The file was deleted after being attributed to former Arsenal FC player Bernard Joy (died in 1984) so this photo would be still copyrighted. Nevertheless, as the photo was published on Forward, Arsenal!, a book written by Joy in 1953, there are no credits about who took the pictures (see book pages here). Furthermore, I could not find any source stating that Joy was photographer apart of being a journalist/writer. Fma12 (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm.. Joy was born in 1911, so it's dubious that he actually took the photo... he was at most ten years old at the time. It's a matter of if the image was truly 'anonymous', or just unattributed in the specific book. Judgement call, really... if being strict, I would say that unless it can be shown that the image was truly 'anonymous (by the intent of the photographer) and not just unattributed, then we would have to 'assume' that the image is under copyright until 2060 or so (that's the most conservative estimate). Really, without evidence that it is actually PD, it's questionable to assume it. Revent (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Well... the UK law is the {{PD-UK-unknown}} tag. It's not quite the same as "anonymous" in the EU. Normally we do like to see the initial publication... if it's unattributed there, then yes I think that is anonymous. As for if that depends on the intent of the author, I doubt we have that level of proof for most of our {{Anonymous-EU}} works, so I don't think that's a fair standard (and at least per the EU directives, works for hire are supposed to be 70 years from publication unless the author is disclosed on the initial publications). But publications down the line which lose attribution which may have originally be there... that is tougher. If the 1953 book was really the initial publication, then I think it would be anonymous, but the EU copyright would also last until 2024 (and the US copyright would last until 1949). If the book was not the first publication, then it gets muddier -- not sure we can apply PD-UK-unknown without knowing a bit more of its publication history. Granted, if this the same as en:File:Arsenal FC 1920-21.jpg... team photos generally were published right away and it would not surprise me if it was anonymous. I think I see another version of the image here (direct image here). That looks like a postcard-type thing, and shows clear indications of being published (the caption). So, I think this was published in 1920 almost certainly, which would make it PD-1923 at least. There is no credit on the front, but the back is not shown, so we may be just short of the info we need. Odds are high it was anonymous, but high enough? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Yes, it's the same image. As is usually the case, you described the issue better than I managed. By 'intent of the photographer', what I am pointing at is specifically that 'we don't know' doesn't make a work anonymous, we need to know that the creator really didn't assert a claim of authorship (that might later have been lost) at some point.
As far as using the 'cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry' criteria to call it unknown, the official guidance on what is needed to make that kind of a claim (see is pretty extensive... I think we should be very conservative about using it. Revent (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I believe that is the guidance on orphan works, i.e. works which are known to still be under copyright but the copyright owner is unknown or cannot be located. It is not at all the same thing as PD-UK-unknown where the copyright has expired. Much more care needs to be taken when using an under-copyright work under the new orphan works rules they have (enough that Commons wouldn't use it at all, I don't think). The real question is if the photo was ever attributed (or really, ever attributed before 1990). It's an interesting situation, since originally the photo would have expired 50 years after creation, so was PD in 1971. The EU restorations may not have really applied if the author was unknown -- the 70 year term would still have been expired at that point so it may well have never regained a copyright. Did the book this is from give credits to other photographs (indicating they were in the habit of naming authors where known, thus if not named for this one then probably an indication this was anonymous) or did they not bother crediting anyone? I have to say, I'd lean towards Symbol support vote.svg Support on this one, as team photographs would be a work for hire and I'd think most of the time the photographer is not credited (particularly in that era). You would think the author of the book had some access to Arsenal FC archives and if anyone would know the author it would be them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
(nods) I just rather pointed there as an illustration of the fact that they want you to 'look really hard'. I've seen a document elsewhere (though I can't seem to hunt it back down) on what constituted a 'reasonable enquiry', specifically, and it was the same kind of long checklist. This is almost certainly fine, though, I think... what I said about about 'if I was being strict'. Looking at what I can see of the book on Google, the copyright page only specifically attributes the cover photo... there is a 'list of plates' with no attributions, and they don't seem to be given in the image captions either. You are probably correct that this was an official team photo taken as a work for hire, and originally published contemporaneously, especially given the copy you found on that blog with the much wider crop. Revent (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
What happens if there is a dispute between someone who uses the material and someone who claims to be the rights holder, if one of them claims that the author is unknown whereas the other one claims that the author is known? In Sweden, I believe that it is enough for the user of the material to claim that the author is anonymous, and then the copyright claimant has to present evidence that the identity of the author has been disclosed publicly if the copyright claimant doesn't agree. This could of course result in a surprise for the user of the material if the user believed that the author was anonyous whereas in fact he was not. COM:PRP of course requires checking that it is unlikely that a copyright claimant would be able to present such evidence in a court.
In the UK case, I've got the impression from Commons deletion discussions that the user of material needs to present evidence that a 'reasonable enquiry' was inconclusive on who the author is, or am I misunderstanding something? If the user of the material is required to present evidence that a 'reasonable enquiry' was inconclusive, then we have to require that the uploader of {{PD-UK-unknown}} material presents all information from the 'reasonable enquiry' that a British court could possibly request, for example a properly filled in checklist. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
As it was said, the photo was in fact PD in 1971 so there is no reason to keep it deleted. Moreover, the book does not credited any author neither to its images, so the author remains unknown to date. Fma12 (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

- Fma12 (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The European Union copyright term for anonymous works is 70 years from publication if the work was published within 70 years from creation, and this was published at least around 40 years after creation, so the EU copyright term runs for 70 years from publication if the author is anonymous. When the United Kingdom implemented the EU copyright rules on 1 January 1996, the copyright to all photos were restored unless a) the copyright already had expired in all other EU countries, or b) the EU copyright term already had expired. Spain appears to have used a copyright term of 80 years from the death of the anonymous photographer, so the photograph was presumably still copyrighted in Spain, which was at that time an EU country. Furthermore, if the first publication was in the book from the 1950s, then the EU anonymous copyright term hasn't expired yet (it expires 70 years after publication if the photographer counts as 'anonymous'). This photograph then falls into the category of works whose copyright was restored in the United Kingdom on 1 January 1996. If the book from the 1950s wasn't the first publication, then we need to find out where it was published first since there might be a credit line in that other publication which reveals the identity of the photographer, thus changing the term to life+70 years. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Sir John Woodroffe.jpg[edit]

I guess this file corresponds to ru:Файл:Sir John Woodroffe.jpg. I propose to undelete this image, as it is {{PD-old}}, as File:Sir Frederick Pollock 3rd Bt.jpg. Like this file, it should be within Category:Lafayette Studio. Thanks, --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Who's the author and when did they die? If it was taken in 1928, then it was in copyright in the UK in 1996 even if it is anonymous and thus will be in copyright in the US until 2024.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Just verifying that, yes, same image. Revent (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg (part 2)[edit]

(em português)

(continue from Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Bandeira_do_Município_de_Jaguariaíva.jpg

Eu li o Commons:Marcas_de_direitos_autorais, e na página é mencionado

{{PD-BrazilGov}} - para emblemas, bandeiras, escudos, armas, medalhas e monumentos oficiais, públicos, nacionais, estrangeiros ou internacionais.”

nesse caso, a imagem que peço a restauração é a bandeira oficial de um município, que se encontra de fato em domínio público

(in English)

I have read the Commons:Marcas_de_direitos_autorais (portuguese version) and in the page means

{{PD-BrazilGov}} - para emblemas, bandeiras, escudos, armas, medalhas e monumentos oficiais, públicos, nacionais, estrangeiros ou internacionais.” (transalted: “for emblems, flags, shields, coats, medals and official monuments, public, national, foreign or international.”)

In this case, the image what i am uploaded is an flag of an municipallity, setting as an public image

Jose8122 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of Juneau,Alaska.svg[edit]

For the United States, this image is absolutely below the Threshold of Originality, no question about it. Fry1989 eh? 17:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

That is almost certainly above the threshold. Selection and arrangement is copyrightable at the very least. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
No it's not! How do you feel it is above anything here when the seal is nothing but text and simple geometry? The mountain is two triangles, the waves are a simple repetitive pattern, there's nothing there above threshold. Fry1989 eh? 18:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not just simple geometry. The Copyright Office decisions go a little deeper than that. Mostly, there is a "selection and arrangement" copyright where an arrangement of uncopyrightable shapes may itself be copyrightable. The mountains may be fairly simple, but I'm not sure they are simple enough. The combination of all of that probably exceeds the threshold. (Look more closely as the decision in the CCC example on that page -- there was a version of that surrounded by a few lines which did get a copyright registration. The line is low) That said... I do forget these things are also defined in state or city law and therefore the selection and arrangement may be PD-EdictGov to begin with. I do see a law here which includes pretty close to that representation. I doubt the changes from that version amount to copyright. So, I could see undeletion on that score. Dates from 1970 as well so there may also be PD-US-no_notice representations. But the design was PD from the outset, as were most of the arrangement decisions, so... I could see undeletion as PD-EdictGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is about simple imagery. Simple geometry placed alongside more simple geometry doesn't make it complicated geometry. There are examples on the TOO page of denied copyrights that are more complicated than this image. Fry1989 eh? 02:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
It depends where you place it -- the placement itself can indeed be grounds for copyright. There is a threshold for that as well, and if this was a private logo I would still lean against it. The arrangement here is far more complex than anything on the example page. The second logo here is copyrightable, for example. The difference here to me is the PD-EdictGov which covers most of the normally-copyrightable aspects. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Explain to me what part of the seal you believe brings it about TOO? As I explained, there is nothing there that isn't derivable from simple work. The mountain is two triangles over-lapping and the waves are a simple repetitive scalloped pattern. The rest is nothing but text. Your example is not comparable, because File:CarCreditCity.png is not simple geometry, there is no simple geometric pattern that could create those shapes. You are wrong on this, absolutely wrong. Fry1989 eh? 16:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with Carl. Symbol delete vote.svg Keep deleted per COM:TOO. Alan (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
File:CarCreditCity.png is actually not copyrightable; it is variations on a utilitarian object (the letter "C"). In the example I pointed out to you, it's actually the rest of the lines in the second logo which make it copyrightable. So those lines are above the threshold. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Every drawing is at some level derived from simple geometric lines or patterns. It's not the fact that something is made up of simple geometric shapes... something has to be only simple geometric shapes. It does not take much enhancement to be copyrightable. Secondly, there is a "selection and arrangement" copyright. If you take 10 squares and place them in arbitrary positions, the result is most likely copyrightable -- not the squares themselves, but the specific arrangement. If someone makes a "best songs" compilation album, the selection and ordering of the songs on that album is actually a valid copyright independent of the songs themselves. An arrangement of all-centered and stacked items would not be copyrightable, but if there is creativity in the arrangement, then there can be. If you want to go more in-depth, you can read the chapters of the Copyright Compendium, which is what the U.S. Copyright Office uses to guide their inspectors when it comes to allowing a copyright registration. There is obviously a lot of gray area, and the content is not legally binding (though is based on case law and judges are likely to follow their logic), but it's incredibly helpful to get a sense as to what is and is not copyrightable. For this case, you can look at section 906.1 of Chapter 900. As it notes, Generally, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a work that merely consists of common geometric shapes unless the author’s use of those shapes results in a work that, as a whole, is sufficiently creative. They will look at the work as a whole, including each element, and the selection and arrangement thereof, to make a decision. While it is common to use triangles like that to represent mountains, is that exact representation (the specific relative size and arrangement of the two triangles) a common symbol itself? It's not the same thing as just a triangle. I don't think it would be copyrightable on its own, but it does start to add complexity to the arrangement of the design as a whole. The location of the star is not a standard arrangement. The relative sizes of the stripes of water is not necessarily standard. The way the top water stripe is shortened to make way for the mountain symbol is not a common arrangement. The question is whether all of those things, plus possibly the placement of the text, as a whole add up to a copyrightable selection, arrangement, or coordination. While it's probably not too far from the line, my guess is that it would be enough. I could be wrong, but it's far from obvious. The examples in the Compendium are made to be obvious; you can read through some of the appeals board decisions to look at stuff which is more borderline. You can read the specific reasoning in each case. Unfortunately there are relatively few which are overturned on appeal (most ones worthy of it would have been overturned earlier in the appeals process), so most examples are of ones below the threshold. However, if you note the arrangement on all our example images is very simplistic -- either all centered, or reading like lines of text, or text in a circle, etc. I don't see anything which has this level of complexity in the arrangement, nor do I remember any in reading any of the appeals cases. Since I have not seen similar examples ruled to be ineligible, it's my sense that something like this probably is eligible. However, since that arrangement is PD-EdictGov to begin with, if the SVG is basically the same as the one you linked above, then I would Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion on those grounds. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You're both wrong. Fry1989 eh? 17:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. What do we have here? Two green triangles, two concentric circles, one five-branched star, a lot of horizontal blue lines and some text. Even I am able to reproduce the logo, so I consider it simple. Taivo (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@ChrisiPK: (pinging deleting admin) I'm tempted to just undelete this, as 'copyrightable' but not actually under copyright per PD-EdictGov (which seems to be the consensus) but it's worth poking the deleting admin for an opinion first, since the original DR had much less input. Revent (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Group of files deleted[edit]

The following pictures were taken by myself. I am the copyright owner and I give permission for them to be used freely.

--Nosebleed03 (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nosebleed03: The issue is that the watermarking (and the existence of brings the question of if you are the copyright owner, and thus able to license the images in a Commons-acceptable manner, into doubt. Please contact OTRS by email (See COM:OTRS) to provide verification that you are legally able to license these images. Revent (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Viasat Eesti[edit]

These logos are not from Russia, they are from Sweden and are textbook cases of PD-textlogo. Fry1989 eh? 17:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Whoops, awkward error. I intended to write Sweden because my logic doesn't apply to Russia unless we know something more about when a work is copyrighted in Russia. But this error doesn't change the outcome. Europe has a low TOO in general. Natuur12 (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment European countries have very varying thresholds of originality. I have not heard of any logo TOO cases in Swedish courts, so it isn't trivial to tell whether any particular logo would be fine or not. Nordic countries have generally written copyright laws together, so it may help to look at the sections for other Nordic countries at COM:TOO. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
This is barely complicated at all, except for the stylised H. It's not a signature, it's not a unique font, it's barely changed at all. I am extremely doubtful it is above TOO for much of Europe. The same applies to several other Viasat channels. Fry1989 eh? 01:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@Stefan4: One of the problems of our TOO section about European countries is that we referre to ancient court verdicts from before the Court of Justice of the European Union did some rulings about the threshold of originality. See for exmple this and this document. Morale of my story is that the copyright in th EU is being harmonised. Regarding the question when a work is copyrighted is: it has been harmonised over the entire EU. Unfortuanatly some countries interpertate it wrongly or supreme courts even violate European law by mistake. Stating that European countries have various threshold of originalities is a blast from the past and basing when something is TOO or not on verdicts when court cases are either to old or likely to be overturned by the Court of Justice of the European Union is wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I've not heard of the first case before, so I'll have to read that one. In the second case, the court states that the originality criterion to be used is whether the material contains 'the expression of the intellectual creation of the[...] author'. The court notes that 'it is for the national court to make this determination', suggesting that different national courts are allowed to interpret the wording differently, thereby allowing different thresholds of originality in different countries. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes of course, otherwise people have to go to the Court of Justice of the European Union for such copyright cases if local courts are not allowed to interpertate their wordings. However, their interpertation has to be in line with the wording of the Court of Justice of the European Union. There can be slight differences but every court can rule differently. Two judges from the same court could rule differently when the case is borderline. This however, does not mean that great differences should excist and those differences can be overturned if a local court is out of line. At least that is the theory. Of course the theory differs from the real situation but that doesn't mean we should treat indenvidual court cases like some holy bible as happens every now and than. Not everyone agrees with those opinion but when their are no local court cases we should stick with what the Court of Justice of the European Union wrote. Natuur12 (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hm... Looking at this case (which is later than the other one), I get the impression that the European Court of Justice only mandates an originality-based threshold (as opposed to a sweat of the brow-based threshold), but that countries are given some liberty in choosing their preferred originality-based threshold. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I think we should follow the actual situation, which at the moment means that different countries may apply thresholds differently. Rulings by EU judges will probably change things over time and make countries closer on such matters, but even reading those links, it is still up to national courts to determine a certain amount of it. Secondly, the EU directives basically mandate a minimum level of protection; it might be possible that countries can still protect items which do not qualify as a "work" under the EU directive (such as simple photographs) and those laws can still make something "unfree". Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
In order to create protection for other things (such as simple photographs), EU countries are required to create a formal neighbouring right (and also inform some EU organisation about this, I believe). But yes, EU countries can do this. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Louvre Pyramid[edit]


I would like you to watch the last Deletion request of the page Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Louvre Pyramid. It was closed last September 8th, with a complete deletion of all proposed files. Of course some of them had, unfortunately, no chance of being kept, the Louvre Pyramid being the main subject. But this is not the case of all pictures. In the DR I suggested to keep these ones: File:Louvre Pyramid construction 1987.jpg, File:Louvre (8271748749).jpg, File:Louvre at dusk.JPG, File:Louvre at dusk2.JPG, File:Vue de la pyramide, Louvre.jpg, File:France-000100 - Louvre Museum (14524274070).jpg, File:From Inside the Lourve - panoramio.jpg, File:Le Louvre IMG 20141106 213829 (15576336810).jpg, File:Le Louvre IMG 20141106 213851 (15576336540).jpg, File:Le Louvre IMG 20141106 213904 (15759267771).jpg, File:Louvre (4856978474).jpg, File:Louvre by day centered.jpg, File:Louvre France.jpg, File:Louvre Museum - entrance.jpg, File:Louvre pyramid 2.JPG, File:Louvre-Bannenhaff-mat-Pyramid--w.jpg and File:Pyramide du Louvre et la cour Napoléon.jpg. For the first one, the subject is the construction and the pyramid is not completely built on that, moreover this is a general view of the Louvre Museum at that time, the pyramid is De Minimis for me. For all the other ones I quoted, they are general overviews of the museum, the pyramid is not the main subject and therefore is De Minimis too. The Louvre Building is too old to be copyrighted, the museum has been inaugurated in 1793 and the building was a Palace before being a museum. Then when the Pyramid is De Minimis, the Louvre Building is in the public domain. Thank you very much for your help. Jeriby (talk) 07:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I stand behind my decision. None of them was de minimis. Objects under construction can also be protected with copyright, general views can also be protected with copyright. Taivo (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
These below are certainly OK. Some others may also be OK.
Buildings under construction are usually accepted. There is a clear court case, where unavoidable copyrighted items are OK. See Commons:Freedom of panorama#France. Yann (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I think these largely (and unfortunately) come down to a subjective opinion about what was the intended subject of the image... the pyramid, or the landscape as a whole. Revent (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As a new DR about Louvre Pyramid has been started with other files, I would like to specify that my Undeletion request in concerning only files of the DR closed on 8 September 2005, that can be found on Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Louvre_Pyramid#Files_in_Category:Louvre_Pyramid_6. Thanks for your help. Jeriby (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


The logo is almost equal to File:Disney Channel 2014 HD.png only that the only difference is that it has two circles above the "I". That will not too for TEXTLOGO. If one considers the discussions in "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disney Channel 2014 HD.png", the deletion would be wrong. Note: both logos are used in Disney Channel Germany since January 2014 (According to German Wikipedia). --Mega-buses (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Disney Enterprises, Inc. has registered a work entitled 'Disney Channel' and described as 'Logo' for copyright. Copyright registration number VAu000575197, date of creation = 2002, date of registration = 2003-02-20. Which logo is this? I note that Wikipedia reports that Disney Channel was launched in 1983, so I assume that there have been other logos prior to 2002 and I don't know whether the 2002 logo is the current one either.
As the logo from 2002 has been registered for copyright, it means that the United States Copyright Office thinks that the 2002 logo is copyrighted, so that logo can't be hosted on Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
That is the 2002 logo (and this, the wordmark, with two deletion requests with result "kept".) This is the current logo, deleted on commons but more big (and as I said, the difference with File:Disney Channel 2014 HD.png is the two circles in the "I" then, practically no difference.). --Mega-buses (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Personally, i would think that his (and Disney Channel 2014 HD.png, if it was nominated) would not be allowable on Commons. While the wordmark itself, as noted in the previous DRs, is merely the words in an 'fancy font', the background (with shading) becomes IMO sufficiently artistic and non-obvious that the courts would probably protect it. Revent (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: I agree. In fact, I did the first deletion request for Disney Channel 2014 HD.png. Honestly, I would have deleted the file. But with three deletion requests with the result "Kept" I doubt today. I still believe that if one of the files can keep, the other also (and if one of the files can be deleted, the other also). --Mega-buses (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Christina Baumer auf der Berlinale Opening Night 2015.jpg[edit]

Diese Bild sollte wieder wiederhergestellt werden, da es um ein Bild von mir handelt, welches ich fotografiert hatte mit dem Einverständnis der Person darauf. Ich sehe hier keine Urheberrechtsverletzung (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Christina Baumer mit Jasper Joseph auf der Berlinale 2015.jpg[edit]

Diese Bild sollte wieder wiederhergestellt werden, da es um ein Bild von mir handelt, welches ich fotografiert hatte mit dem Einverständnis der Person darauf. Ich sehe hier keine Urheberrechtsverletzung (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


This author is missing at sea and hasn't been seen in years. He was a friend and a community leader in my city. He has no family that owns the book picture and no publishing company owns the title. This book I helped him develop and I personal know that there is my copy rights being held in his name around this book or the picture. Jbignell (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Paco the hedgedog.jpg[edit]

This is my character and my drawing!
--2015/10/3 21:47 User:Sky-Yoshi_4444

@Sky-Yoshi 4444: Copyright in artistic works exists by default, under international law, regardless of if you 'claim it'. The work has apparently been previously published online, so you need to contact COM:OTRS and verify that you are the author. I am somewhat dubious about if such a work is within the scope of Commons, however. We are not a venue for publishing works by unknown artists. Revent (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Mountainview High School crest.tif[edit]

The crest deleted is for the school I teach at. Mountainview High School. It was given to me by the computer technician. We use it on our paperwork. How on earth does it violate copyright to use the Mountainview High School crest on the wiki page of Mountainview High school?

I also use it on the Mountainview High School Agriculture Facebook page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markypoo nz (talk • contribs) 04:13, 4 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Probably because it is copyrighted... We need permission from the high school's administration; if they agree to release it under a free license (CC-BY, for example)... --Diego Grez return fire 03:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done : as above. Yann (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Kölnbarde Figur.jpg[edit]

die Genehmigung ist an permission commons verschickt. "Ticket#2015100410004923" Roxjay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxjay (talk • contribs) 11:12, 4 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info not requested by an OTRS agent. Ankry (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

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

File:It's all Greek to Sholing's boss.jpg[edit]

The image is 100% free to use, I did publish this image after a personal request to the owner. It has never been published by Southern Daily Echo (or the main author Wendy Gee) on the internet before, this is the first publication online for this image, the only exception will be one publication of the original file with minor changes in the original personal website of the person involved who is a friend of mine and granted me a permission to publish it on Wikipedia, therefore I consider it to be a valid publication and I request an undeletion. Many thanks in advance.--Skycraper (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Skycraper: Even if the text (or the image) can be freely licensed, the image of the actual newspaper publication cannot (other than by the publisher of the newspaper). It is effectively impossible to verify that the uploader of such a scanned image has the right to freely license the images or text that are included, and even if they could license one or the other, the 'composite' work shown (the newspaper page) would still have copyright issues. You need to upload a copy of the original image (not a scan of the newspaper), and have the owner of the copyright in the image verify the licensing per COM:OTRS. Revent (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done : as above. Yann (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Concerning Kelsely Abaza Article Short Audio Samples Copyright[edit]

I added tracks to other artists' pages with audio already there, why are they different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dataking231 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Presumably, this is about one or more of the following files:
LX (talk, contribs) 18:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

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

File:FGUP OHRANA Logo.png[edit]

I, Small_opera (talk · contribs), am requesting to undelete the file because it does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain It is only used for information purposes. I work in this organisation, the file with the logo and the copywright belong to us, this logo can be used for non-commercial purposes. What kind of notice should I add in this case? We uploaded this logo to wiki commons to be able to use it on the wikipedia page about our organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Small opera (talk • contribs) 09:24, 5 October 2015‎ (UTC)

 Not done I am afraid, it meets the threshold of originality as it is more coplex than many copyrighted logos. OTRS permission from the logo copyright owner is required. Ankry (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done : as above. Yann (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

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



According to the notice which is still visible on my discussion page, this file was deleted because "A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license."

The subject file was a scan of a cover of a book. The book is owned by me, and the scan was also made by me.

I would like to know what I need to do to prove my agreement to license the file under the given license.

I didn't create the cover's design myself, of course. Does this me unauthorised to license its scan under a license of my choice?

Thanks and regards,

--A. Gharbeia أحمد غربية (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If there is no evidence that the book itself was published undec CC-BY-SA compatible license, You should use the procedure described in COM:OTRS. And after the permissin is accepted by an OTRS agent, the file will be restored. Ankry (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done : as above. Yann (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Oakland County Michigan Incorporated and Unincorporated areas West Bloomfield Charter Township highlighted.svg[edit]

This was accidentally deleted when only its duplicate was meant to be deleted. Velociraptor888 (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Restored, as well as File:Oakland County Michigan Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Clarkston highlighted.svg for the same reason.
✓ Done Ankry (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Uploads from User:Susana Hodge[edit]


I made a mistake and requested a deletion of files which are actually noted:

“Copyright free. This picture is available to be used freely without attribution”

Could you restore them please? My apologize for the mistake, I did not see the comment in the lightbox on the website. Files:

@Susana Hodge


--Scoopfinder(d) 13:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This permission allows only for use of theese pictures. It does not allow derivative work creation nor states a named license. Ankry (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Right. The meaning of "copyright free" might be unclear. An explicit permission would be better, per COM:PCP. --Scoopfinder(d) 10:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support That is more than a publicity-type license to me... more like {{Copyrighted free use}}. They do explicitly say "copyright-free", which may actually be more of a PD-author license, though it may be safer to use the first one (in many countries, it may be impossible to actually place something in the public domain, so a statement like this is as close as you can get). Attribution is not even required, and I think the intent is pretty clear to release the works freely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Marcel Glauche 2015.JPG[edit]

Diese Datei wurde von TNT zur veröffentlichung freigegeben - sowohl bei Zimbio wie bei Facebook! Der Darsteller Marcel Glauche hatte mich gebeten dieses Bild in seinem Artikel "Marcel Glauche" einzustellen. Falls ein Formfehler meinerseits vorliegt, bitte ich dies zu entschuldigen. Bis zur Wiederherstellung setze ich mein von mir erstelltes Bild ein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin1009 (talk • contribs)

No source declares it is freely licensed. Only freely licensed images van be stored on Commons. Publication permission is not enough. Ankry (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done : as above. Yann (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


This was deleted incorrectly, it is a legitimate recording obtained from here [1] and dont know why it was deleted. Regards. Champion (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Champion: See the discussion here. Revent (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: I still don't understand that discussion, if someone modified the recording or whatever, why delete it when you can just upload another one over the current one? Champion (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Champion: It would still involve deleting the old version, since it was vandalized. The file page didn't point at that website as a source, though, it just pointed to somewhere on does sound to my ear like it's the same recording, but... I don't know Turkish, and would have myself felt uncomfortable about trying to 'fix it'. Also, it wouldn't be a direct replacement because the file had been transcoded. Revent (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Aziz Sancar.jpg[edit]

Clear copyvio?? You refered cropped copy of my work. --Logom (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is no indication that the content at the website is freely licensed. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say " website is freely licensed". They use cropped version of my own-work at their website. I uploaded the untouched and uncropped copy of my work, but it was deleted. --Logom (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Then follow the instructions at COM:OTRS. If you submit a valid permission statement, then the image will be undeleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
If the uploaded photo is an uncropped version -- such that the uploaded version does not exist elsewhere on the web, thus nobody except the author should have had access -- then usually assume good faith applies. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
And of course if the full-size version is also on the Internet (as appears to be the case), then the assumption changes the other way around ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, if the picture is really an uncropped version and that the user can prove that he has the rights on the image (photograph that did not transfer the ownership for example) --Scoopfinder (d) 22:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Scoopfinder: AGF does not work here. Please read COM:PCP. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Changed, according to information stated by EtienneDolet. --Scoopfinder(d) 13:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Thank you for the complement of information done on IRC, I missed some of the elements to have a clear judgement. --Scoopfinder(d) 13:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Copyvio. In fact, the uncropped version is just his twitter profile picture: [2]. This user is edit-warring over a content dispute over his ethnicity at Wikipedia's Aziz Sancar article. I assume that the user is using this copyvio photograph of Sancar with a Turkish flag in the background to disprove his "opponents". At any rate, this is clearly a copyright violation and should remain deleted, especially with all the hype surrounding his Nobel Prize. EtienneDolet (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emblem of the Provisional Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh.svg[edit]

DR closed without proper review. The map on the emblem is this map, which has two proper licenses on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 18:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Adduplex default logo.png undelete[edit]

The file is given for public use. Everyone can download it on AdDuplex official site on Press kit page. Please do not delete it.

--Jlijana (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done : PD-textlogo. Not deleted. Yann (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


I shoot the picture with my own camera. Did some photoshopping, Pixelsize to 220 px with. Best, Dieter Steinmetz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter.Steinmetz (talk • contribs) 08:11, 8 October 2015‎ (UTC)

If this is your own work, please send a declaration email to OTRS to show that you are the owner of the picture. Thanks. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


This image is taken by my camera Satya durga reddy (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Sahasam Swasaga Sagipo.jpg[edit]

This Poster is official and Shared on their Facebook page . It is Free to publish . It is copyrighted from modification only not for Publishing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya durga reddy (talk • contribs) 09:40, 08 October 2015 (UTC)

Satya durga reddy (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "copyrighted from modification" doesn't really make sense, but I guess what you're trying to say is that modifications are not allowed by the copyright holder. In that case, it cannot be hosted on Commons. Please read Commons:Project scope/Summary to understand what you can and cannot upload to Commons. LX (talk, contribs) 16:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)