Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2007-04

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

2007-04[edit]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Abu_Ghraib_29.JPG[edit]

Deletion log entry conflicts with Template:AbuGhraibPic. Therefore I request undeletion and proper marking with said template. Thanks, viciarg ᚨ 12:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It says no source. We need a source to confirm that it was actually taken by US military personell and not a journalist, terrorist, easter bunny or whoever. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:yc15.JPG[edit]

Photo was of rare YC-15 military plane I snapped during a tour of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. It was labeled as self-photographed and under open license. Want to know why it was removed by GeorgeHH and MesserWoland

jderk

This file has never been uploaded to the wiki, and has thus never been deleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He meant Image:Yc15.jpg. The image was originally deleted since there was no license tag on it. ----

I have restored it but it will be deleted again if you don't add a new licenses tag to it in the next 7 days. Please add {{GFDL-self}}, {{PD-self}} or {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}}. Yonatan talk 21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.====Image:IMG_1794.JPG==== I have not seen this image or read its description, so I am unable to make a full argument as to its merits. It was deleted as a copyvio [1]. The little bit of text I have read about it suggests it's a fanmade version of the Scooby Doo Mystery Machine. Per discussion on the English Wikipedia, [2] there is some doubt as to whether or not it *is* in fact a derivative image. It should be noted Commons has pictures of replicas of other famous cars, such as Image:Interni1.jpg and Image:Interni2.jpg. See Commons:Derivative_works#Isn.27t_every_product_copyrighted_by_someone.3F_What_about_cars.3F_Or_kitchen_chairs.3F_My_computer_case.3F. Under U.S. law making a functional version (not a model) of a drawing isn't necessarily copyright infringement. Nardman1 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on the legal side, bu the van looks very much like Scooby Doo Mystery Machine, especially the part that is not functional. Samulili 15:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No additional information provided. Siebrand 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:LC 1.JPG[edit]

As indicated by User:Rtc elsewhere: drinking vessel → industrial machine made utility article → not copyrighted --LimoWreck 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is neither a drinking vessel nor a dish, from dictionary.com- drinking vessel noun a vessel intended for drinking and this isn't intended for drinking and per Commons:Derivative works- Photographs of three-dimensional objects are always copyrighted. Even if the object itself is in the public domain. If you didn't take the photograph yourself, you need permission from the owner of the photographic copyright (unless of course the photograph itself is in the public domain). And the photograph can not be public domain because By taking a picture, you create a new, copyrighted work (i.e. the photograph). At the same time, the rights of the original still exists and don't go away. By publishing the picture, you do something only the original copyright holder is allowed to do. That's why you won't be able to use your own photography of a copyrighted work (except as fair use) unless the creator of the original gave you permission to do so. It must stay deleted.--Thugchildz 03:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment The page on derivative works is about copyrighted 3D objects (such as Donald Duck dolls), while in this case LimoWreck says that this trophy isn't a copyrighted object. I buy that argument and vote Restore. / Fred Chess 08:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done As per Fred Chess. Siebrand 09:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated, I undeleted the image, howewer, the image is not visisble, only the description is. Anyone? Siebrand 09:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Schneider Trophy 2006-08-10.jpg[edit]

As indicated by User:Rtc elsewhere: dish or drinking vessel → utility article → not copyrighted (they press or extrude nice ones in a store here closeby) --LimoWreck 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schneider Trophy 2006-08-10.jpg is definitely not a utility article. Kjetil r 23:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That clearly isn't a drinking vessel nor is it a dish, from dictionary.com- drinking vessel noun a vessel intended for drinking and this isn't intended for drinking and per Commons:Derivative works- Photographs of three-dimensional objects are always copyrighted. Even if the object itself is in the public domain. If you didn't take the photograph yourself, you need permission from the owner of the photographic copyright (unless of course the photograph itself is in the public domain). And the photograph can not be public domain because By taking a picture, you create a new, copyrighted work (i.e. the photograph). At the same time, the rights of the original still exists and don't go away. By publishing the picture, you do something only the original copyright holder is allowed to do. That's why you won't be able to use your own photography of a copyrighted work (except as fair use) unless the creator of the original gave you permission to do so. It must stay deleted.--Thugchildz 03:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COM:DW#Isn.27t_every_product_copyrighted_by_someone.3F_What_about_cars.3F_Or_kitchen_chairs.3F_My_computer_case.3F --LimoWreck 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what was the point of that? This clearly doesn't fall into any of that and is quality art work in an 3d object.--THUGCHILDz 02:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK under UK FOP provisions. Awaiting word from the WMF Board as to whether US law is also needed. In the meantime, keep. --MichaelMaggs 17:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Streik-5.jpg[edit]

Please restore Image:Streik-5.jpg, that was deleted by EPO on 25 March 07 (No source for at least 7 days). I clearly gave the image source (in the meanwhile the original picture can be found at [3] due to a homepage-reorganisation) and the correct license was chosen. best regards, DocMario 16:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but does the website explicitly state that redistribution, commercial use and derivative work are allowed? -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No additional information provided. Siebrand 09:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Aglaoctenus.lagotis.eye.arrangement.svg[edit]

i forgot to add a licence and did not visit commons for some weeks, so it got deleted. proper license would be cc-by-2.5. thx :) --Sarefo 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have recreated this image based on an existing image. This would be derivate work, and thus we need to make sure that the source image is under a free license. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No additional information provided. Siebrand 09:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Belsele.jpg[edit]

Image is used on Dutch wikipedia. I suspect it had missing information, but there is no deletion request found anywhere. Only this log. [4].

  • Problem 1: if people don't make deletion request, commons ticker can't warn us on the local projects, and we can't try to see if the image actually can be saved or not. Now the thing is just removed without any warning.
  • Problem 2: this image has been on the dutch wikipedia (NL-wikipedia) before, but was removed because there was a duplicate on commons.

Net result: both images are gone.

Note: although I suspect the commons version had missing information, I think we might find a correct license for it, as is often possible with the belgian coat of arms (at least on NL wiki). I've done a similar undeletion request on NL wiki for the Dutch version, so we can find out what's the exact history of the image, what information was present and was missing, and what can be done with the image regarding it's status. --LimoWreck 18:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed from Commons after it had been marked "no source:" 15:18, 23 April 2007 . . Yonatanh (Talk | contribs | block) (137 bytes) (marking image as missing essential source information. If this is not fixed this image might be deleted after 7 days.) The ticker should have warned for this. If you know the correct license tag, I can restore it. It was tagged {{GFDL}}. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No source,... As it probably was a heraldic coat of arms of a belgian village, it probably has no source (they're all some sort of "derivative" work of designs from ages ago). I'm not sure if there are any other uploaded on commons, or only on the local Dutch wikipedia project. I'll try to look up some of them...
By the way, I'm assuming it is indeed just a image of an old coat of arms... If it's not, my explanations don't make much sense I'm afraid ;-) --LimoWreck 23:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go. IF it is effectively a belgian coat of arms, {{PD-BE-gemeentewapen}} may be used. If the image is something else, I doubt it could stay. --LimoWreck 00:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just read that it's in Oost-Vlaanderen, so it would fall under that template. Undeleted. (Please note that that template does not apply to Walloon COAs!) -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yups, I also read I doesn't apply to Wallonia (although it should be the same law, but I've about 10 years ago or so, there has been a publication which was spread in Flemish only... I believe that one is used. Well, doesn't matter for now). Anyway, thanks. The pic is indeed a simple coat of arms; I hope it should be okay with that license... --LimoWreck 18:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. Keep as per Bryan. Siebrand 18:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Please restore four images that were deleted[edit]

Hi. I think that four of my images were wrongly deleted. I have an account on AP Images.com, and I have been buying pictures of Ronald Reagan's Funeral for a while and uploading them to here. Just today, I added four more of my BOUGHT, LISCENSED, and downloaded pics. I feel that they were worngly deleted, for I bought the image, and have rights to the image. Please restore:

  • Image:CASKETLOADNR.jpg
  • Image:NRCONSTAVE.jpg
  • Image:NRCASKETMOMENT1.jpg
  • Image:RRFAMILY1.jpg

I can assure you that I am not lying. Please consider my request. Happyme22 00:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you have rights to the image, however, I'm also quite sure that that does not mean that everybody has the right to use the picture for any purpose, as required by Commons:Licensing. If I look at the site, I can only find mentioning "no commercial use." If you think this is not correct, please point to the correct terms of use. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No additional information provided. Siebrand 09:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

coat of arms[edit]

please restore: Coat of Arms of North Korea blue.png

The deletor is alleging that this work is in violation of "fair use" but i am arguing that this is a derivative work and that the original is not protected by US copywrite laws on derivative works as it is not protected by US copywrite law. This work is not claiming to be "fair use" and as a derivative it should be treated as such. 160.79.29.50 01:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please provide the proof that the original image this image is derived from is not eligible for copyright. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No additional information provided. Siebrand 09:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2007-04&oldid=5961268"