Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-09

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

File:Lee-fisher.jpg[edit]

The image was deleted after ten days, which is normally a reasonable period of time. However, in order to get permission, a request has to go to Lee Fisher, currently Lt. Governor of Ohio and running a campaign for Senator. It seems reasonable to allow a few more days to get permission, given the circumstances.

OTRS people will undelete the file if they get appropriate permission--DieBuche (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, will be handled by OTRS. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

appeal against deletion request[edit]

This photograph was taken by me at the bay by the Talisker distillery on 30th July 2009 at 9.42am as indicated by its EXIF information (Canon CR2 format original from Canon 50D & 70-210 F4). As such the copyright belongs to me and no one else and is only one of a number of shots taken that morning. Yours David JP Wakefield — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.102.227 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email address removed by -mattbuck (Talk)

Hi David. You're not currently logged in, and as IPs can't upload images I have no idea what image you're talking about. Could you please provide the name of the image in question? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, no clear information what this request is about, a search for 'Talisker' does not bring deletion requests or information on user talkpages, also the wiki articles show no image removal. --Martin H. (talk) 12:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Circuits of a smart card (Moyens inhibiteurs) - droits abandonnés au Domaine public[edit]

File:Telecarte Fig3Fig4 Moyens inhibiteurs.png

File:Fig3Fig4_Moyens_inhibiteurs.png

L'administrateur qui a supprimé ce fichier l'a fait, m'a-t'il écrit, parce que « l'image n'était MANIFESTEMENT pas libre » . quel sens a ce critère ? Je dis je confirme et je répète que less PTT qui en ont mis en circulaion plus de cent mille de ces "télécartes" illustrées, l'ont systématiquement fait après abandon des droits éventuels détenus :

par France Télécom
et par Publicis (les deux actionnaires 50/50 de RégieT qui facture (pour un prix symbolique) la prestation.

Je dis je confirme et je répète que je suis l'auteur des deux dessins Fig4 et Ffig3 Je dis je confirme et je répète que j'abandonne au domaine public tous droits pour ces images, ce pour tous pays et de façon irrévocable. Je dis je confirme et je répète que j'ai réalisé moi-même la mise en page :

Fig4

Ffig3

télécarte 50

contacts

flèche verte

Je dis je confirme et je répète que j'abandonne au domaine public tous droits pour cette composition, ce pour tous pays et de façon irrévocable. Cette controverse a pris une actualité nouvelle depuis le 25 juin : la page Moyens inhibiteurs qui avait été supprimée pour d'autres [mauvaises] raisons, a inopinément été réhabilitée. Or le texte de cette page fait maintes fois référence aux circuits des Figures 3&4, et est désormais muet.

C'est pourquoi une restauration de l'mage "Fig3Fig4" est hautement souhaitable.

En cas d'échec, je proposerai moi-même la suppression de la page Moyens inhibiteurs.--Roland Moreno (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the above into English: Circuits of a smart card (Moyens inhibiteurs) - rights abandoned and granted into the public domain. The administrator who deleted this file told me it was because "the image was not obviously free." How exactly is this criterion defined? I repeatedly confirmed that the PTT, who placed more than 100,000 of these illustrated smart card images in circulation, did so only after systematically confirming that all rights were abandoned:

by France Télécom
and by Publicis (the two 50/50 shareholders of RégieT who sell the images for a token amount for delivery).

I state, confirm, and repeat that I am the author of the drawings Fig4 and Ffig3. I state, confirm, and repeat that I have abandoned all rights to these images and placed them in the public domain, in all nations and irrevocably. I state, confirm, and repeat that I personally designed the layout of: Fig4, Ffig3, télécarte 50 (smart card 50), contacts, and flèche verte (green arrow). I state, confirm, and repeat that I have abandoned all rights to this composition and placed it in the public domain, in all nations and irrevocably.

This controversy has taken a new turn on June 25th: the page fr:Moyen inhibiteur that was deleted for other (invalid) reasons, has suddenly been restored. But the text of this page which referred repeatedly to the figures 3 and 4 in these images, has now become confusing.

This is why a restoration for the image "Fig3Fig4" is highly desirable.

If this undeletion should fail, I will myself propose deletion of the page fr:Moyen inhibiteur. --Roland Moreno (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, no support for undeletion in more than two months, and the article for which the images were intended is now deleted. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schaijk, village en longeur (BHIC).PNG[edit]

Did anyone even bother to review the notice that I spent three hours tracking down, or did we all just presume that I was completely incompetent?

“

To find evidence of permission:

1. Go to http://www.bhic.nl/ 2. Click on "over ons" , then "Colofon" 3. The section labelled "Auteursrecht" allows use of any photo not said to be otherwise copyrighted.

That said, I don't speak Dutch THAT well, so I'll throw this up elsewhere to be checked.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

”

Pieter lied and said that I simply removed it as part of a war against him. No, I spent several hours reviewing his claims, and found reason to doubt the speedy - reasons which he didn't even bother to mention. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph. The licence states karten (maps) and prenten (prints ?) could be freely reproduced, as long the source (Collectie BHIC) is attributed. Nothing says derivative works are allowed.

Second paragprah. The license also states that some images ARE NOT copyrighted by them, and in such case, it's indicated on the picture.

Third paragraph: Some images have wheter no copyright, wheter outdated (information? license?), and that in such cases, it's our responsability to conduct the copyright analysis (what we do everyday: PD Old, EU Anonymous 70, etc...)

Last paragraph: Photo from KLM Aerocarto are copyrighted by them, and if we want anything, go to their website.

I so recommend to request an OTRS permission stating clearly derivative works are allowed. --Dereckson (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there was no evidence for a Creative Commons license, Adam Cuerden was wrong in removing the no-permissions tag. He is lacking in his understanding of Dutch. I did not speedy this; please blame the closing admin for not letting this run for a week. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I read the notice and I've commented on it when closing the DR. While I am not a native Dutch speaker, I noticed the quoted restriction for non-commercial use in the text refered to. Finally, I speedied this as the uploader himself agreed to a deletion. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Even if I agreed with deletion, the licence status is not fully clarified yet. At the time of uploading, the old colofon of the BHIC website of may 2007 had larger licences (less restrictions) and I had e-mail permission from the webmaster. Since then, a sentence about commercial uses has been added, but still the colofon is amateursih formulated and does not refer to dutch e-copyright laws. The reference for aerial photographs does not talk about KLM having copyright. BHIC sellls prints, but not from aerial photographs, as there are available at KLM. The photo description on the BHIC site does not mention a copyright owner. At uploading I had no doubt, but now I am in doubt about the licencing. Because the picture is available on the web, I agreed with deletion: it is possible to replace the picture by a link to the picture on the BHIC site, so that information is kept. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying the license was changed after it was uploaded? Then the original license applies. That's how we do things with Flickr, correct? One doesn't get to revoke their license. Wknight94 ^talk 14:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr uses irrevocable CC licenses -- licenses in question are not irrevocable, as far as I understand. Trycatch (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- It contains conflicting statements. In the "Alle rechten voorbehouden" part only non-commercial usage is allowed, the "Auteursrecht" section only requires attribution. Need OTRS for this one to clear things up. Multichill (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- And OTRS missing was the reason given for deletion. So, ... --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, consensus here favors a more formal permission being sent to OTRS. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Associação Escoteira Baden-Powell.gif[edit]

Please userfy me a copy of File:Associação Escoteira Baden-Powell.gif, it is not proper here on Commons, but we will use it on EN:WP. Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Done, see en:File:Associação Escoteira Baden-Powell.gif

Please add the proper rationale, I've subst and filled the logo usual templates but haven't the article where you want to use this logo. --Dereckson (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the licensing, placed it, thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, transfered to en:File:Associação Escoteira Baden-Powell.gif. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:75th Infantry Division Heraldry[edit]

Category:75th Infantry Division Heraldry should not be deleted because it provides a complete, proper, description of the images that are included in the Category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CORNELIUSSEON (talk • contribs) 03:08, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

It's not deleted... marked for speedy, but if that is contested, turn it into a regular deletion request so it can be discussed. Not sure of the reason for speedy, other than it's a lot of text in the description. The category itself seems OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion and content deleted by Yann, so the case is solved.

Feel free to move the description to English Wikipedia. Wikipedia could be seen as an excellent media to publish Commons pictures' notices bibliographiques. --Dereckson (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, not an undeletion request. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Landscaper Magazine - 18 images[edit]

OTRS 2010072210024526 has been raised (on 22 July) with an offer to release copyright - I would like to see the image pages for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other non-copyright reasons. The files included are:

FYI File:The_Landscaper_Logo.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is also covered but has not (yet) been deleted.

— Fæ (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are visible at the website under 'online issues'. The generic description was The Landscaper Magazine Front Cover <month> <y>, the source was Metropolis Business Media, the author was claimed to be Pwatson1686 so that this files are free to use under cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL with requirement to attribute Pwatson1686 (I seriously doubt that this information is ok). Im not sure if Metropolis Business Media is the owner of rights on the photographs used on the covers, I can however not prove that they are not. --Martin H. (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, hold off undeleting for the moment. The email received appears entirely credible, but I shall seek independent confirmation by the parent company claiming to own copyright. Fæ (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask about the attribution. Presumably someone from the company uploaded it with "It is entirely my own work" in Commons:Upload and just replaced the own in {{Own}} with a {{Metropolis Business Media}} but left the author, his own username, in the author field, he probably was not aware that the author will be attributed as required by the CC license. A credit line "(C) Pwatson1686, cc-by-sa-3.0" will arguably suffice the license requirements but will problably not be ok with the true authors/the copyright holder/the licensor. This is however a common problem with company uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a surprisingly quick independent reply from the company CEO on record. The email not only looks okay but has been officially verified with Paul Watson as the legal representative named. I suggest the files are undeleted on this basis. If anyone wishes to challenge after that, they are welcome to do so. (Note, by naming Paul Watson in this thread I am not revealing information not already on the public record of image uploads, on display with current live images or that might have been expected to be kept confidential to the OTRS process.) Fæ (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I restored all the files.

You can add the relevant OTRS templates. --Dereckson (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think; miserable lot of teeny thumbnails that they are for all the bureaucracy involved. You would have thought that they would want to release at least one full size decent shot. Fæ (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Dereckson. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Radio Aures.jpg[edit]

File:Radio Aures.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) OTRS 2010072310025685 raised with an offer to release copyright - I would like to see the image page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. Fæ (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. --Dereckson (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The uplaoder entered 'Batna' to google imagesearch and had stolen every image he found. It is possible that this one is self created, but as long as the permission does not include an excuse for the other uploads and an explanation that this image indeed is own work I dont realy believe it. --Martin H. (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As nothing pops-up as copyright on TinEye, I have no particular reason to doubt that this unexciting unprofessional blurry photo is not the uploader's. You are free to consider other grounds for deletion should you wish. Fæ (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Dereckson. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tianlong2.JPG[edit]

OTRS 2010072310014161 raised with an offer to release copyright - I would like to see the image page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. Note, the ticket was raised on 07/23/2010, the same day as the last deletion. Fæ (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Dereckson (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Dereckson. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sky_Shuttle_B - 3 files[edit]

OTRS 2010072310023436 raised with an offer to release copyright - I would like to see the image page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. Fæ (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. --Dereckson (talk) 06:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately #1 has been deleted again, presumably the deleter did not read the log. It may be an idea to update or add an OTRS pending tag when undeleting in this situation. Fæ (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Feel free to raise for deletion on other grounds if you wish. The watermarks make these of doubtful value. Fæ (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point to Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Kalon macau; this whole set of images is in quite a murky situation. I don't know what information you can give about OTRS documents, but it would be nice to know if the same person demanding deletion of his files (that started that DR) also sent the OTRS message.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I cannot reveal any information confidential to the email received. As you have asked, I can confirm the verification steps performed when checking the request and discuss supporting public information (so long as it is reasonably direct rather than over-analysed). Superficially, the email received has a valid release statement and appears to come from an email address appropriate for the website claiming to be the source for these images (macaubus.org). I have not written to the source website for verification and do not plan to due to the likely language barrier. A check on the domain macaubus is unenlightening. Checking the email headers shows it consistent with coming from macaubus.org. Macaubus.org appears to run its own forum and it is possible to google that forum to find similar names to the name of the person declared on the images as the author, though the forums are not in English. From the perspective of an OTRS volunteer there is no reason to proceed further and I suggest that the received email is a dry well for any further questions unless someone else purports to have copyright over the images, at which point we will review the case in detail.

One last point, the image watermarks are problematic. I have chosen to over-look them on this occasion as they are not part of the actual text of the copyright release, but in theory they appear to be claiming a license restriction to zh.wikipedia.org. This is not acceptable, however one could extend good faith (remembering they have correctly followed the OTRS process and waited since the 23rd of July for a response and undeletion) and ask the uploader to give a non-watermarked version or crop/amend the files yourself to remove the offending watermarks. Fæ (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say when the files contain copyright terms which directly contradict the supposed licensing, we need an explicit confirmation from the copyright holder that the term in the files themselves do not apply and that only the terms in the actual license apply. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the images themselves do not contain copyright terms, this would be an interpretation of the watermarks displayed on the images. The copyright terms are as specified on the image pages and as verified with an appropriate statement by the copyright holder. Were another party to step forward and claim copyright then one would have reason to question the validity of the statement already presented to us.

In order to avoid any confusion the watermarks may have, I shall write to the copyright holder asking them to make available versions without watermarks in line with our standard guidance on watermarks. Secondly, I will improve the quality of the photos by uploading new versions without the caption on the image that may be confused with a license term, such improvement will be in compliance with the terms of the release statement. Fæ (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fæ (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scans by Alainauzas deleted by Bapti as no source[edit]

I can't see these files, but given that User:Bapti deleted several perfectly fine files by this user (see above), I think that these deletions should also be reviewed by community. Trycatch (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to restore the whole set. All these photographs have apparently taken by the uploader and their subjects are from his own collection. The user needs obviously some help in doing this correctly as he is in at least some of these file descriptions struggling with the use of our templates. Someone who speaks French should help him. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Bapti of this request, let's wait the Bapti comments on the deletion before. --Dereckson (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification Dereckson.

"The user needs obviously some help" : that is precisely what I have done with him. I have fixed a large part of his errors (even when Alain broke all the page) in order to save a large number of files.

Feel free to undelete thoses files IF Alainauzas claim to be the author of the scans. It's not the case for the moment, even if I have already asked him.--Bapti ✉ 10:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference if he's not the author of the scans? These are {{PD-Art}} anyway, right? –Tryphon ^☂ 10:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No according to Sanctus Trycatch--Bapti ✉ 10:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"... Auzas is French so he can't put a picture in DP, but it's YOUR problem now" [1] -- what does it mean? Thanks for "Santus", honestly I'm flattered. Trycatch (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of the judges consider that a french citizen can't legaly put his work on public domain. He can't give up all his rights even if he wants to.--Bapti ✉ 08:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a bit different for photographs such as the one you're pointing to (although I don't know which discussion Trycatch is referring to in your diff). But if we're talking about scans, or plain photographs (nothing but a flat page), then they surely are {{PD-Art}} and should be tagged as such. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, he claimed authorship on his photographs. Multiple times in the file descriptions (source - {{Own}}, author - Alainauzas), several times in conversation (last one). His photographs have his cam EXIF, and there is no reason to challenge his authorship. And no, you didn't helped the user, you have just deleted several his OK files, and the user still don't understand what are you want from him. Trycatch (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay.

The conversations you quote happen after my deletion, three months ago.

Yes, I have deleted the pictures with incertain status and sources. But I have also fixed a large number of Alain's errors in order to save his pictures and I have given to him a lot of explications.--Bapti ✉ 08:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he can't put something in the public domain, than {{PD-self}} is completely the wrong license to use... fortunately, this isn't an issue because he doesn't have to put anything in the public domain. It already is. In fact, he would first have to have a copyright in order to do that. He doesn't. Rocket000 (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I undeleted these files. They should not have been deleted in the first place. I think it is bordering on bad faith to argue that the uploader can't release files in the public domain. In these cases, who did scan and upload these files is irrelevant for determining the copyright. And it took me just a few minutes to correct the license. Probably not more than it took to delete these files... Yann (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted Yann (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1986 86-01 08 Puspoki1 original.jpg[edit]

Hello,
may I ask to undelete the file http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fájl:1986_86-01_08_Puspoki1_original.jpg, which was uploaded into commons and previously published into public domain with following permissions

This file is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship.

and for explaining the reason why it was deleted?

I'd like to ask to undelete also 1995_Bowlus.jpg as google provides sharing its maps for free and their derivative works. (see share link on google maps)

Thanks for your answer in advance.

--Martin.baco (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because the license is wrong. Maps have a long history of being copyrightable, so you're going to need a better reason than "it contains no original authorship".--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's not fair. This file is derived from the licence that explicitely states: This file is ineligible for copyright. I think I do not need any other permission. Plese undelete the file.

Someone stating that a file is ineligible for copyright doesn't make it so. Unless this is public domain for any other reason, it will not be undeleted. Anything else would not be fair for the copyright holder. It would certainly help if you could find out who made this map, and when, or which book this was scanned from. --rimshot^talk 20:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is specified as Wikipedia requests. Please have a look at original file. Author of the map is historian Püspöki Nagy Péter, it was created in 1986 (digital version) and it came from the article published here whoes author is Püspöki Nagy Péter. Unrestricted permissions for public domain and usage have been obtained by wiki user Onogundur. Please undelete the file or provide me with the rule, which request any further permission. If there is no such, change the licence of original file from which the one in commons has been derived or undelete the file. --Martin.baco (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This changes things quite a bit. It is very nice of the author to release the map into the public domain. Is there any record of this action? Best would be a notice on the author's website or a mail to Commons:OTRS. I don't speak Hungarian, so it is a bit difficult for me to confirm these things. --rimshot^talk 08:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, you insist on something that was already provided to you by user Onogundur, rimshot. Please follow rules of Wikipedia. Once again I provide you with steps how you can ensure I have permissions to use the file: The file has been published in the article about Great Moravia on Hungarian Wikipedia, so the site is quite relevant to the one in English Wikipedia where I originally published the file. Looking on the picture

http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A1jl:1986_86-01_08_Puspoki1_original.jpg and clicking onto its license we can see http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%A1jl:PD-icon.svg with english translation of the permissions this file is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship. I've also went on the site where the picture has been originally published http://www.tankonyvtar.hu/ and it is digital archive of articles, books, journals, etc. sponsored by Hungarian Ministry of Culture on educational purposes and free share on the Internet. In the about section I can read (translated by google) A digitális tartalmak hozzáférése túlnyomórészt szabad, regisztrációt nem igényel. (The predominant access to digital content is free, requires no registration) Can you please ensure the file wouldn't be deleted in the future as well as my own 995_Bowlus.jpg? There exist a big group of wiki users (mainly proponents of traditional theories) who don't like others to see pictures and alternative theories of certain historians. --Martin.baco (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hungarian Wikipedia page is a wiki page, and must be taken with a grain of salt. "The predominant access to digital content is free, requires no registration" does not mean public domain; it means just what it says, that you can access (not copy, not edit, not sell) these files for free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand. You rely on the following game - ask Hungarian Ministry of Culture for permissions. If you are not recognized as somebody known to them or worth to be noticed, give it up regardless of our rules and license meaning! I understand, all of this is always about decisions of those with competences and politics. You've broken your own rules. --Martin.baco (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what rules you think we've broken. The main rule is that we must have evidence that convinces us that we actually have the right to use the image under a free license. We don't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can you please explain how's it possible to upload image, which has already public domain license assigned and permission for public use were granted without OTRS pending request approved by maintainers of permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? How's that possible to dispute the license aftewards?--Martin.baco (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the source webpage is clearly an authoritative source for the image and is believable in its licensing, and clearly states that the image is in the public domain or has a free license on it, it can be uploaded. We don't really have a formal way of record keeping except for Flikr or Picasa, but I would assume you could maybe get a reviewer to sign off that it was under the listed license on the date given.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entering the debate on request as a Hungarian speaker. As far as I see the license on the huwp isn't correct. The image originates from a digital library site which releases its own material freely; however the image in question was digitized from the periodical "História" which was printed in 1986 (1970-2004 was digitized, their site is http://www.historia.hu/ ) and I see no evidence that they have released image under any free license (or to the public domain). It may have been released by private conversation since this periodical is published by a foundation supported by many historians but this fact definitely require some backing up in writing. I would kindly ask user:Martin.baco to either point us to te written permission, or provide or request one (the foundation's email is published on the webpage, and I guess they'd give the permission). Until then I see no reason to undelete it. --grin ✎ 22:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that holders of original picture in the printed article will invest their time to try to even understand one of 3 wikipedia licenses on request of a wikipedia user? The way you recommend is the approach how to get rid off certain information... Information that already had public domain license assigned.--Martin.baco (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assigned on what basis? The file is not ineligible, it does not fit Commons:Licensing#Simple design, so the pd-tag is wrong and must be removed, the file is missing a correct (and confirmed) licensing tag. --Martin H. (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question for people who receive OTRS pending requests on e-mail address permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Accordingly to Commons Upload before you upload image, you must specify either license or permissions. Within list of available licenses there is no such that is assigned to the Puspoki's picture. Therefor permission must have been specified. And in this case we can read: if this is not your own file, or the work was already published elsewhere (which is our case), use OTRS pending|month=August|day=31|year=2010 and send permission by e-mail. The field can also be used for specialized license tags.... So ... ?! Only explanation is that someone of wikipedia authorities must have approved pending OTRS (I hope based on evidence) or the system was more liberal towards published content at the end of 2008 when the picture appeared on hungarian wikipedia for the first time. BTW. Currently Slovak historians and archeologists must accept budget cuts from new liberal government. The question is why? --Martin.baco (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I see that upload page differ for particular domains. In Hungarian Wikipedia it's different from the page in Commons. However I think that same principle applies everywhere and no one can assign license without providing evidence for such long period of time (1.5 year)--Martin.baco (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expect the image to be deleted from Hungarian Wikipedia, too, unless someone comes up with a valid license permission email. There is no OTRS confirm code on the picture, so my guess is that it never had been confirmed. This happens, and can be simply rectified. By the way it helps you nothing if you state that you do not care about the validity of the license because "the image is so insignificant" or "the licenses are so time consuming to understand". Commons admins have really no time to hunt for origins of fake/misinterpreted licenses, and if you neglect to follow the kind request of the community to provide proof of the license validity then do not expect their help either. That's a language independent advice. --grin ✎ 20:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks you for your support and explanation. License policy of wikipedia community is so complicated and nontransparent that it almost look like the intention to give a good reason ex post facto by superpower users. As I said, as there is a little chance to acquire necessary permissions declared in one of wikipedia common licenses from the original authoritative picture's source (Historia magazine), considering my private time, their private time, and my decreasing motivation to succeed, I'm giving up. I used the image in good however fake belief that its license is already valid for 1.5 of year on hungarian wikipedia. I kindly apologize for this blasphemy and wish many successful days, fresh air and long life to the community.--Martin.baco (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, the license was never valid, and permission needs to be sent to OTRS. –Tryphon ^☂ 14:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Transmac Macau[edit]

OTRS 2010072410035851 raised with an offer to release copyright - I would like to see the image page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. Note File:Percurso_1_da_Transmac_Macau.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and File:Percurso_AP1_da_Transmac_Macau.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) are also covered by this ticket. Fæ (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS applied. Note that File:Percurso AP1 da Transmac Macau 2.jpg has been rejected and marked for speedy delete with the reasons explained to the OTRS requester. Fæ (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Percurso AP1 da Transmac Macau 2.jpg deleted. --Dereckson (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Dereckson. –Tryphon ^☂ 14:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Piotr Szulkin.jpg[edit]

Deleted mainly because of the lack of an OTRS system in 2007 (full details and discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Piotr Szulkin.jpg). The nominating administrator seems to assume that it would need OTRS permission despite the absence of the OTRS system at time of upload (see #File:Piotr_Szulkin.jpg) -- Docu at 14:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so we just take the uploader's word for it on old images, do we? The uploader actually agreed with me that this would need to go... J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Szulkin gave it to Przykuta for Wikipedia -- that sounds like Wikipedia-only permission, which was also not accepted by that time, I believe (and wikipedia-only images were deleted as well). While I agree we shouldn't always hold old images up to new standards... is there any indication the photo was allowed for *anyone* to use? Also, the original uploader seems to have asked for it to be deleted (as they can probably no longer prove the license). Not sure it's the best idea to undelete over that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some discussion on the first point on DR page. The 2nd point seems mainly due to an administrator's comment on the uploader's talk page. Obviously, if the uploader insists on it to remain deleted, I would withdraw my request here. -- Docu at 19:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please keep deleted. Lack of written permission. Przykuta → [edit] 19:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Docu at 19:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pollen6.jpg[edit]

File:Pollen6.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) OTRS 2010072910039178 raised with an offer to release copyright - I would like to see the image page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. Fæ (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. --Dereckson (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket added, part of 3 images discussed in Template:OTRS ticket. Fæ (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Dereckson. –Tryphon ^☂ 18:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flag_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations.svg[edit]

Discussion of the case

thumb|Created in 1955 by Jean Monnet (died 1979) & al. - is the "author's right" relevant ?

thumb|The central design of Iran's flag has been created in 1979 - can there be an author's right attached to it? thumb|Who framed the bird of paradise in 1970? thumb|Who designed the shield and spears in 1968? thumb|Was this carpet composition created in 1992 ? thumb|What is the legal status of this design? The case is the same as for any of the flags in Category:International flags or Category:Flags of organisations : Reproduction of flags (as such) is not governed by the legislation on artistic rights, but specifically by that of official seals and enseigns (Paris convention, article 6ter : "State Emblems, Official Hallmarks, and Emblems of Intergovernmental Organizations" have their own legislation). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is for registration of logos and names that incorporate any national flags, coat of arms, etc. The rules state that members of this Union treaty must either cancel or refuse to accept any new trademark that includes "armorial bearings, flags, and other State emblems, of the countries of the Union, official signs and hallmarks indicating control and warranty adopted by them, and any imitation from a heraldic point of view." This does not make flags or emblems into the public domain at all. Each country still has their own regulations over the use and copyright of their symbols. In the case of the Commonwealth, it is an International Organization. The design of the logo (which is used on the flag) came from three people and under most copyright laws, the PMA rule takes effect after the last author dies. We have no assertion this logo is in the public domain or under a free license, so we have no right to use the flag on here under a free license. Plus, many of the flags in the categories you mentioned, they probably need to go through DR because of their age or lack of permission (the UN and Red Cross flags are public domain due to age). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody says flags are in the public domain - take the german flag, for instance, it may be reproduced, but is not in the public domain, and cannot be licensed - but we nevertheless have the right to reproduce it on commons without anybody's authorisation and without anything to pay, which is "as free as can be". The point is simply that flags (including those of international organisation) have their own special rules, and hence, the general rule (about author's right) is superceded that is the lex specialis generalibus derogant principle). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The German flag came in existance in 1919, so it will be public domain due to age. However, we focus on copyright here and the Commonwealth flag is not free (in the sense of copyright) unless we wait a very long time or they release the logo to us under a free license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems that Micheletb has a point: a government cannot collect royalties for the use of its flag. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do see his point, but everything he cites is that established flags and emblems cannot be used for any new trademarks (like I cannot use the Royal Arms for a business logo). That is all that whole treaty clause states. It does not even discuss copyright about the affected symbols and it is left up to the individual party members. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not that such emblems cannot be used as trade marks (which is true), but that they follow their own regulation, which allows reproduction for representation use. There is no copyright involved for instance when a commonwealth meeting needs a flag to be displayed - flags are not concerned by author's rights. See a real lawyer (not an arm-chair lawyer...) if you need more precision on the lex specialis generalibus derogant principle. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would they allow for commercial reproduction? That's sort of the issue here. Commons' content has to be free for all to use. The most limiting of licenses requires attribution and "sharealike" (where you have to release future uses under the initial license). We assume things are copyrighted unless they specifically state otherwise. See also the precautionary principle. Killiondude (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial reproduction are "yes within limits". You can't do just anything with official emblems, although you can use them, including for commercial purposes, as long as it can't be confused with an official publication (given its special nature). How free is the File:Great Seal of the US.png, for instance? - can you reproduce it freely, including for commercial purposes - yes, within limits. Or how free is the coat of arms of a queen, for instance File:Queen of Spain Coat of arms.png? If you want to reproduce it with the mention "by appointment to her majesty the queen", then of course you need to fulfill the legal requirements, and/or obtain permission. You can use it as background for a paperback cover, you need neither to pay nor to ask any permission, but you couldn't reproduce it on the back of a kellogs's pack (because it would be misleading to an official approbation).

That kind of picture simply can't be "free for all uses", the touchstone for acceptance on commons is in that case "as free as can possibly be, given its nature" = you can reproduce it without having to ask for a permission and without having to pay anything (it would be refused on commons otherwise). But the very nature of the thing may imply its own restrictions.

Any official emblem/flag/mark/whatever can be reproduced freely (no permission, no payment), as long as no confusion is possible with an official status of the thing thus marked (or, if the marked thing is intended to be official, the corresponding conditions are fulfilled).
There is no "license" (=latin licet, permission) involved in the reproduction of the model, precisely because the thing is official.
On Commons: Such emblems should be marked with a warning (to clearly state their official nature), and the license allows for the reproduction of the specific file, as created/photographed/... (not the initial model, since the thing itself is outside license considerations).

Yours, Michelet-密是力 (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US Seal is public domain for being a US Government work, I am not certain about the Spanish coat of arms and the EU flag was sent to Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Flag_of_Europe.svg before and kept. However, we also have the derivative works rule, which is the main reason why the Commonwealth flag was nuked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EU flag and US seals may have been kept for other reasons, my point is that as official emblems, they do not follow the general legislation on author's rights in the first place. The point is that all official emblems (as long as they are official) may be uploaded on commons, whatever their creation date, and whatever their complexity, because their reproduction follows specific rules (see above). Michelet-密是力 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Comment to whomever added the picture with the caption "copyright status" relevant ?, copyright status is always relevant on Commons. That's sort of one of the biggest discussion points on this project. Killiondude (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC) (I meant "author's right", sorry ... Michelet-密是力 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

OK, Zscout370, what is the problem you see with the derivative rule (if this was the reason why the file was nuked)? Michelet-密是力 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of a copyrighted work or of a work which we do not know the status of. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the Iranian flag posted here, Commons:Licensing#Iran has 30 years for copyright term and is public domain. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take any recent flag for the same discussion. Official flags and ensigns do not convey author's rights, whatever the delay. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on,

The proposed flag was erroneous (rectangular rays instead of spikes) and has been corrected between the first and the second suppression, this can't seriously be taken as a reason for suppression.
And the status of official emblems and flags is detailed above : just read it. You may not know these special statuses with respect to copy rights and author's rights, but do try to understand them when needed, at least try to make yourself an educated opinion. If you feel my presentation is faulty, do explain where and why. You may not want to take my word for it, in that case ask a lawyer (recognized as such). But in any case, - you can't delete a file just because you don't want to know their special status, arguing that other files may be kept for other reasons - this is not the point.
Take care in your discussion that there is no "copyright" law any more, all nations member of the WTO have switched to "author's right", which is somewhat different...

Yours, Michelet-密是力 (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(takes a deep breath) PNG - [http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_pdf.jsp?lang=EN&id=3427 Article 5 says legal texts are not copyrighted and flag design was created by the law at http://www.paclii.org/pg/legis/consol_act/nia1971197/, no info on designer; Swaziland - No information on designer, laws not mentioned as protected works at http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_pdf.jsp?lang=EN&id=3792, Turkmenistan - State symbols are not protected by copyright http://www.medialaw.ru/publications/books/book46/11.html, no information about author. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a case of "when it goes without saying, it goes even better to say it explicitly". Actually, you raise a perfect analogy, thanks : legal texts (and treaties, and any official texts of the same) cannot be subject to author's right (beware of the misleading "copyright" term). This is apparently explicit in Swaziland law (well done!) but, for instance, ... totally implicit in French law (!).

In France, the reproduction of legal texts is not explicitly permitted by law (check into the French code de la propriété intellectuelle), whereas the protection of author's right is automatic, explicit and general, theoretically meaning that (since exceptions to a law must theoretically be interpreted restrictively) it is theoretically illegal (at least if one applies the Commons doctrine on copyright) to reproduce any fragment of any recent French law. I guess the same (theoretical) analysis would hold in most countries.

But is it truly the case ? Actually, no : anybody can reproduce freely any official law (or treaty or ... whatever) in France. It goes without saying, although there is no legal text that says it explicitly. There will be no doubt for any French lawyer : because Nemo legem ignorare censetur (Ignorance of the law excuses nobody), a legal text is meant to be known and reproduced as is. Therefore, it is outside the scope of any law or treaty on author's right, because the contrary (allowing an author to decide whether or not a law can be reproduced) would lead to absurd situations. But ... how would you prove it? No explicit text of law, and since legally discussing such case would be lubricious, there is no legal precedent as well. So what? Would you argue that "therefore it is illegal in France to reproduce French law, according to Commons rules" ??? How do you make the difference between legal and illegal in that case, with no explicit law, and no explicit precedent?

The situation is the same for official emblems : Their very status of official emblems and flags places them outside the realm of author's law, because they are meant to be reproduced as-is for public knowledge, and this is why lex specialis generalibus derogant applies : this being a special case governed by special rules, the general rule of author's rights cannot be applied.

...and that's what any lawyer would tell you - just ask them if you doubt. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a detailed explanation here. If you want to discuss these arguments, please point to what you see as a problem. Once again, arguing that other files may be kept for other reasons is not the point. Sincerely, Michelet-密是力 (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with this. Compare with the situation of money. There are special laws against counterfeiting. And "everybody knows" that there is no problem with photos of money. Until the Bank of Canada sues a city for infringement of Crown copyright because they displayed a Canadian coin on a billboard. Yes, it is absurd. But author's right is automatic, and can be enforced when there is no exemption in law. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with money, because as you pointed out, there are special and explicit laws. In such a case, whatever commonsense may say, explicit laws dealing with that specific case will apply = the coin is protected, its reproduction is forbidden without explicit authorization of the mint, and that's that. (BTW, I'd be pleased if you could provide a link on that story ;-).

The protection of author's right is indeed automatic, but only in the field where a "work" is to be protected as a work of art, basically because it is its nature. In other fields, the nature of the object may be different, and other kind of protections shall apply, which may allow for reproductions - whatever the laws on author's right say. For instance, the industrial design of any object can be seen as a work of the mind reflecting its author's personality, which is the touchstone for author's right. According to your line of reasoning, that would theoretically prevent Commons to reproduce most of the objects in Category:Forks or in Category:Mercedes-Benz vehicles - because author's rights of the designer are not respected. But actually, industrial design is not in the field of author's right (Berne convention) but that of trade marks and industrial design (Paris convention), which forbids duplications and imitations but allows for photographic reproductions. If any trial was made on this question, the judge would first have to determine the relevant law (in that case, trade marks and models) and then determine whether within that field picture reproductions are allowed (they are).

The situation is very much the same with official flags and emblems : A judge would first point that given their nature, the relevant law can't be that of author's rights (which would lead to absurd complications), may look for specific laws governing the subject (and probably won't find any), and end up by judging the case "in equity" = picture reproductions are not forbidden per se, but given the nature of official flags and emblems, the use of such pictures may be faulty.

Now, of course, you never can be sure of what a judge will say before the judgment has been given (he may be drunk or bribed), and you will probably never find any clear legislation and/or precedent on such a theme (because law is a human thing, devoid of mathematical perfection, and the question has not been considered). But do ask a real lawyer -one that understands the problematic of choosing the relevant legal context- for his opinion, it will most probably be very similar to mine. Law business is not to be confused with mathematical proof, it's human science.

Yours, Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, the Canadian mint did not sue Toronto, they sent an invoice: source. That was not about counterfeiting. It would be interesting to see the legal correspondence. But it seems that the city had a kind of fair-use defense. The image is at http://www.onecentnow.ca/ - I wonder if the city ended up paying.

Mike Godwin wrote yesterday that Commons ought to relax its stringent rules, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:2004 Landmark v Ross answer.pdf. And I agree. The problem is that the rules on commons do not really match with good service to the wikipedias. Lots of these copyright discussions are purely teoretical, because any permitted use is fair use; copyright is never an issue in incidents like burning flags, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm afraid I'm being dumb here.

Michelet-密是力 starts off with a citation which does not, for me, address the subject. It covers the issue of prevention of the use of national flags in trademarks and other commercial uses.
Pieter Kuiper says, a little later, "To me it seems that Micheletb has a point: a government cannot collect royalties for the use of its flag." Why not? Why is it impossible for a government to keep its flag under copyright and authorize only a limited number of fee-paying companies to produce flags? It seems to me this is the crux of the matter -- if we can show that a government cannot do this, then flags are PD, subject to their not being used in trade.
Or are they? The question of defacing the flag comes up -- not in the technical sense that there are a wide variety of defaced Red Ensigns -- but in the sense of putting something on the flag that the government doesn't like -- a swastika, for example. Since such things are illegal in the USA (maybe, subject to 1st amendment) and elsewhere, can we ever be happy with the Commons license of a national flag since we require the license to allow all changes?
Or should we just forget the issues -- as far as I know, no one has been prosecuted for copying a national flag? No government (again, AFAIK) charges license fees for its flag. I note that Flags of the World makes no mention of any government copyright in its discussion of the subject.
Even if we adopt that position, we still must be concerned that in the case of complex flags, there will be a copyright in each implementation -- we can not simply copy a flag from Flags of the World.

But -- big but, this discussion is not about a national flag, it is about the flag of an organization -- an organization of nations, to be sure, but still an organization.

None of the arguments above apply. It has the same status as the flag of a corporation. The copyright would probably belong to the corporation -- it certainly would if I ran the corporation.
No one above asked whether the design is subject to copyright. At Copyright on emblems, it is clearly stated that an assemblage of geometric elements into a flag cannot be copyrighted. While that essay has limited status on wp:en and no formal status here, it is a thoughtful summary of the subject. It seems to me that the argument for keeping the Commonwealth Flag off of Wikipedia fails on that point -- it is entirely simple geometric shapes.

What am I missing? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Copyright issues still not resolved. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose undeletion; neither a release of copyright nor relicensure to meet all Commons requirements (reuse, commercial usage) has been proven. Per COM:SCOPE: "Any file hosted here must normally be freely licensed or public domain according to both the law of the United States and according to the law of the source country, if different: see Commons:Licensing." — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion. The copyright legislation of all member states indicates that the flags are not covered by the copyright law. There is no contradiction which could justify the deletion on the argument that this is not covered by one member states. Afil (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, not based on that long list of conjectures about official flags not being subject to regular copyrights (I'm pretty sure they are), but simply because this one seems ineligible to me (a globe surrounded by regularly arranged quadrilaterals is hardly original). –Tryphon ^☂ 12:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. PD-ineligible. Yann (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coca Cola 200ml Chinese stubby.jpg[edit]

Not being an admin I can't see this file, but the Coke logo is public domain, having been published long before 1923, and is a simple font as well. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darn tootin'. It's just a simple bottle of Coke, nothing more. No background. I took the shot. I bought the bottle. I drank it after, just to be safe. Many thanks if you can restore it. I don't think I have a backup. And many thanks to Nard and Tryphon☂ too! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted it to examine it and see nothing wrong -- we have many Coke bottles on Commons. However, I may be missing something, so I left a note for Huib who deleted it last month. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to delete at all. Looking at the logs now, it seems a new contributor had some photos of products deleted without understanding why, and went and tagged this one speedy, being completely mistaken as far as I can tell. It was then just deleted, but shouldn't have been, I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanks. Are you referring to me as the editor who had other product images deleted? I'm trying to track them down. Would this show deleted images, or would they just have vanished? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, now that the file has been undeleted, the edit which marked it as deleted can be seen. That user has only three edits in their user contributions left (some may have been deleted); the two others appear to be frustrated arguments on an admin's talk page after a number of their images were apparently deleted. Some products do contain copyrightable designs on their surface, and photos of them are sometimes deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Udeleted by Jameslwoodward. Yann (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Photograph of David by JuanMa[edit]

See DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:David Miguel Angel.jpg. Accidentally found this -- looks like the files have been wrongly deleted as copyvio from this Picasa page, because clearly Picasa user have taken this file from Wikipedia, not vice versa -- note "Bildquelle: Wikipedia" ("Source: Wikipedia") in the Picasa gallery: [2]. User:JuanMa uploaded one more photograph created with the same cam: File:Laoconte.jpg, so I don't see a reason why not to believe him/her. Trycatch (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The picasa user says he got it from Wikipedia, the non-commercial license is meaningless, and the resolution uploaded here was much higher. The metadata also matches up with File:Laoconte.jpg (whereas none of the photos' data on that picasa account do). Rocket000 (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Original is from Commons, and the license on Picasa is bogus. Yann (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mastercastle-last-desire-cover.jpg[edit]

Undelete, please. OTRS permission - 2010072110037747 Rubin16 (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Rubin16 (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Mardetanha. –Tryphon ^☂ 12:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sexy girl.JPG[edit]

Unvalid speedy deletion. Has to be a DR. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, should have gone through a regular deletion process. –Tryphon ^☂ 16:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not in scope. No point undeleting this. --Dschwen (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, I'm opening a NfD. --Dereckson (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Dereckson. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sexy girl.JPG. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Undeletion requests: Bawu-Chinesische Flöte.jpg[edit]

I hereby send Undeletion requests for File:Bawu-Chinesische Flöte.jpg send on 25-08-2010

Hi,

The image were deleted for this lack of license.

Are you the photograph? Under what license are you willing to publish the work? --Dereckson (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, requested information not provided. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 "Donated Images" that I created and own deleted by Tryphon[edit]

The images that require Undeletion are:

I spent ages creating images specifically to donate to Wikipedia/Wikimedia, only for Tryphon to delete them all.

I created them!!! I own the copyright!!!

I created them using GIMP. I have both the .xcf files AND the .gif files to prove it.

When I originally uploaded the images, I didn't know about the Copyleft symbol. On my webpage, where I have uploaded my images, I didn't have the Copyleft symbol.

In my website's visitor stats, I can see there were 3 separate visits that came to look at the page that contained the deleted images, from http://commons.wikimedia.org

Those I assume must have been the user Tryphon, who upon seeing my Copyright statement in my footer, but no Copyleft symbol, jumped to the conclusion that my website was being violated.

It's frustrating, but I can understand that.

Tonight (7th September 2010), I assumed all I had to do was add a short message onto my webpage (containing the aforementioned images), along with the Copyleft symbol/graphic, then I could re-upload the same images (although, I cropped them, to get rid of the graphical text, as requested for distribution to non-English speaking Wikipedia sites).

I got as far as re-uploading the first two, when I got another message from Tryphon saying:

---QUOTE--- Your image or other content, File:Chess-tactics-image battery-attack q-b.gif, was recently deleted in accordance with our process and policies. You have recreated this content after it was deleted; please do not do this. If you would like to contest the deletion, please visit Commons:Undeletion requests and follow the instructions there to have the deletion reviewed. Recreating deleted content outside of process is not allowed, and doing so repeatedly may cause you to lose your editing privileges. Thank you for understanding. ---/QUOTE-ENDS---

You can see that I have given permission for Wikipedia/Wikimedia to publish the images on their site, under the following License: Multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL.

You'll find the declaration on the following page:

http://www.chess-game-strategies.com/chess-tactics-images.html

The 12 images I wish to upload have since been cropped to get rid of the in-image text, for the benefit of your non-English speaking Wikipedia audience. I would also like to be able to use the same filenames.

Sincerely,

Graham Wadden http://www.chess-game-strategies.com

Speedy restoring. The website contains a suitable copyright statement, no reason to doubt these are not copyvios. @Graham: Could you please crop the text labels from the bottoms of these images? That sort of thing should go in captions. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring them. When I first tagged them as copyright violations, I'm pretty sure there wasn't any notice on the website (but maybe I missed it?). When the files were re-uploaded without any other information as before, I must admit I didn't check the website again and tagged them for speedy deletion. Sorry about that. And thank you Graham for your contributions. –Tryphon ^☂ 22:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note also Graham that this procedure is for your own protection, as the files were deleted to protect your copyright. This workflow avoid images to be uploaded by someone else without their consent and allows rather quickly (in this case 50 minutes after your message) restoration when the use were legitimate. --Dereckson (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcoetzee/Tryphon ... Thanks for restoring them and you were correct, the first time around I hadn't put the permission statement at the bottom - I just assumed that, as I selected the Multi-license with CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GFDL, that was the permission that was required - live and learn, eh?! :)

No harm done. Cheers

P.S. Does this mean I can re-upload the images using the same filename?

(and yes, I've made alternative images, with the text labels cropped from the bottom).

Yes you can, you've even for that a link Upload a new version of this file at the file page bottom. --Dereckson (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's brilliant ... Thanks Dereckson :)

Done by Dcoetzee. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jacopo_Werther_Coordinates_Political_Compass.png[edit]

I use this file in my user page in Italian Wikipedia. Please undelete it. Jacopo Werther (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should try leaving a message for the deleting admin (User:Stifle) first. Powers (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did it, thanks Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Stifle. –Tryphon ^☂ 10:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Grande Dixence[edit]

Deleted without valid reason. Docu at 11:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see here for the looooooooooooooooooong discussion about that. and here. Amada44 ^{talk to me} 11:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point use to the appropriate section in the deletion policy and the above discussion that back its deletion? Docu at 11:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted and redirected, no need to discuss this. --Martin H. (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should give the deleting administrator the occasion to explain themselves. Docu at 11:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessary for undeletion. You can ask them on their talkpage. Rocket000 (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kurt Ipekkaya bei Dreharbeiten.jpg[edit]

Speedy deleted for being Out of project scope even though there's a corresponding article on de:wp (where the image was in use until recently) and a previous DR ended up with the image being kept. –Tryphon ^☂ 14:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understood that the uploader wants a personal picture to be deleted. Yann (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a picture of an actor (notable enough to have an article on de:wp) during the shooting of a movie; not really a personal image. I think it deserves a DR, as the reasons for the request are not very clear (did the uploader provide a reason beyond I want the image deleted?). –Tryphon ^☂ 14:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine then. Yann (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've opened a DR now. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kurt Ipekkaya bei Dreharbeiten.jpg. –Tryphon ^☂ 15:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:REMYA_NAMBEESHAN.jpg - Undelete[edit]

File:REMYA_NAMBEESHAN.jpg

Reason provided at the discussion page of the image --Mallu Man Max (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to undelete, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:REMYA NAMBEESHAN.jpg - the deletion request is still running (and I just voted to delete it). --Martin H. (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request undeletion of Photo[edit]

I submitted a photo which I took December 23, 1982 at the Gayhawk Club in Memphis, TN. The photo is a cropped picture of Fred playing saxophone with his Fred Ford-Honeymoon Garner trio. I was married to Fred at the time. Bennie Nelson (nee Ford) West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbaafirehouse (talk • contribs) 08:23, 2010 September 6 (UTC)

As a courtesy to those who respond to requests here, please include the filename of the deleted file. While it is possible to track down the file you mean from the description you have given, it might take some time. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), which gives us a link to your Username. I see five left single quotes at the end of your post (`````) -- which isn't quite right. Again, it is possible to get your name from the history of this page (as has been done above), but it's much easier if you do it.

I do not find any deleted user contributions for User:Mbaafirehouse. Is it possible you uploaded the file somewhere else -- maybe Wikipedia? or using a different name? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I searched the Commons delete log for a ~~2010~~searched all the log deletion with Honeymoon or Gayhawk without success.

The only file containing Honeymoon deleted is Honeymoon-Dogcart.jpg.

When this photo were deleted? Could you give us indications to retrieve the correct name? --Dereckson (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also performed the search on en., You'll find on User:Dereckson/Honeymoon honeymoon entries. --Dereckson (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Incomplete undeletion request, no file for undeletion specified. User does not have any uploads here or in wikipedia, also the en:Special:Contributions/Mbaafirehouse never included any image to an article. --Martin H. (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ydyddolaf.jpg[edit]

File:Ydyddolaf.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs): OTRS 2010072810021492 raised with an offer to release copyright - I would like to see the image page for additional verification before confirming. This does not preclude speedy deleting if verification fails or if unsuitable for other (non-copyright) reasons. Fæ (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

restorevivified for your convenience. Powers (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I can see the image, it seems problematic as I was unaware this was a book cover rather than a copy of the original drawing. Under further discussion for copyright clarification so added OTRS pending. This is a rather obscure (no ISBN) 1976 Welsh paperback. Please feel free to re-delete rather than waiting for a conclusion to OTRS discussions if anyone feels this is necessary. Fæ (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted and closed here, the file is now tagged with OTRS-pending and in the OTRS queue. The OTRS process will end in verified permission or deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MVI 2803 Russell's Meat for Wild Men.jpg[edit]

I cannot see the image, so I am piecing this together with help from information from the google cache. Admin Adam Cuerden did a speedy deletion of this photo of a cast of a small sculptural work by an American sculptor. I do not see any notification on uploader's talk page. If the work ever was copyrighted, it seems unlikely that it was renewed. This kind of cases needs more eyes than a speedy. Please undelete, and make a regular DR if necessary. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion. Many copyrights on Charles M. Russell works have been successfully renewed, but it certainly needs closer look. Trycatch (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's from 1924, and the sculptor's American. No evidence was provided of any release of copyright to the sculpture. Clear (unintentional) copyvio. I suggest this be speedy closed as an attempt by Pieter to harass when he doesnt' have a leg to stand on: It won't come into the public domain until 2020.

This is basic American copyright law. Charles Marion Russell's works from before 1923 are out of copyright. Pretty much everything from before 1923 is out of copyright in America. Anything from the sculptor in question from before 1923 could be hosted here. But we cannot and must not host a 1924 sculpture. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware about {{PD-US-not renewed}}? Trycatch (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's for 2D works. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of nonsense is why Adam Cuerden should not have the power to delete images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there we have it: this was an attempt to harass me. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even check the accuracy of your statement before saying that this was just an attempt of Kuiper to harass you?--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's for all works. Copyright Act of 1909 doesn't contain any exemptions from copyright renewals for sculptures. Where you get such a strange idea? Trycatch (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion; a copyright renewal would have had to have been done for a 1924 work in 1951 or 1952. It would be in the art renewal listings on [3] or [4]. I've looked through those pages; there's nothing indexed under Russell or Meat, and a glance through the files turned up nothing apropos.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Year 1956 records contains many copyright renewals of C. M. Russell works. Maybe this work was in fact published in 1928? Trycatch (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps it would be better to focus on the copyright of the photo/sculpture and not on the person who brought up this undeletion request. Who made this? It it was Charles Marion Russell he died in 1926. 1926 + 70 = 1996? What am I missing here? --MGA73 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What you're missing is that life of the author is completely irrelevant under US copyright law for works published prior to 1978, except in resurrecting foreign works under the URAA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have a bigger problem; the image is not that of "Meat for Wild Men". The MfWM image (which sold for $4M+, BTW) can be seen here. The deleted image is of two separate castings of individual horsemen, a different image. -- Avi (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked at the 180 or so works of Russell at http://www.cartermuseum.org/remington-and-russell/works-of-art and looked around the net for others; I do not see any castings resembling the two in the deleted photo. This may have to remain deleted since we have no idea whose art this is, when it was made, and who owns the copyright, if anyone. -- Avi (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a reason for undeletion and a DR, so that anybody can see. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, support. This case seems more and more complicated, and so a DR is absolutely necessary. –Tryphon ^☂ 20:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restored and nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:MVI 2803 Russell's Meat for Wild Men.jpg -- Avi (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tomb .jpg[edit]

I think this file should be restored. I noticed this file was deleted for "copyvio" when the image was removed from the Wikipedia page by bot here. However, noting the reason for deletion, I checked the supposed copyvio source and noticed that the page cites Wikipedia. It seems more likely that they were borrowing the image from Wiki without proper attribution. —CodeHydro ^{(en Wikipedia talk page)} 20:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article was posted in December 2006, picture has been uploaded to Commons in August 2008. Trycatch (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, didn't know how to get to the log. But if you go to the bottom of the page, it says "Content: Creative Commons". —CodeHydro ^{(en Wikipedia talk page)} 20:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's a non-commercial CC license. We would have to know if the Commons got it from the website or vice-versa. -- Avi (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think, per Trycatch, that it is more likely the 2006 article had the image in it prior to the 2008 wiki upload, and that someone mistakenly uploaded it to the commons. -- Avi (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would this be fair to restore such an image under a different license then? Giving credit to that source and all. There were a lot of images that were deleted that cite that website as copyvio. —CodeHydro ^{(en Wikipedia talk page)} 21:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What free license? The content license on that page is not acceptable for the Commons as it is a non-commercial license. -- Avi (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Moreover, it's unlikely that Metblogs is the copyright holder, the photo for example was uploaded to this site in 2004. Trycatch (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll drop this request. Too many unfamiliar policies here. I'm going back to Wikipedia. —CodeHydro ^{(en Wikipedia talk page)} 21:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia allows limited fair use—the commons does not; that is the difference in a nutshell. -- Avi (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Codehydro is right (and Trycatch too) insofar that its not sure that this page is the copyright holder. Its only sure that the copyright holder is not the uploader, he gave us enough evidences to know that. He kept the original filenames or parts of it, see his upload log. The space in "Thomb_.jpg" makes me think that this was an 300×385 px image taken from a website where it has a name 'tomb_....jpg' that existed before it was uploaded to Commons... that page fits this requirements exactly. --Martin H. (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remain deleted No evidence that the uploader owned the copyright; more evidence that the image is owned by someone else. -- Avi (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Home logo.png[edit]

The file was deleted without further discussion. I is just some strokes resembling a house with the inferior part being darker. No admins see here. Mizunoryu (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted picture is a logo, the PlayStation Home logo.

It's a square, with a Web 2.0 blue gradient, with a shape, like a home, but an open one in the bottom.

Between the home and the gradient, there are a light effect, like sun rays.

Then, the text PlayStation Home.

Considering my logo description, it's not something trivial. I'm not sure it passes before all courts the threshold of originality, but in the lack of similar jurisprudence or precedents cases in mind, and considering local projects can if the community agree accept corporate logos (in the limit of US fair use doctrine and relevant local countries laws), I'd let this logo deleted on Commons.

And I'm saying that fully aware than the pt.wikipedia doesn't accept exceptions. But Commons is not the universal solution to fix local project choices you're not happy with. --Dereckson (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With a plain blue background, I'm sure it would be okay. Maybe you'd like to upload a simplified version like that instead? –Tryphon ^☂ 10:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my only concern would possibly be the background and the subtle stuff going on there. The house shape is a simple variant of a common symbol I would think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. A simplified version may be uploaded, but this version is probably over the line. –Tryphon ^☂ 19:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gateway Sculptures by Alexander Archipenko 1950.jpg[edit]

I would have asked the deleting admin, but I can't find the deletion request. According to w:File:XGateway Sculptures by Alexander Archipenko 1950.jpg, this used to exist on Commons. I debate the deletion reason; this is an American sculpture by an American, and hence it needed copyright notice and renewal. The SI database does not mention copyright notice, and I've checked the online database and the paper renewals for 1977 and 1978 and found no renewal. So I think we can safely label it {{PD-US-no renewal}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO you should first ask on en.wp and fix the upload there. This file was deleted also for the uploader request: 'Loaded in error to Wikimedia Commons (Fair Use U.S.A. only. Duplicate file, reloaded at English Wikipédia as: Image:XGateway Sculptures by Alexander Archipenko 1950.jpg'. If the file on en.wp has a license it can be transfered. The license for the photographic work was however {{PD-self}}, so it is also indicated at en.wp (in written form). --Martin H. (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask who on en.WP? If there's no deleted file here, I can update the license on en.WP and transfer it over, but if it was deleted here, then I don't see why I can't just get it undeleted here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader I suggest, the file was deleted on their request. --Martin H. (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only because they thought the sculpture was copyrighted. The photograph itself was originally uploaded with a PD-self license on en-wiki. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion, obvious case for me. I've notified the uploader. Trycatch (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the uploader was active both in en-wiki, and on Commons, but didn't participated in the discussion, so there is no reason to delay undeletion of this file anymore. Trycatch (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletified. Please update the description page ASAP to reflect the proper copyright status. Powers (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks and done.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Powers. –Tryphon ^☂ 19:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chosen Dance Company Logo[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to get File:Chosen Dance Company Logo Outlined 5.svg restored. Someone deleted it without warning me or telling me. Apparently there is some issue with the way I wrote the copyright. I am new to Wikipedia, I would appreciate help in choosing a copyright for the logo.

...and a suggestion... I do a lot of organizing of files myself. I'm a graphic designer. When I need relatively uneducated people to submit files to me so that they fall easily into whatever organizing system I have in place, I have them fill out a form or template with instructions. Could something like that be done for logo submission? I feel in my heart the Wikipedia is a good project, but have been dealt with harshly by admins so many times that I'm really starting to get annoyed. I'm trying to do things the right way, but there seems to be more interest in using a chainsaw to cut off misplaced additions rather than teaching new submitters to self-prune.

Anyway, two-cents. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjancewicz (talk • contribs) 04:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the copyright holder of the logo? And I don't mean, did you create it, I mean do you have legal control over its use? Rocket000 (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, requester did not follow up. –Tryphon ^☂ 09:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HarryJerome.jpg[edit]

This image was deleted by User:Polarlys with the explanation of "no Commons:Freedom of panorama in origin country". This is curious as when I check at Commons:Freedom of panorama#Canada, it says:

Under Section 32.2 (1)(b) of the Canadian Copyright Act 1985 (PDF, 786 kB), it is not an infringement of copyright for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work … (ii) "a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building".

The source image is a statue located outdoors in Stanley Park in Vancouver BC, so the public place clause is valid. The reason why I'm listing it here instead of summarily undeleting it on those grounds is in case there's some wrinkle I'm missing here... Tabercil (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was completely wrong deleting this file for the reason provided. Whenever I have been to Vancouver BC in the past, I did not recognize the buildings in the background and thought – don’t ask me why – “oh, there is no FOP in the US for statues” (and deleted it). I restored it for now. The uploader should tell us, where it is from and who Travisl (the author) is. Cheers, --Polarlys (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original license, which looks like it was accidentally deleted, clearly claimed own work. I restored that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

w:User:Travisl is an en-wiki user, he originally uploaded this picture to en-wiki: [5]. Comparing the file with other files by Travisl, I think there can be no reasonable doubt that this file was created by him. Trycatch (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to figure that out, and yes, it's the same camera as other uploads from Travisl. So yes, it was that user's photo; odd that there was an explicit claim of PD-self then (Jonesy22 added an explicit argument to the PD-self tag). Unless maybe that user made a couple of tweaks to a PD work and decided that was enough to claim own work. What was the original license on en-wiki? Should switch to that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an en:wp admin, and I can confirm that the image was originally tagged as PD-self. I've changed the license tag to note that it's from en:wp. Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Polarlys. –Tryphon ^☂ 22:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Momin Mosque[edit]

Please undelete this picture because it is the actual and original picture of the Momin Mosque. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad_shahidullah (talk • contribs)

I assume you refer to File:Momin Mosque.jpg, which you have already reuploaded. It was deleted because you failed to add a licence, but since the newly uploaded version does have a licence I don't think there is a problem. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The file has been re-uploaded, rendering this request moot. –Tryphon ^☂ 22:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TAMUatTTU2007.jpg[edit]

Release sent. Please undelete. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS volunteer will undelete the file on mail reception and proper handling. --Dereckson (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Eusebius; see otrs:2010092710008022. –Tryphon ^☂ 06:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MSJ.en.svg[edit]

Please undelete File:MSJ.en.svg, File:MSJ.es.svg and File:MSJ.de.svg. SVG files are rarely copyright violations. To me this looked like own work. I had removed the copyvio tag, but it was speedily deleted anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree The deleted versions contains enough creativity to make an indpendant work. --|EPO| ^da: 13:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. --|EPO| ^da: 13:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-09

Contents

File:Lee-fisher.jpg[edit]

appeal against deletion request[edit]

Circuits of a smart card (Moyens inhibiteurs) - droits abandonnés au Domaine public[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schaijk, village en longeur (BHIC).PNG[edit]

File:Associação Escoteira Baden-Powell.gif[edit]

Category:75th Infantry Division Heraldry[edit]

The Landscaper Magazine - 18 images[edit]

Radio Aures.jpg[edit]

Tianlong2.JPG[edit]

Sky_Shuttle_B - 3 files[edit]

Scans by Alainauzas deleted by Bapti as no source[edit]

File:1986 86-01 08 Puspoki1 original.jpg[edit]

Transmac Macau[edit]

File:Piotr Szulkin.jpg[edit]

Pollen6.jpg[edit]

File:Flag_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations.svg[edit]

File:Coca Cola 200ml Chinese stubby.jpg[edit]

Photograph of David by JuanMa[edit]

File:Mastercastle-last-desire-cover.jpg[edit]

File:Sexy girl.JPG[edit]

Undeletion requests: Bawu-Chinesische Flöte.jpg[edit]

12 "Donated Images" that I created and own deleted by Tryphon[edit]

File:Jacopo_Werther_Coordinates_Political_Compass.png[edit]

Category:Grande Dixence[edit]

File:Kurt Ipekkaya bei Dreharbeiten.jpg[edit]

File:REMYA_NAMBEESHAN.jpg - Undelete[edit]

Request undeletion of Photo[edit]

Ydyddolaf.jpg[edit]

File:MVI 2803 Russell's Meat for Wild Men.jpg[edit]

File:Tomb .jpg[edit]

File:Home logo.png[edit]

File:Gateway Sculptures by Alexander Archipenko 1950.jpg[edit]

Chosen Dance Company Logo[edit]

File:HarryJerome.jpg[edit]

Momin Mosque[edit]

File:TAMUatTTU2007.jpg[edit]

File:MSJ.en.svg[edit]

Navigation menu

Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2010-09

File:Lee-fisher.jpg[edit]

appeal against deletion request[edit]

Circuits of a smart card (Moyens inhibiteurs) - droits abandonnés au Domaine public[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Schaijk, village en longeur (BHIC).PNG[edit]

File:Associação Escoteira Baden-Powell.gif[edit]

Category:75th Infantry Division Heraldry[edit]

The Landscaper Magazine - 18 images[edit]

Radio Aures.jpg[edit]

Tianlong2.JPG[edit]

Sky_Shuttle_B - 3 files[edit]

Scans by Alainauzas deleted by Bapti as no source[edit]

File:1986 86-01 08 Puspoki1 original.jpg[edit]

Transmac Macau[edit]

File:Piotr Szulkin.jpg[edit]

Pollen6.jpg[edit]

File:Flag_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations.svg[edit]

File:Coca Cola 200ml Chinese stubby.jpg[edit]

Photograph of David by JuanMa[edit]

File:Mastercastle-last-desire-cover.jpg[edit]

File:Sexy girl.JPG[edit]

Undeletion requests: Bawu-Chinesische Flöte.jpg[edit]

12 "Donated Images" that I created and own deleted by Tryphon[edit]

File:Jacopo_Werther_Coordinates_Political_Compass.png[edit]

Category:Grande Dixence[edit]

File:Kurt Ipekkaya bei Dreharbeiten.jpg[edit]

File:REMYA_NAMBEESHAN.jpg - Undelete[edit]

Request undeletion of Photo[edit]

Ydyddolaf.jpg[edit]

File:MVI 2803 Russell's Meat for Wild Men.jpg[edit]

File:Tomb .jpg[edit]

File:Home logo.png[edit]

File:Gateway Sculptures by Alexander Archipenko 1950.jpg[edit]

Chosen Dance Company Logo[edit]

File:HarryJerome.jpg[edit]

Momin Mosque[edit]

File:TAMUatTTU2007.jpg[edit]

File:MSJ.en.svg[edit]

Navigation menu

Search