Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-08

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

Brazilian currency image[edit]

The File:Nova Cedula Real - 100 - frente.png has recently benn deleted [1], but, differently of what is being said in that wrongly translated text in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Nova_Cedula_Real_-_100_-_frente.png, the file is under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5, but not because "it was published by Brazil", as the translated text says, but because it was published by w:Agência Brasil, a public national broadcaster which publish all of it contents under CC 2.5, as described in the page's footnote:

Todo o conteúdo deste site está publicado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 2.5. Brasil.

In English:

Every content from this website is published under Creative Commons Atribution License 2.5. Brazil

This footnote, as well as the image, can be verified at this link [2] and in higher resolution [3]. Could someone please undelete the file? --Luizdl (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But who took the picture isn't interesting. As per PD-Art, that wouldn't gain any copyright. It's who printed the bills that's interesting, and I don't think that was Agência Brasil.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Agência Brasil is controlled by the Brazilian government, the government published it by Agência Brasil, which publish every content under CC.--Luizdl (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Prosfilaes, the license is for the photographic work or scan, but as a derivative work of the money the licensing also depends on the copyright status of that money and that is not ABrs work, so not cc-by-2.5-br. You can however add the request to the above #Brazilian money-request regarding the copyright status of the banknote, that looks promising. That would also be more easier than arguing here with your last point that I dont think is so simple, legally, as you said. --Martin H. (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, this request is now at COM:UNDEL#Brazilian money. –Tryphon ^☂ 18:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Lupe Valdez.jpg[edit]

Image:Lupe Valdez.jpg The file is from flickr and It does state that it is unfree, but I emailed the photographer and he gave me permission to use the image. I put OTRS pending on the file, but it was still deleted (I just sent the email today, so I think it's deletion should at least be delayed until OTRS get through with it.--Kolrobie (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You not gave a license but added an {{Flickrreview}} to the file. In absence of a license tag the only applicable license information that you gave was the source and that was not licensed freely. What license did the copyright holder agree to? --Martin H. (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used the form letter called Informal (Images) Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. The copyright holder agreed to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License outlined in the that form letter. --Kolrobie (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted and information given here added to the file. --Martin H. (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flavor By Suck[edit]

Bonjour, Je vois que le sujet Flavor By Suck est en passe d'être supprimé. Je suis manager de ce groupe de rock. Comme tous les groupes d'artistes indépendants, il y a matière à subir la loi de la grosse industrie. Dès lors, bon nombre d'artistes indépendants sont punis de pouvoir figurer dans une encyclopédie comme celle-ci. Je voulais réparer cela en présentant une série de groupes dans la catégorie rock, tous indépendants et non signés, provenant de la Belgique, dont les compositions sont à 80% des compositions originales, les groupes n'effectuant que des reprises ne m'intéressent pas car c'est un autre débat. Des contacts sont avancés avec presque 15 groupes sans compter celui dont je m'occupe. Le but est de présenter le rock belge indépendant tout d'abbord dans lequel figurerait une liste des groupes/artistes voulant y figurer comme faisant partie de l'histoire du rock indie belge avec pour chaque groupe/artiste la possibilité de consulter une fiche claire et détaillée. Avant de pouvoir réaliser l'entierté de ce projet, je me fais la main avec la fiche du groupe dont je m'occupe, Flavor By Suck, parce qu'en étant leur manager, j'ai tout les droits. Dès que cette fiche aurait été terminée, je l'aurais insérer dans un document global comme prévu ci-dessus. Je suis déçu qu'aucune place ne soit laissée à la partie invisible de l'iceberg. En attendant votre décision, je reste utilisateur et je me réserve le droit de partir comme prévu dans le règlement si ce projet n'obtient pas l'attention qu'il mérite. Rien que parce que ces artistes existent, ils méritent de figurer dans une "encyclopédie" au même titre que les artistes mondialement connus... En vous remerciant de votre attention, Vincent Saintviteux ( Monky ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monky (talk • contribs) 07:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review our project scope. Wikimedia Commons, this project, is not the place for articles. --Martin H. (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remains deleted. --Leyo 13:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grasslogo vector big.png[edit]

The file File:Grasslogo vector big.png was deleted in error. It is an original work by the US Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (USACE/CERL) and as such a work from a U.S. federal government source. See the wikipedia entry for "GRASS GIS" for project history.

thanks

--Mungbean23 (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support "In October 1999, the license of the originally public-domain GRASS software was changed to the GNU GPL in version 5.0." So depending when the logo was added it's either PD or GPL--DieBuche (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support They have a bit of a history of GRASS websites here; the basic logo was present on the earliest images there (1997 website, and also the 1998 CERL website). So, it looks like the logo is PD. They have actual vector versions for download here; that would be better than having the bitmap, although since this one has been uploaded for so long, and was in use in a bunch of places, it would be a good idea to restore it under the specific filename. I see we do have File:Grass_GIS.svg although that may have been made from the bitmap, rather than being the source vector version. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, they even link to the now-deleted file on Commons, from that page. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored and license fixed. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blonde_Woman_at_the_beach.jpg[edit]

Is there any way to undelete File:Blonde_Woman_at_the_beach.jpg at least temporarily? I had it linked in my blog and it is now missing because it was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.228.164 (talk • contribs)

There is nothing in the deletion log for that filename. Are you sure you typed it correctly? Powers (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was really speedily deleted: File:Blonde Woman at the beach.jpg, though I don't get why. Trycatch (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“Non-free Flickr license: Photo no longer public on Flickr. Strong image rights enforcement possible,not used on any projects afetr 2 years.”

It was originally uploaded from http://flickr.com/photo/79393312@N00/511057040 using Flickr upload bot. --Leyo 13:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

restored. This is exactly why we have the flickrreview template. Flickr upload bot would not have uploaded the picture if it was non-free at that time.--DieBuche (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please do not delete Fuhgetabowdit1 Stu The wine Guru[edit]

I do not know why Missvain? is requesting for deletion of Fuhgetabowdit1 Stu The WIne Guru file? I am requesting it not to be deleted. I am Stu The Wine Guru and believe this is a mistake or error.

Not yet deleted. --DieBuche (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:C.G.Jung_and_Mathias_Göring_1934.jpg[edit]

Was deleted following Commons:Deletion requests/File:C.G.Jung and Mathias Göring 1934.jpg although the book that this was taken from did not mention a photographer. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also File:Carl_Gustav_Jung_1922.jpg. This is really getting out of hand. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. You did not track those sources but rely on a book of e.g. 1969, maybe the owner of the original negative knows the author name, then your "Author unknown" is trash. It is not you or our community who decide if someone is unknown, its the sum of all known and not yet known outside references. Ask Corbis and that family. The photo is not anonymous as long as you not provide evidences and do this research, even if the research would be time intensive. Stop playing funny guessing games here, something is anonymous if the sum of all known (and not yet known) sources says that the author is not researchable or that the pseudonyme the author selected is not assignable to a person. --Martin H. (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a range of scholarly books do not give a photographer for the cover photo, the photographer is not known. Corbis does not mention him either. And families? I would not know the names of the photographers of the portraits in my living room here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I extended my comment, some edit conflicts in the meantime. Aha, have you asked? You rely on their online shop, nothing more! Remember that they have boxes in an archive full with original negatives and recordings maybe. --Martin H. (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For you, every photo published before 1940 without the photographer’s name written in bold, large letters across the image is an anonymous work. Every single upload discussed by this user noted “author: unknown”. This is no reliable approach. How can we build up a free media repository (and for me, this is more than some colourful thumbnails in Wikipedia articles), when you encourage users to take the line of the least resistance? An overwhelming percentage of photos published during the 1930s is still protected by copyright for simple biological reasons. Someone who uploads files with less information, less context has a higher chance to store images here compared to someone who tries to figure out who created a work actually, if we follow your inflationary use of Template:Anonymous-EU. I am the last one not to agree to a reasonable use of this template (I used it just some hours ago), but please don’t make it yourself that easy. --Polarlys (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support undeletion. As I told in the DR discussion, the uploader told me that he had access to the book and that it did not mention any author. I think it should be enough for us to keep under {{Anonymous-EU}}. --Eusebius (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The book author or publisher is not required to attribute an author or even a source, he should from an accuracy viewpoint, but he must not from a copyright viewpoint if he got the image licensed (by the copyright holder, a rights manager or someone who claims copyright) for reuse in a book without attribution requirement. But maybe the book publisher knows an author and obviously he must know a source (the image must come from somewhere), so he must be asked at least for who created the image or where it comes from. The book is from the 1970s or 1980s. Just because this book not credits an author you can absolutely not say, that the photographer decided to stay anonymous. Again, the sum of all sources is important, not the interpretion on how something is (not) attributed in one book. Of course the book author is an expert, best source to ask. --Martin H. (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin H. is just saying that, "you should ask Gerhard Wehr". But if Wehr answers that he does not know, it will not satisfy him. Martin H. will never be satisfied. Yet the law does not say that anonymous works are copyrighted for 100 years of for 140 years. The law says that anonymous works are protected for 70 years. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A work doesn’t become an anonymous work through a lazy uploader. The status “anonymous” has to be established with some efforts to be made. --Polarlys (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:58, 06 August 2010 (GMT)

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

Request for undeletion File:EAC IMG 6549.JPG[edit]

In Israel a church (and any other religious place) is a public place. According to the Law, Section 23 allowes photography and any derivative work of "an architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of useful art". Murals on walls of churches are both part of the architecture and useful art. Therefore FOP in Israel, just as the Chagall windows are FOP in Israel. Deror avi (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/File:EAC IMG 6549.JPG; this is not a mural, but a framed painting. Same painting as in File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 09.jpg, which should also be deleted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a. A mural may be place in a frame (most of them are, drawn on canvas and then placed on location - its not like the days of Michalangelo).

b. Any permenant church decoration falls under Section 23 of the Law. Deror avi (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the 1000th time - the Israeli law doesn't say anything explicit against it. It is a common habit to treat such images as part of the FOP principle (and I sent proofs to admins in the past. Considering this situation, an explicit change in the law, or an explicit court ruling is needed to establish a new norm. This has not happened, nor is it expected to happen anytime soon. It is improper that people unacquainted with the Israeli laws and norms pretend to know them better than Israeli users, some of them even have legal education. Furthermore, Pieter Kuiper proved lack of good will in the past, and while I'm not suggesting to ban him, his advices should be taken very cautiously. Drork (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as Pieter has said, File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 09.jpg shows the same work. It is not a mural, nor is it on a wall of a church as Deror avi has suggested. It is a painting in a frame lent against a wall. Section 23 doesn't apply to paintings, it is not "an architectural work, a work of sculpture or work of useful art" and comments from Presenti seem to support that; "an artistic work created for artistic purpose is by no means applied art ( e.g. painting)". My other comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 09.jpg are probably relevant here. I don't understand Drork comments at 17:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC). Section 23 provides an exemption for certain situations where copying is allowed. If an exemption doesn't exist then we have to assume copying is not allowed. Adambro (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion. There was no consensus on the deletion. Actually while there was a lot of discussion, there was a single vote for deletion. Much of the discussion was carried out by Pieter Kuiper who is hardly a reliable opinion. He seems to cherish making exagerated arguments.

It is necessary to agree that, in this case Israeli law is relevant. Any other considerations (such as the ones in the previous discussion on what can be defined as a public place in other countries which could be Honduras, Burkina Fasso or Nepal should be irelevant for this case). Israel is a sovereign nation.

Discussions should be limited to the present case. I do not understand what all this has to do with File:Ethiopian Abyssinian Church, Jerusalem 09.jpg. We are discussing File:EAC IMG 6549.JPG which has to be undeleted. Even if it represents the same painting, the object of the discussion is the deleted file, not other ones.Afil (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:01, 06 August 2010 (GMT)

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

File:Mohammed by meco.png[edit]

Image was cursorily deleted with the explanation:‎ (Out of project scope). I'm no newcomer to the Wikimedia community and I find this unilateral decision by one administrator questionable. At least this should have been nominated for deletion in order to have the matter discussed and illuminated adequately. Especially with all the commotion surrounding today being Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and the need for illustrating this grassroots movement on various sister projects. __meco (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, the file namespace, the most visible namespace in Commons, is not a place to present your personal story of what happened to you on facebook. Second, Commons is not a place for your self-created artwork, see COM:PS. Given that the artwork was created in connection with an event does not make it significant or notable. And Third: Also your "artwork" is not an good example or anything like that for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. It uses displeasing elements and is not useful to illustrate something that not needs such elements - yes, the principle of least astonishment also applies to this controverse topic. Maybe you carried the whole idea to excess or you only misunderstood the whole concept and background? Consider you have painted George Bush naked, that image would go the same way. Given that you are not a newcomer I really wonder, why you didn't thought of this points yourself before uploading such ... trash. --Martin H. (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Out of scope is right - the image is of such poor quality as to be pretty much unusable on any Wiki. In fact, the image is pretty much a textbook definition of what COM:PS#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose was created for. Tabercil (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - we are not a host for your self-created artwork. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to further expand on this. I'm not averse to hosting EDMD images, but to me this one is needlessly offensive and frankly amateurish. The stick figure one - that to me seems ironic. The Mondriane one is just cool. This falls into the gulf between decent and ironically bad - the gulf usually simply referred to as "bad". -mattbuck (Talk) 18:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mattbuck, I understand and respect your rationale, and I thank you, for elaborating upon it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree. 95.59.82.151 12:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you going to remove all the images and delete again Category:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day? Would any of you care to visit us at en:Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and explain your rationale for why these images are outside the scope of Wikimedia's repository for media files? __meco (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, what is being said here is that we are not undeleting your little private doodle. It is out of scope, and was clearly uploaded just to make a point. --Dschwen (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that is your opinion then you have completely missed the point of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. It was in fact an encouragement to everybody to make drawings to the best of their skills, which I did. If you go to the gallery of contributions on the English Wikipedia article, you will see that my "doodle" is no more amateurish than other submissions (which include stick figures). The original was in fact uploaded to Flickr on May 20, as were the other drawings currently residing in Category:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. Also, everyone who participated in Everybody Draw Mohammed Day did so "just to make a point"—that point being to support freedom of expression and protest the threats of violence and incidents of violence that has been leveled against newspaper cartoonist and others who have published depictions of Prophet Mohammed in the past. __meco (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think that either Wikipedia or Commons is the appropriate place to make your point? Both projects have a fairly well defined mission, being a platform for political soapboxing is not one of them. Especially if that soapboxing is childish and hurtful to a great number of people. That makes you no better than the few morons who issued threats against the cartoonists. --Dschwen (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to pose a question for those who assert that my contribution is "out of scope" of the Commons repository. Are they asserting that upholding the deletion of my drawing should serve as a precedent for the deletion of other images now categorized in Category:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day? And are they going to make the same ridiculing and belittling comments on the deletion or deletion review discussions of those images also? Otherwise, if it's only my particular drawing that is inapplicable, as opposed to the rest of them, would they care to offer their opinion of what makes my drawing stand out so that it becomes irrelevant to this project? Is it the fact that it is a drawing of a naked person? Is it because I am an active participant of the Wikimedia community? Or is it something more salient which I have been unable to think of? __meco (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With this particular image, due to its rather crude nature I have no objection to its not being on this project. However, the others are simple artistic depictions, not done by Wikipedia users and thus avoiding a circular-logic-pattern, and encompass a wider historical phenomenon, involving freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Let us, therefore, please keep this particular discussion, focused on this particular image. -- Cirt (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, strip away the fancy wording, you object both to it being of a naked person and because I am a member of the Wikimedia community? Is it that simple? __meco (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an objection, just a lack of objection to this particular image not being restored. -- Cirt (talk) 07:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that point. I assume you will also not object when, in the case that this deletion isn't overturned, I upload the drawing to the English Wikipedia. __meco (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt to refactor this discussion moving this heads-up out of the discussion thread as I think the continuing of the above discussion below it is confusing and makes for diminished readability, however, I was reverted and mildly censured for doing so. I'll leave it in here until someone else decides to move it out of "harms way". __meco (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a discussion for a different project. -- Cirt (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow the would-be logic of that. You're an administrator of both projects (in fact all the other four people who have voiced their opinions so far in upholding the deletion here are Commons administrators) so I take it you have an integrated position on how the projects should be administered and cooperate, particularly with the perspective that Commons is a common repository of digital media to be used by the other projects and that this role would be compromised should Commons refuse to hold freely licensed media which other projects wish to use. I do hope for your sake in retaining your own integrity as an officer of the projects that you realize that not denouncing a wrong action being overturned does amount to supporting the wrong done in the first place, and that you are not going to maneuver out of the possible dilemma of either going against four of your administrator colleagues or taking a clear stance (somewhere along the way) in favor of the discriminatory ruling against one drawing on unsustainable arguments by appearing to take a non-committing stance here. It is hardly non-committing. __meco (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion. At least in my opinion, this is a great depiction of what Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is about, non-artists creating offensive depictions as a form of protest. The more amateurish and offensive it is, the more in the spirit of the protest it is. It's quite distinct in style and content from others in the category which justifies its inclusion. That said, it's not the only image in the category, so I'm not going to be too upset if it must be deleted. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I appreciate your support, I disagree with your perception of the asserted goals of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and somewhat also of my drawing. Firstly, the event certainly did not aim to be as offensive as possible. By no means. On that point you have completely misapprehended the gist of that initiative. Secondly, as much as I realize that my drawing may be seen as offensive to some (in the West we often call such people prudes) in the Muslim community, by our consensual standards it can not be characterized in those terms. It has been labeled crude by another editor in this discussion, which I certainly don't see should be an argument for its deletion. It is clearly an innocent depiction of a naked man, somewhat naïve in style due to my rudimentary drawing skills, indeed as some people also have pointed out to me, it looks like a child's drawing. And my intent also was not to be offensive, rather it was more of a "back to basics" approach—to draw a man au naturel as it were. __meco (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to mischaracterize your intent - all I meant was that Muslims may find this particular depiction to be particularly offensive, which is in the context of the protest a good thing. I certainly don't find it offensive (nor I imagine would most non-Muslims). Dcoetzee (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to make an issue of the fact that I used to be the leader of an anti-religious organization, the Norwegian Heathen Society. This was mentioned in the image description and would be clear to all the administrators that have access to deleted material. I cannot imagine how that could not strengthen the rationale for its keeping. __meco (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion. I would have to say I have listened to the arguments put forth by Meco (talk · contribs), and I have come to agree with Dcoetzee (talk · contribs). Picking and choosing is akin to selective censorship. The phenomenon is extremely noteworthy and historic, as is artwork and artistic interpretations by contributors, especially those that choose to utilize a free use license. -- Cirt (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you already wikilink to the censorship article would you mind pointing out why you consider not undeleting the image censorship? --Dschwen (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is "the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient." -- Cirt (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you conveniently leave out who is suppressing the information. If it we were a government or some sort of Muslim organization, this might have a shred of merit. But in this case it is an editorial decision. Labeling it censorship is just name calling (look, I can wikilink too!). --Dschwen (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Delete most such images, but we need to see the image to vote (i.e. regular AFD). It's been made clear of late that Wikimedia Commons does not have infinite scope, and we don't promise to maintain just any free-licensed doodle someone uploads to Wikipedia. Yet, there are times when we do want to take user generated artwork.

First, we want to have images uploaded that are noteworthy - political or historically significant, drawn by a well-known artist, or at least featured in a news report.

There is also a criterion I would propose (not stated in any policy) which is that we should welcome all user generated artwork, however pornographic or (in this case) otherwise offensive, provided that it has some basic merit — by which I mean, that there is some artistic process that the user can explain (presumably involving some technical skill or at least familiarity with artistic vocabulary), which can be (and preferably is) explained to a reader, or some educational purpose to the illustration, which the reader can appreciate.

It also makes sense to choose a small subset to illustrate the "sort of images" present. We have strong precedent to keep an image if there is some way to use it to illustrate an article. For example, if the article ends up saying that 5% of the images involved doodles of sex acts with pigs, then you may want an illustration for that. In this case there are thousands and thousands of user generated doodles for a contest, and we aren't a free web host for all shock images of Muhammad anyone cares to draw. So how do we decide what to maintain here?

In this case, we want images that are selected by editors based on objective criteria. Ideally, we want several independent objective editors to look at the gallery of images and each say, I think we should pick this one and that one. When someone uploads his own work in preference to other free-licensed material, it creates a certain conflict of interest, though because it would be so easy to mislead I don't think we should be very firm on that point, especially if he tries to explain an artistic process as I describe above, or if preferable free licenses are provided by the Wikipedian.

We also need a well-reasoned process to discard what is beyond the project scope if it is to be enforced at all. This process should be a typical AfD, not a speedy deletion. When it is so hard to tell the difference between famous modern art and the scribblings of animals and children, how can one admin be given the power to decide the deletion? I should emphasize that the draft guideline Commons:Sexual content seems to have reached a consensus to oppose any speedy deletion of artwork.

Now, the scheme I've laid out above involves three overlapping reasons to include images: notability, usefulness, and representativeness. I don't think any one of them should be subordinated to the others, because (for example) media coverage of an event might be biased to exclude images that are particularly shocking and/or particularly inoffensive, while user-selected examples might give a more honest perspective. Or vice versa! The selection maintained should illustrate the event from all perspectives. Wnt (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the initiative is sound, but unless it becomes subject of some discussion I find it hard to outright give support to it. __meco (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as out of project scope, not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not in general Commons scope, but clearly in scope of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and Category:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. --Foroa (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) by Bruce.jpg for an evemore obvious case of what Commons should not be used for. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 23:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the key difference here is that this particular one shows a drawing of a naked human, and that is not a relevant reason for deletion. In the context of the event, and for the purpose of showing the variation, that it's deliberately crude is not a reason for deletion either. DGG (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored; please file a deletion request if there are any more issues. --O (谈 • висчвын) 01:54, 06 August 2010 (GMT)

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

File:Weckstrom.JPG[edit]

Vases as in fi:File:Weckstromin Kanerva.JPG, requesting undeletion per COM:DW#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case?. See also the DR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I would ordinarily agree with you, I'm going to have to Oppose. Finnish copyright law contains no utilitarian article exception. A protected work is defined as "a fictional or descriptive representation in writing or speech, a musical or dramatic work, a cinematographic work, a photographic work or other work of fine art, a product of architecture, artistic handicraft or industrial art or a work expressed in some other manner. Maps and other descriptive drawings or graphically or three-dimensionally executed works and also computer programs shall likewise be considered literary works." The only section dealing with useful articles, 25e, says: "Buildings and utilitarian articles may be altered by the owner without the consent of the creator if considerations of a technical nature or reasons connected with the use so dictate." You're not even allowed to draw a smiley face on a vase in Finland without violating the copyright! -Nard the Bard 22:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finland does have a higher threshold of originality than many other countries, and it seems rather doubtful that these vases would be granted copyright protection. Legislation in Finland is similar to Sweden, where the Supreme Court has ruled that design like Maglite torches can be copyrighted (see Utilitarian objects protected by copyright#Sweden). But even in those cases, the court stated that the range of protection was limited, probably meaning that it was limited to direct imitation. It is very unlikely that courts would rule that photos of those objects would be copyright infractions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support It may be against Finnish law, which would exclude it by the "copyrighted in source country" policy, but if so, policy needs an exception here - we don't generally support stupid laws other than the US's. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The law is not stupid, but Commons rules are not sufficiently flexible to accomodate different practices in different jurisdictions. Commons policy is based on the US rule that excludes utilitarian objects from copyright protection. Now, in other countries, such objects can be subject to "droit d'auteur". Marketing an imitation of a dress or of a fragrance can be an infringement of authors' rights. But I have not seen any judgments (yet) that make photos of a person modeling haute couture or photos of Maglite torch an infringement. Let's hope copyright expansion will stop before it comes to that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the image, but... per Peter Kuiper, if the degree of protection is limited, then it likely would not apply to photographs of the object. Maybe it would to studio photographs of specifically the object itself, but normal snapshots... not sure. But if that is the law there (and some countries do protect industrial art via copyright), we should try to follow it... Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info The deleted image appears to be a scaled-down copy of fi:File:Weckstromin Kanerva.JPG. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. While the threshold of originality for utilitarian objects is quite high in Finland, these artistic glass vases seem IMO quite likely to pass it. Unfortunately (for us), there's no exception for photos of copyrighted utilitarian objects under Finnish law — if they pass the threshold of originality, they're pretty much treated like any other artistic work. The possible limitation that Carl Lindberg suggests above would presumably fall under article 4 paragraph 2 of the Finnish copyright law, which says that "if a person has drawn freely on a work to create a new and independent work, his copyright shall not be subject to the right in the original work." I do not believe that a photo of these vases could be considered "new and independent", given that it clearly reproduces the creative and original elements of the vases (if only from one angle), and that such reproduction clearly is its intended purpose. Nor does it qualify under the de minimis exception of art. 25 par. 2, since the vases are clearly the main subject of the photo. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: BTW, I found a possibly relevant statement by the Finnish Copyright Council here (PDF, Finnish) regarding online publication of photos of wedding dresses. It basically confirms that, while the threshold of originality in Finland is quite high for works of industrial art or artistic craftsmanship, and the copyrightability of specific such works must be judged case by case, photos of any such works that do exceed the threshold can only be distributed with the creator's permission (or under the various statutory exemptions that codify things like private use, fair use, de minimis, etc., none of which would seem sufficient for us here). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:09, 06 August 2010 (GMT)

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

FOTOĞRAF VE İÇERİKLER BASİT, FAKAT ANLATIM TÜRÜ VE TEKNİK DETAY İÇERMEKTE[edit]

TEKNİK KAPSAMDA ÜRETİME SUNULACAK OLAN HEDEF PARÇA BİLGİLER DOĞRULTUSUNDA HESAPLAMALARLA VE DETAY RESİMLERİYLE GÖRÜNÜME VE İŞLEV KAPSAMINA KAVUŞUR.GELECEK YILLAR İÇİN DETAY RESİMLERİME VE YAPMAK İSTEDİĞİM PROJEMİ HAYATA GEÇİRMEK İDEALİM BU YÜZDEN YARDIMINIZ HEM BENİM HEM MADDİ HEM ÇAĞ VE HEM BİLİM OLARAK YARAR SAĞLAYACAĞI İÇİN YARDIMINIZ DIŞINDAKİ OLUMSUZLUKLAR GEÇERSİZLİĞİ OLUŞTURACAKTIR ÇALIŞMAYAN BİR BİLİM ÖN GÖRÜLMEMİŞTİR.TR (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You possibly refer to Hedef sayfa adı. Wikimedia Commons, this project, is not a place for artices. Judging with google translation your request above does not sound like an undeletion request but more like promotion for something. And you have a problem with your File:CAPS LOCK.JPG. --Martin H. (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remains deleted. --Leyo 11:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HACCP en una linea de producción de Helados.pdf[edit]

Deleted in violation of Commons:Deletion policy: no regular deletion request made. - Docu at 04:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file was a pdf with 3 1/2 pages of plain text uploaded in avoidance of an short before deleted Gallery page with the same text created by an IP and this contribution here on COM:UNDEL. Commons is not a place to upload articles as you may know. See Commons:Project_scope#Excluded_educational_content, those files are not eligible to upload here. --Martin H. (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We get indeed often all sorts of pdf text files that are partly promotional, partly text files that cannot be edited and that belong in wikipedia's, not commons. They are indeed deleted without a discussion. Initially, I marked them as speedy delete to have a second opinion, but since I never got any rejection nor discussion on it, nor any a protest against such deletion, I delete now the clear cases immediatly as to avoid unnecessary work. --Foroa (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Raw text. Commons:Project_scope#Non-allowable_reasons_for_PDF_and_DjVu_formats --GeorgHH • talk 06:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I can't view the file, I can't say anthing about its content, but file type as such is not a reason for speedy deletion per Commons:Deletion policy. Docu at 06:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That PDF file (without any images, plain text) is not considered a media file. See COM:PS#Non-allowable_reasons_for_PDF_and_DjVu_formats (such files are not considered media files), the .pdf at the end of the article doesnt bring it in scope. You can see the content, I linked it above. --Martin H. (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - speedy deletion policy doesn't differentiate between deletion of media files and non-media files. It appears that you aren't applying scope related speedy deletion correctly and more review of such deletions is needed. Docu at 04:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Speedy deletion poicy does differentiate between the deletion of media files and non-media files (pages). --Martin H. (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        A pdf file is still a file. Docu at 05:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        COM:PS rather than COM:D deals with PDFs. Only the nice neat easy-to-explain reasons are listed on COM:D (if people feel like adding them). Rocket000 (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't mention speedy deletion though. Docu at 06:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Why don't you add it then? Rocket000 (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Personally I can't delete files. So there isn't really any need for me. Docu at 06:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Converting an out-of-scope wiki text to PDF does nothing to bring it into the project scope. There's no reason it should be treated any differently. The deletion was clearly within the spirit of COM:DP. Arguing over the semantics of the matter is just counterproductive wikilawyering. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:06, 08 August 2010 (GMT)

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

File:Glans Stimulation.png[edit]

This is one of our top six best photos of fellatio, and in use to boot, which should negate any claim of a scope violation. (In use for three weeks on multiple wikis.) This is not culling an overfull and spammed category; this is deleting a picture that was in use in a sparse category.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, adding a photo to small wikis does not make that photo "in scope". Again, someone could easily remove the photo without the knowledge of the local editing community and your point would be invalidated. Just because a vandalism or SWMT patroller might have seen the addition does not mean they'll fully consider it. They will see the change and likely move onto a revision that was added maliciously. BTW, how was this in any way relevant to the discussion? You might want to take a chemistry course or, alternatively, reconsider your comparison between penises and formula diagrams. Blurpeace 18:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So now we have important and unimportant wikis? The very fact that they moved on meant they felt it was in scope. Perhaps I should have compared it to Category:Cycling by country, another human activity that we have hundreds of amateur pictures of.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And if nothing else, as a occasional editor of the Esperanto WP, I'll take credit for it being there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't misconstrue this into something it isn't. If you've ever patrolled pages before, you'd know, from experience, that reviewers do not check revisions in depth. They see that it wasn't added maliciously or that the user is trusted on another wiki. Just because they're passing by doesn't mean they agree the image is in scope. It could have easily been removed and no patroller or local editor would have known. Silence is consensus principally cannot apply to smaller wikis or "in scope" discussions. It would be the same as adding the image to a gallery. Blurpeace 02:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, just by passing by, you can tell whether an image detracts from the page it's on. If not, then it is reasonably useful for an educational purpose.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If it was in use, it was in scope, no matter how "small" those wikis are. And I doubt we would have this kind of arguments if it was a non sexual image (let's delete this image of a cat, it's only in use on a small wiki). –Tryphon ^☂ 19:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a pretty awful photo, but if in use it was in scope and the given deletion reason isn't a policy yet. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if you look at the DR history, ~~Prosfilaes added the photo to those pages~~ and then claimed them as in use. Let's not play politics. Blurpeace 02:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's false, and I think you should be a little more careful about your accusations. Max Rebo Band added them to several pages, and Remas6 added it to another page. Max Rebo Band never mentioned that they were in use. This whole thing is political. How many pictures have you seen get deleted for being low-quality despite the fact that it was one of six pictures of something universal and we had four editors supporting it? We have hundreds of pictures of bicycling, and no one is culling them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry for incorrectly accusing you of adding the photo to those pages. I typed that comment based on some loose memory. Regardless, we're culling low quality photos for practical reasons. We should not set double standards for ourselves, but I certainly believe, for common sense reasons, that we should be more skeptical of amateur sex photos. I don't object to removing other low quality photos from the project either, FWIW. Blurpeace 00:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Low-quality to the point of being useless. Only keep votes in the DR were the two uploaders and two people citing flimsy in-use rationale (per Blurpeace). Wknight94 ^talk 03:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So half the votes in the DR were to keep. And it were several arguments that it was better then the other pictures--that the angle and what was shown was better for educational purposes. --Prosfilaes (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've seen worse, and it's about as clinical as a shot of fellatio could ever be. Powers (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for the reasons I've already given at the original deletion request. Anatiomaros (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support image in use to illustrate a related topic --> in scope. I can't comment on quality because I haven't seen the photo. However, I'll point out that Category:Females_performing_fellatio only has 5 photographies, that this a low number given the prevalence and cultural repercusions of the topics, and that we shouldn't remove the lowest quality pictures until we have enough high-quality pics to illustrate throughtly the topic. As other editor commented, there are hundreds of images in topics like Category:Cycling, and nobody is saying that we have too many. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:12, 08 August 2010 (GMT)

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

Meee.jpg[edit]

02:22, 2010 July 19 Martin H. (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Meee.jpg" ‎ (Out of project scope) (global usage; delinker log)

Deleted in violation of Commons:Deletion policy: no regular deletion request made. Docu at 05:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image shows a penis in realy bad quality and was used soley to vandalize in it.wikipedia. Such files are not in scope of Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted in this case. In the future, please use "used for vandalism" when speedy deleting such files. Docu at 05:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that deletion reason will only attract more vandalism. --Martin H. (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find a way to indicate that your speedy deletions comply with Commons deletion policy. Docu at 05:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check out the circumstances of the deletion, e.g. the user who uploaded it. You not did this before assuming bad faith here. --Martin H. (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if you explain the reasons for your speedy deletions here. We don't assume anything. Docu at 06:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I wish you could see the image you're fighting for. :) Rocket000 (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to check out the circumstances of the deletion, like the user who uploaded it? I don't buy that most vandals care whether their files are deleted for being "out of scope" or for being "vandalism".--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Meee.jpg shows you who uploaded it. If you click on to their contributions, you'll see that they are blocked for vandalism. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that the deletion reason also pops up in the CommonsDelinker edits on other projects, indirectly this edit summary is my edit summary. LX got it right however. As far as I remember I saw the file meee.jpg used in it.wp and deleted it, assuming it a childish joke or so. I went to the user talk to warn the user but saw the other upload, instead of warning the user with one of our various "vandalism" or COM:ATT templates I decided to block the user. If Docu visited the talkpage of the user or had a look into the contributions of the user he would have seen that. I believe Docu not assuming anything, while Rocket000s wish is to make him see the image my wish is that Docu at least assumes good faith. --Martin H. (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Assume good faith" isn't blind faith. It means to assume the user had good intentions, it doesn't mean to assume the user was right. Rocket000 (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, you could just use something like "v, probably out-of-scope" as summary. This way you don't need to spell out "vandalism" in the summary. Docu at 06:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:16, 08 August 2010 (GMT)

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

File:Great barrier oil spill march 2010 (cropped).jpg[edit]

please restore to allow placement of correct license. --emerson7 | Talk 01:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored & licnese fixed--DieBuche (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Timok.png[edit]

I request the undeletion of the file for the following reasons:

the file was deleted, because the file did not show any sources, only me as the copyright owner. After it was reloaded, not in its initial form but including the information which was considered missing, it was again deleted with no justification.
the discussions raised the question of copyright violation. There has been no indication whose copyright was implied and which file had that copyright.
it has also been claimed that the file is a derivative work of a copyrighted work. This is not true and no justification for this statement has been given.

Therefore the deletion of the file is abusive and the file should be restored, at least until OTRS investigates the question.Afil (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion requests have been grouped incorrectly by Tryphon. The case of Timok is different from the other ones.

Oppose. Every time the copyright status of these maps was challenged, Afil provided a different explanation as to why they would be PD. Entirely his own work as project manager of a mapping crew; based only on NASA data; based on NASA data and old military maps; etc. So it's becoming harder and harder assuming good faith from you. You asked the deleting admin to tell you whose copyright you infringed, but this is not how it works. You have to demonstrate that all the sources you used are in the public domain, by providing accurate source (NASA data: which one exactly, link to the image if possible; maps from Mapstore: which reference number, and where do they state it's in the public domain). I don't know what you submitted to OTRS, but unless you're finally providing precise source information, I doubt the outcome will be different from what already happened in the DR. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Timoc.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The presentation of Tryphon is incorrect. I have claimed that the map was drawn by me. I was advised to indicate that it was based on NASA and texts by me, which I did. Then I was asked to indicate the sources of the maps, which I also did. So the story is the result of consequent discussions of different issues. What should also be taken into account is that not all elements of a map are copyrighted. Indicating a map as a source does not mean that I have used all the map but only some information of the map, such as the names of localities, which are not copyrighted. As far as mapstore is concerned, their disclaimer indicates that The published material is of historical value and doesn’t fall under the law of copyright. Afil (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the major points of contention was the information which was taken from the Mapstore/Poehali map. The supplier indicated that the map is copyright free (which is consistent with the provisions of the Russian Copyright Law) but imposed some restrictions on the use of the file. In order to avoid new disputes with Peter Kuiper, I have requested the permission to use the maps from both Mapstore and Poehali. Attached is the correspondence:
[Private correspondence removed]
- Please do not publicly post emails; forward them to OTRS instead, with a reference to the affected images on Commons. But the permission they gave is not enough; it is restricted to "scientific use" and it is not clear who as the right to use or modify these maps (you as the buyer, or anyone). We need a permission for anyone to do whatever they want with those maps, under the terms of a free license of their choice. –Tryphon ^☂ 13:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you do not read or understand the issue. The maps are copyright free and DO NOT require any permission for their use. I was only confirming that there is no user right which the supplier claims, beyond the non-existant copyright. As far as copyright is concerned, I am the copyright owner according to the laws of the United States of America and have released the maps under the GFDL license. Why do I need somebody else's permission? Afil (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you ask for permission and post the mail exchange here if you think it's not needed anyway? I have again this impression that your declarations are constantly changing, never addressing the issues but avoiding them. You said you got permission from the map provider, and when I'm pointing out that this permission is not valid, you're arguing that it was not needed in the first place anyway. That may be true, but then don't provide a useless permission and simply show why these maps are PD (reference, publication date, statement on the source website, anything that would actually be relevant). –Tryphon ^☂ 17:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:54, 09 August 2010 (GMT)

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

citril finch,antillean siskin,linurgus olivaceous,citril finch(all photographs in jpg)[edit]

This is the photograph maker :we have given permission to Pablo Gomez-Prieto to put these photos into WP. Please restore them and any other removed or in danger and ask directly to me the tickets, if necessary to my official mail, aarnaiz@med.ucm.es Regards and thank you Antonio Prof Dr Antonio Arnaiz-Villena--Arnaiz1 (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to exact filenames. You didnt upload the images (your log is empty), so at least I have no idea what upload you mean. --Martin H. (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, quick search for the name: Maybe Special:Contributions/Gomezprieto? Nothing was deleted so far, you are asked to please provide a written permission to COM:OTRS that anyone, not only Wikimedia but anyone, can reuse the images anywhere, anytime for any purpose including commercial reuse and modification. If you mean Special:Contributions/Gomezprieto we can close this undeletion request as 'not done' - nothing to undelete at the moment. --Martin H. (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 02:56, 09 August 2010 (GMT)

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

File:Ankaradakovich.jpg[edit]

I deleted this file by misstake. Jim Radakovich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrad (talk • contribs) 22:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did not delete anything, an administrator did, because this image comes from some website and doesn't seem to be your own work. If you have permission to use it under a free license, please send an email to OTRS. –Tryphon ^☂ 18:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done --O (谈 • висчвын) 03:08, 09 August 2010 (GMT)

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

Please undelete Iffaf-lIng[edit]

I would greatly appreciate it if you could undelete my user page.

Thank you, Iffaf Ling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iffaf-Ling (talk • contribs) 12:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, nothing to undelete. You dont have any deleted contributions on this project, your only contribs are one file you uploaded and this request for undeletion. --Martin H. (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Emmafanning.jpg[edit]

Deleted in violation of Commons:Deletion policy: no regular deletion request made. -- Docu at 05:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file was deleted following the deletion of en.wp article . --Martin H. (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Docu, I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make with these requests. Not everything needs a deletion request. In fact, the majority don't. I see nothing wrong with his actions. "Out of scope" is a valid speedy delete reason (and I agree that it was out of scope). Is there's some specific reason this should be undeleted? Do you even know what it is? Rocket000 (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For files, "Out of scope" isn't a general reason for speedy deletion. It is limited to a few specific cases.

To allow us to check if it applies, can you undelete this file? Docu at 06:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to collect a few more comments like Trycatch's before undeleting something I would have speedy deleted also. Rocket000 (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Docu. I've checked last 1000 deletions from the log (~29 hours) -- just 10 files have been speedily deleted with "out of scope" rationale. Why not file 10 additional deletion requests a day? There is no need to rush for files likes this, depriving non-admin users of the possibility to review the deletion request. Of course, there is no need to undelete this file, because it's obviously out of scope. Trycatch (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because as you say it's obviously out of scope. However, I have no problem with undeleting it. There seems to be a lack of trust here so maybe it would be a good idea to show users what exactly is being speedy-deleted. Rocket000 (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sometimes I am in doubt for an out-of-scope delete. In that case, I don't delete it but mark it as such with a speedy/out of scope in order to have a second opinion. We could make a special speedy cat for such cases and do the final delete only a couple of days later, so that people can react. --Foroa (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. Then users can review what these "out of scope" speedy deletion really are without spamming the DR page with obvious cases. Rocket000 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it's easier to create (or read) a DR than to add a speedy tag. Obviously, for admins it's easier to just nuke stuff they consider out-of-scope. Docu at 06:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion was warranted in the context of foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people. Let me quote: Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest. There was apparently an article at en-wp and this photograph at Commons of a non-notable person. This could have been done with an intent to harass this person or it could have been some inconsiderate joke which is perhaps less funny for the victim. In such a case it is best to speedy the article and the photograph. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was the article deleted because it was an attack page or because it was non-notable? ~~The uploader did not receive any warning if it was an attack page: en:User talk:Whistler100.~~ Edit: There was no warning at all on his talk page when I started writing this, now there is. Any image can be used to harass or make jokes about people, the question is if it was uploaded for that reason. For privacy issues we have COM:IDENT. Images are not biographies, so why cite some foundation page when any of the following is a valid reason: "attack image", "uploaded for vandalism", "privacy issue", "out of scope: non-notable personal photo"? If the subject was misleadingly photoshoped or something than that BLP policy may apply, but an image is just an image, it's how you use it that matters. (I'm not really arguing anything here, I just think that BLP is cited way too often for things already covered by other long-standing policies, and on a site that doesn't even have biographies it's unnecessary. I also don't really care why this was uploaded, it's out of scope either way.) Rocket000 (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no access to the deleted article at en-wp. I just saw that it was speedied. The article was apparently created by a one-purpose-socket, i.e. it has no surviving contributions now. I've seen harassments at en-wp in earlier cases, though, and in general I think that it is best to bury them silently. Open discussions in these cases are a feast for the uploader and a continued embarassment to the victim. This does not need to be a photoshopped attack image to fulfill its purpose, a private photograph of someone taken in a private setting (which is obviously the case here) is sufficient, see also COM:PEOPLE. And, yes, I think that this point is clearly addressed by the BLP resolution and for very good reasons. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote? I said privacy issues are a good reason. We don't need a loosely-related policy to tell us that. Yeah, I see COM:PEOPLE, I linked to it for you since I figured you were unaware of it. Rocket000 (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of COM:PEOPLE, you'll find a couple of DR closures by me refering to it. My response adressed your point that BLP is cited way too often. I think that we all agree that this image is out of scope. However, the other points make that picture a candidate for a speedy deletion and, IMHO, we should not undelete it even for a further discussion as suggested by you: However, I have no problem with undeleting it. In other cases, it might be fine to handle out of scope cases in open discussions, in this case I would like to see this avoided for the reasons I've given. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC

Sigh... I'm aware you're aware of it now. I was trying tell you you missed my original link to it when you said "see also COM:PEOPLE". I used a different shortcut. Anyway, as a privacy violation then I don't have no problem with undeleting it. Rocket000 (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Should maybe have been a normal deletion request. Undeleting a assumed attack image doesn't sound like a good plan to me. Multichill (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chamakh[edit]

Its my own picture I would like it not to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by LockonKun (talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is Arsenal.com? Wknight94 ^talk 22:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, missing permission. See Commons:OTRS#If you need to confirm permission on how to send permissions. Multichill (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Empty subcategories of Category:Railway lines in the Czech Republic by number[edit]

The whole categorization system of Czech railways (including categories which are still empty and their description) was established as a systematical, purposeful and effective instrument to organize media files of Czech railways. The deletion of this category would bring no benefit and can uselessly disrupt the unity and usability of the categorization system of this topic. My opinion is that only mistaken, deserted or not promising empty categories should be deleted. Deletion of efficient and correctly prepared empty categories is counterproductive.

See previous and current discussions:

--ŠJů (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As empty categories are usually speedy-deleted, if there is a good rationale to retain specific empty categories, at least temporarily, I would recommend to put a message tag into these categories, in order that any admin with intent to delete will see it and stop. I once recommended the same when a lot of Welsh-related categories were created before the corresponding images had been downloaded, and with this all parties were content. --Túrelio (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Now at content to the categories or a not otherwise the categories might end up deleted again. Multichill (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kogaru1.jpg[edit]

Nonsense continues[edit]

Now also File:Akina02.jpg and File:Akibachan5a.jpg got deleted by Lar. This time without any DR or something. File:Akibachan5a.jpg also was in use 3 projects in the main space. File:Akina02.jpg was in use on several user pages in es-wiki. Hereby I nominate both files for undeletion. Trycatch (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially considering the mess that was the last DR, deleting more in-use files without a DR is extremely problematic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored File:Kogaru1.jpg, File:Akina02.jpg & File:Akibachan5a.jpg. These files are not nice, probably offensive to some people, but these files are in use for quite some time and therefor in scope. No reason to doubt own work status. Multichill (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Morh's circle delete diagrams[edit]

Hi, the following diagrams were deleted due to the fact they did not have a license: 1 File:Diag1.JPG 2 File:Mohr diag3.JPG 3 File:Mohr diag4.JPG 4 File:Mohr diag5.JPG 5 File:Mohr diag7.JPG 6 File:Mohr diag8.JPG

8 File:Mohr diag10.JPG 9 File:Mohr diag14.JPG 10 File:Mohr diag15.JPG 11 File:Mohr diag16.JPG 12 File:Mohr diag17.JPG 13 File:Mohr diag19.JPG

I apologise for this. I am a new user and did not know the license was compulsory. All these diagrams were created by myself and hence I will assign a multi-license to them. Please undo the deletion for me, as the diagrams are essential in explaining mohr's circle. Thanks,

Taltastic (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to undeletion. Following undeletion you have to add the licenses. Can you please give the images (better) descriptions the same time? Remember that this is an separate project, Wikimedia Commons, while the images are described in the wikiversity page, where you embeded them into the text body, most of the file description pages here on Commons have no description at all. Please add descriptions to the files. Will you? --Martin H. (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its no problem, I shall add a real description to all my images. Thanks for the undeletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taltastic (talk • contribs) (UTC)

Restored. Please add license templates now, Multichill (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Algorithm.jpg [edit]

Español[edit]

MOTIVO --217.12.16.184 17:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ARGUMENTOS (creo que el archivo de esta imagen es imprescindible para entender

el desarrollo de objetos ciberneticos en redes, esto es un motivo de "borrado" que no corresponde con la politica de user(s) de commons a un entender general, he podido visualizar otros en wikimedia de otro indole que sin embargo no corresponden al desarrollo creativo e inteectua )--217.12.16.184 17:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

¿podrían dar una respuesta, para restaurarlo? por favor! Gracias.

English[edit]

REASON --~~ ARGUMENTS *(I think this image file is essential to understand the development of cyber objects in networks, this is a matter of "deleted" that does not match the policy of user (s) of commons to a general understanding, I could see others in wikimedia other indole and which do not correspond to the creative development and inteectua )--~~

Could you give an answer, to restore it? please! Thank you.

It looks like gibberish to me. I'm a computer scientist and I don't see what that image has to do with bubble sorting. Powers (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done per above. Multichill (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

An Artist Photo[edit]

Dear Sirs, Please help me upload an artist's photo for I don't understand how to do it, lost in instructions and failed to use Flickr for this cause as well. I have already uploaded the article itself but do not see it in Wikipedia either. I would like to make 3 new pages: about myself, my wife and our band. We have the articles and photos ready, but got stuck with the Wikipedia procedures. The photos we have have been made for us by our friends Ksenia and Serhat Kavas. These photos are on Flickr and we have the right to use them because this was a paid photo shoot for our personal use. Thank you for your assistance. Kind regards, Anatoly Grinberg

You will have more luck posting to the Wikipedia Help Desk: en:Wikipedia:Help desk. Powers (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to undelete. Multichill (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bottles ofCoca-Cola.jpg and File:Coke 003.jpg[edit]

The Coke designs are public domain due to age, and these files were already kept at DR. Speedy deletion not appropriate when a DR has already looked at the issue. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 01:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Belgrano (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rys6b.JPG[edit]

Deleted with misleading edit summary and in violation of Commons:Deletion policy. The file has gone through Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rys6b.JPG where the consensus was to keep. The photograph was taken a decade before the postwar Polish copyright deadline of July 10, 1952 came into effect (see provisions, Polish). The image is available freely. -- FoliesTrévise (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Please provide more evidence of where the photo came from and when it was first published. That was given deletion reason and I see no reason to overturn it without at least a scintilla of new evidence. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 03:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore I repeat, the unanimous consensus was to keep. Please respect the will of the community. Restore the file so we can reassess the evidence in accordance with the Polish copyright law. Let's follow the Commons:Deletion policy here. -- FoliesTrévise (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A deletion request is not a vote. Please prove that the first publication was within the timeframe and without a copyright notice. Multichill (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done as a proof that this photograph has been published before May 23, 1994 in Poland is still missing. Please follow the instructions of {{PD-Poland}}. As already pointed out by Multichill, deletion requests aren't votes and the closing admin has to comply to copyright law and to our policies (see COM:L) even if this does not follow the majority. Please feel free to open a new undeletion request as soon as the missing proof can be presented. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luca_Amberg.JPG[edit]

File:Luca_Amberg.JPG was deleted as a private image out of scope, probably because it was not used and subject was not properly identified. However, this was an image of a Brazilian director with an article on wikipedia pt:Lucas Amberg, so it is within scope.

If decided to undelete the file, I suggest categorizing it in Category:1967 births, Category:Lages, Category:Film directors from Brazil and Category: People from Santa Catarina. Cheers --Santosga (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as the depicted subject appears to be notable and be useful for one of the projects. Thanks for pointing this out and for providing the categories. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I put it in use. --Santosga (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Untitled_by_Daniel_Buren.png[edit]

4 green rectangles[4] and completely ineligible for copyright per Template_talk:PD-textlogo. It doesn't matter that someone magically thinks it's "art" if the copyright law does not lend this protection. No one except the nominator argued for deletion at the deletion request. -Nard the Bard 16:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This was deleted before, and undeleted, and now deleted again. Of course a work by a well-known artist, acquired by a famous museum, is not {{PD-ineligible}} for copyright protection. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were the only one ever to argue this. It doesn't matter who the artist is or where it's displayed. The copyright law does not give this work protection. -Nard the Bard 16:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rama had deleted this before as a copyvio. Your link clealy says: "© 2010 Daniel Buren / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / ADAGP, Paris". This was made when one could still register works for copyright in the US, and Buren probably has done that, as a part of the concept of this work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't care what they claim. The law does not support it and even if it did matter, the work does not bear a copyright notice. -Nard the Bard 16:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can still register copyright in the U.S. -- in fact you don't get nearly as much protection without it. Every registration since 1978 is online and searchable. This sounds like it predates that cutoff though, so it is hard to find out for sure. (The one visible registration for a Daniel Buren is a literary work from 1986, and a work for hire of Hunter College... may not be the same person.) But... I would agree with Nard the Bard; I seriously doubt the copyright office would allow registration on it, in a museum or not. Registration is based on creativity, either the shapes or the arrangement of them, and I don't see that here. I guess it's folded; not sure if that is part of the "art" or not, and I would not take the linked photo directly (that *might* be copyrightable), but someone's own photo... likely seems OK. (the copyright notice on the linked page would seem to be for the photo; the underlying work is apparently from 1969-1974 and I don't think that can support a 2010 copyright.) For that one anyways; not the other two photos visible in the linked slideshow -- I think those would qualify. Famous artists can make non-copyrightable works too. Now, other countries may draw the differently, and this is a French artist... where was the work first published? But as for copyright on the photo, taken/published in the U.S.... would likely be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A major piece of art is likely to found copyrightable in a court of law no matter what legal-weaseling we do. You want to make your own picture with four green rectangles, that's one thing, but nothing in reality is simply geometric shapes, and this surely isn't. I think a judge is going to find in the texture of the paper, in the folds, in whatever thing they need to, enough copyrightability to protect an exact photographic copy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Define "major". I've never heard of Daniel Buren except through copyright work on Commons. -Nard the Bard 23:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well your own "ignorance" isn't a valid argument ! He IS a famous/major artist (no matter what one personnally thinks about him or his work). You can start with the English Wikipedia article on him (although the French one is far better and more complete). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see nothing that is copyrightable there. If the artist has copyrights of "four green rectangles" then making your own picture with four green rectangles would also be a copyvio.

I agree that "Famous artists can make non-copyrightable works too.". We also say that signatures is not copyrightable but still people are willing to pay for signatures. --MGA73 (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has a copyright on "four green rectangles", any more than I have a copyright on Tilly the Eastern Box Turtle. You could go get a virtually identical picture of Tilly, and I would have no leg to stand on. But you copy my picture of Tilly, or Buren's picture of four green rectangles, then there's a problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion, per Carl Lindberg. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the painting is copyrighted, but not patented. We may paint green rectangles ourselves and upload pictures of those. Erik Warmelink (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support simple enough. If we can do something like this isn't original enough. Mizunoryu 大熊猫❤小熊猫 (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Extremely simple. If a user would have called this "own work" and uploaded it with {{PD-ineligible}}, we wouldn't have deleted it. Just because there's someone out there who believes that's art doesn't mean we need to delete it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no matter what the museum website says, you cannot copyright a green rectangle. — Tetromino (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Buren is a famous artist and his works are copyrighted. He has already won trials. And I had a mail exchange once with him asking the authorization of using a personal picture of his work, which he refused. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"He has already won trials" — citation needed. I have searched in Google News archive search, and as far as I can tell, there are no articles mentioning Buren winning (or even being involved in) any copyright-related trials or lawsuits. — Tetromino (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're right for one thing : the only trial I can find on the Internet has been lost by Buren, but the decision of the court didn't say that he wasn't the author of his works. It was aiming a particular case : Buren was suing about postcards that were sold showing a public place where he made his stripes (place des Terreaux, in Lyon) and the court said that the main subject was the location and that we couldn't make a picture of it without showing his stripes.

Anyway there's some kind of hypocrisy in that undeletion request : we deny the fact that there could be a copyright problem but we want to keep such a file in order to illustrate articles about the artist !!!

For your information, in my mail exchange with Buren, he told me that his rights were managed by a society called ADAGP. So contact them if you want and you'll have more legal informations ! But if you do want to have a trial against Commons, then undelete this file, but it's ridiculous to take such a risk ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain. This is a difficult case. If the contributor were an amateur, rather than a notable artist, we almost certainly wouldn't consider the work copyrightable, which shows the unusual priority we give to the author of a work. (We would probably delete it as out of scope, in that case.) Yet to give this kind of priority is human nature, to such an extent that I think a judge might do the same. Perhaps a suitable compromise would be to create a digital recreation of the image having solid green rectangles in the same positions and proportions, which would leave no room at all for copyright claims. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion. Changed my mind here - this is a very unusual case, but it's clear this work does not meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection, notwithstanding its clear artistic value. Some artifacts are visible near the center, but the rectangles are nearly perfectly formed and free of defects - not at all like a painting with stylistic brush strokes. I'd feel better if Buren publicly said he recognized this lack of protection, so that we can avoid needless conflict, but that may not happen. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support We cannot let ourselves be in the business of trying to divine whether or not a judge might grant extra copyright protection to the work of a famous artist over that of an amateur. (A judge absolutely should not do so, but nonetheless I see speculation above that he or she might.) This "design" (and I use the term loosely) clearly does not meet the threshold of originality required to attain copyright protection in the United States. Powers (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous ! Should we upload all artworks by Daniel Buren, then ? That would also mean that Kazimir Malevich's works weren't copyrighted before 2006 ? this famous Malevitch is now a PD-art, not a PD-ineligible ! That's the same for Buren ! He's a recognized artist, so his artwork has to be respected as a non-free work ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That follows neither logically nor legally. "Recognized artists" do not hold any special legal status that allows them to copyright simple designs just because they're "recognized". Neither you nor I would be able to successfully apply for copyright protection on a set of four green rectangles, and neither can Daniel Buren. Powers (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's at least one US court case that ruled that a mezzotint copy of a painting, one that otherwise might be PD-Art, was copyrightable due to the handwork in the mezzotint. This is pre-Feist, but I do think it's evidence that stuff like painting can have a copyright on the more intangible aspects, instead of just the simple "five green rectangles". Again, a copy of the five green rectangles I wouldn't object to, but a photo of the painting is different...and I think a judge might point to us having this argument to support the case that this was more than just simply five green rectangles, because otherwise we would have thrown away this photo and drawn five green rectangles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mezzotinting has its own copyright related to the creativeness using in making the mezzotint itself, which is a physical item which apparently had to be manually produced, unrelated to the linear shapes being copied from an original. It would be similar for engravings, in my opinion -- that has separate creative decisions to be made, even if the original is PD. Photographs do not, for the most part (thus PD-Art). There would have to be something in the form or arrangement of the original painting to have it protected by copyright... if there are subtle shadings or something other than a solid color, then maybe that could be an issue. However, copyright couldn't be based on variations caused by the texture of the surface it was painted on. If you are arguing the artist folded the paper in a particular way, and that is part of the "art".... thin, but a little more argument. I think most photographs showing the work being exhibited would be copyrightable, but I don't think that is the issue here -- I thought the photo was taken by a contributor and licensed. The issue is whether the original artwork could be copyrighted. Despite the urge to be careful about known artist's works, I doubt the Copyright Office would treat his submissions any differently. While most of his works are I'm sure copyrightable, they would likely have no issue denying registration if they consider the delineation or arrangement too simple. Copyrightability is about the specific expression (delineation, form, or arrangement) seen in each individual work, not who the author is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it is exhibited as art in an art museum, a court must recognize that it is a work of art, and clearly copyrighted according to French law. The Book of Rules of the US Copyright Office is not relevant for this French artist anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well... we are talking about a photograph taken in the United States. If it is a photo taken of a PD object, in that jurisdiction, then the copyright of the photograph would be completely owned by the photographer and can be licensed, in the U.S. And the U.S. would technically be the country of origin for the photograph. Sort of a FOP situation here, I think. Otherwise yes, in France it is likely different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. --O (谈 • висчвын) 19:02, 15 August 2010 (GMT)

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

Permanent removal of copyright violations from Wikimedia servers[edit]

Is possible to permanently and irreversibly purge all copyright violations from Wikimedia servers so undeletion will be no longer possible even by sysadmins? Otherwise Wikimedia still hosts hidden copies of these copyright violations.

So what? Maybe in ten years some are not copyvios anymore...--DieBuche (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to purge specified files from the server. It is not generally considered a concern that Wikimedia has a copy of those files accessible to a limited number of people in the course of their duties; it's not like these files are being displayed for our premium users to use for their own purposes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as far as copyright law is concerned, our own internal access to such images would, in almost all imaginable cases, fall under fair use protection. - Jmabel ! talk 05:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, this is however not an undeletion request. --Martin H. (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stomp Box images[edit]

Please reinstate my images I uploaded as they are images I created for a web site.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wood_Stomp_Box.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Acrylic_Stomp_Box.jpg

Thank you David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetjack11 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As they stood they were copyright violations given the website was mentioned. They would need freely licensing via COM:OTRS to be hosted but they also appear to promote a website which would not be acceptable. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, will be handled by OTRS. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Biradik Vit C ascorbic acid.png[edit]

The captions of this picture are in english thus thers is no alternative to this image in Category:Ascorbic acid. So please restore. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Biradik Vit C ascorbic acid.png. The captions are in German, not in English. File:Ascorbic acid all.svg is e.g. one (better) alternative version. --Leyo 10:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an alternative, it is a completely different image. And the captions were in English. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

German, "Ascorbinsäure", Semidehydro-//ascorbinsäure" "Dehydroascorbinsäure//oxidierte Form der Ascorbinsäure". The image was very similar to File:Biradik Vit C ascorbic acid subt.png with two differences: The O of OH was mallformed, it looks like a space character between O and H and the AscH₂, AscH, Asc[..] at the bottom was missing. --Martin H. (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose That's why I drew a better picture one (File:Ascorbic acid all.svg)one year ago which shows in a correct in language independet form this issue.

And for the record: Unfortnately for Cwbm, normal chemists and biochemists (see deletion debate) do not share his opinion - as usual (btw: compare also HIS last deletion debate). --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I updated File:Biradik Vit C ascorbic acid subt.png with a higher quality image in order to (hopefully) satisfies everyone here. --Leyo 17:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, as discussed in the DR, there's a valid alternative. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panzermuseum Munster 2010 0939.JPG[edit]

Speedy deleted despite being simply considered "out of scope" (violation of Commons' deletion policy). -- Docu at 08:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corrupt or empty file, looks like the photographer forgot to open the lens-cap. --Martin H. (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Corrupted file. Any discussion about this case would be a waste of time. --High Contrast (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted per Martin H. Proper deletion summary should have been "Corrupted file", not "out of scope". Docu at 10:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nestor1502.JPG[edit]

Speedy deleted despite being simply considered "out of scope" (violation of Commons' deletion policy). -- Docu at 15:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the uploaders SUL you see 20 edits on es.wp, checking the contributions on es.wp es:Especial:Contribuciones&target=N3stor+1502+WY you see not much, only one vandal edit remains. Orphaned personal photo, out of scope. It can have a discussion but it not realy needs one, the image here can go the same way as the edits on es.wp. --Martin H. (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. This would be a waste of community time to have it go through a DR. Amada44 ^{talk to me} 19:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Benton Burlesque, 1922.jpg[edit]

File:Benton Burlesque, 1922.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) Could someone undelete this and let me know. I'd like to see what the problem with the licensing was. Evrik (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing?? You tagged the now deleted File:Benton Burlesque, 1922.jpg with {{Badname}} yourself 5 minutes after upload in favor of File:Benton American Discovery Viewed by Native Americans.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Evrik is referring to the note Nikbot left on his talk page. The "problem" was just that the image had no license template, since Evrik had removed the {{PD-US}} tag when adding {{Bad name}}. (It would seem better to me if the bot ignored any files already marked for speedy deletion; I think I'll go suggest that to Filnik.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. I did not see that. And I not understand it because the deletion summary of File:Benton Burlesque, 1922.jpg explicitely says that it was a duplicate. He tagged it himself. He should know that page blanking is unwanted and that it leads to the 'no license' warning, at least the deletion summary should explain him why the file was deleted. --Martin H. (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lipsius 013.JPG[edit]

This was a photo of an old copy of a book by Lipsius. Uploader claimed own work (plausibly in my opinion), but Bapti deleted. I do not quite remember what File:Raphael 001.jpg, File:Montravel-3.JPG, and File:Montravel-2.JPG showed, but Bapti (talk · contribs) has very peculiar standards for deleting stuff. He is forever bothering uploaders with tags and refuses to open regular DRs. In my opinion, he is abusing his admin powers, and should be desysopped. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you set up a proper proposal for that on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, rather than letting vague accusations and requests floating around like this? Rama (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might do that after these files are deleted, and anybody can see what Bapti is doing to chase away contributors. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion. Strange deletion, strangle tagging. I completely don't get nsd tags by Bapti like this or this. Trycatch (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can sorta see the first one -- it appears to be saying it is an image by Felix Regamey (died 1907) from 1880, but from what book? Sourcing isn't great, and Felix Regamey should be mentioned in the author field but isn't. The second one is really weird though; that is obviously a scan from a 1541 book and is fine. I can't see the nominated images though.; no idea one way or another there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to see the deleted image in Google Cache: [5] -- it's the title page of 1598 book. While I agree with you that sourcing is not great (sadly, it's a very general problem of Commons), I strongly oppose to nsd tagging of images like this -- it likely will be deleted without any community review, in spite of it's very easy to provide better description to the file. Trycatch (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the author field and the license on those two. I agree it would be nice to have the bibliographic reference for the first one, but I don't think a speedy deletion tag was the right way to deal with it. A DR would have been much more appropriate. –Tryphon ^☂ 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. It is far from an obvious problem (in fact likely just fine) so speedy shouldn't be the way to handle it, quite true. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, looking at the image from Google Cache... yes, "own work" may be legitimate, but if that was licensed, then it should obviously have been kept. Source is not required for something obviously PD-old (and the title page is pretty much a source unto itself).

Support undeletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Image descriptions can easily be corrected. I see no reason for deletion here (And frankly I agree with Pieter that this is inappropriate usage of the tools, an admin is supposed to judge each and every image deletion on its separate merits, regardless of its tags). TheDJ (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will open a bureaucratic Deletion Request. Thanks for the waste of time.

I have warned the uploader User:Alainauzas on both Wikimedia Commons and fr.wikipedia for a serie of pictures uploaded by him. Together, we fixed a large part of this picture but theses ones. Sorry, but I can't dream up a source if Alain doesn't explain where come from the pictures he uploaded.--Bapti ✉ 15:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Pictures undeleted, DR opened.--Bapti ✉ 15:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abandoned Routhwood Elementary School, Newellton, LA IMG_0228[edit]

Please reinstate.

Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abandoned Routhwood Elementary School, Newellton, LA IMG 0228.JPG still exists and was not deleted. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subcategories of Category:Rivers of the Czech Republic by region[edit]

User:Foroa had proposed on 07:07, 15 May 2010 all 14 subcategories of Category:Rivers of the Czech Republic by region to rename and between 7:11 and 7:30 (UTC) he moved their content and deleted them. However,

he didn't keep those categories as category redirects, although they are linked from Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia categorie and Commons rules recommend generally to keep moved categories as category redirects
he didn't notice links to the new (replacing) category into the edit summary
he didn't link a Commons rule or discussion which warrants such moving ("Incorrectly named" isn't a sufficient reason for this case)
he didn't categorize the new categories, so that they are orphan categories and the Category:Rivers of the Czech Republic by region is empty
he didn't move interwikis, descriptions and categories from the deleted categories to the new categories
he didn't take out "seecat" templates from the kept (new) categories

What effect can have such negligent effort, without any discussion, without any consensus, in despite of all rules about deleting or moving of categories? I request to restore the deleted 14 categories at least as category redirects and either to finish the moving properly or to restore the status quo ante. And Foroa should be strongly admonished that without discussion can be made only unquestionable movings and that old categories mustn't be deleted, especially if the moving isn't properly finished and all links from outside aren't corrected. --ŠJů (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just executed the move as requested by Mircea; [6]. Those wrongly named categories have been named by people from the Czech Republic (bot renamings instructed by Mircea too) with naming that are against the Commons naming rules. I avoided wasting my time in adding redirects in yet another rename of those categories. As I told Sju already, we are responsible for the move, that's all.

I did a mistake in that I did not remove the old redirects from one of the previous renaming rounds and I apologize for that. It was probably caused by the major backlog we had on the delinker. This should be arranged by now. --Foroa (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we requested already several times to have the delinker bot insert automatically redirects, with no answer till now. --Foroa (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly mentioned some "Commons naming rules" but you have never linked them when you are asked. Do you mean Commons:Naming categories? Do you mean the text Commons:By location category scheme which is labelled "This page is a proposed Commons guideline, policy, or process. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy"."? Discussion wasn't closed with clear consensus, that's why massed changes are counterproductive now. Btw. even this proposal says that location should be expressed by the patern [object] in [location name] You did a negation.

You ignore the recommendation Commons:Rename a category#Should the old category be deleted? in the long term. You ignore that Commons have relations to many other projects and that every moving without retained redirect breaks links from sister-projects and from outside. Please stop all changes which evoke more damages than benefits. We should correct clear naming errors, not force some unconsensual personal preference. --ŠJů (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the categories so that you can see for your self that they all haved moved against the naming conventions. --Foroa (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't waste my time for making redirects that cover for names that blatantly violate commons naming rules and that only confuse HotCat users. (Commons:Category redirects suck) --Foroa (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, you are who violates commons naming rules and other Commons rules. The proposed rule is location should be expressed by the patern [object] in [location name]. The current rule is: moved categories shouldn't be deleted if they aren't mistaken. --ŠJů (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what nonsense you made now? It's necessary either to finish the moving properly or to restore the status quo ante. What halfway treatment you created now? I see 28 categories instead of 14 categories and 14 category redirects. --ŠJů (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ŠJů, the rule states "When [object] "of" [place name] means location in which the object may currently be found, then "in" shall be used." A river is not currently found in a region. It is in that region permanently; you cannot pick up a river and move it somewhere else. So "of" is the appropriate preposition to use for categories of geographical objects. The correct resolution to this conflict would be to use a bot to categorize the "of" categories and change interwikis from "in" to "of", and then delete the "in" categories. All river categories here use "of"; there is no reason for the Czech Republic to get a special exception. — Tetromino (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tetromino, "currently" don't mean "temporarily". River surely can be "currently found" at its place and in its region just like a pond or a building. The table with 4 types shows clearly that location should be expressed by "in". Therefore, the rule says that "in" should be used in case of rivers. I think, region of the river is neither local origin nor a cultural style. The proposed rule don't differentiate between temporarily and pemanently findable object but between location and origin. Btw, the rule says: Existing prepositions that are uniformly used in current sets of category names shall be retained unless they are ambiguous or unless the impact of the change would be minor. Isn't desirable that one user has moved categories according the proposed rule (of → in) and other user will move them backwards (in → of) according his own preference. The original moving was performed in times where the location prepositin was beeing unified as "in". Why now the unification to break and to make an useless two-appearance when the discussion given more support to uniformity?

In the discussion as well in the rule proposal was distinguished four types: 1) current location, 2) origin, 3) products of a culture associated with a Geographic entity and 4) style which originated in a geographic location. Rivers fall clearly into the type number 1). As summarized pfctdayelise on 03:08, 29 June 2006 without any controversy: For physical entities "in" is better. Consequently were many categories moved from "of" to "in". This problem was reopened in November 2008 (Commons talk:By location category scheme#Location of/ in) by users which was confused by disunity of use and by the word "currently" in the rule proposal. LimoWreck (19:05, 10 December 2008) was noticed that there is "of" more preffered for mountains, lakes and rivers and "in" for houses and roads, and that massive bot-done changes (of → in ?) was made by "few individuals" without community discussion. Jarekt (02:47, 11 December 2008) noted that "Category renaming often breaks a lot of interwiki links and in my opinion should be avoided in not necessary". User:Mircea (!) (12:37, 11 December 2008) wrote that he was changed categories from "in" to "of" but when he was adviced that "in" is correct, he accepted that "in" is better possibility and started with changes from "of" to "in" and problems are here again. He closed: "I don't prefer "in" or "of", I prefer uniformity!" ClemRutter (09:51, 12 December 2008) was who brought the proposal into discussion that "When the feature is natural,'of' shall be used, and when the feature is manufactured, 'in' shall be used ." But this proposal wasn't approved by clear consensus, wasn't included into the rule proposal page and is discordant to uniformity request. Jarekt (13:36, 12 December 2008) agreed with a reason: "Uniformity with least of changes" "Least of changes" was the reason why make an abatement from unified "in". Foroa (11:52, 15 December 2008) wanted to "converge to a simple and uniform rule" and to simplify and unify all locations to "in" or all to "of", Mircea (14:55, 16 December 2008) given his support to "simplify everything and make "in" the standard" (and repeatedly 14:59, 16 December 2008 for all bodies of water) and noted (14:16, 7 January 2009) that some categories are mixed (natural+manufactured).

As I can see, the idea to make distinction between "natural and artificial" was only a solitary and controversial thought asserted only by ClemRutter, while most of others preffered to unify all locations to one preposition: most of them (pfctdayelise and Mircea) preffered "in". Jarekt preffered "Uniformity with least of changes (interwiki links mustn't be broken)". Then, outcome of the discussion is:

1) no useless changes which broke iterwikis

2) if mass changes then approved by discussion and clear consensus

3) if mass changes then from "of" to "in" and with correction of interwikis from wikipedias

And I'm also supporting those three principles. Foroa in case mentioned above (rivers by region) disrupted all three of them. If this consensus isn't sufficient because one user (ClemRutter) rejected unification, we should avoid mass changes, not to infringe prevailing opinions in order to satisfy an isolated proposal. --ŠJů (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was copied to Commons talk:By location category scheme. Please do continue there. --ŠJů (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects solved, neglect interwikis, categories and sort keys solved. --ŠJů (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. –Tryphon ^☂ 13:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion of file[edit]

Can you please undelete my recent unloaded file.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganzyg (talk • contribs)

Since you don't say who you are, what the file is, or why it should be undeleted this is a pretty useless request. And, yes, I could probably sleuth it out, but please put out a little effort on your own behalf. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We will need permission from http://www.prayersfire.com/ sent to COM:OTRS--DieBuche (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, no permission. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Text article created by artist[edit]

Dear Sir, Madam Please be more selective with your personnel, particularly those who decide what is educational or not. Be assured, there is no other contemporary artist right now who's work is more educational than mine. Regards Dana Alexa Klein

See here. I had an email that said the same thing. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and no other contemporary artist has such great humility and modesty. Please, someone, for the love of god, restore those images at once! I'm feeling less educated by the minute! –Tryphon ^☂ 15:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, OTRS permission needed. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Restore request for: File:Keith Emerson standing desert mari kawaguchi.jpg[edit]

I've received the following message regarding the deletion of:

File:Keith Emerson standing desert mari kawaguchi.jpg

Here is the reply to the questions you raised in your message:

a) Who is the copyright holder ? (not per se the author as rights could have been transferred if one hires a photographer)
---I, Mari Kawaguchi, is the copyright holder. I just emailed "permissions-commonswikimedia.org" the permission information

b) Are you ("KEOFFICE") the copyright holder ? (if not, do you have permission ?
--- I, Mari Kawaguchi, is "KEOFFICE", so yes, I am the copyright holder. ( I am official and appointed web editor, facebook editor, photographer of Keith Emerson.)

c) And, where does the file come from ? Has it been published before in this (or higher) resolution ?
--- The file come from my computer where the official photos are stored. It has been published on various magazines (with photo credit to my name), www.keithemerson.com and Keith Emerson's official Facebook Page

I did not see the message containing these question until now, and therefore the file was already deleted. Please restore the file.

Hello KEOFFICE, The above linked file has been spotted on the Facebook of Keith Emerson. On the file-page you state that Mari Kawaguchi is the author and copyright holder. Your username suggests something like "Keith Emerson Office" but the user behind "KEOFFICE" also provied "Own work" as source, which would mean that you are "Mari Kawaguchi". This raises some concerns as to whether the file is actually released under that free license legally. So, in short:

a) Who is the copyright holder ? (not per se the author as rights could have been transferred if one hires a photographer) b) Are you ("KEOFFICE") the copyright holder ? (if not, do you have permission ? If so, please let the copyright holder proof/verify the permission by contacting OTRS (ideally by e-mailing a filled in template). c) And, where does the file come from ? Has it been published before in this (or higher) resolution ?

Please note that if none of the above becomes clear, the file may be deleted after seven days. If that happends before you replied with the information (or the information wasn't processed yes). You may request to restore the file from deletion so that the information can be corrected and the image be used. Thanks, –Krinkletalk 15:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KEOFFICE (talk • contribs) 07:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, should be handled via email with OTRS. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-08

Brazilian currency image[edit]

Image:Lupe Valdez.jpg[edit]

Flavor By Suck[edit]

File:Grasslogo vector big.png[edit]

File:Blonde_Woman_at_the_beach.jpg[edit]

Please do not delete Fuhgetabowdit1 Stu The wine Guru[edit]

File:C.G.Jung_and_Mathias_Göring_1934.jpg[edit]

Request for undeletion File:EAC IMG 6549.JPG[edit]

File:Mohammed by meco.png[edit]

File:Weckstrom.JPG[edit]

FOTOĞRAF VE İÇERİKLER BASİT, FAKAT ANLATIM TÜRÜ VE TEKNİK DETAY İÇERMEKTE[edit]

File:HACCP en una linea de producción de Helados.pdf[edit]

File:Glans Stimulation.png[edit]

Meee.jpg[edit]

File:Great barrier oil spill march 2010 (cropped).jpg[edit]

File:Timok.png[edit]

citril finch,antillean siskin,linurgus olivaceous,citril finch(all photographs in jpg)[edit]

File:Ankaradakovich.jpg[edit]

Please undelete Iffaf-lIng[edit]

File:Emmafanning.jpg[edit]

Chamakh[edit]

Empty subcategories of Category:Railway lines in the Czech Republic by number[edit]

File:Kogaru1.jpg[edit]

Nonsense continues[edit]

Morh's circle delete diagrams[edit]

Image:Algorithm.jpg [edit]

Español[edit]

English[edit]

An Artist Photo[edit]

File:Bottles ofCoca-Cola.jpg and File:Coke 003.jpg[edit]

File:Rys6b.JPG[edit]

File:Luca_Amberg.JPG[edit]

File:Untitled_by_Daniel_Buren.png[edit]

Permanent removal of copyright violations from Wikimedia servers[edit]

Stomp Box images[edit]

File:Biradik Vit C ascorbic acid.png[edit]

File:Panzermuseum Munster 2010 0939.JPG[edit]

File:Nestor1502.JPG[edit]

File:Benton Burlesque, 1922.jpg[edit]

File:Lipsius 013.JPG[edit]

Abandoned Routhwood Elementary School, Newellton, LA IMG_0228[edit]

Subcategories of Category:Rivers of the Czech Republic by region[edit]

Undeletion of file[edit]

Text article created by artist[edit]

Restore request for: File:Keith Emerson standing desert mari kawaguchi.jpg[edit]

Navigation menu

Search