Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]

Files of user User:BavariaYachtbau[edit]

The files

have been recently speedy-deleted by user:Ellin Beltz. The deletion reason seems to have been that the files do not have identical metadata and therefore an own-work claim is dubious. The uploader is a confirmed account of Bavaria Yachtbau, a well-known german boatbuilding company (see en:Bavaria Yachtbau, de:Bavaria Yachtbau). That the company is not the photographer on itself is obvious, but that the company has the necessary rights for distributing their promotional images (which they obviously were) is very likely. We do have an OTRS ticket (#2012022710009281) about the account, so the content of this should also be considered when making a decision on these images. If something is still unclear, there should at least be a contact in that ticket to clarify the situation. (XenonX3: can you check that ticket?).

The images themselves would be very valuable, as they're among the best images of modern sailing yachts that we have. Others of similar good quality I've found seem to be obvious copyvios (that's a different story though). --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The files did not have any OTRS information, no descriptions and were uncategorized in addition to having two different photographers (uncredited). If restored, please take the time to adequately describe and categorize the images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course. That is no problem at all. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not sure that the fact that this is a well known company is relevant here. Ticket:2012022710009281 does not come up when requested. Aside from a deleted logo, these are the only contributions from this user. We have no evidence that User:BavariaYachtbau is in fact the company -- it could well be a fan or customer of the company. We also typically require a free license via OTRS for images that are not PD, own work, or from freely licensed sources. We also need to know the actual author, because in most countries that determines the life of the copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible that you don't have the rights to see that ticket? It might be on the permissions-de list. This edit is very unlikely to be fake. XenonX3 is admin and OS on dewiki. --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I have pinged de:User::XenonX3 on their talk page on German Wikipedia. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
When I search for the ticket on the OTRS main page it comes back saying there is no result. But, of course, strange things happen. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Note: XenonX3 seems to be taking a wiki-break. He hasn't edited for half a year. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I also cannot view this ticket. As a matter of principle, if an OTRS ticket provides the permission (i.e., foundation) for hosting on the Commons, it needs to be in a permissions queue accessible to Commons' OTRS volunteers. If the ticket is valid as claimed, please assign it to a permissions queue. Эlcobbola talk 16:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    That ticket is in info-de and contains nothing but an account verification. --Didym (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    In that case I Symbol support vote.svg Support restoration of the files. These are clearly promotional images by the manufacturer of the boats and we can assume that they have secured all necessary rights to publish those photos under the licenses stated. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Знак на Армијата на Република Македонија.svg[edit]

The PRP does not apply to simple geometric shapes like squares, triangles, or stars, which this is. It is a simple 12-point star, there is nothing original about that. We have much more complicated police stars on Commons from other countries. Fry1989 eh? 03:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

For reference: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Знак на Армијата на Република Македонија.svg. The problem is that we have no idea about the standards for TOO of Macedonia. Therefore, the PRP applies. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
As I stated, TOO does not matter for simple geometry. I asked the question of what is different between this file and File:Silver star.png, and nobody answered me. I don't think it is appropriate deleting the file without deciding if it is really any different from any other simple star geometry we have on Commons. I see nothing complicated enough about this to be deleted. Fry1989 eh? 18:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussed image, even though geometric, is significantly more complex than a simple 'star'. - Reventtalk 13:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not. It's less complicated than the image I provided for comparison. The image I linked uses a variety of colours on each point to stand out, whereas the file deleted only uses two colours. And then it has another star with the same number of points, flat, and some letters. It is simple as anything. It should not have been deleted. Fry1989 eh? 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
There would seem to be a greater design component to the deleted image than the star used for the example. One needs to consider the concentric nature of the components and the colour. I can see how the assessment was made that it is more than simple geometric shapes, and it looks to be more to that assessment than a simple collection.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Brook Bernacchi 1965.jpg[edit]

It was said that it was a duplicate image but it was not. It was from the Reform Club Election Bulletin of 1965 but what the author of this image is remains unknown. --Lmmnhn (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted after a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brook Bernacchi 1965.jpg. Do you have any new information not known at the deletion request? Thuresson (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Lmmnhn: anonymous images are a big problem as:
  • it is very difficult to prove that they are really anonymous
  • Wikimedia Commons images are required to be PD in US also, not only in the country of origin.
And according to this guide, US copyright for anonymous images last much longer than in other countries (120 years from the image creation or 95 years from their first documented publication). If you can point out an image that was published in HK in 1945 or earlier, or that was first published in US (and not in HK) in 50ties-60ties, we may go forward because of some extempts. Otherwise an identified author is necessary. Ankry (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


REASON: This file is correct & needed, because:

  • It is an original composition by Mr. Márton Bujdosó, notable Hungarian composer, who is uploaded it and gave correct OTRS permission Ticket#2016112510017171 permission
  • AND this file is absolutely IN SCOPE of Wikimedia Commons PROJECT SCOPE, because:

Aim of Wikimedia Commons

The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository:

   that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and
   that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative".

This is file is needed int the common repository because it referred from various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. E. g. the Wikipedia Article about the the composer: Márton Bujdosó

Please, undelete it (because it was mistakenly deleted and this absolutely correct and needed) SZERVÁC Attila (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

If the creator of the derivative work is also notable, the work obviously is in scope. See also --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. But: this is not a derivative work (narrow sense of the term). The title quotes a verse from the English poet (not composer!!) G. M. Hopkins, but the musical material contains no quotation or transciption. Ellin Beltz wrote this ("derivative work", "as an amateur copy of a famous painting") complete mistakenly. In broad sense, naturally, all works are derivative works. :) BUJDOSÓ Márton (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThis work has been discussed before -- see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2016-12#File:MB.E2.80.A6read_the_unshapeable_shock_night.E2.80.A6.ogg. The OTRS ticket is new, however, so this is a legitimate request. However, I oppose it.
First, we must discount all of the comments about scope and value above because they were made in complete violation of WMF's policy on Conflict Of Interest. See WP:EN's summary of the COI policy which is applicable to all WMF projects. A person cannot comment here about the value of his own work as BUJDOSÓ Márton has done here.
Second, although BUJDOSÓ Márton does have an article on WP:HU, the first entry was on January 13, 2017 and a significant portion of the article was written by our uploader, also in violation of the COI policy. Google has no significant hits for this person other than Facebook and similar self-promotional sites. I doubt very much whether our Hungarian colleagues will keep the article.
Third, there are no Google hits for "read_the_unshapeable_shock_night" except in direct reference to Gerard Manley Hopkins. That strongly suggests that the musical work does not meet our requirements for notability.
Fourth, a musical work has many copyrights -- composer, lyricist, arranger, producer, and, in many countries, the performing artists. While not all of these may be applicable here, the OTRS message speaks only to the composer's copyright.
Last, the OTRS e-mail is from a gmail account. We do not generally accept licenses coming from gmail account because, of course, the owner of a gmail account can be anyone.
Any one of the five points above are enough reason to oppose this restoration. The five of them are overwhelming. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: According to COM:INUSE the file is in scope until our hungarian celeagues decide to delete the article. Also, I doubt, you should not refer English Wikipedia policy while talking about a Hungarian Wikipedia article. If you found this to be a real problem, it should be disputed either on huwiki or on meta, not here. The 3rd point I see irrelevant while we are talking about media for a huwiki article. The last two points may be a real problem, however, I see no attempt to resolve them in OTRS. Ankry (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
One more comment here: I don't see anything about unpaid edits that may be Conflict Of Interest in WMF policies. So they seem to me traeted under local wiki policies. I see no such policy in huwiki. Maybe, we should canvas this discussion there to receive clarification? Ankry (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The original deletion stated "in essence the same as an amateur copy of a famous painting and as that, out of scope" though the evidence is now that it is a notable person, so that original reason must be set aside and the matter reexamined. Otherwise I agree with Ankry. If there is an article at huWP (in scope), the work is released or out of copyright (in scope) then I do not see why it could not be undeleted against those points. [Also noting that we do not have a CoI policy, nor rule out of scope due to a CoI, and we cannot as many images we upload are our own works, so I cannot accept that as reason for deletion. I also dispute that WMF has a conflict of interest policy for contributors outside of "Paid contributions without disclosure". Terms and conditions checked. Foundationwiki and metawiki searches undertaken.] The 4th and 5th dot points are valid and need consideration and answers prior to undeletion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Blas Piñar1.jpg[edit]

The picture was rightly deleted on the grounds of what is exposed here. However, Raderich has tracked the source and clarified that it is under a cc-by-4.0 license (it's a little bit tricky as the license is only "viewable" under the Dublin Core RDF description of the file). Best regards --Discasto talk 13:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg AgreeThank you, Dicasto. Just to clarify, we're talking about the pic uploaded with that name on 18 Jan (which had a nomination) not the one uploaded with that name on 13 Jan 2017, which had an unvalid license. If you go to the link provided and select Formato -> Ficha, you'll see that it's the same photo as the uploaded one.--Raderich (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Inner Shadows cover.jpg[edit]

Hello! I am member of Inner Shadows community. I absolutely confident about authorship of this image. It was drawn by Andrew Saraew specially as cover for project group. If you need more evidence than publishing it on project page, I ready to provide evidences, but I need to know, what kind of evedences you want. I expect we will resolve this misunderstanding quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BSamedy (talk • contribs)

Hi. If Andrew Saraew is prepared to release this image for use here, he will have to email us by following the instructions at COM:OTRS, but a response will not be immediate due to backlogs. You might also want to take a look at COM:LICENSING to see what sort of licences are acceptable. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Kunstmuseum Albstadt.jpg[edit]

Bild selbst und im Auftrage des Kunstmusuems Albstadt erstellt. Das Bild ersetzt ein früheres Bild, das nicht mehr aktuell ist. Das frühere Bild wurde nie gelöscht, warum dieses?

Ncarste (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image appears with an explicit copyright notice at In order to restore the image, an authorized official of the organization must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:AbuseMark AfroFlight Naze 32 Flight Controller rev5 white.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted by Hedwig in Washington with the rationale "Layout not free". I was going to ask them but I saw that they are taking, with humor, a kind of break, then I come here. I was not aware that photos of printed circuit boards, which are utilitarian objects, are prohibited here. Further opinions to confirms or cripples this are welcome. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support In the USA, the masks for integrated circuits have a special ten year protection period which is not a copyright, see Integrated circuit layout design protection, but, because they are utilitarian, there is no copyright or other protection for printed circuit boards. The law may differ in other countries. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jim. In the US, to the extent that they are utilitarian, the design of the traces on circuit boards are not protected by copyright. Only the rare layouts in which the design incorporates non-function creative elements above the threshold of originality are protected by copyright. This does not appear to be the case for File:AbuseMark AfroFlight Naze 32 Flight Controller rev5 white.jpg. German copyright and IP laws appear to function similarly. —RP88 (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


Hey guys, User:Jcb, User:INeverCry, the author of these file has just left me a note on my local wiki talk page about possibility of restoration of these files:

I know the user is very active on creation of political related maps and as he claims he is the author of these files I also can trust him on that. I can not find any similar image on Google Images to these files, and I guess this is used as source but I ask him about exact reference if needed. So, do you see any other specific issue with these? Thanks −ebrahimtalk 08:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The PDF you linked is all text, so, while I cannot read it, I can say that it is not relevant. The problem here is not the source of the data -- data does not have a copyright. The problem is that he gives no source for the maps. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


File:GramHar.jpg has been deleted by Jcb despite of clear arguments that {{PD-Hungary}} #2 applies. There was Ungvar 1941 dateline at the page, so this has been published in Hungary in the year of 1941, and the drawing has been made by unknown author. Please review this request. --Яй (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The issue here is that there is no evidence that the artist who drew the building in the center of the seal is actually unknown. The fact that we don't happen to know who he was is irrelevant -- he must be unknown after serious inquiry has been made at the organization represented by the seal and elsewhere.

However, under the circumstances and particularly given the very small size of the drawing on this cover, I think it would be OK to restore the image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - this in not just about the small image. The depicted work is not just the small image, but rather the page as a whole. The page is not PD-ineligible IMHO. Hungary has the PMA+70 rule, so as long as we do not have any indication that the author of this 1941 work would have died before 1947, I see no reason to undelete the file. Jcb (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This picture is the logo of Subcarpathian Science Society ([1]). It is very unlikely that the publishing house would name the author of their logo in this particular book. {{PD-Hungary}} states that the year in which the author died is only relevant when ...the author becomes known during this time (70 years). Is anybody can prove that the author becomes known? --Яй (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • First it's unbecoming to respond to a reaction without reading it. As I wrote above, the copyright issue is about the depicted page as a whole. Then about your anybody can prove that part, it's actually the other way round. We have COM:PCP. You have to show evidence that the author was unknown, which you apparently cannot. Jcb (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
      • As for the depicted page as a whole there have been a vote by Yann that this is de minimis here. --Яй (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
        • I have seen that, but Yann is clearly mistaken. The depicted copyrighted work covers 100% of the image. Jcb (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The logo is de minimis here. Yann (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The book author is irrelevant here: this cover/title page contains no copyrightable information except the logo. And we have an evidence that the logo is anonymous (unsigned) and more than 70 years old. Ankry (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The title page is not creative in its words, it is factual and descriptive; the formatting is generic for books through the 19th and 20th century, so would be hard to defend as creative, and the logo is de minimis. Re demonstrating that the author is unknown, the 1941 period was tumultuous, reasonable enquiries should be sufficient for precautionary; it is not an absolute prohibition, and the precaution needs to be contingent to the amount of copyright potential, and for a title page that is becoming ridiculous. Also note that PCP says significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file please support the claim for significant doubt, rather than just doubt.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

File:明神会20周年記念誌 外見.jpg[edit]

この本の共同作成者です。 I am a co-author of this book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaztima109 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kaztima109: please follow the OTRS process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Nobodys Perfect A Derrick Simmons Film Promo Poster.jpg[edit]

I have been asked by the employee of Derrick Simmons, who is the director of the movie to create this wikipedia page. So, I am using this image on his behalf and not doing any copyright violation. --Ashishchopra778 (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ashishchopra778: Asked or not, the law is the law, and our policy is to protect us against unlawful activity. We have the OTRS process that can be used to register and record communications about making images freely available, so please follow that up if you wish to pursue the matter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

File:VT 137 331 Foto Otte.jpg[edit]

Für die Seite der Stettiner Triebwagen hätte ich gerne ein Betriebsbild als Eingang. Auch wenn das hochgeladene von den Farben her nicht das beste ist, aber es stammt aus der Zeit um 1960 und hat historischen Wert. Die Begründung für den Löschantrag hat mich nicht überzeugt.--Rainerhaufe (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Offenbar hattest Du ja E-Mails mit der Betriebsgesellschaft ausgetauscht. Du musst diese E-Mails an das OTRS-Team weiterleiten, damit sie die Bewilligung dort archivieren können. Was genau in diesen E-Mails stehen muss, damit es als Bewilligung akzeptiert wird, steht ebenfalls unter COM:OTRS --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)