Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-04

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.

Gran Teoria de Unificacion[edit]

Porque fue borrada esta pagina creada ayer 4 de abril 2010? a quien perjudica? Afortunadamente la tengo en mi USB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackieCanela (talk • contribs) 18:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. es:Gran Teoria de Unificacion, this is not the Spanish Wikipedia but Wikimedia Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Structural-Model1.png[edit]

According to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Structural-Model1.png, the author seems to be some person called Freud and dead in 1939 so it is probably Sigmund and OK to undelete. But it is difficult to be 100% without seeing the picture. So please any admin, have a closer look at this. Teofilo (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. --Martin H. (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fricka.jpg[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fricka.jpg says author died in 1939. Teofilo (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it, but then noticed that we already had File:Ring23.jpg, an exact duplicate, since September 2006. –Tryphon☂ 14:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Athenaboucher.jpg[edit]

I'm very proud to ask for the undeletion of my own deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Athenaboucher.jpg (time is up, author died in 1939). Teofilo (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, remember to search also the wp-articles history, commons gallery history if a gallery exists, user talkpages, user galleries, file talk, prefix search of deleted files (admin only, but not usefull), deletion request, and maybe other sites for deleted images of the same artist. Done here. --Martin H. (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Hirzel-Exlibris-1884.jpg[edit]

Probably ripe for undeletion as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hirzel-Exlibris-1884.jpg mentions author death in 1939. Teofilo (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. --Martin H. (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Exlibris-Felix-Dobschütz.jpg[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Exlibris-Felix-Dobschütz.jpg mentions author death in 1939. Teofilo (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Wknight94 talk 16:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:IMG 4994 - Intra - Monumento a Daniele Ranzoni, di Trubetzkoy - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 3 febr 2007.jpg[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:IMG 4994 - Intra - Monumento a Daniele Ranzoni, di Trubetzkoy - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 3 febr 2007.jpg saying author died in 1938! We are already more than one year late for undeletion! Teofilo (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:IMG 4995 - Intra - Monumento a Daniele Ranzoni, di Trubetzkoy - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 3 febr 2007.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:IMG 4997 - Intra - Monumento a Daniele Ranzoni, di Trubetzkoy - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 3 febr 2007.jpg, Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:IMG_4998_-_Intra_-_Monumento_a Daniele_Ranzoni,_di_Trubetzkoy_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall'Orto_- 3_febr_2007.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:IMG 5002 - Intra - Monumento a Daniele Ranzoni, di Trubetzkoy - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 3 febr 2007.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:IMG 4999 - Intra - Monumento a Daniele Ranzoni, di Trubetzkoy - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 3 febr 2007.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Wknight94 talk 16:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot File:IMG 4994 - Intra - Monumento a Daniele Ranzoni, di Trubetzkoy - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 3 febr 2007.jpg. Teofilo (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done and cleaned up. --Martin H. (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

this image: File:The Yaxin Cypress pass.jpg was deleted but this image have all permissions requests granted by author and users. so it should be undelete, no? --80.171.229.156 10:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tickeet number is: [Ticket#2010020610020195] sorry i was unlogged--Mikarouse (talk) 10:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not deleted, so nothing to restore - see the log. However, uploading it from your flickr account (and I know it is your account) is still flickrr washing and it is still dubious why you act with this methode. If you are the person yourself it would be a better idea not to hide behind flickr accounts but simply upload images as they are: With correct information, directly here, with Email sent to OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Kantarelli 1956.jpg[edit]

Somewhat similar to the bookcase above. This was a vase by Tapio Wirkkala. Utilitarian object. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is about this object, which is considered "the icon of modern Finnish design". -- Mdd (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By someone trying to sell it... -Nard the Bard 23:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, utilitarian object. –Tryphon☂ 08:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion Djisis.jpeg[edit]

Hi,

Djisis.jpeg has been deleted due to copyright violations.

17:47, 23 March 2010 Justass (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Djisis.jpeg" ‎ (Copyright violation: from persons myspace http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=109726821&albumID=621618&imageID=30957301)

However Magma the Agency is Isis' company and management agency and we own these pictures taken of her. Yes, they are also used on her Facebook, but we still want to use them on her wiki page aswel.

I hope you will let me know when the file is once again available for use.

Kind regards,


Magma the Agency algemeen@magmatheagency.com

You will need to communicate this to COM:OTRS. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 12:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

PEGI ratings tags[edit]

Today there was a massive deletion of PEGI content tags by copyright violation. The tags consisted only of simple shaped figures and text. Many of them very similar of images we have uploaded here.

Considering US copyright laws and many other Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring;...; typeface as typeface are not subject to copyright. Also see Image_casebook Trademarks. I judge theses images inelegible for copyright. Maybe I'm wrong, I'd like to "hear" the users and admins thoughts about this. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are that yes, your judgement is wrong. Sorry, these meet the threshold of originality. The fact that a work contains something recognisable and easily described like "a fist" doesn't exempt it from copyright. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got me wrong. I know that, what I meant is these images have simple shapes of reconizable and PD images. Some of those are very similar of some we have here. like PEGI drugs and this syringe. PEGI gambling and these dices, PEGI violence and this fist, PEGI fear and this spider and the most simple ones, PEGI sex consisting only of gender symbols like this and PEGI bad lenguage that is a speech balloon. Because of their simplicity, lacky of originality and the combinatios of them with simple text I think they are inelegible. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. You must prove the PEGI created their icons as derivatives of those images to make such a claim. Without such proof, who is to deny the PEGI icons as the organisation's own creations? Images are not simple (shapes) or unoriginal just because there are similar images. Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying PEGI copied those images. But I cannot claim copyright for such like this or this. they are PD not mattering if you create. if you add something original to them they would be copyrightable. Simple like that they aren't. The law above is very clear in this point. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You guys only said these images are original, but you didn't say why. The law is simple and clearly familiar symbols or designs are not copyrightable. Either their colorization, lettering or ornamentation in this case,because none of them are original too. Actually there is no ornamentation and colorization at all. Everthing is black and white and the lettering are simple typefaced. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them are simply not familiar symbols or designs to me. What I would consider fitting in this category is for example ♥, ♂, ♁, ♔, or even maybe ✆. But the syringe, silhouette, fist, spider or dice are really a stretch. In my opinion, only File:Sex n.PNG and File:BadLenguage n.PNG should be undeleted. –Tryphon☂ 14:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I undeleted these two. Yann (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with when you say syringe, silhouette, fist, spider and dice are nor familiar symbols. But yet, in this case the images are mere designs  (webdings) ⚀⚁⚂⚃⚄⚅ (segoe ui symbol). Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partially ✓ done; two files have been undeleted, but no one seems to support undeletion of the remaining files, which are definitely more creative. –Tryphon☂ 07:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:JRontgen.jpg[edit]

This a photo of the composer Julius Röntgen (1855-1932). It was deleted after Commons:Deletion requests/File:JRontgen.jpg. The photo is used in this scholarly book, but there is no attribution. This should be good enough for {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} means that it is proven that the author never disclosed their identity. It not means that just some recent reuser forgot to attribute (or not researched) the creators name. --Martin H. (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The EU directives do have a clause where copyrights owned by "legal persons" (i.e. companies) have to declare the author on the original publication, otherwise the term stays at 70 years. Not sure that actually applies in all member countries or in this case, but it is there, and is the case I thought PD-EU-no_author_disclosure applied to, as opposed to {{Anonymous-EU}}... Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking of some recent book, not the original publication. --Martin H. (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Martin H. keeps disdainfully talking about "some recent book" and about "some recent reuser" forgetting to do his research. This is a scholarly biography of Röntgen by the the historian and musicologist Jurjen Vis, published by Waanders, a publisher specializing in art. Truth is that an original publication would not satisfy Martin H. either. He is just never satisfied by anything. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, we can reasonably assume that a scholarly book would attribute the image to its author if his/her name had been disclosed in the original publication; hence {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} applies. –Tryphon☂ 07:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Lady Liberty of Panama.jpg[edit]

Could you please restore: File:Lady Liberty of Panama.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) I uploaded it. I don't know what information is missing ... was there a problem with the OTRS ticket? Also, I asked User:Yann this question but recieved no response. Evrik (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS ticket was missing, it was {{OTRS pending|year=2008|month=December|day=25}}. --Martin H. (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and forth with the reviewer. The owner even sent an email. I resent the email chain. Can someone recheck the OTRS? Evrik (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 156.jpg[edit]

Deleted in violation of Commons:Superseded_images_policy. This was previously listed on COM:DR and the administrator closing this request chose not to delete this version. -- User:Docu at 07:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment The original argument for keeping pertained to German copyright law, on an issue which is not recognized in Commons policy. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 156.jpg. The admin noticeboard discussion was held open nearly a week to allow the person who was making that argument to discuss it at policy level; it would have affected a large number of images. This deletion request is filed under a new rationale that was not put forward for the other image that was deleted at the same time. No opinion as to the outcome, but respectfully requesting to the nominator and keep supporters to raise all issues in a timely manner in future. Durova (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) As a matter of procedure, Durova's deletion was irregular, and should be reversed.
2) If I remember correctly, we are talking about this image. "Gemeinfrei", the site says, public domain.
3) The museum where this work is displayed seems to claim copyright for its photos: "© für die abgebildeten Werke und Objekte bei der Museumslandschaft Hessen Kassel, ..."
4) There is no reason whatsoever to make it more difficult to use this painting for users who want to avoid copyright claims by the museum.
5) Policy on commons is not to weed out lower quality photos of objects; the deletion queu would explode; policy is rather to let thousand flowers blossom. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. No copyright issue, there doesn't seem to be any compelling reasons for keeping it deleted. –Tryphon☂ 06:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

Request for undeletion File Ahmed Rushdi Rare.jpg[edit]

I strongly protest here against the deletion of the above mentioned image as it has been previously used in wikipedia of Pakistani singer Ahmed Rushdi.If a license tag is valid at the time of the original upload, then it should not cause the file to be nominated for deletion, if the tag is later deprecated/altered/eliminated/etc.I respectfully request for the undeletion of File Ahmed_Rushdi_Rare.jpg. 6:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asjad 101 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean File:Ahmed Rushdi Rare.JPG. Two things:
  1. Although this seems irrelevant to the deletion of this file, the premise that files should not be deleted if its copyright tag is deprecated is incorrect. Copyright laws change, sometimes in ways that retroactively affect works. This means that claims which were legally valid at the time of upload may (in rare cases) be invalid at a later time. If the legal basis for hosting a work changes and it becomes illegal to host it, the work should indeed be deleted.
  2. Looking at the upload log and Google's cached copy of the file description page, it appears that you uploaded a file from http://www.7digital.com/, claiming that "The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification." A quick look at http://www.7digital.com/termsandconditions, however, indicates that your claim is patently false. The fact that you were technically able to complete the upload process (by lying) does not indicate that your use of the license tag in relation to this particular work was legally valid.
—LX (talk, contribs) 09:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per LX. –Tryphon☂ 11:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

rance7.jpg - undeletion[edit]

http://alicesoft.wikia.com/wiki/AliceSoftWiki:Image_policy

In case where this policy and Wikia policy disagree with each other, the stricter policy applies. edit Use of Image from Alice Soft games

AliceSoftWiki has made a request, and has been rejected by Alice Soft, to directly use screenshots from their game.

Alice Soft only allows images taken directly from the Alice Soft official website to be used for AliceSoftWiki (including screenshots from their game that are on their official website). If a player takes a screenshot of the game, or if a screenshot is found online but not from the Alice Soft official website, then those image may not be used on this wiki.

Additionally, images from the official website but in user-submission gallery, in password-protected pages, or of products not made by Alice Soft, also may not be used.

Alice Soft only allows the following types of edits to images taken from their website: 

  1. Scaling (up or down)
  2. Turning blank areas of the image transparent.
  3. Adding copyright notice.

Every page that use the images must have "(c)アリスソフト" ("Copyright Alice Soft") noted. 

   * For original source of Alice Soft image policy, see [1] (Japanese).
   * For email correspondence between an AliceSoftWiki admin and an Alice Soft staff regarding use of images, see User:Afker/ImageUseEmail.
Файл взят с http://www.alicesoft.com/soft/img/rance7.jpg
Это изображение уже используется на http://alicesoft.wikia.com/wiki/File:Sengoku_Rance_-_package.jpg
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barmaglo (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you missed, that this is Wikimedia Commons and not AliceSoftWiki? If http://alicesoft.wikia.com/wiki/AliceSoftWiki:Image_policy allows to reuse their screenshots on AliceSoftWiki under some kind of fair use, and thats written at http://alicesoft.wikia.com/wiki/AliceSoftWiki:Image_policy, than this not has any meaning for Wikimedia Commons and it not means, that they allow images to be reused on 1) Wikimedia Commons (thats what you want) or 2) by everyone, anywhere for every purpose including commercial reuse and modification - thats what we require here. File:Rance7.jpg is NOT accepted on Commons, if its accepted on AliceSoftWiki or not is not my business. So  Not done here. --Martin H. (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per Martin H. –Tryphon☂ 06:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Reggaeton-rated.gif[edit]

Has been deleted as copyvio, in spite of a {{PD-textlogo}} license tag which I found totally justified. --Eusebius (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. For non-admins, this is the logo in question. –Tryphon☂ 15:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support (edit conflict) undeletion per Eusebius. Wknight94 talk 15:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. It has a very explicit (C) all rights reserved note. Not trademark (R). Copyright. -- Drini 15:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People sometimes claim copyright on things which cannot be copyrighted (for lack of originality in this case). –Tryphon☂ 15:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Restored it, but you shouldn't close it as an interested party who already voted. -- Drini 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice also upload summary: it comes from a youtube site, claiming "he got permission", which is not the same as a frelicense. And in this case PD-Text logo won't apply as in the case of phillips or microsoft logo, since there are graphical design elements, it's not "a text logo". But suit yourselves. -- Drini 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also {{PD-shape}} which is along similar lines - one can't claim copyright on something so simple as a black square. Wknight94 talk 15:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the case. There's enough originality on that image to make it copyrightable.
Mondrian's paintings are also only squares and lines, yet they're copyrightable (hey ma! I'm copyrihgtable!). This is not a "just a black square". Talking of straw man. Leave the logical fallacies at home.-- Drini 15:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hostility? And why did you restore it if you feel so strongly that you'll get hostile? Wknight94 talk 16:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Logical fallacies make me hostile. I restored it earlier to debate it, but then tryphon quickly took advantage and closed the request while I was explaining. -- Drini 16:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the undeletion request page. If you undelete an image, the request should be closed, as there is nothing left to undelete. If you think it should remain deleted, either don't undelete it (too late) or open a DR. This is not the right place for this discussion. And please remain civil, you're not helping your cause. –Tryphon☂ 16:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. I've redeleted it as you suggests. Now back to the point. That image doesn't fall under PD since it has enough orginality and design. -- Drini 16:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not exactly what I suggested, but anyway... Let's see what others think, but given that it's only text and simple shapes, and don't really get why you're so sure it's original enough. –Tryphon☂ 16:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PD-textlogo is for: logos that are just a word of text. Pd-shape is for, as Wk pointed, uncopyrightable designs (nobody can claim copyright on a blue triangle). But in this case there are enough elements and there's definitely a composition so oroginaliy thershold kics in.
Just as in the case of Mondrian's. They're just squares. But they are arranged in some pattern creating and original work.
Or Window's logo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_3.0_logo.svg Only color rectangle shapes and a word. Uncopyrightable each, but the whole is certainly copyrigthable
Think of this: most designs ARE actually built from simple shapes. That doesn't mean the designs themselves are simple shapes. Therefore they're copyrightable. -- Drini 17:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason PD-shape exists, is tht you cannot claim to have originally designed a red square. But certainly Windows' logo, even though made of simple shapes, it's an original design. Likewise with the logo we're discussing. -- Drini 17:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The key here it's not "simple shapes". It's design. -- Drini 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Drini's argument is quite convincing, whilst the individual elements of a logo might be uncopyrightable, the arrangement of those elements to form a logo can be. A quick look at Category:PD shape suggests there are many other similar images. Perhaps we need to clarify more generally what is and what isn't a simple shape or simple text. Adambro (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The threshold of originality is hard to determine; it varies from country to country, and each person feels differently about it. For example, this image was ruled not original enough for copyright protection in Germany (although it would most likely be copyrightable in the U.S.). That's why most of the time, images tagged with {{PD-textlogo}} should not be speedy deleted. Also, please have a look at the other logos we host, to get an idea of how high we estimate the threshold of originality to be: File:Adidas Logo.svg, File:Disney Channel wordmark.svg, etc. –Tryphon☂ 17:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stick to my original call for undeletion, at least on procedural grounds. A discussion should have happened before deletion. This was not a clear enough case for speedy deletion. Wknight94 talk 17:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, so I can move on to other matters, if arguments aren't going to be discussed anymore and instead taking the bureaucracy route (in other words: restore and discuss the same arguments we can discuss right now and right here). -- Drini 17:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if and when this gets restored, you would probably be the one re-nominating for deletion. The "bureaucracy" in this case is so non-administrators can be involved in the discussion - which they can't at this point because it's deleted. Wknight94 talk 18:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bad if I do, bad if I don't. Tryphon scolded me for restoring. You scold me for deleting. In any case, image is from [1] although no proof that'sthe actual original source. -- Drini 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I agree with Drini about the deletion, I think it would be best to have someone else undelete it and then initiate the regular deletion process, as Wknight94 suggested. There are more than one admin, and they should assist one another .... Then discussion can continue there, since it doesn't seem to be an obvious copyright violation.
Fred J (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support undeletion. Drini is on the right track... just because something is made up of uncopyrightable elements, doesn't mean it can't be copyrighted -- the arrangement can also be creative, and cause the work as a whole to be copyrightable. In this case though, the arrangement to me is not creative at all. It is not "design" per se, but creativity, which I don't see there, or at least not nearly enough. It is a box with a standard outline, and everything is simply centered on the page. The only slightly different thing is the angle on the main "R", but that is not (nearly) enough to qualify, to me. The arrangement needs to be a lot more creative than that. As for Drini's earlier examples, those are good ones -- while the painting is just boxes, the arrangement is certainly creative (though, someone else could probably make a similar version with similar colors and boxes in all different locations, and it probably would not be a derivative work -- the copyright is on that particular arrangement, not the style). The Windows logo is also most probably copyrightable -- boxes I guess, but not just straight lines, and all the smaller boxes on the left should make it qualify. But the copyrightability level goes well beyond just simple shapes; a fleur-de-lys is one of the examples the U.S. Copyright Office gives as a standard, non-copyrightable shape. The Copyright Compendium II documents the guidelines they generally use. Among the bits in there is that "the arrangement of type on a printed page cannot support a copyright claim" -- so the placement of the words on the image really doesn't add anything (unless the words themselves formed a copyrightable shape, or something like that). Another important point is that "the registrability of a work does not depend upon artistic merit or aesthetic value". There are two sides to that -- a child's scribble, while likely worthless from an artistic point of view, is still expression and is copyrightable. The flip side though, is that just because something is aesthetically pleasing, does not mean it is copyrightable -- a novel combination of shapes and colors, but which is still simply arranged, would not be copyrightable even if it looks really cool (the same may apply to uses of negative space, and the like). Sort of like slogans, while novel and perhaps unique, are still short phrases and not copyrightable. (Trademarkable is completely different). For one example, the en:File:Best Western.svg logo was ruled -- *three* times -- to be ineligible for copyright by the U.S. Copyright Office, and that is far more creative than the image being discussed here. That surprised me a little bit -- I'm guessing it is close to the line -- but they had ample opportunity to consider it, and it was still rejected. You can read about it here; it documents the first rejection and the two appeals which also rejected the claim, and contains many pages on precisely why it is not eligible, and quotes widely from the Copyright Compendium. Another recent decision here shows a purely graphic element which was also deemed too simple. Another famous case was one involving a New York Arrows (soccer team) logo; which went through the courts who also denied copyrightability (seen in this PDF, page 45). It is not an easy topic, and other countries are likely to have different borderlines, but I don't think this qualifies. Design is not the right criteria, but rather the creativity of the arrangement -- many designs are still not copyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done, per Carl Lindberg. –Tryphon☂ 11:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Olivierpauwels[edit]

bonjour, je suis français. Tout est en Anglais sur votre site. On n'y comprend absolument rien. Je mets de fichiers de ma provenance et qui sont ma propriété. On les supprime en me disant que je n'ai pas les autorisations. C'est du grand n'importe quoi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivierpauwels (talk • contribs) 14:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Martin H. (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Separated section with heading, name is provisional.
1) Change your language settings to french, Special:Preferences.
2) You may read Commons:Œuvre dérivée.
--Martin H. (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... 3) Discuter dans Commons:Bistro. --Foroa (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. All the files uploaded by this user were either derivative works or missing permission. –Tryphon☂ 12:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

User:SFX Group[edit]

i own the image, i also had taken the image in 2008-06-06, contact on "contact@ashleygriffin.ca" — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFX Group (talk • contribs) 03:39, 2010 April 14 (UTC)

Please follow these instructions, as indicated on your talk page. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 06:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Waiting for OTRS. –Tryphon☂ 12:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hezbollah_fighter_memorial.jpg[edit]

Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hezbollah fighter memorial.jpg, however the decision was taken in a little bit single handed way (two participants in the discussion /not counting uploader/). Image can be seen at pl-wiki right now, but we would love to have it back on Commons.

For this image, I was reasoning, that it cannot be considered as a derivative work, because the only part of it, which reaches certain originality threshold (photography of a face) is only a minor part (and technically its a very obscured minor part) of the whole and the rest of it is not at all original (not a sculpture or artistic installation). Moreover, the idea of a picture is not the identity or to illustrate this particular Hezbollah fighter, but to show in general the idea about how Hezbollach commemorated their comrades. However Eusebius disagreed claiming the the face picture is a central point of composition. With this, I still disagree, cos the image was supposed to show the exhibition as it is, without focusing on any of individual parts. The same idea about photographing exhibitions can be seen for example here: File:London NHM 1100636.jpg (clear derivative work of copyrighted sculpture or museum exhibition?), File:Exhibition-Hall.jpg (picture of exhibition or derivative work of the one to be seen in the right?), File:Bloshinka Exhibition Entrance.JPG (entrance or DW of the banner?), File:Wm-il exhibition 02.JPG (DW or the idea about the exhibited object? Pls. notice the pictures visible), File:YUL.Art.Exhibition.JPG (as before), File:WM2007 Day1 Exhibition MobileBrush.jpg (another of this type), File:SuperNoova logo in exhibition.JPG (DW, isnt't)? So, reasoning like Eusebius, either all images of exhibitions where part of them are not PD are DW or we need to set the threshold of how much image is DW or not. And in my opinion, discussed undel. case can be and should be kept, cos it's not violating any copyrights and the idea of the photographer was not get/use the image of a fighter itself, but to give the impression about the exhibition in general. Like examples given above. Masur (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masur is the best image copyright expert I know. I think his argument is very valid, and I am throwing my support behind it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely it wasn't the obvious case for deletion and the file was removed at least too hastily, basing only on one person opinnion (while ignoring the opposite one). Here it's hard to interchangeably decide whether it is or not the derivative work, but taking under the consideration given examples of similar images plus the fact that the only original element of the whole composition is its real minor part, I don't think that it violate --Szczepan talk 21:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done With no opposition votes, I restored the file and mentioned it in its discusion and del. req. If still bothered, deletion request can be run again Masur (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Promotion neumann 1899.JPG[edit]

Image was deleted because of painter (Ewald Thiel) was born in 1855, but date of his death is unknown (Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Promotion neumann 1899.JPG). But this catalogue by Dr. Eva A. Mayring states that he died before 1939 (link, link), and I think it's reasonable to assume that he in fact died before 1940. Trycatch (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Zscout370. –Tryphon☂ 05:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Charly School Students.jpg[edit]

Please restore this file. I could not reply the deletion request because I was blocked and my talk page protected. I want to restore improve it too. --Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 21:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken/recorded by my dad, Mr. Mario Grez. I think an OTRS permission is unnecessary. --Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 21:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure about the encyclopedic use of this image, but please make sure you've put the correct information on the file page. Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 23:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done If it still has problems, let me know. --Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 23:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Bastique. –Tryphon☂ 13:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Pq1.jpg[edit]

I just tried uploading an image and a message said that this same image had been uploaded under this name and deleted. If it is this image the picture is {{PD-Israel}} as an image taken more than 50 years ago. Nableezy (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. –Tryphon☂ 10:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Curiosobalear[edit]

Creo que no se debe borrar la página por la sencilla razón de que lo que allí he escrito acerca de Curiosobalear es real. De hecho yo soy uno de los creadores de Curiosobalear y así lo puedo constatar. Además en ningún caso me posiciono o hago alusiones con adjetivos calificativos o demás recursos para hablar bien sobre ella, simplemente digo la verdad. No hay subjetividades, creo. Sin otro particular, un abrazo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiosobalear (talk • contribs) 11:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Wikimedia Commons no contiene artículos de texto como artículos enciclopédicos. Para mas información, por favor, lee sobre nuestro alcance del proyecto. --Martin H. (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Andrei_Vorobiev.jpg should not be deleted.[edit]

This is file is not copied from newsru.com. It is the original photo created by the in-house United Russia Party cameraman, which is often used at the Party website and is often cited by other Internet resources. Hence, there is no copyright violation here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmitry Polikanov (talk • contribs) 04:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, the deletion discussion is not yet closed, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Andrei Vorobiev.jpg.

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2010-04&oldid=113105935"