Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2009-09

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.

Inconsistent application of COM:FOP: embassies in Moscow[edit]

I nominated a number of images for deletion on the basis that there is no freedom of panorama in Russia.

I did raise the inconsistency of the Bulgarian image closure, but the administrator who closed that decision declined to undelete it here on the basis that the ugly blocks of flats in the background are not "industrial design". The results of these closures are inconsistent, and either all of them depict "industrial designs" or they don't. And those ugly tower blocks also appear in Image:North Korean Embassy Moscow.jpg. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are all Brezhnev-era buildings, which are a dime a dozen in terms of industrial design works. The Bulgarian embassy photo should not have been deleted as mentioned. --russavia (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I deleted that Image I've mainly looked at the tower in the background, wich is imho not ineligible for copyright, and wich is not a "industrial building" afaik. Before I deleted I had not seen the other del-reqs, so if anyone would like to restore the image on his responsibility, feel free to do so. I stay on my point it should stay deleted. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 06:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The towers in the background are certainly as original as recent towers in Paris whose photographs have been deleted. Whether they are "ugly tower blocks" is a judgment of value that could be spared to us; on the other hand, it is obvious that a purely functional design would not feature several colours, and such a shape. I think that the images that feature these towers should be and stay deleted. Rama (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if the background towers are eligible for copyright, but there are only partly visible, and not the subject of the image. So I would say undelete. This is the same issue as Image:Louvre (3).jpg (the pyramid design is copyrighted). For consistency we have also this Image:Paris 04 07 153 8x6.jpg, Image:Louvre (5).jpg, Image:Louvre 07.jpg, or this Image:Eiffel tower and the seine at night.jpg (the Eiffel tower lighting is copyrighted). Yann (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you produce the Russian equivalent for the Cour des Terreaux decision? You do realise, of course, that unless you can, it makes absolutely no sense to compare between photographs taken in France and those taking in the Russia. Rama (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you first talk about images from France, so... Yann (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific, even if the background towers are eligible for copyright, COM:DM applies. Yann (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave an example of a modern building with particular artistic character; that is be located in France or elsewhere is irrelevant.
On the image at hand, the buildings in the background are plainly visible, they amount to a large part og the image, they define the framing of the photograph and its dynamic. Furthermore, it would have been easy for the photographer to avoid framing them, either by using another angle, or by closing in to his subject and using a shorter focal length. Hence, I am not agreed with the notion that De Minimis applies. Rama (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think it'd be that easy. Sure, you could walk up to the front door of the embassy (assuming the staff allowed you to) and take a panoramic picture using an ultra-wide-angle lens (or take several shots and stitch them), but the resulting picture would be severely perspective-distorted and would completely fail to show any parts of the building not visible from the front door. In particular, looking at the North Korean embassy picture, I'm not sure if there's any angle (on ground level, at least) that would allow one to show the distinctive shape of the building, including the upper stories, without also including the towers in the background. I guess one possibility would be to photoshop them away, but that raises its own issues about factual accuracy.
(All that said, it would be nice if someone could take better pictures, with or without the towers: the current images have really lousy composition. Of course, I'm not sure how much trouble most people would be willing to spend on images that may or may not be suitable for Commons in the first place.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice to get some input from someone who has a knowledge of Russian copyright law. Are analogies from French law meaningful? I have my doubts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rama in his point, that the towers define the framing, we can simply remove the top of the image above the flags, that will of course destroy the composition of the image but it will make it acceptable i think. --Martin H. (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the problem with the towers, any graphist could remove them with photoshop... even the car on the left side, or the road ... Lilyu (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Gaussian blur be an acceptable solution to the "factual accuracy" issue? Surely the basic massing of the buildings cannot be copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep/undelete/whatever side of this tangled debate involves letting the pictures stay this is INSANE! i don't care what unworkably stupid IP laws the russians have enacted. it's going to break down, one way or another, in court or in practical use. no reasonable judgement of fair use can restrict picture taking in public to this degree. we are talking about whether it would be "ok" to use just the embassy & blot out the background. that is IP law taken reducto ad absurdam. i want to invoke wikipolicy about breaking rules & being bold & fearless here. if we actually end up applying the kind of standards under discussion in this debate, we might as well just all quit now & close up shop. there won't be anything worthwhile left on here to argue about.

undelete the pics & leave them undeleted, unless there's an issue about authorship &/or the uploader having the rights to license them here.

Lx 121 (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted I undeleted the image, first I would say sorry for the time that this reqeust was open, it could have been closed much sooner but I don't think there was a administrator with time.

I read this discussion, and the general opinion is that the problem is in the towers on the background, I deleted the first version an uploaded a version that makes the towers less visible and I think anybody would agree that the towers are now not longer a problem. Huib talk 20:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Mononykus skeleton.jpg[edit]

Almost certainly should not have been deleted. At Commons:Graphic_Lab_School/Images_to_improve#Dinosaur_skeleton_with_bad_reflections, people are still discussing improving the image, and the original source should be available to them. Even once that's resolved, I would think that keeping the source image available would be a good idea, in case someone wants to tweak it differently in the future. - Jmabel ! talk 20:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. Has been deleted as a duplicate of File:Mononykus skeleton fix.jpg, but it isn't an exact duplicate. –Tryphon☂ 22:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bustestlambert.jpg[edit]

File:Bustestlambert.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) Can someone undelete so I can see if I can fix the sourcing? Evrik (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same as the image on http://www.tresordeliege.be/old_site/fr/oeuvres/buste-st-lambert.html. Rocket000 (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Soyuz TMA-11 Patch.gif[edit]

This image was tagged {{No license}} when it already had been tagged {{PD-RU-exempt}}. I beleive that the file was legitimately licensed and should be restored (as other projects still use this file). --Stux (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To those in charge of monitoring this page: please be aware that while the file above is blue linked (meaning the page history exists), the actual file itself was deleted somehow leaving the page history behind. I am asking for the file itself to be restored, not the description page. Thanks. --Stux (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Please check if everything is ok and fix it if not. --MGA73 (talk) 07:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Eva-Vermandel-Milow.jpg[edit]

I've the permission to use this file on wikipedia... what can I do in order for this file not being deleted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokit (talk • contribs) 05:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use on Wikipedia will not be of any use. We need permission under a free license. See COM:L. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, Wikipedia-only permission is not accepted on Commons. If you can get the image to be released under an acceptable license, please send permission to OTRS. –Tryphon☂ 15:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ailakkajarvipanorama10_small.jpg[edit]

This has been released under GFDL and CC-BY-SA-3.0 in OTRS:3288288 and may be restored. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that doesn't look like a release to me. All that is there is two emails from the uploader, neither of which has any connection to the source image (unless I'm missing something). Furthermore the name of the uploader is not the author...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK; as I'm not a sysop here I can't tell what the deleted image was or any details of it. Can you, or someone who is both a Commons sysop and an OTRS agent, take this one up? Stifle (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've temporarily undeleted the file so you can see it. Anyway, the circumstances of its deletion seem kind of odd to begin with: it was deleted due to lacking OTRS permission despite being tagged with {{OTRS received}} at the time. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind the last bit, I should've actually read the template. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)at[reply]
Thanks for that; I can now tell that the email doesn't appear to be from the source site and have sent a new OTRS email out regarding the matter. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the ticket stands now, there is no proof that the sender is the person authorized to grant the release. I'd counsel re-deletion for now. -- Avi (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hettaelurretan.jpg is another image where the uploader also claims to be a Jukka Parkkinen ("own work" and marked "OTRS pending"), a different person than the author of this image (marked "own work" by the same uploader). Seems like a straightfoward copyvio and should be re-deleted. The uploader also has had numerous uploads deleted judging by their talk page.

 Not done, OTRS ticket doesn't check out. –Tryphon☂ 15:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Magic Software.jpg[edit]

This image has been deleted for lacking proper permission. However, I think {{PD-textlogo}} applies in this case (basically text-only, except for a slightly stylized M). For non-admins, the image is here. –Tryphon☂ 21:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Yep, that is PD-textlogo in the U.S. for sure. No clue about Israel. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Yann (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Yellowcab643[edit]

File:User:Yellowcab643 (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

I made an informational user page and twice it has been deleted by herbthyme. I have been using http://wikimedia.org/ for at least 9 years and my edits have disappeared from "my contributions". I have not argued with your corrections generally but, in "my talk" there is a deletion of an image issue. I followed wikimedia instructions as well as I could and my file was deleted. Two days ago, I contributed a picture of myself and this was deleted. So I don't see the point of licensing an image.

Herbthyme asked me if I was educational? I studied for a BS at the University of Utah from 2004-2008. Another thing is that wikimedia says it is friendly and I question that userpage deletion is friendly.

  • Wikimedia Commons Information Team to me

Dear Michael Andersen,

Thank you for your email.

You account has not been deleted. Your user page and a few of your uploads were deleted. I see that you found the admin who deleted the files, and left a message on that user talk page. That is a good first step. I also see that they replied on your talk page. It seems like you are in a dialogue with an admin. I'm not sure what you desired the outcome to be when you e-mail this address, but I don't see any action that needs to be taken. Good luck in resolving your dispute on the Commons. If there are other issues or specifics you want to discuss, I can try to address them, but we have a number of noticeboards that are more active and may be a better place for you to check out <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Discussion_menu>.

Also note, you can make requests for undeletion at <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:UNDEL>. Hope this helps,


Yours sincerely, Andrew Cartier

-- Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org


08/31/2009 21:56 - Michael Andersen wrote:

> Why are you deleting my account? My information page has been deleted and 2 > images. I tried this link *http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents > * <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents> and received "This user > has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users" for a response. My > contributions are deleted as well. > > > > *Dear Yellowcab643,* > *The Wikimedia Commons page User talk:Yellowcab643 has been changed on > 06:16, 30 August 2009 by BotMultichillT, see ** >

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yellowcab643*<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yellowcab643>

> * for the current revision.See ** > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yellowcab643&diff=0&oldid=1638777 >

7*<http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yellowcab643&diff=0&oldid=16387777> > *for all changes since your last visit. Editor's summary: Notifying user of

> 1 uncategorized > image(s) Contact the editor:mail: ** >

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/BotMultichillT*<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/BotMultichillT> > *wiki:

> *There will be no other notifications in case of further changes unless you > visit this page. You could also reset the notification flags for all your > watched pages on your watchlist. Your friendly Wikimedia Commons > notification system-- To change your watchlist settings, visit ** >

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist/edit*<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist/edit> > *Feedback and further assistance: ** > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents*<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents>

- Show quoted text - > > > -- > Mr. Michael William Andersen, ~BS

--Michael William Andersen 17:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the note is self explanatory. But IMHO you shouldn't use your user page for self promotion. As for the images ... I don't see the harm in uploading them, but maybe you should post each of the ones you want undeletd here ... that's a start. Evrik (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the user had uploaded only two images, both of which were out of scope. It's highly unlikely they will be undeleted, and if they are re-uploaded they will likely be deleted again; they were personal images in line with the promotional content of his userpage. -- Editor at Large • talk 22:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---  Not done - I'm closing this as not done, I checked all three things:

  • Userpage : Did only have links to internetsites and nothing to do with Wikimedia what will make it out of scope
  • first file: Has no source, no permission, no license but it is screenshot from youtube or a youtube look-a-like.
  • second file: A self made portrait, but since it isn't in use it is out of scope, you could upload this again and place it on a userpage when the userpage isn't out of scope.

Best regards, Huib talk 16:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Bolardo automatic bollards.jpg[edit]

We have a request at Ticket:2009082510047561 for this image to be undeleted, and it provides GFDL permission. Can someone check that the ticket applies to this image and undelete, or alternatively undelete it and I will check myself. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - undeleted - Huib talk 16:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Burning Man 228 (241613953).jpg[edit]

The image File:Burning Man 228 (241613953).jpg was deleted as unfree Flickr license even though the image was reviewed and has cc-by-2.0. The DR was started at september 1 and closed three days later. In my view we should have waited for Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning Man 228 (241613953) crop.jpg before image was deleted.

Our rules say that if uploader brakes "house rules" that is not our problem Commons:Image_casebook#Museum_and_interior_photography. Why should it be any differend just because image was taken outside? --MGA73 (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, the DR was closed too early, and for an invalid reason. –Tryphon☂ 12:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gen Con Indy 2008 - robots.JPG[edit]

Also, Image:Gen Con Indy 2008 - robots 2.JPG and Image:Gen Con Indy 2008 - robots 1.JPG. Per new consensus on Commons:Fan art; they should go to the Category:Droids.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in Commons:Fan art allows you to upload photographs of copyright-protected toy robots. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{not done}}, per MichaelMaggs; derivative work. –Tryphon☂ 12:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening per agreement on User_talk:Tryphon#Please_reopen. Reason: new information: WF general councel supports restoring those images. 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]
Piotrus, can you confirm somehow that this was a work of fan art and not an actual original work on display? +sj + 14:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he meant it was fan art but a photo of it (it's "fan art" because the original R2-D2 looks more like this). Part of the quote he linked to: "Even if the games and droids themselves were infringing, I don't think photos of them would be a problem." Rocket000 (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reopening; hope this is considered an OK way to do so; if not, feel free to correct me by modifying (but not simply reverting) my edit. NOTE: Michael, Tryphon: You must respect what Mike Godwin has said.--Elvey (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sj - late reply, since you didn't follow my request to notify me on my talk page. Yes, those were fan made robots somebody was driving around in the hall, not any official SW display. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Per mike godwin - Huib talk 19:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wacky Races cars images[edit]

This is a request to reverse the deletions from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wacky Races - turbo terriffic.jpg You can see the actual photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/big-ashb/509805899/in/set-72157600246022894/ and so forth. I believe that with Mike Godwin's (attorney for the Wikimedia foundation) ruling that it is not a copyright violation to take a picture of a person dressed up as a copyrighted character (Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_costumes_tagged_as_copyvios_by_AnimeFan/Mike_Godwin_mail), it follows that it is neither a copyright violation to take a picture of a car dressed up as a copyrighted character.

Also you will notice that these cars are a popular attraction from a popular UK annual event, the en:Goodwood Festival of Speed, and have been for a number of years. If making them would be a copyright violation, I suspect Hanna Barbera would have objected to the festival organizers itself. But that's hypothetical, of course. The Mike Godwin ruling is pretty definitive. --GRuban (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Michael Maggs' deletion comment was that these aren't utilitarian cars. True, but neither would the Spiderman costume mentioned in Mike Godwin's ruling be a utilitarian costume. The cars are actual cars, not just mockups, they actually work in going from point A to point B. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fpaJLEUwb0 for example. --GRuban (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, keep in mind that Godwin may speak for the legal side of Commons, but not the policy side (which is way stricter than the law). This has always been an area in copyright that I just can't grasp. I would support undeletion if only I could formulate a logical reason. I mean how does a copyright protected character become unprotected simply because you can drive it? How does a derivative of a character become free if you can wear it? Rocket000 (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably because in turning a two-dimensional picture of a fantastic character on a comic page or celluloid cartoon that could never exist in life, into a physical costume that someone can actually wear, or a working car that can actually drive, sufficient originality has been displayed. I can't speak for Godwin and am not a lawyer, and everyone knows that laws and logical reasons don't necessarily have a lot to do with each other, but it's at least something that we can grasp. It's also essentially what the IP contributor argued in the deletion request, so I'm not alone in thinking so. There's not a lot of point to us having a copyright lawyer and not listening to what he says.
The places where Commons policy is stricter than what the law allows aren't arbitrary "more strict because we like being more strict", they're strict because we want to be "common", in other words legal in most countries, not just according to one set of laws. The main example of that is US "fair use" which doesn't exist in many places. This doesn't seem to be such a place where we need to be arbitrarily more strict. --GRuban (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not a derivative work of the character. It could possibly be a derivative work of graphical representations of the character, but ... we are stretching the definition of derivative works to its limit on stuff like this, and we are possibly going overboard. It is a tangled question though, more often a matter of trademark than copyright, but the line is ill-defined. Fabric patterns can be copyrighted too, but deleting pictures of people wearing clothes because they have a pattern on them would be going too far. I have periodically searched (online anyways) for some court cases which would be relevant, and haven't really found anything, indicating that such photos are well beyond the line. There are many cases about people making costumes of trademarked (and possibly copyrighted) characters, and they usually lose, but no cases at all on photographs of same as far as I have seen. Photographers do routinely sell such images, so you'd think there would be *some* lawsuit at some point if it was realistically a problem. If anyone knows of any, the info would definitely be appreciated. I'm not sure that Commons should delete images in areas where there haven't been any legal indications at all that they are problems, though following our definition of "free" can lead to areas which are difficult and probably would realistically never be litigated. These images are pretty squarely in that area; it is pretty hard to imagine what market there could be for these "works" in the first place to be adversely affected by selling photos as derivative works. But... while the design of a car itself is not copyrightable, copyrightable elements which can be "separated" (such as sculptural elements) would be, and it is definitely arguable that some of those cars have those. Not an easy area for sure, and deletions (and keeps) are sure to be controversial, since we are trying to interpret legal language in technical areas where "real life" has never bothered to litigate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just to explain the closure - it was on the basis that the artistic designs of the bodywork are conceptually separable from the utilitarian function of the cars. In Carol Barnhart v Economy Cover Corp (2nd Cir 1985), 773 F.2d at 418 it was held that conceptual separability exists when the artistic aspects of an article can be "conceptualized as existing independently of their utilitarian function". This independence is necessarily informed by "whether the design elements can be identified as reflecting the designer's artistic judgment independently of functional influences": Brandir International, Inc v Cascade Pacific Lumber Co (2nd Cir 1987), 834 F.3d at 1145. (Quotes from Gorman & Ginsburg, Copyright: Cases and Materials, 7th edn 2006, p243). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the separability; clearly having a statue of a lummox stuck on the top doesn't make the car move any better, it's just artistic. However, the same would apply to the Spiderman costume specified by our lawyer: a skintight red and blue full head, foot, and body costume with webbing under the arms and a spider on the chest doesn't make the wearer much more comfortable, it's just artistic. If a picture of the one is neither a copyright nor a trademark violation, neither is a picture of the other. --GRuban (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that a costume is not sculpture; the U.S. Copyright Office typically does not accept registrations of costumes. One company tried registering some as "soft sculpture", but a court ruled that was essentially fraudulent and invalidated the copyrights.[1] Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some US cases, that I can look up when I get home, that hold costumes generally to be unprotectable but things like masks, animal heads and so on to be protectable. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, masks can be a little bit different, as they aren't necessarily utilitarian. But if you find something which says photos of masks are a problem, that would surprise me :-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--- ✓ Done - per Mike Godwin - Huib talk 19:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Psittacula eupatria - three in palm tree.jpg[edit]

Transferred from enwiki (where it is still present at en:File:Cocoalex.jpg under a PD license) using Commonshelper. Not sure exactly why this was deleted from Commons - just noticed that it had been when I saw that a bot had removed it from en:Alexandrine Parakeet. Requesting undeletion as I believe that an error has been made here. --Commons Shaped Box (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because it appears the uploader is not the copyright holder, and if so there is no evidence that the copyright holder released the image under those terms. This is a rather old upload though, when the policies weren't as stringent. Doing a Google lookup, I did find this blog entry which seems relevant, which has a pointer to this Yahoo group which indeed has this very same image on its main page. No idea if there is any indication of a license over there, or if that upload predated the one on Wikipedia (though given the source information it would seem to). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Source is on file on enwiki and can be added to commons version. --MGA73 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Poster Si Tchernobyl vous a fait rire.jpg[edit]

Hello, I think that there is no valid reason for having deleted this file. The skull is de minimis, it is not the main subject of the picture. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poster Si Tchernobyl vous a fait rire.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose undeletion. I don't think you can argue de minimis when it's the only graphical element in the picture. If you remove it entirely, you're left with only text, and you might as well write the text somewhere and get rid of the picture. And I think the example you provide kind of proves it: the impact of this image is completely different from the original (and if you think it's equivalent, why keep a possibly non-free image when we already have a replacement?). –Tryphon☂ 15:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The skull is about 6% of the image... Yann (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • From COM:DM: Copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area. De minimis is not merely a question of surface rates, but whether it is accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject. In this case, the skull is not accessory to the main subject, it's part of it. Again, if you truly believe the image is equivalent with or without the skull, then let's keep the one without it. –Tryphon☂ 10:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the edited version (you might have to clear your cache to see it) to add a skull more like the original; it's got an open mouth and appears to be laughing like the original did. I don't think the skull and crossbones accurately replaces the original skull image, since the original was a play on "If Chernobyl makes you laugh". Hopefully this version is a compromise between leaving the original deleted without losing the meaning of the poster? -- Editor at Large • talk 11:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one looks actually better than the original poster! The skull seems to be laughing even more, and integrates better into the poster. Congratulations. –Tryphon☂ 12:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still doubtful about the de minimis argument, but Editor at Large is at least as good as the original, so thanks for your help. Yann (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Dartford Living June 2009 cover.jpg and File:Dartford Living September 2009 Front Cover.jpg[edit]

We have received official release under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL for these two images, can someone please undelete them? Stifle (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I would be more than happy to undelete them but do you have a OTRS number or something so I can use it for the undeletion?

Best regards,

Huib talk 17:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sorry, it's Ticket:2009083110057538; I should have mentioned that. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Huib talk 19:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Enka Main gate.jpg[edit]

Hello,

I would like to ask for undeletion of this file.

This file is deleted because there was no file visible, and I have seen a complaint in my email also about this and I don't know why there wasn't a file showing but there are three files in the upload history so this can be easy resolved.

Thank you, Huib talk 17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

file:European_Commission_outside.jpg[edit]

Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:European_Commission_outside.jpg This was an ongoing discussion without any consensus or conclusion. Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Belgium says "The modern pieces of art cannot be the central motive of a commercially available photographs without permission of the artwork copyright holder." No one objects to the law; we discussed a nuance. We discussed weather the en:Berlaymont building, a fairly ordinary office building in Belgium, really can be seen as a "modern piece of art". If the conclusion is that Berlaymont is to be branded "modern piece of art" and therefore be removed from Commons, then thousands of other images should be deleted also. This should set some precedent, it is that important. The system is rotten if this remains a sporadic deletion. Please undelete it, or start a deletion spree in the Belgian categories. Is a 20th or 21st century office building automatically a "modern piece of art"? - Ssolbergj (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this should not have been deleted. —Nightstallion (?) 23:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section at Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Architecture_vs_sculptures states that photos of buildings are OK in Belgium, but not sculpture. The Belgium section itself doesn't talk about buildings; just mentions "artwork". Does anyone know if there is a basis for the former statement that building photos are OK there? Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Art 22(2) (in English translation) says that the author may not prohibit:"reproduction and communication to the public of a work shown in a place accessible to the public where the aim of reproduction or communication to the public is not the work itself". The word used is "work" which unless anyone can find a specific definition to the contrary is the standard term for all types of copyrightable material, including architecture. My reading is that the taking a photo of a copyright work of architecture is not allowed unless the photo is not primarily of the work itself (ie it's OK if the building is perhiperal to the overall scene, as in France). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. On the other hand, that translation is from 1994 I think, and makes no mention of "architectural work" anywhere at all. Have there been any newer amendments? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC
Consolidated law ~is available on government website, which, I guess, is up to date. I don't see any change. I think Article 22-2 is nothing but de minimis. I removed the "architecture" paragraph : see CT:FOP#Belgium. Teofilo (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Koyos (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Buildings are not artwork. Should be undeleted.[reply]
This is specifically stated as allowed at Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Architecture_vs_sculptures. If you believe that page is in error, please discuss it there. +sj + 14:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Evrik (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose, per MichaelMaggs and Teofilo. Reading through Section 5 of the Belgian copyright law (which covers copyright exceptions) I see nothing allowing reproduction of publicly displayed work (as mentioned above, Article 22.2 is just de minimis), and architectural works are not even mentioned. This sculpture vs. architecture distinction is completely irrelevant, as there is no FOP whatsoever in Belgium. –Tryphon☂ 13:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a statement on the FOP page which said buildings were OK, but when I went back and looked at when it was originally added, I ended up doubting its validity -- it just so happened that it stayed on the page for years. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Belgium says no FOP in Belgium. Unless someone can provide good evidence that this section is wrong the image is not undeleted. --MGA73 (talk) 17:32, 9 September 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]

OTRS:3154495 appears to grant a PD release for this image. I am not a sysop here though so I can't verify it. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The official website, http://citysymphony2009.blogspot.com/, states the film is CC-BY-3.0, not public domain. Not sure about the cover artwork. I'd be inclined to undelete based on the CC claim of the official website, as personally I'm not sure the OTRS e-mail is tied to the official project, and PD contradicts what is publicly stated on their website.-Andrew c (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to that. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored and indicated permission/license --Bastique demandez 17:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

YB-49 files[edit]

Similar to File:YB49-1 300.jpg, which was recently fixed, I think these were all originally from http://www.edwards.af.mil/gallery/html_pgs/bomber5.html (no longer exists but Wayback Machine has a version here). The "300" would be the 300dpi versions which used to be available. The deletion comments were all for "no source", but I think they did have one. The filenames are the same as that original site. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - Thanks for finding the source for the files, I have undeleted them and adjusted the source. Huib talk 19:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brustwarzenpiercing.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted because of "missing essential information". The image was part of the Article in the German Wikipedia, and as far as I can remember, it did not have missing information. Could it have been vandalized?--Lamilli (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalized, but User:Rastrojo tagged it as having no source. Apparently, he didn't believe the self-made claim. The image had no EXIF data, and shows besides the breasts with the pierced nipples also the woman's face. She might well be underage. Keep deleted, or at least restore only to a cropped version that shows only the breasts. (But is that really necessary? There seem to be enough useful images in Category:Nipple piercing and in Category:Women with nipple piercings.) Lupo 09:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that it doesn't look very own work to me, though personally I would have DRed rather than nsded it. Keep deleted IMO, under precautionary principle. Just use another image, there are plenty available. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree. Still I think that these issues should be discussed in advance.--Lamilli (talk)
The problem is that User:Rastrojo didn't warn the uploader... --Dodo (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The proper way would be a DR and not a "no source". But I did not understand the argument regarding underaged and crop. Do we allow images of underaged people if face is removed? Anyway what is underaged? 17 and younger? As far as I know it is illegal for underaged to get pierced so my guess is that she is old enough. I did not find a piercing similar to the one on the picture. If someone finds on the web (copyvio) then it should remain deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brustwarzenpiercing.jpg - Huib talk 05:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Several images[edit]

The following images were deleted:

but should have had the same information as:

Could you please undelete them? -http://www.marywelch.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.166.40 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the first file. The second file needs to be renamed, so you better upload it again. Yann (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Commons:Deletion requests/Mary Welch decided that we are talking about copyvios, I'm not going to restore that one image. Huib talk 05:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Polish football.svg[edit]

Deleted as a duplicate of File:Polish football.png, but it's not the same file format. –Tryphon☂ 10:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Huib talk 17:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Holweidebahnhof.jpg, File:Bf-buchforst.jpg and File:Bf-k-loevenich.jpg[edit]

The uploader of these three files deleted them for the rather mysterious reason "Uploader request: no kindergarten please". They were in use [4] [5] [6]. See COM:AN#File deletion by User:S1. –Tryphon☂ 22:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support undeletion. These are perfectly fine images and could be useful to someone. Wknight94 talk 22:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I cannot see the images, but they were in use; the comment sounds like an insult by the deleting administrator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Restored on the basis that "Uploader request: no kindergarten please" is not a valid reason and that also Admin's should take their own images to DR rather then deleting them. Bidgee (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dummies.png[edit]

This was exported to Commons by myself using CommonsHelper. It was dual-licensed under the GFDL and CC-by-sa on en.wikibooks. This should be an acceptable license for exporting the image to Commons. It was not marked "fair use" as the person deleting stated when deleting the image. Either the person who deleted it or the license applied was incorrect. I restored it on Wikibooks so you can view it and the licensing: b:File:Dummies.png. If it's only valid under fair use, I need to know because no book uses it at Wikibooks and it must then be deleted. -- Adrignola (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the fair use deletion was right, but I believe that this file is a COM:DW of a cover from the really for dummy's book.. So its not okay for Commons Huib talk 21:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parody is a form of fair use. Rocket000 (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under U.S. copyright law, technically yes, but it's a form of "fair use" which allows unrestricted commercial exploitation (unlike every other form of fair use) -- see en:Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. -- so I don't see why parodies can't be hosted on commons... AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only mentioned that because Abigor said it's a DW yet also said it wasn't right to delete using the "fair use" rationale. But if it's a non-free DW, it could be used under fair use (in RL, probably not en.wp). I didn't mean to say this specific parody couldn't be free. That's why it was small, since it was somewhat off topic. :) Rocket000 (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does not seem likely that one could publish a book (or sell printed copies of this SIMS wikibook) without legal problems with the copyright owner of the dummies series. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, one could sell a parody "Dummies"-style book in the United States -- as long as it did not create "confusion" with the original brand in the mind of the consumer (which is a trademark issue, not a copyright issue). AnonMoos (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Parody is still Fair Use. Even though this might be commercially exploitable, COM:FU tells us why we do not host Fair Use files here: [...] [F]air use laws vary from country to country—thus, content deemed acceptable under, for instance, US fair use concepts (which are very broad) is not usable in the majority of other countries. [...] The Licensing resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) explicitly forbids Commons to host fair use materials. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 22:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

More old Air Force photos[edit]

Similarly to the files recently undeleted in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive#YB-49 files, there were several others deleted due to "no source" which, I think, I was able to find on similar pages which used to be on the edwards.af.mil website.

First, I missed a YB-49 file, which was also on http://www.edwards.af.mil/gallery/html_pgs/bomber5.html (no longer exists but archived version here:

One image of an XB-48 used to be on http://www.edwards.af.mil/gallery/html_pgs/bomber4.html (archived version here):

And several images were on http://www.edwards.af.mil/gallery/html_pgs/bomber2.htm (archive version here):

Several other files from those and similar source pages still existed with no source, so I added the URLs to them. But, I think most of these above had been recently speedied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I would also propose to pass these photos (as the YB-49 ones) through PD review, so they are not deleted again in the future. Sv1xv (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, source has been found. –Tryphon☂ 09:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

appel pour "undeletion"[edit]

bonjour: ont été supprimés plusieurs fichiers que j'ai mis sur Wikicommons, et ce malgré le fait que l'autorisation pour leur usage ait été envoyée plusieurs fois par l'auteur: Norbert-Bertrand Barbe. Les fichiers sont:

J'ai mis ces fichiers sur Wikicommons pour pouvoir illustrer mon article de wikipédia sur fr:Norbert-Bertrand Barbe Aujourd'hui de nouveau je les ai remis sur wikicommons et Norbert-Bertrand Barbe a envoyé a permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org les autorisations pour chacune des oeuvres ci-dessus. Merci de faire en sorte qu'elles ne soient plus effacées, car elles ont un caractère encyclopédique et informatif pour mon article sur Wikipédia et ont déjà plusieurs fois été autorisées directement par l'auteur. Je ne vois donc pas très bien où peut encore résider le problème, et d'après ce que je comprends le droit d'accès à l'information et sa diffusion et la base de l'idéologie Wiki et les effacements abusifs sont contraires à son bon usage. D'avance merci. Cordialement. Alain Martinez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmartinez (talk • contribs) 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour, La source que vous avez mentionnée n'est pas suffisante. Il faut indiquer comment vous avez obtenu ces œuvres d'art. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Et vous devriez placer {{OTRS pending}} sur chacun de ces fichiers, afin que les administrateurs qui tombent par hasard sur ces images sachent qu'il faut attendre avant de les supprimer. –Tryphon☂ 09:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Nothing to do. –Tryphon☂ 22:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ethiopean Church, Jerusalem 10.JPG[edit]

According to Israeli Copyright Law, derivative work can be produced of all works of usefull art (including pictures, murals, stain glass windows, mosaics) permenantly placed in a public place. Deror avi (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been deleted as a duplicate of File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 10.jpg. I don't know where you got the idea that it was deleted for copyright reasons. –Tryphon☂ 17:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, duplicate of File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 10.jpg. –Tryphon☂ 15:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion of two logos[edit]

Hello. The files File:Lokomotiv Plovdiv.png and File:Lokomotiv Mezdra.png have been deleted yesterday. Wikipedia has a permition to use them. The permissions can be found here and here. I have forwarded the permissions at OTRS. Please undelete the images. --Scroch (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Thanks for sending the permission to OTRS, the files will be undeleted after OTRS has confirmed the permission. Huib talk 20:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Base942MontVerdun.jpg[edit]

I don't understand why this file has been deleted. - Zil (d) 15:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the log file, it is written (protected area). - Zil (d) 15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
for undeletion, I don't think we have to obey local ground rules, only licensing matters are important for use.
If the photographer broke the rules with taking a picture on a place where he isn't allowed it would be something between the local law and the photographer it would not effect anything here on Commons. Huib talk 15:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer had every right to be there, they just didn't have the right to photograph the area behind the sign. In that area are buildings and other structures which can be protected by IP law (and in this case, also by "national security" law). It is a place with very restricted FOP, why would Huib (or abigor, or SterkeBak, or yet another pseudonym) be allowed to say that a license isn't needed?
Copyright isn't a "natural" right, without a government to make (and enforce) those rights anyone can (try to) copy. That worked well while copying was hard, very few things were made and of those things only few copies were made. "Our" kind of copyright was invented after the knowledge of printing reached Europe. We may differ in opinion about the exact details of copyright, but you proposed to ignore copyright. I might even agree with that point of view, but commons has chosen to not be the place to fight that fight. Erik Warmelink (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it worth , i really don't accept this , i think first of all we should respect local laws , commons should accept images which are legally photographed . --Mardetanha talk 16:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But where is the proof that the ground is protected, he is standing in front of the sign, I guess we should AGF and without proof that this is the second sign he is still good. Huib talk 16:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikimedia itself could be in violation of local laws, that would be an issue -- is that the case with this photo? (I can't see it.) I could possibly see a prohibition on publication of photos of certain military areas, but I have no real idea. In the end though, the uploader is primarily responsible -- they should know the legal situation better than us, and if they want to upload it, we usually let them. Commons (mostly) is mostly concerned about copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We only care about copyright, not about "please do not take images" signs so the deletion is incorrect. Multichill (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For information I was the uploader and have been warned of this undeletion request only after its completion (the picture was offered to me as a gift on my Talk page). Don't be too afraid for me : the "Article 79 du code pénal" forbidding to photography military installations has been removed from French legislation on January 1s 1994, the sign did not follow. Thanks anyway, this picture was not really _essential_ for Commons, but this is indeed an amusing issue. Touriste (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done undeleted, probably that SDR was vandalism, I do not anymore know the precise reason. --S[1] 20:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stamp Italy 1917airmailC1.png[edit]

On August 1 last, Kameraad Pjotr deleted File:Stamp Italy 1917airmailC1.png per this log for the reason that it was a copyright violation claiming that the template {{PD-old}} did not apply. I have left a note asking for an explanation of the deletion on Kameraad Pjotr talk page but he does not seem to be very active these days. I was extremely surprised, as the uploader, that no notification of this deletion was given to me the uploader, nor, apparently, did any deletion discussion take place. Stamps over 70 years old do use the {{PD-old}} template per Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. This stamp was actually issued in 1903 but overprinted for its airmail use in 1917, both dates being more than 70 years ago. There is no evidence that the author is known according to the regular stamp catalogues nor is there any evidence of the author on the internet. Who was the copyright holder? The Italian government, but there is no longer an Italian government templates because it was removed recently Commons:Deletion requests/Category:PD Italy and besides which that was only for a 20-year period.

In my opinion, clearly the {{PD-old}} templates applies to this image though I see the template is to be deprecated so perhaps {{PD-1923}} might have been more appropriate in this case and the deletion editor could easily have suggested that or notified me of the pending deletion when this possibility could have been reviewed. Maybe the deleting editor was not familiar with stamp copyrights and perhaps an established admin editor familiar with stamps, such as User:Stan Shebs, should have reviewed this.

I request undeletion because this was an improper deletion, but if this, or the change in copyright template, is refused I would like to upload it to the en wiki where it will easily pass the fair-use claim and even the PD claim, but I don't have the image anymore nor the source data that I gave the file, so will require that info and the file if it is not available online anymore. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike en.wiki, {{PD-1923}} should not be used on Commons for non-USA works, as generally they must be public domain in the country of origin and the in USA. According to the information you give, it should be ok to undelete it and tag it with {{Anonymous-EU}}. Sv1xv (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{Anonymous-EU}} seems like a reasonable licence to use. I was not familiar with the dual requirement of {{PD-1923}}. Thanks. Ww2censor (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Undeleted, anonymous/pseudonymous work before 1939. Sv1xv (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted images from Flickr that is on User:Para's lists[edit]

A lot of Flickr files has been deleted because they were not reviewed before license was changed. User:Para made some lists back in 2006, that showed, that license on Flickr was ok back then. These lists has been used as reason to mark several existing images as reviewed.

I suggest that we undelete and mark deleted images from Para's lists as review unless they have problems with COM:DW, COM:FOP or is out of scope ore is of bad quality.

That means all red files on:

What do you say to this? --MGA73 (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As with User:FlickrLickr uploads, those were automated checks just like FlickrReviewr, and just as good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed - images deleted that are listed on User:Para/Flickr/Licensing differences/Compatible earlier but not anymore and User:Para/Flickr/Licensing differences/Compatible will be restored and marked with {{Flickr-change-of-license}} unless they have problems with COM:DW, COM:FOP or are out of scope or are of bad quality. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:California condor.jpg[edit]

{{PD-USGov-FWS}} from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -- Common Good (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done –Juliancolton | Talk 19:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Puertoordaz.jpg and File:Sharon.JPG[edit]

Files have been the focus of repeated attacks by drive-by taggers due to personal dispute with user on es.wikipedia. However, they are not copyright violations, by custom user page photos are allowed even though the user may not have been the actual photographer. These files recently survived deletion requests. [7][8]. -Nard the Bard 19:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How could such a nice girl bring so much conflict?... ;oP Yann (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think she's a holocaust denier... -Nard the Bard 20:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I resorted them, but will protect if things get worse, please notify me if this happens.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 18:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Mitchazenia. –Tryphon☂ 21:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Paleis Noordeinde[edit]

Please undelete the above. It should be redirecting to Category:Noordeinde Palace where it was moved. It's deletion made it no longer possible to search for the name in the local language. -- User:Docu at 07:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "Paleis Noordeinde" as the category description in Dutch, so it should be possible to search for it once the index updates. That said, I have no objection to undeletion, as redirection using {{Category redirect}} is the recommendation for categories that are likely to be used by others (in order to avoid it being recreated as a duplicate). —LX (talk, contribs) 08:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 17:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- User:Docu at 17:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Mitchazenia. –Tryphon☂ 21:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

file:JakeBernstein.jpg[edit]

Please undelete this image JakeBernstein.jpg which is entirely my own work.

By submitting an edit, I irrevocably agree to release my contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL. I also agree to be credited, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL when my contribution is reused in any form.

Hi,
You're file has been deleted because it can also be found on http://www.trade-futures.com , what means we cant check wheter you are the real author or not and because we are rather safe than sorry you need to send permission to OTRS, you can use this template:
Hello,
I would like to release my picture that can be found on http://www.trade-futures.com under a Free license (name of license), and I know this license allouws everybody to use my picture for personal or commercional use, share-alike and other terms as stated in the license.
I'm the author of the image and I have all the rights to release it.
Best regards,
Your name.
You should send this email with something to verify that its really your image, this can be a statement that allouws the site to use your material or when you work for that site you should use a emailadres that could be matched to the site. Huib talk 15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - like stated above, permission should go to OTRS first. Huib talk 15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2009-09&oldid=113105495"