Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]

File:Kimberley Park State School Front Sign.jpeg[edit]

The photo was taken by us a few years ago, we let a company use it for their website we saved it from there as we lost it but it is our photograph, I am a student that did all the media at that school in the past so It it actually my Photograph I let people use it. --Jaydenkelly49 (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Jayden Kelly - jaydenkelly49

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The photo is sourced to http://www.danthoniadesigns.com/ which has no free license and the author is given as Danthonia Designs. INeverCry 21:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:UNC Antonio Moran Sison Building.jpg[edit]

It is my own work. --Raymartsanjose (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image is also displayed at http://www.unc.edu.ph/uncToday/. INeverCry 21:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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

File:BlankMap-Europe.png[edit]

If this file is the same one as en:File:BlankMap-Europe.png, I'm not sure what the reason for deletion was - it was created by Vardion (talk · contribs), who made a lot of our early map blanks. --B (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


✓ Done: I've restored it. Perhaps the concern was the original source used as a reference? If there's still concerns, the file can be nominated for deletion. INeverCry 21:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Yoosef abbad.jpg[edit]

This is not a copyright violation. Restate the picture please that some overzealous person flagged out of viciousness. This is the reason that Wikipedia contributors are a dying breed. They keep getting punished for providing information and working for free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reubenzadeh (talk • contribs) 23:00, 25 June 2015‎ (UTC)

File:Ao Tawhiti Discovery Campus.jpg[edit]

This is one of three images I released the rights to. The photo was taken at the school with permission, I had organized this weeks a go to improve the quality of the Ao Tawhiti article. There is no reason it should have been removed and I am happy to follow the steps necessary to prove rights ownership.

There were three files which were wrongfully removed:

File:Ao Tawhiti Discovery Campus.jpg

File:Ao Tawhiti Unlimited Campus.jpg

File:Ao_Tawhiti_Campus_Signage.jpg

I had released these images to the public domain, as I have the right to.

--Melonbob (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Brasão de Itatira.jpg[edit]

Solicito o restauro do arquivo Brasão de Itatira.jpg. A figura é o brasão real do Municipio, é de uso público e não tem direitos autorais conhecidos. Favor verificar em: http://www.itatira.ce.gov.br/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valberto Silva (talk • contribs) 13:20, 26 June 2015‎ (UTC)

File:FC8.H8177.879dc - Des destinées de l'ame - Harvard.jpg[edit]

There should be no copyright for this book. This may be a 3-dimensionial photograph but it has no additional creative element other than the original design from the 19th century. Further, as an official representative of the alleged/presumed copyright holders (Houghton Library, Harvard College), I was granted permission to offer a public domain license to the file (under the name User:Rob at Houghton. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As you say, the book has no copyright, but the photograph certainly does. Assuming that the photographer who made the image is an employee of Harvard and has a work for hire agreement, Harvard owns the copyright to the photograph. Therefore, policy requires that in order for it to be restored, an officer of the library must send a free license directly to OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify, in case it isn't clear: I uploaded the image as an employee/officer/representative of the library with the blessing of a PD tag. The image was created specifically to be entered into the public domain. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Uploaded by a Wikipedian in residence as part of their job at Harvard. My deletion was likely mistaken. INeverCry 19:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect to my colleague INC and to Midnightdreary, the latter hasn't answered the question of who took the photograph. The fact that Midnightdreary is Wikipedian in residence says nothing about whether he or she has been appropriately authorized by Harvard to give away its property.
If the image was taken by Midnightdreary, then it should be labeled as "own work" and we have no problem. If not, then policy requires that we have OTRS confirmation from Harvard in one of two ways -- either that Midnightdreary has a blanket authorization to upload works for which Harvard owns the copyright or that Harvard gives a free license (which could be CC-0 = PD) for this image. In either case, since Harvard will be giving away valuable property, that OTRS e-mail should come from an officer of the Harvard Corporation. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
True, I did not take the photograph myself. I hope you understand that I was employed by Harvard for this work, not merely a volunteer, so I was acting as an official authorized representative of the College. Nevertheless, I will have my former supervisor send an email, as you suggest. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Brasão de Itatira.jpg[edit]

A figura é de uso público. Foi recortado de uma figura já existente no site http://www.itatira.ce.gov.br/ ou https://www.facebook.com/Prefeituraitatira. Ninguém tem direitos autorais sobre essa figura. Além disso esta no meu álbum particular no flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/59682926@N05/

File:CanserberoWikipedia.png[edit]

Spanish (Español)

el archivo en cuestión que se solicita el no borrado (Undeletion)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:CanserberoWikipedia.png&action=edit&redlink=1

Dicha fotografía fue tomada hace años (año 2012) que no esta publicada en ningún sitio, dominio o pagina web. Es una fotografía en el estudio de grabación de dicho cantante (Tirone José González Oramas, también conocido como Canserbero)

-No infringe ningún copyright -es una fotografía tomada personalmente -No esta publicada en ningún otro lugar

Karma Sin Revisión Alguna (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

English (Ingles)

I request that is not erased the following file:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:CanserberoWikipedia.png&action=edit&redlink=1

This photograph was taken years ago (2012) that is not published anywhere, domain or website. It is a photograph in the studio of the singer (Tirone Jose Oramas González, also known as canserbero)

- No copyright - I took this picture three years ago with the consent of that person - Not published in any other site, domain or website

Karma Sin Revisión Alguna (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Maldita Ramona.jpg File:Nahiara.jpg[edit]

son fotos sacadas por mi y tengo derecho hacer lo que quiera con ellas

(Franco Ramono (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC))

File:Свод законов Российской империи том 01 (1912).djvu[edit]

I did not get the reason why this book was deleted. It's a completely different book comparing with File:Свод законов Российской империи. Том I (1833).djvu, created (compiled) by different editor at different time. So the deleted book cannot be simply "replaced" by the latter. Yes, that another edition was created by the government order, so it's sometimes called by the researches as an official edition while the nominated book -- often referred as a semi-official or private edition... So what, why both books (completely different books, though with same name) cannot be placed in Commons in order for users to work in Wikisource on transcribing both? No details of the decision were provided by User:Hedwig in Washington who performed the deletion... Hinote (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done I think we can have both. Yann (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Please remove the deletion mark at the file description in this case. Also, please restore as a part of this decision other deleted volumes of this same edition: File:Свод законов Российской империи том 02 (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи том 03 (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи том 04 (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи том 05 (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи том 06 (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи том 07 (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи том 08 часть 1 (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи том 08 часть 2 (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи том 09 (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи том 09 приложение (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи том 10 (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи том 11 часть 1 (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи том 11 часть 2 (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи том 12 (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи том 13 (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи том 14 (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи том 15 (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи. Алфавитный указатель (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи том 16 (1912).djvu, File:Свод законов Российской империи. Продолжение 1910 года к I - III томам.djvu... Hinote (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Uploader requests should be granted. Hausratte (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If it were the uploader's copyright, it would be discussable. Just because an uploader uploads some PD work, doesn't give them any right to say it must be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly! That's my position as well and that's why I insist on restoring all these deleted files -- simply let other users work on them in Wikisource. These are neither superseded by better versions nor are duplicates of already uploaded scans of the same books -- these compose a set of volumes of the completely different edition. Hinote (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, I could have ask for RU-speaking help. On the other hand, there's the DR asking for deletion because there have been replacements. I didn't see the necessity to at the time to ask for more input. I won't object to whatever will be decided here. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Nokia N1 tablet (16928811487).jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Images are licensed as cc-by-2.0 and were verified as suitable for use on commons by the Flickr2Commons upload bot.

It seems the user who deleted the files (User:1989) has been blocked for misuse of these tools.

- RaviC (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose These are COM:DW of copyrighted software screens. INeverCry 19:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Terri b 2 2015 web.jpg[edit]

I own and paid for the picture in question. it is from my private catalogue... like my other friends artist who have their own pictures on the site .

i do not as a professional want unflattering photos, yes i use it on my webpage, but it is my own photo and i own it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terribjerre (talk • contribs) 18:56, June 29, 2015‎ (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've replaced "example.jpg" with the only deleted upload of this user. INeverCry 19:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Desempleo España 2015.png[edit]

I, creator of the file, finally grant license CC-BYSA 30 for Wikimedia for this file, to avoid the deletetion.

Regards

faelomx (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

File:LOL logo2 FNL.jpg[edit]

This is the company LOGO. There are no people in it, and it is not an advertisement. Permission was given by Logo owner. Does not violate Out of Scope policy. Sktpa (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Two pictures of Gandhi[edit]

Hi, Could you please restore 2 pictures of Gandhi, should be licensed under {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • File:Gandhi studio 1931.jpg
  • File:Gandhi Downing Street.jpg
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose According to the deletion requests, there is no evidence whatsoever that the photographers are anonymous. {{PD-UK-unknown}} requires evidence of this. Besides, according to COM:L#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law, the files also need a valid copyright tag which proves that the files are freely licensed or in the public domain in the United States. You therefore also need to provide a valid United States copyright tag which proves this. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I am studying Gandhi documents for the last 22 years. The author of these pictures is unknown. The copyright also expires before the URAA date. According to en:Copyright law of the United Kingdom, the term was 50 years until 1995. So the copyright expired in 1982 for pictures taken in 1931. This is the same situation as all other pictures in Category:Mohandas K. Gandhi in England. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • No, the UK retroactively restored copyright to 70pma on January 1, 1996, which coincided with the URAA date, so those restorations had an effect in the US as well (even if they were PD in both countries the day before). They are likely now fine in the UK but not the US, unless they were published in the US within 30 days of their being first published in the UK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
        • That's not what the article says: they extended the copyright period for all works which were then still in copyright. These pictures were out of copyright, so why would the copyright be extended? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
          • That's only a partial quote; the rest of the sentence says ", and (controversially) revived the lapsed copyright of all authors who had died in the previous 70 years, i.e. since 1925." I'm pretty sure the author of that sentence was not taking anonymous works into consideration one way or another. There's another sentence about this extension:
It contained a controversial provision, which caused certain copyrights to revive; material which had been out of copyright came back into copyright. If the 1988 Act offered a shorter term of protection than the new Regulations, and if the work was still under copyright on 1 July 1995 anywhere in the EEA, then the copyright of that work was revived.
          • Which means Germany law would have reanimated the copyright in the UK.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


          • Right, the article says and if the work was still under copyright on 1 July 1995 anywhere in the EEA. That is anywhere in the EEA, not just in the UK. So far, I don't think we've found an example of a work exempted because it was PD in all EEA countries. (The "anywhere in the EEA" text was right from the directive; some countries dispensed with that and basically codified the intended effect, i.e. that it applied to all works basically in order to harmonize the terms.) For example, Spain had an 80pma rule and I think used the rule of the longer term, which would probably cover just about anything less than 70pma / 70 years from publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Amaia del Campo.png[edit]

Me parece que la imagen de Amaia del Campo no viola ningún tipo de derechos de autor, ya que es una imagen tomada por los servicios de prensa del Ayuntamiento, y ofrecida como material a los distintos medios de comunicación. Es más, algún medio digital ha utilizado una foto que es, evidentemente, de dominio público. --Barakaldotar (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Barakaldotar: Que el ayuntamiento la ofrezca a los medios de comunicación no significa necesariamente que permita cualquier uso de la imagen, incluso comercial y las modificaciones, para siempre, que es lo que se pide en Commons. Aún menos significa que esté en dominio público.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Mapa Norfeu.JPG and other ICC maps[edit]

Institut Cartogràfic i Geològic de Catalunya (ICGC), previously known as Institut Cartogràfic de Catalunya (ICC) used to release their maps under a non free license. Now, it has licensed their geoinformation under CC-BY 4.0, according to http://www.icc.cat/eng/Home-ICC/Geoinformacio-digital/Sobre-la-geoinformacio-ICGC/Condicions-d-us-de-la-geoinformacio-ICGC . Therefore, now we can happily undelete all ICC maps previously deleted because of being non free.

I think there must be tens of such deleted maps in Commons, but atm I just found Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mapa Norfeu.JPG.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

More maps: File:Map of Collserola.gif, File:Map of Serra del Cadí.gif and other ICC maps uploaded by same user (which only sysops are able to see). More information at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Please_check_ticket_for_ICC_maps.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Decido Decision Ciudadana.jpg[edit]

It's a free file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumball2 (talk • contribs)

It looks to be free, but is it within COM:SCOPE? I don't see an article even on es.wiki on this political party. INeverCry 18:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:Beaked Bird scupture by Steve Dilworth.jpg[edit]

The photograph is fine with copy wright. It was taken by me and has the artists permission. People can reuse it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilmorack1786 (talk • contribs) 18:17, June 30, 2015‎ (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All we have at the source is "Copyright © 2015 Kilmorack Gallery". We have no evidence that the photo is released under a free license by the photographer, or the sculptor. This release/permission can be provided through our OTRS system. INeverCry 18:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Vanessa Alfaro.jpg[edit]

[These files] were NOT a copyright violation. I own 100% of the rights of the image. Please restore the images. Thank you so much.

--Kval83 (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Vanessa Alfaro 06/30/15

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe images appeared on a copyrighted web site, therefore policy requires that the actual copyright owner (usually the photographer) send a free license to OTRS. In addition, the FIFA World Cup is itself copyrighted and images of it cannot be kept on Commons because they infringe on FIFA's copyright, so even with the photographer's permission, those cannot be restored. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

File:skylinklogo20092012.jpg[edit]

File:skylinklogo20092012.jpg it is the logo for Sky Link TV company logo, used from 2009-2012. I currently work for Sky Link TV, and want to add this logo to the Sky Link TV page. please help me to make this file into category as non-free logo. and allow it display on Sky Link TV and also its Chinese page.


--Cynditv (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Cyndi Wang 06-03-2015

Wikimedia Commons is a separate project from the Wikipedias, and cannot host any non-free material under a fair use rationale. The logo must be directly uploaded to the project you want to use it in (I assume en:Sky Link TV, so the English Wikipedia). Use the page at en:Special:Upload if that is the case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)