Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]

Shortcut: COM:UDR · COM:UDELC · COM:UNDELC

Request undeletion

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

File:Participation Party.jpg[edit]

In some countries witch include Japan and South Korea, escheat copyright works became public domain. --Sharouser (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

If there is an exclusion in the local copyright law that is not implemented into our copyright templates, it should be discussed in COM:VPC before posting here. If it is already implemented, please point out appropriate template (or exact paragraph in the copyright law if you need help to find it; or court cases). The {{PD-textlogo}} rationale was rejected in the Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Pipenavis. Ankry (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Template:PD-South Korea contains escheat cases. (There are exceptional cases. Property rights are to belong to the state according to provisions of the Civil Law and other laws upon the death of a copyright owner without heir or, in the case of a legal person or organization, upon its dissolution. )
Participation Party was merged into the Unified Progressive Party. After the dissolution of Unified Progressive Party by the Constitutional Court of Korea, All of property of UPP was transfered to South Korean government.
  • Political Parties Act of Korea, Article 48
    • The residual assets of a political party dissolved by a ruling for dissolution by the Constitutional Court, shall revert to the National Treasury.
  • In that case, copyrigts are become public domain by South Korean copyright law Article 49(Expiry of Author's Property Rights)
  • South Korean copyright law Article 49(Expiry of Author's Property Rights)
  • Author's property rights shall expire in any of the following cases:
  • 1.Where, after the author's death without heir, author's property rights are to belong to the state according to provisions of the Civil Law and other laws
  • and
  • 2. Where, after the dissolution of a legal person or an organization who is the owner of author's property rights, author's property rights are to belong to the state according to the provisions of the Civil Law and others laws. 
There is an exclusion in the local copyright law that is implemented into our copyright templates. {{PD-South Korea}} --Sharouser (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

File:2018年台风玛利亚登陆前连江一户人家凉台花盆舞蹈.webm[edit]

And also:

Authorized mail has been sent long ago. However, the mail has not been confirmed. - I am Davidzdh. 07:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question @Davidzdh: do you have ticket numbers? Did you tag the files {{subst:OP}} as instructed at OTRS and COM:CONSENT?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:Some people have not told me ticket numbers so that I only have these up to now:
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002114
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002098
  • Ticket#: 2018081210002892
  • Ticket#: 2018081310006494
  • Ticket#: 2018081210005988
  • Ticket#: 2017071410005022

- I am Davidzdh. 01:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

So can these files be recovered now?- I am Davidzdh. 08:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If I need to do something to recover these files, please let me know and I will try my best. Thank you. - I am Davidzdh. 10:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Davidzdh: I Symbol support vote.svg Support temporary restoration of File:2017夏福州三中滨海校区址环境.jpg, as Ticket:2017071410005022 is old enough. The rest are still too young.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: restored as requested. Ankry (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:Is "too young" means there are some conditions I need to meet? If yes, what are the conditions? Thank you. - I am Davidzdh. 12:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: Other than waiting about 158 days from submission until they reach the head of the queue, no.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I see. I wait for it. Thank you very much.- I am Davidzdh. 12:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Davidzdh: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Files of ArthurWeasley~commonswiki[edit]

Deletion of these files was incorrect and the deleted ones can be found at this link per COM:VPC#Category:Illustrations by Nobu Tamura.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems most of these were deleted on the author's request for being inaccurate. So it could be argued these particular one should remain deleted for being out of scope. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Right. Don't undelete own files nominated by ArthurWeasley~commonswiki for any type of deletion.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

File:WCRA special train - Cheakamus Canyon. (34473269966).jpg[edit]

Those who review flickr images should not do so robotically, should exercise some measure of common sense. Some recently uploaded flickr images will appear to have a license problem, due to a typo, or some other kind of trivial problem. Those images should not be robotically deleted.

The following images, were all uploaded to flickr, by a uploader who says they took the images themselves, who then offered them under a free license. In years past the only free license flickr offered regular uploaders was {{cc-by-2.0}}. Traditionally they only allowed a limited number of institutions, like museums, to mark their images as public domain.

However, in recent years, they have allowed regular uploaders to mark their images as public domain.

This should have been good news for us. Unfortunately, someone took an interpretation of this change in licenses on flickr's part, and has a robot mark the images as suspect, and demand proof that the public domain license is believable.

I looked at a lot of these images, and saw ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to doubt that this flickr contributor was operating in good faith and that all these images were in fact taken by the uploader.

Whoever added the burden of extra work to those of us who upload flickr images does not seem to have considered a simple easy way to clarify that the images seem to be good faith images, taken by the flickr contributor.

All these images should be restored. Geo Swan (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

  1. File:"Strathcona" CPR parlour car. (44728299291).jpg
  2. File:"Ross Revenge" Radio Caroline. (26061996138).jpg
  3. File:WCRA special train - Cheakamus Canyon. (34473269966).jpg
  4. File:WCRA - BC Rail Tour - Williams Lake. (33710787514).jpg
  5. File:WCRA - BC Rail tour - Pine River. (34578569545).jpg
  6. File:WCRA - BC Rail tour - Pine River. (34578569525).jpg
  7. File:WCRA - BC Rail tour - Peace River. (33711606934).jpg
  8. File:WCRA - BC Rail tour - Peace River Bridge. (34394629972).jpg
  9. File:WCRA - BC Rail tour - Peace River Bridge. (34394629952).jpg
  10. File:WCRA - BC Rail tour - Peace River Bridge. (34394629942).jpg
  11. File:WCRA - BC Rail tour - Fort St John. (34394629922).jpg
  12. File:WCRA - BC Rail tour - Fort Nelson. (34169547570).jpg
  13. File:WCRA - BC Rail tour - Fort Nelson. (34169547510).jpg
  14. File:WCRA - BC Rail tour - Fort Nelson. (34169547500).jpg
  15. File:WCRA - BC Rail tour - Fontas River. (34169786090).jpg
  16. File:WCRA - BC Rail tour - Deep Creek Bridge. (33736761654).jpg
  17. File:WCRA - BC Rail tour - Blueberry River. (34169786140).jpg
  18. File:WCRA - BC Rail tour - Blueberry River. (34169786120).jpg
  19. File:WCRA - BC Rail tour - Blueberry River. (34169786110).jpg
  20. File:Rail and road bridge south of Fort Nelson. (34169547580).jpg
  21. File:Quebec. (39969924235).jpg
  22. File:Quebec - Funicular Railway. (39969924405).jpg
  23. File:Maine Narrow Gauge Railroad, Portland. (26993279288).jpg
  24. File:Quebec - Liners. (39969924285).jpg
  25. File:Mac Norris Station - Squamish BC. (34473269996).jpg
  26. File:Livorno Express from PS Kingswear Castle (38440629100).jpg
  27. File:From "Spirit of British Columbia" - Active Pass. (33704253513).jpg
  28. File:From F Unit 6311 - BC Rail - Bridge at Polley. (34472754036).jpg
  29. File:From "Queen of the North". (34364493396).jpg
  30. File:From "Queen of the North" (34364493376).jpg
  31. File:From "Queen of the North" (34247134652).jpg
  32. File:"Ross Revenge" Radio Caroline. (26061996168).jpg
  33. File:"Spirit of British Columbia" - Active Pass. (33704253503).jpg
  34. File:Cheakamus Canyon - BC Rail. (34473269986).jpg
  35. File:Euromantique at Flushing. (39540049894).jpg
  36. File:"Saga Ruby" leaving Quebec. (39969924425).jpg
  37. File:Tswassen from "Queen of the North" (34247134682).jpg
  38. File:Oil Light Fitting - Railway Coach "Strathcona" (44010583674).jpg
  39. File:"Strathcona" CPR parlour car - interior. (44728299161).jpg
  40. File:"Buda" gas (petrol) locomotive. (44010583554).jpg
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Geo Swan: Sorry, "we can only accept images licensed under Public Domain Mark 1.0 if they fall under another PD-templates scope, such as {{PD-old-100}} or {{PD-USGov-DOD}}, or if the author on Flickr has specified that they grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." per COM:PDM.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Is this a ruling, on high, from the WMF? If not, how was this decided?

      When I saw flickr made a less restrictive license available I changed the license on all my images thinking it would make it easier for other people to re-use them. How wildly counter-intuitive that choosing a less restrictive license should make it harder to re-use one's images.

      You seem to be saying every flickr contributor, who thinks a public domain mark makes it easier to re-use their images, is supposed to somehow figure out that they need to supplement that with an OTRS. Geo Swan (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I may in fact be incorrect, but my reading of what Geo Swan wrote is that there is no reason to doubt that the images fall under the second half of your inclusive or statement. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 16:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I sent the flickr uploader a flickrmail, saying:
You have uploaded many fine images... thank you very much.
You placed a public domain mark on some of them, giving permission for them to be widely re-used... again, thank you very much.
I uploaded a couple of dozen of them to the wikimedia commons, a couple of weeks ago. I was very surprised to see someone had deleted them. Another person told me that the commons
"...can only accept images licensed under Public Domain Mark 1.0 if ... if the author on Flickr has specified that they grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/ps#File:WCRA_special_train_-_Cheakamus_Canyon._(34473269966).jpg
Would you consider placing a note to this effect on your profile?
Thanks again for uploading fine pictures!
Cheers!
In their gracious flickrmail reply they thanked me, and said I had understood their intent perfectly, and that they would try to add a note with the permissions necessary to re-use his images.
Their flickr about page now says:
"I use the Public Domain category in all the items that I upload. They are mostly photographs taken by myself or by members of my family that are no longer alive. It is my intention that anyone who wishes to use any of my uploads in another context should be free to do so without recourse to me. It would be nice if the pictures were credited if they are my or my family's photographs but I don't insist upon this - my only objective is to put items that interest me into the public domain for the enjoyment of others who might share my interests."
Restore please.
I looked at COM:PDM, that Jeff G. linked to. Geez. We've got to have some way to include images where the flickr uploader is obviously a good faith individual who has only uploaded their own images. As I said above, individuals who choose a PDM, instead of {{cc-by-2.0}} are doing so because they think a freer license makes their images easier to re-use, not harder. Geo Swan (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The appropriate Flickr license for that type of thing is {{CC0}}, which is how you place your own works into the public domain. The public domain mark is actually meant for marking *other people's* works. This is per Creative Commons' guidance. I tend to agree that using that mark on your own works indicates pretty much the same thing as "I place these into the public domain", which we would normally accept, and should be fine -- however the appropriate Commons tag for those is {{PD-author}}, not the PD mark of Creative Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Thanks.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: Have you talked to such individuals about this?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I am not sure I understand your question. Are you asking how much effort I have made to communicate with flickr contributors over what their licenses mean?
  • In 2009, when I uploaded flickr images one at a time I took an extra 30 seconds to leave an explicit thank you on the flickr page of every image I uploaded, and a link to the images commons description page. I did this for about five years. During this period lots of people replied graciously. Three people were upset. I explained that there were circumstances where the commons community might agree to a courtesy deletion, even though our flickrreview robot had confirmed they were properly licensed. I explained that deletion was not up to me, but rather the community. And I offered to initiate the deletion discussion, and tell them where it was, so they could weigh in.
  1. One adult declined my offer, told me how cross she was, but decided to simply amend the licenses of all her images, so people would no longer have permission to use them in future.
  2. The individual who partially succeeded in winning courtesy deletion was a student who went on a field trip to an Inuit community on Baffin Island -- either Pond Inlet or Pangnitung. She said she was too young to understand what the license meant, and now thought she had made a mistake to have uploaded some images of children. The community deleted the images that included the children, and kept the rest.
  3. The final individual did not win courtesy deletion. His request was complicated because (1) his anger made him go ballistic, accuse the WMF of intellectual dishonesty, and actual theft; (2) Other commons contributors had uploaded about 400 of this guys image, over the years - but he had also started his own commons ID, and had personally uploaded 3 or 4 dozen images here. This completely undermined any claim that he didn't understand the licenses he was using.

    It seems my polite thank you prompted him to count how many of his images had been uploaded here, and it passed some kind of threshhold that triggered an extreme over-reaction.

    When he realized we weren't going to agree to let him claw back the images he said we had completely ruined photography for him -- a hobby he had enjoyed for over forty years, and on which he had spent tens of thousands of dollars. He said he would use his flickr ID to warn the rest of the flickr community how they too were at risk of having their images stolen by commons contributors. He did put up some kind of note on his main flickr page. But a week or two later his flickr ID was shut down. I think his efforts violated the flickr terms of service.

  • So, if you are asking whether I have ever communicated with flickr contributors over what the licenses they chose really meant, the answer is Yes, I have done that, a lot. I've also reached out to some flickr contributors who had uploaded good images of topics we really needed images for, and asked them to consider changing the licensing on those images to a free license. I didn't get any angry responses. I think a few people agreed to change their licensing.
  • My own flickr about page is the one I drafted in 2009. It predates flickr adding additional licensing options. I guess it is overdue for an update. But I think it shows I have made an ongoing effort to communicate with flickr contributors over their licensing choices and what those choices mean. Geo Swan (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per Geo Swan. Yann (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Jeff G. offered their opinion of what the flickr contributor had to do for these images to remain here. I drew the flickr uploader's attention to this discussion. The flickr uploader complied with the request. I request anyone who concluded their attempt to comply with our rules fell short, to explain how their efforts fell short. Geo Swan (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: WCRA special train - Cheakamus Canyon. is still showing "Public Domain Work", expressed as "Cc-public domain mark white.svg Public domain", which is a mark, not a license, and thus unacceptable on Commons. The appropriate license which matches William Davies' expressed intent is "Public Domain Dedication (CC0)", expressed as "Cc-zero.svg Public domain". Please note the differences in the icons and links. I would encourage him to change his Photostream's license en masse to "Public Domain Dedication (CC0)" by selecting all at Flickr: Organize your photos & videos, dragging up, and then clicking "Permissions / Change licensing".   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 08:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Let's not make good faith flickr contributors jump through hoops -- hoops they don't understand.

Some regular people find the details of the free licenses we aim for here, overly complicated, bizarre. I am concerned that we risk frustrating those good faith flickr contributors, when they have clearly expressed their intent, to throw their hands up in frustration, and change to "all rights reserved", because we are so hard to please.

My OTRS from 2009, when cc-by-sa was the free-est license choice flickr provided, said that, without regard to the license on my images on flickr, I place them all in the public domain.

Flickr makes periodic changes to its user interface. I know they made at least one that made applying a license change to all images an order of magnitude more complicated, and time consuming. Jeff's suggestion? I am afraid our flickr contributor might find the same result I did, a year or three ago, if they can follow those instructions. I experienced a long, long wait, as flickr tried to assemble an internal list of all my images, prior to changing the license, followed by its link to my computer timing out -- and none of the licenses ended up being changed.

So, in this particular case, I recommend restoration of the images, in light of his or her clearly expressed intent. Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Stickers Währinger Gürtel.jpg[edit]

The reason was No FoP for single pieces of artwork in Austria. The image shows three stickers on a lantern pole in the street, e.g. public space. Acc. to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Austria it does not fall into architectural works (left column), but into other works (right column), where two-dimensional works of visual arts is explicitly allowed (and open in scope). If the nominator is right with the single piece of artwork, than a sticker is explicitly allowed. But the image showed only some stickers without any intent of art. Stickers are placed in the public space permanently by intent (just like graffiti). Pinging @B dash: who did not see or ignore my question. I cannot follow arguments, so please undelete. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hanka Kliese[edit]

Bitte das Artikelbild wieder korrigieren. Korrekte Version war Hanka Kliese-d87a25a9.jpg

Fotograf ist Götz Schleser. Vielen Dank!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanka Kliese (talk • contribs) 12:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

English:

Please restore the article picture named Hanka Kliese-d87a25a9.jpg

Name of the photograph: Götz Schleser

It is a picture of myself, taken for myself, I have all the rights.

Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanka Kliese (talk • contribs) 13:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Hanka Kliese: Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per COM:PCP. None on the three photographers you use (Claudia Dumke, Amac Garbe, Frank Müller) is credited, yet File:Hanka Kliese-d87a25a9.jpg does not look like a self-portrait even though you claim to be the author. Please have the photographer send permission via OTRS with a copy to you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Never claimded to be the author, of course it is not a self-portrait. I wrote: It is a picture OF myself, taken FOR myself (not BY). Also I don't USE (?) any photographers, the picture was taken by Götz Schleser.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanka Kliese (talk • contribs) 14:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hanka Kliese: Who holds the copyright?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

As written multiple times, I do of course.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanka Kliese (talk • contribs) 15:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hanka Kliese: Exactly how did you acquire it?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The picture was taken on my behalf as part of my 2014 election campaign. I own all the rights. Otherwise I obviously wouldn't have used it. You can find it on my website, borchures and so far and so on. I can hardly imagine how anyone vould have gotten to the impression, that it wasn't a picture I own the rights to. As there have been multiple spurious changes to my article page recently, I assume that to be a part of it and kindly ask you to restore the page. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanka Kliese (talk • contribs) 15:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hanka Kliese: I can assure you that I have never touched the biography of you at de:Hanka Kliese; you shouldn't have done so per de:WP:COI. Pinging @Túrelio about this photo.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Neither did I touch the biography, at least not since June 2017. The changes were made by another person and not in the biography part. Under the point "Sonstiges" there were added some false statements and I reversed them. To assure maximum transparency, I did this under the real name (as always), which cannot be said about the person who introduced the fake parts. Of course I didn't want to imply this person was you. Thank you for you help, I'm hoping the damage done to the article will soon be repaired.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanka Kliese (talk • contribs) 16:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The problems regarding the content of the article are now set to be fixed within the next few days. So will it also take some more days till the original picture is back in place and everything will then be set back to the repaired version at once? I didn't hear anything yet from the person you contacted in your last comment and I just realised that the picture is still the wrong one, so I wanted to check back for that matter. Thank you in advance.

This is not how copyright law works "Otherwise I wouldn't have used it" would be laughed out of court room, because "Otherwise all copyright infringers would use that defence". Now, I am not saying that you are infringing the copyright, but you must provide evidence that you hold the copyright. You are the copyright owner if 1) You pressed the shutter, even if remotely, 2) You acquired from the person who pressed the shutter, 3) You have set up the camera, chose the aperture, exposure, white balance, timing, and focus, after that you have signalled another person to take the photo, and were the one who handled the image afterwards (note that in this case it is important that the decision to press the shutter was actually yours, you had to signal that other person and not rely on that person's judgement of when to take the photo, saying "Take a photo when I am ready" is precisely what would make them and not you the author, since they make a creative decision). So could you please explain how the image was taken. Ignoring the conversation and repeating the claim that you own the copyright will not convince anybody to restore it. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 10:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote above: "The picture was taken on my behalf as part of my 2014 election campaign. I own all the rights." And because I understand the copyright concerns, of course otherwise I obviously wouldn't have used it. By that, I mean, I would of course never upload a picture of which I don't own the copyright to. That is what I wanted to say with this statement. What is laughable about that point remains unclear to me.

So it obviously - as probably in almost every case with a portrait picture of a politician - would be number 2 of the options you put out. 1 and 3 would be types of "taken BY myself" which was ruled out way up front in this discussion. It was a portrait shooting for a campaign. Maybe it becomes clear, by also repeating: "Never claimded to be the author, of course it is not a self-portrait. I wrote: It is a picture OF myself, taken FOR myself (not BY)."

Hello once again, just checked and the image is still the wrong one. Has there been any progress in restoring the picture? So far I unfortunately didn't get an answer. I also sent the permission to use the picture to the "permissions"-e-mail-adress a while ago, no reaction from there as well. Compared to how fast the erasure went, I would really appreciate if the restoral would also move up. In the meantime, as I'm still trying to get a sense of the very specific rules of this encylclopedia, I would also like to ask if there has there been reported a substantiated copyright complaint? I can't imagine why anyone would bring that up, as there was nothing wrong with the picture. Or is it the same as with the changes made to the content of the article itself: changes can be made pretty arbitrarily, without proof and only reversing the damage done takes a lot of time and proof with all the discussions connected to this? Thanks in advance.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanka Kliese (talk • contribs) 13:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hanka Kliese: The photo author (photographer) is the photo copyright owner by default. And if the copyright owner is somebody else, there is some contract (eg. the photographer's job contract, copyright transfer contract, etc.) that states so. And we need en evidence that such a contract exist; in written form as required by copyright law. We understand that such contracts cannot be made public and their evidence cannot be proven in on-wiki discussion. So we have the OTRS system for this purpose. Unfortunately, our OTRS team is small and overloaded, so processing emails sent to OTRS requires time. Few months, now. And, basing om information you provided, I see no other way to restore your photo that providing all the copyright-related information including your written permission to OTRS, verifying the provided information by an OTRS agent, and the agent's request to undelete it. Even if you have rights to use the photo in your campaign or for other purposes, this does not mean that you are the copyright owner. And only the actual copyright owner may make the photo freely licensed. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose undeletion at this point. Ankry (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Please restore files uploaded by Catsquisher[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Numerous image files that I uploaded years ago have recently been deleted or are pending deletion. All of the images I’m referring to are from utility patents. When I posted the images years ago I used a licensing template that indicated that the drawings are in the public domain because the content of utility patents is typically not copyrightable. The template was later modified to claim that the exemption from copyrights only applies “to images published before March 1, 1989.” That change to the license template may be a reflection that the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals ruled in Yardley, 493 F.2d 1389 (C.C.P.A. 1974) that "Congress has not provided that an author inventor must elect between securing a copyright or securing a design patent." While the consequence of that ruling is that authors/inventors of design patents could assert copyrights on their designs, the ruling did not extend to utility patents. The ruling acknowledges that design patents are granted for the novelty of ornamental design (potentially copyrightable), whereas utility patents are granted based on functional novelty (not copyrightable). All of the patent drawing images I have uploaded are from utility patents that made no copyright claims, and are thus within the public domain. Therefore, I request that they be restored to the creative commons. Catsquisher (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that you need to bring that up either on the talk page of the template, or on COM:Village pump/Copyright (or better bring it up on one and then link notify about it on the other). This isn't something that should be done on the file per file basis. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 09:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Postal. Please see COM:Village pump/Copyright#Reproductions_of_patent_text_and_illustrationsCatsquisher (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: @Hystrix, Josve05a: Most of these files were deleted as "out of scope" but they seem to be acceptable images, mostly of natural landmarks. They were indeed uploaded with the intent to promote tourism in Nigeria, but there is no conflict with our project scope. Also, the uploader has verified via OTRS their identity as a representative of the Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation, which should resolve most copyright concerns. Guanaco (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Restore Providing images and other media about tourism in any country is educational at its core. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 17:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Please see homepage of Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation [1], Point 3: “Unless expressly stated otherwise, you may not reproduce, modify, disseminate or otherwise exploit our Content in any way or form without our prior express approval. ... Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation trademarks and Tour Nigeria logos may only be used in conjunction with goods produced by Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation or with the express prior approval of Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation For the avoidance of doubt, the Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation corporate logo may only be used by Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation.” and also com:L and com:advert. --Hystrix (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but since the account is verified, dual-licensing applies and should be good. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
As for the mention of COM:advert it links to the section that the file must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Simply stating that something is an advertisement is not sufficient reason to delete it. That section is intended to say that advertisements are not automatically useful, not that they are automatically unuseful. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Guanaco: the e-mail to OTRS contains only the permission for the user account (NTDC). All photos are missing the name of the photographer. Some were previously published on Instagram. If NTDC is the rightholder, a permission must be shared for all photos. (Die E-Mail an OTRS enthält nur die Genehmigung für das User-Konto Nigerian Tourism Development Corporation (NTDC). Bei allen Fotos fehlt der Name des Fotografen. Einige wurden zuvor auf Instagram veröffentlcht. Wenn NTDC Rechteinhaber ist, muss eine Freigabe für alle Fotos erfolgen.) Hystrix (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hystrix: These should be OK if they were not previously published elsewhere, or if the EXIF data is consistent. The logo should also be OK. That's the point to have a verified account. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The logo is restored. However, the photos are so different that they probably come from different photographers or websites. There is currently no approval. EXIF data are not available on any photo. (Das Logo ist wiederhergestellt. Die Fotos allerdings sind so unterschiedlich, dass sie vermutlich von verschiedenen Fotografen oder Webseiten stammen. Es gibt derzeit keine Genehmigung. EXIF data sind bei keinem Foto vorhanden.) Hystrix (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unless the photographers are named (here or via OTRS).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

File:1902 egg open.jpg[edit]

At 13 of August 2018, the photographer David Katz wrote to you the next e-mail (I have the copy):

I hereby affirm that I, David Katz, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1902_egg_open.jpg. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. David Katz 2018-08-13


Nevertheless, today the file was deleted. David Katz have written the same e-mail today and he get answer with number Ticket#: 2018101210007883.

Best regards, Academicien. Academicien (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.27.64.248 (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 158 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. Pinging @Academicien.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

E-mail with permission was sent yesterday to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org - when we can except the decision? Best regards. Academicien. Academicien (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Academicien: You may expect a response re yesterday's message within about 151 days, and re the 13 August message 29 days sooner.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Корниловцы Владивосток 2.jpg[edit]

Прошу ответить мне, почему удален этот файл. Нарушение авторских прав? Надо сделать ссылку на сайт?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Спиридонов8 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Please answer me why this file was deleted. Copyright violation? Need to make a link to the site?
 
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Спиридонов8: Вы не представили никакой лицензии. Какая лицензия подходит?
You presented no license. What license is appropriate?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Автор изображения разрешает использовать изображения с его сайта при наличии гиперссылки. Я в тексте ссылки поставил, так что использовать можно это изображение по Свободной лицензии.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Спиридонов8 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Здравствуйте, на Викискладе недостаточно, чтобы файл можно было использовать и распространять при соблюдении какого-либо условия (например предоставления ссылки на источник), также необходимо, чтобы любой человек имел возможность изменять и распространять файл (в том числе в коммерческих целях). Пердоставляет-ли данное право автор этого файла? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 15:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Довженко Григорій Овсентійович майский сад.jpg[edit]

It is the picture of my Granfather (Dovzhenko Grigoriy) from our family archive that was made by one of our family friends in his garden.

I would like to use it, as a main image for his profile in Russia, Ukrainian and English languages.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Довженко Олена Тарасівна (talk • contribs) 10:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Family photos are also copyrighted. We need a written free-license permission from the person who made the photo, or from heirs of this person or an evidence that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. Ankry (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Foto de perfil de Adán Humberto Bahl.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Envíe los permisos a OTRS. [Ticket#: 2018101210006571] Betobahl (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 158 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.

If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply. De728631 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

(many files)[edit]

Alle Bilder hier wurden von uns (dem Swiss Holiday Park) hochgeladen. Die Bildnutzungsrechte liegen im Sinne der CC 4.0 bei uns:

I cannot find such files. Were they uploaded? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Ahh, I found what you mean. You have forgotten File: on quite a few of them. If we look at File:SHP Bad Abend 001.jpg we see that it was deleted with the description: "Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1): Copyright holder: Stefan Zuerrer" ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Laoag transport, Philippines; November 2014.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have no idea why these files were deleted. I imported the files by using Flickr2Commons, which automatically confirms whether a file is released under CC license. Could an admin have a look whether the files is licensed under CC license? If so, why are these files tagged by "missing permission"? Thank you in advance. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 08:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The first photo (if I remember correctly) was licensed under PD-Mark, as well as the second file. Thank you. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 12:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Files of Glazgebura[edit]

Please undelete this files:

I am author of them(except for Bronislawa Kowalska 2001). I have corresponed with Tomasz Ganicz abut authors laws to these files. He accept my declaration. The file Bronilawa Kowalska 2001, is a documentary photo have been made in special point photo studio, and Bronialawa Kowalska purchased the copys and laws to this image.


Yours sincerely,K.G.Glaz

Below copy my correspondetion with Tomasz Ganicz.

Pozwolenia

Krzysztof Gebura <kr.g.glaz@gmail.com> 30 wrz 2018, 13:32

do permissions-pl

Niniejszym zaświadczam, że jestem jedynym właścicielem[1] wyłącznych majątkowych praw autorskich do następujących utworów[2]: -Bronislawa Kowalska 2001 jpg. -Uniwersytet Wroclawski wreczenie dyplomow doktorskich 2015 jpg. -Bronislawa Kowalska w swoim biurze poselskim 1997 jpg. -Legnica Dzien Dziecka 2000 jpg. Bronisława Kowalska 2001.jpg Uniwersytet Wrocławski wręczenie dyplomów doktorskich 2015.jpg Bronisława Kowalska w swoim biurze poselskim 1997.jpg Legnica Dzien Dziecka 2000.jpg Wyrażam zgodę na wykorzystanie wspomnianych utworów na zasadach licencji Creative Commons: uznanie autorstwa, na tych samych warunkach, wersja 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.pl )[3]. Jestem świadomy że udostępniając tę pracę na wyżej wspomnianej licencji zgadzam się na jej komercyjne wykorzystanie i modyfikacje w zależności od potrzeb użytkowników. Wiem, że autorzy zachowują osobiste prawa autorskie do wspomnianej pracy i że, o ile wyrażają taką wolę, ich autorstwo musi być uznane na zasadach wybranej powyżej licencji. Modyfikacje wprowadzone do pracy nie będą natomiast przypisywane tym autorom. Jestem świadomy, że licencja odnosi się tylko do kwestii prawno-autorskich, zastrzegam sobie prawo do podjęcia działań w stosunku do osób wykorzystujących w/w utwór/utworyw sposób sugerujący paszkwil czy zniesławienie oraz w przypadkach naruszania przez takie osoby praw osobistych, praw pokrewnych czy ograniczeń związanych ze znakami towarowymi. Przyjmuję do wiadomości, że wyrażonej niniejszym zgody nie mogę cofnąć i że utwory na wykorzystanie, których wyraziłem/am zgodę mogą być bezterminowo przechowywane w dowolnej formie elektronicznej w projektach Wikimedia. Kr.G.Glaz 30/09/2018 pon., 15 paź 2018 o 15:13 Zezwolenia - Polskie projekty Wikimedia <permissions-pl@wikimedia.org> napisał(a): Szanowny Panie,

W takim razie można te wszystkie zdjęcia, oprócz portretowego załadować do Commons - my w tym nie pośredniczymi - najlepiej jakby sam autor je załadował. Co do zdjęcia z zakładu fotograficznego - to o ile nie została podpisana umowa na przeniesienie praw majątkowych na zlecającego, zgodnie z polskim prawem - prawa te pozostają przy zakładzie fotograficznym i trzeba znaleźć jego właściciela albo spadkobierców, lub ew. wykonać inne zdjęcie portretowe samodzielnie.


Z poważaniem,

Tomasz Ganicz

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Glazgebura (talk • contribs) 10:39, 19 October 2018‎ (UTC)
  • @Glazgebura: Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Translated "correspondetion" follows.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
permits

Krzysztof Gebura <kr.g.glaz@gmail.com> Sep 30, 2018, 13:32

to permissions-pl

I hereby certify that I am the sole owner of [1] exclusive proprietary copyrights to the following works [2]: -Bronislawa Kowalska 2001 jpg. -University of Wroclaw, completion of doctoral dissertations 2015 jpg. -Bronisława Kowalska in her parliamentary office 1997 jpg. -Legnica Children's Day 2000 jpg. Bronisława Kowalska 2001.jpg University of Wrocław handing doctoral diplomas 2015.jpg Bronisława Kowalska in her parliamentary office 1997.jpg Legnica Children's Day 2000.jpg I agree to use these works under a Creative Commons license: recognition under the same conditions, version 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.pl) [3]. I am aware that by making this work available on the aforementioned license, I agree to its commercial use and modification depending on the needs of users. I know that the authors retain their personal copyrights for the said work and that, if they so wish, their authorship must be recognized under the terms of the license chosen above. However, the modifications made to the work will not be attributed to these authors. I am aware that the license refers only to legal and copyright issues, I reserve the right to take action against people using the above-mentioned work / work in a way that suggests defamation or defamation and in cases when such persons infringe on personal rights, related rights or restrictions associated with trademarks. I understand that I can not withdraw my consent here and that works for use that I have agreed may be stored indefinitely in any electronic form in Wikimedia projects. Kr.G.Glaz 30/09/2018 Mon, 15 Oct 2018 at 15:13 Permits - Polish projects Wikimedia <permissions-pl@wikimedia.org> wrote (a): Sir,

In this case, you can all these photos, except portrait, upload to Commons - we are not intermediaries - it is best if the author himself has loaded them. As for the photo from the photo shop - unless an agreement has been signed for the transfer of property rights to the ordering party, in accordance with Polish law - these rights remain at the photographic establishment and you must find its owner or heirs, or possibly take a different portrait photo yourself.


Sincerely,
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Akbansel[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Deletion request included statement that no proof of ownership was provided. Ownership attestation was submitted as part of the upload process, as is standard.

In terms of the assertion that the images are advertisements, the placement of all images was contextually appropriate, adding illustrative value. The item in the images is unique, so it necessarily will be identifiable... it's not akin to uploading a generic item and specifying the brand. However, to minimize the "advertisement" aspect, I removed all website links, if such links were present, and removed references to the product name in the descriptions.

Finally, I created a discussion about this deletion request and gave the reasons listed above. Wikimedia's deletion policy states:

The file/page may be deleted on decision by an admin if there were good reasons given in the debate for doing so.

It also states:

Administrators closing deletion requests are expected to provide adequate explanation for their decision.

I reviewed the talk pages and the deletion log, and can't find any reason given by the deleter. I respectfully request undeletion, or if not, at least a review of the deletion criteria and an explanation of why the deletion was valid. Akbansel (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - nomination reason in the DR is clear enough. This is an advertisement and also there is no evidence of permission. Jcb (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question When you say «Ownership attestation was submitted as part of the upload process, as is standard.» do you mean that you have followed COM:OTRS? Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you did, I believe that we need to restore. Showing anything can be an advertisement for that item. I think that the no-advertising policy clearly was intended to stop textual images with prices and other nonsense like that, not to stop companies releasing the images of their products under the free licence. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 09:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Aspahbod[edit]

In the deletion request here a person said that "No indication of own work on any of these" images, but the user's page on English wikipedia [2] shows they claimed them as own work and have a consistent artistic style. (A few images survived the deletion request because they were uploaded first to WP, then to commons by other users).

Streamline8988 (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Restore per nomination ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 09:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aspahbod. Please send the permission and the original, unretouched, high resolution photos with intact EXIF metadata via OTRS for verification.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The files in question are CGI images uploaded in the PNG format. They don't have EXIF. I'm also not the user who created them. Streamline8988 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @Aspahbod.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Dota Kehr 2018 Foto von Annika Weinthal.jpg[edit]

{{OTRS Pending}}--Miereneuker (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If an OTRS permission has been sent, a OTRS volunteer will process the request in due order and take the appropriate steps. Thuresson (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

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

File:The Film From Lot 15 poster.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The poster in question is my own original work. My name is Max Coultan, and I directed this film. I own full rights to the film as well. I took the photo, I edited the poster. The poster can be found on The Film From Lot 15 IMDB page, which I also created. If you don't believe me, you can see that my wikipedia contact email is the same as Max Coultan's contact email on IMDB, this is because I am Max Coultan, and that is my poster, and I want it on the page. Tmcoultan (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Tmcoultan: Sorry, the poster is probably too complex to be under TOO in the country of origin. Please send COM:L compliant permission via OTRS.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as per above. --Yann (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Courtesy BrytCity Baba.jpg[edit]

Reason Source: Self-photographed

Mlajum (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:10, 21 October 2018‎ (UTC)

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

File:Lung capacity measures.png (formerly File:Lung.png)[edit]

A diagram from 2007 wrongly deleted and replaced by Túrelio with a worse image uploaded in 2014 by a single-purpose account. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ký hiệu dùng trong hô hấp 2014-03-03 00-06.png for details. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 Not done: Not deleted (yet). Please answer in the deletion request. --Yann (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Michael Bistekos (2011).jpg[edit]

This photo is made by myself. I am Michael Bistekos.--WoundedMosquito (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 Not done Procedural close, file not found.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Jeff_G. is not a Commons administrator. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I couldn't tell which of his alleged photos of himself he was referring to. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michael Georg Bistekos 2011.jpg.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Which of the two files was deleted as of 10:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Faruk03.png[edit]

Please, let me know specifically what copyright you need. You can reach the owner at fyabo@hotmail.com for verification on copyright.

Thank for your efforts.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashirmsaad (talk • contribs) 11:45, 21 October 2018‎ (UTC)
  • @Bashirmsaad: Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is similar to http://eycouncil.org/home-eight-2/boardoftrustees/ and a possible recreation of File:Faruk Malami Yabo PIC02.jpg. Please have the photographer send permission via OTRS with a copy to you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

File:CFSF Tokai.jpg[edit]

Hi,

The first time I uploaded this photo, the details were correct (I edited the licence agreement correctly). Next it was starred and I got a message it would be deleted if I didn't update the licence agreement. I did so, within the time period. Now it is deleted again.

I just cannot understand how Wiki cannot get this right. Does it not want our photos? How is google able to get this right?

Please can you give an explanation as to why my photo is deleted, and please undelete it and add it back to my page.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Alanna Rebelo

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arebelo (talk • contribs) 17:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Arebelo: Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. Dr. Rebelo, it appears you didn't remove the {{No permission since}} line. Pinging @Túrelio.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff G. I actually have a job and so I only use wikipedia once every couple of years. I dont have time to read through all these screeds of impenetrable documents and licence stuff. It is NOT very user friendly for people like us. I'm so tired of being treated like a criminal by trigger-happy wiki police, when I'm just trying to make information available. I have no conflicts of interest, I just consider it community service. I see there are MANY people who feel the same as me. Could you please help me? I cannot understand what is going on. I have several issues:

1) One of my images has just been deleted. I thought I jumped through all the (complex) licencing hoops years ago. A few weeks back I got a note to say my photo is going to be deleted. I went on and (thought) I did what they instructed. However now the photo is deleted. How do I fix this? I'm so frustrated.
2) I went on to add historical information about the Tokai Arboretum, however wiki said that I took all info from a website and now is investigating copyright issues. However I have full permission to use this text, and said as much. Now the next thing is to try sort this out. But in the meanwhile, Wikipedia (wikipolice!) seem to have blocked the page. How am I supposed to get a chance to get all the admin in order if they just jump to conclusions so quickly?
3) Now I see that another page that I made about 2 years ago (Tokai Park), has also been closed, and it simply states : "under copy-right investigation". What the hell does this have to do with anything? Why has this page been affected?

If you could please help me with any of these issues I would be so grateful. I've put a lot of after-work-hours time in and I really just wanted to do a good thing. Yet I'm treated like a criminal. I cannot understand why Wikipedia is so stringent, when Google for example is happy to accept any of my imagery without any complicated and awful licence agreements! What a pain... If you could explain what I need to do: in common English (not wikipedia jargon) I would be much obliged. I realise you are probably also volunteering too, and this is not your job, so I do appreciate your time. Arebelo (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Arebelo: This file is copied from Facebook. Could you please upload the original file instead? Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Abigail Harrison Astronaut Abby Astronaut Luca Parmitano.jpg to undelete.jpg[edit]

This has been marked for deletion due to copyright- I am Abigail Harrison - I own the image and give permission for file to be used with Creative Commons license - please undelete this image and reinstate.

--Stargirl1997 (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Please Undelete this file
File:Abigail Harrison Astronaut Abby NASA Rover.jpg

I am Abigail Harrison - I uploaded the image and give permission for it to be used on Wikipedia with a Creative Commons license.--Stargirl1997 (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Please Undelete following Images

I am Abigail Harrison - I own these images listed below and give permission for them to be used with Creative Commons license by Wikipedia

--Stargirl1997 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Nottingham_College.png[edit]

This is a logo of a college institution to appear on the Nottingham College entry.

The logo does not have copyright attached to it, but is a brand logo of an organisation. It should be acceptable to have a low-res version of the logo displayed on the entry without any issues.

Jamesmacwhite (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Jamesmacwhite: I oppose restoration of this logo file because it appears to be a copyright violation due to it being available on the Internet previously or over the TOO in the country of origin. Please have the logo designer send COM:L compliant permission via OTRS with a copy to you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 03:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Rakkun.jpg.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have the autorized rights of the picture, i uploaded to make a artist autorized biography. DeMon0615 (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @DeMon0615: I oppose restoration of this photo because it appears to be a copyright violation due to it being available on the Internet previously. Please have the copyright holder send COM:L compliant permission via OTRS with a copy to you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 03:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Yar_Mohammad_Khan.jpg[edit]

This image File:Yar_Mohammad_Khan.jpg matches with the rest two images. --Rambunctious.man (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Bruntál gymnazium.jpg[edit]

The deletion explanation was No permission from Ladislav Homolka. Czech Republic has freedom of panorama. Whoever Ladislav Homolka is, his opinion is not of interest. --Thomas Ledl (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

僕が撮影しました。[edit]

三郷ジャンクションと鶴ヶ島ジャンクションの写真は正直言うと、私が撮影したので、著作権は私にあります。 著作権は私にあるので、反しているとは思えません。 私が撮影して、自分のブログにアップした物を引用しただけです。 撤回御願いします。

私が撮影したのに他の方が削除する理由はありますか?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 隼人瓜 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Eff Raps. art gallery.jpg[edit]

Reason for the request - the photo was taken by myself with my digital compact camera, I am the rightful owner. I will change the source to reflect this. I forgot to use the appropriate tag {{Self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} Mrdeeyou (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please send the original, unretouched, high resolution photo with intact EXIF metadata with permission via OTRS.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Eff Raps. on stage.jpg[edit]

I am the rightful owner of this image. I uploaded to a Facebook page that I manage and thus, used this as the source. I forgot to tag the licence {{Self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdeeyou (talk • contribs) 09:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mrdeeyou: Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please send the original, unretouched, high resolution photo with intact EXIF metadata with permission via OTRS.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Portrait Harald Stossier fh.jpg[edit]

The file was uploaded and deleted according to missing right declarations. As requested by you, an email was submitted to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" declaring all rights. the file is still unavailable and I can not find any status about what is going on, or if I am something missing on my end.

please advise!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yet another IT guy (talk • contribs) 09:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Yet another IT guy: Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If a free license has been sent to OTRS, then the file will be restored automatically when and if the email is received, processed, and approved. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 158 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.
If the message was sent to the English language version of OTRS and the email has been properly received there the sender will receive an automatic reply with the ticket number. If the sender has not had a reply, please check that it was sent correctly and try again. Other language versions may or may not provide the automatic reply.
Also, this was a recreation of File:Portrait Prof. Dr. Harald Stossier.jpg, which was deleted as a copyvio because "Source is © Copyright Franz Gerdl http://www.franzgerdl.com/kontakt/".   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)