Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-08

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.

File:Suporte DVD Fundo sábado wikipedia.jpg[edit]

This is an Image created by me to the brazilian documentary O "Lapa Azul", that was produced by me too. So what's wrong with that image ??!

Esta é uma imagem criada por mim para o documentário brasileiro O "Lapa Azul" do qual também sou o produtor. Então qual é o problema desta imagem?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durval Jr. (talk • contribs) 22:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an image that i have this copyright and used in a brazilian documentary O "Lapa Azul" that i produced too. So what's is wrong?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durval Jr. (talk • contribs) 22:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one appears to be a commercial cover, please confirm your claims by sending a message to COM:OTRS in order to get the file restored. Thanks, →Nagy 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, permission needs to be confirmed through OTRS. –Tryphon☂ 10:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CitySymphonyMalmö2009 logo.jpg[edit]

The deletion of CitySymphonyMalmö2009 logo.jpg is absurd! Yes, I made a screenshot from the film, but the film is made by me and a bunch of other people and the contents are all in the public domain! I can't belive it's such a hassle to contribute to wikipedia, it's as if you don't even want people to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakirr (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not at all clear from the image description that this was own work, but it shows that it was not a good idea to close Commons:Deletion requests/File:CitySymphonyMalmö2009 logo.jpg so soon. I suppose you will need to send permission via COM:OTRS for getting this undeleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, but I still can't understand why you make it so hard for non techies to contribute to wikipedia. --Drakirr (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the inconveniences. While it's not always obvious to new users, the policies regarding copyrights and permissions have evolved to do what we can to insure that licenses are accurate (images with free licenses really are free). Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Content that has been published outside of the Commons needs to be verified via e-mail. We do this to help protect the copyrights of others, since anyone can in theory upload anything they want to the Commons. If you want to contribute something that you have published somewhere else before, you either need to add a notice on your website stating the nature of the license of your content, or you need to send in an e-mail, from an official e-mail address, declaring you are the content holder. Otherwise, anyone could upload an image they just found on the web and claim they own it with no further evidence. I apologize if the process isn't clearly states or confusing, but once you get the hang of it, it really isn't that much of a bother. The best thing to do, instead of bothering with e-mail and OTRS is to simply add a copyright/licensing notice on your website. You say your project is in the public domain, is that stated anywhere on the web for verification?-Andrew c (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, will be restored by OTRS if they ever receive a valid permission. –Tryphon☂ 10:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

deletions because of "filename harmonisation"[edit]

As I told Bibi Saint-Pol who uploaded my translated images again and then tagged mine as duplicate of them: this method is not only webspace-wasting, it is really annoying and can be better solved using redirects. I can't keep track of my uploads using the gallery tool as they vanish when deleted and reuploaded by someone else and non-english search requests are less likely to find the image. So please undelete the following images. Matt (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can redirect the image page without undeleting the files -- just create a redirect to the new image title. +sj +

 Not done. Although I can understand people being annoyed by this, once the files are on Commons they are not your files anymore. As long as the license is respected, they can be renamed and moved around without consulting you. If you want to keep track of your files, the best way is to use a user category. –Tryphon☂ 09:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion requests[edit]

Not deletion request for images File:Add Manupatra.gif File:Home Manupatra.jpg File:Logo Manupatra.jpg File:Cor Manupatra.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manupatra (talk • contribs) 13:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links are wrong. See rather Special:DeletedContributions/Manupatra. Yann (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the instructions at the top of this page. You forgot to enter a reason for your request and to sign it. Also, no files by those names ever existed. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, these images were deleted as copyright violations, and you provided no proof to the contrary. –Tryphon☂ 09:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Enn1.jpg[edit]

At OTRS:3389198, it suggests that this image is from [1] where there is a copyright release. As I'm not a sysop here I can't check, but if it is that image, then it should be undeleted accordingly. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored and tagged. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Altbirnau Grundriss.jpg[edit]

This was PD-Old. Please restore. --Fb78 (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded it, surely you can tell us where you got it from? Also, the style of the plan looks pretty modern to me; I don't think they used quite the same symbols back in 1700. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a scan from a book, but I'm pretty sure it was in the public domain. I don't have the book here nor the original file, so I can't doublecheck right now. I'd like to ask you to restore it and file a proper deletion request so it can be evaluated. The picture is either PD-old or not eligible for copyright at all. --Fb78 (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done that. Further comments are welcome at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Altbirnau Grundriss.jpg. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Sam & Max Comic-Con 07.jpg[edit]

I've been advised to come here to deal with this, so I shall. I'm not too good with this free image stuff, so bare with me and be ready to accept this may be a rather weak argument because I've not really dealt with these bits. (What has the world got to when uploading non-free stuff with a fair use rationale is less bureaucratic and complicated than uploading an image with a free license?) I got this image off of Flickr, here, where its licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution/Share-alike license. This was inspired on the presence on Commons of various images of a very similar nature, retrieved from Flickr uploads and released under the same license, although Elcobbola tells me its better to go on a case-by-case basis with images here. I was assured that the image was ok for usage over on en.Wikipedia, and the image was approved by an administrator (I can't tell you who because the page was deleted) soon after I uploaded it on the 7th of December. However, earlier today, Bayo deleted the image, stating that it was a copyright violation, despite the prior approval by another admin. Now, Elcobbola tells me that this is a rather grey area of copyright, but I feel that this deletion was somewhat in error.

The author of the photo didn't release all rights to the photo, some of them are still reserved by the company. However, I would have thought that the licensing provided at Flickr, along with the application of common sense that the company would have expected people to take pictures and share them (why else bother creating the suit in the first place?) would have been sufficient. In addition, I fail to draw the distinction between this sort of image and various others on Commons, such as racing cars or video games consoles, which by their very nature show copyrighted materials (such as Image:Atarisearspong crop.png, which was uploaded by Bayo just prior to the deletion of my image, but I'm not trying to call into question Bayo's uploading practices here). If necessary I will attempt to get an image off of the company itself, but for obvious reasons I would far prefer to have this image restored. -- S@bre (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Huib talk 19:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion_requests/Star_Wars_images is fully deleted, then why undeleted this one? ~ bayo or talk 15:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:HLA_B18-DR3_Old_World.PNG[edit]

Please undelete this file, I created the material from template maps here on WP. The materials was deleted in complete error by Abigor. No reason was given or stated on my talk pages.Pdeitiker (talk)

I already answered on my talkpage, a little bit patience could be nice sometimes :/`

✓ Done by Abigor. –Tryphon☂ 10:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Italian CoA[edit]

Please undelete Italian CoA, we are working on it. When we'll import them on itwiki we'll tag id for Spedy deletion. Thanks, and sorry for double work --melos (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Italian CoA" is somewhat general.... Multichill (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original dr was 1 year and three months old, there was enough time to move them, all 2800 images are deleted now, but I would suggest to ask temp adminright to move them. Undeletion 2800 images is not done in my eyes. Huib talk 17:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - will be solved in a other way Huib talk 18:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

User:Peter Wallack[edit]

I am Peter Wallack and have been a fine art photographer for over 30 years. I have done many SHOWS AT NYC galleries and many Art Shows in the east. I am published in magazines and books, : National Geographic 2005 edition of The Field Guide to the Birds of Florida ( Cover and 19 full pages); Nature's Photography Fall 2001.

The claim that I am a photo thief is idiotic and lacks any investigation or facts. TRYPHON claims I robbed the images from http://birdsofsanibel.free.fr/ without reading my bio or letter of introduction. The images on that site are free for use by environmental groups, educators, the government, artists making original non-commisioned work by commercial intersts and individual learners; they are not free for commercial entities or for use in sale as fine art. THE EMAIL ADRESS GIVEN FOR PETER WALLACK IS THE SAME EMAIL ADDRESS FOR MY WIKEPEDIA REGISTRATION.

I wrote him a long email with the evidence of ownership he needed: Facebook.com search Peter Wallack; Google search for Peter Wallack to see 50 plus museums and environmental orgaizations posting my bird photos and ask for original email request I have in a folder to verify that all those places with my name and I match; ERIC search for 1981 Columbia University Doctoral Dissertation and phone me at 505-986-0322 ( phone number is also on http://birdsofsanibel.free.fr/) after reading to challenge my knowledge... and more. TRYPHON HAS NOT RESPONDED OR WITHDRAWN THE DELETION REQUESTS. That is neither socially acceptable,legally acceptable, ethically respectable, and I am sure is unacceptable to Wikepedia Leaders.

I expect a speedy resolution and public apology from TRYPHON.

When any of my collection of 113 bird images find their way to the main Wikepedia pages I would like an auto email. If I do not get anyone who finds them valueable enough to place in Wikepedia by August 20, 2009 than I shall delete the collection myself. NBII broke a letter of agreement with me in Jan 2008 and I dleted hundreds of images then. However, as the Google search will show 50 repected educational/environmental intitutions using these photographs you know I prefer their dissemination. BTW, their are many states that use my images freely for oudoor refuges...and there are many other uses these images have enjoyed without an idiot calling me a theif without any factual basis. In fact, the circumstances of this is worse than a lack of basis for deletion...there is an email and phone number and name that was not even investigated by this person.

Again, act quickly and let me see an appreciation of my work with links to them in Wikepedia. Right now this case falls under "Let no good deen be unpunished." Change that immediately or sooner.

Pending Best Regards,

Dr. Peter L. Wallack, Ed.D. 1981 Columbia University

The license you chose here on Commons explicitly allows anyone to use these images for any purpose, which is in contradiction with what you just said, and what is written on [2]. And all I'm doing is making sure that Peter Wallack's copyright is not infringed, I don't see any reason to apologized for that. Besides, before I opened the deletion request, I told you that you should probably provide proof that you're the copyright holder, but you didn't answer. And when you left a charming note on my user page, I did answer and notified you about it. I did not answer your two emails because there is no point to it; you just repeated what you said on the deletion request and my user page. As I told you, you should write to OTRS, not to me. Wikipedia Leaders, have mercy on us all. –Tryphon☂ 18:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. The images are not deleted (yet), so this is really not the place to discuss this. Please direct your comments to Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Peter Wallack or my talk page. –Tryphon☂ 18:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

MarekV files[edit]

All files sent by MarekV was upload by its author, Marek Vanžura, Brno. Undelete them!!!! You can ask him at his amail addres at www.aispotter.eu!! -Karel x 20:28, 7 June 2009

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Huib talk 11:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

file:Children_bebek_water_1220929_nevit.jpg[edit]

Deletion without notification and discussion. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as some OTRS thing, no discussion is required, though I am curious as to what the exact reason was. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There might be personality rights issue with the last 2, but the child is not recognizable on the first. Yann (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The childs are all my relatives. No personality rights violations. I renew my undeletion request. What happens to notification? --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try asking at the OTRS noticeboard. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The OTRS ticket was from the children's mother, requesting the deletion of those images. Due to the nature of this email, I sent an immediate email to your Wikimedia Commons account, explaining the OTRS ticket. I really do not think this is right for immediate undeletion, and I would suggest that this matter be raised privately with your own relatives before any undeletion occurs. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really suspect that the mail was from childrens mother. I did not recieve any e-mail from you and no note was dropped on talk page. How do you verify the identity of mother? This shows that notification and discussion is required. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that you are checking the email that you are using for Wikimedia Commons? It should be there; the mail was sent successfully. I suppose I can't fully verify it, but why would someone lie about something like that? If you are indeed a relative, I suggest you simply speak to the mother, because the customer in the OTRS ticket seemed genuinely upset. I did not notify you on your talk page because email seemed more appropriate, as I explained. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - per PeterSymonds - Huib talk 11:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:TheMessagecover.png[edit]

Ticket:2009072510009353 gives permission for this image under cc-by-sa and so it should be possible to undelete it. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Huib talk 11:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Hofkirche-innsbruck-aussen.jpg[edit]

OTRS realese has arrived de:Datei:Hofkirche-innsbruck-aussen.jpg --Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Huib talk 11:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Akado images[edit]

The following images:

have been released as CC-BY-SA-3.0 in OTRS:3080333 and can be undeleted. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Huib talk 11:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bosko_Jankovic.jpg[edit]

The photographer have changed the license on Flickr, it's now CC-BY-SA. --Dereckson (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - Huib talk 10:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Copyright on Troma DVD Covers[edit]

I am currently getting mail for Troma DVD Covers I have uploaded, that they are being removed do to copyright problems.

I have been given permission to update the Wiki pages for their films in order to upload the newer DVD Covers instead of old posters.

Hi. The copyright owner (Troma Entertainment) must send an OTRS ticket (see Commons:OTRS) to prove that they allow those uploads and commercial reuse of their work. Regards. Peter17 (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - The image will be restored after the OTRS permission has arrived. Huib talk 14:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The German "Walking Eye"[edit]

Please undelete File:Laufendes-Auge.jpg - de:Datei:Laufendes-Auge.jpg was judged ineligible for copyright by the highest German courts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - agree, the image is to simple for copyright. Huib talk 14:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JDTractor chisel-plough.jpg[edit]

I moved it from the English Wikipedia to Commons. And it had correct information about source and license. -- MarkusHagenlocher (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elizabeth Elmore.jpg[edit]

File:Elizabeth Elmore.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) Someone has claimed a copyvio through the OTRS. It was a flickr image and I did the review. I think it should be restored and if there is an issue, it should be nominated for deletion. Evrik (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent communication from the owner indicates that the other e-mail was his as well, and he was confused. I am undeleting the image. -- 16:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Deletion Black Hawk College, Spoon River College, et al[edit]

Hello,

I apologize as I am new to the commons. However I had started those pages so I could upload the photos and was using them as placeholders. I apologize for confusion. Should i still upload the photos and recreate the article of photos? IlliniGradResearch (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just upload the photos. You don't even need to put them in any galleries, though you can do that if you want. What you probably want to do, however, is create categories for your photos — the easiest way to do that is just to enter suitable categories for the images when you upload them, even if those categories don't exist yet, and then clicking on the red links at the bottom of the image pages and creating the category pages. Remember to add your new categories to appropriate parent categories (e.g. Category:Universities and colleges in Illinois) in turn. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Images of User:MaxtorNP[edit]

Images deleted by mistake, For permission please see: (http://www.airport-nuernberg.de/unternehmen/presse/fotomedia/)
I've added {{Attribution}} to other images from Airport Nuremberg which uploaded by this user , as advised.
  ■ MMXXtalk  15:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are the two remaining (deleted) image from the same source? As of the deletion log, they don't seem to be or the source entry may have been uncomplete. --Túrelio (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, About those two images I believe they are from same source, but I can not verify it, I searched the www.airport-nuernberg.de website but I couldn't find the names and I don't remember what was the images.   ■ MMXXtalk  02:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tentatively restored File:Airport Nuernberg Modern Art Renaturation.jpg and File:Airport Nuernberg Tower mit Drehkreuz Air Berlin.jpg. Please check whether it's from the same source and falls under the same license/release. --Túrelio (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both of those are on the www.airport-nuernberg.de site, in the same area as the others. I added the source URLs, and changed the license to Attribution (since per the above that seems to be the license). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Images by User:Mac9 failed Flickreview[edit]

I just closed Commons:Deletion requests/Images by User:Mac9 failed Flickreview as kept. I noticed a lot of the uploads by mac9 were deleted as failed flickrreview (admins see here). These images should probably be undeleted, marked as review by Mac9 and tagged with {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. Multichill (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Unless problems with FOP, DW or scope I agree that images should be undeleted. The result of the DR was that Mac9 was a trusted user. Furthermore we have this User:Para/Flickr (found it after the DR was closed) that I'm sure would verify that images were free (probably not all since the lists only cover a small period). --MGA73 (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong Support Mac knew the right licenses. Only images with FOP problems like modern art should stay deleted. Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

' ✓ Done User:Mac9 has been found a trusted user in the DR. --MGA73 (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Historique NS100.jpg[edit]

OTRS:3445801 appears to give a release from the technology company for this image. It may be possible to undelete it, as long as the image doesn't contain any other copyrighted stuff. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted.
I let you judge if the permission covers this work. --Dereckson (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redeleted by User:High Contrast, correctly it seems. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Film posters by User:Filmforever[edit]

EDIT: Why is Google indexing these discussions, that should remain private within this site?

If you are the artist and the copyright holder, and the files are useful, Wikimedia Commons are sorry that the files were deleted. Many files that really are copyrighted, are uploaded all the time. If some files aren't clear about their copyright status and uploader, they are at risk of being flagged for deletion. It is easy for the editors (who are volunteers around the globe) to make a mistake. Koyos (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For externally published material, we typically require an email sent to COM:OTRS, from an appropriate email domain. See Commons:Email templates for some examples. Sorry for the formalities, but lots of copyrighted stuff gets uploaded, and the vast majority of externally-published material would be a copyright violation here, and accounts are essentially anonymous so we do not just "assume good faith" in that situation. It should also be clear to contributors exactly what they are licensing... it is not *just* for Wikimedia but for everyone. So, the email hopefully makes sure there is no misunderstanding -- there have been situations where they did not understand the full scope of the licenses and the implications initially, so we don't like to assume anything. If an appropriate licensing email is sent, mentioning whichever images were deleted, they should be undeleted as part of that process. The other alternative is to mark them with a CC-BY-SA (or whatever) license on the source website itself, so it can be easily verified. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Partially done, File:Rogelio.jpg now has an OTRS ticket; the other files will be restored if OTRS receives permission for them. –Tryphon☂ 11:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Further checking shows that File:MITS Test Equipment 1974.jpg is in the public domain[edit]

In early June I uploaded several 1970s advertisements that I believe are in the public domain. In the US, magazine copyrights do not cover the advertisements within the magazine. Previous to 1989 this required an explicit copyright notice. This rule was even stricter for work before 1978. After I uploaded these files I questioned my reasoning and asked to have the files deleted until the copyright issue was resolved. I have done more research and I am convinced these images are public domain due to no copyright notice.

I posted my research results on the village pump. Lupo and Carl Lindberg seemed to agree with my conclusion.

Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 20#Most_pre-1978_magazine_advertisements_are_likely_in_the_public_domain.

Could the following three images be restored?

Swtpc6800 (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Is there any chance you could write up a concise version of that post somewhere for future reference, e.g. at COM:CB? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Ilmari Karonen. –Tryphon☂ 11:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am the author and can disseminate image edited by me in war of robots and the mechanics in Brazil[edit]

I am the author and can disseminate image edited by me in war of robots and the mechanics in Brazil, I see that prevent me from writing this portal, so that sets the practice of racial prejudice against me here because of my delete text of the original mechanics in Brazil, working with it since 1983 I work very well regarded in the field of engineering, this offends the moral and good customs of persons of good character and that the teaching practice in science and technology in Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Sting (talk • contribs) 02:07, 2009 July 29 (UTC)

Read our project scope before going around calling people racists (and even then, don't play the racial card). –Tryphon☂ 05:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Commons is not a soapbox, we are a media repository. We don't allow encyclopaedia articles or opinion pieces here. Just media. As for your image, it was from a magazine, which makes it a copyright violation. You do NOT have the right to distribute images you edited if the original image wasn't published under a sufficiently unrestrictive licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Olá. Commons não é um caixote, somos um repositório de mídia. Nós não permitimos artigos de enciclopédia ou parecer de opiniões aqui. Somente mídia. Quanto à sua imagem, ela era de uma revista, o que a torna uma violação autoral. Você não tem o direito de distribuir imagens que você editou se a imagem original não era suficientemente publicada sob uma licença não restrita. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prezado Mattbuck, as imagens são de minha autoria, a revista pegou sem minha prévia autorização, assim não diga o que não sabe, o que acho gozado aqui no Wikipédia é que voces acham o que acham, sem terem provas e falam inverdades, assim prove o que está dizendo e com tuas provas possa retirar minha autoria, na revista Mecatrônica Fácil, de janeiro de 2002 eu sou o autor do texto, das imagens e vendi para a revista meus direitos autorais para poderem publicar, só esta revista, mas, outras divulgaram sem terem minha carta de anuência, de doação ou de qualquer especie, assim aceito sua retratação por que me acusa de roubar direitos autorais, uma acusação pesada e que tu não tem como provar, assim nunca mais diga isto de quem não conhece, meu caro, se recomponha e se retire deste portal é o mínimo que a educação possa permitir de quem fala o que não sabe. Um outro aqui se diz que não assinei no final do texto, ou seja criam situações para denegrirem os autores, ao invés de primeiro procurarem saber com quem estão lidando, assim classifico que no pé que este portal está indo, não vai durar muito não, os autores fogem e se a minha comunidade vier a saber disto que mecatrônica, que a Mecânica Fina aqui estão sendo veiculadas com conceitos errados, podem ter certeza este portal não irá longe não. Estou tentando apaziguar a relação com os administradores neste portal, mas, estão me insultando, permitindo que qualquer wikipedista faça como queira, sem ter provas, sinceramente voces estão indo contra a maré. Primeiro foi um tal de graduando em economia, que nada tem a ver com Mecânica Fina, se empossou doutor em mecânica fina e colocou uma frase de chamada errônea, mas, eu como profissional desde 1983, não me deram respeito, por que eu sou autor da frase de chamada, mais cabida e experiente neste campo, mas, não a segunda vez os administradores me insultaram de novo, permitindo dos wikipedistas fazerem a maior zorra neste portal, que lástima. 201.74.148.99 02:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Paul Sting, 02 de agosto de 2009.[reply]

 Not done. –Tryphon☂ 11:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Kumon_Method_Logo.svg[edit]

Hi guys, I'd like to know what you think about this logo. It's a very simple typeface and a "hand" drawn face consisting of a circle, two dots and a stroke looking making the face. I think this is simple enough. I'd like to solve this soon, because there were many projects that were using this file. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: previous discussion here. Kameraad Pjotr 12:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we consider signatures to be ineligible, I don't see why this wouldn't be. If you remove the (very) plain text, which applies to the 'O' (hard-drawn letters count too), you're left with a short line and two dots. Pretty original. The uploader shouldn't have been claiming copyright on it if they denied it to the original creator. (The logo can be seen at the top of http://www.kumon.co.in.) Rocket000 (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys.... Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's taking so long...Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, doesn't pass the threshold of originality. –Tryphon☂ 11:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

VanFan09-1.jpg[edit]

Request for Undeletion of: File:VanFan09-1.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Both the photographer and the person in the photo permitted me to upload the photo to here for them.

I simply don't know how to input the data right. I tried many times and I need help please. Otherwise, I still don't know how to use Wikimedia commons properly and repeat the same mistake in the future.

Please advise. Angel

If you have permission, please follow the procedure laid down in Commons:OTRS. Sv1xv (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oncle Vania.png[edit]

Could you please undelete the file File:Oncle Vania.png ?

I am the author of this diagram. I uploaded it in 2007. I forgot to add author/source/license information (I don't remember) and then, I was away for some time. I totally forgot if for 2 years, but I would like to continue improving fr:Oncle Vania and I need the schema...

Thanks in advance. Peter17 (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed & ✓ Done --Herby talk thyme 12:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

MISTAKE MESSING WITH THIS![edit]

PLEASE REMOVE MY FILE. IT WAS A BIG MISTAKE TO EVER GET INVOLVED WITH ANY OF THIS! IF I HAD ONLY KNOWN EARLIER! PLEASE REMOVE FILE! I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THING!

NEW FILE: Hedonis($600K) Sincerely. Ronnie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedonis($600K) (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Katowice - Kościół Św. Piotra i Pawła - Witraż 01.jpg[edit]

It appears to me that this was deleted without process as a 'redundant' copy (deleted as a 'duplicate'). It is part of the QI promotion history of file Image:Katowice - Kościół Św. Piotra i Pawła - Witraż 01A.jpg as seen in the QI archive Commons:Quality_images_candidates/Archives_September_2008 (I have restored the link to it that was removed by the delinker when the file was deleted) and the source image for that derivative version. It would not be an exact duplicate and I expect it was deleted for 'tidyness' reasons only. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed & ✓ Done --Herby talk thyme 12:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Bytom - Róg ul. Piłsudskiego i ul. Drzymały 01.jpg[edit]

Identical situation to File:Katowice - Kościół Św. Piotra i Pawła - Witraż 01.jpg above. Part of the QI history for the promotion of File:Bytom - Róg ul. Piłsudskiego i ul. Drzymały 01edit.jpg and part of the archive Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 2008 --Tony Wills (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed & ✓ Done --Herby talk thyme 12:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Niechorze_-_mapa_02.JPG[edit]

There should be no copyright problem according to Polish FOP (a map on a public display in a public space). Please also see User_talk:Eusebius/Archives/2009#Image_Tagging_File:Niechorze_-_mapa_01.JPG (why was one map deleted and the other not...?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this map really was located permanently in a public space, then the image should be ok. It is hard to tell, though, whether it was. --rimshottalk 06:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Act requires the work to be located in "publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens". The uploader has not made it clear whether this was so located. It may have been indoors. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Not done}}, per MichaelMaggs. –Tryphon☂ 12:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening per agreement on User_talk:Tryphon#Please_reopen. Reason: new information: the image was taken outdoors, its next to a major public road in the town. If you'd like me to answer quickly, please notify me on my talk page. Thanks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grrr, how many months does it take to undelete an image? Maybe I should run for an admin myself, simply to deal with this... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Poland has FOP and user explained it is taken un a public place. I find that information very likely. --MGA73 (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Anita Louise, Roger Pryor-Glamour for Sale, 1940-Promo1.jpg[edit]

I have serious doubts, whether the claims of the tagger and of the deleter were correct.

I'm no fan of Mutter Erde but I think these may well be candidates for undeletion. --Herby talk thyme 16:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. The reason for deletion was incorrect since they clearly did have a license. It may questionable whether or not it was valid, however these kind of issues should be dealt with via COM:DR since they are not clear-cut. The tagger's reason for deletion was "No evidence that the copyright was not renewed". In my experience, I think it's highly unlikely it was renewed being that it was a promotional shot for a U.S. film made in 1940. Please open a DR if anyone has reason to believe the contrary. Rocket000 (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

More deleted files[edit]

I have serious doubts, whether the claims of the tagger and of the deleter were correct.

  1. File:Anne Francis-Clifton Webb-DREAMBOAT-Promo..jpg log
  2. File:Ann Sheridan and David Wayne.jpg log
  3. File:Ann Sheridan without David Wayne.jpg log
  4. File:Ann Sothern-HOTEL FOR WOMEN-Promo.jpg log
  5. File:Anne Baxter-YOU'RE MY EVERYTHING-Promo.jpg log
  6. File:Marilyn2-by Cronenweth.JPG log
  7. File:Anita Louise, Roger Pryor-Glamour for Sale, 1940-Promo1.jpg log
  8. File:Anita Louise, Roger Pryor-Glamour for Sale, 1940-Promo2.jpg log
  9. File:Abby Dalton-Vintage Original Publicity Promo.jpg log
  10. File:Peggy Moran, Robert Cummings-Spring Parade,1940.jpg log
  11. File:Louis Jourdan, Lilli Palmer, Dana Andrews,1948-Promo-1.jpg log
  12. File:Juliette Compton, promo photo 1931.JPG log
  13. File:Ann SHERIDAN-James CAGNEY-Angels Dirty Faces-PHOTO2.jpg log
  14. File:Gladys George, Bob Burns -I'm from Missouri,1939.jpg log
  15. File:Gladys George, Bob Burns -I'm from Missouri,1939-2.jpg log
  16. File:George Sanders-Debra Paget-Movie Still.jpg
  17. File:Lynn Bari, Edward G. Robinson-Tampico1.JPG log
  18. File:Lynn Bari, Edward G. Robinson-Tampico2.JPG log
  19. File:Lynn Bari-Tampico3.JPG log
  20. File:Lynn Bari, Edward G. Robinson-Tampico5.JPG log
  21. File:Lynn Bari, Edward G. Robinson-Tampico4.JPG log
  22. File:Rochellehudson.jpg
  23. File:Anne Shirley and John Beal in M'Liss, 1936.jpg log
  24. File:Audie Murphy-DW ORIGINAL PUBLICITY PROMO PHOTO.jpg log
  25. File:Dolores Del Rio-I Live For Life-2.JPG log
  26. File:Dolores Del Rio-I Live For Life-1.jpg log
  27. File:Anne Shirley and John Beal in M'Liss, 1936.jpg log
  •  Comment I did a few of them (as per the other requests). I support undeleting the rest of these, however, I don't really want to do it all on my own. More comments would be appreciated. Rocket000 (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Screw it. These shouldn't have been deleted. It also was handled terribly without regard for established process (like ignoring previous DRs like the one linked above). It's obvious to me the deleting admin was rushing through the speedy delete category without actually checking if there was any validity to the taggers claims. If there's any reason to believe one of these isn't PD, feel free to nominate it (individually) for regular deletion. Rocket000 (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With one exception per Commons:Deletion requests/File:George Sanders-Debra Paget-Movie Still.jpg. Rocket000 (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marilyn-by Cronenweth.JPG[edit]

File:Marilyn-by Cronenweth.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

There was no copyright notice 79.193.105.194 21:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. The deleting admin seem to be acting on some production studios guidelines rather than what the law actually says. Production Stills (photos taken on the set of the film or TV show during the shooting) must be cleared with the studio and can cost anywhere between $150 and $500. Well, ok, but that's assuming there's a copyright in first place. "Getting clearance" is meaningless/unnecessary if there isn't a law to enforce it. Why does it matter what it is of? Production stills or not, the same law applies. Furthermore, the site he linked to doesn't seem like a very suitable site for our purposes. First of all, when someone says "they are generally considered public domain because..." they aren't talking about the actual legal status, otherwise it would be stated "they are public domain because...". Either something is public domain or it's not. Who cares what people considered them. After that it goes on to say "Newer publicity stills shot for a specific film or television program may contain a copyright". May? They always contain a copyright, regardless of whether or not it was registered it (wasn't always true). Rocket000 (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Tom Keene-OUR DAILY BREAD-Old Tinted Publicity Photo.JPG[edit]

[3] Publicity Photos (star headshots) older publicity stills have usually not been copyrighted and since they have been disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain 79.193.105.194 21:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, do not tell a lie. Only older star headshots unrelated to movie are public domain. [4] Production Stills (photos taken on the set of the film or TV show during the shooting) must be cleared with the studio and can cost anywhere between $150 and $500. --Klodl (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign your edits every time with a new date, when you are changing them 79.193.105.194 22:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of cursing here, answer my question. --Klodl (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And why you have tagged this file File:Juliette Compton, promo photo 1931.JPG for a speedy delete? 79.193.105.194 22:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Same as the other requests. Rocket000 (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:UnauthBushBio.jpg[edit]

An email has been received, apparently from the publisher, which releases this image into the public domain. See OTRS:3517645. It may be possible to undelete it. However, please check first that it does not suffer from the same problems as File:911SyntheticTerror.jpg. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are scan of newspaper, and a graphic presumably inspired of photography.
Do you seem it coherent with the permission? --Dereckson (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think too. The photograph is licensed and used for the bookcover as the uploader said. That gives the book publisher the right to use the image on the book cover but not to publish the book cover under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. The file has been undeleted (by Dereckson). It is still lacking a license tag (possibly because the publisher lacks permission to give us permission). The OTRS should be able to handle it from here. Rocket000 (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-08&oldid=113105463"