Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]


File:O'Hara, Maureen.jpg[edit]

I did some research on this picture, and found a lot of sites say it was taken in 1940.

This means it is over 70 years old and is a free picture in almost every country, including Ireland. It should be undeleted and given the {{PD-Old}} template. --Steverci (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That is not at all correct. In almost all countries, including Ireland, an image is under copyright for seventy years after the death of the photographer. A 1940 work might be PD today, if the photographer died within four years after taking it, but it is unlikely. As a general rule, we use 1885 as a cutoff date for assuming that the photographer has been dead for seventy years. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Update I have been discussing the location of the photo on Wikipedia's help desk, and we came to the conclusion it was made in the United States by studio RKO. This would make it free under PD-US-no notice, just like a lot of her other photos here. --Steverci (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You can't conclude that the image was published without notice just because a print of the photograph doesn't have it. The law did not require that individual prints have notice if they were being sent to newspapers or other users that would print them covered by the publication's general notice. Wire service photos and photographs taken by newspaper staff never had notice on the images themselves. The same could well be true of this -- certainly beyond our standard of proof -- significant doubt. In order to restore it, you will have to show that it was published without notice, as that word is used in the 1909 law. Merely having a print wihtout notice proves nothing. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If a physical print was sent to a newspaper, then yes that print needed a copyright notice. That act right there was most likely publication, regardless if it was later published in the newspaper. A publicity print sent to several newspapers would be published. But, we do like to have some actual evidence of that. I do see a copy here which does seem to show it existed as a separate print some time ago, but it often helps to see the back as well -- that would probably have been an OK spot for a copyright notice on a publicity print. It feels pretty likely this is a PD publicity image, but I'm not sure we have the evidence. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question If we can't prove that there was a copyright notice, could we prove that it was not renewed? Yann (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Probably, but who wants to slog through two years of printed copyright renewals -- the renewal would be from before the beginning of the computer searchable database. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Once again this flag has been improperly deleted. The flag was created by the uploader (User:Prez001) and we know this because any images provided by the Sri Lankan government are of too poor a resolution to have been simply copied. The symbol in the centre and the border are PD-ineligible and basic geometry. There is only ONE element on this flag that is above COM:TOO and because of the poor resolution of the government images, Prez001 HAD to create it themselves. This file of the flag IS NOT copyrighted, and the nominator themselves also admitted they do not claim that it is, siply they feel that the "own work" license was inappropriate and that the Government of Sri Lanka should have been properly attributed. This qualifies for immediate undeletion. Fry1989 eh? 17:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to spell it out for everyone, here is why this file is not copyrighted. This is the image with the highest resolution available from the Government of Sri Lanka. This is the symbol in the centre and it qualifies under basic geometry. It is too simple as it is just 5 concentric rings. The 4 leaves in each corner don't even need mention because they are from the national flag. The only thing left is the border which consists of two parts which I have highlighted with an arrow. This part again qualifies as basic geometry, it's just 5 rectangles. The only remaining part that is above TOO and therefore copyrightable is this part. However, this part is not the same as on the Government image. Here is Prez001's version, but if you zoom the resolution on the Government's image you can see it is different. The only copyrightable part of this flag is not the same on Prez001's file as it is on the Government image, and it never could have been because the resolution is so poor that Prez001 had to create it themselves as everyone can see. That makes this image Prez001's own work. They hold the rights to their image, they have the right to release it, and this file is not a copyright violation. Fry1989 eh? 17:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The labored narrative addressing the numerous elements present actually demonstrates why the DR was closed correctly. Indeed, the above is essentially analogous to arguing that because individual letters and words are not copyrightable, poems, stories and other literature ought not to be copyrightable. This, of course, is nonsense. The selection, combination and arrangement of elements--even if they are individually ineligible for copyright--can give rise to sufficient originality in the aggregate/combined work. For example: "the designs are protected in their entirety because it is the combination of elements that is copyrighted. The combinations of the common elements have resulted in designs that are original and protected in their entirety." (Yurman Design, Inc. v. Golden Treasure Imps., Inc., 275 F. 2d 506, 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)) See also the bottom of page 10 here. Frankly, I don't even buy that the floral symbol in the center is below the TOO. It certainly is not a "common geometric" shape as contemplated by the Copyright Act (see page 9). Эlcobbola talk 19:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It absolutely is too simple, it's concentric geometry that any idiot with a protractor or a spirograph could draw. There is nothing copyrightable about Prez001's file except for the floral part in the border and Prez001's version is completely different. Prez001 drew this themselves, this is their work. The same principle applies to coats of arms on Commons, you draw it yourself then it's your own work. This isn't a copy of the flag from the Sri Lankan Government because the resolutions of their images of this flag are absolute junk. Fry1989 eh? 19:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
And anyone with a ruler, like Piet Mondriaan, could create this, which had a copyright before it expired due to time. Copyright law does not care about ease, labor intensity, or tools but about originality - which the flag certainly has. The uploader himself acknowledged an attempt to copy: "I came across the image from the presidency site. and i proceeded to recreate that image" [1] To the extent there are differences in the uploaded version, the COM:DW does not dissolve the copyright of the base work. When you were notifying the admin who previously restored the file (through merely because it was improperly speedied)[2] and the file's author [3], you seem to have missed @Obi2canibe: and @Taivo:. I've corrected the oversight for you. Эlcobbola talk 19:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually copyright DOES care about ease, that's the entire point of originality. The more unoriginal and simple something is, the easier it is to create. You also know quite well that "re-create" does not mean the same thing as "copy". We have thousands of flags and coats of arms that are "re-creations" but not "copies". As for notification, I shall notify whoever I wish and how I wish. If you're trying to accuse me of canvassing, you'll have a tough time since I used neutral language and only notified 2 users who have a direct relation to this matter. The flag may be copyrighted, but Prez001's version most certainly is not. DW only means anything if the original work is is a copyright violation, the only elements that Prez001 derived their work from are too simple and basic geometry, the complicated bit is completely different. Fry1989 eh? 20:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the COM:TOO entry for various countries, you can see copyright refused for many images that are more complex than the flower symbol in the centre of this flag. File:Best Western logo.svg and File:Jeff Ho logo.png for example do not use simple repeating geometry. There is no question the flower symbol is not copyrightable. In fact, nothing on this flag is copyrightable and the flag as a whole would not be considered copyrightable save for the flowery thing in the border. if it wasn't on the flag, the flag would be here right now. As I've already shown, Prez001's re-creation of that flowery thing is completely different. Their file does not violate the original. Fry1989 eh? 20:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me explain this in a more simple way. This would not be considered copyrightable, if the flag was just that design and it went through a DR it would be kept. The border is just rectangles, and the flower symbol in the centre is basic geometry. It's no different than the many roundels we host on Commons. Concentric rings are not complicated enough to be copyrighted, and just because these have 8 edges instead of perfect circles isn't enough of a difference because it is still a basic simple repetitious pattern. The leaves again don't matter, they're from the national flag. The ONLY thing on this flag that raises it above the threshold of originality and makes it copyrighted/able, is not the same design on Prez001's image as on the Government of Sri Lanka's image. Therefore is is not a violation. Prez001 drew his own flower border, his own design, he has the rights to it. It's not a DW, it's not a copy, it's not a violation. Fry1989 eh? 01:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to governmental flags, the basic design is almost never considered copyrighted (same with seals). We generally are only concerned about straight copying of files, or if there is a complex figure, copying/tracing that specific representation (since many representations are probably possible). This argument basically says we cannot have any representations of flags or seals where the basic design could be considered under copyright (even though they are typically always PD-EdictGov at the very least). I don't buy it. An SVG is already not a straight copy, and (from what I can see on the Google cache) I think this is a legitimate SVG representation from the specific JPG representation on the website. Basically, I don't think the general "selection and arrangement" copyright is really applicable to governmental flags and seals. That is getting into copyright paranoia territory for me -- has there ever been a lawsuit about such items? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Would you add that as a support, than?
Really the issue here has been argued dozens of times over coats of arms on Commons, and the result has ALWAYS come out that if you drew it yourself without exacly copying or tracing the image in question then it's free. This argument could easily also apply to the images I uploaded last night. Is File:Banner of the Lord Lyon King of Arms.svg copyrightable? Absolutely yes it is copyrightable. However, my version is not, because the only copyrightable part (which is the lion badge) was drawn by Sodacan as a free element, and the rest of the flag sans the lion would not be considered copyrighted. The same applies to this presidential standard. Fry1989 eh? 16:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question Any other opinions here? Yann (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Clearly not, but I'm not letting this one go. This is Prez001's work and they have a right to release it. Fry1989 eh? 16:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
So is this going to be undeleted the proper way or do I have to upload it again myself? Because I absolutely will. Fry1989 eh? 16:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Just be patience and if you reupload the file you likeley end up blocked. You know that right? Given your really ucivil comments in this discussion I don't find it strange that there are no more opinions given. But if you want more opinions, I agree with Elcobbola. Natuur12 (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I have said absolutely nothing uncivil regarding this matter and I know what I'm talking about. I have discussed this flag entirely on it's merits, but it's no surprise to me that you would try to make this about something it's not. You know what I'm talking about. So either give a link or quote about my supposed "uncivil comments in this discussion", or go away. Fry1989 eh? 17:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
No I don't know what you are talking about but if you insist: Once again this flag has been improperly deleted. (suggestive), it's concentric geometry that any idiot with a protractor or a spirograph could draw. (rude language), As for notification, I shall notify whoever I wish and how I wish. If you're trying to accuse me of canvassing, you'll have a tough time since I used neutral language and only notified 2 users who have a direct relation to this matter. (suggestive and assume bad faith), So is this going to be undeleted the proper way or do I have to upload it again myself? Because I absolutely will (making empty threats). The entire tone of your comments is quite hostile I'm afraid. Natuur12 (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
OH please you're grasping at straws. "Improperly deleted", well as I disagree with the deletion OBVIOUSLY I think it was improper to have been deleted! "Something any idiot can draw", that's not directed at any person or user, it's a figure of speech describing the simplicity of the element in question (ie: anybody could do it). The canvassing inference, that's absolutely right, I reserve my right to notify who and how I wish and it was obvious that I was being accused of canvassing which I was not. If you don't think I notified the right users or enough users than do it yourself but don't accuse me of canvassing without solid ground for that accusation. Notifying only 2 users is a far far way away from canvassing. As for my last comment, I have waited long enough, I am absolutely right and sound in my arguments and if it is not undeleted than I shall upload it again (multiple times if necessary). This work is free, whether the original is copyrighted or not is of no consequence. Fry1989 eh? 18:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
And I'm telling you, if you re-upload the file you probably end up blocked. Natuur12 (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
And I'm telling YOU this work is free. Don't think I won't exhaust every opportunity I have at restoring it. If File:Banner of the Lord Lyon King of Arms.svg can be on Commons, so can Prez001's work. Just try to have my file deleted, there's no arguments that can be made, I drew the flag, Sodocan drew the lion, so even if the original flag is copyrighted my file is not. The exact same principle applies to Prez001's file, they drew it themselves, and in particular they drew the copyrightable parts themselves independent of the original work and therefore it is not a copy and therefore is not a violation. If you have real arguments for why you think the flag shouldn't be restored, instead of accusing me of incivility because you don't like my manner of saying "anybody can do it", lay them out instead of this ad hominem "you're hostile, so nobody wants to listen to you even if you're right" which isn't how things work here. We delete and undelete things on their merits, and the merits for this flag being free are solid. Might I also remind you even the nominator themselves admitted they don't think it's a copyright violation, their problem was with attribution. Fry1989 eh? 18:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Ronn headshot.jpg[edit]

What do you need? I have absolute right to this picture and I have said it - put my name on it and have no issue debating it. What does this take?Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image appears at with the notice "© 2015, All rights reserved." In order to restore it, the actual copyright holder, probably the photographer, must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I gave it to JNS to use, just as I gave it to Wikimedia. I am the owner. The JNS article you point to was authored and provided by the subject of this picture, of whom I have rights to use and distribute. As an aside, an OTRS email was sent.Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Please do not confuse us by putting {{support}}on your own request. You may not like it, but what I set forth above is firmly established policy. It is designed to protect copyright holders from the unfortunate fact that identity theft is fairly common here, both by vandals and by fans, and OTRS is the only we we can confirm that you are actually who you claim to be. Please note also that OTRS is, like Commons, all volunteers and badly understaffed. Their backlog often runs from several weeks to well over a month. If your license checks out, the image will be restored in its turn. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Judae1: You say in passive voice "an OTRS email was sent." May I presume that you sent it? Given that, I'm sure the image will be restored when that email is processed (which, in my experience, can take up to 30 days).
In the future, if you want to make sure an image is not deleted while waiting for the OTRS process, remember to tag it with {{OTRS pending}} as soon as you upload it and/or send in the OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 22:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Youra Livchitz (1917-1944).jpg[edit]

new default illustration on fr:WP

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The license was changed, no discussion, unfair use of the tools i'm affraid Madelgarius (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"Changing the license" didn't address the issues I raised in the deletion nomination. Let's try this again:
  • What research have you done to show that the photographer was anonymous? (Finding a photo on Google and not bothering to look into who created it isn't the same as the photographer being anonymous.)
  • Content on Commons needs to be free not just in the source country, but in the United States as well. Can you show that this photograph is in the public domain in the United States?
LX (talk, contribs) 15:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I made researches and find nothing... Anonymous-EU is not enough ?... You already gave your sympathetic (pathetic?) opinion. I answered, you did not reply, not fair. Other advises? --Madelgarius (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I've told you what's needed, and no, you didn't answer those points. LX (talk, contribs) 16:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
United-States? for illustrating Wikipedia in french? There's not known photographer for this picture... But may be you know things i do not. Or you are a white knight? A pity I can't tell you what I think about this in french... It would be more precise. Mais je peux te parler dans ma langue au fond, toi tu ne t'inquiètes pas de me parler dans une langue que tu sais ne pas être la mienne, à me parler des droits d'une photo aux états-unis, j'ignorais que commons était uniquement assujettie au droit américain. Cette photo est du domaine public en Europe. Je te dis que je n'ai trouvé aucune information concernant le photographe. Cette personne est un héros de la seconde guerre mondiale et des ayants-droit, s'il s'en trouvent, ne trouveraient rien à redire à l'usage qui est fait de cette photographie. Après, tu fais la leçon, tout ça... C'est contre-productif, tu surjoues, et c'est pour tout dire un peu pitoyable. Après cette salve pas davantage sympathique que les tiennes, seras-tu néanmoins disposé à restaurer cette image dont l'unique prétention est d'illustrer un article sur fr:WP? Ou ton rôle (celui que tu estimes être le tien) sur commons est supérieur à cette noble vélléité? --Madelgarius (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Jag hoppas att du inte förväntar dig att få någon mer hjälp, för det lär du inte få med den attityden. Inte av mig i alla fall. LX (talk, contribs) 17:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
C'est pourquoi je demande d'autres avis... --Madelgarius (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In order to use an "anonymous" license on a French work, you must show that the author was, in fact, never disclosed. His merely being unknown to you is nowhere near sufficient. The "anonymous" tag is very hard to prove. Also note that the copyright for a work that is proven to qualify for an "anonymous" tag runs for 70 years from first publication, so you also have to prove that the image was published before 1945. If you cannot prove that, then we must assume it is still under copyright.
I must also warn you that ad hominem attacks, such as you have made in several places here and the DR may get you blocked. We have a low tolerance for inexperienced editors who come here and attack Users who have made more than 100,000 contributions to Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure you will apologize this unexperimented fellow (after 4 years of contributions here I still keep in mind the purpose of all this). The first license provided was PD-old which bothered LX, I change it into Anonymous-EU. Because, no photographer can be found, and because Youra Livchitz was killed by the germans in februari 1944 after the attack of the XXth convoy of the deportation. We can reasonably think that this picture were published for the first time at that time in the clandestine press and in septembre 1944 in the first hours of the liberation. You apply strictly and in a non collaborative way rules to a 220px picture... It was preferable for all to let this photography in the "grey zone" because no author can be found, because no one could be offenced by the fact we used this picture for illustrating purpose on such an article and finally because Youra Livchitz died more than 70 years ago and we have a "devoir de mémoire" about that. You pretend to apply rules, you have thousands of contributions which allow you to do so... Others are unexperimented contributors... And during your journey you forgot your destination. Sad. --Madelgarius (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Please do not try to tell me what my goal is. In this case, my goal is to enforce the laws of France and the policies of Commons. It is up to you to prove beyond a significant doubt that either the author intended to be anonymous or that the image was actually published before 1945. You have done neither. In fact, you yourself admit that this falls in "the grey zone". You have also suggested that we break one of our most basic polices, see COM:PRP #4. Finally, again, you make an ad hominem attack. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes "grey zone" which is not binary on/off. No attack at all in this last commentary, I certainly not agree with your position. That's all. --Madelgarius (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Sheikh Hasina and Shinzo Abe 2014.jpg[edit]

The picture is copyrighted but the Japanese Prime Minister's Office allows it to be used for under its six Use of Content conditions specified here. --Merchant of Asia (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The page which you cite explicitly says at point #2 that material on the web site may be copyrighted by others and that the terms there do not apply to that material. In order to have this restored, you must show that the Japanese government actually owns the copyright to this image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The source page explicitly states that the content is under the copyright of the Japanese government: "Copyright© Cabinet Public Relations Office, Cabinet Secretariat."--Merchant of Asia (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
No, it says that the page as a whole is copyrighted by the Japanese Government. That does not preclude there being items on the page for which other people hold individual copyrights. Point #2, which I cited above, explicitly recognizes that. For an example closer to home (my home, at least), please see which has a copyright notice at the bottom "© 2015 NY Times Co", just as the site which you mention does. The copyright to the image, however, is held by me. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Point# 2 applies to work for which they provide third party copyright information, like in the case of the website you cited with your work. In my case they haven't and going by their copyright policy, the work is eligible for use in Commons.--Merchant of Asia (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Epivates Anatolikis Thrakis.jpeg[edit]

Το αρχείο File:Epivates Anatolikis Thrakis.jpeg διαγράφηκε χωρίς λόγο, από τη στιγμή κατά την οποία δεν υπόκειται σε κανέναν από τους περιορισμούς πνευματικών δικαιωμάτων της wikipedia.

Είναι παλαιότερο του 1928 και ο δημιουργός του το έχει διαθέσει σε κοινή χρήση. --Politis1977Politis1977 (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)14:31, 12 Aπριλίου 2015.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In the file description, you claim to be the author of the image. That is obviously not correct. The rule in Greece is that copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. If this image is, as you say, from 1928 then it is far too recent to assume that the photographer has been dead for 70 years. In order to restore it you must either prove that the photographer died before 1945 or that the photographer deliberately intended to be anonymous. Please note that the fact that you cannot name the photographer does not mean that he intended to be anonymous. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Politis1977, establishing licensing on Commons for a photo where the photographer is not known is not impossible, but can be difficult. This file was in use on w:el:Επιβάτες Θράκης. Fair use is allowed on elwiki, see the guidelines.
When you sign with ~~~~, you do not need to add your signature manually, which you did above, thus your user name was repeated. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Dona Lucilia Corrêa de Oliveira e marido, foto de noivado.jpg[edit]

The photo was already with author/date/country of creation information as requested, but nevertheless someone deleted it.--P.P.Pyres (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You cannot simply slap anything in the file description and expect it to be satisfactory. You claimed that you were the photographer of this 1896 image. I think I can safely say that that is actually impossible, not merely extremely unlikely. In order to have this image restored you must prove one of two things
a) Who the actual photographer was and that he died more than 70 years ago, or
b) That the actual photographer chose to remain anonymous and that the image was published more than 70 years ago. Note that simply not knowing who the photographer was is not sufficient -- you must prove that he intended to remain anonymous. Note also that if Commons was the first publication of the image, then it will be under copyright for 70 years from now.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
This is from Brazil. We don't need a proof that it was published. So I think a 1896 picture is OK. I don't think we have sufficient doubt that it is still under a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
First, this was their engagement photo -- a formal studio portrait, so the photographer was certainly known to the subjects and was, therefore, not anonymous. Second, according to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Brazil, the rule is "70 years counted from the first of January of the year following that of the first publication", so I don't see how we can ignore the fact that this probably came from a family album and has never been published. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Jim, this does not make sense. A photographer is always known for someone, but this doesn't change the fact, that his name was certainly never recorded anywhere, and is therefore unknown to all legal sense of the term. It seems quite clear that the copyright expired 70 years after it was taken (or even shorter? what was the law at that time?). Yann (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. In English, at least, anonymous means that the author made a deliberate attempt to be unknown. That's certainly possible for many photo-journalists, but much less so, as I argue here, for portrait photographers. The photographer may or may not be unknown, but he can't be anonymous.
You say, "his name was certainly never recorded anywhere" -- how do you know that? For all we know, his name is on the back of the photograph.
I also don't understand why you think that Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Brazil is wrong about the copyright period for anonymous works. It certainly seems very clear that anonymous works stay under copyright for 70 years after first publication. That's not unusual -- the same rule applies in France, Germany, and many other countries. In the USA it's 95 years after first publication or 120 years from creation, so this work certainly would be under copyright here if it were first published here. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think "a deliberate attempt to be unknown" is an accurate description of anonymous publication, at least for old documents. In most cases, the photographer was not mentioned because he is not supposed to get any reward except an one-time payment (work for hire). For working on old documents on Commons for the last 10 years, I know that for many old pictures, the name of the photographer was not recorded anywhere. I don't think it improves anything to request impossible requirements, completely disconnected to the real life situation. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think you're right on the edge of COM:PRP #4. However, even granting you that, how do you get around the fact that as far as we know its first publication was this year and, therefore, under Brazilian law it will be under copyright until 2085? Of course, arguably, since its first publication is on Commons, in the USA, its copyright will run for 120 years from creation, until 1/1/2017. That's closer, but still 20 months from now. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The law does say that the economic right is owned by the publisher in the anonymous situation though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Pictures by Klaus Dolle[edit]

Hi all, @Klaus Dolle: claims to be the husband of es:María Uriz. I can't see any sensible reason not to trust the uploader claims, as all the images uploaded by him (of great value, I must add) deals with his wife. Moreover, the images are also available in his professional web site with appropriate CC-BY-SA license. He's complained about the umpteenth deletion of his work on the grounds that {{own}} authorship "is not enough" (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maria Uriz y Montserrat Caballe en Parisina D'Este.jpg). Although from a very, very, very, very strict point of view an OTRS authorization would be needed, I wonder which are the requisites for trusting or not an {{own}} ownership. Therefore, I ask for the restoration of all the pictures, uploaded in good faith, and with great value. It seems as if we're not doing anything to support our contributors. The kind of pictures uploaded by Klaus are extremely valuable, given the restrictive IPR laws in Spain. Best regards --Discasto talk 13:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've asked Mr. Dolle (here) to send an OTRS authorization. However, I must insist that IMHO such authorization is not actually needed. --Discasto talk 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No that DR was not closed as "{{own}} authorship "is not enough"" but as claim of ownership of the copyright is nog good enough. Given that this looks like either a scan of a painting or a historical photograph claiming own work is indeed not good enough. Natuur12 (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Provided that you deleted the picture it's obvious that, for you, it's not enough. But I wonder whether your assessment is the general understanding in the project, especially considering that he's clarified that the pictures are obviously old, obviously not digital, and had been scanned by himself. I wonder again why it's not "good enough". Moreover if we take into account that, as mentioned, the pictures are also available in his web site with proper license (although with lower quality). I admit that the best way to sort this out is to send a proper authorization (I guess he find it difficult to understand the authorization procedure), but I can't find any suspicious element that might make authorship dubious. --Discasto talk 15:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I just explained that and given the fact that you agree that "Although from a very, very, very, very strict point of view an OTRS authorization would be needed" and that two other admins deleted files by this uploader based on the same info I believe that I'm on the safe side. Natuur12 (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't agree at all. And it's not a question of being on the safe or unsafe side. The question is that, according to the elements I've provided (not considered in the DR's9, which comes from the information provided (in Spanish) by the uploader (and which was considered as valid also by an administrator, see here, quoting a mail by @Alan:), and given that there are no suspicious elements once everything has been explained, which are the grounds to consider that {{own}} is not enough? Are we supporting good faith contributors or making everything for them not to come back? --Discasto talk 20:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC) PS: as a matter of coherence, all Mr. Dolle's uploads should be removed as well, shouldn't them?
I was talking about the situation when I closed the DR because you quoted my closing statement incorrect ;). Based on the current information II tend to agree with Jim. Natuur12 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
My fault then :-) --Discasto talk 08:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Hmmm. Klaus Dolle is apparently a professional photographer. It is entirely reasonable to believe that he took these images and they appear on his professional site with a CC-BY-SA license. If a third party had simply uploaded them from Dolle's web site and a License Reviewer had confirmed the license, we would have accepted that. Why is it that we should require anything more just because Dolle uploaded them to Commons himself?

In either case there is the possibility (which I don't accept) that his professional web site is license laundering, but getting an OTRS message from him won't remove that possibility. I don't see that OTRS is needed under any interpretation of our rules. What am I missing here? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question.svg Question I restored this one. Any more to restore? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hi, @Yann:. Mr. Dolle has just forwarded me the mail he's sent to In it, he authorizes all the images he's ever uploaded to commons (that is, all the pictures listed in Special:Log/Klaus_Dolle. Would you mind restoring all of them? I'll add the corresponding {{OTRS pending}} template, so that the proper id can be added once the authorization is processed.
However, I'd like to guarantee that this Mr. Dolle is not forced to go through a similar journey of suffering. May I assume that this authorization will be "enough" as authorship proof for subsequent uploads, even if no new OTRS authorization is sent? Best regards --Discasto talk 12:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done I think a general permission would all his images would be fine. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems as if nobody is managing commons-permissions-es, so that the ticket is being managed by a person that can't speak Spanish. What should I explain in Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Anyone_at_permissions-commons-es.3F? Best regards --Discasto talk 08:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jcb: - Perhaps you have some time to have a look at the ticket? Natuur12 (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I have responded to the ticket. One picture depicts Dolle. Several pictures seem reproductions of old pictures. From those pictures we need to know who the photographer is. So I tagged some with PermissionOTRS and some with OTRS received, waiting for his reply. Jcb (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Serghei Paşcenco.jpg[edit]

Я занимаюсь статьями о футбольном клубе "Шериф" в русской Википедии. Метаданные на фотографии присутствуют, по ним видно, когда, где и каким фотоаппаратом были сделаны фотографии. Добавлю, что планирую залить состав всей команды, но не доходят руки. Просто я не хочу создавать еще одну учетную запись, чтобы залить весь состав команды. Также хотел бы узнать, если на фотографиях видны все метаданные, на каком основании подозревают, что они не мои? Я могу и спустя 10 лет залить фотографии под свободной лицензией, это сугубо мое право. Заодно прошу восстановить эту фотографию File:Matías Degra.jpg, все метаданные опять же присутствуют. --Kodru (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Google translate is not particularly helpful here, but this has been sitting for three days waiting for a Russian speaker to come along, so I took a look at it.
I have been articles about the football club "Sheriff" in Russian Wikipedia. Metadata in the photo there, you can see them when, where and how the camera pictures were taken. I should add that I plan to fill in part of the team, but not reached. I just do not want to create another account, to fill the entire squad. Would also like to know if the photos you can see all the metadata on what grounds to suspect that they are not mine? I can, and 10 years later pour pictures under a free license, this is purely my right. At the same time ask to restore this image File: Matías Degra.jpg, all metadata again present.
translator: Google
The problem here is that the images have EXIF showing Skiolov & Adjem as the photographers. Both of them look like professional photographs of the players on the team. The translation does not seem to say that Kodru is the photographer. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Explain my photos of all the players, as I live and work in Tiraspol. In order to fill these photos I need to create a new account under the name Skiolov & Ajami? Meaning, if my photos and the authorship I could write whatever I want ... If you find the same photos with metadata, will be pleasantly surprised. I think for this and there are metadata that you can see that the photos are not taken from the Internet and download them people is their author or coauthor. I would add that I am in Tiraspol work in different places photographer. I live alone in Tiraspol and in Estonia. --Kodru (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
If necessary, I can in a material change to the authorship Kodru, I think you know very well that it is not hard to do .. --Kodru (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Acrobatic Women's Pair.jpg[edit]


I took this photograph. I uploaded this photograph. I have never assigned the copyright to anyone else.

You can find my work at and

All of the events these photographs were shot at were public events, where public photography was allowed, and in addition, I was assigned a photography pass and full media accreditation.

Please can you undelete it!

Paul Dawson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poleydee (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 April 2015‎ (UTC)

  • Send an email, as described at COM:OTRS, from the relevant email address for the site where the work was previously posted. - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I know this is a nuisance, but unfortunately we get identity theft here fairly frequently. The image has EXIF:
"Copyright holder: Paul Dawson,"
so policy requires that User:Poleydee confirm that he is actually Paul Dawson.
.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • * Ok, well I shall make a valiant effort to save you all the time and effort as I know you all have day jobs to do and are busy and that the OTRS process takes a while.

Proof of identity photo on RGA Photos website.

On the above link I have posted a picture that shows:
The logged in account settings for (which is referenced in the EXIF)
It also shows that I have changed the description on the original posting of the image on my Flickr account to reference Wiki Commons and that I have given my permission for the free licence (which can be viewed live here).
And finally, I have posted a selfie of me with today's date and hello wiki commons written on a piece of paper. You can independently google image search me to see that it is me. I know you guys are busy - so I hope this helps!

--Poleydee (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we are all busy -- 15 Admins do 90% of the deletion of about 1,400 images every day. That is why we have a process for handling this kind of problem. Taking things out of process both slows us down and favors you over other people who would also like their images restored. Please send the message to OTRS as described above. I note, by the way that the Flickr page you cite has a CC-BY-NC license. NC licenses are unacceptable on COmmons, see COM:L. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
One of the challenges of this process for an outsider is that is very hard to understand. I've read the OTRS page and I still don't know how to submit a request. I also don't know what an NC licence is, and/or how to change it, or why I set it like that in the first place. I see that you have a lot of challenges with people faking things, but it would be less challenging for admins if they deleted less and dealt with objections raised by rights-holders instead. I shall read the OTRS page again and see if I can work it out.

Poleydee (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

All you need do is ask -- I'm sorry that you find the OTRS explanation less than perfect. Fundamentally you need to copy and paste the boxed text into an e-mail, modify it as required by the red instructions, and send it to And then wait, I'm sorry to say.
I think that NC licenses and our reasons for not accepting them are covered fairly well by the cartoon on COM:L, which I mentioned above.
As for deleting less, we are so close to being overwhelmed by the 10,000 images that are uploaded to Commons every day that we simply don't have time to consider other ways of doing things. For now, it is much easier to get the uploader's attention by deleting the image and then, if possible, restoring it later, than it is to somehow try to get the uploader to provide the necessary permissions before deletion. Note, too, the UnDR is less than 1% of all images that have been deleted and we do not restore most of the requests here. It would be better if we had a better method. but 0.25% isn't a bad problem rate. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding Jim. It's a challenging task I admit. I did find the OTRS email and actually they actioned it already, so much better service than everyone led me to believe. Thanks. Poleydee (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done apparently. Yann (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Stanley Pranin[edit]

  • File:stanley-pranin-portrait.jpg
    • Change of permission following mistake on first upload. I have permission of the owner, Stanley Pranin, to use this and two other images for insertion in a Wikipedia article.
      I emailed the permission and request for change two weeks ago. (unsigned)
      • He may be the owner, but is he the copyright holder? - Jmabel ! talk 20:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • File:stanley-pranin-kisshomaru-ueshiba-1978-tokyo-sec.1-2.jpg
    • Change of permission following mistake on initial upload. The owner, Stanley Pranin, has given me permission to use this image freely in the Wikipedia article "Stanley Pranin". (unsigned)
  • File:stanley-pranin-morihiro-saito-1988-san-diego-interpreting.jpg
    • Change of permission following mistake on initial upload. The owner, Stanley Pranin, has given permission for the free use of this image in the article "Stanley Pranin". (unsigned)

On all of these, typically the photographer would hold the copyright. I don't see that addressed at all. - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Quebekoisie affiche.jpg[edit]

I am creating a wiki article on behalf of the owners of this image. They allowed me to use it directly from their website at --Veroterio (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • They need either to make the free license visible on that web site or send email as described at COM:OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Logo of RBMSC.png[edit]

I didn't get the file from web or any website authorities. Rather I myself designed the logo for the RBMSC Community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABHBOSS (talk • contribs) 01:54, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)

  • As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then automatically be added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This does not appear to be the official logo of the school -- it is not in use on the school's web site. That means that it is out of scope -- Commons does not host art from artists who are not notable. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Dibujo Naif de Amsterdam.jpg[edit]

Hello team,

As you explain me before, I have upload my picture to Flickr and manage the CC rights. You can find here:

I hope now I can use it for my Wikipedia articles.

Thank you very much!!

--AGarriga (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alejandro, proper authorization must be issued by the picture's author (Mia Möll, that is, Gema Sánchez). Even if you both share some sort of business, it's Ms. Sánchez the one that keeps the copyright of the pictures. Please, follow the procedure described in Commons:Modelos de mensajes#Declaración de permiso para todas las peticiones, from a mail address clearly identifying Ms. Sánchez and referring to the deleted files (and any other she'd like to refer to in her web site. Best regards --Discasto talk 13:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Globos de látex con formas.jpg[edit]

Hello team,

I have upload my picture to Flickr and give it the CC rights, so i hope I can use my picture now in Wikipedia articles.

Here is the link:

Thank you very much!!

--AGarriga (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Gervasio Sánchez, por Daniel Rivas Pacheco.jpg[edit]

La imagen tiene licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 España License, en la web Gracias --Eluque1 (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Mabrouck Rachedi.jpg[edit]

I am writing to request that the undeletion be undone and that the file be restored. I just emailed back and forth with Mabrouck Rachedi who assures me that he has the copyright for this photo. I am a professor of French literature with a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan, and I am simply trying to help Mabrouck out.

If you would like to contact him directly, I will ask him if it is ok for me to give you his email address.

Thank you very much for considering this request.

Nancy Erickson — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.k.erickson (talk • contribs) 16:21, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a more or less formal portrait of Mabrouck Rachedi. He is listed as author and source. Since it does not look like a selfie, it is very likely that is incorrect. Because this is not "own work", policy requires that the actual copyright holder, which will almost always be the photographer, not the subject, send a free license to OTRS. Once that reaches the head of the queue there (sometimes a month or more is required), the license will be checked out, and if approved, the image will be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Please send a permission as explained above. Yann (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

All my photos deleted unnecessarily[edit]

I logged in today to upload additional photos of myself which were taken with my own cell phone, and found that all photos I had previously uploaded of myself were deleted somehow.

In reviewing the logs of the deletion discussion, it appears that there was a concern as to the validity of my having uploaded photos of myself here after they had been used in public articles. The bottom line is that those images of me which were used in articles were taken from my public twitter account, and were photos taken of myself by myself and my husband for our own use. There are no professional photos at this time that I own the rights to, and it was brought to my attention by a wiki-user that other photos of myself were being used without my permission, and I would have preferred these uploaded photos be used instead. As such I was advised to upload them, and did so.

I would appreciate these images being undeleted as they are images of myself and my husband, taken by myself and or him, using our own equipment, which I uploaded to be able to have some control over the images being used of me on Wikipedia.

Thank you,

Brianna Wu--Spacekatgal (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is in response to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Spacekatgal. To be very blunt, Brianna Wu and her husband, Frank Wu, are high profile people with world class graphics skills. My colleagues involved in the DR and I don't believe that Wu would upload this collection of very low quality images to Commons. Identity theft by fans is common here and it is certainly well beyond our standard of significant doubt that identity theft has happened in this case. If you are, in fact, Brianna Wu, please confirm your identity by sending a message to OTRS from a traceable address. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support - You can send an email to OTRS, or you can simply write a public line on your personal website saying that you are User:Spacekatgal. Apologies for the hassle, and double apologies for calling your contributions low quality, that was uncalled for. --GRuban (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I stand by my remarks above. If User:Spacekatgal is Brianna Wu, then she and her husband are world class graphics people. These images are not up to the standards that they certainly set for themselves in their other works and would not be kept on Commons unless they were the only images we had. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Those deleted images were the very images Brianna Wu uses for her internet presence and gives to the media for articles. For example, to head her piece in the Washington Post [4]; that image was one of the ones that got deleted. But not up to our standards. --GRuban (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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


I put up a help request regarding putting this image on Fuzz Townshend wiki page. I had edited my original photo file (I took the photo in question) to blur some signage on the image to comply with wiki rules. On 13:00, 2 April 2015‎ Kelapstick approved the image being put on the page with comments "(→‎Classic Friendly: per talk page request, there is nothing spammy about this image. IT makes no mention of the particular garage, and is directly related to the section at hand.)" - I have just sent a copy of the image along with the recommended text and information to using the template and clearly stating where the image is currently hosted on a website that I maintain and where it is published on said website. My name also appears at the bottom of said website in the copyright provision. Please reinstate the image. Thank you. --MarkB1975 (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As you have found out the hard way, when an image appears elsewhere on the Web, policy requires that the copyright holder send a license to OTRS. OTRS, like Commons, is all volunteers and badly understaffed, so it typically runs a backlog of a month or more. Your image will be dealt with when it reaches the head of the queue. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Konrad Reidl.png[edit]

{{own}} {{cc-by-sa-3.0-de}} --RFD3896 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The listed source, author, and subject are all Konrad Reidl. Since the image is a formal studio portrait and not a selfie, it is obvious that that cannot be correct. In order to have it restored, the actual photographer must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


Because there is a congress in Sept. 2014 in Berlin in between Egbert Braatz, it is important, to have a picture of this famous scientist for the whole world. I tried to present it, but you deleted this picture. In March I tried to undelete it for the first time - but nothing happend. Once more:

The picture shows Prof. Egbert Braatz (1849 - 1942) as physician in Koenigsberg, todays Kaliningrad. German: Prof. Egbert Braatz war ein namhafter Chirurg und Gastroenterologe in Königsberg. Er wurde durch die Erstbeschreibung und Erstkonstruktion eines Gastroskopes - besonders in Japan - bekannt. Einzelheiten bei Egbert Braatz

Source: fotographie own work, upload by user from a picture, part of the archive of the, where the user is the chairman Archiv der Franz-Neumann-Stiftung Ursprung: Neumann-Meding als Benutzer ; uploader Neumann-Meding

Kategorien: Koenigsberg, History of Medicine, Albertina Koenigsberg, Physicians, --Neumann-Meding (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The is the second request for this image. While second requests are not forbidden, they are not encouraged. In this case you have added no information -- in fact you have not provided all of the information that you did in the previous request. There you said "Als Quelle hatte ich eingegeben: eigenes Werk, da ich das Foto selbst aufgenommen habe aus einer Zeitschrift "Ostpreußische Artzfamilie"; Adventsrundbrief 1964, S. 15"

As I said at your first request, "The 1964 magazine is certainly copyrighted. The copyright for the photograph will last until 70 years after the death of the photographer. It can be restored to Commons only if the actual photographer (or his heirs) sends a free license to OTRS or if the magazine sends a free license. In the latter case, the magazine must show that its license from the photographer allowed it to sublicense the image to Commons." There is no reason to change that.

I recognize that it is frustrating not to be able to use this image, but Commons hosts only free images and this one is not free. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Sigrid Agren at Rouge Coco Chanel.jpg[edit]

No Comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdmgsjones (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. "When adding a request: ... 4. State the reasons for the request" LX (talk, contribs) 16:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image appears without a free license in many places on the web. Restoration here will require that the photographer send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Wayne Hankey.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Used with explicit permission from copyright owner. Victareon (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Since it has appeared at with an explicit copyright notice, policy requires that the photographer, Kristie Smith, send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Jass bhatia at music launch.jpg[edit]

The image file is given to me by the owner of the image and the person in the image. I request you to please review the file again or let me know the terms and conditions of upload a file

--Ekjeetkaur (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The actual copyright holder, probably the photographer, not the subject, must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


This file was provided by Don Vaccaro himself. He agreed to put it into the public sphere under the commons license. Why do you people keep deleting it? The image of Don, by d is one he owns the copyright on, and he is happy to release it under the commons license so it is freely available. Yet, this just keeps getting deleted. How is he supposed to get share this information? What frigging evidence do you people need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMist (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Was there anything unclear about the explanation you received last time? LX (talk, contribs) 19:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
You should have been referred to Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS.3F. I'm sorry if you were not. See case 1. "I have received permission to upload the image to Commons." The guidance is "Please forward us the permission to the address listed above. We require that the owner makes a clear statement that they release the image under a free license."--Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


Estimados Señores
Por favor solicito a ustedes si pueden reponer este archivo. Este archivo está amparado el la licencia PD-Chile Letra C
Esperando tener favorable respuesta , los saluda --Juanjose1956 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Podrás transcribir lo que dice la letra c de esa ley?, Saludos --Ezarateesteban 12:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Estimdo Ezarate vea por favor aquí el punto C , Template talk:PD-Chile , muchas gracias lo saluda --Juanjose1956 (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Y como sabemos que el titular renunció a sus derechos? --Ezarateesteban 22:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Estimado Esteban
Yo envié un mail OTRS dando autorización respectiva, pero este se encontró que no era necesario debido a que esta fotografía supera con creces los 70 años de antigüedad . Como he señalado en distintas oportunidades esta fotografía se encuentra en el álbum familiar que tengo en mi poder y desde siempre ha sido conocida por familiares y amigos desde su creación.
Es por anterior que esta fotografía se encuentra amparada en el punto C. Esperando que lo explicado sea de su utilidad , saluda --Juanjose1956 (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)--Juanjose1956 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


Estimado administradores
Solicito a ustedes reponer el archivo borrado , debido a que este se encuentra amparado en la Licencia PD-Chile , letra C.
Muchas gracias y espero su favorable respuesta, los saluda nuevamente --Juanjose1956 (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Estimado adjunto aquí el link donde indica el punto C Template talk:PD-Chile , muchas gracias y los saluda. --Juanjose1956 (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Battle for Wesnoth logo.png[edit]

Transfered from User talk:Jameslwoodward#File:Battle for Wesnoth logo.png:

Hello Jameslwoodward, You decided the deletion request to delete because "logos are usually treated different from code". I think this does not apply in this case, as the line quoted by User:Natuur12 explictly includes "content", i.e. artwork like logos. Also the README in the project's repository explictly includes artwork. There is no further statement about an exlusion of the logo, so it is obviously licensed under GPLv2+ as well. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no "obviously" in copyright law. A logo is neither content nor artwork, it is a separate and distinct thing and in order for it to be covered by the free license, it would have to be named. As I said,. the Wikipedia logos are a good example of this -- everything on all WMF projects -- art, text, content, images, etc. -- are freely licensed, but not the logos. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually the Wikipedia-Logo is under a free license, only trademark stuff is also applied. And tradmarked logos are possible on Commons, as per COM:Trademarks. Would be a problem for all logos otherwise… --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I found the discussion after the logo was delinked from en:The Battle for Wesnoth. As User:Nenntmichruhigip pointed out, the license found in the source repository (which I checked this week) specifically includes image files, and the image file uploaded appears to be no exception. RJaguar3 (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

End of transfer

I would like to hear some other oppinions on this. Some other files which propably would have to be deleted under the same reasoning: File:Frozen Bubble icon.png, File:VLC Icon.svg, File:Virtualbox logo.png, File:Audacity Logo With Name.png, File:Logo Battle of Wesnoth in Spanish.png, File:Battle for Wesnoth.png, File:Battle for Wesnoth Map Editor.png, File:Battle for Wesnoth Map.png. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support If artwork is included in the free license, the logo should be OK. What can get a copyright in the logo is essentially artwork. The text of the logo is too short to get a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Sukima switch-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg[edit]

The user who deleted this image (and who knows how many others of mine??) put the deletion notice on my main page not my talk page so I had no idea this was being deleted. That's crafty and evil. It was deleted for copyright violation? But that's nuts. I took the picture myself with these hands I type now. I'm quite annoyed at this user [5] who followed a deletion request from a brand new user. What the heck. Steamed, Nesnad (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if your work was deleted in error. I see that more than 50 of your uploaded files have been deleted.[6] Are they all your own work? Have you uploaded any other images that you took about the same time as this image, around December 2011, with the DMC-FX60 camera that was used to take this image? Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
My goodness. FIFTY of my files? What is going on here? Yes, I've used a Lumix for years (different models different years though), those are all my own images and why are they being deleted? Is it carelessness or some vendetta against me or something? That's all that has been deleted? But 50? I'm speechless! Can I see a list (your link can't be viewed on my permissions level, and even if you restore them I need to be able to go relink etc)? Even if they are restored the countless pages that used my images need to be relinked and everything, that's quite depressing and demotivating. None the less, I strongly protest those deletions (not even getting notice about those files is such a burn too, what's going on?) and request them to be restored ASAP. Nesnad (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the 50 deletions Walter Siegmund mentioned refers to recent deletions, but rather the total number. Given the time you've been here and the number of uploads you have made, that's not a huge amount, and it looks like a lot of it was at your own request, removal of duplicates, cleanup after file moves and other routine maintenance. If you browse through your log 500 entries at a time, you'll see a few red links, and if you click on those, you'll see the reasons for deletion. I also think you were notified of the vast majority (possibly all) of these deletions. To answer Wsiegmund's question about other uploads around the same timeframe taken with a DMC-FX60 more specifically, I see a whole bunch, e.g. File:Kaihin-makuhari-station2011.jpg, File:Asian Kung-Fu Generation-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Rhymester-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Chara-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Chatmonchy-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Thecro-magnons-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg, File:Denkigroove-live-countdownjapan2011.jpg and File:Posumon-hongkong-allcontents.jpg.
It would be interesting to know what the evidence for the supposed copyright violation was. I see that the user who nominated it for deletion has been indefinitely blocked on Japanese Wikipedia for vandalism. Based on automatic translation of ja:Special:Diff/54466755, it sounds like they had opinions about house rules on photography not being followed, but that's a matter between the photographer and the venue and not a reason for deletion from Commons. My prima facie inclination is to Symbol support vote.svg support undeletion. LX (talk, contribs) 19:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for looking into this, LX. The more than 50 deletions are of more than 2000 files uploaded since 2005.[7] They include successful deletion nominations by Nesnad. I understand now that the deleted files list must be used with care to judge the quality of an editor's contributions. I'm sorry I didn't realize you needed special permission to view the deleted files list. I don't know why that is required. Besides the images you list, File:Three Kingdoms Wu - funeral urn.jpg was taken 27 October 2010 in Tokyo with the DMC-FX60 camera. Given the above, including the information about the nominator, I support undeletion. Nesnad, I'm sorry this happened. Please save a permanent link to this discussion so you can reference it if you need to. Thanks, Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Undeletion of photo File:M&C.png[edit]

This photograph is onwned by Mike & Colin themselves and uploaded free of any rights. I am updating this Wikipedia page on their behalf.

PS Before I noticed that this photo was deleted I have uploaded the same photo with filename; Mike & Colin.png You can delete either one of them.

Thanks and best regards, Wesjo Heikens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiker100 (talk • contribs)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image appears without a free license at Policy therefore requires the actual copyright holders (there are two photographs in this image) must send free licenses to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas -- Comments at the end of section, please[edit]

Hi, I am writing to ask for undelete this file from Editing Commons in Wikimedia: File:Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas, Palacio Municipal Panama.jpg The owner of the picture is me, my name is Pedro Méndez Carvajal, I am his son and who took the original picture, and modified later by taking a digital picture from my original. Please let me know what else you need as information, I would like to keep this image of my father to illustrate him with his work, thank you.

--Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Undelete File:Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas, Renoir Copia.jpg

Please undelete this: File:Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas, Renoir Copia..jpg The owner of the picture is me, it was taken from my grandpa, who passed to his son Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas and then he passed to me, Pedro Méndez Carvajal, I am his son. This version is modified later by myself taking a digital picture from the original. thank you. --Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Undelete File:Rodolfo A. Méndez-Vargas, con cuadro casa muller.jpg

Please undelete this file File:Rodolfo A. Méndez-Vargas, con cuadro casa muller.jpg. The owner this pictures is me, I took it directly to my father and to his paints. My name is Pedro Méndez Carvajal. Thank you. --Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Undelete this file: File:Rodolfo Antonio Mendez Vargas, portaretrato.jpg Please undelete this file, File:Rodolfo Antonio Mendez Vargas, portaretrato.jpg, The owner of the picture is me, it was taken from my grandpa, who passed to his son Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas and then he passed to me, Pedro Méndez Carvajal, I am his son. This version is modified later by myself taking a digital picture from the original. thank you. --Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Undelete File:Rodolfo A. Mendez Vargas, Retrato.jpg

Please undelete this file, the owner of the picture is me, it was taken from my grandpa, who passed to his son Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas and then he passed to me, Pedro Méndez Carvajal, I am his son. This version is modified later by myself taking a digital picture from the original. thank you. --Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please undelete this file: File:Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas, Diputado Jorge Adámes.jpg The owner of the picture is me, it was taken from my grandpa, who passed to his son Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas and then he passed to me, Pedro Méndez Carvajal, I am his son. This version is modified later by myself taking a digital picture from my original. thank you. --Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please undelete this file: File:Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas, con planos de carro alegórico 1960.jpg The owner of the picture is me, it was taken from my grandpa, who passed to his son Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas and then he passed to me, Pedro Méndez Carvajal, I am his son. This version is modified later by myself taking a digital picture from my original. thank you. --Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please undelete this File:Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas, con sus esculturas.jpg The owner of the picture is me, it was taken from my grandpa, who passed to his son Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas and then he passed to me, Pedro Méndez Carvajal, I am his son. This version is modified later by myself taking a digital picture from the original. thank you. --Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please undelete this file File:Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas, acuarelas.jpg The owner of the picture is me, my name is Pedro Méndez Carvajal, I am his son and who took the original picture, and modified later by taking a digital picture from my original. thank you. --Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Undelete this File:Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas pintando 1948.jpg The owner of the picture is me, it was taken from my grandpa, who passed to his son Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas and then he passed to me, Pedro Méndez Carvajal, I am his son. This version is modified later by myself taking a digital picture from the original. thank you. Thank you. --Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Undelete this file: Archivo:Rodolfo A. Méndez-Vargas, la secreta.jpg The owner of the picture is me, my name is Pedro Méndez Carvajal, I am his son and who took the original picture, and modified later by taking a digital picture from my original. Thank you, --Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Undelete the file: Archivo:Rodolfo A. Méndez Vargas, sus tres obras mural 5 de mayo, casa miller, heliconia.jpg The owner of the picture is me, my name is Pedro Méndez Carvajal, I am his son and who took the original picture, and modified later by taking a digital picture from my original. Thank you. --Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Here is my understanding of the requests above:

Uploader claims own work

Not own work

Assuming that you are the heir of the artist and inherited the copyright to his works, in the case of the first five, you must send a free license using the procedure at OTRS. The license must be for the copyright to the artwork shown. Without that we do not know that you are actually the heir.
In the case of the remainder, the photographs were not taken by you. They also were not taken by your relative, because he appears in the images (except for the one of you, but the same applies there). Owning a photograph does not make you the owner of the copyright -- that is owned by the photographer or his heirs. In order to restore any of the second group, we will need a free license from each of the photographers, as well as a license from you for the artwork.
Also, you should read and obey Wikipedia:Conflicto de interés. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

[copied from User talk:Jameslwoodward] Jim, you suggested me to have a free license for my own work, but separated a group of photographs that I clarify are not taken for me but for my grandfather..who passed to my father and then he passed to me, do you understand that the photographer who took the picture, was my grandfather and passed away as well and I am the only person who hold the rights for this pictures? could you please clarify this so I can proceed to release the license for all my pictures in the article? thank you.--Rodolfo Antonio Méndez Vargas (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC) [ends]

No, I don't understand. For the second list of photographs, who is in the picture and who is the photographer? For example, we have a formal portrait of you. Who was the photographer? As I understand it, the others all show your father or grandfather? Who is the photographer? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Town of Salem Start Screen.jpg[edit]

The use of this file on Wikipedia falls under Fair Use. Furthermore I have the permission by BlankMediaGames to use the image. Masta Sukeh (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair use isn't good enough for commons. If the permission is sufficient (releasing under a free license), you'll have to go through the OTRS procedure. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per above. Yann (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Don-Plaza 1.jpg[edit]

All files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Яна Чекунова were deleted per COM:FOP#Russia. However, this deletion request was not properly categorized. This has to be reassessed following the change in FOP Russia. --Off-shell (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There were two issues with the files -- lack of FOP and no confidence that they were actually the uploader's own work. Since you are not the uploader, I don't see how we can intelligently discuss the latter question. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The statement was "some of the nominated files unlikely own work". This suggests that only a subset of those files were suspicious. It's a pitty that all files are lost, and not only the suspicious ones. --Off-shell (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Dr. Rolf Martin Schmitz.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: we have a valid permission via OTRS-ticket:2015040210007249. Emha (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Didym (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Iran Castillo en viernes de animas.png[edit]

The image that was deleted, was a photo that i personally took in the premier of the movie "viernes de animas". It has no copyright issues since it is mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calebkane (talk • contribs) 02:29, 21 April 2015‎ (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

File:Nuclear physics 360 degrees in a circle.jpg[edit]

Yes I just found out this was deleted though would like it reversed please for educational purposes. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 04:02, 21 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As commented at the DR, "that's esoterism, not science." It is not clear that it meets our requirement for having any educational purpose since it is not true to fact. Furthermore, it appears on a copyrighted web site, so it is not only out of scope, but also a copyvio. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as per Jim. Yann (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


I have already sent evidence to OTRS (

this is my evidence (requests for permission.)

Please check again.

thanks a lot!

寄件者: service of Adenovo <> 日期: 2015年4月20日 下午3:59 主旨: 著作權聲明 收件者:

我在此確認本人 王崢 是 官方網頁的創作者。


以下列開放授權釋出:創用CC授權-相同方式分享 4.0國際通用版





[寄件者姓名] 王崢
[寄件者職稱] 創意總監
[寄送日期] 2015/04/20

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Watch7learn (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 April 2015‎ (UTC)

File:RUZ 4.1.jpg[edit]

Copyright for the above mentioned file has been waivered by the Organisation Raiffeisen Unternehmerzentrum (RUZ). The file is free to be used by anyone. F crash (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In that case, the actual copyright holder, which is probably the photographer, not an organization, must send a free license to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)