Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

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

Current requests[edit]


Request undeletion

Enter a descriptive heading and press the button:

This is a dashboard widget.

Files uploaded by Tontonyua[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: These files are all inseparable and extremely important part of Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020) announced by People's Government of Beijing Municipality. According to Article 5 of Copyright Law of People's Republic of China, as well as Article 9 of Urban and Rural Planning Law of People's Republic of China ("All units and individuals shall abide by the urban and rural planning approved and announced in accordance with the law, ..."), these files are out of copyright protection. Where are copyright violations? WQL (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Shizhao, Jcb: Pinging sysops concerned. --WQL (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - We do not work for the Chinese government. I see no valid reason why these files would be PD. None of the reasons for {{PD-PRC-exempt}} applies. Jcb (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose How can urban planning law make something public domain? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jcb, Gone Postal: Because in China, all plans are enforced according to these texts and maps in the plan. Government shall enforce the plan in reference of these maps according to the planning law. And, in many time, maps are the ONLY legal reference. So, these maps have an obvious administrative nature, and are not subject to copyright, which meets the criterion of "resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs". --WQL (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Ok, that sounds reasonable, but I do not know enough about China's law to say more. There was that case where annotated legal documents were judged as public domain in the USA even though they were created by the private entity[1], so this is not unreasonable to believe that something that appears not to be "law" is still in public domain. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 10:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
        • In fact, all content created by government with administrative nature to all people are in public domain, and all these maps have this nature. In the letter Reply of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on the "Beijing Urban Master Plan (2016-2035)", the State Council said, "XIII. (The Beijing Municipal People's Government shall) [R]esolutely safeguard the seriousness and authority of the plan. The "Master Plan" is the basic basis for the development, construction and management of urban areas in Beijing. It must be strictly implemented. No department or individual may arbitrarily modify or violate regulations." Also, if there are any parts that are not covered in the planning text, planning maps shall be followed as the only reference. --WQL (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I disagree that these maps would be documents with an administrative nature. They are also derivative works of maps that are unsourced and probably not in the Public Domain. Jcb (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I have given sources in this request before (repeat them again:Beijing City Overall Plan (2016-2035) and Beijing City Overall Plan (2004-2020)), and I affirm that my view is right. Also, in China there is no doubt that all government planning documents' copyrights held by the government. WQL (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
            • Symbol support vote.svg Support This appears to be a benefit to us of China's system of government.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
            • copyrights held by the government ≠ public domain (in China). and see [1]: "以北京市城市规划设计研究院、中国城市规划设计研究院、清华大学三家研究单位牵头,30个国家级和市级权威机构、近200名专家学者参与了研究工作。",很难说这些文件与图表全部都属于PD(特别是政府完全可以以行政司法名义合理使用受著作权保护的作品)--shizhao (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
              • 或许我们也得看是相关机构做了这些工作是为了谁。您看,此类大型规划,政府必须向符合一级城乡规划资质的机构公开招标,同时也一定会拨给一定款项,所以我基于这一原因也相信政府拥有相关版权。--WQL (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Inclined to support restoration and keeping files that were reuploaded by a different user out of process. They appear to be "indispensable" to the proposed city planning Abzeronow (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As noted in the discussion below regarding File:印军越界现场照片(一).png, {{PD-PRC-exempt}} applies only to "textual documents" and not to maps, plans, or photographs. Unless we can get a colleague who reads Chinese to offer a different opinion, I think we are stuck with the precedents cited there. Entirely aside from that, I think that the images that include photographs must be deleted on the grounds that the photos may well be copyrighted and all of the maps must be shown to actually be Chinese government creations. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think two articles of the law are most relevant in this case. (You may read the corresponding English translation.) Article 5, 本法不适用于: (1) 法律、法规,国家机关的决议、决定、命令和其他具有立法、行政、司法性质的文件,及其官方正式译文. Article 22, 在下列情况下使用作品,可以不经著作权人许可,不向其支付报酬,但应当指明作者姓名、作品名称,并且不得侵犯著作权人依照本法享有的其他权利: (7) 国家机关为执行公务在合理范围内使用已经发表的作品. What I think it says is, all government documents of administrative, legislative and judicial nature are not subject to copyright. 文件 means documents, which can include images. However, article 22 gives the government exemption to use copyrighted works. So my conclusion is, if an image is attributed to a government, or unattributed but included in a government document, it is free; if a work is attributed to some other organisations, for example File:福州烟台山历史文化风貌区土地利用规划图.jpg by Shanghai Tongji Urban Planning & Design Institute and Fuzhou Academy of Planning and Design, it is an instance of fair use by the government and hence unfree. For the free files, they should be verified by licence review. Also in this regard, 董辰兴 (talk · contribs) has recently uploaded a lot of copyvios.--Roy17 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Roy17, I will gladly defer to your native Mandarin skills, but I would like to be sure we are clear. At Commons:Deletion requests/File:China Immigration Inspection brand image-nihao.jpg, Stefan4 says:

"Case 1 in {{PD-PRC-exempt}} uses the word 文件, which seems to mean 'textual documents', i.e. literary works"

That would not include photographs and maps as they are not textual. On the other hand, above, you say:

"... 文件 means documents, which can include images."

Are you sure that 文件 is not just textual, but includes images and maps? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: wikt:文件[2][3]. What you cited is not even a valid precedent for this UDR, because (if that image is [4]) it should be deleted because it is not part of a document. The analysis in that DR was not correct, but the decision was.--Roy17 (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Roy17, but I am not concerned about that as precedent here, but simply the meaning of 文件. Does it clearly mean "documents, including text, photographs, plans, and maps" or is its meaning limited to "textual documents" as Stefan4 says in the cited DR. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Then you should not be concerned with a Swede's words "the word 文件, which seems to mean 'textual documents'" in a wrong analysis.--Roy17 (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a piece of regulations zh:s:党政机关公文处理工作条例(Regulations on the Handling of Official Documents by Party and Government Organs) in which all 14 types of official documents are enumerated, but the whole text does not mention any non-textual content such as images, photos, or graphics. Therefore, from a legal perspective (rather than a lexical one), it is safe to assume that "official documents" do not entail images, especially when images are taken out of a collection and presented as only images. --Wcam (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
zh:s:党政机关公文处理工作条例, article 9, 公文一般由份号、密级和保密期限、紧急程度、发文机关标志、发文字号、签发人、标题、主送机关、正文、附件说明、发文机关署名、成文日期、印章、附注、附件、抄送机关、印发机关和印发日期、页码等组成。 (9) 正文。公文的主体,用来表述公文的内容。 (15) 附件。公文正文的说明、补充或者参考资料。 There is no mention of excluding any form of media or restricting documents to the text. Part 15 goes on to say that attachments/appendices are indispensable components of the documents. (Often they take the form of photos and diagrams, but could actually be any kind of media.)--Roy17 (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Regisseur Karl-Martin Pold auf dem Filmfest München 2017.jpg[edit]

Ich habe alle Rechte an diesem Foto vom offiziellen Filmfestival und des Fotografen per Mail bekommen und dieses Dokument auch an Wikipedia Persmission geschickt. Es sind alle Rechte somit geklärt und es gibt keinen Grund das Foto zu löschen. Anbei das Permissionformular ausgefüllt.

Hiermit erkläre ich in Bezug auf das Bild [ Regisseur Karl-Martin Pold auf dem Filmfest München 2017 ]

[ ] dass ich der Urheber (Fotograf, Grafiker, Maler, etc.) bin.

[ x] dass ich der Inhaber des vollumfänglichen Nutzungsrechts bin, das mir beliebige Veröffentlichungen, Bearbeitungen und Unterlizenzierungen dieses Werkes gestattet. Der Name des Urhebers lautet [Dominik Bindl].

Ich erlaube hiermit die Weiternutzung des Bildes/der Bilder unter folgender freier Lizenz/folgenden freien Lizenzen:

[LIZENZ (z.B. „Creative Commons Namensnennung-Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen Deutschland in Version 3.0 (abgekürzt CC-by-sa 3.0/de)“)]

Mir ist bekannt, dass damit in urheberrechtlicher Hinsicht Dritte das Recht haben, das Bild zu nutzen und zu verändern. Dies schließt auch eine gewerbliche Nutzung ein.

Mir ist bekannt, dass ich diese Einwilligung üblicherweise nicht widerrufen kann und kein Anspruch darauf besteht, dass das Bild dauernd auf der Wikipedia eingestellt wird.

Mir ist bekannt, dass sich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz nur auf das Urheberrecht bezieht und es mir daher unbenommen ist, aufgrund anderer Gesetze (Persönlichkeitsrecht, Markenrecht usw.) gegen Dritte vorzugehen, die das Bild im Rahmen der freien Lizenz rechtmäßig, auf Grund der anderen Gesetze aber unrechtmäßig nutzen.

[11.2. 2019], [Dominik Bindl]

Volcanus99 (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Je suis Charlie, Brussels 11 January 2015 (107).jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The drawing perhaps should be de minimis as it is not at the centre and not the main subject of the photo. B dash (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The two signs are the whole point of the image. Without them, you just have a sea of faces with no meaning. As noted, one of the two signs has a copyright. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The drawing is quite simple. It may be acceptable. --Yann (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Another opinion? --Yann (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would tend to apply COM:PCP as I am not familiar with French TOO. Ankry (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If deemed over the TOO, the image could be cropped, getting rid of the "pencil-finger" and keeping only the lower half of that hand. Blurring is also a possibility. Strakhov (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Ajinomoto Sweeteners Collection.jpg[edit]

Hello , This image is based on the image with the following OTRS ticket.

Other images you deleted are created based on images with OTRS tickets in the same way.

Please return these images.Thank you.Jonathan7375 (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, please note that the files were deleted as violations of COM:ADVERT, not for copyvio. I agree with that. Second, while OTRS ticket:2018121410000239 is long and complicated and I don't read Japanese, so I may have missed something, it appears to contain several lists of files which are approved for Commons. The files above are not on the lists. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Pinging @Whym, Roy17, EugeneZelenko.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not oppose undeletion, but the files must be properly attributed. It appears that Jonathan7375 is somehow authorised by the company, but proof of authorisation must be explicitly appended to each file.--Roy17 (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg QuestionIs it easier to resolve by applying new tickets to OTRS?—Jonathan7375 (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to support undeletion, because they are depictions of a notable company's products are likely to be used in Wikimedia projects. The 'collection' images here seem to be essentially collages made of OTRS-approved images, created for the purpose of comparison and maybe presenting a timeline - it was also what I was told in the last part of the OTRS conversation. (I'm assuming good faith and I believe they contain no new images - at the moment I don't have time to match the images one by one.) If so, there wouldn't be copyright problems. Jonathan7375 said they wanted to put collection images to Wikipedia pages about the company who produces the depicted products. If Wikipedia uses (and continues to use) the images, they will automatically be in scope. whym (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would undelete under the request of an OTRS agent, if checking the files is needed during the verification process, or because the permission is checked and approved; in case @Whym: you can directly do that. But undeletion is not possible on a random request. Ruthven (msg) 09:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what OTRS agents are supposed to do here. In my view, what is neededd is review by admins, not OTRS agents. Base images of these collage images are already uploaded and approved (at least that's what is claimed here). You would need to match deleted images and uploaded images - no new privately provided images would be involved. Any admin can see deleted images and check if they all consist of images already uploaded and marked confirmed by OTRS agents. In case a new or questionable image is found, the matter can be passed onto OTRS agents, but I don't see how OTRS agents will be involved before that. whym (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jonathan7375: チェックを助けるため、合成画像と個別画像の対応表をここに書くといいのではないかと思います。 (I would suggest providing the list of base images for each 'collection' images.) whym (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Whym, Roy17, EugeneZelenko, Jeff G. The sentences will be longer. Please pardon me for troubling you.

that's all. — Jonathan7375 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Craig A Jones.jpg[edit]

The file is a photo of Craig Jones and the photo was taken by a Ministry of Defence Photographer under MOD Crown Copyright. MOD Crown Copyright grants worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive licence for the image. The original deletion request was made because the photo was found elsewhere on the internet, namely website: As Craig Jones is depicted in the photo he has emailed his permission request under Crown Copyright license to wikimedia permissions. © Crown copyright [2003].

(Moorerichards (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)) 4th March 2019

Can you clarify your claim "Craig Jones owns the photo and user moorerichards has permission to use the photo.". Can you explain why you uploaded this photo with a Creative Commons license? How did it come about that the subject owns the copyright? Also, Crown Copyright lasts for 50 years, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom. Thuresson (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
please see information on the MOD Crown Copyright consent license on the link below. the subject does not own the copyright but under the license if he is depicted in the imagery he needs to consent to its use. (Moorerichards (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC))

File:Teddy Roosevelt Statue (Marble).jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mparrishxx

circa 1923 US photograph. Both statue and photograph may now be PD-US-expired. Abzeronow (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Striked inaccurate portion since I misunderstood that portion of DR. Statue is circa 1923. I can't see file so I don't know how photograph was credited. Abzeronow (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Description: Sculptor Vincenzo Miserendino with a Marble Statue of Teddy Roosevelt in his Bowery Studio. According to w:en:Vincenzo Miserendino the statue is from 1922 and the photo is also likely from 1922; both from US. No information when/whether the photo was published, however. Ankry (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Do we have any reason to believe that it wasn't published around 1922 or 1923? Abzeronow (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is actually the 1923 portrait at the AB Davis school mentioned in the text at WP:EN with two images at SIRIS. This question might better be phrased in the positive ("was" vs "wasn't"):
"Thanks. Do we have any reason to believe that it wasn't published around 1922 or 1923? Abzeronow"
because the burden of proof is to show that the image is OK. Therefore it must be proven that this photograph was in fact published during 1923. Without that, we cannot restore it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
If it's absolutely necessary, I can always put an Undelete in 2044 for this photo in the Deletion Request or put the file name directly on the "Undelete in 2044" page.(since 2044 would satisfy the 120-year rule) However, I think it's rather plausible that publication was around 1923. The sculptor had a 1923 book according to the page and Theodore Roosevelt(who died in 1919) was a popular subject in 1920s books (Lord Charnwood even had a Roosevelt biography for a British audience published in 1923). It seems the sculptor's book is not available on Hathitrust so I don't have a way of searching for that to see if this photograph was somehow published in that book. Abzeronow (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem with that line of reasoning is that the sculptor did quite a few works of Theodore Roosevelt. The WP:EN article, Vincenzo Miserendino, lists six and there may be more. The assumption that this particular image appeared in print within the year of its creation is beyond a significant doubt. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I could try a few more attempts to see if I can find anything more about this particular sculpture and see if I can find something like this photograph(which I can't see but description Ankry unearthed is helpful). Otherwise, what would you recommend as far as when this can be undeleted? Abzeronow (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support as per above. Yann (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Antóninho Baptista Alves 2018-11-20.jpg[edit]

Reason mention was "Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing (F1)". I asked the deleter for further infomations. Answer was "No acceptable license is indicated at Facebook. Please don't grab pictures from Facebook"". But this doesn't matter. According the current law in TL the images "published and distributed by the Government of Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" are for free use (Template:PD-TLGov). There is no need for further license needed, when it is published and distributed by government. In this case, it was the office of the prime minister. The kind of media is not playing a role. --JPF (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Since Facebook itself is copyrighted, it does not have a way to show whether an image is under another copyright or not. The Government of East Timor can make an image PD only if it has the right to do so. We do not know that that is the case here. Unless the image is a work for hire of an employee of the government, the actual photographer is the person who must freely license the image for Commons. I suggest you find this or another similar image on a web site belonging to the Government where its copyright status will be clear. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, FB does not have any copyrights. The owner is the government of Timor-Leste, which is publishing via FB. --JPF (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
To clarify: Facebook has using rights, but not copyright. A PD-image does not get copright, by posting it at FB. --JPF (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: in this case, like in a lot of other cases where a government or other organisation does not have the resources to host its own image library, Facebook is the only place it is published. John Cummings (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info @J. Patrick Fischer: We need an evidence that the image is free in (1) the initial publication country and (2) the US. As Facebook is not located in Timor-Leste the copyright status in Timor-Leste may be irrelevant for Commons. Has the image been published in Timor-Leste prior to its publication on Facebook? Ankry (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK not. But the government of TL is posting without any "infringement of copyright", according their law. Are there any American laws, which are restricting the will of publisher? --JPF (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
the copyright status in Timor-Leste may be irrelevant for Commons - sorry, but this is absurd and definitly incompatible with the Rules at Commons. The Commons rules say the images must be published under a license, that makes the images free for their home country and the United States. The rights Facebook climes are not of importance here. And not just because a lot of lawyers say, that FB did not have the right to claim any right on the images of others. Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Marcus Cyron: What is the publication country if first published on Facebook? What is the publication country if first published in Wikimedia Commons? I dispute assumming that it is just TL. That's all. If this is US, we need an evidence that it is PD in US. If it is "the whole world" we need a clear license from the author as PD status in TL is irrelevant for most of world. Ankry (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The author is the government of TL. Even if they are publishing in the USA, they are bound on Timorese law, that all their publications are PD. When I am publishing my images under PD, US law is not restricting my images under a higher level of copyright. --JPF (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
What is the country of first publication? If it is USA, I have no opinion of the legal status; but it must be US copyright law based, not TL copyright law based. If a country that does not recognize PD as a legal category (like any EU country) should be taken into account, then the photo is copyrighted in these countries: rights belong either to the photographer or to the TL government, depending on their relations. Ankry (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here. The Facebook copyright claim is irrelevant to the status of this image, but, as I tried to say clearly, because Facebook claims copyright, they do not make it possible for their users to declare an image's copyright status. Therefore we do not know the copyright status. It seems to me that this overreaches:

"According the current law in TL the images "published and distributed by the Government of Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" are for free use "

Clearly the government of TL cannot make something PD if its copyright is owned by someone else. We all know that images created by US Federal employees in the course of their work are PD, but also know that many images on US Government web sites are not PD because they are the work of people who are not Federal employees. I have a significant doubt that whoever manages the TL Facebook page is very careful about ensuring that the TL government has the right to make PD everything posted there. Therefore, while material posted on the Facebook page may be PD in TL, it may be under copyright everywhere else in the world. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

"Everywhere else in the world"? I believe you, if you say, you do not know the copyright law of El Salvador, but this couldn't be an argument, because unknowledge of all laws in the world would request the deletion of all images in Commons. ;-)
But which copyright could be affected anyhow? A staff of the Timorese prime minister made a photo like it is usual on dozens of meetings there, added the watermarking of the Timorese government on the photo (check the linked source) and posted it on the Facebook account of the Timorese prime minister. This is not an image from outside of the state institution, like an countryside image for example, which maybe was taken by a tourist for example.
So, you are distrusting the staff, who is posting on FB? Why? Because this are Timorese, not US officers? What is the difference between PD-TLGov and PD-USGov?
Only your doubts can not be enough, there has to be concrete possible laws, which could be affected. --JPF (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@J. Patrick Fischer: 17 U.S.C. ch. 3: "Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death." You cannot refer to TL copyright status when investigating US copyright status unless you are considering a work that was published before 1996. And you need to point out the an appropriate exception in the copyright law if the general rule does not apply. Ankry (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ankry: So, who is having the copyright on the image? The photograph gave it in Timor-Leste to the government. The government can not publish sth else than PD. --JPF (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Facebook isn't a publisher anything posted their is the responsibility of the person posting. FB conditions gives it rights to enable sharing across its platform, it doesnt create nor make any claim to ownership in the copyright of works. If the Timor government releases it as PD then the its PD in the US. Gnangarra 11:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The copyright holder is the TL government, Facebook has usage rights to the image but no copyright. It is unrealistic in this case, like a lot of situations when working with lower resource organisations to expect that an OTRS ticket or similar will be possible. John Cummings (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Copyright holder is government of Timor-Leste. It should be treated as cc-0 under US law. Abzeronow (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Richard Boddington iEmmys.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Mr. Boddington, who is in the picture, purchased the correct photo license from Getty Images. Mr. Boddington has a copy of the license from Getty Images and can upload it if required. Mr. Boddington used his Flicr page to simply host the picture. W Green007 (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @W Green007: Getty Images offers no license on it's website which is compatible with Wikimedia Commons because doing so would destroy it's profit model. If you have a special case with a contract, please send a copy of the contract via OTRS.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 06:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jeff G.: In order to simplify the process Mr. Boddington's wife uploaded pics of the event she took to her Flickr account with the correct release. I would like to add one of Mr. Boddington's pics he took himself and is on his Flickr page was incorrectly flagged by Wikipedia as a copyright violation for being the same as a pic on IMDB. It is Mr. Boddington who owns the pic and supplied it to IMDB, not the other way around. Mr. Boddington informs me he has sent emails to,, with the affirmations to release this pic and two others into Wiki commons. The pic you applied a copyright violation to is:,_Against_The_Wild_(2013).jpg. This is Mr. Boddington's pic, correctly released on Flickr, and the copyright strike against me should be removed.   — W Green007 please ping or talk to me 06:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
As the Flickr image is newer than the Imdb one, we need to wait for an OTRS agent decission. Ankry (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ankry:Well please excuse me, but, the timing at which a pic appears on the internet has nothing to do with establishing who owns the copyright to that pic. 100% of the pics on IMDB for the movie, Against The Wild, are under Mr. Boddington's copyright ownership. IMDB does NOT own the rights to any of the pics appearing on their site. Mr. Boddington supplied all of those pics to IMDB, and he can just as easily delete them tomorrow if he chooses to. The fact that Mr. Boddington is now releasing the same pics onto his Flickr page, does not in anyway mean that he has lost the copyright to these pics.   — W Green007 please ping or talk to me 17:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, if we have an evidence that the mentioned Flickr page belongs to the official Flickr service of the movie director, then I tend to Symbol support vote.svg Support undeletion. Noting, that this discussion should be linked from the image talk page to prevent further deletion requests. Ankry (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Mr. Boddington's IMDB credits provide this evidence, as does the name & picture on his Flickr page. As I am a new contributor, perhaps you could explain more clearly what you mean by, "Noting, that this discussion should be linked from the image talk page to prevent further deletion requests."W Green007 (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I did not find any link to the Flickr account from any official Mr. Boddington's page. So still waiting for another opinion. Ankry (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Um, all you have to do is type, "Richard Boddington" into, and there it is. He is listed as "producer" on both Against The Wild, and An Elephant's Journey. Not sure it can get any simpler than that? W Green007 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I should add that from reading the other posts on this board photographers are going to have to start having another photographer, take a picture them, taking a picture. In order for the first photographer to prove that they took the picture and it belongs to them. In this case, a picture belonging to Mr. Boddington was deleted before any chance to reply was allowed. All based on the fact that it was also on IMDB, a site that Mr. Boddington provided the picture to! W Green007 (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ankry. (Need to wait for OTRS) Abzeronow (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • comment yet another bitten good faith uploader. you realize how childish commons looks saying to everyone email permission, and wait 60 days to undelete? not fit to deal with the public. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

File:philip Birk Porträtt.jpg[edit]

I was very selective and I made sure i could use the picture. The picture is Creative Commons approved and i also mentioned the photographer under the photo.

--Maiianilsson (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC) 2019.03.11

@Maiianilsson: Where did you find information that the photo is under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license? Free use is not the same as free license. Ankry (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The source shown in the file description is:

That site is clearly marked "© HISTORISKA MEDIA 2018. Allt material på denna webbplats tillhör Historiska Media." Therefore, in order for the image to be restored, the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 191 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

OP probably found the photo here (CC-BY-3.0). Thuresson (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support per Thuresson above. Ankry (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Again, Thuresson,Ankry, as I said above, the source given in the file description is whcih has an explicit copyright notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I am unsure what do you suggest here: that the photo should be uploaded with another source? or that using a photo from a freely licensed site (like a photo from Commons) in a copyrighted site makes resonable doubts about the original license or revokes it? Unless there is a clear evidence that the license here was stated after upload to commons (or just before), I tend to consider that the usage may be a copyright violaion (however linking to the author/license information might fulfill the CC-BY-SA license requirements). copy seems to be newer than the freely licensed one (and because of the link I tend to consider that the copy is under the same license). Ankry (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
If you click on the caption below the photo at, the link will take you to the other site with a Creative Commons license. Thuresson (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support do not know why we should give veto power to every fee site, that grabs CC license photos. see also Commons:How Alamy is stealing your images -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Files uploaded by DarwIn[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Deletion reason ignores 500px had free licenses up until July 2018. See Commons:500px_licensing_data. All files have documented free licenses. Chico Venancio (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What about the rationale that these were intended as advertisements? Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DarwIn Abzeronow (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Abzeronow, I'd refer you to the answers there. In a nutshell, we have no rules about users uploading images here that were made intended to be advertisements by the author, only a rule to remove files uploaded as intended advertisements. Falling back on the project scope the files can be useful for to illustrate several aspects that are clearly on scope for Commons. As stated there by Teles DarwIn and myself. Chico Venancio (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no evidence that they originate from 500px prior to their licensing change. You enter into license contract while downloading. The pending license contracts are irrevokable, but after license chabge you no longer can download under the earlier license. So Darwin's uploads are copyvios, IMO. Regardless of the above scope doubts. Ankry (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Ankry, as can be seen Commons:500px_licensing_data (here using the first file as an example:

Going to the correspondent 500px page you can see the license snippet in the source code, including a link to the license:

<a about=' ' href='' id='server_photo_cc_license' rel='license'></a>

Check the existence of the snippet "license_type": 6 on that page by viewing the source code.

And you can confirm that 6 there means CC-BY-SA in the 500px API documentation (version 3.0 can be confirmed in the archived version of the 500px CC page). Chico Venancio (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, I don't believe there can be any doubt that the files I uploaded here from the Internet Archive originated on 500px, and that they were freely licensed back then, at the time they were exported to the Internet Archive. There even is a Panoramio style import project going on dedicated to import what is on scope for Commons from there. The reason stated for the elimination is invalid, indeed, and the files should be restored.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Aside from the copyvio question, there is the fact that these have significant watermarks top and bottom showing name, address, telephone, and e-mail. Such watermarks cannot be removed from a CC-BY licensed image, so they cannot, as a practical matter, be useful anywhere. Note also that COM:ADVERT explicitly prohibits images that constitute advertisements. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(Jameslwoodward), Why would the license not allow the image to be cropped? That seems a like very strange interpretation of CC-BY-SA 3.0.
COM:ADVERT explicitly states it is not a policy but a shorthand for COM:SCOPE, and the argument here is that these files are "realistically useful for an educational purpose". As all have stated in the DR, cropping the advertisement is the ideal solution here. Chico Venancio (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
As I understand it, WMF Legal's interpretation of section 4B of the license is that you cannot remove watermarks that tend to identify the source of the licensed work.
As for COM:ADVERT, you're splitting hairs. It describes the rules we follow when looking at images as dictated by policy. This is clearly advertising and therefore it cannot stay. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
(Jameslwoodward), what is your source for WMF interpreting CC-BY-SA 3.0 in such a manner? Chico Venancio (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I must say this is the first time I heard that interpretation about cropping images. Cropping stuff to remove water marks has been common practice here in Commons since I joined a decade ago. If I've been doing something wrong all of this time, I would really like to know. @Jameslwoodward: the right link is [this one], this is CC-BY-SA-3, not 2.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
As for COM:ADVERT: "As dictated by our scope, content which constitutes advertising or self-promotion may be deleted from Commons." May be deleted. Not must be deleted, not even should be deleted. If it's useful and educative, advertisements and other files originally spammed here are welcome on Commons, given that there are no copyright issues with them.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

For the watermark issues, please see Commons:Watermarks#Legal_issues_with_the_removal_of_watermarks where it says:

"Opinion from the Wikimedia Foundation legal staff indicates the removal of watermarks may place the remover at legal risk given the provisions of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act regarding "copyright management information" (such as the title, author's name, copyright notice, etc.)"

Note that this is not limited to removing copyright notices, but extends to removing "copyright management information", which includes name, address, etc.

Also note the intro to that page where we have:

2.✘ Promotional watermarks, which go significantly beyond asserting authorship/copyright, for example to promote a website.

Obviously, the watermarks on these images promote the web site. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose restoration per Jim. @Yann: if you wish to take yourself the legal risk related to removing the watermatks, feel free to upload cropped, non-watermarked images. Ankry (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
If the images are free, I don't see what is the issue with removing the watermark. I would undelete the files, crop them, and then hide the old versions. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

(Jameslwoodward), as can be noted in the actual WMF's legal opinion CC-BY-SA is compatible with watermarks removal. About this new DMCA goalpost I would not be certain these watermarks qualify as copyright management information (information not directly listed in statute or case law and the intent of the author here, per you interpretation, is advertisement. You either have to imagine a copyright management intent without copyright notice or believe the author did not intend these as advertisements). And together with Yann, and DarwIn I volunteer to do the actual cropping. Chico Venancio (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to see these restored if someone is willing to take the DMCA risk and crop out all of the watermarks. While I think it is highly unlikely that an Indian company will come after a Commons user under USA law for that act, it is not something that I can recommend. However, we have all seen many unfilled promises of image modification in the past, so if the watermarks are not removed promptly after restoration, I will delete the images again. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Please ping me once/if they are restored so I can crop them quickly. Chico Venancio (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support we already explained, even to James about the license at 500px, and removing watermark is not a cc-by infringement, we still have the version with the watermark in the previous versions. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The 4 images supported by Yann undeleted. @Chicocvenancio: please crop. Ankry (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. I maintain the request to restore the other, except File:The Wedding Candid (181181017).jpeg. Chico Venancio (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "From81"[edit]

This was a bad decision took by a sysop that clearly do not know what his is talking... Commons:500px licensing data, I've being importing free images from 500px, and this set of images receive an allegation of manipulation that do not affect their quality as an education media.

Moreover the sysop delete it writing: "Probably out of scope as noted -- we do not keep art from artists who are not notable. However, they also appear to be copyvios as there is no free license at 500px.", two false allegations, all photos are art, and this are free images. And note the "probably", if you are not sure, why do you took the most aggressive action, and delete it????

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not all art is within Commons's scope. Were these photographs clearly labelled as photomanipulations? Abzeronow (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThey are obviously photo-manipulations and are therefore out of scope since the person doing the manipulation is not notable. Also note that I have carefully followed the instructions at Commons:500px licensing data to look for a license and found none. Finally, note that since 500px does not show a license icon or text with the images, the license may not be valid -- CC licenses must be shown with the image. In order to have a solid trail of evidence, we must have a clearly licensed image, not one where the license may or may not be buried in the source code at the source. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
You just need to correct follow the instructions
We have images from Paranomio here, that one time was clearly tag as free, now the project is over, we are the guarantee, exactly same thing here, with a bonus the possibility to verify.
A robot already did this work for us, even you not trusting the volunteers, is a fact that this images was previously published under a free license.
And we create permanent links with the license originally published:
As I explained before, 152946273, 152946275 are not "obviously photo-manipulations"
And excluding 156642269, 154288761, by a lack of warning is not the correct way to do things, this both photos only have "unreal" colours, but this colours do not completely remove their capability to illustrate the places and provide us a educational media.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 04:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support see reasoning in #Files_uploaded_by_DarwIn. TL;DR: files have valid licenses and were deleted in error. Chico Venancio (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Gustavo do Vale Rocha assume o comando da Sejus.jpg[edit]

Foto utilizada com autorização.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellen Lopes dos Santos (talk • contribs) 12:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Hellen Lopes dos Santos: Hi,
You uploaded this file twice. Once you claimed to be the author, and the other one, you wrote that Geolando Gomes is the author. So the copyright holder has to send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Female journalists at 2018 CPJ awards.jpg[edit]

And the related images listed at the deletion request - if you read to the bottom of the discussion, you would have seen that the copyright was clarified by the appropriate party Kingsif (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: If you wish to reopen the DR discussion, please, elaborate: why? We cannot override community decissions here; we can reopen the discussion if there is new information, not taken into account while deleting. Ankry (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose These are the work of Getty Images. As a general rule, the copyright remains with the photographer or the organization for which the photographer works. While it is possible that CPJ has licensed the use of the images from Getty Images, such licenses rarely give the licensee the right to further freely sublicense the image. It is very common for images on Flickr to have a license which the Flickr user is not entitled to give -- so common that we have a name for the practice -- Flickrwashing. Therefore, in order for these to be restored, someone must prove using OTRS that CPJ has the right to license the work of Getty Images as CC-BY. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is quite possible that the CPF owns the copyright, but the best would be to ask the photographer. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turkiye-nin-ilk-yerli-ucagi-nu.d-38.jpg

"This is not Nu D 36, Nu D 38. The date of first flight of this aircraft was not 1939 but 1944. 2011 - 1944 = 67. The copyright will be expired in 2014." Abzeronow (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Alexandra Olaya-Castro.jpg[edit]

La imagen en cuestion fue solicitada directamente a Alexandra Olaya-Castro con el expreso proposito de usarla para wikipedia. Entendiendo así que autoriza su uso, modificación y venta. Ella, dueña de la imagen que tambien ha sido utilizada en otras plataformas, la compartio libremente y autorizando su uso para el proposito expresado. Amariarv (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This was uploaded with the claim that you are the copyright owner, is this correct? Published [5] here and here in 2016. Thuresson (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose OP do not respond to reasonable questions + published previously without an acceptable license. Thuresson (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


Licence cc 4.0 reference:,&NPRE10050=&NPRE10080=01/01/2015&NPRE10080_2=30/01/2017&NPRE10150=&NPRE10160=CC4.0&E050100=&dccobe=&dcocur=&dcocup=1&fichero=NPRE10&kint=NPRE10010&tarea=&modelo=P010&nfoto=&modoGestion=A&avanzada=NPRE10080%7CNPRE10080_2%7CNPRE10160&lMediaSel=L0210&cobes=467621&nhref=0

La foto borrada dispone de licencia cc 4.0. Pido que se restaure el archivo. --Wikitcher (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


--Wikitcher (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Wikitcher

The above links directs to an error message only. Ankry (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The link is
Comment I deleted the file as the nom provided a URL that took me to a page that clearly said (C) at the bottom. The new link provided appears to have a different license Gbawden (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Now I also think that we can restore the image with link fixed. Ankry (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. The linked page says "CC 4.0". That's not enough, IMO. It could be anything from CC-0 to CC-BY-SA-NC-ND. --Túrelio (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thats what I thought Gbawden (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:400th Anniversary Memorial of the Maritime Expedition of Legazpi and Urdaneta from Mexico to the Philippines[edit]

According to w:Plaza de Mexico (Manila), this sculpture was unveiled in 1964. In the Philippines, copyright for anonymous and pseudonymous works last for 50 years after publication (1964+51=2015). But then again, according to the wiki article, this sculpture was donated by the Mexican Secretary of The Navy Shipyards. According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico, "works created by the Mexican government do not default to being public domain, being protected 100 years after publication." So, can these photos be undeleted or are we to wait until 2064?

-Howhontanozaz (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I refuse to believe that a large work of art from the 1960s in a public place is the work by an unknown person. Works of art by known artists are protected for life + 50 years. Thuresson (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Thielska Galleriet.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:


Author died in 1946, these files have been public domain in Sweden since 2017. Abzeronow (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Joyce Murray.jpg[edit]

The picture is the House of Commons head shot (public):

JRob59 (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC) March 20, 2019

How did it come about that you know that The House of Commons has licensed this under a Creative Commons license? Is there any verifiable evidence that supports this? Thuresson (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose OP do not respond to reasonable questions. Above web site says "© House of Commons". Thuresson (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per Thuresson. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

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

File:Razmik Grigoryan.jpg[edit]

Hi, the author of the image Mkhitar Serobyan has already sent permission letter to the address "" for the image, for it's free usage on Wikicommons. So, please, if it's possible review the deletion. --Ղուկասյան Մարո (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2019 (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 191 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. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The image may be undeleted if and when the ticket has been duly processed by an OTRS volunteer. Thuresson (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Artur Janibekian.jpg[edit]

Hi, This is my own work, why deleted.--Էդմոնդ Խաչատրյան (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image appears at with "© 2019 Picdeer". Policy therefore requires that the actual photographer must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Jacob Gils in gallery.jpg[edit]

The file File:Jacob Gils in gallery.jpg is a picture that has been taken by my PA personal assistant with my camera, therefore the picture belongs to me and I have sent this picture to many journalist that have also published online in some article and blogs.

Let me know if you need any forward explanations.


Jacob Gils

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobGils (talk • contribs) 12:45 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The ownership of the copyright will depend on whether the image is a work for hire, The fact that it was your camera is irrelevant. In these circumstance, policy requires that either (a) the actual photographer -- your PA -- must send a free license using OTRS or (b) you must send a free license together with whatever documentation is required by the OTRS volunteer to satisfy them that it is a work for hire. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

File:莊子富Nico 星際大戰.png[edit]

our team own the copyright of the pic, we are the managing team of the fan page ""

— Preceding unsigned comment added by N3dspsv (talk • contribs) 15:46, 21 March 2019‎ (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We need a permission by email since this has been published before at Facebook without a free licence. Please see COM:OTRS for instructions. De728631 (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Elad Ratson - אלעד רצון.jpg[edit]

This image is my own. It was taken by an employee of mine, working for me, with my camera. It is me who have uploaded the image...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EladRatson (talk • contribs) 18:27 21 March 2019‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The ownership of the copyright will depend on whether the image is a work for hire, The fact that it was your camera is irrelevant. In these circumstance, policy requires that either (a) the actual photographer -- your employee-- must send a free license using OTRS or (b) you must send a free license together with whatever documentation is required by the OTRS volunteer to satisfy them that it is a work for hire. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Carl Javér.jpg[edit]

I am new to wikipedia so had struggle to upload a picture of the Swedish filmmaker Carl Javiér, I forgot to sign as free licens. and that this was already in different pages. Carl told me that I could use as own work, but now I know I have to change some things to have permission to use it again. I am very sorry. I am trying to solve this problem on my own.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicagomez96 (talk • contribs) 22 March 2019‎, 02:36 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If I understand you correctly, this is not actually your own work. In that case, and because the image has appeared elsewhere without a free license, policy requires that the actual photographer send a free license using OTRS. Note that OTRS, like Commons, is entirely staffed by volunteers, and, also like Commons, is shorthanded, so it may be close to 191 days before the email is processed and the file is restored.. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

File:"Summer of Love", 2004.jpg[edit]


Please restore the following pages: Reason: We do have explicit permission from the owners of the copyright -- Source (WP:NFCC#4) Used with permission from Galleri Sand in New York, NY Taylorengstrom91 (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Owning a created work does not give one the right to freely license it. That right almost always remains with the creator. It is therefore unlikely that the gallery has the right to freely license these works. In any case, however, since we do not know who you are, policy requires that either (a) the artist, Marianne Aulie, must send a free license using OTRS or (b) the gallery must send a free license together with documentation sufficient to satisfy the OTRS volunteer that the gallery has the right to freely license the work.

Note also that you specified the author of the works as Galleri Sand -- that is incorrect. The author is the creator, Marianne Aulie. Finally, I hope that the gallery and the artist understand that freely licensing these works here means that anyone can make and sell posters, tee shirts, and other reproductions of the works provided, of course, that they give credit to the artist..     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


Hola buenos dias.

Soy de la empresa Global Vacuum Presses y me gustaria crear un articulo informativo de la empresa.

Por tal reazón subo imagenes nuestras de la empresa.

El problema es que no me deja subirlas como trabajo propio, ya que dice que solo pueden ser fotos tomadas con una cámara.

Me gustaría poder utilizar nuestras fotos y no entiendo porque las eliminan.

Si pudieran lo mas pronto posible, mejor.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan.nabuurs (talk • contribs) 08:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

File:AIBA Logo.png[edit]

Dear concern,

The file is deleted for missing enough information and permission to use this file. This file is a logo of my current educational institute and I can confirm that, I have permission to use this file in the wikipedia page. Also, the file does not have any copyright or legal issues involved. It was simply created by the administration of our institute and no one holds the actual right for this logo. We use this logo for our banners, promotional activities for our clubs without seeking the authority permission as we, the students, have full rights to use this logo anywhere we need. I request you to fulfill my Undeletion request.

Thank You Ahasanul Kabir Musanna

Date: 22.03.2019 05.22PM UTC+6.00

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahasanul Musanna (talk • contribs) 11:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Signing your posts is required on talk pages 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.

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First, "I have permission to use this file in the wikipedia page." is insufficient. Images on Commons and WP must be free for any use anywhere by anyone, including commercial use, not just for use in WP. Second, "the file does not have any copyright" is incorrect. With very limited exceptions, all created works have a copyright, including this logo.

Since we do not who you are and the copyright is owned by the logo's creator, policy requires that the actual owner of the copyright must send a free license using OTRS. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Lil Pump's mugshot.jpg[edit]

The subject was arrested in Miami-Dade County. Works created by local governments in the state of Florida are public domain. See also Template:PD-FLGov. GMGtalk 21:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Agreed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for User:Jcb. GMGtalk 22:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)