Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-01

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

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

put the original picture back[edit]

put the original picture back of the bell rock lighthouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.124.160 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bell Rock Lighthouse? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, no image named, wrong place? --Martin H. (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

undelete[edit]

please undelete these imiges becuse thay hold so much history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.167.107.162 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What images may these be?Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 23:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, no image named. --Martin H. (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's Not duplicated file[edit]

It's not Duplicated file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragmenty (talk • contribs) 16:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What file are you referring to? I note this user has no uploads. Adambro (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done also ne delted contributions. --> nothing to undelete. abf /talk to me/ 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:No_to_hate_propaganda_by_latuff_It_kills.jpg[edit]

The image was requested for deletion because the user believed it was out of scope. After this I added few more categories to the image. Now the image has categories: Carlos Latuff, Anti logos, Allegory, Allegories of war, Propaganda. I believe the image is much more within the scope than most images in Category Anti logos. I did not know that how to reqest undeletion. That's why I uploaded anothe image with the same name. Sorry about this. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is out of scope unless there is really an encyclopedic article it can go to. I go Neutral on keeping it, however.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 18:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your vote/comment. May I please ask you, if you believe all images uploaded to Commons shold be in articles in order to stay? I myself have many images here that are not in the articales Should they be deleted? This particular image could be used in w:Allegory;w:propaganda and so on.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Commons is looking for, more or less, is a gallery of images that have encyclopedia value. Commons is not like Flickr or Photobucket, where these images, no offense, may be better off. We need stuff that really fall in scope, not personal images.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Mbz1 (talk · contribs) seems to have now found Commons:Undeletion requests I've deleted the image again since I strongly feel it is inappropriate and just a continuation of Mbz1's disruptive protest against the artwork by Carlos Latuff. Until consensus says otherwise it should stay deleted in my opinion. Commons is most certainly not a venue for this and I don't want to allow Mbz1 to turn it into a political battleground. Adambro (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not wheel war on this although I am severely tempted. This should be undeleted & taken to DR to allow some rational discussion. I am not convinced it was a candidate for speedy deletion. Let us have rational discussion please. --Herby talk thyme 18:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do as you wish, I won't wheel war over it if you think it is worth spending any time discussing this then let's do so. Obviously easier discussing an image we can all see but I've just come to the conclusion that Mbz1 has wasted enough of our time as it is. Adambro (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the image. It is only a personal statement that some commons user Mbz1 does not like Latuff. Out of scope, and only made to create controversy on commons. Do not undelete. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The precedent set here may be informative. I don't see any substantive difference between the two cases. As I said, it's a shame Mbz1 is uploading images to disrupt the project. Despite that, and in keeping with the principle I enunciated here, I think my comments there were mistaken. Despite the intent to disrupt Commons, I think this image can be used appropriately & is within scope. I was hasty in making comments in that DR, as were several others, I think.

I would like to see both undeleted - while at the same time I believe Mbz1's behaviour is unacceptable & needs to change. Their behaviour is of concern, but the images may well be useful & deleting them isn't the right way to manage Mbz1's disruption.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested as to why you consider these images in scope, in particular considering these are self-created by Mbz1. I'm unable to imagine a situation where it would be considered appropriate to use these images which are simply a soapbox for Mbz1's views and a manifestation of his campaign against Latuff's works. The images cannot, from the perspective of a project considering using these images, be considered in isolation. The clear intention of Mbz1 to disrupt Commons by uploading them further weakens any suggestion that these have any educational value. Deleting the images is completely the right way to deal with his disruption since retaining them would only allow him and others to consider Commons to be an appropriate venue for protests about issues. Adambro (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am on the same side as Adam here, when it comes to the scope and what Mbz1's behavior is being caused by. I will say undelete them, but they are still out of scope and should be on something like Photobucket or Flickr.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 23:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from a non-Wikipedia project, I likely take a wider view of scope than most. A textbook on propaganda could conceivably contain Latuff cartoons and this reaction-to-a-Latuff-cartoon. Despite being a user-created attempt to disrupt the project, we can still make use of it. Incidentally, blocking the user is a more appropriate way to manage such behaviour, and I see that has now happened. Hopefully a time out will be helpful.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A serious textbook on propaganda would never include Mbz's amateurish collages. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do the best we can with the materials we have - if it's poor quality, then we'll use it until a better replacement comes along. I don't see why this case should be any different.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Mbz1 has told me that he wishes for this undeletion request to be closed. I won't do so myself though but if no one else wishes for this to be pursued then it will be appropriate for someone else to do so. I fully appreciate that in making this request he is not accepting my reasoning for deletion was correct but recognise it as a positive step to resolve this situation. I don't ask for Mbz1 to disregard his beliefs that Latuff's images are incompatible with our project, I just hope he can express these in a way which recognises others may disagree with his opinion. Adambro (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentI'd like to thank everybody for taking their time to comment on my request to undelete the image.I also like to apologize that my uploading of the images took so much time of other users. It was wrong of me to upload this image. May I please ask to close this request? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete PSIPW logo.jpg[edit]

Please undelete PSIPW logo.jpg which was uploaded by Wilimedia commons user Psipw

The following letter was sent to Wikimedia Commons:

<REMOVED TEXT>

Dr Abdulmalek A. Al Alsheikh Director, Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz International Prize for Water Prince Sultan Research Center for Environment, Water & Desert

 On hold, waiting for OTRS. →Na·gy 21:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored. OTRS confirmation has been archived. →Na·gy 21:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jesse McCartney Close-Up.jpg[edit]

History: I found Jesse McCartney Close-Up.jpg in the currently uploaded files. Because I've seen so much that kind of self-made photos I tineyed this image and found out that it's displayed on http://www.paparazzopresents.net/. I decided to delete this file, because of many different things (fe. the watermark (in this picture in the top left corner; which is ofen used by agencies to mark their images) - the username (if some bandlogos get uploaded to Commons the uploader is usually named after the band or badnamelover (or something like that); in that case it would be the internet page where it probably was copied from - because I didn't find any proof that the uploader is the copyright holder. 90% of all uploaded logos are tagged with either {{PD-self}} or {{self|some CC licence, GFDL or Copyleft}} (9% are licenceless and 1% is uploaded with valid source information (such as {{PD-textlogo}}).
However the uploader contacted me] and claimed that he is the original author of this and other images I deleted (listed below). I usually undelete such images but in that case I'm not sure if the uploader is the real author and if these images just got uploaded to promote his CD (for "$9.95 plus $2.00 shipping and handling ($4.00 if you live outside the U.S.)" (which sounds a bit strange to me: You take images of a person and sell these images (I guess) without asking the person on the photo. Maybe I think that way, because I don't read yellow press). I would suggest an ORTS ticket to avoid that these images get deleted again. I'm not sure but I think all of his images should get tagged with {{Personality rights}}.

May also should get undeleted:

Not all of the images listed above have the same content.
--D-Kuru (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would agree with you, but with a username that matches the website (which appears to be based in New Orleans, also where the first photograph was apparently taken) there is at least a decent chance that the uploader is indeed the author, and therefore at the very least it should go through a regular deletion request (and not speedy) to give the uploader a chance to respond and correct any missing info. Even if they are promotional... if they are within scope and correctly licensed, we should keep them. I would agree that an email to OTRS (from the website's domain) indicating that the uploader is fact associated with that site is a good idea -- people have made up usernames like this before, and we typically require those emails to protect internet sites, but lack of that should not result in speedy deletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Solved, see ticket 2008111510015841. --Kanonkas(talk) 01:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solved apparently --Herby talk thyme 12:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

image:Parteaguas15.jpg[edit]

The image is an original work by one of the magazine´s contributors. Why was it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straycatblues7 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine cover (by the look of it) so it would require licensing by the copyright owner via OTRS. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing further heard, closed. --Herby talk thyme 12:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Steven goldstein pilot colombia.jpg[edit]

File:Steven goldstein pilot colombia.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) I uploaded a while ago the image with the title "Steven goldstein pilot colombia.jpg". Now it has been deleted. This image was personally given to me by Steven Goldstein, who is a friend of mine, and he knows it has been used for his wikipedia pages and agrees with that. How can I have the undeletion of this pic and protection for the future against a new delete?

Thank you,

Giovanni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.241.87 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just for your information: The description says he is ok for use it on Wikipedia, that statement is not compatible with {{GFDL}} and {{Cc-by-sa-all}} you selected. Everyone can use this image for every purpose, purposes might be commercial use or making derivative works of it. If you have the photographers written permission that everyone can use it for every purpose under the terms of one of the selected licenses you should ask the admin and contact our OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been re-uploaded (and as yet without an OTRS number). Closed --Herby talk thyme 12:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Tonpostkarte.jpg[edit]

I am inconsolable because my photography was deleted. I have done this photo to demonstrate the real existence of grammophone record on a postcard. The grove on the surface of the card was demonstrated with oblique light. This was no simple copy of the postcard as a scanner result. This my photography never can be abused as postcard because the special reflexions. Not but least any photo of a gramophone record contains no sound what is its normal aim!--Wikipit (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a photograph of a postcard and was deleted since there was no permission from the copyright holder of the photo which appears on the card itself. That is itself a copyright work (even if you do not know who the copyright belonmgs to) and may not be hosted here. Sorry. Please have a look at the examples given in COM:CB: the rules are similar to those of CD or book covers. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing further heard so closed. --Herby talk thyme 12:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Operation Red Wing planning map.jpg[edit]

Following a series of problems with Commons admins "unilaterally deleting" my last image upload to w:Operation Red Wing because "THOSE MEN WERE HEROES" apparently means photos of war-dead are forbidden...I now find File:Operation Red Wing planning map.jpg from the same article has been "unilaterally deleted" without any consensus or discussion, with the cryptic note "‎ (copyvio oTRS 2008122210005309 only partial copy)".

The OTRS simply says that the image is (slightly) cropped, which does not affect the licensing of the work - which is Public Domain since it is a map created by an American Special Forces soldier in commission of his duties. (US Federal Employee) and clearly resides in {{PD-USGov}} territory. A helpful WS colleage (and administrator) suggested that User:Geni may have been incorrectly thinking of the w:Sweat of the brow policy; which does not affect images in the United States, or on Commons -- so it seems like an OTRS team member failed to critically examine the "request" by the "owner" to have it deleted. Sherurcij (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, while I'm certainly not basing the claim off the notion that the OTRS was deliberately spoofed, it's worth noting that an image similarly deleted this past week (then restored) from the same WP article was met with a spoofed eMail (from an @live.com address, not .mil or anything official) stating ""Office of the Commander, United States Special Operations Command/Dear Mr. Ainsile,/On behalf of the families of Lt. Michael P. Murphy, PO2 Matthew Axelson, and PO2 Daniel Dietz and unofficial, the United States Navy I respectfully ask that you remove any and all pictures of these fine men, as they are rude and offensive. I understand your rights, and I respect them but failure to remove these pictures could result in a call to the Crown Attorney's Office (seeing as how you are a resident of Toronto) and you could face charges or a civil suit. Thank You Very Much./Respectfully Yours,/Adm. Eric T. Olson, USN", impersonating w:Eric T. Olson. This was in addition to comments like "you ungrateful sick son of a bitch I am a Lt. Commander in the US Navy. I served 3 tours in Afghanistan and it is impotent freaks like you that give this country a bad name." from an (unrelated) person seeking its deletion -- so obviously people are not above spoofing eMails to try and get files related to the largest loss of American Special Forces soldiers in history deleted. Sherurcij (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done. This undeletion request appears to be well-founded. The image is a mere scan or faithful-reproduction photo of a printed image which itself is a faithful reproduction of an original drawing. The drawing was, it appears, created by an American Special Forces soldier in commission of his duties and thus falls into the public domain under Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. The uploaded image is in the public domain under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp (1999). The fact that the uploader may have cropped the original cannot create any new copyright and does not affect its PD status. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OTRS agent comment - I was the OTRS agent who originally handled the ticket, and (for reasons stated above) I declined to remove or delete the image. The OTRS agent that chose to delete the image made nothing more than a simple mistake that was easily correctable. Please understand that OTRS agents are human and can make mistakes. Happy holidays! Tiptoety talk 22:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been sorted so closed. --Herby talk thyme 12:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Question about deleted images[edit]

I don't know why would they delete the pictures that I've uploaded recently. It was not copyright violation. It took me a lot of time and trouble to put up those pictures. It's just a waste of time! I don't understand why. Many other people do it and their images stayed undeleted. It's not fair. This is like my first time uploading pictures here and you guys just shut me down like that?! I didn't claim that those pictures are made by myself because I didn't. In fact, I even gave the website where I got those pictures from and gave credit to those who really created the pictures. After they deleted the pictures that I've uploaded, I recreated the same pictures because I thought something went wrong with the pictures so you guys have to delete them. Not that it was the second time that those pictures were deleted "again", but somebody sent me a message that I will lose privilege to upload pictures by recreating deleted files. I mean, I don't think that I will upload pictures here anymore, but can you guys at least put back those pictures that I've uploaded recently? If you guys do so, thanks a million! By Ada523(talk)11:41 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Those image you uploaded are not free to use for everyone and for everything (even if you claim this but the source website does not show anything in this direction). Those CD covers or promotional images are to be classified as fair use and this not allowed here. --Denniss (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly (& admitted) coyvios, so closed. --Herby talk thyme 12:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Robert S. Beightler[edit]

File deletions of pictures with Roosevelt and Randolph Scott. The pictures came from the Ohio Historical Society, which grants a license for one free use. This should have been attached to the picture: Copyrighted free use provided that This photo was downloaded from the Ohio Historical Society, which allows for one free use of the photograph. http://www.ohiohistory.org/etcetera/exhibits/kilroy/waryears/37thinfantry3.html 1. The right to reproduce materials held in the Ohio Historical Society is granted on a one-time basis only. Any further reproduction of this material is prohibited without the express permission of the Ohio Historical Society. http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/ohiopix/copyrights.cfm

Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall deleting a bunch of those image yesterday. The biggest problem with the images is that we simply don't accept such a license—to be hosted on Commons, images must be free to share as many times as people wish to do so. Maxim(talk) 13:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly these are clearly not licensed in an acceptable way for Commons. Closed --Herby talk thyme 12:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Painters from Italy not in the Public Domain yet[edit]

This category was deleted joking about the fact that "this is the majority of painters". First, it is not (Italy's art goes back for more than 70 year, you know... we have a few Michelangelos and Raffaellos around...), second, it contains works ABOUT Italian painters, but abovr all marks the works tha MAY not be uploaded. So please undelete it. Or at least allow a discussion before deleting it. --User:G.dallorto (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was a maintenance category, used to clear regularly Commons from images that were copyvio. Please undelete it and, if possibile, could you also put back in this category again the painters that were in it? Today I wanted to delist the painters who had died in 1938 (in the PD since today :-) ). --User:G.dallorto (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - Seems reasonable.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 22:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - Evrik (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Does not seem unreasonable as a maintenance category. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

request undeletion[edit]

This page has been attempted and deleted on several occassions. It has been modeled after many other liquor brands and companies that were permitted here on Wikipedia and is in no way different from existing wiki articles including: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patr%C3%B3n; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partida_Tequila; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacardi and much more. If something appears as a blatant ad, please remove that sentence rather than the entire article. It would be unfair to allow some brands to list on wikipedia while preventing others.


This article also meets wikipedias guidelines for: publishing an article including: Ensure that your topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, including ones for:

Companies and corporations-An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources (see all citations in external links from independent news and reliable industry sources. (An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.) Please note: links have been provided in this article to meet verifiable rule.

This is not Wikipedia - please go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Female Urination.jpg[edit]

I am requesting undeletion of Female_Urinating.jpg

It has a speedy deletion request however it is not dissimilar to other longstanding images and videos such as those found on the ejaculation wikipedia page.

The image is of value as many men are unsure of where the urine/urethra is situated and many believe they are in the vagina not above it.

I honestly don't see how this can be considered out of scope in an article about female urination.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aether22 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I changed my speedy in a normal deletion request after I have read your message on my talk page.
The image isn't deleted yet so a Undeletion request isn't needed (You can't undelete something that isn't deleted)
Your opinion is appreciated Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female Urination.jpg
Abigor talk 13:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it's done here. →Na·gy 14:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undelete please[edit]

Voodoo Tiki Tequila is a legitimate brand, and presents a different, perhaps unique, approach to marketing tequila. That alone makes them something special in the industry.

Their product is in the premium category, made in the same factory as the respected 30-30 Tequila, and is of at least the same calibre as that tequila. I had the opportunity to visit the distillery in April, along with about 25 other participants on a week-long industry tour.

While I appreciate that Wikipedia does not want to offer free space for company flack, what I have read of the deleted copy is accurate and rather restrained. For that, I request you undelete the article.

As the host/author of www.ianchadwick.com/tequila/ a popular tequila website and a popular www.ianchadwick.com/forum/index.php?showforum=6 tequila forum I think it worthwhile to have tequila brands given some reasonable amount of space for those who may wish to know more, to contact the companies, and to have an external, neutral reference. I and other readers also appreciate the external links as independent sources of other information we can reference on a particular brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.54.138 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally Declined as promotional & out of project scope. --Herby talk thyme 13:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per herby and beeing clearly out of our scope. abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 13:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ken Sopheara[edit]

Ken Sopheara(born June 30, 1986), better known by his stage name Guang Xing, is a Cambodia martial artist, and Wushu champion. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.134.4 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any images you wish to have undeleted? --rimshottalk 18:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a "dead" one so closed. --Herby talk thyme 14:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:1533-1896.jpg.gif[edit]

It's a useful image for people to understand Russa fully. So I want it to be undeleted.

Of interest I'm sure but sadly not licensed in a way that allows us to host the image. Please see here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SidneyLumet07TIFF.jpg[edit]

Although I requested this to be deleted for being tagged OTRS pending for too long, I've now found the OTRS ticket (at OTRS:2324069) confirming it's released under cc-by. Can this please be undeleted? Stifle (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Next time please be more careful. --Kanonkas(talk) 14:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ft Worth Modern 15.jpg and File:Ft Worth Modern 16.jpg[edit]

Let me say in front: I am not particularly concerned with these images, but I am very concerned with the rationale under which they were deleted. I wasn't planning to bother asking for undeletion of the images, but have been trying unsuccessfully to engage Wuzur in discussion of his rationale, which I believe is be based on a serious misunderstanding of the U.S.'s legal concept of public space.

What follows is reproduced from Commons:Village pump where I tried to discuss the general principle involved. It has been a week and he has not responded there. I am hoping that by my asking for restoration of the pictures, he will engage me on the substantive here, since he has chosen to ignore it there. - Jmabel ! talk 05:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copied from Commons:Village pump

We need to clarify our policy on freedom of panorama for buildings in the United States. Wuzur and I clearly interpret it very differently; he recently deleted two images of mine according to a standard that, if applied consistently, would probably result in the deletion of hundreds of images. (The images deleted were two images of the lobby of a museum, the Fort Worth Modern. For the record, the images were File:Ft Worth Modern 15.jpg and File:Ft Worth Modern 16.jpg. I don't think either is an important image, but I do think the principle involved is an important matter of Commons policy.)
There seem to be two issues here: (1) whether a "building" is strictly an exterior and (2) what is "public space"?
Our writeup of Freedom of panorama says that there is freedom of panorama for buildings in the United States and that in the U.S. "Anyone may take photographs of buildings from public places. The photographer holds the exclusive copyright to such an image (the architect or owner of the building has no say whatsoever), and may publish the image in any way." The issue comes down to what is a "public space". As I understand it, (1) U.S. copyright law makes no distinction between interiors and exteriors of buildings and (2) the criterion for public space in U.S. copyright law is simply one of a space in which one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, a sports arena during a sports event or rock concert is a public space, even though it may be privately owned, indoors, not open at all times to whomever wants to enter, and limited even at this time to people who have paid admission.
Wuzur wrote on his talk page (this is verbatim), "Please note that not every lobby is a public place just because every can go into it. The building should be open 24/7 is just one criterium for a public place. The second thing is that interior is not a building but architectural artwork. The term 'building' just describes the fassade, what you can see from outside... The US law simply says 'public place'. A place which is open just a half day can't be public." (Spelling his. I'm copying verbatim to minimize any chance that I am misrepresenting him.)
I happen to believe he is dead wrong. (It is possible that there is some other country where the rules are this strict, but this is about freedom of panorama in the U.S.) If his standard applies, the following are not public spaces, and freedom of panorama would not apply for photographing architecture:
  • Church interiors
  • Any railroad station, subway station, bus terminal, airport terminal, etc. that is not open 24 hours a day.
  • Most public parks in most U.S. cities (since nearly all close for at least part of the night)
  • Interiors of public libraries
  • Interiors of concert halls
  • Interiors of nearly all buildings on college and university campuses, city halls, etc. (since very few allow the general public to enter 24/7)
  • Exteriors of many buildings on college and university campuses, etc. (since many campuses do not allow unaffiliated individuals 24/7 access)
This strikes me as an extremely unlikely interpretation of freedom of panorama, one way more restrictive than can possibly be intended by the law. I do not think we should even consider such a strict interpretation, even on the precautionary principle. I suspect that some of this goes even farther than Wuzur himself would go in practice. However, I would like to have some idea where the lines stand, so that I can continue to be a useful participant in Commons.
N.B.: All of this is, of course, irrelevant for pre-1990 architecture, which is not copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think even your interpretation is too restrictive :-) The law (17 U.S.C. 120) states The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. The definition of "architectural work" from 17 U.S.C. 101 is: design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features. There is no distinction between the interior and exterior, and the exemption holds as long as the building is visible from a public place. "Public place" is not explicitly defined in the law, but there are two related definitions which use the terminology any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered. There is no "open 24/7" requirement to the definition of "public place" as far as I can tell -- does anyone have a source which states otherwise? The way I read that law, Congress was trying to keep the status quo of photographs/video of buildings when they made architecture copyrightable for the first time -- i.e. photos of buildings (inside or outside) are virtually always OK in any circumstance (copyright-wise). It would not surprise me one bit if the movie industry helped with that one, as otherwise getting permission from architects of all buildings which appear in movie shots would be basically impossible. The one exception is probably photographs of architectural models (etc.) for buildings which have not yet been constructed (i.e. buildings which are still a bit of a trade secret). Even the "expectation of privacy" part is not right -- that relates to people's privacy rights and not buildings; photos of interiors which do not expose any private details are probably also OK (since the building is likely visible from a public place). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Wuzur several days ago for his comments here, but he has not responded. He has been on at least once since that time. I have no idea how I am supposed to proceed in the absence of any engagement on this question. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

end copied material

  • Undelete Wuzur seems to be applying German FOP-rules about "public roads" etcetera all over the world. That is not even right for the Netherlands, where FOP applies to "public place", defined as any "place where one comes and goes." The US rules seem similar. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per my earlier comments; photos of buildings in the U.S. are basically always OK. Interior vs exterior does not matter; that is another aspect of German law which does not apply in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. FOP applies as per Jmabel and Carl Lindberg. Yann (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SatiebyValadon.jpg[edit]

The author of this painting died in 1938. As per the life + 70 years rule, her works are no longer copyrighted as of Jan. 1st 2009. W. C. Minor (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Yann (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Swords-Plowshares.jpg[edit]

The deleting administrator agreed this work was published without copyright notice in the U.S., making it public domain in the US but deleted it because it was created in Russia. But since the country of legal publication was the United States, I believe this work should be allowed on Commons. -Nard the Bard 22:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose as deleting admin. This is a Russian work (created by a Russian in Russia) that now happens to be located in the United States. Being "published" in the US does not magically revoke or invalidate pre-existing (Russian) copyright. Copyrights in both jurisdictions must be considered. Эlcobbola talk 22:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it would be considered copyright in Russia... but "country of origin" is where a work was first published, which is what would matter in the rest of the world, and is what would matter for the Commons "U.S. and the country of origin" rule. Where was it first published? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Country of origin has nothing to do with where a work is published. Country of origin means country of origin. A work receives a copyright upon creation; whether it is published is irrelevant to the granting of the copyright. Publication date and location is merely a determinant for the duration of the copyright term in certain jurisdictions (and not Russia, in this case). Эlcobbola talk 00:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Berne convention defines country of origin as the country of first publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. The definition of country of origin varies pending on whether it was published. Before this was gifted or touched US soil, it was an unpublished Russian work and thus, if we're going to use the BC, per 4(c), the origin is the "country of ... which the author is a national". Эlcobbola talk 02:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it was published, which seems to make the earlier criteria the more appropriate one (unless of course you are arguing the United States was not party to that treaty then -- but neither was the Soviet Union). Anyways, the issue is the photograph if I'm not mistaken -- the statue is PD in the United States, therefore the photo (taken in and presumably published in the U.S.) is a U.S. work, and the copyright to the photo is completely owned by the photographer. Who, I assume, licensed it appropriately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not published until it was installed in the United States. The point is that it existed as an unpublished work before that happened. Moving the property has no impact on the Russian copyright. I'm not commenting whether one or both of the countries is party to the BC. I'm saying the country of origin is Russia. If this was never shipped to the US, it would be of Russian origin, right? Why would shipping it to the US change that? The issue is that this statue is PD in the US, but not in Russia (its county of origin). Commons requires it be PD in both, which is why I deleted it here and moved it to en.wiki, which does not have that requirement. The photograph of the statue is a derivative work and, therefore, subject to the copyright of the subject (i.e. also PD in US, not Russia). Эlcobbola talk 03:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The act of publishing a work has an effect on the "country of origin" as used by third countries -- most all countries' copyright law gives their own citizens a copyright (inside their borders) regardless of where it was published. The question is when a copyright can be claimed in another country or not... thse countries often use the "country of origin" to determine how they treat foreign works. Anyways, that is mostly irrelevant, and would only apply to sculptors making other copies of the statue. This is about the photo, which is quite different. If a (copyrighted) sculpture is placed in a country with FOP laws, then that sculptor knows that photos of it are not derivative works, and he cannot control those at all -- the copyright of the photo is completely owned by the photographer. The situation is much the same here -- the statue is public domain in the U.S., and is also located there, so photographs can be freely taken of it, and the copyright to the photograph is 100% owned by the photographer -- if the sculptor had wanted to try to control those, all he had to do was put a copyright notice on it, but apparently did not. Thus, he has lost any rights he might have had on photographs taken of the U.S. statue, much the same as if there were FOP laws. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not presume to know what the copyright holder knows or prefers as regarding his copyrights. Such speculation is not acceptable. The Commons is to host files that all projects may use, per COM:SCOPE and COM:L: "'Wikimedia Commons accepts only media...that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work" and "The jurisdictions that might need to be considered are...The place where the work was created". As you said, this is copyrighted in Russia - its country of origin and country of creation. Just as this would preclude use under a PD claim on the Russian Wikipedia, so too does it preclude hosting on the Commons. It's unfortunate that certain complexities of copyright law, including the concept of derivate works and subsequent ability of photographs to posses multiple copyrights in multiple jurisdictions have not been grasped. Эlcobbola talk 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "work" in question is the photograph, which was created in the U.S. That would also presumably be the country of origin of the photograph. Since that is the work we are discussing (not the statue itself), it is licensed fine in both the U.S. and the country of origin (since they happen to be the same). The photograph has its own copyright, which appears to be licensed perfectly correctly, and there is no reason to delete it. The photograph is of a public domain object, so there are no derivative rights involved in the U.S. (i.e. the country of origin). If a copy of the statue existed in Russia, then a photograph taken of that copy there would be a different situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Status in the US is not contested. Even if it were, COM:PRP is a policy. Эlcobbola talk 00:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should act a little logical. This is the UN headquarter. I would say they had told Mr. Vuchetich clearly: Thank you for this interesting sculpture. But if you copyright it, we will send it back to Russia. We are not interested that a Soviet(!) sculptor, famous for his works for Stalin, can prevent photographs from our building. And we are not interested in any headline, that Mr. Vuchetich from the Soviet Union has sued some photographers from all over the world, because they focussed the statue more than our building. No, thank you. Mutter Erde (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I doubt that anyone would refuse the gift of a statue like that on grounds of copyright... ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Vuchetich is not the first and not the last, who wants to place a statue on a crowded place. The question is: What are the conditions? When it means, Vuchetich is now able to get a fee from the journalists, tourists and sue all others, who don't want to pay, then this is the total opposite of the interests of an open house as the UN. For me it's totally clear: He has signed a contract that he will never sue a photographer or he gave up his copyright on this statue in total. Otherwise, the UN takes the next statue (to their conditions).Mutter Erde (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between physically property and intellectual property. When I buy a book, I get the object, not the copyrights thereto. By all means, Mutter Erde, please point out where the UN sets forth that creative gifts are only accepted on the condition that copyrights are released to the UN. If you think refusing physical property because copyrights are not transferred is logical, I believe I shall forgo the emptying of my bookshelves and remain illogical. Эlcobbola talk 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, to make clear -- this image should be undeleted. The discussion should have been over the copyright of the photograph, not the statue. If the statue is public domain in the U.S., then any photographs of it taken in the U.S. are 100% owned by their photographers, and can be licensed freely. The statue appears to have been published without a copyright notice, and at the very least, the renewal would have had to have been after 1978, which means the records are searchable -- if it was published in 1959, the renewal would have had to been in 1986 or 1987. It does appear that the statue is PD in the U.S. and thus the photograph is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Support per Nard the bard. Evrik (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted As per Carl Lindberg, the photograph is PD world wide. Эlcobbola arguments would hold only if the photo was taken in USSR before the statue was moved to USA. Yann (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

logo_de_maitips.jpg[edit]

The file File:logo de maitips.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) you just deleted from my account is an original picture, made by myself for the music band Maitips, so there's no reason to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maitips (talk • contribs) 14:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider sending a confirmation to COM:OTRS. Thanks, →Na·gy 21:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else heard so closed --Herby talk thyme 11:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

request to undelete martin_d_weiss.jpeg[edit]

I uploaded an image called File:Martin_D_Weiss.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) to en:Martin_D._Weiss last week and it was taken down due to copyright infringement. i am new to this and was unaware of all the details on adding an image. the image that i uploaded was one that i had received permission from Martin to upload. what do i need to do to have this image allowed to be used again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmeshdpatel (talk • contribs) 10:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have the copyright owner send a permission email to OTRS. Note that the permission must be for everyone, not just Wikipedia. See Commons:Email templates for an example, and the address to send to... this is to make sure that the copyright owner is aware of the rights being granted, all of which are required to upload to Commons itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else heard so closed --Herby talk thyme 11:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

i request undeletion of the image named image:LaZoneLogo.jpg[edit]

This is a public domain image. I've add some color to it, but it stays a not copyrighted image. So i'd like that logo to be back on Wikimedia so that i can use it in Wikipedia...

cheers

b

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastoszak (talk • contribs) 03:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source to show that the image is public domain? --rimshottalk 10:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else heard so closed --Herby talk thyme 11:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

[edit]

I don't understand why this picture has been deleted as a proper source was provided. so please reverse this deletion or give me more explanations. Allauddin

The source is given as [1], where no copyright information can be found. --rimshottalk 14:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was uploaded to that site in December 2005... but it has been on this page since March 2004. Sure looks like a fully copyrighted image to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else heard so closed --Herby talk thyme 11:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:JanetAkyuzMattei2.jpg[edit]

Can a sysop who has OTRS access please check OTRS:2322139 and confirm that the image attached to it is the above-named deleted image, and if so undelete it? Stifle (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.66.113 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

This is now no longer needed. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Stifle's comment this is now closed --Herby talk thyme 11:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:ThumbsUpStephenColbert.jpg and File:SpeakTruthinessToPower.jpg[edit]

I found these two images on Flickr, where both were labeled with Creative Commons Attribution licenses. You can see for yourself here and here.

These were marked as copyright violations and deleted before I could say anything. I tried talking to the person who marked them as violations, but they simply insisted that they knew it was a violation without really explaining why.

To the best of my knowledge, neither picture is a copyright violation. If anyone can point to evidence to the contrary, then this matter is settled and I'll drop it immediately. But if there is no evidential basis, then I think it's not entirely unreasonable to request that they be restored. Spotfixer (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second one, at least, seems like a case of flickrwash, maybe the first one is, too? Samulili (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at these I would say both are highly questionable in terms of valid licensing. A lot of "Colbert" material is copyvio stuff and the poster is highly unlikely to be freely licensed. --Herby talk thyme 14:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but is there anything in specific to back up your hunch? Spotfixer (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK let's put it another way. Given the look of the images & past issues in this area the only way I would be happy was if this were licensed via OTRS personally. --Herby talk thyme 10:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first image, from what I can tell, was from an photo shoot done by Comedy Central. Notice the same tie used in the photos. The second image was of Colbert doing a White House dinner with President Bush present. Most likely a press photo, but nothing stating it was from the White House. I agree with both deletions. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 10:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Zscout370 comments etc this is closed as  Not done --Herby talk thyme 11:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

I hereby request the undeletion of the Logo from OpenmindProjects. (file:OMP_logo.gif) It is property from Openmindprojects, and their own work. If I chose the wrong Licence i apologise, please tell me which licence to choose.

Please answer to Taweelsiph Luchipaya: tt@openmindprojects.org

Yours, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMPWiki (talk • contribs) 00:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have realized what needs to happen, I have uploaded the pictures to Archive.org and put the correct licenses on them, thank you.

Kevin Taylor ---- Closed, not done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Emile Cohl[edit]

I once uploaded images by Emile Cohl but it was too soon since I was unaware of the fact that we have to wait for the end of civil year before the copyright ends 70 years after the death of the author. Now that we're in 2009, there should be no problem to undelete those Emile Cohl's works :

Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:BSicon dSTRq.svg[edit]

This icon is my own work, I uploaded it early 2007. On 7.1.2007 User:BjørnN made an upload of my icon with a different name File:BSicon dHSTR.svg and the same day my icon was deleted because it was said to be "Dupe of Image:BSicon dHSTR.svg".

The actual name is violation the only existing naming convention and to be honest, this procedure described above is "not the fine english manner" (a German saying ...). Please restore my original work! axpdeHello! 17:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

restored. After this request is only about an duplicate/redundant image without any copyright problems i will restore it, please make sure that one of the duplicate files will be deleted or moved to the category for obsolete icons. --Martin H. (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Why delete Calcaneal spur?[edit]

Why delete Calcaneal spur? I tried so hard to find a topic that is not available in wiki I cost my time and created it with reference, why its been deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickedauthor (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your page was deleted as it was not in scope. This is Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository, and we do not host encyclopedia articles. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is Commons, not Wikipedia. We are collecting free media files, your articles Wanted topic and Calcaneal spur are deleted because they are out of our projects scope. --Martin H. (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

closed, the article is not even written by the user, it is a copy from http://ww2.tricities.com/global/story.asp?s=1230442. --Martin H. (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ogoh_Ogoh.jpg[edit]

The file File:Ogoh_Ogoh.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) you just deleted from my account is an original picture, taken by me in Bali, Indonesia. Please restore it. Or, if you want me to update the current flickr license, please tell me what it should be.

The current license is: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Creative Commons http://www.flickr.com/photos/ourshoebox/2409624010/

Dbmayur 01:48, 16 December 2008

To be "free", the license must allow commercial use and derivative works. The current license is CC-BY-NC-ND, which doesn't allow either. We would accept CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (share-alike, which means derivative works must also have the same license). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, the license on FlickR is CC-BY-NC-SA. Please consider updating it to a free license (see COM:CT) or sending a confirmation to COM:OTRS. Thanks, →Na·gy 13:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

I got a picture deleted twice[edit]

Hello, I got a picture deleted twice: File:Steven goldstein pilot colombia.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

  1. 03:36, 4 December 2008 Elcobbola (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Steven goldstein pilot colombia.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation: recreation of deleted image - http://www.stevogoldstein.com)
  2. 22:13, 30 September 2008 Elcobbola (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Steven goldstein pilot colombia.jpg" ‎ (Copyright violation)

As you can see the name of the picture is "Steven goldstein pilot colombia.jpg". I used this picture on several pages I made for a Colombian racing driver pilot, Steven Goldstein. I know the pilot personally and I got the picture from him. I have his phone number and his manager phone number. I am authorized by him to use that image on Wikipedia. He could as well write you an email assuring he's aware of the use of that image and that he agrees with that.

How can we get in touch with someone from Wikipedia or write anything to demonstrate that we agree with the use of that image so that it won't be deleted again?

Thank you, Giovanni Vocale on the behalf of Steven Goldstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtual3 leto (talk • contribs) 05:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Ticket# 2008121810022736. We're awaiting a reply from the copyright holder. →Na·gy 22:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello,

fernando decillis (decillis@fernando.com) should have sent you an email giving the permission for anybody including commercial usage as you requested. Can you check if you receive it so that I can get the picture unlocked?

Regards, Giovanni


 Not done, nothing further heard. →Na·gy 13:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Visuel SDE 2008.jpg[edit]

Released under the GFDL in OTRS:2311988, should be OK to restore. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way we can get the translation of the text or perhaps get a French admin/otrs user to restore it? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE NOT RESTORE THIS FILE We are not sure the person is the copyright holder.--Bapti ✉ 21:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. →Na·gy 13:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Niom-logo-en.png[edit]

Hello - and Happy New Year. "File:Niom-logo-en.png" has been deleted due to copyright violation. However, the file (a logo) belongs to, and was created by the the Nordic organization (a type of government organization) that uploaded the file. I understand that the the formalities have not not adequately conveyed. Advice how to handle this properly will be greatly appreciated, as we are quite new to Wiki. Thank you. --Niomno (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This file's possibly ineligible for copyright. Any objections on restoring it ? →Na·gy 14:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored. →Na·gy 13:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:majesticmc.jpg[edit]

The photo is public domain, was taken in a public place with a personal camera. The image has been released by the artist as a promotional shot - it is also available on multiple resources and on FaceBook/MySpace groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G33k84 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot view the file, but were you the person who took the photo? Sherurcij (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not donepromo image doesn't mean the image is public domain. Abigor talk 13:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Batman[edit]

The deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Fremont Solstice Parade images with Batman character has been closed by Infrogmation, on the basis that the majority supported keeping and there was no activity in 2 months.

However, the administrator is not impartial, he had already involved himself in the debate. Those are my reasons to request a look by another administrator about wich should be the closing.

  • Deletion requests on Commons are not handled by consensus or majority. Law and policy arguments trump voting numbers.
  • Even so, 3 to 2 can hardly be considered a "majority"
  • I realize I may not be impartial about it, but I think I can answered all the reasons posted for keeping with related policy or copyright working reasons. In fact, in the last contribution Jmabel accepts the things I told about derivative works and fan art (policies he was not aware of), and said that I'm probably correct. Belgrano (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is the right place fo this request. Evrik (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion reqeust was closed as kept. Nothing to undelete. Abigor talk 19:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Multiple undeletion request[edit]

Due to Ticket:2008121710024441, it was believed that the following images were unfree:

We have received an update to state that they are in fact free and available under all versions of cc-by. Can they please be undeleted? Stifle (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Papa Godett[edit]

I can't understand why the file was deleted, because it was a screenshot, not a photo with copyrights . So I ask you to undelete the picture, while it is not forbidden to take screenshots..—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekke kunst (talk • contribs) 13:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The file in question is File:Papa Godett 2.png. It is a still of an interview. Someone holds the copyright for the interview, probably either the director or the TV station. The same copyright holds for this picture. So, unless you hold the copyright to the film or can state another reason why this shouldn't be copyrighted, it must stay deleted. --rimshottalk 14:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Conference poster[edit]

Hello !

The file Fichier:Affiche colloque Mondes à part Lyon 2009.jpg - which was a conference poster - has been deleted whereas it was used in French wikipedia to give an example of the conferences organized by a "grande école" : École normale supérieure lettres et sciences humaines in Lyon. Since this image has a pedagogic aim and is useful, I think we should not delete it.

Thank you

Remi Mathis (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as "out of scope" which seems slightly odd. However I would have deleted it as a copyright violation in the absence of OTRS permission. --Herby talk thyme 11:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Iraq Security Trends 3 Jan 2009[edit]

File:Iraq Security Trends 3 Jan 2009.pdf (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) Request that this file not be deleted as it provides graphic representation of the historical trends that have been discussed in the media and in Congress. Many have cited these charts over time.

Thank you for your consideration as these are goverment documents and not specific to an author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sboylan (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of the .pdf extension it seems this was a page, not a media file. All it had on it was text plus an external link, and it was deleted as being out of scope. This is Commons, not Wikipedia, and we do not host encylopedia articles. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the PDF would be used to verify a Wikisource copy of the information, and would be required to be uploaded to Commons---which is likely why it was here. "Project scope" includes WMF projects other than WP. Sherurcij (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK I now see there was actaully a pdf file as well as a page: sorry. I have undeleted so this can be used for Wikisource. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Playrix_logo.jpg[edit]

Hi there,

The file "file:Playrix_logo.jpg" was deleted from Commons by Martin H. because: In category: Unknown as of 8 December 2008; no permission. The image is the company's logo (Playrix Entertainment) (thus, I guess it can join the category: All non-free logos). The source of the file is: officially on its web site. Please kindly let me know what I need to do to have the file undeleted or have it added to the All non-free logos category.

Thanks, dashakob

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashakob (talk • contribs) 04:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, non-free logos can be uploaded to Wikipedia, but not to Commons. Since you still have the source file for the logo, simply re-upload it to Wikipedia and be sure to include the fair-use rationale for it. (And best to use it only in the article on Playrix, not related articles) Sherurcij (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image[edit]

I have the permission to use this image and I hope to have it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahama (talk • contribs) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

uh, what image? And who are you? - Jmabel ! talk 06:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mark Mallon article - please undelete.[edit]

The information from the website TheSoccerInstitute.com was written and approved by submitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAMSoccer (talk • contribs) 13:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons is a repository for media files. We don't host articles. --rimshottalk 15:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not done, we dont have and we never had an article about Mark Mallon. This is Wikimedia Commons, a file repository for Wikipedia, you should go back to Wikipedia wikipedia:en:Mark mallon and request undeletion there. --Martin H. (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Tommy_Campbell.jpg[edit]

This is a promotional photo with no copyright and should be undeleted please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjackframpton (talk • contribs) 12:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted because no copyright licence was supplied. The photographer is listed as Darah Herlihy, but there is no evidence that Herlihy licensed the image for free use. An image does not become copyright-free just becuse it has been used for promotional purposes. You would need to get a formal written release from the photographer, and send it to OTRS (click on the link for instructions). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reson for deletion was: the image was missing a free license that allows anyone to use the image for every purpose including commercial use, please select a license while uploading images. Maybe you can answer here, which license you select? --Martin H. (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

closed, the file was repuploaded with license, but marked as "no permission" by me: promotional photos with no copyright are pure fantasy. --Martin H. (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Tameko49[edit]

I see where the deletion request was undone on my page but the page has not been restored. Tameko is a Christian Recording Artist that has television, radio and newspaper attention. It is part of public domain this information. Why was it deleted. You have Kuk Harrell on here and Tameko has s hit song "When you Hear the Thunder" on WHLI 1100 AM a pop music station. What is the reason behind the deletion? I provided verification for you?

Tameko Wood— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tameko49 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is Wikimedia Commons. You can complain about your article wikipedia:en:Temeko at the english Wikipedia. Your uploaded image here is still for deletion, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tameko Wood.jpg. Your userpage was deleted because it was a vanity page only. --Martin H. (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not done, --Martin H. (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mainade Staatliche Antikensammlungen 0973.jpg[edit]

was deleted as a duplicate. Looks like a duplicate at first sight, but it is not. --Fb78 (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a duplicate because it was replaced with the other image. I will restore it and revert the new upload, Commons is better with both images, also the versions are totaly different and your old version is, i think, much better. --Martin H. (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

undeleted, --Martin H. (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-01&oldid=113104707"