Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]


Undeletion request[edit]

Please review this deletion:

The decision made was incorrect. Thank you Grayghost01 (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You need to present new infomation for your request to be considered. Thuresson (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Grayghost01: You can post it here below. --Rezonansowy (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


Per OTRS ticket 2016031510005968, I request the restoration of the files from Prensa Presidencia. As many user already know, all the contents of all the websites from the Government of Chile are licensed under the {{CC-GobCL}} license according to the Ord. 112/14 of December 2010 (that is mandatory), and this include any of these websites, even if them lacks of the link to the CC-BY license and even if the page contains any restriction statement (these restrictions are just invalid and I requested the updating of the website to be aligned with the Ord. 112/14 of December 2010). (the request at the OTRS Noticeboard is more related with the issue with mail delivery).

Please restore these files as soon as possible in order to be checked by me. The licensing of the contents published by the Government of Chile at its websites after December 2010 shouldn't be questioned anymore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

[One again, ignoring the bold... ] Just advising, that I was engaged in some discussion with that topic, especially via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inicio de las obras de la nueva Línea 6 de Metro.jpg... well, I have no desire [in German: Ich habe kein Bock...] to re-engage in this discussion (and I can't see the OTRS-ticket). For now, I only rechecked some links and copyrights of related sites via my comment Special:diff/152187162 from 03.2015 and... well: after now 6 years they remain as they were (as also some related Flickr accounts, see discussion). As I already said in 2015: I would say: it is a mess... . So... do what you want, I don't care anymore. Currently, I am trying to identify Cross-wiki uploads from which are +/- 85% bad... Good luck. Gunnex (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that there is unclear copyright status. I think OTRS permission is needed. Poké95 11:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
1.- I started this thread with OTRS ticket. An OTRS volunteer already answered to me and confirmed its reception, as well the validity of the answer form the Presidency of Chile. Just ask to the OTRS team how many tickets related to {{CC-GobCL}} received... overwhelming.
2.- The Ord. 112/14 of December 2010 is very clear and applies to every content found in every digital platform (aka. Websites) published by every organism of the Government of Chile (most of them after december 30, 2010, and this was explained for years. Neither disclamier at websites can supersede this official document. Several organism of the State of Chile (Presidency, SEGEGOB, DIBAM, etc.) given the same answer for every Transparency requests by B1mbo and Me.
Again, neither user (specially foreign ones) should questionate our legislation and how it is applied, there is already concensus about this and no doubts should have anymore. --Amitie 10g (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Howicus← ticket owner. @Amitie 10g: Has there been discussion here on Commons that agrees with your reading of the Chilean law? If so, it might be relevant to link it here. I can't find any relevant discussion (using "Chile" as the search term) at COM:VPC. Storkk (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Alan: (as Spanish-native talking user) already know this situation and already checked previous OTRS tickets related to the Ord. 112/14 of 2010. Alan, please check this ticket, too.
Just AGF and undelete the files, the scope of the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 was explined for more than a year, and it is the only document that establish the licensing for works fro the Government of Chile in its digital platforms. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I really do believe you are acting in good faith... but assuming good faith (see Commons:Assume_good_faith#Good_faith_and_copyright) is irrelevant to this discussion: I'm wondering whether your interpretation of Chilean law has been agreed with by anyone else here. The question isn't whether you are trying to comply with copyright law, but rather whether you are correct. Storkk (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Just restore the files, please. If the admins are too fast when deleting files following the little proof of Gunnex and his misinterpretation of the legislation of Chile, why the admins are too slow to restore these files with the proof that I given (four or five OTRS tickes with the same answer from the Government of Chile)? --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I am personally unconvinced, and am waiting for you to show that at least one other person whose copyright opinions are generally respected agrees with your interpretation of this law. You mentioned a single ticket (ticket:2016031510005968)... which are the other three or four? Storkk (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
What? Why you're still questioning the message from the Presidency of Chile and questionating an Ordinance published more that 5 years ago? So Symbol wtf vote.svg WTF?. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
No, as I have continually said, I am questioning your interpretation. Storkk (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
As an OTRS agent, I want to explicitly state that ticket:2016031510005968 does not contain a release under a free license. "Creative Commons Atribución" and "CC-BY" are not free licenses, this isn't a matter of Chilean copyright law.    FDMS  4    10:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
FDMS4, I don't understand your comment. "Creative Commons Atribución", which is the same thing as "CC-BY" is a "free license" as we understand those words here on Commons. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: When releases lacked a CC suite version number, files were generally (from what I've seen) always deleted since there is no way of knowing which legal text exactly they are referring to.    FDMS  4    14:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, is true that the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 don't mention the specific version of the CC-BY licnense, but most of the organisms (starting with adopted the CC-BY-3.0 Chile license. Should we accept this implicit adoptation of that specific license, or I should communicate directly with the SEGEGOB? (considering that I already requested Transparency information (answer pending), asking if the CC-BY-3.0 Chile is the license offically adopted, and what document ratificate it). --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any policy that calls for deletion of a file that is marked CC-BY without a version number. The summaries at and are word for word identical. While the two full versions are different, the differences are by way of clarification and do not change the basic legal theory underlying the license. I have no problem at all with accepting CC-BY-3.0 as the intention of the Chilean government -- or perhaps the latest version in existence at the time the law was passed? .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not a Commons policy (other than COM:PCP), it's copyright. When an upload of mine got deleted back in 2014, it confused me a lot, therefore I asked around onwiki (ping Jkadavoor) and on the CC IRC channel, and the response I got was that one cannot assume what the copyright holder meant unless he explicitly refers to the legal text of a license. This makes perfect sense (I was quite new back in 2014) since a license is simply much more than its summary – when CC updated their license suite, they did make some changes that can make a big difference in court.    FDMS  4    20:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall that happening much. We probably just assume the most recent version number, even though legally yes it would be better to point at a version. If on the other hand something just says a "Creative Commons" license without specifying which one, that is a problem. There isn't that much difference between the CC-BY versions in terms of intent though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Got the ping; so this comment. Yes; we can't assume the copyright holder's intention on version number and country porting. The differences between versions may be marginal; but there are indeed some differences on handling attribution, adaptations, etc. Otherwise we can ignore the previous versions and move to newer one whenever CC release new versions.
There were a lot of previous related discussions at VP and AN earlier when attempting to change the redirects of Template:CC-BY and Template:CC-BY-SA to latest versions; all rejected based on these arguments. I can't find the links from my weak Internet; but think Denniss had some similar arguments (like mine). Jee 02:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I can understand not changing the version that a file is pointing to, but it seems kind of ridiculous to say that a tag of "this file is CC-BY" has no legal effect, to the point we actually delete them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
We have a slightest consensus to consider CC BY as CC BY 1.0 which is the initial version. But that version is almost obsolete. The latest version (4.0) is not acceptable to all due to some reasons. I don't know how we can get into a consensus to assume CC BY=CC BY 3.0. Even if accept such files, we may forced to take them down when asked by the copyright holder due to this vagueness. Keeping files until there is a complaint is against COM:PCP. Jee 04:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that that is a reasonable doubt. I don't think 4.0 was current at the time of the statement in question, so agreed on that, but whatever was current at the time would seem to be reasonable. And I think versions 2.0+ allow a work to be used under any later version anyways -- it's not like mixing a CC-BY-2.0 work in a CC-BY-3.0 derivative is a copyright problem. I'm not so sure we would be forced to take them down. Now, it's possible that the instruction in question was basically an order that material should be released with such a license, while perhaps allowing some exceptions, but not an actual release itself -- that could be different. It's one thing to have a policy, but perhaps another to make an actual release. But while I think it's best that OTRS press for a specific version if possible, I don't think deletion is the answer if the version is the only issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I've no objection if this is accepted uniformly. My memory, in my OTRS time, we asked for version number when not mentioned. I had asked same question in CC mailing list and the answer was also version number is a must. (if I remember well) Jee 16:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
COM:ET does indeed state that a version number is required (since 2011).    FDMS  4    20:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Considering that the Ord. 112/14 of 2010 effectively does not specify the exact version of the CC-BY license, I already contacted to the SEGEGOB three weeks ago, asking what is the exact license officially adopted by the Government of Chile (we accepted implicitly the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Chile license for years, considering that most of the Government websites —like— have a link to the CC-BY-3.0 Chile license), but their answer was not satisfactory, so I requested a Denying reclamation. Therefore, I just contacted to the Departamento de Derechos Intelectuales of the DIBAM (at the time to requested an interview), in an attemp to get reliable information about the licensing, at the time to urge the SEGEGOB to give a reliable answer. That answer will be mandatory. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: The SEGEGOB already answered, but they're still finding the proper and competent person who can answer this issue. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: No answer yet. I'll go to the OIRS of the SEGEGOB during this week if they found the answer. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Amitie 10g: any progress? Green Giant (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunatelly nope. I'll go personally to the OIRS of the SEGOB next week. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • comment chalk another dishonor for commons. why would any government jump through hoops for this site? first Israeli URAA, and now Chile. rest assured, that no government will want to work with this site, and its "malignant assiduity". Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Request for information still in progress. I'll ask again tomorrow or the next week. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for undeletion since it is {{PD-RU-exempt}} without doubt[edit]

The file is {{PD-RU-exempt}} so there is no reason to delete it.
Several users voted for keep and agree it's {{PD-RU-exempt}} (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel)
At least it would be necessary to finish the discussion and come to a conclusion.
Simply deleting it despite other people having good arguments to keep it is disappointing and not all right. --ScriWi (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request for postal cards in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category: Postcards by Peter Emilevich Bendel[edit]

Undeletion request for all postal cards listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category: Postcards by Peter Emilevich Bendel.
And also for the stamps listed in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel.
The 4 stamps have separate undeletion requests above (sorry).
They are all {{PD-RU-exempt}}!
Just as with the 4 stamps I request undeletion for, I don't understand what reason could there be to doubt {{PD-RU-exempt}}.
Either they should be undeleted, or: User:Jcb and User:Jameslwoodward have to delete all postal cards with paintings and license {{PD-RU-exempt}}. That would be a whole lot of deletion requests.
At least it would be necessary to finish the discussion and come to a conclusion.
Simply deleting it despite other people having good arguments to keep it is disappointing and not all right. If this is not undeleted or at least explained in detail, I really don't see any reason for more contributions from my side. It's been a lot of work to write the article about de:Peter Emiljewitsch Bendel and a lot of work to learn and process the creator page, gallery and categories. As soon as the work is nearly finished... the admins come by without any respect and simply delete at will. Is that what "commons" means??? --ScriWi (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: Could you please comment whether you object this undeletion or not. And if so, why in your opinion {{PD-RU-exempt}} does not apply here? Ankry (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for re-asking. I'm certainly not an expert on copyright, but I read for hours and hours before I invested a lot of work into the article and categorization of Peter Emilevich Bendel's work. As far as I understood it, in the socialism system of the sovjet union, e.g. all the works done for the sovjet post (or to speak more general: "for the state") were considered to be "open to the public". Copyright laws in russia have been only revised beginning in 1991. If there is doubt, maybe it would be good to re-discuss the legal issue in Commons:Village pump/Copyright? At former times, postal cards like this (with paintings on it) were very common in USSR. Many of these are still online, so either postal cards by P. E. Bendel should be restored or the other postal cards have to be deleted, too. That would be a lot to delete, e.g. see Category:People on postal cards of the Soviet Union or the category Category:PD-RU-exempt (postal cards). The same goes for stamps, e.g. Category:Stamps of the Soviet Union, 1976, all stamps. All of these have the same license - {{PD-RU-exempt}} - just as Bendel's works that were deleted (by mistake, in my opinion). --ScriWi (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
One more thing: Thanks for re-considering and re-asking, but: Is it a good idea to re-ask User:Jcb? He will probably feel challenged to defend the decision and he already denied the reasoning of several people that voted for keep and also denied my reasoning on his talk page. So my hopes are very low that he will change his mind. Sorry, but if one wants to drain the swamp, don't ask the frogs. As stated above, I'm new to the system here, but it's a suggestion that came to my mind. I would be glad, if unprejudiced persons and admins could decide in this matter. Ideally, they should have experience with {{PD-RU-exempt}}. Thanks for bearing with me. --ScriWi (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I think your comment is in very poor taste. It is absolutely reasonable to ask a deleting admin whether they considered factors that apply to specific exemptions. The deleting admin should not close an undeletion discussion as "not done", but is actively encouraged to elaborate on their decision. Storkk (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The Russian/Soviet government may be the copyright holder of the layout of the stamps, but there is no indication that they would hold the copyright of the work of Peter Emilevich Bendel. Therefore the Russian government cannot put such depictions of his work into PD, at least not in a way that would be acceptable in civilized countries. This could be different if the work of Peter Emilevich Bendel would form a de minimis part of the stamp, but this is obviously not the case. Even ScriWi admits that he used the files to depict the work of Peter Emilevich Bendel rather than to depict 'Soviet stamps'. The fact that other infringements are still online is not a reason to restore these infringements. There has been suggested that I would have to delete those other infringements as well, but as far as I know there is no obligation for admins to hunt for comparable cases as soon as they close some DR. Jcb (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 :Ok, sorry for the "poor taste", I apologize. I'm just desparate here. It's fine with me, if you think he is the only person to decide.
Please, you and also User:Jcb, take into consideration that I also asked on User talk:Jameslwoodward, and Jim seems to admit that he was not really aware that stamps and postal cards from russia (before 1993) might have been issued with different copyright rules compared to other countries. --ScriWi (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
There has been suggested that I would have to delete those other infringements as well, but as far as I know there is no obligation for admins to hunt for comparable cases as soon as they close some DR. Maybe you won't... but maybe I should hunt and open a DR for every comparable case?
Therefore the Russian government cannot put such depictions of his work into PD, at least not in a way that would be acceptable in civilized countries. They can and they did and we are bound to the law what was the law at that time. You are not higher than the law of pre 1993 just because you think you are civilized and others are not civilized. If you think it's not civilized to keep works of painters online, that worked for the USSR then you must go ahead and delete all the files. I really don't find other ways to express my feelings of frustration and of being suppressed and treated unrightful here. Why is only my work destroyed? Why get others away with it? It gives me the impression: There's only one law here and that is yours, the law of the strongest. :-(
Laws really don't make sense, if they are not laws for everyone.
I have found more stamps online, that were created by P. E. Bendel. Look to the category... Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel, there is more work for you to do. --ScriWi (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I too asked JCB to review his decision but he prefers to deal with it here. I think Jcb's reasoning is flawed and that he refuses to understand that all Russian stamps are in the public domain. You should be aware that this is not the first such deletion discussion to take place, so you should make sure to review all the kept Russian deletion requests listed at Category:Philately related deletion requests/kept most of which included some sort of alleged copyright image in the stamp design. A supporting view is that I have looked and cannot find any Russian stamps included in Category:Philately related deletion requests/deleted. The files deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category: Postcards by Peter Emilevich Bendel are not the only such deletion that have taken place and considering this topic has been discussed before and, as pointed out by several editors, all Russian stamps are in the public domain. If we continue along this path then all Russian stamps will need to be deleted. Russian stamps are not like French stamps where both the engraver and the designer must be dead 70 years pma for the stamps to fall into the public domain; in Russia all stamps are public domain as government works, no matter their arrangement with the artists. And we do not have any court cases to fall back on as was the case in Germany a few years ago; see Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Germany and m:Wikilegal/Copyright of Images in German Postage Stamps. There is some mention at Template talk:PD-RU-exempt about stamps and postal cards as well at Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Russia. There have been other specific discussions about the copyright of Russian stamps and I must find that for you. These files deleted by these two deletion discussion deletions were all one sided contrary to the closing admin, which together with a few other similar deletions, are, in my opinion, just poor judgement and lack of knowledge of the specific specialised topic. I for one do nominate copyright violation stamps for deletion, as I have done for years, but these are not some of those. Ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be refreshing if we could all leave the editorializing on people's motivations and characters, and stick to the facts as everybody sees them. Jcb's argument seems to be that {{PD-RU-exempt}} implies that the stamps would not have a new copyright as a derivative work. I think we all agree that a Russian stamp featuring PD artwork would be PD. Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Russia states that ... works still under copyright can be used by the Russian post, without altering the copyright status of the work used... ScriWi and Ww2censor: could you please elaborate on whether you think that a PD work containing a non-PD portrait could be legally cropped to just the portrait? Storkk (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I also ask for undeleting the Russian/Soviet stamp images per decisions made in several other similar cases related to images bearing the licence template {{PD-RU-exempt}}. The comprehensive clarification has been provided here by Ww2censor, a highly experienced Wikimedia/Wikipedia editor and philatelist himself. The previous and current discussions on PD-RU-exempt-licensed images are a consequence of superficial judgement and insufficient knowledge by the closing admins. Sadly, we encounter such a disappointing situation of Russian/Soviet stamp image deletion over and over again. --Michael Romanov (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support arguments of Ww2censor. All soviet/russian stamps are in PD irrespective of what they depict. Nickpo (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Storkk: assuming that cropped PD work may be a non-PD work means that PD is not compatible with CC-BY-SA license. Is that what you intended to suggest? Either the work is PD as whole work and as its parts, or it is just a non-PD work. Ankry (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure a work is properly in the Public Domain if it cannot be modified freely, including cropping. This is different from de minimis arguments regarding cropping, but I'm not really trying to suggest anything: I'm trying just to get at the actual arguments being made. I am leaning towards the opinion that the "PD-ness" of a stamp in Russia regards only the stamp as a derivative work, and says nothing about the underlying, which is indeed what Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Russia seems to say. I have difficulty understanding the implications of restoring, e.g. File:USSR EWCS №38 Tammsaare sp.cancellation Tallinn.jpg: can the portrait be cropped and used to illustrate an article on Anton Hanzen-Tammsaare on a Anton Hanzen-Tammsaare fan-club t-shirt? Storkk (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
      • IMO, you can crop the image and use the cropped image in any way until it is cropped from the stamp/postcard and not from another source. That is how copyright extemption works, IMO. Same for FOP extemption (sculptures also have an author) and Fair Use extemption (the latter Commons incompatible, however). Ankry (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Wait a minute, colleagues. if anyone wants to abolish PD for stamps just because you cannot crop an image, then, ALL stamps in the Category:Stamps that were created by people died 70 years ago or earlier later must be deleted. That is just ridiculous. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
        • 70 years ago or later, and in certain countries, yes. Why exactly is that ridiculous? Storkk (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Yes, of course, I meant “later”. It's ridiculous just because in this case we have to delete the vast majority of stamps for all countries already uploaded on Commons. Only stamps of the 19th century (starting from from the first one of 1840) could be safe to keep. --Michael Romanov (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
            • I think the rhetorical flair you are trying to display is destroying your argument. Clearly, stamps from many countries where the author died before 1946 and there is no separate copyright for stamps would be fine. Also, my opinion would be quite different in this case if COM:STAMPS#Russia didn't explicitly state that the underlying work's copyright is not affected. To me, that makes little sense unless PD-RU-exempt applies only to the stamp as a derivative work. Just like a US Federal government employee can make a photograph of a modern statue - the photographic work may be PD, but we would not be able to accept the photo, as it is a derivative of an unfree work. Storkk (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion after reading the discussion as the deletion reason does not seem valid to me while {{PD-RU-exempt}} is still considered a valid template. I suggest rather to discuss validity of this template (whether this extemption is Commons compatible or maybe it can be applied only to limitted number of cases) in COM:Village pump/Copyright instead of deleting works of specific authors this way. Ankry (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree that this should be discussed on COM:VPC, but it is currently too unclear for me to support, and I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until there is a VPC consensus. Storkk (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • * As I stated before: I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a expert on copyright issues. I'm just a poor little author that tried to do his first contributions to Wikipedia and Commons, because he was asked to do so as a favor to another person. At the moment I regret that I started on this at all. But I knew beforehand that copyright issues are tough ones, so I tried to be very careful and I read hours and hours sweating on the subject before I decided to deduce from the main reasoning I read that it's worth to invest days and weeks of work to contribute on this subject. But it seems that I was wrong. If you are not a lawyer, what else can you do besides looking at licenses of the other russian stamps and russian postal cards (seeing they are all {{PD-RU-exempt}}) and reading and trying to understand and relying on summaries of russian copyright laws, that seemed reosonable and seemed to have reached a form of common sense, even here on "Wikimedia Commons". One of the main encouragements (regarding stamps) I relied on was this one: Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#USSR, clearly showing Public domain, so why are we discussing at all (about stamps)? If User:Jcb were right, at least someone should do some big modifications there, because otherwise it would be heavily misleading. When it comes to postal cards, since I'm not a lawyer, I'm a little unsure if the same reference also covers the postal cards and envelops with printed art work on it. Maybe not. As far as I read and understood the russian copyright laws, it may depend on the fact if these are considered to be "folklore" or not. And as far as I could sum it up (without being a lawyer) postal cards and envelopes with artwork printed on them are in fact classified to be "folklore work". As I understand it, the post officials of the sovjet union wanted to show "folkorish" portraits of important persons or heroes. However, they clearly preferred good painters to do it, because they wanted to honor the depicted persons, of course. I think that's just being rational, or who would ask a 10 year old with a pencil to do a portrait of Albert Einstein for a postal card? But even if they were created by professional painters, that doesn't automatically make them "not folklorish". I'm sure the painters themself never doubted that they give all copyrights to their employer, the sovjet post. And by (russian) laws, as far as I can understand it, they all became public domain this way. And to me it also seems perfectly rational, because as an artist, what profit would you expect for a painting which has been published on millions of postal cards??? (Sorry, bear with me, not being a lawyer but thinking about a law, I find it very important that there's a rational explanation next to it.) I think it's in our all interest not to create the impression that only lawyers are allowed to contribute here. --ScriWi (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "as an artist, what profit would you expect"... Sorry, I know, this is certainly different in other countries and/or other ages. But then it's made clear by different laws. However, even in western countries of the presence, often there are working contracts that will give all copyrights to the employer. --ScriWi (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @ScriWi: Nobody is impugning your character or trying to denigrate your work, and I agree that the guidance on COM:STAMPS is unclear. Storkk (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, COM:STAMPS seems to be very clear about USSR stamps (Public domain), it just happens that some users and admins don't get along with it for reasons that are unclear. Jcb for instance is comparing "civilized" and "non civilized" countries as his guideline (who decides this?). You ask about cropping, but as I understand it, if they are PD then cropping is not an issue, so first level of discussion is, if they are PD. As Michael Romanov pointed out, this happens over and over again. I can only thank Ankry for his suggestion: First these Files should be undeleted and then you should discuss the COM:STAMPS guidance or {{PD-RU-exempt}} in general. Otherwise, in my opinion, it's unfair that Bendel's works are offline (for a long time) and many, many similar cases continue to be usable. A few weeks ago, I was asking a question on COM:VPC, I didn't get a response in several days. --ScriWi (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not being a lawyer, Jcb (and other lay people too) just fails to grasp a very simple basic thing. As a graduate of a law school, I will try to explain the law in plain words: In this world there are different countries; every one of them has different laws. USSR laws are different from the USA laws or from UK laws. It is not that they are better or worse, more civilized or less civilized; they are just what they are. When deciding what items should be copyright protected, the USSR lawmakers made several exceptions for certain items and denied them copyright protection in principle. In particular, they stated that official signage are not copyrightable. Yes, just accept the fact: Soviet banknotes and postage stamps are not subject to copyright protection, as are folklore items and news items. No matter what is written or depicted on a USSR postage stamp, as long as it has an official postage stamp status, it is not copyrighted. A postage stamp is not a derivative work, it has its own independent legal status. Now a postage stamp has certain features, which clearly show to us that what we see is a postage stamp. If you strip these evident features away, how do we know that it is a postage stamp? So, if you cut out, say, a Bendel's picture from such a stamp and put it in a Wikipedia article, you may be taken to court for copyright violation and will then have to prove in court that it is just the uncopyrightable USSR postage stamp image, and legal proceedings are rather costly, you know. Therefore, it is recommended to put only postage stamp images in their entirety on WP pages. A de minimis principle has been mentioned here several times. However, this principle deals only with copyrighted material: when a copyrighted item is used in another copyrighted item. Please forgive me repeating it again specifically for non-lawyers: a USSR postage stamp is an uncopyrighted item. Do not criticize or doubt this provision of Soviet/Russian law, just understand and accept it and use freely any images of USSR postage stamps in Wikipedia or elsewhere (at least, until the law changes). --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Imagine I am being very dense for a moment, but please assume I am genuinely trying to understand, and would like them to be restored if we can without violating Bendel's copyright. Perhaps I could ask you to explain where the following analogy breaks down: how is this different to a US Federal employee ({{PD-USGov}}) taking a photograph of a copyrighted sculpture? In that case too, the PD nature of the photograph does not affect the copyright of the statue (just like these stamps, per COM:STAMPS#Russia). Storkk (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
      • (Again...) I'm not a lawyer, but as I tried to point out earlier, eployees often (have to) give away all copyrights to their employers. Please see Federation: General Overview Of Russian Copyright Law, it states: Generally, it is the author who holds the exclusive right. However, when a work is created by an author who is employed for the purpose of creating that work, then it is the employer, not the author, who holds copyright in the work, unless otherwise provided by contract between the author and the employer. CC Article CC 1295 provides certain exceptions and limitations to this rule. (I didn't look at the mentioned exceptions though.) So in my opinion, Bendel doesn't hold any copyrights on any work done for the sovjet post. Correct me if I'm wrong, but probably the copyright holder is the Russian Federation which exempted it to public domain (at least the stamps, I still don't know for sure about the art-depicting postal cards and envelopes, unless they are "news" or "folklore" which would exempt it as well). One may find this civilized or not, but it's for sure, that many work contracts are similar when it comes to this point, even in the (so called) modern civilized countries. Personally, I don't like the attempt to distinct "civilized" from "non civilized" at all, because in my opinion it's not respecting law of nations. Even if I grew up in a western european country, I refuse to call another country "non civilized", just because it has different laws or culture or technical development. (In my opinion, often this is propaganda... be careful about that!) --ScriWi (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Please drop the "civilized" vs "uncivilized" language. I know you didn't start it, but I don't think it's helpful. Are you asserting that Bendel was employed by the Soviet Post in order to create these? Is there any evidence for that? I'm sorry if I missed it as you imply by "Again..." Storkk (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Ok, sorry. The "again" was misleading sorry, I meant "again I'm not a lawyer". Yes, I would assert that he was employed to create these. Unfortunately, it's hard to show proof. I did a lot of searching for my article on Bendel, but it's hard to find sources that go into detail about the 1970ies and 1980ies in USSR. Of course it's impossible (for me) to present the work contract he had with the soviet post. So, if you would assume the worst case, then he might have had a clause that reserves him the copyrights. But thinking back to that time and knowing the socialism/communism organization of the state departments at that time, I don't think that's possible. Now you could say, no proof so we have to delete the files... but then this is true for hundreds and thousands more stamps and postal cards. It's a "stereotype" design of postal cards, not an individual design. It was used by the soviet post to show or honor important persons by showing their portraits. Some are from Bendel, but many are created from other painters. Look for example at (and interestingly there's also a cropped version online and not deleted ;-) Seeing the "stereotype" nature of the postal cards, yes, I would assert that it was a kind of "standard order" or "employment" by the soviet post with different painters or graphic designers and I think it's nearly 100% sure to assert that these were done by "standard contracts" that vested all copyrights with the employer. But if you doubt it, you have to delete all of them, not only Bendel's. --ScriWi (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
          • I would assert, because of the "stereotype design" of these postal cards, it's why so many of them successfully are online for years with {{PD-RU-exempt}}, because that design itself is a kind of proof that the cards have "news" or "folklore" character, which would exempt them to public domain by russian laws (see the link I gave above). --ScriWi (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
            • If he was employed by Soviet post in order to create the artwork (as opposed to creating the artwork that was then contracted to be used by the Soviet post), as an employee if that is relevant in Russian law, then I think this is a totally different argument, and I would lean towards supporting undeletion. I don't know whether this was standard practice, and absent any Bendel-specific documentation I think we need to figure out what usually happened in these cases. Did they commonly license pre-existing artwork? Did they commission artwork (and if so, how does that affect whether it's PD)? I am well over my head here, and am just pointing out things that might convince me one way or the other. I think we need wider input - I will start a COM:VPC discussion tonight or tomorrow if one has not already been started. Storkk (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Soviet and Russian official signs (including stamps, money, postcards etc.) are not in public domain («общественное достояние»). They are exempt from copyright («не являются объектами авторских прав»). They are not copyrightable. No one can legally can claim copyright over them, just like no one can claim copyright over a circle. In Russian law, the concept of public domain applies only to copyrightable works, and is somewhat limited, because non-pecuniary rights are still protected. Reasoning for making money and postage signs exempt from copyright is simple: first, no one can legally challenge their official use and distribution (for example, by making request to state their name on every copy — an unalienable right under Russian law), second, copying them is already a crime or an administrative delict. Our ability to scan such objects and legally use their electronic copies as illustrations is just a (maybe unintended) side effect. Copyrighted images can be legally incorporated in such non-copyrightable items only if copyright holder agrees to that or there is a law that allows confiscation of rights. We can safely assume that such permission was given in all cases with Soviet and Russian postal signs (or such law existed back in early history of Soviet state) — there is no sound reason to challenge that. However, we cannot assume that permission wasn't limited — maybe copyright holder had renounced their claims for the image when it used as a postal sign, but still has rights for any other use of an image. We cannot even assume that artists who were hired specifically for the creation of the design of a postage sign renounced all of their exclusive rights. Therefore, we can safely use scans of Soviet and Russian postage signs only 'as is'. We cannot make derivative works out of them (except, perhaps, some digital enhancement). Technically, that means «freedom to make changes and improvements» clause of definition of "Free Cultural Works" is violated. But there is a long-standing consensus that «public domain» stamps are allowed on Commons. They have very high cultural value, and it's perfectly legal to use them 'as is'. There are literally tens of thousands files that should be deleted if we deny the possibility of hosting «exempt from copyright» items on Commons. The issue is not limited to Soviet and Russian stamps: all stamps from post-Soviet states, Albania, Romania and Finland (pre-1990) are also 'non-copyrightable' and have the same issues. That must be a site-wide decision — if such files are no longer allowed, there are a lot of policies that should be amended and there must be a transitional period to allow to move the files to another host (as it's perfectly legal to distribute them without modification). --Grebenkov (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Grebenkov, for the help and clarification. I tried to find texts on the internet explaining that, but it's not so easy to find. I guess, my big mistake was to create a "Creator page" for Peter Emilevich Bendel and to use it to fill in the creator line of his works. Usually, the {{PD-RU-exempt}} items only show e.g. "soviet post" or "USSR post" in the creator line. My filling in of a person's creator page seems to have caused this avalanche, I'm feel very sorry about it. If this is the problem, I would be very glad if the works of Bendel would be undeleted and his name removed from the creator line, just to avoid confusion. As I wrote earlier, my father in law asked me to honor him, that's why I came to this idea to show his name in the creator line. :-( --ScriWi (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The flawed understanding of Russian stamp and postal stationery copyright has been going on for quite some time as can be seen by a number of nominations that I reference above but most of them were kept and those that were deleted should be restored. This issue keeps raising it head because deleting admins don't get the Russian situation which is quite different to our understanding of stamp copyright in most other countries, as I've also pointed out. Here is another one Kept nomination and a second Kept nomination whose details should clarify the issue for those who don't get it.
There are two discussion on the {{PD-RU-exempt}} template talk page Template talk:PD-RU-exempt#Clarify that PD-RU-exempt works can incorporate existing material that is copyright restricted when separated.3F and also further up the page under the heading stamps that make it quite clear some copyright material may appear on stamps but they are still PD. Another section further down the page Template talk:PD-RU-exempt#Postcards clarifies the difference between the postal cards (and postal stationery) produced by the postal authorities that have pre-printed indicia and other design elements and are PD, as opposed to postcard, which are not always PD. There was also a court case in Ukraine, a legal successor state of the RSFSR and USSR, whose laws are virtually identical to Russia when it comes to stamps. This case specifically confirms (last paragraph) what the philatelists, and some others, have been saying about Russian stamps all along, no matter the content, they are freely licenced. Ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I repeat, postal signs are not public domain (PD). They are not 'freely licensed'. They are 'exempt from copyright'. That's three different things. Basically, with public domain works everyone can do everything: copy, modify, derive from them etc. With freely licensed works you only can do things that are allowed by license, but no less than use, study, copy as a whole and in part, derive and redistribute derivatives. With exempt from copyright works like postage signs, it's not obvious that we can do all those things freely, in particular, copying in part, deriving and redistributing derivatives. Take this stamp as an example (painting in question is {{PD-RusEmpire}}, but let's assume it's still protected). If we crop the image to include just the lemons, the resulting image won't be a postage sign any longer (it will not contain the required elements). Will it still be 'exempt from copyright'? Even more difficult case: some artist takes the stamp and draws full-size oil painting based on it (which, for all intents and purposes, will be plagiarising the original work of art) and proceeds to sell it. Will he be able to get away with it just because he used 'exempt from copyright' postage sign and not the original painting to make his copy? It's highly unlikely that we can answer 'yes' to these question. There is an opinion from professional lawyers that we can use the image of the postage stamp, but not the image on the postage stamp. That applies to all postage signs, by the way, even if the image was created specifically to be used on them. Thus, we have only limited rights in relation to postage signs. This all boils down to three alternatives: 1) continue to host images of Soviet, Russian and other countries 'exempt from copyright' postage signs, but warn of the limitations with relation to derivative works; 2) amend the policies and delete all images (except where {{PD-old}} applies), possibly, moving them to local wikis (as was the case with NoFoP images from Russia); 3) pretend to ignore the problem, occasionaly dealing with drive-by deletions on case by case basis. IMHO, third way is the worst. --Grebenkov (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Even though we use a template the includes the term PD, as Grebenkov says Russian stamps are "exempt from copyright." Essentially the extraction of a copyright image from a Russian stamp could be considered somewhat analogous to the de minimis concept in so far as extracting a copyright images from a larger image is a copyright violation, so extracting an image from a Russian stamp is assumed to be considered a copyright violation, but in both case the original images are not copyright violations. Grebenkov also mentions the opinion of professional lawyers which seems pretty clear to me even using Google translate. Correct me if I'm wrong here but considering that all stamps are designed by an artist, be they identified or not, and we are questioning the copyright law of the country, then, if it is decided that the artist's death is the determining factor, which in some countries like France, it is, then we have a much bigger issue; we would have to delete most post-1945 stamps, assuming 70 years pma. This would involve 33 years of stamps from the US alone, even though all government work stamps were PD until 1978 and 20 years of UK and its former colony and territory stamps amongst others, such as UK and Ireland which have 50 year terms specifically for government works, and additionally many other stamps whose artists died within the last 70 years or are still alive. That's not even mentioning stamps from most countries listed at Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. Then try to find all the artists and their death dates. This is not a decision to be taken lightly or even in this forum as its implications are vast. I have no idea how many stamps might be affected but in the the German case alone it is in the region of 9-10,000 stamps and that has been going on so far for 4 years and is not near its end. We really don't need to give ourselves another big headache if we can avoid it. Ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with your statement “then we have a much bigger issue; we would have to delete most post-1945 stamps.” Exactly! This is what I was talking about several days ago (please change "earlier" for "later" there), although I was reproached for using "ridiculous" to describe this complicated situation. Please also take note that {{PD-old-50}} is applicable to stamps of Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Iraq, Japan, Laos, Malawi, Manchukuo, Namibia, North Korea, Panama, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, and United Arab Emirates, among others. ALL post-1945 stamps would total an enormous amount of images to be deleted. And this would apply not only to the stamps themselves, but also to images of postal stationery, covers, postal cards, etc., that bear those stamps. Just a massive deletion event! --Michael Romanov (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


I will start a COM:VPC discussion tonight or tomorrow if one has not already been started.
— User:Storkk 17:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Please do! (If it's the only way or the best way to move on with this discussion (?) ) --ScriWi (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please also note the section above: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Request_for_undeletion_since_it_is_.7B.7BPD-RU-exempt.7D.7D_without_doubt, where Butko and ~riley request undeletion of the stamps (sorry for my duplicate undeletion request, earlier they were separated for stamps and postal cards). --ScriWi (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please also note the re-upload of the stamp by Steelwool
apparently caused by the deletion of File:John Maclean. USSR postage stamp. 1979.jpg
which proves that this deletion and discussion procedure makes users getting desparate. --ScriWi (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I just want to respond to this and add that I re-uploaded that image of a Soviet postage stamp ensuring that I apportioned the correct copyright status using {PD-RU-exempt} as per the guidelines found on Wikipedia for BOTH Soviet-era and post-Soviet postage stamps. It was subsequently removed (again) by User:jcb on what I consider to be entirely officious and petulant grounds. Sadly, I think I've now had enough of Wikipedia. --Steelwool (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the discussion was interesting and detailed and comprehensive, but it seems to be ignored by people deciding about this.
So what are the next steps? Who is in charge?
The deletion of the files is quickly and easily done. The undeletion seems much more difficult, if not impossible. :-( --ScriWi (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

For stamps, please note the section above Commons:Undeletion_requests#Request_for_undeletion_since_it_is_.7B.7BPD-RU-exempt.7D.7D_without_doubt

Must be restored. File was deleted ignoring {{PD-RU-exempt}}, Commons:Stamps/Public domain#USSR and arguments on DR
— User:Butko 17:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging closing admin of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Stamps by Peter Emilevich Bendel - Jcb.
— User:~riley Revision as of 00:29, 9 May 2016

I think it's time to undelete. Can we now have those files back, please? --ScriWi (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I am currently extremely busy, and will continue to be for a few days. Since it requires actual thought, I have not started the discussion on COM:VPC yet. You are welcome to do so. Apologies I could not do it when I said I would. Storkk (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Understandable, of course (sorry). But thanks for your feedback. The beginner I am, I don't really know how thinks at COM:VPC are handled, but I may start it and just point to the discussion here. Otherwise, I'm a little worried the whole discussion has to be repeated. --ScriWi (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

File:LAIA SANZ 2016.JPG[edit]

{{Generalitat de Catalunya}} Saludos esta foto es de la categoría CREATIVE COMMONS!!! --Campeones 2008 (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment [1] I don't understand, even with google transtate, if the source is ok or not. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Christian, as you will see at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-gencat, I nominated the template for deletion because I thought the license was not free enough, but Carl and others convinced me I was wrong, so I withdrew it. Therefore, I would support the restoration of this file, but only if we could verify that it came from gencat and not from somewhere else.
The source address given in the file description is for the image, not for the page on which it appears. The reason we require the address of the page and not the image is just this problem -- to be able to verify the status of an image.
Google does not find the image at gencat, but only at which has an explicit copyright notice. Therefore, I don't think we can restore this without further information. If gencat obtained the image from Mundo Deportivo, then gencat has no right to freely license it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Jim, in this page, whose link has been provided in the deleted file page after the upload, there is a section called Arxius adjunts where a link lead to the not cropped image, this is the same domain as the main web site. Then I think we can say it came from gencat. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough -- you miss my point. It depends on the origin of the image. If gencat got the image from Mundo Deportivo, then gencat can't freely license it unless, very unlikely, gencat bought a license from Mundo Deportivo that included the right to freely license the image to others. If, on the other hand, Mundo Deportivo got the image from gencat, then we are OK. Unfortunately, it is well beyond a significant doubt, maybe even more likely that gencat got it from MD, rather than the other way around. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Hard to say, indeed, the difference between the publications is probably some hours. if we admit here that the internet address contain publication dates, we have for gencat : and for mundodeportivo Then I will say mundodeportivo predates. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Original materials of VOA[edit]

In July 2014 we had a global discussion about admissibility of the use on Commons of files of Voice of America (VOA;

We followed our logical inference and decided that we can not use these files.

Moreover there was a strange collision "terms and conditions" of all regional sites in all languages contained statements about the Public Domain license, but English site had not.

After that we made changes to the template and deleted hundreds of files with link to that discussion (for example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:RD-180.jpg).

Almost half a year I led a continuous conversation with the regional and global offices of VOA, their owner Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG;, and even divisions of United States Department of State.

You can see some of the public details here: User talk:Krassotkin#VoA.

And now we have:

  1. Clear and satisfactory statement from BBG (owner of VOA) on it official site BBG Direct: Terms Of Use >> Copyright Statement: "All original text, audio and video material produced exclusively by VOA and OCB is in the public domain".
  2. The direct links to BBG Direct from Terms of Use/Privacy Policy >> PERMISSIONS of English version of VOA and have not any license restrictions there.
  3. Clear and satisfactory statement about PD license on all regional sites in all languages including after sites redesigned and our abundant communication with them. For example see Russian VOA statement about PD-license: "Все тексты, а также аудио- и видеоматериалы, публикуемые на сайте и произведенные сотрудниками компании «Голос Америки» являются общественным достоянием" (the same than before "All original ...").
  4. Ticket:2016030510006413 in which the Acting Director, Public Relations of VOA Scot Riddlesberger wrote: "Material produced solely by VOA is governed under the following statutes:".

So we have an unambiguous confirmation of the Public Domain license for the all original materials of global and local editions of VOA (1-3) and confirmation of our good faith efforts to investigate the situation (4).

Therefore we must:

  • Restore all original files of VOA (only original, not AP, Reuters etc).
  • Change note in VOA template: Template:PD-USGov-VOA.

My list for restore:

You can add other deleted for this reason files in the discussion.

Please ping interested in this topic.

Thank you! --sasha (krassotkin) 11:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC) My list for restore:

in relation with this discussion. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is my list:

and also files listed in:

--Wcam (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Finally we have a clear statement of the VOA's global policy. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Cautious Symbol support vote.svg Support. "All original text, audio and video material produced exclusively by VOA and OCB is in the public domain." in the "Copyright Statement" section of is very clear; however the same document also has variety of bizarre non-copyright requirements for the people accessing BBG Direct website where the content is kept:
  • not allowed to be accessed by people in the US (Applicant confirms that it is located outside the United States.)
  • the attribution requirement ( "Applicant shall credit “VOA” or “Voice of America;” “Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty;” “RFA” or “Radio Free Asia;” “MBN” or “Middle East Broadcasting Networks;” and “OCB” or “Office of Cuba Broadcasting,” as appropriate for any Content used.)
  • need for written permission before distribution of any content of the website in the US (Applicant understands and agrees that Applicant may not intentionally broadcast, distribute, or transmit the Content into the United States, its possessions, or its territories unless Applicant is given prior express permission in writing from BBG to do so. )
As a result it sounds like I already have breached the terms of the end user agreement by reading the Terms Of Use while being located inside the US. Also above quotes of "public domain" content of the Terms Of Use are being distributed on the website in the US. I wonder if Ticket:2016030510006413 constitute written permission before distribution. However those seems like conditions for people accessing the content on BBG website. Once it is off BBG website I guess it is PD. --Jarekt (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Krassotkin: as you know now who to contact, could you clarify with them this US restriction matter? --Dereckson (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dereckson: I'm sorry. I also believe that these points do not apply to our case. Communication with these organizations requires a lot of time. They can not answer for a few months even after several reminders. My English is so poor that requires a lot of effort for such correspondence. Thus I would like to limit myself the reached goal. --sasha (krassotkin) 19:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I never thought the 2013 law changed the copyright status in any way. The restrictions above are legal -- lawmakers were concerned about VOA (which is essentially a U.S. propaganda media outlet) should never be targeted at the U.S. public themselves lest it ever be politicized, but rather just as a foreign policy activity. Therefore, the w:Smith–Mundt Act forbid the VOA from broadcasting to U.S. citizens, which in turn I'm sure led to the above restrictions. In 2013, that law was relaxed to allow some distribution to U.S.-based media outlets, but I don't think that law change ever affected the copyright status itself -- the law allowed the VOA to recoup the costs of such distribution via a fee, which may be why they removed the clear copyright statement they used to have, but I don't think there was anything which would change the status in respect to 17 USC 105 (the part of copyright law which makes US Government works PD). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support thanks for having clarified this matter. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The statement from the Director should be sent to OTRS, but it's ok to leave the information/images on Commons. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive level of dedication by Sasha here. Good to see the public domain grow just a bit. Face-wink.svg INeverCry 17:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The PD-USGov-VOA template as of today still shows material after 2013 is for NC only, shouldn't it be changed again to reflect the above discussion? Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I have removed such wording in {{PD-USGov-VOA/en}}. Please feel free to revert or revise if appropriate. --Wcam (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Illume OS 2.1 apps window.png[edit]

File was not used prior to the nomination (and Illume OS is not longer developed and was superseded by Fluorite OS), but was properly categorised under PCManFM and LXDE, perfectly in scope of Linux screenshots (and considering that the Linux distributions have different customisations in look and feel), and no copyvio in any way. --Amitie 10g (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote.svg Restore It has educational value. --Rezonansowy (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Aeropuerto internacional de maiquetia pasillo.jpg[edit]

Hi, Someone could take a look to this nomination, it was closed before I could share the right link. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

File:R1a1a distribution.png[edit]

The file was nominated for deletion at 19 june 2016 by a new user, with the rationale "This is an adapation of a copyrighted work of this study (Underhill 2009)[2]. So it violates Commons:Fair use". I have two problems here:

  • Fair use applies to a direct copy, not to an adaptation, as far as I can see;
  • User:Userius is a blocked sock-account; R1a1a is a highly contentious topic, due to nationalistic feelings on the origins of several people; I suspect that this was an attempt at censorship, and not a concern with copyrights;

For these two reasons, I'd like the file to be undeleted, and the removals to be undone. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Files are deleted by administrators. Who nominated the file is irrelevant. Thuresson (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Facts cannot be copyrighted, but maps showing facts do have copyrights. User:Hxseek says that this file is his or her "own work", "adapted from Underhill et al (2009)". If "adapted from" means that Hxseek simply copied an Underhill map, either directly, or by having the Underhill map up on one screen and creating a new version of it on another screen, then it is a derivative work and cannot be restored without a license from Underhill. On the other hand, if HXseek looked only at numerical data in Underhill and created a new map from scratch, then it is original work and can be restored. The only way we can restore it is if Hxseek gives us more information as to exactly how he or she created this work. Without that, our Precautionary Priciple requires its continued deletion.
I note for the record that although accusations of censorship come along every couple of months, I have never seen one that was valid. This deletion was done by INeverCry, who is our most experienced active Administrator. Given INC's record, I reject that accusation entirely. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment - the remark on censorship was not against INeverCry, of course, but against the nominator, who's blocked for sockpuppetry. Regarding the 'adaptation', I also figured that drawing a map based on a dataset will essentially give the same map. But I dount it that this dataset was given, so the only way to draw such a map then is by sort of copying it. It's a pity; do we really need to be so strict ?The map would be the same anyway, and it's very usefull. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we carefully follow copyright rules. Copying a map is essentially the same thing as copying an article and selling it as your own work -- both are forbidden by copyright law everywhere. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Alexander Van der Bellen (Stimmen für Van der Bellen, Konzerthaus, 2016-05-16) B01.jpg - Transfer zu[edit]

Sehr geehrtes Commons-Team, ich bitte hiermit um den Transfer von diesem Bild (und allen gleichzeitig mitgelöschten Bildern) zur deutschen Wikipedia - in dieser ist der bemängelte Hintergrund (bei der einmaligen Wahlveranstaltung am 16.5.2016) sicher kein Problem. (Bitte jeweils auch auf der Bildbeschreibungsseite in der den Vermerk für 'nicht-Commons-fähig' setzen.) -- Schönen Gruß, Sonne7 (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Chełm Nowe Miasto 1926.jpg[edit]

plik został usunięty z powodu rzekomego braku dowodów, że należy do domeny publicznej !!! pomimo, że stanowi część oficjalnej dokumentacji inwestycji publicznej, która została zrealizowana przez polski rząd i mieszkańców miasta Chełm, stanowi część kultury narodowej i nie wymaga na to żadnych dowodów, gdyż jest faktem dokonanym, publicznym i powszechnie znanym, ale także ignorując "Anonymous-EU template" oraz "PD-polski template", poprzez retroaktywne zastosowanie nadrzędności prawa prywatnego nad własnością publiczną do pracy wykonanej dla domeny i użytku publicznego, a ponadto do pracy wykonanej także przed wprowadzeniem jakiegokolwiek prawa autorskiego w Polsce 14 juin 1926 - plik został usunięty bez jakiejkolwiek dyskusji, ignorując wszystkie przedstawione argumenty tylko na podstawie błędnej, niepotwierdzonej i nieuprawnionej supozycji o autorstwie i śmierci rzekomego autora w 1945, z pominięciem publicznego charakteru tych prac, który jest oczywisty i nie wymaga żadnych dowodów - i dlatego plik ten powinien być przywrócony --wkaczura (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

file has been deleted because of an alleged lack of evidence that it belongs to the public domain !!! although that is part of the official documentation of public investment, which was implemented and accomplished by the Polish government and the residents of the city Chelm, is part of national heritage and does not require any evidence for this, because it is a fait accompli, public and well-known, but also ignoring the "Anonymous-EU template" and "PD-Polish template", by owing to the retroactive application of the superiority of private over public property to the work done for the public use and domain, and the work done well before the introduction of any copyright in Poland 14 juin 1926 - file was deleted without any discussion, ignoring all the presented arguments, only on the basis of incorrect, unsubstantiated and unjustified suppositions about the authorship and the death of the alleged author in 1945, bypassing the public nature of the work, which is obvious and requires no proofs ! - therefore, this file should be restored (translation by google)

  • I can't see the original file, but it sounds like it was a photograph of an original drawing, and the author of the drawing died in 1945. PD-Polish is only about the photograph, which in this case may not qualify for copyright in the first place, as it's basically a copy of the drawing, and the copyright of the drawing is the important part here. PD-Polish does not apply to the drawing; that is a straight 70pma by current Polish law. If the author died in 1945 as claimed, then the original deletion was correct, as copyright had not yet expired -- but it would have expired on January 1, 2016. And since Poland was 50 pma on the URAA date, that means it became PD on the URAA date itself, and its U.S. copyright would not have been restored. Its Polish copyright got restored shortly thereafter when they implemented the EU directive, but just expired again this year. So... given the information in the DR, it's a Symbol support vote.svg Support for me. The only mistake on the original DR though was not adding it to Category:Undelete in 2016. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg[edit]

Requesting undeletion of file on this reply.

I want to request to kindly restore the file as it was deleted as understanding it as a wallpaper. Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama says that screenshots, wallpapers and promotional posters uploaded should be considered as copyright violations and should be deleted. But this file was not a wallpaper. It was a still image of that person. Example, File:Mandana Karimi.jpg is also a still image of a person. It's been linked to "Photos" section: Take a look. The same is with File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg. The first version of File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg even contains "Bollywood Hungama" watermark justifying that the image is not a copyright violation from other website. In the second version, I removed the "Bollywood Hungama" watermark for a clean image. But this file File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg is neither a screenshot from any film, a wallpaper, promotional poster nor a copyright violation. Mr. Smart ℒION☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 04:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Another explanation: This File:Mandana Karimi.jpg can also be taken from this site or even this site. It's available on many websites. How do you guarantee that this image is only taken from Bollywood Hungama website? This image File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg is also available on many websites, but the first version of the file uploaded contains the "Bollywood Hungama" watermark. Mr. Smart ℒION☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 04:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

As per Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama, at which Bollywood party or event was this photo taken? Thuresson (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The image is not from any Bollywood party or event. The image was just a still image of Jennifer Winget. This is the link which I had given in the file, and it's link is going to "Photos" section. And the same is with File:Mandana Karimi.jpg. The link is given to this source ("Photos" section), and its license review is passed. As per Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama, no restrictions have been given to still images of persons as these images contain "Bollywood Hungama" watermark. Mr. Smart ℒION☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 05:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The license only covers photos from a Bollywood party or event. Thuresson (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Than how come this File:Mandana Karimi.jpg's license review is passed. And how is it a valued image. It is not from any Bollywood party or event. The same is with File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg. This comment I've also made above. If the template says that only Bollywood parties and events images should be uploaded than File:Mandana Karimi.jpg should also be deleted. Mr. Smart ℒION☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 12:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Yann: Since you reviewed File:Mandana Karimi.jpg, and that file/review is being questioned above, I'm pinging you to this discussion you as a courtesy. INeverCry 18:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

These are some more examples that these images are still images of celebrities and they have been reviewed by Yann. Take a look: File:Deepika Padukone image from Bollywood Hungama.jpg, File:Kareena Kapoor - Bollywood hungama.jpg, File:Kareena Kapoor Khan - Bollywood hungama.jpg, File:Sachiin Joshi.jpg, File:Aish N Madhuri.jpg. There might be more files like these.

When your guidelines say that Please note that as of 21 February 2012, image-reviewers may notreview their own uploads unless the account is an approved bot., than how come a user (who is not even image reviewer) Abyjohn1991, has reviewed his own uploads. One example: File:Barkha Madan bhoot party.jpg. Mr. Smart ℒION☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 03:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thuresson, Mr. Smart LION: Your understanding of the permission is wrong. Bollywood Hungama does not organise any party or event. It takes pictures of parties and events organised by and for Bollywood people. "Parties and events" has to be taken in a broad sense: any event related to Bollywood people where cameramen are invited or allowed. Are excluded movie materials and pictures taken outside India, as these pictures are not made by Hungama staff/contractors. It is a paparazzi company which sells high quality pictures, and licenses low quality ones with a watermark under a free license. A very clever business model, IMHO. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd be very careful here. Bollywood Hungama also watermarks and hosts images they very likely don't own the copyright for. Compare for example the now-deleted File:Bipasha Karan at their Reception.jpg. Huon (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say that any material with a watermark is OK. I could agree that the distinction between allowed pictures and others is not very easy. Wallapers are under a different type of URL, within the "wallpapers" subdirectory (e.g. [3]). Please notice that pictures under the "photos" subdirectory are of low resolution, while pictures in the "wallpapers" subdirectory are also available in medium and high resolution. Your and Czar's arguments in the DR do not prove anything. Since Hungama sells high resolution pictures, it is not surprising to find them elsewhere. Pictures on Hungama website are not attributed. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
As per Yann's above comment and non-deletion of above mentioned persons' images in the "Photos" subdirectory of Bollywood Hungama, I want File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg to be restored as this image is also the same case. But what about the movie still images File:Aish N Madhuri.jpg and File:Barkha Madan bhoot party.jpg? Mr. Smart ℒION☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 05:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Yann, so you're arguing it's likely that a couple would, instead of hiring a wedding photographer, invite paparazzi and buy their wedding photos from them? That doesn't sound like a plausible scenario to me. Huon (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Huon: Bollywood weddings are hardly private. These are public events, where dozens of photographers are present. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Mr. Smart LION: File:Aish N Madhuri.jpg is clearly not a movie still. For the other one, I am quite undecided. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Whether the wedding was private or public, the married couple published (a higher-quality version of) that image on their private Instagram channel. So you're arguing it's more likely that they bought photos of their own wedding from paparazzi than that Bollywood Hungama scraped it from Instagram and put their own tag on the image. I happen to disagree with that. Huon (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Now as per Yann's above comment and non-deletion of File:Mandana Karimi.jpg, File:Deepika Padukone image from Bollywood Hungama.jpg, File:Kareena Kapoor - Bollywood hungama.jpg, File:Kareena Kapoor Khan - Bollywood hungama.jpg and File:Sachiin Joshi.jpg, will File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg be restored? Because this file is also the same case as these files. Mr. Smart ℒION☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 17:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The license only covers photos from a Bollywood party or event. This looks like a studio portrait. Thuresson (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support File:Mandana Karimi.jpg, File:Deepika Padukone image from Bollywood Hungama.jpg, File:Kareena Kapoor - Bollywood hungama.jpg, File:Kareena Kapoor Khan - Bollywood hungama.jpg and File:Sachiin Joshi.jpg are also studio portraits of persons. These files also don't belong to photos from any Bollywood party or event. When these files haven't marked for deletion, File:Jennifer Winget photo.jpg should be restored. Mr. Smart ℒION☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 03:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sreejithk2000: Pinging Sreejithk2000, as he knows the Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama. You are required to kindly read the above discussion and vote for the file. Mr. Smart ℒION☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 05:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Got reply from Sreejithk2000 on his talk page. He also confirmed that such images are not accepted by Bollywood Hungama template. All images have been marked for deletion by him. I'm now satisfied. This discussion can now be closed. Mr. Smart ℒION☎️I👨‍👩‍⋡ 04:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Alexander Hart.jpg[edit]

License ticket has now been received here. It seems to be in good order, as it is sent from Anton Skljarov, with a correct OTRS wording, compatible license (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (unported)), dated and with contact info. Thanks for help with the undeletion.--Paracel63 (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

For info: the now closed deletion request.--Paracel63 (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Paracel63: that ticket is not in any permissions queue, and I cannot see it. Storkk (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: It has been received to info-sv (, as it is written in Swedish. Due to moderate-to-low traffic, this queue takes care of both permissions and other requests written in Swedish. Do you want me to move the ticket to another (which one?) queue?--Paracel63 (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Please move it to permissions-commons (ideally, this would happen for all permissions tickets), thanks. Storkk (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: ✓ Done--Paracel63 (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: Any update on this? INeverCry 04:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: I'm still extremely busy, but ticket is open for any agent to take; a preliminary examination of the ticket is at Special:Diff/201505083. Storkk (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Hakeem khaaliq.jpg[edit]

I am the photographer for Hakeem khaaliq.jpg a photo I shot. why was it deleted when I uploaded to the article I proved this link before showing that I am the photographer. I also explained the META data is not correct and I uploaded the original un cropped, non-photoshopped, file. which I shot on my camera. What more can I provide to prove this is my original photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69thstreet (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Where did you upload the original? All I see here is a 366 × 550 (93,318 bytes) image with no EXIF. INeverCry 05:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
[4] says "Copyright ©". EXIF data on that photo say "Copyright Jacob B Murphy" and camera used was Nikon D700. OP should clarify why it is claimed that Jacob Murphy did not take the photo nor was a Nikon camera used. Thuresson (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Taiwan Executive Yuan Website[edit]

Following up on the discussions in Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFiles_in_Category:Files_from_Taiwan_Executive_Yuan_Website, the questionable "copyright notice" has been removed and the Open Information Announcement is the only statement regarding copyright. --Wcam (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: 經告知後,行政院已經將不適宜的版權網站刪除。--KOKUYO (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[edit]

All files by Erangler1. They have been tagged as missing permisson and have been deleted but imho they are fine. See discussion here: . Amada44  talk to me 15:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Svilen1970[edit]

Please restore the following files:

Jcb bulk deleted the files listed in the DR, but the above files come from Wikimapia (and Google Image Search didn't returned results prior to the uploading to Wikimapia), therefore, these files are properly sourced and licensed ({{Wikimapia}}). --Amitie 10g (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote.svg Restore Per above. --Rezonansowy (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Матющенко Владимир Иванович 3.jpg[edit]

Добрый день. Прошу восстановить данный файл в Викискладе. Причиной для удаления указано возможное нарушения авторских прав. Однако, все представленные изображения Матющенко Владимира Ивановича принадлежат членам его семьи по праву наследования. А я являюсь его внучкой. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhena Raegan (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

File:RTHK 31A.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is just a capture from the Hong Kong analog channel "31A" from the services provider Radio Television Hong Kong. RTHK started to provide analog TV services at 1 April,2016 to replace the services of that provided by HKATV before and I upload this image to help the readers to see the way how RTHK provide analog TV services (which convert the digital signal of digital channel 31 and 33 into analog signal named "31A" and "33A”.) I will not and I cannot earn money or even violate the copyright of RTHK from the image. For the one who will read this, I hope you can undelete the image uploaded by me. Thank you! A860529259 (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

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


That logo is from Council of Celanova and I am the person who has to update de Wikipedia page. Now the logo of the Wikipedia page of Celanova isn't the official. So it's important to update it.

Regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmquercus (talk • contribs)

Please have the copyright owner of the photo use the procedure at Commons:OTRS to verify the copyright status of the photo. Thuresson (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Reckless Wolf Into the Woods.jpg[edit]

I'm the owner in photographer of this picture and shareholder of the brand. please visit to show this.

I can also provide trade mark registry UK00003020475 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdgaller (talk • contribs) 12:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

As with other photos who have been published elsewhere previously, please ask the photographer or copyrigt owner to go throught the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Lets Have a Butchers.jpg[edit]

I'm the shareholder of the brand. please visit to show this.

I can also provide trade mark registry UK00003020475 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdgaller (talk • contribs) 12:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

As with other photos who have been published elsewhere previously, please ask the photographer or copyrigt owner to go throught the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Roger F. Gibson, Jr.jpg[edit]

File:Roger F. Gibson, Jr.jpg

Greetings to Wikipedia editors:

Please consider my request to undelete the abovementioned image file.

The image in question is a photograph of Roger F. Gibson, Jr., who was a professional philosopher. He died in September 2015. He himself circulated this photograph both for official business and for any promotional purposes (conferences and colloquia). It can be found in any number of places on the internet. This one happens to be posted along with a notice of his death at the website of his last place of employment (Washington University in St. Louis). But the exact same file is available elsewhere. The reason I uploaded it is that I am in the process of writing a Wikipedia article on him and intend to provide a link to this image file.

Best wishes, House of Mogh. (Student of Roger Gibson)

23 July 2016 17:26

House of Mogh (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

As with other photos who have been published elsewhere previously, please ask the photographer or copyrigt owner to go throught the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Hello, This photo is my creation (I appear on it) and I'm the sole owner. I own 100% of the copyright. Please undelete it. Thanks David Serero — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidopera (talk • contribs) 17:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

As with other photos who have been published elsewhere previously, please ask the photographer or copyrigt owner to go through the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Hello, This is my photo and I'm the sole owner and own the copyright. Please undelete it. Thanks David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidopera (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

As with other photos who have been published elsewhere previously, please ask the photographer or copyrigt owner to go through the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Thuresson (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : OTRS permission from copyright holder required. --INeverCry 20:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

File:David Carroll.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The owner emailed a statement of permission to but I know management is volunteer based and takes time. If you have time to restore the file that'd be appreciated. The ticket number of the owner's message is 2016071410020061. Davidcarroll (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Adekunle Ajasin Senate Building.jpg and File:Ighare Iloro.jpg[edit]

Hi folks,

Please, I want the above deleted files restored. I am the owner of the files. I took the images with my device. Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Señaletica Carretera Austral.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There is no valid claim for a Copyright violation, since it was a picture from a Public Traffic Sign, on a open blog. I think the user ‪Sfs90‬ is harrasing me for political reasons, he has deleted all my contributions and requested to delete my file , without valid Reason. Alguerre (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: "Open blog" doesn't mean that the author of the photographs don't have copyrights over their images. By the way, the fact that a "" it's a blog doesn't mean that this is effectively a "free blog" and all their contributions have a free licence. --Sfs90 (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Alguerre: Sfs90 is right: just because the blog can be accessed freely it does not mean that anyone can copy and re-use the images or text found there. Copyright is automatically bestowed upon photographers even if they photograph public signs, so you cannot upload such images without there being a free licence at the blog. Moreover, the entire blog is full of likely copyright infringements (various old photos, book covers, newspaper articles, etc.) so even if there was a free licence it would be questionable whether the blogger was actually the original author of this photograph. De728631 (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : per De728631 above. --INeverCry 21:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Bilder von der "Stiebitz" und "Liste der Kulturdenkmäler in Stiebitz gelöscht?[edit]

Hallo, ich bin noch recht neu beim Uploaden von Bildern und daher noch unerfahren....aber...warum werden mein Bilder von den Seiten gelöscht?

Sie betreffen sowohl "Stiebitz" als Dorf an sich und auch die "Liste der Kulturdenkmäler in Stiebitz".

Die Bilder zeigen die alte Fasanerie des Gutshofes, dieser wird auf der Wikipedia Denkmalliste auch so erwähnt.

Da der Verfall des Gebäudes schnell voran schreitet und sicher auch nicht gestoppt wird halte ich diese Bilder für sinnvoll und zu erhalten.

Nach bestem Wissen (und nach meiner Einschätzung recht umständlichem Verfahrens die Bilder mit der Wikipedia Seite zu verknüpfen) habe ich die Bilder

hoch geladen und in einer eigenen Kategorie zusammen gefügt.

Ähnlich habe ich es auch beim "Kinderspielepark Kaltwasser" und "Panzerdenkmal Rothenburg" getan. Da war es ok.......

Sollte ich da grundsätzliche Fehler beim Einstellen meiner Bilder begehen erklären sie mir bitte warum....?

Danke und Gruß Frank Lemon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Lemon (talk • contribs) 19:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

None of your photos have been deleted. If you want to create a page to have an image gallery you must actually add an image gallery. See Commons:Galleries for more information. Thuresson (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done : per above. --INeverCry 20:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

File:Informatiepaneel Thedingsweert.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: All needed permissions have been granted. See ticket:2016061310014376 Mbch331 (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Ciell (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done: restored. --INeverCry 20:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


--Tsochen (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)The photograph is of public figures: President Chiang Kai-Shek, President Elpidio Quirino, and Ambassador Chih-Ping Chen; in a public event: the Baguio Conference; by an unknown photographer in 1949.

Who is the photographer and where was this photo first published? Thuresson (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Dodge charger Carabineros 2.jpg[edit]

Nominated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Deablith and deleted by INeverCry with the summary Per nomination, despiste that the file has Exif, and no proof of copyvio found. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a Cross-wiki upload from es.wikipedia with only "screenshot" in the EXIF. This has no camera metadata and is 623 × 628 (164 KB). I would keep this deleted per COM:PRP. INeverCry 21:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


Quiero recuperar este archivo porque me dicen que lo han borrado porque no soy quien ha hecho la foto, pero hay muchas imágenes antiguas en Commons que no pueden haber hecho los que las han subido...--Gonzalo P.M.G. (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Gonzalo P.M.G.