Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

File:Big Bang Lollipop 2 cover.png (Original:http://www.flickr.com/photos/32985045@N08/4369475448)[edit]

I uploaded the deleted flie. I request undeletion because here is the LGEPR's profile:http://www.flickr.com/people/lge/ LGEPR is LG Electronics's flickr account, LG Electronics uploaded Big Bang's promotionals for LG's phone Lollipop Part 2. and this link is the evidence that this image is truly licenced cc-by licence by LG Electronics. and please check this talk page --Puramyun31 (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support This is not a copyvio, it is claimed to be an advert, but it was incorrectly speedied which didn't allow the community to make up its mind. It needs to be undeleted and the deletion discussion reopened. Beta M (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have already been undeleted/reuploaded, so no need to keep this open. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Naked_in_Subway.jpg[edit]

I forgot about this abuse of deletion. There was no alternative on Commons for this specific human behaviour (streaking in a public place), so even if the picture was of bad quality, it was in the scope. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose No license, scope was debated, hence no new reason for undeletion. --Yikrazuul (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No license > what do you mean ? It was Flikcrreviewed...
    Scope was debated > You call that a debate ? No-one has commented my demonstration about the fact that it's in scope. The closure comment even look like a complete despise towards my statements (I'd even say it's an egoistic comment like "well I personally don't see any usefulness so I don't accept that people do"!!!).
    No new reason > Yes indeed, but it's linked to the fact that the reason why the file was in scope had not been considered. So in a way it's new if people finally consider this aspect ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Flikcrreviewed is not a proof for anything, just that at this point of time the "trustworthy" uploader claimed that the picture on FlickR had a CC-license. I wouldn't relay on that.
    2nd point: I'd even say it's an egoistic comment like "well I personally do see some usefulness so I don't accept that people do"
    "Yes indeed". Hence we repeat that so many times until the result "fits" for you? --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The possible flickr-washing (or anything) could be discussed, but the closure comment doesn't mention that aspect.
    Is that egostic to think about other people's interests even if they're not ours ? No. Is that egoistic to ignore other people's lack of interest ? No. Is that egoistic to ignore other people's interests when they're not ours ? Yes.
    Hence we repeat that so many times until the result "fits" for you? > No. But at least until opposite arguments are considered. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're very wrong about the flikrreviewed template; User:Ecemaml, who is not the uploader, checked to make sure the license was correct. Powers (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And anyway the image on Flickr is still licensed compatibly. Powers (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support; the file is in-scope as a method of illustrating streaking. Powers (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support the image is in scope and useful for illustration purposes. Can't see any valid deletion reason inside the discussion. I call that witch hunting. It was deleted again by the somehow famous admin JCB. Should we really consider to remove his admin rights? I think so. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. I'm concerned about the Flickr account being used for Flickr washing, publishing images that someone likes but didn't take themselves. There's only nine photos in the account and no other images in a similar situation to the one in question. Also note the significant time variation between when this image was taken and the others in the account. This other image is clearly not the Flickr user's work. – Adrignola talk 15:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the Flickr user has (or had) hundreds of photos up, but has removed most from the public photostream (some are still visible to logged-on Flickr users if you have the links). See an archive.org grab of the main photostream from 2008, where there are 13 pages of photos visible. There is even a larger version of this photo on his stream here, licensed the same way, with fuller EXIF info and a fuller description of the shot. Apparently taken somewhere between Barnes and Waterloo in London. Can't completely verify others taken with the same camera (most other originals on that page had been taken several years earlier with a different camera), and the user does seem to have little compunction about copying photos from elsewhere, but I don't get the feel the image came from somewhere else (given the description on the larger one). I think the licensing's fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note, but this is not the subway, it's a British Rail Class 458 or Class 455 belonging to South West Trains. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Examples of the phenomenon of streaking are in scope. I repeat that if the closing admin is allowed to continue to exercise administrator authority, his clear bias in the closures of images related to human sexuality should cause him to be restricted to voicing his strong opinions in the discussions, and he should never close another discussion of an image related to human sexuality. Geo Swan (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Clearly in scope (illustrates a specific topic that no other image illustrates). I looked carefully at the Flickr stream and although it has no camera data and very few photos with low resolution, they have the same aspect ratio and level of quality throughout, making Flickrvio unlikely. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I have accidentally opened another undeletion request below. To the undeletion nominator, please in the future mention that you open the request for undeletion, so that the work isn't duplicated. Beta M (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now removed the duplicate section, this is what i said there "There was two deletion attempts (which were split apart due to change from Image: to File:). The first one ended in 3 to 2 for keeping, and the second was a one to one tie with the decision by Jcb for deletion. I believe that the decision was made too swiftly and more discussion should have taken place. The fact that the file was kept before was not considered for example. Beta M (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)"[reply]

✓ Done - I think we can undelete this, there seems to be some support for undeletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Bonsai Kitten[edit]

2011-11-05

when i was uploading the file i took the wrong licence, because i really dont get all of the little differences. also because of my english. so i took the wrong licence and the file got deleted and now i cant upload it again. but i assert that its allowed to use this file like the licence “CC-BY-SA" says. please undelete my file under the new conditions! thank you very much! (Bonsai Kitten (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hmm, the first version you uploaded was a copyvio from http://www.raucousrecords.com/psychobilly-vinyl-lps_110/done-with-hell-vinyl-lp_13277.aspx. The 2nd version looks like a promo shot or album cover artwork. You really need to provide a written permission from the real righs holder. --Túrelio (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done -mattbuck (Talk) 05:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Nov_2010_logo_for_web.jpg[edit]

The reason given for deletion was "possible copyright violation." I am the sole creator of this image. Furthermore, the website on which I use it has a prominent creative commons statement. (http://lifewithoutrobots.com)

Additionally - this was my first upload, I apologize if I did not get the licensing settings right. --Smithmikeg (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your site's prominent Creative Commons statement is, however, CC-BY-NC-ND. The Non-Commercial and No-Derivatives provisions are not allowed on Commons. If you wish to re-license it under {{CC-by-sa}} as you did when you uploaded the image, please follow the instructions at COM:OTRS (basically: send us an e-mail verifying that you're the person who owns that web site's content); alternatively, you can change your site to indicate the new license. Powers (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done -mattbuck (Talk) 05:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Arif.jpg[edit]

Dear Sir,

The Picture is official portrait of Mr Malik Muhammad Arif, and i'm authorized to use it being a family member, I forgot to add tags of {own}.

You are requested to undelete the aforesaid picture.

Thanks & regards,

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mubashirr/5547460099/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mubashirr (talk • contribs) 16:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The license on Flickr is "(c) All Rights Reserved". Please send a permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. See COM:OTRS for details. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done -mattbuck (Talk) 05:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:PMGlogo.jpg[edit]

I hereby affirm that The Rockefeller University is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the logo of the Pearl Meister Greengard Prize (File:PMGlogo.jpg).

I want to undelete File:PMGlogo.jpg.

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Joseph Bonner Director of Communications and Public Affairs The Rockefeller University

Appointed representative

7 November 2011 --Bonnerj-wiki (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was this permission sent to the address mentioned at COM:OTRS? It should be undeleted once that is processed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Please send permission to OTRS. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fachada Centro Médico ABC observatorio: hospitalabc_observatorio.jpg[edit]

Dear Wikimedia and Commons team:

We work for this Medical Institution, and we have the rights to use this pictures in the creation of the wikipedia article. This Photos are stated to illustrate the ABC hospital, located in Mexico City to the audiences online, and we are not breaking any copyright by using the previously stated pictures. We confirm that every photo we upload to our wikipedia article http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Centro_M%C3%A9dico_ABC_(The_American_British_Cowdray_Medical_Center) its authorized to that purpose.

We thank you in advance for your understanding and support.

Regards

--Faerico (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please send authorization via email, using the template and address described on the COM:OTRS page. Please note that to upload images to Commons, permission must be given to everyone for any use; permission cannot be for Wikipedia only. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Please send permission via OTRS. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:beforeweforget-joyce.jpg[edit]

Poster is licensed under Creative Commons. See website footer: http://beforeweforget.org/documentary/2011/02/bwf-documentary/

--Leexianjie (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License." We can't accept the licenses which contain either the NonCommercial or NoDerivs clauses as those make them non-free; only Attribution or Attribution-ShareAlike are allowed. See Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done -mattbuck (Talk) 05:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

[edit]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Katia_Elizarova_opens_Swarovski_Runway_Rocks_in_London.jpg

Image is shared for public use by the model on her owned Facebook page and has been distributed for rights free promo use in 2009 following the event itself.

--Carpefemme (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the Facebook page where permission for this photo is recorded, so we can verify that. Powers (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done -mattbuck (Talk) 05:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to where the image is on Facebook - Image use is not restricted and available for download also: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.127047367362550.22906.126994697367817&type=3#!/photo.php?fbid=205279846205968&set=a.127047367362550.22906.126994697367817&type=3&theater

--Carpefemme (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Topographic90deg N0E0.png[edit]

No reason was provided for deleting this file - because there is no reason to delete this file. It is properly licensed and both useful (part of a series - File:Topographic90deg N0E90.png, etc - that is now missing a big chunk) and widely used (prior to deletion, now delinked obviously - and annoyingly). Obviously never should have been deleted and should be restored ASAP - Highfields (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Um, yeah ;-) Looks like an IP hit the deletion link, typed in a random word, but it still got deleted in the end -- presumably the admin just hit the wrong button as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restored by me, at least temporarily, as there was no evident problem with this map. --Túrelio (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deleting picture?[edit]

I am a complete novice with Wikipedia and have been struggling for nearly a month to make head or tale about what goes on here. I have written an original article and used an original picture which I wish to embed into the article. I appear to have got a message that the picture is about to be deleted. If so, i would like to know whyJohnno777 (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was the page you created here that was the issue - Commons solely acts as a repository for media used elsewhere not articles. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - articles are outside our project scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Big_Bang_Lollipop_2_CF.jpg[edit]

I request undeletion of Big_Bang_Lollipop_2_CF.jpg. because here is the LGEPR's profile:http://www.flickr.com/people/lge/ LGEPR is LG Electronic's flickr account. and this link is the evidence that this image is truly licenced cc-by licence by LG Electronics. Puramyun31 (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Big Bang TOP.jpg[edit]

I request undeletion of Big Bang TOP.jpg. It was cropped from File:Big_Bang_Lollipop_2_CF.jpg and was used for TOP's article. Lee Jaewon (Talk) 23:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dance with Rabindra Sangeet - Kolkata 2011-11-05 6705.JPG[edit]

During my uploading of about 32 files there was a mistake "}}" to add the code at description leads not to appearing the 'Source' but certainly there was. User:AzaToth tagged the deletion request, I inform him the mistake, and those were rectified within few hours. But now User:Fastily deleted the file. I also inform and request for restore. What was the wrong? -- Biswarup Ganguly (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done It has source, license and metadata Ezarateesteban 22:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Jgut128x008.jpg[edit]

This file is photo of ROM wires for first computers (1960-1970) This photo is my own work. I use it in Wiki-article: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B0 Thank Vovchar (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done temporaly, it hasn't license, no metadata, are you sure that is own work Ezarateesteban 22:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AUDITORIO LEON.jpg[edit]

Dueño de los confirmó la autorización en OTRS (CC-BY-SA 3.0 ES) Superzerocool (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¿Tenemos el número de ticket? - Buscar en OTRS es una lata (lo intentaré de todos modos). Un saludo. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 19:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done - Restaurada por ticket:2011102810005681. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 14:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deleted purely for having no license tag, but official portrait from website of U.S. military band, so it should be public domain, and the tag {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} can be used. —innotata 02:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The similar image File:United States Army Field Band - Soldiers' Chorus.jpg looks like it is copyright now that I've seen the full EXIF, though. An admin should look at the complete EXIF; if it doesn't unambiguously say it is copyright as by a non-military photographer, I suggest it be uploaded and nominated for deletion if still questionable. —innotata 02:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appears both are copyright. —innotata 00:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Lautaro.jpg[edit]

I request undeletion of

It has been deleted 'cause uploaded by a copyvioler. This image contains an older version uploaded by another user in 2006. Is possible to restore this older version? Thanks Jalo 12:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Acd crest.jpg[edit]

Hi,

I have got permission from the college to upload their crest to Wikipedia. I would like the file I uploaded to be undeleted.

--Bolicsound (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done They must give permission for more than just Wikipedia. Commons-valid licenses allow universal commercial use and the ability to alter it for derivative works. Also, the license must be sent by the university itself according to the COM:OTRS process. --99of9 (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:MV5BMTM3NjY3MzE2MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjA0NTgyNg@@. V1. SX640 SY960.jpg[edit]

The file in question is in use at three different websites and the image does not contain, either in the file itself or on the image, any copyright notice. It seems to me that given it's use through three different websites, there shouldn't be an issue of copyright violation.--FinalLegion (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright notices have not been required in the United States since March 1, 1989; everything published since is fully copyrighted whether it has a notice or not. Some sites may use pictures for restricted publicity purposes or under fair use, but Commons needs much more liberal permission than that to host images. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then how am I supposed to find an image for an article? How can Fair Use be good enough for the rest of the Internet but not for Wikipedia?? That makes no sense. By Wikipedia's standards, the only images you could use would be ones that you find, on say, Flickr or Photobucket wherein the photographer provides a Common Use license or the image in question can be found on some website that has nothing but royalty free and common use pics of common things. Either that or I have to upload a photo I've taken personally. What happens if, let's say, you're writing an article on an actor but you can't find an image of the actor that has more liberal standards than Fair Use? Is that just "too bad, tough luck?" These standards make no sense.--FinalLegion (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being "free" is a cornerstone of all the Wikipedia projects; this means that as much material as possible has its copyright licensed in that manner (or copyright has expired, which takes a long, long time). Commons (a separate project from the Wikipedias, Wikinews sites, Wikisources, etc.) is not allowed to host fair use material at all (the Wikimedia Foundation has mandated this), as it provides images for all of those sites (and others) -- by definition we are supposed to be a "free image repository". See Commons:Licensing. Fair use is permitted in some circumstances on the local projects (like English Wikipedia); each project makes their own policy on that. Those images must be uploaded directly to that local project though, and not here. The English Wikipedia has additional requirements (such as providing a fair use justification), and I think they may not allow "replaceable" pictures -- so yes, if it's possible for a contributor to snap their own photo of someone and license it, they may want to encourage trying to find such a photo by not allowing a non-free one. See w:Wikipedia:Non-free content for more details on their policy. Looking on Flickr, Picasa, and Photobucket for CC-BY or CC-BY-SA images (we can't take CC-BY-ND or CC-BY-NC) is one way to go, correct. Wikipedia articles evolve over time; they don't have to be perfect right away -- if it is lacking an image, then hopefully someone will find an appropriate one at some point. Yes, being the "free encyclopedia" does mean that sometimes the "free" aspect makes the "encyclopedia" aspect harder, but that has always been the goal of the projects. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and btw: the filename is more than useless. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FileLegion, consider if you were asking about textual content instead of an image. "The text in question is in use at three different websites, and it doesn't come with a copyright notice. What am I supposed to do, write the text myself?" For the same reason we prefer text that has been written by Wikipedians and explicitly licensed with a free license, we also prefer images that were donated similarly. Powers (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FinalLeigon, you may have a look at my request too. Your points are extremely right. Thanks for helping me out on that one. Let's see if any answer ends up in my question, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMNeSiaaiSeNMA (talk • contribs) 01:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Egon-Schiele-Anton-Josef-Trcka-1914.jpg[edit]

The author of the photo (Josef Anton Trčka) died on 16 March 1940. Thus the file was copyvio in 2010, but it is PD now. --Jklamo (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Logolibelsmall2.png[edit]

I request undeletion of

because the file was deleted stating fair use where as this image should have been kept as it is a clear case of {{PD-text}} Sreejith K (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is clearly {{PD-textlogo}}. But I question whether this image is within our scope. "Keep libel laws out of science" is a fine slogan, but what value does this image bring to the Foundation's educational mission? Powers (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This can be used in the article Sense About Science and can replace the current logo used there. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. ✓ Done Powers (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2011 SEFF Logo.jpg[edit]

I uploaded the same image twice, as it has been deleted. It is the logo for SEFF Binghamton, the two files were titled SEFF logo.jpeg and 2011%20SEFF%20Logo.jpeg. I am the creator of the image, no element of it was taken from the internet. I created it to be used by the Student Experimental Film Festival in Binghamton. There is no paperwork or documentation of its copyright as it has not been copyrighted, it is free for anyone to use as they please.

Thank you, --Afiore321 (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Afiore321#File_tagging_File:2011_SEFF_Logo.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Someone would automaticlly would own the copyright, which would be the organisation which runs the Student Experimental Film Festival. OTRS permission is need. Bidgee (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:U2 Stay Berlin 1.jpg[edit]

See talk page of the deleted image, my user talk page and User talk:Beria#Deletion of File:U2 Stay Berlin 1.jpg. There's a full explanation of why this has NOT been a copyright violation. --GraceKelly (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion was for the wrong reason -- the image is not a screen shot, but simply a picture of the video being made. However, you did not take the image. Therefore you do not own the copyright and have no right to license it here. So even though the deletion was for the wrong reason, it was a righteous deletion.
There is an additional problem with the image. Your comment at User talk:Beria#Deletion of File:U2 Stay Berlin 1.jpg says that the statue was created for the video. This image, therefore, infringes on the copyright of the statue so even if we could get permission from your unnamed relative, we would also need permission from the sculptor.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The permission from my relative would not be a problem at all (he gave this to me as a friendly family member, this would be the same as I took the picture by myself). But I can't believe that it is totally forbidden to take a photo of a video or movie set. When I see a film crew somewhere and take a picture of them with some stuff in the background, you say you always need the permission of the creators of all items that accidently show up in the picture? Unbelievable... --GraceKelly (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Transformers3TurretReplicaSetJuly10.jpg Example: This one should also be deleted for the same reason because the creator of the turret replica did not gave the permission. --GraceKelly (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Transformers3TurretReplicaSetJuly10.jpg. In general, stage and movie sets are creative works that have a copyright of their own. Since they are temporary, FOP exceptions do not apply. De minimis may apply to minor inclusions, but neither of the images we are discussing here comes close to that.
Note also that photography may or may not be forbidden on the set -- that is up to the people in charge on the set -- but the use of the images cannot be freely licensed without the permission of the creators.
Finally, in almost every case, everything on a set will be a work for hire, so the required permission will have to be from the production company, not the individual artisans.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree on stage and movie sets in general, though individual objects (like sculpture) can be copyrighted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been a little too general above. A set that was nothing but ordinary rooms filled with furniture would not have a copyright, although, as Carl suggests, paintings or sculpture might be a problem unless de minimis. However, I think that a modern stage set with a fairly elaborate painted backdrop would have a copyright. Movie sets that had science fiction props and elements could also have a copyright -- something that might be "utilitarian" in 2050 would still have a copyright in 2011.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - I agree that the statue is copyrightable, and as noted, it is not permanent so therefore doesn't get an FOP exemption. It's clearly not de minimis either. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Adnan_al-Pachachi_with_Gamal_Abdel_Nasser.jpg[edit]

Hi

This picture is of Adnan Pachachi and Gamal Abdul Nasser File:Adnan_al-Pachachi_with_Gamal_Abdel_Nasser.jpg

and I would like to re upload it as I have now found the source for it

this ia the source for it http://www.karemlash4u.com/vb/showthread.php?t=77352

--Jamal376 (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - the forum is unlikely to be original source, and it doesn't indicate a free licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Vulvamaxima.jpg[edit]

The only rational was "It's a guy's balls. Useless". And simply stating the content of the photo doesn't make it useless. Beta M (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I agree with Beta M that the rational is quite poor. But the image itself is of substandard quality - it even does not show the "balls of some guy". Because of the bad image quality, I doubt the encyclopdic value of that file. --High Contrast (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Lousy image as are most others from this "contributor". High quality is likely good - this ain't --Herby talk thyme 18:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't restore. This was most likely uploaded as some kind of a joke, proclaiming it's the image of a vulva, but actually showing the crotch of some guy pressing his legs tightly together and hiding his genitals so you could think it actually shows a woman when you take only a cursory glance. What is the use of such an image? --Rosenzweig τ 10:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'm not sure anymore what is shown in this image. May be photoshopped. But if you have to speculate about the contents of an image it's not really useful anyway. --Rosenzweig τ 10:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Although I voted I'll close this - it really is not a useful image if we need to speculate on what it actually is! --Herby talk thyme 17:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Joanne good.jpg[edit]

Hi,

I am Joanne Good's web designer and have permission to use this image.

Colin Hughes Template:Unisgned

Please follow the procedure on COM:OTRS to get the image undeleted; please note that the needed permission cannot be for Wikipedia only but must be for anyone (and for any purpose), and usually that permission must come from the copyright holder. The person being photographed does not always have the rights to give that permission (but may depending on the contract with the photographer). The main issue is that accounts here are basically anonymous, and we can't base licenses on a user's word alone when it comes to previously-published works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - No COM:OTRS permission so far. Can be undeleted once it is sent. Bidgee (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Common_module_Spain_Air_Force_Academy_2010.png[edit]

Madam, Sir,

I apologize for disturbing you. A file I recently uploaded, "Common_module_Spain_Air_Force_Academy_2010.png", has been deleted. Since I was unexperienced in the creation of file, I might have made the wrong choice regarding the copyright reference of this file and would like now to solve the license issue, which shall have been indicated as "free" (creation of one of our public organs). Would you be kind enough to help me or advising me on how to un-delete this file, please? Remaining yours for further information. With best regards and many thanks for your help.

21 November 2011 ESDC Secretariat ESDCsecretariat (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done apparently so closed --Herby talk thyme 17:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:First IG meeting February 2009.png[edit]

Madam, Sir,

I apologize for disturbing you. A file I recently uploaded, "First IG meeting February 2009.png", has been deleted. Since I was unexperienced in the creation of file, I might have made the wrong choice regarding the copyright arrangement of this file and would like now to solve the license issue, which shall have been indicated as "free" (our own creation, actually). Would you be kind enough to help me or advising me on how to un-delete this file, please? Remaining yours for further information. With best regards and many thanks for your help.

21 November 2011 ESDC Secretariat ESDCsecretariat (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done apparently so closed --Herby talk thyme 17:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ashgrove Emblem.jpg.[edit]

I was wondering if you would undelete this file please. The site is a school site for a boy's boarding school in Brisbane Australia. The suggestion to Users Page identifies that the site lacked an image. The image is one that I have been using now as an oldboy of school for over 20 years. This is a fair use arrangement. The inclusion of the image enhances the value of the article. I am a lawyer in Brisbane and have a close connection to this school. This will not be seen to be an infringement or violation of any right whatsoever. --AndrewJSee (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew See 5/12/2011 Barrister at Law --AndrewJSee (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC) +61 7 32113154[reply]

 Not done - Fair use images are not acceptable on Commons. If you want to upload a photo of it, find one which is freely licenced. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Keith_Emerson_standing_desert_mari_kawaguchi.jpg[edit]

This is in regards to the deleted file: //commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Keith_Emerson_standing_desert_mari_kawaguchi.jpg


Back in 2010, Krinkle sent me these questions regarding the copyright holder of the photo.

These are the questions and my replies:

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

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

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

I have now also re-sent Declaration of consent to permissions-commonswikimedia.org.

Please restore the image. Thank you. Mari Kawaguchi December 5, 2011 --KEOFFICE (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by Russavia while processing the OTRS permission. Thank you for your contribution. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Las_ruinas_circulares.jpg[edit]

Hi,

Prior to including the image on the Wikipedia page of the same name: "Las ruinas circulares" (Spanish Wikipedia), I contacted the artist who created the image. He gave me his permission to include his image and sent me a jpg file of the image via e-mail. Please feel free to contact him. His name is Ricardo Garbini and his e-mail address is ricardo27.lp@gmail.com.

Jessica Engel-Aiello — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica Engel-Aiello (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to undelete, because the file has not been deleted (yet). —LX (talk, contribs) 10:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Three Lesbians with Salami.jpg[edit]

File:Three Lesbians with Salami.jpg has been deleted without reason. Deletions without reason are not possible here. → File needs to be undeleted. --Saibo (Δ)

✓ Done - there seems to be a fair amount of support for undeletion, and I don't see why this image is out of scope if the other isn't. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deletion of Prince Sultan Photo [Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz 2.jpg][edit]

Dear Gents,

I uploaded a photo for prince Sultan photo but it was deleted after that. I took this photo from MOH web page[moh.gov.sa] and I upload it based on this licencse: {{PD-author|author}} – for works released into the public domain by non-Wikimedia users. Some further explanation should be given such as a link to the author's website where they explicitly state that they release the work into the public domain.

In their web site they mentioned that "Only the personal user, for non-profit using, can benefit from portal content or any information published on it, provided that he shall refer to the portal as the source of such content and information."


Please support.

--AbdullahMF (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Stay deleted As you have stated they only allow non-profit use, which cannot be maintained on Commons. That is not public domain if they have restrictions like that. Beta M (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose - it's not in the public domain if it's licensed such. --Xijky (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Zlata lisica 2011 - Tomi Meglič.jpg[edit]

I request undeletion of

because it is under under CC-SY-BY-2.5-SL licence as it says on the left side of the page about half way down [1]. Sporti (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:MikeyWayPerformingWithMyChemicalRomance11.jpg[edit]

I request undeletion of

  • File:MikeyWayPerformingWithMyChemicalRomance11.jpeg

because it is my property. RiotGrrrlsDiePretty (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/mikey-way-gerard-way-and-ray-toro-of-my-chemical-romance-news-photo/107529958. Owning a copy of a photo, downloaded from elsewhere or given to you by someone, does not mean that you have any rights to make copies of the photo and redistribute them. Especially not in the context of Wikimedia Commons where the copyright holder must give permission that anyone, not only Wikipedia, can reuse the photo anywhere, anytime for any purpose, educational as well as commercial purposes. See Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:SILK_SMITHA.jpg[edit]

Sure its not my own work. I took it from a website where no particular license or copy wright protection was mentioned. so i think there is no harm in using it. I downloaded it and edited it, that's why i mentioned it as my own work so that i could use it on her Wikipedia page + its difficult to click on a picture of a dead person you know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usav (talk • contribs) 03:40, 6 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose undeletion. Deletion was entirely in accordance with policy. Usav, please read Commons:First steps and Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Pagina inical Transformice.jpg, File:Transformice jogo.jpg, File:Loja transformice.jpg and File:Shaman transformice.jpg[edit]

I request undeletion of 

File:Pagina inical Transformice.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Transformice_jogo.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Loja_transformice.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
File:Shaman_transformice.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Because these files don't represent COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT was because I took MYSELF. Please review these files, it is entirely mine, I did not catch anyone. Thank you.

Matheus93tfm (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2011 (Brazil's Time - GMT)

 Not done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kit left arm Barca92.png[edit]

This was deleted due to an erroneous request of deletion. I'm the owner of the file. --MEDM (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I can't see the file, but the DR reason was just "bad filename", which is not a reason for deletion -- may have been an accident on the admin's part. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a left arm for a football uniform kit template for the 1992 uniforms for Barcelona FC. Restored. ✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Carlos Quieroz 1.jpg[edit]

[[:File::Carlos Quieroz 1.jpg]]

It's taken by my camera and those goal.com link's picture was upload before that in my own facebook acount. AlirezaKarami (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, blatant copyvio. Thank you for reminding me of you, it was about time to block your newly created sockpuppets. --Martin H. (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:AAAAAAAACarlos2.jpg[edit]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Normally_OK

This picture was taken in a place open to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darbaki7 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 9 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Egidiotorre.png[edit]

I've got the right license for the image. --Emiliordz (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The license you gave was CC-Zero, which is not correct. The page says http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/mx/ and that does not work for us at all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Filedeletion[edit]

Why was the picture deleted?? It is not violation anything! I have the full authority to use it from the owner!

File:PROFILBILD.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discohund (talk • contribs) 07:07, 14 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

From the owner, interesting. With your upload you claimed it your own work. --Martin H. (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Naval Academies Superintendents Conference 2011 - Polish Naval Academy.jpg[edit]

Madam, Sir,

I apologize for disturbing you. A file I recently uploaded, "Naval Academies Superintendents Conference 2011 - Polish Naval Academy.jpg"(//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naval_Academies_Superintendents_Conference_2011_-_Polish_Naval_Academy.jpg), has been deleted. Since I was unexperienced in the creation of file, I might have made the wrong choice regarding the copyright arrangement of this file and would like now to solve the license issue, which shall have been indicated as "free" (creation of one of our public organs). Would you be kind enough to help me or advising me on how to un-delete this file, please? With best regards and many thanks for your help.

21 November 2011 ESDC Secretariat ESDCsecretariat (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non admin closure; looks like this was restored by OTRS. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:ESDP module Portugal 2009.png[edit]

Madam, Sir,

I apologize for disturbing you. A file I recently uploaded, "ESDP module Portugal 2009.png"(//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ESDP_module_Portugal_2009.png), has been deleted. Since I was unexperienced in the creation of file, I might have made the wrong choice regarding the copyright references for this file and would like now to solve the license issue, which shall have been indicated as "free" (creation of one of our public organs). Would you be kind enough to help me or advising me on how to un-delete this file, please? Remaining yours for further information. With best regards and many thanks for your help.

21 November 2011 ESDC Secretariat ESDCsecretariat (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non admin closure; looks like this was restored by OTRS. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:ESDC logo.png[edit]

Madam, Sir,

I apologize for disturbing you. A file I recently uploaded, "ESDC logo", has been deleted. Since I was unexperienced in the creation of file, I might have made the wrong choice regarding the copyright arrangement of this file and would like now to solve the license issue, which shall have been indicated as "free" (it is the logo of our institution, the European Security and Defence College, for the diffusion of which we give clear consent). Would you be kind enough to help me or advising me on how to un-delete this file, please? remaining yours for further information. With best regards and many thanks for your help.

21 November 2011 ESDC Secretariat ESDCsecretariat (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For works published elsewhere, we typically require a specific permissions email to be sent from the copyright owners -- see COM:OTRS for details. This will let you specify the files and the license you want to give them. Note that permission must be given to everyone, not just Wikipedia/Wikimedia. You can choose one of the licenses on Commons:Licensing. If you have a custom permission statement, we prefer those to unambiguously allow distribution, commercial use, and derivative works (again, for everyone), as that is what a "free" license requires. The required license just covers the copyright alone; any trademark rights would be unaffected, as those do not need to be licensed. Once the permission email is processed, the files will get undeleted. This email is to make sure the copyright owners are completely aware what they are licensing, and to make sure it really is the copyright owner doing the uploads (accounts here are essentially anonymous, so even if the username suggests an association, we can't count on it). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non admin closure; looks like this was restored by OTRS. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Greater_Israel_Map.png[edit]

In the original Deletion Request I stated that the map is inside the scope and laws of WikiCommons because:

  1. A work of fiction. (like in Category:Maps_of_alternate_histories)
  2. It's source is mentioned in the debate inside the deletion request. (http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/1923-1948-british-mandate.html)
  3. It was done in MSPaint completely by myself.

Therefore, on account of the above mentioned, I request that the map be Undeleted. --Oren neu dag (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose The map was poor, and per the DR, there are more accurate maps illustrating the "greater Israel" land claim/theory. Fry1989 eh? 00:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
there are more accurate maps illustrating the "greater Israel" land claim/theory. - if you can provide a link to a more accurate substitute, that substitute ought to be preferable, certainly if the only intended purpose is illustrating a userbox. Rd232 (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The map was not intended to be an accurate representation, but rather for legitimate usage in a wikiproject userbox. The only relevant point Oren mentions above is that he drew it himself. Chesdovi (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Per my comments on the deletion discussion. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 11:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Educationcorps.jpg[edit]

This file has been deleted by admin Fastily. Could you please restore this file. I don't know what ist wrong with this file. There are more files he deleted File:MRplandreform.jpg*, File:Sepahebehdasht.jpg, File:Shahfarmerscongress.jpg, File:Womenrightsdemonstration.jpg, File:Unruhen im Iran im Juni 1963‎.jpg*, File:Weiße Revolution.jpg*, File:Tudeh-Partei des Iran‎.jpg*, File:Operation Ajax.jpg*, File:Mohammad Reza Pahlavi‎.jpg*, File:Abkommen von Algier.jpg*, File:Karlheinz Stockhausen‎.jpg**, File:Schiraz-Kunstfestival.jpg*, File:Haj Ali Razmara‎.jpg*, File:Parviz Camran Radji.jpg*, File:Mohammad Mossadegh.jpg*, File:Attentate auf Mohammad Reza Schah Pahlavi‎.jpg*, File:Soulflight.pdf No notice was given to uploader. Please restore all the deleted files.--Wvk (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Publication date is 1999; PD-Iran applies when the author has died before August 1980 is the problem of the images --Ezarateesteban 12:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. The book I took some of theses photos has been published 1999, but the photos had been published in Iran more than 30 years ago. The copyright of these photos is clearly marked in the book, as well as the date when the photo had been taken. The Stockhausen photos are from the Stockhause-Archive Germany licensed to be published in Wikimedia. Before deleting all these photos you should have given a notice to the uploader to clarify this matter before deleting. PD-Iran applies 30 years after publication. Please handle this matter more carefully.--Wvk (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (*) Files never exsisted (**) Deletion is too long time ago. I strike this out because there is nothing to undelete. Regarding File:Soulflight.pdf: no notice given to the uploader is untrue, uploader was aksed to forward written permission for this book. Regarding Pieters information: All photos taken from a 1999 U.S. book, the argument from Ezarate is wrong in the second point, but the first point is correct: 1999 U.S. publications are not public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Soulflight.pdf uploader speaks persian; he is the son of the author and has given a PD licence; the discussion is in farsi (fa.wikisource); translation can be provided. A photo published 30 yeas ago in Iran is public domain and stays public domain even if the photo had been used in an US book published 1999. --Wvk (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I request to undelete these files:

(Deletion log); 00:15 . . Fastily (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:TudehDemonstration1953.jpg" (No permission since 14 November 2011) (Deletion log); 00:15 . . Fastily (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:SMRPSaddam.jpg" (No permission since 14 November 2011) (Deletion log); 00:15 . . Fastily (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:Shiraz 40.jpg" (No permission since 14 November 2011) (Deletion log); 00:15 . . Fastily (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:Shiraz 39.jpg" (No permission since 14 November 2011) (Deletion log); 00:15 . . Fastily (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:Shiraz 38.jpg" (No permission since 14 November 2011) (Deletion log); 00:15 . . Fastily (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:Shiraz 36.jpg" (No permission since 14 November 2011) (Deletion log); 00:15 . . Fastily (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:Shahfarmerscongress.jpg" (No permission since 14 November 2011) (Deletion log); 00:15 . . Fastily (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:Sepahebehdasht.jpg" (No permission since 14 November 2011) (Deletion log); 00:15 . . Fastily (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:SchabanJafari.jpg" (No permission since 14 November 2011) (Deletion log); 00:15 . . Fastily (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:Razmarafuneral.jpg" (No permission since 14 November 2011) (Deletion log); 00:14 . . Fastily (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:ParvizRadji.jpg" (No permission since 14 November 2011) (Deletion log); 00:14 . . Fastily (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:Mrplandreform.jpg" (No permission since 14 November 2011) (Deletion log); 00:14 . . Fastily (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:Mossadeghfars.jpg" (No permission since 14 November 2011) (Deletion log); 00:14 . . Fastily (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:Marmarpalace.jpg" (No permission since 14 November 2011) (Deletion log); 00:13 . . Fastily (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:Brtitishtroopsiran.jpg" (No permission since 14 November 2011) (Deletion log); 00:13 . . Fastily (talk | contribs)‎ deleted "File:Ali-Naqi Vaziri (1).jpg" (No permission since 14 November 2011)

--Wvk (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose - Until we see some kind of evidence that these photos were published ("public presentation" includes publication and is essential) over 30 years ago then we can undelete them but so far I have not seen the evidence.--Officer (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment shows clearly that you are not familiar with the copyright law of Iran Article 16: In the following cases, the author's financial rights will be valid for a period of 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation: 1. Photographic or cinematographic works. 2. In cases where the work belongs to a person of legal position.

A photo is PD 30 years after publication or public presentation not "30 years ago" from today. Most of the photos are marked as IR/RR means that these photos were shot by an official Iranian press photographer for publication in an Iranian journal; you should first look at the source mentioned in the description page and then decide. The photo File:Mossadeghfars.jpg was shot 1919 and published in several books dated more then "30 years ago". Or the photo File:Brtitishtroopsiran.jpg shot 1941 in Iran is PD UKgov. Or the photos File:Shiraz 40.jpg, File:Shiraz 39.jpg, File:Shiraz 38.jpg, File:Shiraz 36.jpg are cc-by-sa 3.0 licenced by the Stockhausen Archive. These photos should have never been deleted in any case. It seems to me that you have never looked at the photos before you tagged them for deletion. I hope there is an admin around to correct this mistake. --Wvk (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment For File:Soulflight.pdf, its author (or copyright holder) should send a permission to OTRS, they can write in Persian too.
I have not reviewed all of the images in question yet, but IMO it's very unlikely that some images like File:Mossadeghfars.jpg has not been published before 30 years ago. also, where article 16's exception is not applicable, normal copyright term (article 12) should apply, that includes unpublished works which their author(s) died before August 1980 or more than 50 years ago. however, please notice that a work might have remained in personal collections for many years, unpublished and unrepresented, that's why when we can't be sure about date of death of author, we need some evidence of publication date and location.
About files from Stockhausen archives (#2011010710008341), it seems User:Officer didn't actually realize that User:Wvk is an OTRS member and they can confirm permissions, yet I'm not sure how Stockhausen foundation could release these works, if author is unknown, then we should have some evidence of publication or public presentation, at least it should be clear for how long these works were publicly accessible from Stockhausen archives.  ■ MMXX  talk 18:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About files from Stockhausen archives, I must add that according to deleted file pages their creation date was 1972, as per article 12 of copyright law of Iran the works might be copyrighted, although unless author died before August 1980, also to be sure if article 16's exception applies to the works or not, there should be some evidence of publication or public presentation. were these works publicly accessible from Stockhausen archives since 1981? if not, it should be proved that author died before 1980, otherwise Stockhausen's permission would not be useful.  ■ MMXX  talk 23:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the copyright of Germany are these file CC-by-SA because the Stockhausen archive has licencend these files for publication under this licence (see OTRS ticket). --Wvk (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It took nearly two weeks to undelete at least 4 files out of 16. I don't want to bother the admins any further and suggest to close this discussion.--Wvk (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:SooYeong(SNSD).jpg[edit]

This file was shot by fan and posted to web to share. Not copyrighted and free to use. Kavaltheone (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also a fan posting photos to websites has a copyright. Not free to use and especially not free content. --Martin H. (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Public female urination.JPG[edit]

Image of a woman crouching to urinate, deleted by Jcb as "not educational". Deletion arguments also included the lovely canards "it's probably fake, she could have used a bottle" and "go look for a fetish website". The average woman urinates 8 times a day (apparently), and there are roughly 3.5 billion women on Earth, hence about 28 billion instances every day. According to my counter, in the roughly 112412 hours since this file was deleted, there have been somewhere in the region of 131.147 trillion separate instances of human female urination. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support A photo (no mobile phone cam) of a important activity in a probably well known position/situation (more or less behind opened car doors for shelter) for many/some of us. "goolge and some other fetish websites" as someone suggests in the original DR is just completely missing our goal: to provide a media. We do not want to send people to other website of unfree content if they look for this topic. And em... we do not have a single (except this unidentifiable textile object) photo of a crouching urinating woman from behind. Not to mention "public, beneath a car, between doors"... --Saibo (Δ) 22:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree with Saibo, the fact that an educational image has no alternatives heree on Commons (or in most other places) means that it should be kept. At least until such time when there will be a sufficient selection of images to chose from. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 11:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose it was clearly not used and violated policy. Mattbuck's support is actually an oppose per policy: "we currently have 27 images of female urination", which shows a clear redundancy and lack of educational usage. Commons policy always calls for a strict deletion when in doubt about usability and violation of policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redefining of other people's votes is an awesome policy, i think we should use that more often. As such i will state that Ottava Rima's vote is actually a keep vote, because i make up a policy stating that everybody voting on Sunday should actually vote in reverse. "Commons policy always calls for a strict deletion when in doubt" - i have seen policies about consensus building, but none about what you claim. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No Ottava, policy calls for strict deletion when the licence is in doubt, ie when there may be legal problems with hosting it, not when educational use is in doubt. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Default delete has always been the standard. That isn't just a license matter but extends to every issue. Why do you think we delete images that are just people's faces from webcams? Default delete. You have to prove worth. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per discussion: in scope. --Leyo 22:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Female Genitalia.jpg[edit]

File:Female Genitalia.jpg was deleted completely out of process, against policy without a DR (reason: "Out of project scope: Replaceable and/or low quality pornographic content") by User:Masur who even refused to restore it. For some reason I forgot to bring this up here earlier. --Saibo (Δ) 23:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could have restored it the same way as Masur deleted it (without a broader discussion) - for filling a DR right afterwards. I guess that you would not get much opposition for acting like this... It should be an instance where someone can be bold. :-) Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Leyo 00:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea (except that I wasn't admin when I asked Masur to undel) - next time. Thanks for your support. Lets have the nosense discussion here. --Saibo (Δ) 00:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One inconvenient in discussing here without previous undeletion: only people with the right to view deleted pages could evaluate the picture, everybody else lacks this information... Grand-Duc (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Please undelete because 1) it allows everybody to view the image and thus make up their mind 2) because it's what was suppose to happen anyhow 3) because if the image will be deleted because of 'out of scope' it should be possible to rescue the image for other projects which may accept a freely licenced image in that scope. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 11:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion copied to → Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Female_Genitalia.jpg - please continue there. --Saibo (Δ) 19:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Docteur Moncef Marzouki.jpg[edit]

I request undeletion of

An own work Salah 1er (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TV screenshot, not entirely your own work. Unless you own the TV station and produce the TV show yourself. --Martin H. (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Files uploaded by Andmag[edit]

Fui vítima de perseguição, as fotos são de minha autoria e denunciaram todos os meus arquivos, o que não faz sentido por que contribuo com a a wikipedia 189.119.92.190 10:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of cleaning up these five identical (except for the filenames), malformed requests and rolling them into one. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose A variety of files taken from unfree sources. Not own work, not freely licensed. Not restore. --Martin H. (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Arash Jahan.jpg[edit]

Der Autor Arash Jahan hat die Bilder in Facebook und als download freigegeben. Link: http://de-de.facebook.com/pages/Arash-Kaveh-Jahan-%D8%A2%D8%B1%D8%B4-%D9%88-%DA%A9%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%87-%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86/136188209815041 --Saeed2000 (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is on Facebook doesn't mean we can use it (or that the author is really the author). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, allowing people to download something does not imply permission for worldwide free reuse including commercial reuse and redistribution. Its gratis, not free. --Martin H. (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:therion_software_export_to_googleearth.png[edit]

There was misunderstanding about authors of picture. Of course the owner of copyright is GoogleEarth, so I have to change this. And change category to: Category:Geology software Category:Cave surveying

Msluka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msluka (talk • contribs) 07:28, 9 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

How is your proposed course of action going to fix the copyright problems with this image? --Kramer Associates (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. Google Earth content is non-free. Non-free content is not accepted on Commons. Msluka, please read Commons:Image casebook#Maps & satellite imagery and Commons:First steps. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:The AUTianz First Issue.jpg[edit]

This is my own work and I permit it to be used as a free content. I request undeletion. --Bala8vijay (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Association of Civil Engineering - Anna University of Technology, Tiruchirappalli.png[edit]

This is my own work and I permit it to be used as a free content. I request undeletion. --Bala8vijay (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:The AUTianz Logo.jpg[edit]

This is my own work and I permit it to be used as a free content. I request undeletion. --Bala8vijay (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Evstafy Sangushka.jpg[edit]

I only learned that this image was deleted when it vanished from an Article over in wikipedia where is is very useful. While there was no particular reason I should have been notified about this prior to deletion, this was an image or a painting by a long-dead artist and appears to have been deleted due to a lack of licensing info or some similar minor glitch. Given that there are thousands of similar images of paintings by long-dead artists here on commons, I suspect there was no particular problem with this image, just a lack of info. If it could be restored, I'm sure a proper tag can be found. Montanabw (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No file by that name has ever existed on Commons.[2] en:File:Evstafy Sangushka.jpg was recently deleted from the English Wikipedia project, so you may be looking for en:Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Thanks for your help! Montanabw (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:therion_software_export_to_googleearth.png[edit]

There are zillion of screenshots from Google Earth with source Own work or others in Wikimedia Commons, so way my file "therion_software_export_to_googleearth.png" was deleted by copyright violation???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msluka (talk • contribs) 10:39, 10 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Because it was a copyright violation. Google Earth content is not your own work, and it's not free. See Google Maps/Earth Terms of Service. If you find other copyright violations, please mark them as such. Please do not see any copyright violations that may have been missed as an excuse to upload additional copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Please read http://www.google.com/help/terms_maps.html and compare with Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. Other screenshots of google earth on this project got deleted too. You already had your request posted here at 9 December 2011, 07:28‎ (UTC). --Martin H. (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Simran Bagga 2.jpg[edit]

File:Simran Bagga 2.jpg Undeletion request. File name is File:Simran Bagga 2.jpg

Seeking your kind assistance to undo deletion as the image is taken from a website with creative commons 2.5 license which is acceptable under the policy. Thank you very much for your assistance. --Emymal (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source you provided is http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HOCuXB2IC34/SmDqgwExOQI/AAAAAAAADOM/MTmC2g5Pn9o/s1600-h/10+%28www.cute-pictures.blogspot.com%29.jpg. "www.cute-pictures.blogspot.com/" is a collection of unfree pictures, not the original copyright holder. Therefore any Creative Commons license from http://www.cute-pictures.blogspot.com/ is not applicable for this photo. Also according to many other websites the copyright holder might be http://www.southdreamz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Anuvum-Nanum-simran-0.jpg and that source is not published under a Creative Commons license. Uploading files from external sources under free licenses is always two things to check: 1) is the source published under a free license 2) is the licensor the copyright holder and allowed to publish it under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deletion of Prince Mutieb Photo [Prince Mutieb bin Abdulaziz.jpg][edit]

Dear Gents,

I uploaded a photo for prince Mutieb photo but it was deleted after that. I took this photo from other Wiki pages [ar.wikipedia] and I upload it based on this licencse: {{PD-user-w|projectcode|projectname|username}} – for works released into the public domain by their creators when the creators are other Wikipedia users.

Please support.

--AbdullahMF (talk) 07:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deletion of Prince Sultan Photo [Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz 2.jpg][edit]

Dear Gents,

I uploaded a photo for prince Mutieb photo but it was deleted after that. I took this photo from MOH web page[moh.gov.sa] and I upload it based on this licencse: {{author}} – for works released into the public domain by non-Wikimedia users. Some further explanation should be given such as a link to the author's website where they explicitly state that they release the work into the public domain.

In their web site they mentioned that "Only the personal user, for non-profit using, can benefit from portal content or any information published on it, provided that he shall refer to the portal as the source of such content and information."


Please support.

--AbdullahMF (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The website terms are not public domain. Its copyrighted and free to reuse only for non-commercial purposes...thats not free content. Read Commons:Licensing. --Martin H. (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deletion of Prince Sattam Photo File:Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz.jpg[edit]

Dear Gents,

I uploaded a photo for prince Sattam photo but it was deleted after that. I took this photo from Alanba newspapaer web page [www.alanba.com.kw] and I upload it based on this licencse: {{reason}} – please supply a valid reason for the file being PD Please support.

Since the picture is related to public person and the refernce is already mentioned. --AbdullahMF (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture is related to public person?? How is this important? The file is simply not public domain but stolen by you from copyrighted source. --Martin H. (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin,

I tried to contribute in wiki commons by adding photos for public persons and I tried my best to follow the required instruction.

You mentioned that "The file is simply not public domain but stolen by you from copyrighted source"?!

I didn't stole any picture and I provided the source of this photo  !! [3] Please check the link.

The word which you use "Stolen" is very hurt.

--AbdullahMF (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed {{PD-because|Generic photo for Riyadh Governer}}, this means: you said that a photographer not enjoys intelectual property rights over a photo becaue its a "generic photo for Riyadh Governer". Thats absurd, and dont you think that taking someones legal rights away by denying them hurts the photographer too? --Martin H. (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deletion of Prince Abdulmajeed Photo File:الامير عبدالمجيد 1.jpg[edit]

Dear Gents,

I uploaded a photo for prince Abdulmajeed photo but it was deleted after that. I upload it based on this licencse:

Public domain
This file is in the public domain because reason

This template must not be used to dedicate an uploader's own work to the public domain; CC0 should be used instead.

This work must carry justifications for free usability in both the United States and its country of origin.
– please supply a valid reason for the file being PD

Please support.

Since the picture is related to public person and the refernce is already mentioned. --AbdullahMF (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You not added any pd-because rational on this uploads. Obviously because their is no rational, the photo is simply unfree. --Martin H. (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deletion of Prince Abdulmajeed Photo File:الامير عبدالمجيد 2.jpg[edit]

Dear Gents,

I uploaded a photo for prince Abdulmajeed photo but it was deleted after that. I upload it based on this licencse: {{PD-because|reason}} – please supply a valid reason for the file being PD Please support.

Since the picture is related to public person and the refernce is already mentioned. --AbdullahMF (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You not added any pd-because rational to this file, maybe because there is no rational. The file is simply unfree. --Martin H. (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deletion of King Khalid Photo [الملك خالد 1.jpg][edit]

Dear Gents,

I uploaded a photo for King Khalid but it was deleted after that. I took this photo from kingkhalid web page [www.kingkhalid.org.sa] and I upload it based on this licencse: {{PD-Saudi Arabia}} – photos, films, sound and artistic works 25 years after publication, starting from the publication date.

Please support.

Since the picture is related to public person and the refernce is already mentioned. --AbdullahMF (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload rational was {{Attribution}} and you claimed that this is a 2011 photo. Provide a source that fulfills your above named requirements. --Martin H. (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deletion of King Khalid Photo [الملك خالد 2.jpg][edit]

Dear Gents,

I uploaded a photo for King Khalid but it was deleted after that. I took this photo from kingkhalid web page [www.kingkhalid.org.sa] and I upload it based on this licencse: {{PD-Saudi Arabia}} – photos, films, sound and artistic works 25 years after publication, starting from the publication date.

Please support.

Since the picture is related to public person and the refernce is already mentioned. --AbdullahMF (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload rational was {{Attribution}} and you claimed the photo is created 2011. Provide a publication that supports your new claim above (25 years after publication, first publication in Saudi Arabia). --Martin H. (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deletion of King Khalid Photo [الملك خالد 3.jpg][edit]

Dear Gents,

I uploaded a photo for King Khalid but it was deleted after that. I took this photo from kingkhalid web page [www.kingkhalid.org.sa] and I upload it based on this licencse: {{PD-Saudi Arabia}} – photos, films, sound and artistic works 25 years after publication, starting from the publication date.

Please support.

Since the picture is related to public person and the refernce is already mentioned. --AbdullahMF (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload rational was {{Attribution}} and you claimed the photo is created 2011. Provide a publication that supports your new claim above (25 years after publication, first publication in Saudi Arabia). I however doubt that this photo was first published in Saudi Arabia, it more likely comes from the foreign press. --Martin H. (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deletion of King Khalid Photo File:الملك خالد 4.jpg[edit]

Dear Gents,

I uploaded a photo for King Khalid but it was deleted after that. I took this photo from kingkhalid web page [www.kingkhalid.org.sa] and I upload it based on this licencse: {{PD-Saudi Arabia}} – photos, films, sound and artistic works 25 years after publication, starting from the publication date.

Please support.

Since the picture is related to public person and the refernce is already mentioned. --AbdullahMF (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload rational was {{Attribution}} and you claimed the photo is created 2011. Provide a publication that supports your new claim above (25 years after publication, first publication in Saudi Arabia). --Martin H. (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Example.jpg[edit]

Dear Wiki Media Editors who have deleted my submissions. The computers used are in an Adult education centre so the IPg or whatever you call it makes no sense. You should check your emails sent by me<xander4780@yahoo.com> sent to <photosubmission@wikimedia.com> and <wiki@wikimedia.com> and find a scanned and signed by Angelique Rockas granting me perrmission to release the whole batch of the photosubmissions that I have made with her or her company`s Internationalist Theatre productions of ` Mother Courage and Her Children` `The Camp ` by Griselda Gambaro after I saw all the fuss you made. Not many people can quite manage your instructions - so go to the email and check the Licence. Daid Alexander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander4780 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 9 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose You have two deleted images:
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose as per Jameslwoodward. Plus, we got your permissions email and...all of your images will have to be deleted since they do not meet the terms we have set up here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hands of creation.jpg[edit]

--Victor (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Miracle.jpg[edit]

File was uploaded to en-wiki in 2005. In 2008 some website uses the picture. Later another website uses the picture. Then someone thinks that uploader stole the picture from these websites.

That makes no sense at all... Check http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/mensch-gene/geschmackssinn-unmoegliches-geschieht-im-mund-1951608.html it says C CiXeL and that is the name of the original uploader on en-wiki! --MGA73 (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - if you read Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Miracle.jpg you'll see that the image was used in 2001, and only uploaded in 2005 (cropped to remove the embedded copyright notice).
James F. (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... The version on Wikipedia / Commons is not a crop. It is a version without copyright notice. --MGA73 (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Likely the original source is not longer online anymore. Looks like some photo of a "Hawaiian Seasonal Fruit Guides for Chefs" card such as this. The author information is convincing. The information at one of the uploaders other uploads, en:File:Plur.jpg, suggests that the uploader is not the person we identified as the photographer. --Martin H. (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Phantasmagorey-lg.jpg[edit]

The creator of this file, Mark Shelby Perry, has emailed OTRS with permission to use this photo. We ask that the photo not be deleted. The email is copied below, sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on 11/8/11.

To whom it may concern, Regarding the Wikimedia file http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phantasmagorey-lg.jpg

> I hereby affirm that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the above link Phantasmagorey-lg (used on Beat Circus wikipedia entry) sourced from here: http://markshelbyperry.smugmug.com/Dance/Phantasmagorey-2011/i-KqJwFtq/0/XL/MG5130-XL.jpg >> I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). >> I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. >> I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. >> I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. >> I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. >> I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. >> >> Mark Shelby Perry >> 11/08/2011 >>

Jillythree (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored by OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion of multiple files.[edit]

The following files:

1) Ferrari P540 Superfast Aperta.jpg, 2) Ferrari 458 Italia High Resolution.jpg, 3) Audi R8 (2006).jpg, 4) Lamborghini Gallardo LP570 SL Super Trofeo Stradale.jpg,

have been deleted for copyright violations and the following files:

1) Ferrari 575 GTZ.jpg, 2) Lamborghini Aventador.jpg,

have been marked for deletion due to lack of permission.

All of the above files have been found on Google Images. Any and all images on Google are free to use by anyone in anyway they want. No copyright information has been given for anyone. Why would I keep the Permission and such obvious fields as "unknown" if I would know it or if the information has been explicitly stated? As I said, all images on Google are free for everybody, plus there's no copyright stated on any of them. All that's stated is that "Images MAY be subject to copyright" and not "Images ARE copyrighted". I download an image form Google images, so I can use it for any purpose I want. Google Images hasn't stated a copyright, if any, on those images, and there's no way for me to find out the copyright and request permission from it's owner as there's no source for information on the image/author. I would fill up the fields and state the copyright information if I knew, and/or found, but I did not, so I think that the images are unjustly deleted. As far as the permission goes, it's the same reason stated above. Google is a free website where images are available for any use freely. How, where, when and why is it used doesn't matter as it's a free world, also, no information also been given at all.

Saying it from my point of view, Wikipedia is an educational and informative website; so is Google and any content on both/either. Educational and informative things never have copyright restrictions on them. Simple example is this: I download any image from any of the sites mentioned, I have the full right to use it. I download the image of a car, I have the right to use that image of the car when, where, how and for any reason I want. Wikipedia is made up of people, and if they get copyrights in their way, they won't listen to any legality. As a tyrant government is overthrown, the people will throw the copyright back at the owners if it gets in their way. I'm just a contributor, who contributes here. I'm not an analyzer, who analyzes information. And I contributed for the better, not worse. I'm sure no one would have a problem with that. Please feel free to discuss it with me.

Also, another contributor, named FinalLeigon, has had copyright issues. But his points are right. If everything is copyrighted, how can we upload images? And if this is a free world, how can we get copyrights? Since you people say your servers are in the US, and that all information is automatically copyrighted in US, all the images on your servers are automatically copyrighted. That makes all your images unusable, right? This was a sentence from FinalLeigon's complaint, answered to him by someone,"Copyright notices have not been required in the United States since March 1, 1989; everything published since is fully copyrighted whether it has a notice or not.", so all your images are unusable since it's automatically copyrighted, right? Look, any community, whether it be on the internet, real life or anywhere, does not survive only on the law. Communities also thrive on morality. Copyright is law, but depriving someone of education is immoral. Even Wikipedia needs moral views. I uploaded an image, no copyright information stated, so it's wrong to upload. But that image is informative, educational. Helps people. It's morally right. I had to go through a lot of pages to get those images so that others, who need the information don't get much trouble/problems finding it. I did it for the good of the community. Law is just an excuse and a disguise to control others, morality isn't that. In your words, it's right to deprive someone of information, but wrong to upload copyright images? That's quite out of sense. And both can't be followed together. You need to let go of one if you want to do the other. One side, you say "For the good of the community" and on the other, you say "Abide by the law"? Law doesn't exist, morality does. Law isn't permanent. Many examples from history show that. Every ruler had his/her own rule, but morality is always the same. Right and wrong never change. So, it's unjust, and just think about it, deeply, before you make any decision. I'm happy to communicate on this matter.

As far as copyright itself goes, here you can find another support to my arguement: http://questioncopyright.org/promise — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMNeSiaaiSeNMA (talk • contribs) 04:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasted my time to read this. Your question: "If everything is copyrighted, how can we upload images?" is answered in our tutorials, we can upload files if the copyright holder allowed free reuse. Free means Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. I also deleted your other two uploads now, thats unfree images grabbed from internet sources that not have a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think you waste Wikipedia's time for saying all this, OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMNeSiaaiSeNMA (talk • contribs) 08:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't realized yet, here is Commons, not Wikipedia. And, no, this is not the place for philosophical or whatever kind of general discussions. If you want a deleted file to be undeleted, then you have to present a rationale and evidence, plain and clear, refering to the copyright status of that file (in case it was deleted as copyvio). The more words you put into your request, the less likely you will find an admin who takes care about your request. So, instead of retorting to Martin H., you should have been grateful for his fast and rather concrete reply. Finally, please sign all your comments, as you are expressedly advised on top of the edit windows. --Túrelio (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you need to listen to something, OK? I said something above, which I think you didn't read. Instead of giving me the BS of licensing, let me show you something. This is what I said above, "Since you people say your servers are in the US, and that all information is automatically copyrighted in US, all the images on your servers are automatically copyrighted. That makes all your images unusable, right? Notice or no, you yourself say that all content published is copyrighted, with or without notice, so isn't your content copyrighted too?" And owners retain the rights to an image not to the distribution of the image, alright? I do some software, so I retain the rights to that software, not to it's distribution. It's always "credentials infringement" rather than "copyright infringement". I haven't done credentials infringement, and copying things isn't a crime. It's how things stay alive. If old records wouldn't have been copied and they would have been destroyed, how would you treat that? I gave you that website, which supports my saying. it says this "We would see a return to an older and richer cosmology of creativity, one in which copying and borrowing openly from others' works is simply a normal part of the creative process, a way of acknowledging one's sources and of improving on what has come before. And the old canard that artists need copyright to earn a living would be revealed as the pretense it has always been." It's right. With copying, users get a knowledge to give proper credit and artists would get paid for that work. If it's not brought out to the world, how the hell will you attribute it to the author in the first place, huh? Everyone has the right to copy. And I also stated earlier that Google is a free website, where any and all images are free. If I download the image, I have the right to use it as I want. Get that right, guys. And get a head too.

Also, I never said I would not attribute the work, but if there's no information available, what the hell you want me to do, huh? Copyright don't exist because everyone has the right to copy. No one's gonna' let copyright come in the way. If 100 people download copyrighted songs by buying, a million download it by free sites. What you think, copyright works? We all copy hundreds of files in our daily lives. Practically, copyright never works, and Wikipedia isn't a theory. 90% of the people would avoid copyright. Try making a survey. And we HAVE NOT DENIED crediting the author, which would be a crime. Images are free. I create something don't mean I have distribution rights. I only own the main thing, not the method of distribution, got that? There's just no information on the author. And I'll tell you one thing...if the author comes threatening to file a suit, he'll come to me, because I uploaded the image, and no author will, because no one is ignorant enough to deprive information to others. And if the images are copyrighted, why are they on Google? All images on Google are free, so why there? Instead of asking me to be grateful, think properly, OK?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AMNeSiaaiSeNMA (talk • contribs) 09:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us share your desire to see a world where copyright is irrelevant, but we do not live in such a world. You appear to have confused "free as in beer" with "free as in speech" -- just because an image can be accessed without payment doesn't mean that the content is uncopyrighted. Just because Google can find and show you an image doesn't mean Google owns the image.
Think of it like a library... you can walk into a library, search the catalog to find a book, and read the book, or even take the book home... but you don't own the book. You can't go ripping pages out of the book because you don't own it. You can go down to the local copy shop and make copies of the book's pages, but you can't bind those pages into a book of your own and sell it as your own book.
Photos you find on Google are like that book... you can use them, but they're not yours to do with as you please. We here at Commons aim to be a repository only for photos that you can do anything you want with. If you want to use one of our photos in an advertisement, or on the cover of a book, or in an art installation, you can. But in order to meet that goal, we have to be careful to exclude any photos for which that isn't true.
Make sense? Powers (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are about as wrong as you could possibly be when it comes to copyright in general and Google Images in particular. Google is relying on the fair use clauses of copyright, but they have no rights over the images themselves (which are copied from elsewhere). If you take images from there and use them as you want, unless your use is also covered by fair use, you are committing a crime far worse (in terms of punishment) then not attributing the work (I'm not sure why you think that is a crime while copyright infringement is not). You will get in serious trouble very quickly. The concept of copyright (and right of the government to enforce it) is actually in the Constitution; it's not likely to go away anytime soon. The increasing terms and scope of copyright is pretty much what kicked off the "free works" movement in the first place as a reaction against it; Commons aims to be a sort of Google Images where you *can* use all the images (almost) as you like, if providing attribution. However, the copyright on such works must be licensed that way first, so if you believe in that, please take your own pictures (so you own the copyright) and upload them. We can't force people to license their works. This is not a choice Commons can make; copyright infringement is of course governed by law, and we are not allowed to use the fair use clauses of U.S. copyright to keep images here, per a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation. Please read up on copyright law; one place to start would be 17 USC 106, which defines what rights copyright owners have -- which is rights over reproduction, distribution, derivative works, and performance. There are some exceptions but in general, all of those things need permission from the copyright owner. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why don't you make a survey and see how many people did copyright infringement? Copyright don't exist, if it did, no one would do copyright infringement. AMNeSiaaiSeNMA (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed this. Misinterpretation of what free in the context of this project not means. --Martin H. (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Central_Jail_Faisalabad,_Pakistan_in_October_2011.jpg[edit]

Identify the file(s) - File:Central_Jail_Faisalabad,_Pakistan_in_October_2011.jpg

State the reason(s) - I believe that Tariq Babur (the original author) did have the file uploaded somewhere himself. I want to know who uploaded the file on Commons so I can ask him or her where the file came from. Tariq babur uploaed his own files to the English Wikipedia, so I strongly sispect he uploaded this one as well.

The edit that added the image to the English Wikipedia was: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Jail_Faisalabad&diff=455653793&oldid=452269337

  • The IP traces to Pakistan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:An_outer_view_of_Administrative_Block_of_Central_Jail_Faisalabad,_Pakistan_in_October_2011.JPG has 9 deleted edits According to the EN deletion logs, tariq babur uploaded the file, but somebody else had moved it. Skier Dude deleted it from EN because it was on the Commons.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I am the closing Admin who deleted this file and I have no opinion here, one way or the other. With new information it may well deserve undeletion.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I think. The log shows it was originally uploaded to en-wiki by Tariq Babur, with a claim of "own work". This log was on the commons page (seen via Google cache). It should never have been marked "no source" to begin with, either on Commons or en-wiki, because "own work" is the source. If we find a pre-existing copy on the web, then it may be different, but at first blush I don't see a reason to not assume good faith. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On his own Tariq Babur re-uploaded the image to File:An outer view of Administrative Block of Central Jail Faisalabad, Pakistan in October, 2011.JPG WhisperToMe (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closure; made redirect to newly-uploaded image with better-documented source info, as it sounds like undeleting this would just be a duplicate now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Sources missed[edit]

Undeleted and sent to a DR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ejaculation-masturbation_slow_motion.ogv[edit]

User:Fanghong didn't reply why this should be out of scope (neither any participant in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ejaculation-masturbation_slow_motion.ogv did). --Saibo (Δ) 02:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support, completely pathetic nomination by a prude. The admin should know better. Fry1989 eh? 03:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support. This is getting silly, apparently most of the human sexuality is disallowed from being studied. There are numerous books written exclusively on subject of masturbation, it is a very interesting subject. The fact that there are less literature on male masturbation doesn't mean that it should be deleted. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose nasty personal attacks such as by Fry1989 above are not a legitimate reason to undelete a photo that violates our policies and standards. Also, claiming that a topic exists is not within policy to keep an image according to the porn policy - potential use is not proof of usability or education. There was no legitimate reason to keep then or here and the default under policy is to delete. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support No legitimate reason for the deletion of this file has been given as this file is in scope. Tm (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ✓ Done. Shame is not a reason for deletion. Plus, from looking at this video from the other animated images, there isn't a lot of times we see the frontal view of the penis when it is in this state (everything else is a side view). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:CNGS layout.jpg and File:OPERA experiment.png[edit]

✓ Done. Visuall (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:CNGS layout (OPERA experiment).jpg(it has been restored to File:CNGS layout.jpg) had been added to en:OPERA_neutrino_anomaly page in October, does it mean that such images were re-authorized by the paper's author ? If so, please recover such images. The paper's author had authorized to use such images several month ago, but such images were still deleted by OTRS. For more information, please see my talk page. Thanks, Visuall (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cern-light-mes.jpg . The information on your talk page does not constitute enough permission, to me -- it certainly seems to allow distribution, but derivative works and commercial use are not made clear. The submission to arxiv.org should have specified the license (though I can't see it, and it does not seem to be mentioned there). The license needs to be CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, or something substantially similar. Arxiv.org accepts articles with more restrictive licenses which we can't use. The OPERA website itself does seem to be CC-BY-SA, but the articles are not posted there directly, so the licensing statement at arxiv.org would seem to be the most authoritative if it can be found. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carl, is it possible just to define a copyright notice with explicit limitations (similar to the image en:File:Cern1.jpg) ?
Thanks, Visuall (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not on Commons, no. See Commons:Fair use and Commons:Licensing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carl, is it possible to move such images to enwiki ? Thanks, Visuall (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably impossible, I've re-uploaded those images to enwiki. Thanks, Visuall (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I've nominated them for speedy deletion there. They fail enwiki's criteria for non-free content, most clearly criteria #1. --Carnildo (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Charlie Daniels Album.jpg[edit]

It was deleted because they thought it was possible copyright violation, when it wasn't because I had permission from the author to use it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported Licence and I have forwarded the email with the proof of this to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvcharliedaniels (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Should be trivial to resolve, as soon as COM:OTRS is confirmed the image should be undeleted. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 18:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it is an album cover for the American singer Charlie Daniels and we must get permission not from that website but from the record company and artist of the cover (and perhaps the artist itself).  Oppose User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:gajahgallery.jpg[edit]

requesting undeletion of File:gajahgallery.jpg

Reason: {{own}} {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} --Roeshini (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No file by that name has ever existed on Commons. Do you mean File:Gajah Gallery.jpg? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. There is no permission from Arron Teo and/or the Gajah Gallery for this image to be hosted here. Also the uploader has lied about the sources and permissions of his images in the past. All of the uploads he has here now is under a deletion request due to suspect licensing or authorship. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Charkha Mandala, Eternal Gandhi Multimedia Museum, 2003-4.gif[edit]

I took this picture by myself with my camera. Not from another website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranjitmakkuni (talk • contribs) 18:03, 5 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, where did This very similar image come from? Powers (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose. The image here is smaller than the image at http://www.sacredworld.com/asp/images/NGMA/DSC00178.jpg and that image is under copyright of that museum. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ortophotomap multiple passes Pteryx UAV.jpg[edit]

I request undeletion of

It was created 100% using data collected by me using Pteryx UAV. The map was also made by Pteryx. 78.8.133.22 16:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Flexipilot mission simulated.jpg[edit]

The map and fligth path was made by me using the data from Pteryx UAV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.8.133.22 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 6 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Flexipilot mission real.jpg[edit]

The map and flight path was made by me using data from Pteyx UAV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.8.133.22 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 6 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]


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

File:CLEAR_LOGO.png[edit]

Please undelete File:CLEAR_LOGO.png. Thank you. Johndulles1 (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image was deleted at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:CLEAR_LOGO.png for being "not a PD text logo." Looking at the file, it is not a PD text logo so  Oppose undeletion. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same licensing as File:CLEARWIRE_LOGO.png. Johndulles1 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter; the green icon to the right of the text in this deleted image makes the image eligible under copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how is File:CLEARWIRE_LOGO.png eligible? Johndulles1 (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is just text and nothing else. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about File:LIGHTSQUARED_LOGO.jpg? Johndulles1 (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Will you be able to undelete File:CLEAR_LOGO.png and use the same licensing as File:Sprint Nextel logo.svg and File:AT&T logo.svg? Johndulles1 (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


This is where File:CLEARWIRE_LOGO.png and File:CLEAR_LOGO.png originally came from: http://corporate.clearwire.com/logos.cfm

http://www.clearwire.com/legal/copyright © 2011 Clear Wireless LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The entire content of this site, including but not limited to text, design, graphics, interfaces, code, and the selection and arrangement thereof, is protected as the copyrights, trade dress, trademarks and other intellectual property rights owned by Clearwire Corporation and its affiliates.

The Clearwire name and logo and other designated names, marks, and phrases are trademarks or registered trademarks of Clearwire Corporation and its affiliates. Trademarks of other companies that appear on this site are used for nominative purposes only and do not imply any affiliation or endorsement.

http://www.clear.com/legal/copyright © CLEAR Wireless LLC 2011. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The entire content of this site, including but not limited to text, design, graphics, interfaces, code, and the selection and arrangement thereof, is protected as the copyrights, trade dress, trademarks and other intellectual property rights owned by CLEAR Corporation and its affiliates.

The CLEAR name and logo and other designated names, marks, and phrases are trademarks or registered trademarks of CLEAR Corporation and its affiliates. Trademarks of other companies that appear on this site are used for nominative purposes only and do not imply any affiliation or endorsement. Johndulles1 (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is automatic, so unless there is something by a release of the author or by any legal code, any work will have copyright. There is nothing for me to restore. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other licensing I can use to make it work? Johndulles1 (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not here. You will have to go to the English Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May you please send me the link? Johndulles1 (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Elke_Rosemarie_Pfeifer.jpg[edit]

Please undelete this picture, as the picture shows the artist. The file is licensed to show in wikipedia by my wife Elke Rosemarie Pfeifer. Regards Dr. Georg Pfeifer

Restored and deletion discussion started for more input. From the declaration that the "picture shows the artist" I cant acknowledge the description that it is your own work. And that description has been disputed. --Martin H. (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Jenith-Thumbv1.jpg[edit]

This is my own work self portrait. Need the file back again--Jenith Michael Raj talk 01:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Based on his userpage and Twitter profile, it is indeed the same person. Restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anuya-Bhagvath.jpg[edit]

This is from Flickr Creative commons open licensed. Need it back --Jenith Michael Raj talk 01:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This was taken from Facebook, so you won't get it back. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Several PD-Old files deleted[edit]

There were several files which were deleted after tag-bombing by user:Bulka UA:

All of them PD-Ukraine (It is a piece of press information, a piece of folkloric art, an official document, a State symbol, a bank note or any other document covered by the Article 10 of the Ukrainian copyright law.), depict specific formation activities at 1941-1944 by thier own documents . Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the Admin who closed these DRs as deleted. After a discussion on my talk page, I asked Jo0doe to bring them here. While I think he is probably correct that they are OK, I am not really familiar enough with the Ukrainian law to be comfortable restoring them without more community input.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Я восстановил большую часть файлов, т.к. аргументы Bulka UA были, так скажем, не слишком удовлетворительными, а никаких других аргументов за удаление представлено не было. По двум файлам у меня возникли вопросы. Почем вы считаете, что File:30061941modtext.jpg (w:Declaration of Ukrainian Independence, 1941) является свободным, если Ярослав Стецько умер в 1986 году? Или вы всерьез считаете, что данный документ должен рассматриваться как "изданные органами государственной власти в пределах их полномочий официальные документы политического, законодательного, административного характера (законы, указы, постановления, судебные решения, государственные стандарты и т.п.) и их официальные переводы;"? Что касается файла File:BanderaOUNPeoplemilitiauniform1941.jpg, я не понимаю, почему вы считаете, что создатель этой фотографии (который вами не назван) умер в 1944 году. Trycatch (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. As for your questions:
It's text of Law which govern the specific situation and covered copyright of archival document - is relevant in this case by Ukrainian legislation .Also, Stetsko only made some handwrighting changes - actual creator(s) of the document itself is still scientific question. 2) I've made it by myself but only cropped version preserved. Jo0doe (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) No-no-no. This law is not about copyright, it's about w:uk:Право власності (w:Right of possession), a completely orthogonal thing to copyright. 2) I'm sorry, but you've just lied. You didn't create this picture, you've simply cropped it from one the these pics found on Internet -- [4] (taken from deathcamps.org/occupation/byalbum/list18.html originally). In the same way you've made false "own work" claims about File:30061941rep-p4.jpg and File:1942ukrpoljudeakt.jpg -- these scans in fact were copied from http://io.ua/931035p and http://io.ua/1630209p respectively. Stop these games, your tricks simply do not work, as they didn't work in both English and Russian Wikipedias. You didn't created a single "archival" scan you uploaded, so fill in the real source information on these pictures, or I will delete them again as "no source". Trycatch (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, but , your are completely wrong 1) Please check Article 2 http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=3792-12&p=1315992270456238to acknowledge the Ukrainian legislation basis for copyright (note "and other laws…) . You can made an enquiry for Ukrainian Ministry of Justice to clarify 2) I hope you note source name were deathcamps.org obtain the 1941 images (may be you missed deathcamps.org/occupation/byalbum/list00.html) – it's book published in Kiev in 2004. But earlier there was a state organized public exhibition http://photo.ukrinform.ua/ukr/current/photo.php?id=12065 – it was far before google.pictures . It's nice what you've able to find same archival documents with same archival details on the web – you can get same digital copies for a fee if you visit same institution - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cdago_entrance.jpg -and add your name to a registry card of document in question. I hope now you double check reliability of documents "real source" given by me at page description for every single document I've uploaded before. I kindly remind you to be civil and not allow for your imagination to overturn the facts (like you it or not). Regards 

--Jo0doe (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You continued to blatantly lie to me. Of course, I've carefully checked the pictures, and the file you uploaded is exactly the same scan originated from deathcamps.org. All different scans are slightly different (e.g. this is a _different_ independent scan of the same photo from the same book), but yours even has the same pixel dimensions as crop from 800x536 deathcamps.org version. And yeah, you've lost the EXIF and the uncropped version (a cat ate it?) of the photo, and you don't have a single other photograph from this exhibition (a horde of cats ate all of them?). And yeah, you don't have any evidence that Johannes Hähle's photos were exhibited in 2001 at 60th Babi Yar anniversary, 3 years before their first known publication. Let me cite dt.ua article about this 2001 exhibition (automatically translated):

"Babi Yar: the pain of memory" in the Second World War museum displays more than 400 exhibits, mostly exhibited for the first time. In addition to unique materials from the funds of the museum benefited the Central State Archive of Public Associations of Ukraine, state archive of Kyiv region and Kyiv, the Central State Archive kinofotofonodokumentiv them. GS wheat, documents provided by relatives of the writer Anatoly Kuznetsov and former executive secretary of the Emergency Committee to Investigate the Nazis in Kiev M. Burichenko and materials provided by the Jewish Council of Ukraine and the Fund "Remembrance Babi Yar."

  • Hamburg Institute for Social Research (holder of these photos) is not mentioned. So, really, stop this. Provide the real source for the pictures, otherwise I'll delete them again in a week. Trycatch (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's really sad to note incivility based on argumentum ad ignorantiam. Before rude comments you need to carefully check the set of images story - and suggest a PD-GermanGov (as far as set were kept at court file since 1961). Thank you for raw translation - the last words stright after Central State Archive of Public Associations of Ukraine would be clear answer for person familiar with issue - "they" own of 17х26 cm copies of images as a free donation from Hamburg Institute for Social Research in Spring 2001 (b/w images comes to Ukraine in early 90-s). If you'll have a specific model of camera in 2001 - you'll be know that the manufacturer software which downlad images through COM port does not preserve any information about camera Exif. I've no other real source other then mentioned - could you advice which "real" source you mean(need)?--Jo0doe (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
""they" own of 17х26 cm copies of images as a free donation from Hamburg Institute for Social Research in Spring 2001" -- yes, I read this as well (however, it's claimed in that article that pictures were donated after "Spring 2001", not in "Spring 2001"). But Dmitry Malakov worked in the Museum of Kiev's History, and sadly for you this museum was not mentioned in the list. "If you'll have a specific model of camera in 2001" -- What "specific model" of the camera? Does it has a name? And that camera, of course, was lost in a volcano since 2001? And presumable all other photos from this exhibition were lost in a volcano as well? Trycatch (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tired from your groundless accusations and no intend to undelete PD-GermanGov (as clearly noted at source mentioned by Trycatch above) and PD-Ukraine file taken from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cdago_entrance.jpg with clearly indicated source. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I agree with Trycatch about this situation and the older images that were copyright violations have been redeleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Munich Sendling Gotzinger Platz with mosque - draft Höfler.jpg[edit]

Pre-OTRS upload, presence of permission was clearly indicated on the page -- "Permission granted to publish under GFDL by DITIM/Walter Höfler". I believe {{No permission}} speedy deletion was not correct, because pre-OTRS uploads are generally grandfathered, and I don't see a reason why this case should not be grandfathered. See also COM:AN#How to deal with old files that are improperly attributed?. Trycatch (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second this request. It is pre-OTRS and there is no indication of a problem. I will not decide it, as i brought up the topic on COM:AN using this very picture as example. --h-stt !? 12:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted -- Similar to File:Munich Sendling Mosque Winner Drawing Höfler.jpg. Seems to have the appropriate permission, and uploaded pre-OTRS. -- Avi (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Solidarnosc.png[edit]

Undelete and tag with {{PD-textlogo}}. --Leyo 16:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks borderline to me. I'd support undeletion simply to DR it. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I compare it to Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Commons, it seems to be on the good side of the borderline. --Leyo 22:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mattbuck. Looks borderline to me too. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 15:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue it could also fall under http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Polish User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted and nominated for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Las_ruinas_circulares.jpg[edit]

Those who initially nominated this image for deletion seemed to claim that Ricardo Garbini had not given his permission for this image to be uploaded to Wikipedia. I was asked to forward an e-mail from Mr. Garbini with a statement of his consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, which I did. However, the image was still deleted on the grounds that Mr. Garbini "is not the author of the book" and "does not own copyright of the book cover".

However, and as I stated on My talk page, "Las ruinas circulares" is NOT a book, it is a short story. It does not have, and never has had, a "cover". Mr. Garbini's only claim is that the image belongs to him. When I uploaded the image to Wikipedia, I stated that this image is a poster inspired by the short story "Las ruinas circulares" written by Jorge Luis Borges. Is this type of image not allowed on Wikipedia?

For further clarification and details on the confusion regarding this image, please see the discussion regarding this image on My talk page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Las_ruinas_circulares.jpg JEA (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I was the deleting Admin in the DR. There was considerable confusion in the DR, in part because of a misunderstanding of the role of the subject image. I regret that I did not understand what this image was, but I think that a fair reading of the DR will show that it was not very clearly stated until a post-closure comment. I am also sorry that one of our colleagues on the DR page told JEA that she could forward permission to OTRS. Because of the possibility of an uploader creating a permission, we always require that the permission come directly from the creator to OTRS.

The image is a recent poster created by a graphic designer, Ricardo Garbini, to illustrate a short story published in 1940. As far as anyone has said, Garbini has no connection with the author of the story. He also does not have a web site (at least on the first three pages of Google hits) and so is probably not notable within the standard we use on Commons. It seems to me that the image is, therefore, personal art, and has about as much validity for Commons as if I had drawn a poster for this 1940 short story -- far out of scope.

Finally there is the question of copyright. All we have so far on OTRS is a message from the uploader, Jessica Engel-Aiello, which forwards a message from the graphic designer, Garbini. Both messages are from gmail accounts. The graphic designer's message gives permission for a non-existent image on Flickr. Our image is not referenced at all. So it seems to me that the OTRS permission fails both because we cannot tell if Garbini actually gave permission for anything, and, even if he did, what image he gave permission for. The OTRS tag at the time of deletion, placed by Russavia reflected that status. If Garbini actually wants to give permission for this image, this can be solved. As a graphic designer, he must have some web presence that we can rely on for this permission if he sends a message referencing this image directly to OTRS.

The larger question remains, however -- is the image in scope? I think not.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support The close was wrong, and I'm very surprised that it's allowed to stand in its current form. There was a fundamental misunderstanding in the notion that this was a book cover. Reading the file page and information (not to mention the article in which the image appeared) should have made this clear: the image was repeatedly described as a "poster." Moreover, the fact that the object of the representation is not a book should have made this clear. I recognize that Commons admins may feel stressed with the amount of material with which they deal, but their attention to this case has been cursory at best. (The Spanish page starts "Las ruinas circulares es un cuento." One click would have brought a curious reader to the English page wich reads ""The Circular Ruins" (original Spanish title: "Las Ruinas Circulares") is a fantasy short story.") At the very least, Jameslwoodward should edit that closing statement in the light of his subsequent realization of his error.
  • Meanwhile, there's a serious case of biting the newbies going on here. Jessica, whose sole experience editing Wikipedia is writing this article, has tried to fulfill all the requirements for OTRS approval. There is, incidentally, nothing at Commons:OTRS to indicate that emails sent from gmail accounts are somehow inadmissible. The notion that the person who created it needs to have a webpage is also a strange hoop added late in the process. The bottom line is simple: the artist has copyright of the image (which nobody has ever claimed to be a book cover) and he clearly wants to give permission for Wikipedia to use the image. This is clearly reflected in the email record. But in response, we get increasingly bite-y comments from the admin involved. Not good. --Jbmurray (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already expressed regret in several places for the handling of the DR. JBMurray would have me change the DR closure -- as I have explained to him elsewhere, that is not our process -- the discussion is now focused here and the DR, botched as it is, should stand as a permanent record.
I don't think that three experienced users taking part in over 3,500 words of discussion and explanation in five places constitutes "biting a newbie". Almost all of that discussion has been measured and patient, albeit firm. We have done our very best to deal patiently with a situation that began well, but took a bad turn.
JBMurray says
"and he clearly wants to give permission for Wikipedia to use the image. This is clearly reflected in the email record."
Although the image's copyright status is, I think, largely irrelevant, the fact is that so far all we have at OTRS is a forwarded e-mail which references a non-existent Flickr image. Even if we Assume Good Faith -- which I am certainly prepared to do -- and accept a forwarded e-mail from an anonymous source, we do not know what image Garbini was giving permission for.
Finally, all of the comments above are off the point -- this image is personal art of Garbini, who has no relation to the short story and it is therefore out of scope.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, the Flickr page does seem to exist (mentioned below), and with a CC-BY-SA license, so there is no need of a permissions email to begin with (provided that is the image in question). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Flickr page plainly has a CC-BY-SA license on it, so any permissions discussion is moot -- that is all we need to show a free license. The scope question is interesting though -- what would be its educational use? I'm not opposed to user-created artwork, though there needs to be some conceptual educational use for it. This one is odd, since if the referenced Borge work were in the public domain, this could certainly be used by a publisher for a re-release or something like that. But, we could not use it on any of the Wikipedia articles like es:Las ruinas circulares (where I think it was used) or en:The Circular Ruins, as there is no official association of this graphic with the work, something that placement on those articles would imply. It's a very cool graphic, but unless someone can come up with a potential educational use, I may tend to agree with Jameslwoodward on that issue, particularly as there is a potential danger of people assuming this was directly associated with Borges simply by being on Commons, though a better title indicating it's a modern work by a fan may help with that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, we seem (now) to have agreement that the image is in fact available to use on Commons: whether it's because we accept the Flickr page license or because we accept the OTRS email. The question is whether it's appropriate or "in scope" for use on es:Las ruinas circulares. As my final 2c., let's just put this the other way: this page was written as part of an educational assignment and the student, Jessica, asked about including an image. I said that Wikipedia was very strict about copyright, and that the process was something of a hassle, and it probably wasn't worth it. She was keen anyway, and managed to track down this image on Flickr, got in touch with the artist, persuaded him to release it for use on Wikipedia, and also got him to fill out the OTRS form, and has since been going through the various processes here on Commons. All so that the page she contributed to the Spanish Wikipedia can have an appropriate image. As for its educational use: given this is a fantasy short story, I can't really think of a better image. This one includes the characteristically Borgesian motif of the labyrinth, the figure of the dreamer/dreamed, and a stylized representation of the flames that are the proof that the dreamer is dreamed by another. It's a thoughtful and striking illustration of what the story's all about. Frankly, if this article is going to have an image, I can't for the life of me think of a better one. And my student, Jessica, has gone to some lengths to make it possible to have this image. --Jbmurray (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the hard work is definitely appreciated -- but forcing an image onto an article just to have one is not always the right approach. Still... that is a question more for the wikipedia projects themselves -- if it is considered appropriate there, then Commons should host it. This is not a case of self-promotion. I would just caution against using it any way which would indicate that this is an official cover or graphic -- i.e. label it very carefully, explaining what it is. It could get into moral rights issues, associating a graphic with the work which the author (or their publisher or estate) has nothing to do with. It may be best to upload again, but using a filename containing "Fan art" or some equivalent term, so it is more obvious what it is. Since it is licensed correctly on Flickr, the upload could be done using some of our more-automated tools. I'm not 100% convinced it is appropriate, but it should probably be placed back on the articles and let the local projects have discussions on the matter. So, I guess I support undeletion, though re-uploading with a better-labeled filename would be best (and would document the Flickr license, etc.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to everyone who has participated in this discussion. It's not been an easy one. Does this mean that I can upload the image (following the advice given above by Carl Lindberg) again? JEA (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if I may add, then, in defense of this image, I did not choose it because I was simply looking for any image to include in the Wikipedia article on “Las ruinas circulares”. I found this image in a Google search and, quite frankly, the find was unexpected. I was struck by its affinity to the short story by Jorge Luis Borges. Though I recognize that the creator has no direct relation to Borges, he was clearly inspired by his short story. Ricardo Garbini may not be known to the world at large as a “notable” artist, but he has created an image that is striking and that graphically illustrates some of the key narrative points and themes of the story. Represented as such, as an illustration inspired by the short story, I think it serves a purpose. It is a graphic illustration that accentuates the key points of the story and helps to draw the reader into the text that follows. JEA (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate very much Jbmurray's detailed explanation of the backstory behind this article and image and JEA's comments on the image. It certainly makes me all the more regret that the DR wasn't better handled, as we certainly would like to encourage students to contribute to Commons. If it is all right with the community, I propose that we restore the image with the file name
I will also edit the image description a little to make it very clear that the image was not connected in any way with the original publication.
If we all agree, I can do that easily without any further action by either Jbmurray or Jessica Engel-Aiello other than their agreement. I'd also like to see Carl's assent.
As an aside, I should add that once an image has been uploaded to Commons (or any other WMF project) it is with us permanently -- we never actually delete anything, but simply make it unavailable for general viewing. As a result, it is never required or desirable to upload an image a second time.
     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. We probably should do a Flickrreview on it too, if that was not done already, so the license is documented that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I confirm that it is CC-BY-SA-2.0 today and will put that on it if Jbmurray and.JEA agree to the plan.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This all looks good to me. Very pleased with the result. Many thanks to all.  :) --Jbmurray (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. What good news! Thank you. I must say I've learned a lot by going through this process. JEA (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is all settled. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Øyeblikk_Håkon_Sandmark.jpg[edit]

I hereby request for this file (Øyeblikk_Håkon_Sandmark.jpg) to be undeleted. I have all rights to this image file. This file was deleted by the user Yann due to copyright violation, but I have all rights to use this file, so this action by Yann is not correct.

Regards Håkon Sandmark User: hakonsandmark Hakonsandmark (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be File:Øyeblikk Håkon Sandmark.jpg. Judging by the uploader's name, I'm guessing this is probably legitimate, but given the nature of the work and that you are not a well-known regular contributor to Commons, I'd strongly suggest you go through the COM:OTRS process. It will make the grant of rights much clearer and avoid problems in the future, instead of anyone needing to keep an eye on the page. - Jmabel ! talk 15:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I have read about the OTRS process, but I do not understand it. Can I simply send the image to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to get it approved? Regards Hakonsandmark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakonsandmark (talk • contribs) 20:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, yes -- though send explicit permission, not the image. Provide the image filename (even though it was deleted). The OTRS volunteers will take it from there. Powers (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done E-mail received at OTRS, but no specific statement of permission was ever provided. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Baarle-Nassau_-_Baarle-Hertog-en.svg[edit]

File File:Baarle-Nassau_-_Baarle-Hertog-en.svg has been wrongly deleted. No explanation was given by the deleter [5] but it is likely that it is because it exists elsewhere on the web.

To make things clear: I create the SVG from a photograph and later the exclave.eu website copied it without attribution.

Anyone (apart from users Sroc and Jcb) can see that the png file was rendered from the SVG and not the other way around. It would be almost impossible for me to recreate an identical SVG file from a PNG. And why would I have reproduced a little mistake at the top left of drawing (crossing two supposedly parallel lines) ?

Thanks for reading. --Tos (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last-modified date of the png file on the exclave.eu website is 2010, while the SVG was uploaded here in 2008. Powers (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I can't see the SVG, but if they are *exactly* the same -- so that it's obvious that the version on the exclave.eu site was generated from the SVG -- then it should definitely be restored. And the exclave.eu site may not have existed before 2010 (archive.org has only one copy from November 2010), so that would definitely mean it was not the source. Oh... and looking at File:Baarle-Nassau_-_Baarle-Hertog-fr.svg, and comparing the 600px version with the one on exclave.eu -- that is definitely rendered from the source SVG here (the only differences are in the fonts, which indicates using an external renderer with a different font setup, but that's it -- it is *exactly* the same otherwise). The exclave.eu image was therefore copied from Wikipedia with no attribution (a moral rights violation possibly, but since the license is PD they did not commit any copyright violation by failing to attribute).  Support undeletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Carl; I wanted a second opinion on the fonts before I supported undeletion. Which I now  do. Powers (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, gentlemen. It is nice to see that my work is not going down the drain.Tos (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:PNVDstyrelse.jpg[edit]

In the FFD discussion Commons:Deletion requests/File:O'TooleEbertPatric by Roger Ebert.jpg I became aware of the discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_21#OTRS_permissions_required_for_old_cases.3F which indicates that there is consensus to grandfather in old files from the pre-tempate era. File:PNVDstyrelse.jpg, which was deleted by User:Jcb, was uploaded on 8 September 2006, 3 days before COM:OTRS was created (this is the creation of the page). This file clearly falls in the grandfathering criteria. So could you please reinstate this file? SpeakFree (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jcb was recently desysoped so he can't help me with this issue anymore. SpeakFree (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vanesa Romero.jpg[edit]

This picture I took of the twitter of the actress. And first I asked she if if she left me and I said yes. Here you can see the tweet: Here you can see the tweet:

https://twitter.com/#!/vanesa_romero/status/135426937689608194 --Vivaelcelta (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked the wrong person for permission. The copyright belongs to Pablo Blazquez Dominguez/Getty Images. You must ask the copyright holder for permission, not the model. The model possibly got a copy in an time for print agreement, that not allows her to give the image (or permission) to others. --Martin H. (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But this foto is not the same. If you compare them well, see that they are not the same photo. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same, one version got some distracting logos from behind her legs removed and is a little bit cropped, one version is terribly edited and overexposed. Look at the details, distances (body and logos) are the same, every single hair is the same, skin folds on kneecap, etc., thats not reproducable on two different photographs. In any case, you uploaded this photo with the false claim that you created it entirely yourself, therefore its up to you to provide true photogrpaher information. We will not restore it with your untrue upload information. --Martin H. (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
p.s.:And you need to provide permission, at your twitter link you ask for permission to upload something to Wikipedia, thats insufficient. --Martin H. (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done There is no assertion that this account is even that of the artist/model. Anyone can be anyone on Twitter. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Mostafa Oil.gif[edit]

The copy right violation shows because the sourse is from Mostafa Group of Industries Official webside which I already mentioned in the sourse the photos were taking by my office workers/webside management team, and this page is being done on behalf of them. I am a director of the company Mostafa Group and I would like to put the picture here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taisirrahman (talk • contribs) 12:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help. Please follow COM:OTRS. Your input is appreciated. Beta M (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:A. G. Mohan.jpg [edit]

This image file does not violate any copyright. This file is being provided by Svastha Yoga, the copyright holder. The source of this file is http://www.svastha.net/about.

Svastha (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Cadherinas.png[edit]

I made the file by my own. I did not write the license, but it is my file, it is my work, and you remove it from Cadherina. Please help me, because I need to upload that file before monday, because it is a homework from my university.

Oscar Urtatiz,

Bogota, Colombia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscar Urtatiz (talk • contribs) 22:03, 20 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lloyd Winnecke.jpg[edit]

This was a picture I commissioned and controlled as a campaign advisor to Lloyd Winnecke. It is NOT a copyright violation.

YHoshua (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That you commissioned it does not make it your own work as you claimed it to be. Further, we have no proof you are who you say you are - the image was found on several other websites, so it's fairly understandable that I'd think it was a copyright violation. If you wish to have it undeleted, I suggest you get someone from the Mayor's office to contact our OTRS team to confirm that you do indeed have the right to licence the image freely. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ANN Profile.jpg[edit]

Identify the file(s) - File:ANN Profile.jpg

State the reason(s) - This is my file that I upload in our fan page (because I'm administrator of that fan page)

Sign your request --Doit808 (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This can be sorted if you either
  • Supply a version without a watermark, thus showing it is your photo
  • Provide confirmation via email that you are the website's administrator.
-mattbuck (Talk) 01:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Renomination for deletion - Beit Alpha 1933.jpg (photo by Ze'ev Aleksandrowicz)[edit]

Dear all,

The photo was taken in 1933 by my Grandfather, the late Ze'ev Aleksandrowicz, in what was then the British Mandate for Palestine. It was scanned and uploaded to the internet about a year ago by Israel's National Library, under the permission of the copyright holders.

This is the origin of the photo: http://dlib.nli.org.il/j2k/jpegNav.jsp?pid=15485&mimetype=image/jpeg&filename=%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A8+%D7%94%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%9C+%2C%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A5+%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA+%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%90&identifier=69&locale=en_US&compression=70&img_size=best_fit&VIEWER_URL=/j2k/jpegNav.jsp?&DELIVERY_RULE_ID=69&convert_script=/exlibris/dtl/j3_1/digitool/home/system/bin/convert.sh&frameId=1.

The photo is protected under US copyright laws (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf, page 5, "Works Originally Created Before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date"), and therefore should be deleted from the Commons project. The reasons for that are as follows:

  • The photo was not published anywhere until 2010, when it was uploaded to Israel National Library site.
  • My grandfather - the creator of the photo - passed away in 1992.
  • The copyright on the photo were transferred to the photographer's sons, i.e. it still belongs to the photographer's family.
  • The photo was downloaded from Israel National Library site and cropped to hide a copyright statement that was added to the photo as a watermark. This was done against the explicit will of the copyright holders. Since it was downloaded by the Israeli Wikipedia user, the watermark on the original image was changed and moved to the center of the image in order to prevent similar acts.
  • The family holds the copyright also on the scanned images done from the original negatives, following a written agreement with Israel National Library. This is also indicated next to every image in the Library's site.

I believe the prior decision to keep the file was done without knowledge of the above (the original deletion request was not submitted by me but by the user who originally uploaded the photo).

--Or Aleksandrowicz (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is misplaced here, as it is a deletion request, not an undeletion request. --Túrelio (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Pocoyo spanish page image[edit]

Dear Sir or Madam:

I have added several images to the Pocoyo spanish wikipedia site, and I noticed it was deleted. PLease understand that I work for Pocoyo (Zinkia)......these images have been created by us and are intended for public use. Why have they been deleted? This is our own work that we are willing to share. Feel free to contacty me at mark.dodson@zinkia.com.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjd2104 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 24 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please follow COM:OTRS procedure. Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 15:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please let me upload it to en.wikipedia.org as a fair use file, Thank you![edit]

Please let me upload it to en.wikipedia.org as a fair use file. Thank you! --Saippuakauppias (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barbados COA.gif[edit]

File:Barbados COA.gif Please let me upload it to en.wikipedia.org as a fair use file. Therefore please undelete. Thank you! --Saippuakauppias (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. File:Coat of arms of Barbados.png is a free alternative and so the image does not meet en.wiki's non-free content criteria. Powers (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are places you can download a copy and use it as fair use. However, the version linked above is up for deletion. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

more information about the file[edit]

The file was taken from http://connect.in.com/ashok-patni/profile-468.html and it policies has nothing to do with the private policies of file . Rahul9386 (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you are referring to File:Ashok Patni 300.jpg. There is no indication that this photo is published under a free license on http://connect.in.com/ashok-patni/profile-468.html or any of the other sites where it appears. Please read Commons:First steps and Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image:Knight XV monaco.png[edit]

I am requesting the file Image:Knight XV monaco.png to be un-deleted. I have written permission from Conquest Vehicles whom own the rights to the image to include it in the article. I can provide the written statement if needed. Creativebuzzz (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow COM:OTRS, but keep in mind that whatever statement you will provide must allow reuse for all reasons, including commercial reuse and alteration. Beta M (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Stale request, nothing at OTRS at all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:St._Columba's_School,_Delhi_logo.png[edit]

I request undeletion of

because it is my own work. I executed it myself and I declare it to be free to use by anyone in any format. Arty.push (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, COM:OTRS would settle this, please follow the guidelines, and once you confirm that you are the owner it will not be considered a copyvio. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 17:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Nothing at OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Einbeck-im-Mittelalter.jpg[edit]

I request undeletion of

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Einbeck-im-Mittelalter.jpg

Salut Regenbogenfisch, schade, dass ich jetzt erst merke, was Ihr da gemacht habt. Aber die Relaität sieht eindeutig anders aus:

1. Ich bin in Person der Autor des Buches,um das es geht! Zweitens: Ich bin sowohl der Fotograf des Titelbildes als auch des Stadtsiegels von Einbeck. Drittens: Der Entwurf des Titelbildes stammt von mir und wurde nur von meinem Grafiker Pit Becker im Layout umgesetzt! Da Wikipedia ja nicht mit Originalnamen arbeitet: Wie soll ich in Zukunft kennzeichnen, was wirklich meine !!!!!! Bilder sind?

Könntet Ihr Einbeck im Mittelater bitte wieder aufschalten. Danke.

Andreas Rupert (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Google Translate had difficulties with your text, but as i understood it you are saying that you are the author of the book and the designer of the book cover. In that case your image will be undeleted, but you will need to follow COM:OTRS process first. Thanks for making Commons a better place. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 17:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Nothing received at OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ashley C Williams.jpg[edit]

I request undeletion of

We, Mind The Art Entertainment (a company founded by Ms. Williams) have the rights to this photo. Please allow. You can call her to verify with questions. Mtae2011 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you very much for making this project better, but for a few years already there has been a process to prove the permissions to reuse the photo. Please go to COM:OTRS and follow it, i am sure that once complete the image will be restored. Thanks for your time. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 17:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Nothing on OTRS User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Makatiskyline.jpg[edit]

I'm requesting the undeletion of this image because it was deleted on the basis of being a copyright violation. However, the upload log says that the original author of the picture in question uploaded the image to Commons in 2008. In this case, I think that there was a misclassification of the image as a copyvio, and I would assume good faith and the author uploaded the picture to Commons fully knowing that it will be released under a free license for use on the Wikimedia projects. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at cached info, it looks like the version that was hosted on Commons was a higher resolution version than the one posted on http://www.ph.kejsa.com/index.php/10/1/12/514?pic_id=14. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Even the filename itself at the kejsa site showed that the photographer there is the same as the uploader here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Jasmine_Simhalan-bharathanatyam.jpg[edit]

I am the author/owner/creator and have changed the copyright as per requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediamilieu (talk • contribs) 20:48, 3 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for helping Commons. If you would please go to COM:OTRS and follow the steps there, your file will be undeleted. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 02:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Nothing received by OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:-GREECE NEXT ECONOMIC MODEL-.JPG[edit]

I request undeletion of

because < this artwork is mine under the pseudonym Bleeps.gr. I own the copyrights since I am the creator>. Villiamcurtis (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on your talk page, send an email to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) stating you are bleeps.gr. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done OTRS confirmed. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:PDHU kapak orj.jpg[edit]

I'm Ahmet Saatçioğlu. And the picture is the cover of one of my books. I'm the author of the book... --Asaatcioglu (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have no way of knowing that you are actually the author of the book, in order to protect the author's copyright, we will need permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done OTRS confirmed. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Www.doctorsabroad.co.in_India_Office.jpg[edit]

This is basically the image of an overseas medical studies office in India. It can be part of an article and hence should be restored. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:The Retreat Hospital.jpg[edit]

This is the picture of rehabilitation centre for drug addicts and alcoholics. Should be restored to be of use in an article. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is a badly out of focus image, badly angled, of two small signs for a hospital. I can't imagine an article or or other educational use for it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paolo Consorti Biennale Praga.jpg[edit]

Hi!

I can not understand why the file in question (and others I uploaded) have been eliminated. I entered, author, license and all that is required. These files I had already loaded on wikipedia Italian entering all necessary information. thanks

 Not done Copyright violation. Because it wasn't deleted on the Italian Wikipedia doesn't mean we will take it. You need permission from the artist and that can be found at COM:OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files by Ananas96[edit]

The uploader Ananas96 has proposed these (and several others) images for speedy deletion with a reason "unnecessary". I changed the speedy request to deletion request discussion and opposed this reason for these 5 photos. However recently, Fastily deleted all those images without any reason and without any argument. I think, "unnecessary" is not a valid reason for deletion. Nobody proved or claims the images be "out of scope". --ŠJů (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As a general rule, I would agree that "unnecessary" is not a reason to delete. I also don't like deleting images at the request of the uploader -- the license is irrevocable, after all.

However, in this case I think we can do without them. Except for Category:Family Frost (ice cream van) on one of them, the cats are too general -- Category:Animals -- or missing. The images are all poor quality -- the Family Frost van is motion-blurred, the mobile phone is dirty and poorly focused. We don't have locations for any of them. So they would take significant work to make them marginally useful -- not a good investment of editor time when the uploader is not going to do it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted photo of Family Frost seems to be the only photo of this company from Poland - all others photos in the category are from the Czech Republic. Also the typical point of view (from the window at house floor) is not identic with views from the street. And primarily, "unnecessary" is not a valid reason for deletion. If somebody objects "poor quality", he should give a proposal with such reason, but the quality isn't so poor to simple deletion without other arguments. As regards other images, the real reasons for deletion (no location, insufficient description) should be also clearly stated and discussed before deletion. The fact that one or two users don't like or don't need any photo is not a sufficient reason for its deletion. --ŠJů (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK with me.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  undelete all -- All the liscenses we use are irrevocable. I am assuming User:ŠJů wouldn't have initiated this discussion if he or she didn't consider these images in scope. If the images are in scope they should be kept -- at least so long as the initial nominator hasn't offered a better reason than "unnecessary".

    Sometimes, as a courtesy, we delete in scope properly liscensed images. But in every case where I think that was appropriate, the original photographer has offered a good reason. I don't want to embarras the uploader, but given the irrevocability of the liscenses we use I think it is a mistake to delete images without an explanation, because it gives the appearance the liscenses are revocable. Geo Swan (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Shefchik at Hall of fame.jpg[edit]

Yesterday I uploaded File:Shefchik at Hall of fame.jpg It is a photo of my brother taken by my sister-in-law and she gave me permission to upload it. No copyright was violated. Please undelet it.


--Pennylynn (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see w:en:Byron Shefchik, the subject of the image. -- 208.81.184.4 21:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Nothing received at OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

User:Zvezdova[edit]

this file is mine, its me performing. I have all rights to post in on my own article, please overview your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvezdova (talk • contribs) 20:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We not need you having permission for reuse a file in your article. We need anyone, worldwide having permission from the copyright holder to reuse it everywhere for any purpose. And you wrongly upload whatever file you refer too with the false information that you photographed it. --Martin H. (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done No permission or anything on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:PizzaStrip.jpg[edit]

I don't understand it's my photo , my work, I indicated that on upload. Why would it be deleted?

Diannotti (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have forgotten to include the copyright license (see Commons:Licensing). That's what the message on your talk page indicates. I'm sure it could be undeleted if you want to add one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Mario Monti, President of Bocconi University, Milan and former Commissioner for Competition.jpg[edit]

User:Denniss deleted a photo of Italy's new PM Mario Monti (File:Mario_Monti,_President_of_Bocconi_University,_Milan_and_former_Commissioner_for_Competition.jpg) as a copyright violation because it was originally uploaded by a "questionable Flickr user". I think he was mistaken, the Flickr account belongs to the Italian subsidiary of Burson-Marsteller, and since most of the other pictures they uploaded were not released under a free licence, I have no reason to believe that they just used the same licence without first determining the copyright status of the file they were dealing with.--Commecicommeça (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose. This photo is at least 10 years old, was used in 2001 here, where it is labeled as © Médiathèque centrale Commission européenne. So it seems to be a European Union photo, and until evidence to the contrary is shown I don't believe Burson Marsteller Italia has the right to release such photos under a free license. --Rosenzweig τ 10:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:B._symforian.jpg File:Fidelis_Kalinowski.jpg File:Symforian_Ducki_-_zdjecie_obozowe.jpg[edit]

File:B._symforian.jpg

File:Fidelis_Kalinowski.jpg

File:Symforian_Ducki_-_zdjecie_obozowe.jpg

Reasons:

I am Capuchin. These fotos come from our monastery chronicles. I have the right to use them. I do not use the Internet every day, so I could not answer deletion request.

Brdaniel (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)brdaniel[reply]

19.11.2011


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

File:Reema Cropped.jpg[edit]

In real I don't know how to apply for licence or how get any licence. I have read number of articles but I didn't understand any single thing from these articles. Or may be these articles need 2 to 3 hours to read and understand and being a student of EE I don't have such a time. I went to a lot Free Licence websites but I didn't get any related information. I uploaded my own photo snapped from my cell phone and there was also an issue of copy right licence ... Please help me in simple language. My 5 to 6 photos has been deleted for last 10 to 12 hours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmad Nauman (talk • contribs) 18:37, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

This image (which has not been deleted yet) is from reemakhan.info, and they would appear to be the copyright owners, so permission would have to come from them. This is not your own photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Carte du Towtobroghi, grande région autonome d'Umujo.png[edit]

C'est moi qui ai créé cette carte, je la mets dans le domaine public, je trouve abusif de la supprimer! I am the creator of this map, I put it in public domain, it is an abuse to supress it! Wicasa7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.122.223.183 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this unsigned entry had nothing whatsoever to do with the section about File:الملك خالد 4.jpg despite being entered there, so I took the liberty of adding a separate heading. File:Carte du Towtobroghi, grande région autonome d'Umujo.png was deleted following Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carte du Towtobroghi, grande région autonome d'Umujo.png for being outside of Commons:Project scope. The undeletion request does not address the reason for deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Inline-error.gif[edit]

The file was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Inline-error.gif. In fact it is used in el:MediaWiki:Common.css as a background image for some widely used templates. Please undelete and I'll make a note on the description page or move it locally. -Geraki TLG 12:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. That sounds like the type of image to be used indirectly like that. If it was lacking before, a description on where it was used would help. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Restore a series of images. Restaqurar una serie de imágenes.[edit]

En principio mi petición es muy abstracta. En su día fueron borradas muchas imágenes subidas por mí y quisiera ver la posibilidad de que fuesen restauradas.

Los motivos fueron que pudieran ser trabajos derivados, que podrían serlo, yo no voy a decir ni que sí no que no, porque en cierto modo considero que para tacharlas de trabajo derivado se debería tener algún indicio de que así lo son. Y creo que en estos casos no se han dado esas condiciones.

Otras, son trabajos derivados de obras de arte de hace siglos, por lo que creo que tampoco habría problemas en que se restaurasen.

Si encontráis una posibilidad para su restauración continuaría con este post para ver si existiese una solución.

Sé que en algún caso no es la manera idónea de subir este tipo de trabajos. Tengo otros que si logro cambiar mi situación podría ponerme al habla con los autores de los originales, pero estas que subí, considero que podrían estar en un límite que haría posible su reposición.

En todo caso, gracias por la atención.

[Traducción automática, Herramientas del idioma Google]In principle my request is very abstract. In his day were erased many images uploaded by me and would like to see the possibility of their being restored.

The reasons were that might be derivative works that could be, I will not say yes or no, no, because in a way to brand them believe that derivative work should have some indication that they are. And I think that in these cases have not been given those conditions.

Others are works of art from centuries ago, so I think that there would be no problem to restore.

If you find a possibility for restoration continue with this post to see if there is a solution.

I know that in any case is not the ideal way to raise this kind of work. I have others that if I change my situation could get to talk to the authors of the original, but these I went up, I think that might be in a limit that would allow its replacement. In any case, thanks for your attention. --Nemo (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give filenames and clear reasons why you think that a file should be undeleted. --Martin H. (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bueno, son muchas las imágenes que quisiera reponer, en mi página de discusión puedes encontrar los avisos de borrado.
En principio, antes de pormenorizar, me gustaría saber si existen posibilidades. Las razones son, en rasgos generales, que fueron borradas sin apenas argumentos y por requerimiento de una sola persona, a lo sumo dos. Esto, y circunstancias personales, hicieron que no defendiese unas propuestas de borrado que pensé que serían desestimadas.
Hoy, los argumentos para su reposición son los mismos, los argumentos tan poco consistentes como sobrepasan al proyecto, los considero inconsistentes.
Sé que debí argumentarlo en su momento, pero ya digo, circunstancias personales determinaron el no hacerlo. Si ahora se está a tiempo, me gustaría que se repusieran. Saludos cordiales.
[Traducción automática. Herramientas del idioma Google] Well, many would like to replace images in my talk page you can find the notices removed.
In the beginning, before itemizing, I wonder if there are possibilities. The reasons are, in general terms that were just deleted without arguments and one person requirement at most two. This, and personal circumstances, did not defend some proposals that I thought would be deleted dismissed.
Today, the arguments for replacement are the same arguments as insubstantial as beyond the project, consider them inconsistent.
I know I should argue the case at the time, but as I said, personal circumstances determined not to. If time is now, I would like to be refilled. Sincerely, Nemo (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some images were deleted as out of scope. For us to restore them, you would have to demonstrate that they are useful for an educational purpose. For the derivative works, you must give us information about when the original work was created, and some evidence of that information. If you have the author of the original work that would help too. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

< Por el momento creo que no puedo aportar la información que permita el subir esas imágenes. Porque ciertamente podrían ser obras derivadas (creo recordar), pero también de unas características que escapan a la copia o al plagio y que sería difícil que sus autores reivindicaran algún tipo de derecho. Dicho esto, también reconozco que lo apropiado, y que cumpliré cuando me sea posible, es contar con la autorización de autor y, en casos, con la del sujeto de la imagen. Verdaderamente nada tengo que argumentar con las normas actuales si no se aplica esa del “sentido común” en un modo abierto (lo mismo valdría para determinar si tienen cabida en el proyecto), pero…

Aprovechando este intento, y aunque no sea lugar, mostrar mi opinión sobre lo que considero una carencia del proyecto. Subir obras derivadas que aunque exista un original, los derechos de este original no serían aplicables a la obra derivada. Gran parte del arte del arte del siglo XX se ha forjado con este tipo de obras y, me parece recordar que Le Figaró nunca llegó a demandar a Juan Gris, por si sirviera como jurisprudencia.

Y termino diciendo que entiendo que para las imágenes que pretendo subir no existe una argumentación clara para subirlas (ya digo, con las normas actuales), pero sí que se pueden subir con un esfuerzo de interpretación de esas normas. Esto no lo puedo hacer yo, sería de quienes tuviese la predisposición para subirlas. Y la escusa sería muy fácil: se borraron sin argumentación y sin apoyo. Varios, no muchos, que apoyasen su subida, creo que sería suficiente. Saludos cordiales y casi pidiéndoos un favor, Nemo. PD: Lo que si garantizo es que el origen de estas imágenes es lícito. PD2: Sobra decirlo (aunque a lo mejor no): lo que me quedo con estos trabajos, en ningún caso se lo estoy robando a otros.

[Traducción automática. Herramientas del idioma, Google] At the moment I do not think I can provide information that allows up those images. Because it certainly could be derivative works (I remember), but also some features beyond copying or plagiarism and that would be difficult for the authors claimed some kind of right. That said, I also recognize that what is appropriate, and that I will when I can, is to have the authorization of the author and, in some cases, the subject of the image. I have nothing really to argue with the current rules if not covered by this "common sense" in an open (the same would apply to determine whether they fit into the project), but ...

Taking advantage of this attempt, and although not all, express my opinion on what I consider a lack of project. Upload derivative works that even where the original of this original rights would not apply to the derivative work. Much of the art of twentieth century art has been built with this type of work and I seem to recall that Le Figaro was never sue Juan Gris, if served as jurisprudence.

He ends by saying that I understand that I intend to raise images there is no clear argument for upload (and I say, with today's standards), but you can come up with an effort of interpretation of those rules. This I can not make me be among those who had the willingness to climb. And the excuse would be very easy: you deleted without argument and without support. Several, not many, that supported his rise, I think it would be sufficient. Best regards and almost asking you a favor, --Nemo (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)PD: What we do guarantee is that the origin of these images is permitted. PD2: Needless to say (although maybe not): what I am left with these works, in any case I'm stealing from others.[reply]

La cuestión sería si aquí, en Wikimedia, lo que podríamos llamar “silencio administrativo” es positivo o negativo; porque la verdad es que tengo interés por que se restaurasen los archivos. Y en mi opinión es que debería ser positivo. Lo mismo que en su día se borraron por desatender su defensa, ahora, si no hay opinión en contra, supongo que se deberían restaurar. Saludos.
[Trad. Automática. Herramientas del idioma Google] The question is whether here in Wikimedia, what might be called "administrative silence" is positive or negative, because the truth is that I have interest to restore the files. And in my opinion is that it should be positive. As in his day were erased for neglecting their defense, now, if no contrary opinion, I guess that should be restored. Greetings, Nemo (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
El tema lo entiendo del siguiente modo. Los administradores tendrían dos funciones, una decisoria, deciden sobre lo que hay que borrar o restaurar, esta función creo que es compartida por todos seamos administradores o no, la diferencia es que el administrador podrá él mismo llevar a cabo la decisión y los que no lo somos deberemos solicitar la asistencia de un administrador. Y esta sería la segunda función del administrador, asistir a los que no lo somos.
Si un administrador considera que una página debe renombrarse, la renombra, y si alguien que no es administrador quiere renombrar una página recurre a un administrador.
Si no existe nadie en contra de restaurar los archivos que solicito, si fuese administrador los restauraría yo mismo; al no serlo, lo que solicito es que un administrado me asista en esa función. Saludos,
[Trad. Automática. Herramientas del idioma, Google] :: The question I get as follows. Administrators have both functions, a decision-making, they decide on what to delete or restore, I think this feature is shared by all to be managers or not, the difference is that the trustee may himself carry out the decision and not what are we to seek the assistance of an administrator. And this would be the second function of the manager, to assist those who are not.
If an administrator believes that a page is renamed, the renamed, and if someone is not an administrator wants to rename a page uses an administrator.
If there is anyone against that request to restore files, restore them if manager myself, to not, what is that a given request help me in that role. regards, Nemo (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose, not undelete, some of them are copyvios, most of them missing source information, all of them are out of scope. --Martin H. (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tendría que darte las gracias, eres el único que has mostrado interés por el tema que he propuesto. Saludos, Nemo (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Copyright issues User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Idf logo4.jpg[edit]

Was deleted as a Copyvio, but Template:PD-IsraelGov and Template:Insignia-Israel apply--Antemister (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time the file was deleted, the law that {{PD-IsraelGov}} was based on had not yet been passed. The template itself was created more than two years later. Case 1 of the template clearly does not apply, since the logo is a logo, and not a statute, regulation, Knesset protocol, or court decision. That leaves case 2. Can you show that the logo was created before 1 January 1960 and that the state did not waive its copyrights in a special contract with the author when the logo was created? —LX (talk, contribs) 18:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I just reworded the English version of {{PD-IsraelGov}} to make it a little easier to understand what it covers. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Official insignia is adopted by law and many (most?) country declare them as PD. Otherwise, we could not have such files on Commons.--Antemister (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally true for seals, but not necessarily true for additional logos -- there may well not be a law involved for those. Is there one for this logo? Or is this really a seal? And even if the written definition is in law, copyright may still exist on a particular rendering (not sure if this was made by a Commons contributor, or copied from somewhere else, since I can't see the file). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the file is de:Datei:Idf logo4.jpg, its not a logo, but rather an insignia. Modern-style logos not described and applied by law are a problem, but not this one.--Antemister (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so it was taken from this web page. We are then at each different representation probably having a different copyright. I'm leery of simply copying stuff off the web like this... that may have been a photograph of the emblem somewhere then edited down; even if FOP applies we'd need a license for the photograph part probably. I don't see a license on the source page. We do have other versions at Category:Military symbols of Israel; most or all of which seem to have at least been drawn by contributors. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is is really such a difficult UnDR. The file is surely copied from the IDF website.--Antemister (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If rendition is the issue, the emblem of the IDF can be found at the bottom of the flag http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Israel_Defence_Forces.svg. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done We have user drawn renditions of the IDF emblem, with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Israel_Defence_Forces.svg as an example. As stated before by other users, it would be best to have user own creations instead of taken off of websites. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rasierter und erschlaffter Penis - DSCF8141.jpg[edit]

One more Jcb case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rasierter und erschlaffter Penis - DSCF8141.jpg. No comment - like Jcb had no reason for deletion. --Saibo (Δ) 15:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for undeletion provided either, can be speedy closed. Jcb (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are both admins. Can't you really try a normal communication with a grain of good-faith? --Túrelio (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This place is about the files which had been deleted without a reason. --Saibo (Δ) 15:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since your only reason for undeletion seems to be the admin who deleted, this UDR is clearly not directed to the image, but to the person. Jcb (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for undeletion is that there is no reason for deletion which is closely related to you. --Saibo (Δ) 15:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Childish, Saibo. I think it is clear that your intension is not to improve quality on commons, but to celebrate bureaucratic ambages. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done But I would strongly suggest to have another Deletion Request to discuss the merits of the image. I feel a lot of the discussion was about the bad closure and a "crusade" against porn images. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TimTight_ejaculation_jpg.jpg[edit]

One more Jcb case: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:TimTight_ejaculation_jpg.jpg. No comment - like Jcb had no reason for deletion (even when I tried asking him on his talk page which he simply reverted). --Saibo (Δ) 15:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose Man on mission (or useless picture?). --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support No clear policy based rationale for deletion was put forward. Some taking part in the discussion seem quite determined to ignore policies in favour of personal disgust and Jcb attacking another editor with "Does it depict your own penis?" and taking the role of deleting admin was out of order. --Fæ (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - as i noted at DR, this image is high quality and shows the scrotal contraction of orgasm extremely well. No reason for deletion was put forward, and the deleting admin characterised my actions in trying to bash it into people's skulls that it was a decent pic as protectiveness of a photo of my own penis. For the record, this is not my penis. Nominator refused to ever answer my question of what images he believes this could be adequately replaced by. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose: No reason for undeletion has been given. --Hold and wave (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - deletion was the only possible conclusion after evaluation the discussion in the DR - Jcb (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support No valid reason for deletion really - I certainly would not have closed it as delete. --Herby talk thyme 14:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support undeletion -- Given User:Jcb's consistent pattern of bad closures of images related to human sexuality he should never close another image related to human sexuality. He should restrict himself to voicing his strong opinions in the discussions themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support And explain to Jcb that Commons delete right is not the correct place to wage this sort of war. Beta M (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose as Saibo pointed out, we have many, many ejaculation photos, and the porn policy makes it clear that such duplications of subject are inappropriate. There is no convincing support rationales in either discussion, and the policy is clear that such cannot exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support No reason for the deletion of this file has been given. Tm (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done But I would strongly suggest to have another Deletion Request to discuss the merits of the image. I feel a lot of the discussion was about the bad closure and a "crusade" against porn images. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ejaculate577.JPG[edit]

One more Jcb case: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ejaculate577.JPG. No comment - like Jcb had no reason for deletion (even when I tried asking him on his talk page which he simply reverted). --Saibo (Δ) 15:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done But I would strongly suggest to have another Deletion Request to discuss the merits of the image. I feel a lot of the discussion was about the bad closure and a "crusade" against porn images. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ejaculation.JPG[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ejaculation.JPG same reason for undeletion which was used for deletion. --Saibo (Δ) 15:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done But I would strongly suggest to have another Deletion Request to discuss the merits of the image. I feel a lot of the discussion was about the bad closure and a "crusade" against porn images. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Anal 2.jpg[edit]

File:Anal 2.jpg was deleted by Jcb per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anal 2.jpg as "not educational usefull, so out of scope[...]". However, Anal use of sex toys is obviously in scope and quality doesn't render this photo useless since apparently only one very very roughly comparable photo of the same bad quality exists. There seem to be other reasons why this image was delted... --Saibo (Δ) 16:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose - per deletion rationale - the first (keep) closure was inappropriate, closing admin ignored an everybody-except-Saibo concensus in favour of deletion - Jcb (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great - and then you came along and ignored valid keep comments. This is getting past a joke now. --Herby talk thyme 16:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed this comment before, but as the original closing admin, it was my job to weigh up the arguments, and I came to the decision that given it was our only such image, it was within scope. Further, Jcb, or anyone, if you have a question about my closures, please tell me on my talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support If we had better alternatives i wouldn't care so much. But there was not a single valid deletion reason to begin with. A shame that we have such admins. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You must be kidding. Please stop your windmill-porn-crusade. It does not help the project, it kills it. PS: Restore this image an upload it on WP:DE, if commons is too stupid in general to see the value. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - As stated when I closed the first DR, this is an awful photo, but we don't have anything better. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Saibo and mattbuck --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment While I dislike the lack of reason etc this is a really lousy image and I would hope we could do much better really. --Herby talk thyme 17:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I do not like the pattern here, administrative actions should be reasonably uninvolved. Jcb, please take time to read carefully what is being said and reconsider how appropriate it is to use admin tools in this situation. --Fæ (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Given User:Jcb's consistent pattern of bad closures of images related to human sexuality he should never close another image related to human sexuality. He should restrict himself to voicing his strong opinions in the discussions themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support 3 to 1 vote to keep was closed as delete consensus. it is a clearly educational image, and should be kept. Beta M (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Mattbuck's original close lacked an appropriate rationale and ignored clear consensus. Votes to keep were merely votes and not based on our policies. None of the supports above provide a legitimate reason for keeping the image or its use. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    DRs are not votes - they are discussions about the image and whether it should be kept or deleted. As closing admin I was perfectly within my rights to actually look at a policy to guide my actions, namely the SCOPE argument of "is it a legitimate line of educational inquiry - Yes. OK, do we have any others that would allow me to delete this godawful image - No". I honestly want this image gone, but not until we have a suitable replacement. Besides, if you're going to argue that the first closure ignored consensus, then so did the second, albeit in the opposite direction. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support No legitimate reason for the deletion of this file has been given as this file is in scope. Tm (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    DRs are not votes, which is why the only legitimate action was to close as delete because there were no legitimate policy based statements to keep the image. You claimed that it was a "legitimate line of educational inquiry" when such requires use. Policy clearly says that "potential use" is not enough to say something is usable. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done But I would strongly suggest to have another Deletion Request to discuss the merits of the image. I feel a lot of the discussion was about the bad closure and a "crusade" against porn images. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Photo_portrait-2.gif[edit]

I came across an old deletion request that was closed by User:Juliancolton, sadly, he was not active since August, 30th, so my query on his talk page a week ago was likely not noticed. I think that the deleted GIF picture should be undeleted: it's (probably) part of a derivative work hosted and used on DE-WP: de:Datei:BestandteileBewerbungsunterlagen.jpg (usage: Bewerbung), so we need to referentiate this file as source. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted file is just File:Maurice Tornay.gif with glasses crudely drawn on. I suggest modifying the de-WP derivative work to include the glasses-less image instead. Powers (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(That's assuming File:Maurice Tornay.gif actually has a valid "Own work" claim.) Powers (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's nevertheless necessary to make the source file available for the purpose of traceability, it was the choice of the creator of the derivative work to use the "portrait-2.gif" and not the "Maurice Tornay.gif". As the file content is used in an encyclopaedic fashion, it automatically falls within our scope, and this since March 2009 (date of creation of the derivative work), so that part of the deletion rationale from October '09 is moot. As Maurice Tornay is a politician, it's IMHO not offending to make such a drawing, some caricatures are a lot more offending but allowed too. If you're unsure about the authorship of File:Maurice Tornay.gif, why not challenging it in a DR? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sent File:Maurice Tornay.gif to DR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Derivative work issues. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

I am the copyright holder[edit]

File:Nude female in a yoga position.jpg has been marked as possible copyright violation.

I hold the copyright to this image and have a release from the model. Who is asserting otherwise, please? Eleganteye (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron

Ah. It looks like someone found a copy here and did not see that the watermark there was the same as the username here. For images published elsewhere, we typically want a separate permissions email sent, to confirm the permission, which is how this should be done -- see COM:OTRS for the format and address. Once processed, the image will get undeleted. I would have done a regular deletion request and not speedy-deleted it given the similarity in names, but we can't assume permission based on that alone -- anyone could create a matching username and upload falsely-tagged copyright violations otherwise (if that is seen as a way around the rules, and I'm pretty sure that's happened more than once). So, that process is an extra degree of protection for photographers who publish stuff elsewhere. The other option is to indicate the license for the photograph right on the source web page (though the permission of the model in the email would be good additional information, and those emails remain private). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Star Academy Winner 2008.jpg - File:Nader Guirat Crimea Music Fest.jpg - File:OxyMore.jpg[edit]

The copyright owner has sent an email on November 14th to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with a link to the files' source, to authorize the use of the deleted files. A copy of the email was forwarded to me as well. The email was sent on November 14th, and I was advised by User:Rsocol, who had deleted the files initially, to wait a few days for OTRS to review before I send an 'undeletion' request should the files not be restored by then, which is the case now. Thank you for your help.--Mona MG (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

== Hi again!....please any response?!! Thanks.--Mona MG (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Nothing was ever sent or received by OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Khuda_Aurr_Mohabbat.jpg[edit]

This is my book which has been written by me and published by Ilm Dost Publications, Urdu Bazaar, Lahore, Pakistan on 17th November 2011. I am author of this book as well as designer of its title. I am sole owner of the said Publication institution, book and its title and have all rights to advertise it through any mean of media. I uploaded its title cover on commons site on November 02, 2011 but have been deleted or removed later on by the commons authorities. This title cover also appeared at Google, Yahoo and Face Book under my name and authority. I request you to please restore it on commons also.

Zulfiqar Arshad Gilani alias Syed Zulfiqar Gilani 11/24/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Zulfiqar Gilani (talk • contribs) 24. November 2011, 10:21 Uhr (UTCTúrelio (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Zulfiqar,
the depicted cover page contains at least 1 photography showing the eyes and part of the face of a woman. As you may (or may not) know, images uploaded to Commons have to be free to produce derivatives of them. Do you really own enough rights over the above mentioned eyes/face photography? I and anybody else would be entitled to crop this part out of your cover photo and to use it on its own in any context completely apart from your book. Appearing of an image on Google or wherever is NOT equivalent to uploading it to Commons, as the former does not include a free license. --Túrelio (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also question whether this image is within our scope. Is the book notable? Powers (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Derivative work issues. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Gilbert Kiakwama.jpg[edit]

Hello,

this is the first time I used WikiCommons and Wikipedia. When this file was uploaded I didn't have time to complete all the copyright information (or I thought I did). I was very surprised that the file was deleted without any warning. Please undelete the file and give me a few days to complete the copyright information.

Date of creation: October 1, 2011 Source: Gilbert Kiakwama kia Kiziki Author: Mi Yangu Kiakwama kia Kiziki

Mr. Gilbert Kiakwama fully granted copyright to everyone to use the file for any matter.

The official description will be in French.

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roiliondekin (talk • contribs) 01:21, 25 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]


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

Cicero, Cato the Younger, Tullia-Zoe Dogs (Schnauzers)[edit]

I posted this photo to create a diligence award and it's been deleted. It is my photo -- taken on Sept. 5, 2011 and I give Wikipedia permission for its use. Don't know what else to do. My signature is not here. Thanx -- migdiachinea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migdiachinea (talk • contribs) 2011-11-25T23:03:10‎ (UTC)

previous replies:
migdiachinea, don't you understand the previous replies? If yes, what don't you understand? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done License was never provided by the uploader. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:南京大學 徽.gif[edit]

There're notes/accounts about the badge which is a synthesis of several past logos. - 南中鼎金 (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you claimed the image is under a free license; the copyright belongs to the school and we need permission from them. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image is created, as a synthesis of the three past logos. So I think it doesnot need permission and the claim is right. Is it right? - 南中鼎金 (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You still need permission; please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you! - 南中鼎金 (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Piero_Fabrizi.jpg[edit]

Good Morning,

the picture I uploaded has been deleted.

I have been encharged by the person on the picture to write (to modify, actually) a page about him on Wikipedia, so I would have the possibility to insert a picture of him on this page.

This picture is a public domain picture, because is actually published on Facebook, on Myspace...and so on...

So, please, keep this picture on Commons.

Yours Sincerely.

--Comeilgiorno (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Comeilgiorno 12-03-2011[reply]

Publishing a photo is not the same as placing it into the public domain. In fact, the very purpose of copyright protection is to allow authors to publish their works while still retaining control of how they are used. For the photo to be in the public domain, the photographer would need to explicitly release their rights. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undeletion of File:Webinar.png[edit]

I have the authorization of posting this file, since

  • i created the content myself (i filmed the event)
  • the event talks about HTML5 by the HTML5 team itself
  • the content is published under a CC BY NC SA license (see "informations and sharing" tab on http://lacantine.ubicast.eu/videos/w3c-html5-meetup-partie-1/)
  • my company produces the website that hosts the content
  • no logo of my company is present on the screen capture, i just wanted to illustrate the article, not advertise anything

Thanks for reverting the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fthiery (talk • contribs) 11:25, 9 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

See the instructions on your user talk page, and please be aware that {{Cc-by-nc-sa}} is not an accepted license according to Commons licensing policy. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Violates licensing policy, no edits have been made to change the license on the page. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Babur and his warriors visiting the Hindu temple Gurh Kattri (Kūr Katrī) in Bigram.jpg[edit]

Per its deletion request this file was deleted with the reasoning that this file was licensed per the Cretive Commons By-Nc-Sa 3.0 terms, which in fact is present in the source given. However as this being a flat 2D work of art and its author being Zahir al-Din Muhammad Babur that lived, according to source, in 1483-1530, and this being merely a mechanical reproduction, per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., the {{PD-Art}} license and Wikimedia official policy and as this work and its reproductions are strictly in Public Domain, this file should be speedy undeleted. Tm (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done (I was the Admin who deleted it -- this argument was not presented at the DR, but it looks good to me.)      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coats of arms of the United Arab Emirates.svg[edit]

This file was deleted because it was created in 2008. It was felt that therefore it can't be here. However, I believe enough of the design is "old" for it to be here. The Hawk design is certainly old enough, and the banner with text isn't copyrightable either because the inscription is basic arabic text. The shield consists of the national flag of the UAE, which is PD. That leaves the only part that is "new" as the ring around the national flag with 7 stars upon it. I do not believe that a simple ring with 7 stars is complicated enough to count as this being a completely new design, and copyrightable. It would therefore be free for Commons, and should come back. Fry1989 eh? 03:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your evidence for the age of the hawk design? Powers (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This type of thing is generally defined in law, and thus the general design is usually outside the realm of copyright. It will be treated that way in the U.S., for example. The UAE copyright law does also exclude all official documents of that type from copyright (section 3(1)). Individual drawings can be different of course. See Commons:Coats of Arms. The general design of their emblem dates from at least 1973; in 2008 they only replaced a central portion showing a type of boat with the design of their flag, so there was no major change to the design. The DR is therefore fundamentally incorrect on a number of counts -- the design dates from 1973, not 2008, and both are in the public domain anyways, or at least the content of the decree defining the emblem. If that contains a graphic image, that is basically public property. They later passed a law forbidding commercial use of the emblem (typical of many countries), such as being a part of a corporate logo (apparently that was a rampant problem, and no mention I could see of it being a copyright issue). I don't think it would be reasonable to sue under copyright grounds anyways. Still, the question remains as to where this version came from. It was listed as self-drawn from the version appearing on a UAE government website, from what I can see in the log. So, an SVG self-drawn against a small bitmap there. See the archived page; I think that would be the source. The current front page has a photo of an official with a flag in the background containing the symbol, which looks pretty much identical. I think I'd lean  Support for a self-drawn SVG like this, though not copying the bitmap from the website directly, unless we could find it as part of the decree. On the other hand I'd be uncomfortable with File:Coat of arms of United Arab Emirates (1973-2008).png; that looks like a bitmap copied from vector-images and kept under the general "official document" rationale which I'm not sure is the case -- that specific drawing may have copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To answer LtPowers' question, the Hawk of Quresh (and Hawk of Saladin) designs have been used for an extremely long time, that makes those eagles "old". See the coats of arms of many of the Arab states as proof. Fry1989 eh? 20:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that this is a coat of arms in the classic, european sense. It is rather a logo, and in that case we should only use the official version used by the government, so we should search for modified, self-drawn version which is surely out of copyright.--Antemister (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An SVG is usually self-drawn to an extent, unless extracted from a PDF. And if it is a logo like you say, then presumably that logo is part of the official decree, and OK to use that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to question whether or not the original uploader made the file himself. As I have laid out, 99% of the file's design is old. I reject the idea that it is "logo-ish". It is indeed a coat of arms, similar in concept to Montenegro in that is is an eagle, with a shield upon it's breast (circular shields are not unheard of), and it has a banner similar to many national coats of arms. Fry1989 eh? 20:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question if it is official is easy in that case, as already the constitution (article 5) declares the emblem official [6], and a SVG can be found here [7]. As this is the real, official version, we should only use this one in the PDF--Antemister (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The file was made as close to the official version in that PDF as possible, without being 100% identical (which could cause us some problems). Fry1989 eh? 17:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that 100% identical would be a problem either. However, to me, that is not a reason to avoid undeletion -- may as well have both available in case an issue does surface. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern with it being 100% identical is the 3D effects. IDK if that would give us a problem or not, but I'm just being cautious. Either way, it looks like 3  Supports and so far no objections Fry1989 eh? 19:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody just moved the file from Wikipedia-EN as File:Coat of arms of the United Arab Emirates.svg. I guess we shouldn't undelete the old file and just mark it with a re-direct for the old name? Fry1989 eh? 03:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm going to mark it for deletion, and link that request to here. The undeletion request is the proper process for this. Fry1989 eh? 03:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We still have 3  Supports and no objections. Fry1989 eh? 04:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting, we have no opposes, only supports. Fry1989 eh? 03:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose A design or artwork cannot be classified into pieces for attracting a new copyright, An art work creates its own copyright. The said picture is a copyrighted one and need to be deleted.--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 11:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, they absolutely can, and there's plenty of files classified this way. Venezuela's coat of arms is an example of this. They changed their coat of arms in 2006, but this is considered PD, because the overall design is much older than that. There is only one piece of this coat of arms which is new, everything else is old and PD. The new part is the national flag (also PD) and a ring of seven stars (which is a basic pattern and PD-ineligible). Fry1989 eh? 21:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that template for PD-UAE is correct, then http://www.uaecabinet.ae/Arabic/Pages/index1.aspx is perhaps the only way I can foresee this image being even free. is a guidework published by a ministry and, under that template, government works and official documents are public domain. If some of the other Commons DRs go as the way it does, then I have no choice but to say ✓ Done with the restoration. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Targi Wschodnie (1930th).jpg (in Russian)[edit]

Извините, мне сложно писать по-английски. У меня вопрос по поводу удаления снимка. Он сделан во Львове до 1938 года. Электронную копию файла мне просто дали в одном львовском фотоателье (происхождение файла им неизвестно совершенно). Снимок публиковался в путеводителе Історичні проходи по Львові (Львів: Каменяр, 1991, с. 112, автор Крип'якевич І. П.) где его автор не указан. Существует также сайт Центра городской истории, где файл опубликован и там тоже автор указан как "неизвестный" (укр. "невідомий"). Публиковался ли он раньше - неизвестно. Все, эти данные я указал в описании файла, но его всеравно удалили, мотивируя, тем что неизвестен автор. Вопросы:

  1. Существует ли хотябы какая-то лицензия, под которой его можно здесь разместить? Обратите также внимание, что Львов в 1938 году находился в составе Польши.
  2. Если автор и дата публикации которого неизвестны, сколько лет должно быть снимку, чтобы все-таки ставить лицензию {{Pd-old}}?

Спасибо.--Сергій (обг.) 15:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • К сожалению, если произведение было впервые обнародовано в Украине в 1991 году, то АП на анонимное произведение будет действовать 70 лет после публикации (см. ст. 28 [8]), т.е. до 2062 года. Trycatch (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Получается путаница с обьяснениями администратора удалившего файл:
  1. Он обьяснил мне, что лицензия требует указания автора. Т. е. анонимное произведение не станет Pd-old никогда? Я почему-то тоже думал, что все-таки может стать (через 70 лет после публикации, как вы и говорите).
  2. В то же время он обьяснил, что для Pd-old фотография неизвестного автора должна быть сделана "возможно до 1900..." (т. е. все-таки может? но срок какой-то странный...).
Вы уж извините, что столько вопросов, просто хочу загружать файлы и в дальнейшем, но после тех ответов совсем запутался... (разговор был здесь: User talk:Denniss#File:Targi Wschodnie (1930th).jpg)--Сергій (обг.) 21:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Исходя из имеющейся у нас информации, это фотография автор изображения является поляком (так как Львов входил в состав Польши, а фотография сделана неизвестным фотографом львовского фотоателье). Кроме того, фото опубликовано как минимум в 1991 году, и очень вероятно, что это не первая публикация. Копирайта на фото явно нет. Следовательно, на него распостраняется {{PD-Polish}} как на фото польского фотографа, опубликованное до 1994 года
  • As far as we know, this is a photo, the author of this image is Polish (as Lviv was a part of Poland at that time, and the photo was taken by an unknown photographer of a Lviv photo studio). This photo was published at least in 1991, and it's very likely it was published before. The photo is published definitely without copyright. Thus, it falls under {{PD-Polish}} as a photo of a Polish photographer published before 1994 — NickK (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I agree with the PD-Polish assertion. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Image Recovery File:Iosf.jpg[edit]

I want the image to be restored IOSF official as indicated file iosf.jpg I claim that in my capacity as the first secretary of the IOSF. Thank you for your understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotata1 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I'll deal with this issue more; I have taken over the OTRS ticket and will talk with the user. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Fondation-louis-bonduelle.png[edit]

Hi, I don't understand why this file has been deleted for "Copyright violation". I'm a legal represant of Bonduelle Fundation, which the logo belongs to.

Thanks in advance.

Claire Ruffin

Claire.ruffin (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are typically conservative with works first published elsewhere, as accounts here are essentially anonymous, and also want to make sure the licensing is clear (I can't see the file, so not sure what was there). Files must be licensed for *everyone* to use, not just Wikipedia, including commercial use. However, the trademark does not need to be licensed; those rights are retained in full. If the organization still wants to license this file, the procedure is to follow the instructions at COM:OTRS, sending an email from the organization with the explicit permission for the file. Once that is processed, the file would be undeleted. Alternatively, the file could be uploaded to each local wikipedia with a fair use rationale, if allowed by that project (the English Wikipedia would allow it, I think, and probably French as well). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Nothing at OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:RockneStamp.png[edit]

Peter Cocci sent me permission to use his image of the 22 cent Knute Rockne stamp on Wikipedia. If the artist has approved such usage, I don't know why Wikipedia would have a problem with it. Here's it the quote from his mssg to me: "Hello Greg....you have my permission to use my image....Thank You, Peter Cocci."

The problem is that the stamp is not public domain in the US because of new rules; you also need to have permission from the second artist to use this stamp. You would need to follow http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS in order for the image to be here. Simple permission is not enough; we need a license, we need a stated declaration. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is more like the stamp than the one I showed. Because of that, I would have to  Oppose an undeletion. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Copyrighted by the Postal Service. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nesmaairlines logo.jpg[edit]

File:Nesmaairlines logo.jpg as i am the reservation manager of nesma airlines i kindly ask you to undelete the logo, thanks. --Sayedme (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We will need a license from the corporation in an e-mail from the General Counsel or other appropriate officer, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Stale request, nothing at OTRS User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Adriani intervista.jpg[edit]

I do this request because the file is of my property, and I chose the license to indicate the permission of upload this picture. What else shall I do? Could you restore this file, please?

What do you mean "the file is my property"? Do you simply have this file or do you own a copyright to it? If it's the latter, and there's a dispute you can simply follow COM:OTRS and it'll be restored. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Nothing on OTRS, stale. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Aurélie Comiti Miss Vaucluse 2011.jpg[edit]

This file is a picture of Miss Vaucluse 2011, and I'm Aurélie Comiti, the Miss Vaucluse 2011. So this is my picture taken by a journalist, I have all the rights on this picture... That's me on it... Give me the way to let this picture on the wiki page...--Ludoatc (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately under the current law 100% of the copyright is in the hands of the photographer. The person in the photo has no rights unless they are purchased from whoever photographed. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done No authorization from the photographer, copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Tamanna-4.jpg[edit]

Can you please let me for which specific reason where the file fails to meet the copyrights? Because this policy tells like though the photographs uploaded by users You assume full responsibility for anything you post or transmit, and you grant Cinefundas.com and its affiliates the right to edit, copy, publish and distribute any information or content you post or transit for any purpose

 Not done You claimed that image was under a Creative Commons license; the website says "Copyright © Cinefundas Media LLP. All Rights Reserved." You falsified the license and we cannot host the image here. We have nothing to do with what Cinefundas does; they are their own site. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:NarendarLuthersignedNote.jpg[edit]

The file was deleted for two reasons:

  • Personalised note
  • Copyright violation.
This is an autograph of a famous writer. The text is a famous Urdu couplet which is about 100 years back. It is in a readble and usable format and hence should be restored. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is very blurry, so even if it was out of copyright, the quality of the image is very poor and not usable. Plus, if the note is from Narendra Luther, that person is still alive and we need his permission to even host the image here. You can read at COM:OTRS on how to get it and what to ask for. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the note - as stated above - has two components - a very old couplet + autograph. Nothing intellectual contribution of Narendra Luther (unlike his own writings). Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Coat of arms of Antigua and Barbuda.svg[edit]

The file was deleted because "there is no evidence that it is really a coat of arms by law". Altough, it was not possible to find a law implementing flag, arms, or anthem on http://www.laws.gov.ag (I believe that, as the state symbol were introduced before independance, this was perhaps an order/decree/regulation issued by the british government.) As you can see even in the [www.laws.gov.ag/acts/2003/a2003-22.pdf copyright law], the arms is printed on official documents (which are PD), so we can be sure that a) the CoA is officially recognized, and, b) part of a PD-document. To make it short: The statement "We do not know if the CoA is really an official CoA" is strange, as the graphic is used by the government on official documents.--Antemister (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was this a contributor-drawn SVG? Most likely  Support, as the reasoning in the DR seems quite faulty; copyright is for this particular SVG, not the coat of arms as a whole, despite the original drawing. Just wondering if there was a source for the SVG mentioned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source was presumably Vector-images.com, like most of those deleted coat of arms. If it is only a direct, not altered vectorization of the official version appearing on official documents (or flag books) and we agree that this official version is PD, it can be undeleted.--Antemister (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it was taken directly from vector-images, that would be different -- we can't do that. Many times people think there is a copyright over every single representation of a coat of arms owned by the country though, and will delete all of them on that bsis, including SVGs drawn by contributors here -- the DR sounds like it's along those lines, but I can't see the deleted file to see the source etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If people just "think" there is a copyright on a vectorization (I know, many do, have look on the vectorized version of many flags here), there is no reason for not undeleting that (and other files). We have to write clearly on the file description that there is no copyright protection for a simple vectorization (only a copyfraud)--Antemister (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But there is copyright on vectorization; the classic example is fonts, which are copyrightable in their computer form even if the images they produce aren't protected by law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The font is at least a minor problem, as it can be changed easily--Antemister (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point; it was not that computer fonts are copyrightable, but that vectorizations of uncopyrightable objects can themselves be copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fonts are a bit tricky -- they are protected as a computer program; unless you are hand-editing an SVG I'm not sure the same logic applies directly. That said, the preciseness of the points and outlines in a vector image usually makes it very easy to prove copying, and almost always someone drawing their own SVG has their own copyright in that particular rendering -- which may or may not be derivative of a source bitmap, depending on the details. The vector-images version of this is here -- I can't see this one, but if this version is the same as that, then it's clear-cut that it should remain deleted. But if this appears to be a basically original drawing by a contributor here, usually those are OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{delete|reason=[[:en:Coat of arms of Antigua and Barbuda]] states that the COA was designed in 1966 by Gordon Christopher. The uploader is not the copyright holder (doubtful if is). [[Commons:PD]] says nothing on Antigua and Barbuda law, however, using UK law as a possibly similarity, it isn't known if this COA is in PD or whether it is still covered by copyright. If still in copyright, it then needs to be ascertained if official state symbols of A&B are copyright exempted.|subpage=File:Coat_of_arms_of_Antigua_and_Barbuda.svg|year=2010|month=September|day=2}} {{Information |Description=Coat of arms from Antigua and barbuda, retraced to SVG |Source={{own}} |Date=3-02-2010 |Author=[[User:LadyofHats|LadyofHats]] |Permission={{PD-user|LadyofHats}} |other_versions={{DerivativeVersions|Standard of the Governor of Antigua and Barbuda 1967-1981.svg}} }}

I would greatly  Support. The file we are talking about can be seen here. It was uploaded to Wikipedia-EN after it's deletion here. It was clearly made by a Commons User, as it looks nothing like the Vector Images version. There's nothing distinct about the motto's font, so that isn't an issue either. Fry1989 eh? 22:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't think it's derivative of the vector-images version. That is a separate realization of the arms. Similar elements of course, but a separate expression of all of them as far as I can see. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should come back. Fry1989 eh? 03:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's a speedy undelete according to Template:PD-Antigua and Barbuda Fry1989 eh? 21:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody? Fry1989 eh? 23:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose It is a derivative work of https://www.fotw.info/flags/ag%29.html User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, there's several important differences. Even if it could be considered that, FOTW doesn't hold the same restrictions as VectorImages. Fry1989 eh? 01:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only one I can find is the text of the arms shifted towards the right a bit; the image comes from another website so it shows this rendition just did not come out of thin air. There is no blazon from what I found, no law about the national symbols, and as I stated in the DR we must have those before this could even be restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, there are always laws about national symbols, that comes with the territory, and the PD template I listed above would mean that any law regarding the coat of arms would make the arms PD. The uploader made it himself, even if it resembles other images of the arms out on the Net, and quite frankly, the file most likely never would have been deleted it the template I listed had existed at the time of the DR. If you want a direct source, you could always just ask the uploader for them. Fry1989 eh? 02:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, yeah I think that'd be derivative. Too many small details the same. However... that bitmap may well be {{NGW}} I think (look at the source mentioned on your page). That source site has a bigger bitmap now, suggesting that really is the work of that site owner. That license was confirmed in 2008 from the looks of it. That's still a support undeletion to me, but we do need to add Ralf Hartemink (aka User:Knorrepoes) as an author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The arms image came from the NGW site; the bitmap image now used at that site is their download of the SVG image we used to have here so it is from us. The original reason for deletion is that the person who created the arms originally has not been deceased for 50 years according to the copyright law. Plus, when it comes to National Symbols must have a law for a country, it doesn't. Japan didn't have a law in place until 1999 about their flag and anthem, Sweden's anthem is not enshrined in law and Canada's flag was created by a resolution and not actual force of law. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that is where I'll disagree with you. I don't think there is a copyright on the general design, particularly for national coats of arms, just each artistic version. Someone could easily write a blazon for that, and make drawings from said blazon -- does not need to be an official version. Fair point on the larger bitmap on ngw.nl now though, you're right. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me it varies from country to country. For this country, I know legal texts are public domain, but have not found a law about the symbols or any kind of blazon. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, in this case, "I haven't been able to find it, so until we have it, we have to act as if there isn't one" (or as I like to call it, the Judge Judy "if it's not here, it doesn't exist" clause) can not apply, because this is the national symbol of a sovereign nation. National symbols don't pop out of thin air, they have to have been adopted through legislation, an edict, an order-in-council, something physical. So we know there is an official text out there somewhere. Fry1989 eh? 08:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can try and look again, ask again, but from all of the legal code I found for A&B, nothing. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Typically arms of that type were granted by the UK College of Arms, and there would be a record somewhere. Those would have a blazon as well. They have to be made official somehow. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a general situation with heraldic arts. The general design represents an idea, and separate representations of that idea have separate copyrights. See Commons:Coats of Arms. It's not the fact that a blazon is in law, it's the basic concept that a graphic work cannot be a derivative work of a written description. They can certainly be derivative of other graphic works (as, in my opinion, I think is true of the bitmap you found). But I don't think it's a derivative work, copyright-wise, of the images seen here or here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to send a few emails and see if I can uncover some kind of law about the symbols. From what I found, most of the legal codes that were put online by that government were long after the symbols law, if it existed, was made. I have contacted this government before about various other items related to their symbols and got nothing back, but I am having my hopes on this round. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen references to where the arms were granted by the UK on a particular date; that generally means a College of Arms design or at least registration. Anyways, I don't think any of that really matters. The underlying bitmap has its own independent copyright I believe, and is licensed {{NGW}}, so the SVG derivative should be OK and restored. We are not relying on any graphic material in the law, so that should not be relevant to a graphic copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is something I did not know. I see no issues with restoration, so I will go ahead and do it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Male_Ejaculation.JPG[edit]

In the second deletion request the administrator has made a judgement call, and i believe that call wasn't justified. Majority of the people from the "limited audience" which was referred to felt that the image should have been kept. The points raised for deletion were:

  1. It is not used. (not an argument on commons, and if we assume that lack of use is not educational then most of media should just be speedied)
  2. The description is "yea... not even going there". (description can easily be edited by anybody)
  3. The "head on" view of ejaculation doesn't demonstrate anything. (it clearly demonstrates ejaculation)

Due to the fact that the judgement call was wrong, it should be undeleted. Beta M (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather a curious image... the person visible seems to be caucasian, but the penis appears to have black skin. I  Support the undeletion, but would like to know how exactly this strange effect was achieved. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He might be Indian. Yann (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Category:Ejaculation doesn't contain anything similar in terms of trajectory; it shows an uncircumcised penis (most in that category are circumcised); it shows a non-Caucasian body (again unusual); and in addition the image has an aesthetic value not seen in most of the existing images. Deleting this was a poor choice for pruning that category, if such was the intention. Rd232 (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose there were no legitimate reasons to keep the image, as pointed out by Cary Bass (Bastique), a very prominent user on the WMF who put together many of our standards as we know them. Prosfilaes's claim of use was debunked. Consensus is not based on vote! and we do not allow such. The close was supported on policy grounds and the only arguments on policy were provided by well experienced users who argued why it should be deleted. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bass was not speaking on behalf of the WMF, so don't try to use that authority to imply his opinion as a user is worth more than anyone else's. "in use" is irrelevant, and the mere fact that the closer's decision seems based primarily on that should already be enough to overturn the DR. "Supported on policy grounds" is meaningless; it's subjective whether the image falls within policy, not objective. But objectively, the image is no more suitable for deletion than most of the others in that category, and I've given specific arguments above why it is less suitable for deletion, if we wish to prune that category. Rd232 (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "so don't try to use that authority to imply his opinion as a user is worth more than anyone else's" Cary Bass has one of the greatest minds Commons has ever seen, and he is an expert on community standards and our policies. His opinion is worth more than anyone else's on this page and many people agree. He is an expert in all things Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • He may be an expert on policy, but unless he's an expert on the educational value of male sexual images his opinion on this matter is worth no more than anyone else's. And as a factual matter, he dismissed the image with the remark we have enough images like this, why are we even discussing this? By contrast, I've actually analysed the image, comparing to "images like this" - an analysis you haven't bothered responding, whilst you attempt en:Argument from authority#Fallacious appeals to authority. Rd232 (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you know Cary Bass? If so, you would know he knows a lot about male sexuality and what is educational. He is the last person you could call a prude, homophobic, etc. And your claims about analysis I have done is ridiculous. P.S. "appeals to authority" are not wrong, nor is it truly a fallacy. After all, we don't use original research on Wikipedia for a reason. We appeal to authority and experts. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm trying to imagine Bass' reaction to having you attempt to misuse his authority in this way. It's almost worth emailing him to point it out... Almost, because while it might be amusing, you show exactly 0% interest in discussing this seriously. You've made up your mind, and your fishing for things to support your view, and airily dismissing ("ridiculous!") things that don't. And frankly, whilst I would like my view to be seriously engaged with, at the end of the day, it's one image, and I can't force you. PS I'm really starting to get the pattern of your style of argument: over-generalisation combined with a distraction from the core of the issue. Correcting both takes too much effort, and ignoring either is ineffective. Your self-righteousness makes me wonder, though, if you're even aware of what you're doing. Rd232 (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Feel free to email me. He is a Facebook friend and I discuss these issues quite often. Him and I are 100% opposite, and yet he thinks the image doesn't match our policies. That should tell you something. And you claim I am not discussing this seriously why? You said that the people involved weren't making legitimate comments without having any proof. These were highly respected members of our community. You attacked them and their reputation. Then you attack me without any reason. Why are you acting in that manner? You haven't provided any justification, just attacks. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't believe anyone called Cary a prude or a homophobe, so please try not to put words into each others' mouths. To paraphrase the immortal words of Michael Winner, calm down dears, it's just an undeletion request. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wasn't saying people accused him of being prude or homophobe, but that his comments as someone who is blatantly not either should be seen as someone looking at the image objectively. There is no way to say Cary had some anti-whatever agenda. He responded based on policies and his fair assessment. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Let me try one more time to restate my point: a fair and accurate assessment of whether this image is useful enough to be kept requires comparison with available similar images. Bass's comments suggest he looked only at the single image; and if he did a comparison, we have no way to evaluate it since he didn't explain it. By contrast, I have looked at similar images and made an analysis of why it is worth keeping - an analysis that anyone else can review by themselves comparing the image and the category. (Admittedly, that requires temporary undeletion for the benefit of non-admins; something which should perhaps be done routinely for images where there are no licensing concerns.) Rd232 (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:DSCF0006.JPG[edit]

User:Fanghong didn't reply why this should be out of scope and why my argument in Commons:Deletion requests/File:DSCF0006.JPG should be void. --Saibo (Δ) 02:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support I think that the fact that the educational value was not provided doesn't mean that educational value isn't there. The person confused the Wikipedia policy of notability (where the article must clearly state why something is notable) and Commons policy on educational content (where something must be useful for an educational purposes even when the image/video doesn't say "and today we will study cats"). VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - out of focus, generally low quality, I don't see why this image can't be replaced by the many other penis photos we have with black backgrounds or from above. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Low quality generic penis photo. Easily replaceable with better quality images. Kaldari (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I been thinking about this image for a while and I agree that a filename is not a reason for deletion at all; we can move files so it can be renamed once this process is done. I haven't seen many photos on the Commons like this that has a better quality than just a webcam/camera phone and it has a better chance of being used than others. However, if you feel that it is still not good enough, I would suggest another DR based on the merits of the image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Eline_rocka.jpg /commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eline_rocka.jpg[edit]

Hi!

When I created the "Eline la Croix" page on the Dutch wikipedia, I also uploaded the file "Eline_rocka.jpg" which I obtained from Eline herself. A week or two ago she mailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org that she allows to use the picture on wikipedia. Can you please undelete the file? Or tell me if there's anything left to do?

Thanks!

folkert.mobiel@gmail.com

Email received at OTRS, but mere permission is not enough. I sent an email reply regarding what details are needed for permission. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Fedora 16 default Desktop.png Request for undeletion[edit]

The image is a screenshot of my own desktop. Fedora is a free and open source distribution.

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Andrew_Constantine.jpg[edit]

File:Andrew_Constantine.jpg should be undeleted because the copyright holder will be credited with a reference and citation of use of his or her file. The image is posted on the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra's website, so it should be capable to be used for commons purposes.

--Mconsta3 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It takes more than that for that image to be hosted here. You will need to follow http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing in order for the image to be hosted on here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is of my father. What do I need to do in order to get it uploaded properly? If the photographer was originally given permission to publish the photo, then does his permission for use supersede the photographer's?

You will need to follow COM:OTRS. As for who supersedes who, I am not certain. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am dealing with this user on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ethnicscandi montage1.jpg[edit]

The file was deleted because of a missing license tag, which I (the uploader) thought I had added but missed the notification. The file was a self-made free work derived from several files on Commons, so I don't remember exactly which license is appropriate (the copyright statuses of the original images were documented on the description page). I beleive this issue can be resolved by simply adding a tag that encompasses the original ones. Unfortunately I'm rather powerless to know how. Brilliantwiki (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Generally the most restrictive license is chosen, in this case, it is GFDL. I went ahead and marked the image as that restored it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:LOGO-WMC.jpg[edit]

How can you delete the logo. I made it and uploaded it to the official ebsite, facebook and wikipedia. This is absurd. Undelete it immediately !!!

 Not done This is a logo of a college; the college will have the rights to this logo, not you. Plus, you gave the license as "Restricted" and that is something we are not allowed to have. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I represent my college admin. I claim its right. You can give whatever license you like to it, I just want the logo to appear on the page again. This is completely unfair. I'm dissappointed.

What would be more unfair is allowing someone to violate the college's copyright. We can't give it "whatever licence we like", we require permission from the copyright holder - the college - and an explicit statement of licence. This could be done by OTRS. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who told you this logo has copyright ? This logo is free to be used by anyone. If you cant give "whatever licence you like" and you object on marking it restricted then couldn't you have told or guided to mark some other license for it instead of deleting it. I'm not 'someone". I am the admin of college's facebook pages, its logo creator nad official website admin. What more 'permission'do you require, if its not even copyright material !

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

File:Lika-cap.jpg[edit]

Hello, this is not advertisemement, i have needed an foto for this explenation, it is important for makinmg reacher page of a lika cap we dont have to mention shop link

 Not done Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PA00088801_-_Tour_Eiffel_vue_depuis_le_Palais_de_Chaillot.jpg[edit]

Deleted per this DR with the explanation "Per Category:Eiffel Tower at night this is copyrighted. It is not de minimis.". Image is not mentioned there. --  Docu  at 12:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The image is a copyright violation, based on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Eiffel_Tower_at_night. Even if the image is not mentioned there, the photo is displaying the light show and the main focus of of the Eiffel Tower. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zscout370 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 21 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]


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

File:W&J College tobacco silk.jpg[edit]

I'd like to request undeletion of File:W&J College tobacco silk.jpg, which was a scan of a PD tobacco silk. (Tobacco silks are strips of silk with designs on them.) The silk itself is now PD and the scan of that 2D silk qualifies for PD-art. There was nothing copyrightable about scanning this strip of silk.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was your own work or got permission, sure. But this photo was taken from an eBay auction as demonstrated by the DR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A photo/scan of a 2D item in the PD is not copyrightable. The Ebay seller did not hold any copyright over that image. Your DR was flatly incorrect.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am just summarizing the DR; it is correct that a scan or a photo of the 2D work is not copyrightable. But if someone else takes that photograph, that is where an issue could be brought up (and I seen this before for many images, such as the Magna Carta on here). I will look at the DR some more in the next few days and see what could be pulled. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Magna Carta is a great example of the differences in American/UK copyright law. In UK, a scan/photo of a PD item is still copyrightable (see National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute for a great example). So a scan of the Magna Carta in UK could be copyrightable. In US, consider Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which stands for the proposition that "photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality." The tobacco silks were created in US and scanned in US, so the scanner gets no copyright on the scan.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this picture of the silks was a photograph, it *may* have copyright protection depending on if it was a straight-on photo or not, if the silk was laid flat, if the photo showed stuff outside the silk, etc. Was it really a scan, or was it a photo? Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was either a straight-on photgraph from a few inches away or a straight scan. No side portion was shown. Either way, there's nothing "original" about that photograph/scan, a requirement that must be present in order to give rise to copyright. Bridgeman describes why. --GrapedApe (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support WM's policy for a while was that a faithful 2d reproduction of a 2d work is not copyrightable, and thus can be present here. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 16:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, should this be undeleted, I will clarify the license to be {{PD-scan|1=PD-1923}} (see also File:W&J College tobacco leather pennant.jpg and File:W&J College Murad Card.jpg, two of my other images done in a similar way).--GrapedApe (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:W&J College tobacco leather pennant.jpg is a photograph, not a scan, and furthermore it is not of a completely 2-D original, so it is not a guarantee that Bridgeman applies (which was about straight photographic copies of 2-D works). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that were so, then it would be {{PD-art}} as a "faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art". There's nothing "original" about that photograph/scan, a requirement that must be present in order to give rise to copyright. Again, Bridgeman is helpful here. --GrapedApe (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HenryAugustusWard.jpg - 150 years old photo[edit]

There is no limit to copyright enthusiasts, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:HenryAugustusWard.jpg. The photo is from before 1860. Please undelete, before this people delete the medieval stuff too. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From before 1860 means that this man with the white beard is younger 26 years old. That date is a fake. --Martin H. (talk) 08:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just read that discussion and I have no idea where Pieter got the idea the photo was from 1860. The date comes from this page which merely says Ward returned from overseas in that year. There's no indication that the photo is from that year (and, as Martin points out, it's absurd to think that it is, based on Ward's birth year). If we assume the worst-case scenario, that the photo was taken in 1906 (Ward's death year) and never published until recently, it will fall into the public domain in 15 years. Powers (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an image of Ward that should be PD due to age, whether published or not. Powers (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, now at File:Henry A. Ward, young.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the closing admin for this DR. There is absolutely no evidence as to when/where the photo was taken, who took it, or when (or if) it was published. Therefore, it is impossible to ascertain copyright status in the United States, Pieter's patronizing comments notwithstanding. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was from before 1890, if it was published between 1923 and 1963 with a copyright notice which was later renewed, or between 1974 and 1989 with a copyright notice, or between 1989 and 2002 without a copyright notice, then it is under copyright still. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I said, you will go on deleting and deleting older and older stuff. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. I believe your argument is using the slippery slope fallacy. The only images that should be deleted are unsourced ones (whose license is thus impossible to determine in the US). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is hardly a fallacy - Commons is sliding towards ever more extremes. Anyway, the image is not from 1860 but from from 1906, when Ward was in Colombia; the same meteorite is shown here. The natural assumption would be that also the photo under debate here was published at the time. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This proves the publication information all the more valuable. {{PD-Colombia}} is much more strict than {{PD-US}}. Thus it matters where it was first published. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement is not country of creation but country of first publication. PD-Colombia is hardly relevant. I see two options now:
1) The photo was a private photo and never published, other photos and drawings from the same expedition got published as Pieter shows in http://www.meteoritehistory.info/AJS/S4VIEWS/V23P004.HTM, that published illustration is PD per {{PD/1923}}, the possibly unpublished photo we talk about here is not arguably public domain without evidence of publication.
2) Such a travel or expedition at that time always give us the chance to name a very close group of people who attended this travel or expedition. Find out who attended it, find out whichever of that people are photographers. If the photo is unpublished it will be pd-old per Commons:Hirtle chart, 1st case, if the possible photographers from that travel group all died >70 years ago. --Martin H. (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my comments above, I listed some publication scenarios (years it could have been published) where it would not currently be in the public domain. For example, if it was never published until the internet age and then published between 1989-2002, then the year of the author's death is irrelevant. And if it's anonymous, and was published recently, then it's still not PD until 125 years after its creation.
I only mentioned PD-Colombia as one possibility, in case it was first published there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so even File:Henry A. Ward, young.jpg might still be copyrighted? Whose bright idea was that 2047 expiration date on newly published but otherwise ancient works, anyway? Powers (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the U.S., unpublished works had infinite copyright (but could not rely on the protection and penalties of the federal copyright law; they had to use state common law until they were published). With the 1976 Copyright Act, effective 1978, common law copyright was basically abolished but previously unpublished works basically got a term starting from that moment -- 50 pma, or (for corporate works) the earlier of 100 years from creation or 75 years from publication, but all such works were given at least a 25 year period of protection (through 2002), and if published in that time, then an additional 25 years (through 2027). In 1998, the terms were increased to 70 pma, 120 years from creation and 95 years from publication, and the 2027 date was moved to 2047, but the 2002 date was left alone. In the case of File:Henry A. Ward, young.jpg, it sounds like a print was given as a gift in 1940, so that would be publication (if it did not occur earlier, which it probably did). The UK did something similar with their 1988 law -- works unpublished as of 1988 are generally protected there through 2037 at least, even if 70 pma expires earlier, I'm pretty sure (though it depends on the class of work somewhat -- I don't think that really applies to photographs there due to some technicalities). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot even comment on the Henry A. ward, young.jpg version. If it was published in 1940, I doubt it had notice or the copyright was renewed (we'd have to check copyright records). But I don't know enough about museum practices to say if it was published. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The act of giving it as a gift (if there were no restrictions) would probably have been publication (the museum wouldn't have a say in that). From the Copyright Compendium, The unrestricted gift of copies constitutes publication. While that link is only for post-1978 actions (the corresponding pages in Compendium I, relevant for pre-1978, from this link seem to be missing), I'd think it was basically the same. Giving out a print is distributing a copy, unless there were some specific restrictions attached to the gift. The fact that it is a print and apparently came from an unrelated party probably means it was published much much earlier. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for this image, I'm not really sure. Maybe it would be best to contact the Rochester Libraries to see if they have any information on where that photo came from. Most probably it came from some book, but it really is a good idea to document it. The photo was taken in 1906, not too long before Ward died, and was almost certainly taken at the same time as the photo which did get published in early 1907 (another version here). That was from a paper by Ward, which had been nearly completed before he died but was finished up by someone else. I'd say the photo is almost certainly not PD-Colombia, since the published photo obviously came back with Ward (taken by an assistant?) and was published in the U.S. Still, it was probably an unpublished photo at his death and may have remained that way for some time -- the question is how long. I'd be surprised if this was actually still copyrighted, but really we should have some information on publication before we keep it. Hm, according to this link, the Rochester Libraries does have a bunch of Ward's papers, donated by his grandson in 1938. It's possible the photo was included in there, and if so, the question is if that gift constituted publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 1906 image is not from the Rochester library but from http://www.mindat.org/photo-249040.html where it is listed as PD; they are not dealing with unpublished archives, they must have scanned it from an old book or journal. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image from the Rochester site has a server date of 2003; that link says it was added there in 2009. It was uploaded to en-wiki in 2008 so they probably just took it from us. Anyways... with more looking, this book, Henry A. Ward, Museum Builder to America (a biography written by his grandson Roswell Ward in 1948), has on page ii an image caption of "Professor Ward and the Santa Rosa Meteorite". I can't see the actual image (it's snippet view) but that is a pretty suggestive caption. I can't find a renewal for that... it was published by the Rochester Historical Society (volume 24 of some series of theirs). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, that should fix it. (The xistence of two different digital versions of this file (at mindat and at the Rochester library) also indicates that this photo was in circulation.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think mindat just copied their image from en-wiki, including the PD declaration, so I wouldn't base anything on that link. It looks to be exactly the same scan as the Rochester one (just a crop); it lines up perfectly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:S.N.Sanyal1424.gif[edit]

Sir! as I had mentioned earlier in the summary information of this image file that this photo of S.N.Sanyal was published in so many news papers/periodicals when he was released from the jail in 1939. I have plenty of rare photos of Indian revolutionaries in my personal library which are neither available in wikipedia nor elsewhere. Ram Krishna Khatri who was also an accused in the Kakory Conspiracy (1925) had presented me a valuable book Kakori Shaheed Smriti on 18.12.1993. This photo of S.N.Sanyal was also published in that book. It was also published in my book Swadhinta Sangram Ke Krantikari Sahitya Ka Itihas (ISBN 8177831224) on page no 861 of (Part-III) in the year 2006. I hold the copyright of this book & this book have been published by my regular publisher Praveen Prakashan New Delhi (India). Since this image has already been deleted by your goodself I can not add these facts on its discription page or elsewhere. Now it is upto you to decide the matter. Hoping for a favour from you, with regardsDr.'Krant'M.L.Verma (talk•Email)Krantmlverma (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the image was published in newspapers in India in 1939, then yes it would be OK. We prefer to have some evidence of that publication though. You don't own copyright over the photo even if you included it in your book -- if it was public domain, it's still public domain, but if the copyright was still valid then your book wouldn't change that either (it would either be a copyright violation that you're getting away with, or quite possibly fair dealing). Still, it does sound as though this is probably PD. Do you have a reference on where it was published, or at least point to something which mentions such early publication? Many photos were taken but never published until much later, and Indian copyright law makes the terms date from publication, not creation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I aggree with you my dear Clindberg! This photo of S.N.Sanyal was obviously taken in 1939 when he was released from Jail & accordingly it was published in India. Naturally it was in PD. Kindly fix the problem in uploading this image with revised license authorisation. This is a valuable document which should be retained on wikimedia. Thank you very much in anticipation.Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma (talk•Email)Krantmlverma (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read what Carl wrote. You need to provide evidence of initial publication in India prior to 1951. Without this, the file cannot be undeleted. The year of creation is not sufficient in this case. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Publication date not provided. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:LalaHarDayal1294.gif[edit]

This image was published in a book सरफरोशाने वतन (en SARFAROSHANE VATAN) by Swaraj Bhawan Bhopal (M.P.) in the year 1999. When I went Bhopal in connection with my research on the literature of Indian revolutionaries I got this book from there. I utilised its meterial as a reference in my book स्वाधीनता संग्राम के क्रान्तिकारी साहित्य का इतिहास (en.Swadhinta Sangram Ke Krantikari Sahitya Ka Itihas) ISBN 8177831224 which was published in the year 2006. Reference of above book सरफरोशाने वतन (en SARFAROSHANE VATAN) is given on page no 825 (Part-III). This image of Lala Hardayal is also given in black & white on page no 848 (Part-III) of my book स्वाधीनता संग्राम के क्रान्तिकारी साहित्य का इतिहास (en.Swadhinta Sangram Ke Krantikari Sahitya Ka Itihas). Since Lala Hardayal expired on 4 March 1939 obviously his photo/image was published in India before 1951. Therefore there is no harm in publishing his image and releasing it in public domain. Because this image has been deleted by your goodself, it is not possible for me to replace/change desired information on its description page. Now it is upto you to decide this matter, what I had to say, I have spoken it here. Thank you very much for the patient hearing. With regards, .Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma (talk•Email)Krantmlverma (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian law is date from publication, not creation. If it is a photo, then yes it was obviously created in 1939 or before, but not necessarily published. If the 1999 book was the first publication (unlikely), then I think it would still be under copyright. From the Google cache, if it is the image I think it is, then it looks colorized -- that act probably gives an additional copyright on the colorized version, which is probably still in effect. I think I see a black-and-white version on this page, but there is no information of where that came from (i.e. when it was published). It also may well be a painting or drawing and not a photograph, in which case even the year of creation is not possible to determine. If you have any further information on its provenance (where it was published, if it is a photograph or painting, that kind of thing). And it sounds like the pictured individual spent most of his life in Europe and the United States, so the country of first publication may be a country other than India, meaning publication details are even more important. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Clindberg! Thank you very much for providing me a link of the image of Lala Har Dayal in black & white. I have seen that link http://www.sikhpioneers.org/gadarphoto.html#dayal there are 3 photos viz. one coloured with the signatures of Har Dayal in English,the second middle one is in clean shave & the 3rd one is that which you have pointed out hereinabove. My openion is that the first one (In colours) is more authentic as it bears the signatures of Har Dayal (when he was alive) i.e. before 1939.

Please help me how can I upload it, because nothing is clear except the citation of site i.e. http://www.sikhpioneers.org/gadarphoto.html#dayal With regards,Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma (talk•Email)Krantmlverma (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Publication date not provided by the uploader, so we cannot host. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bachmanov.jpg[edit]

I am requesting the undeletion of the photo Bachmanov.jpg. It was deleted for violating copyright rules because it is on the website, Monell.org. I am an employee of Monell and have permission to use this photo. Please advise. --Monellmedia (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow COM:OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Guy having sex with a sex doll[edit]

Image #1 was DRed as a possible copyvio, then deleted as out of scope by Jcb, which was never discussed in the DR - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Puppensex 1.jpg. It had previously survived a DR specifically aimed at SCOPE arguments. #2 and #3 were deleted by Aude three days before Jcb closed the #1 DR - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Puppensex 2.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Puppensex 3.jpg - with the comment very low quality, per COM:SCOPE.

We do not appear to have any other images of people actually having sex with sex dolls, which seems like a surprising oversight. If sex dolls are at all within scope (which given there's an en.wp article they are), surely photos of them being used for their intended purpose are within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a copyvio source for the first video, but I do admit that the quality is very questionable. What I am thinking is maybe try and look for photos first, possibly, before we start looking at restoring these. If that doesn't work, I am not sure which one to restore or not yet. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose - when in doubt we default delete material as copyvio. The only keep rationale on the first one is to contradict our way of approaching material. Same thing pointed out in the second image and third. The user in question had a lot of questionable images, and should probably be banned with his uploads purged. We don't tolerate such behavior when it doesn't deal with pornographic content so why would we tolerate it now? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Undelete to enable discussion about the scope of images, unfortunately only admins can see the deleted image, no lowly user is allowed to partake in discussion right now. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 01:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I was able to see of the images, it looks like it was taken out of a video webcam. This is not out of the ordinary for this user; every thing else that was uploaded by this user is a webcam shot from the same model. I know he has other images that are of a similar quality, so any issues of copyvios is moot, in my opinion. But every image this user has uploaded is being deleted because of one reason or another but I still believe a lot of the deletions/restorations are based on just fundamentals on whether or not Commons should host this material. But I am going to restore the images so a proper discussion on scope can take place. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RebeccaBlack1.jpg[edit]

On Flickr on the source for the image that I provided, it is published under the correct licensing information, if this licensing is incorrect, then user who posted it is also incorrect, and the user is also in copyright violation. If the user is in copyright violation, then why hasn't Flickr removed the image as well. It has been up for some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramaksoud2000 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Flickr removals can take a while from the date they are flagged. Having it merely put up on Flickr does not make it correct and it is a really bad way of acting to move any content over from flickr without direct contact with the original creator of the image. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done There was never a file under this name here. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He meant File:Rebecca Black1.jpg, which was deleted as a copyvio from a music video. For that matter, the licence is unfree anyway - BY-NC-SA. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
License issues, derivative work issues. I would refuse to restore it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Military history[edit]

These Images have been uploaded through flickr,and many through Youtube, they and are not STOLEN. They are original work of the author, and are credible photos of Military history of the United States in relation to official duties performed. Wiki commons is fortunate to have such photos.

Tsillaria360 (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC) Flickr Account : tmaradas68209@yahoo.com http://www.flickr.com/people/tadarammaradas/[reply]

Tsillaria360 (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Deletion and Un deletion requests -- User talk:Rillke/Discuss/2011 Rillke[edit]

Long, preformatted, overwidth list of edits 
    05:26, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Sterling Firlds LAPD.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (top) (Tag: small image note)
    05:26, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Mariners.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (top) (Tag: small image note)
    05:26, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williamd UC Berekly.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (top) (Tag: small image note)
    05:25, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Seahawks.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (top)
    05:25, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Seahawks.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:25, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC williams & Jundees.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (top) (Tag: small image note)
    05:24, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Sterling Firlds LAPD.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:23, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Mariners.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:23, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Seahawks.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:23, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Seahawks.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:22, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC williams & Jundees.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:22, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:David T Williams.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (top) (Tag: small image note)
    05:22, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williamd UC Berekly.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:21, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Sterling Firlds LAPD.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:21, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Mariners.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:19, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williamd UC Berekly.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/) (Tag: small image note)
    05:18, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Seahawks.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/) (Tag: small image note)
    05:18, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:A Pictorial Memoir 23 Years in the Making.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/) (top) (Tag: small image note)
    05:17, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC williams & Jundees.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/) (Tag: small image note)
    05:17, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Sterling Firlds LAPD.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/) (Tag: small image note)
    05:04, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests ‎
    04:57, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Mariners.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: These Images have been uploaded through flickr,and many through Youtube, they and are not STOLEN. They are original work of the author, a) (Tag: small image note)
    04:56, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Seahawks.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: These Images have been uploaded through flickr,and many through Youtube, they and are not STOLEN. They are original work of the author, a) (Tag: small image note)
    04:56, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC williams & Jundees.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: These Images have been uploaded through flickr,and many through Youtube, they and are not STOLEN. They are original work of the author, a) (Tag: small image note)
    04:56, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Checkpointe Charlie.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: These Images have been uploaded through flickr,and many through Youtube, they and are not STOLEN. They are original work of the author, a) (top) (Tag: small image note)
    04:55, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:David T Williams.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: These Images have been uploaded through flickr,and many through Youtube, they and are not STOLEN. They are original work of the author, a) (Tag: small image note)
    04:55, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williamd UC Berekly.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: These Images have been uploaded through flickr,and many through Youtube, they and are not STOLEN. They are original work of the author, a)
    02:25, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Tsillaria360 ‎ (→Erroneous recommendation for deletion of photographs: new section)
    02:21, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N User:Tsillaria360 ‎ (←Created page with 'User talk:Rillke/Discuss/2011 Rillke The items that you questioned for deletion are all original works the are owned by Tsillaria360, period. The covers belon...') (top)
    02:18, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) Template talk:Talkback ‎
    01:56, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:MaradasInc qr.jpg ‎
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:The Epiphany. 156.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:The Epiphany. 056.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Copy (2) of The Epiphany. 054.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Copy (2) of The Epiphany. 001.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:BERKUC.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Copy (2) of The Epiphany. 017.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:AFGHBAG.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Kabultwelve.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:KABUL.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:WASHDC.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:The Epiphany. 088.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:NATOOTAN.jpg ‎ (top)
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Operation Katrina Disaster Recovery Effort WilliamsDT.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:DWandGCWilliams.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Operation Katrina Disaster Recovery Effort Williams.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:MdubWilliams.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:MDub1111Williams.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:MDub2williams.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Adub2Williams.jpg ‎
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Copy (2) of The Epiphany. 054.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Copy (2) of The Epiphany. 001.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:BERKUC.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Copy (2) of The Epiphany. 017.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:AFGHBAG.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Kabultwelve.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:KABUL.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:WASHDC.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:The Epiphany. 088.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:NATOOTAN.jpg ‎ (top)
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Operation Katrina Disaster Recovery Effort WilliamsDT.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:DWandGCWilliams.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Operation Katrina Disaster Recovery Effort Williams.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:MdubWilliams.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:MDub1111Williams.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:MDub2williams.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Adub2Williams.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:187Williams.jpg ‎
    11:40, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:The-other-side-of-the-game-bc3.jpg ‎
    11:40, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:A-pictorial-memoir-23-years-in-the-making-front-cover3.jpg ‎
    11:40, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:The-other-side-of-the-game-front-cover3.jpg ‎
    20:35, 13 November 2011 (diff | hist) Commons:Upload Wizard feedback ‎ (→DISPLAY MESSAGE: new section)
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:MDUB.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:DW2.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Operation Katrina Disaster Recovery Effort 055.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Momma.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Vhhs7.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Vhhs9.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:BSU.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:David t williams2 60.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:A Pictorial Memoir 23 Years in the Making - Front Cover.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:8A 00060.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:17A 00161.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:24A 00103.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:4A 00083 0001.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:2A 00081 0001.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC Williams & Kuwaiti Women.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC Williams & Geraldo Rivera.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFCDTWILL.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC Williams Republican Presidential Palace.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Operation Katrina Disaster Recovery Effort.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Operation Katrina Disaster Recovery Effort SFC Williams.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:The Palace.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC Williamd Hoop it up Contest.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC Williams Sterling Firlds LAPD.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC Williams Seattle Mariners.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC Williamd UC Berekly.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC Williams Seattle Seahawks.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC williams & Jundees.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:A Pictorial Memoir 23 Years in the Making.jpg
 ‎    05:37, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) m Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests ‎ (→Stop Deletion and Undeledtion rtequests -- User : Rilike) (top)
    05:32, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests ‎ (→Stop Deletion and Undeledtion rtequests -- User : Rilike: new section)
    05:26, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Sterling Firlds LAPD.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (top) (Tag: small image note)
    05:26, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Mariners.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (top) (Tag: small image note)
    05:26, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williamd UC Berekly.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (top) (Tag: small image note)
    05:25, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Seahawks.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (top)
    05:25, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Seahawks.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:25, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC williams & Jundees.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (top) (Tag: small image note)
    05:24, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Sterling Firlds LAPD.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:23, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Mariners.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:23, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Seahawks.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:23, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Seahawks.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:22, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC williams & Jundees.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:22, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:David T Williams.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (top) (Tag: small image note)
    05:22, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williamd UC Berekly.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:21, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Sterling Firlds LAPD.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:21, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Mariners.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/ Liscened with wiki commons share and share alike) (Tag: small image note)
    05:19, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williamd UC Berekly.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/) (Tag: small image note)
    05:18, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Seahawks.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/) (Tag: small image note)
    05:18, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:A Pictorial Memoir 23 Years in the Making.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/) (top) (Tag: small image note)
    05:17, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC williams & Jundees.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/) (Tag: small image note)
    05:17, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Sterling Firlds LAPD.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/) (Tag: small image note)
    05:04, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests ‎
    04:57, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Mariners.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: These Images have been uploaded through flickr,and many through Youtube, they and are not STOLEN. They are original work of the author, a) (Tag: small image note)
    04:56, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Seattle Seahawks.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: These Images have been uploaded through flickr,and many through Youtube, they and are not STOLEN. They are original work of the author, a) (Tag: small image note)
    04:56, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC williams & Jundees.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: These Images have been uploaded through flickr,and many through Youtube, they and are not STOLEN. They are original work of the author, a) (Tag: small image note)
    04:56, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williams Checkpointe Charlie.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: These Images have been uploaded through flickr,and many through Youtube, they and are not STOLEN. They are original work of the author, a) (top) (Tag: small image note)
    04:55, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:David T Williams.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: These Images have been uploaded through flickr,and many through Youtube, they and are not STOLEN. They are original work of the author, a) (Tag: small image note)
    04:55, 21 November 2011 (diff | hist) File:SFC Williamd UC Berekly.jpg ‎ (Adding image note: These Images have been uploaded through flickr,and many through Youtube, they and are not STOLEN. They are original work of the author, a)
    02:25, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Tsillaria360 ‎ (→Erroneous recommendation for deletion of photographs: new section)
    02:21, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N User:Tsillaria360 ‎ (←Created page with 'User talk:Rillke/Discuss/2011 Rillke The items that you questioned for deletion are all original works the are owned by Tsillaria360, period. The covers belon...') (top)
    02:18, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) Template talk:Talkback ‎
    01:56, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:MaradasInc qr.jpg ‎
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:The Epiphany. 156.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:The Epiphany. 056.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Copy (2) of The Epiphany. 054.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Copy (2) of The Epiphany. 001.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:BERKUC.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Copy (2) of The Epiphany. 017.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:AFGHBAG.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Kabultwelve.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:KABUL.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:WASHDC.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:The Epiphany. 088.jpg ‎ (top)
    01:41, 16 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:NATOOTAN.jpg ‎ (top)
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Operation Katrina Disaster Recovery Effort WilliamsDT.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:DWandGCWilliams.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Operation Katrina Disaster Recovery Effort Williams.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:MdubWilliams.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:MDub1111Williams.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:MDub2williams.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Adub2Williams.jpg ‎
    22:30, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:187Williams.jpg ‎
    11:40, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:The-other-side-of-the-game-bc3.jpg ‎
    11:40, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:A-pictorial-memoir-23-years-in-the-making-front-cover3.jpg ‎
    11:40, 15 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:The-other-side-of-the-game-front-cover3.jpg ‎
    20:35, 13 November 2011 (diff | hist) Commons:Upload Wizard feedback ‎ (→DISPLAY MESSAGE: new section)
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:MDUB.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:DW2.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Operation Katrina Disaster Recovery Effort 055.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Momma.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Vhhs7.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Vhhs9.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:BSU.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:David t williams2 60.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:A Pictorial Memoir 23 Years in the Making - Front Cover.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:8A 00060.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:17A 00161.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:24A 00103.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:4A 00083 0001.jpg ‎
    22:46, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:2A 00081 0001.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC Williams & Kuwaiti Women.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC Williams & Geraldo Rivera.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFCDTWILL.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC Williams Republican Presidential Palace.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Operation Katrina Disaster Recovery Effort.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:Operation Katrina Disaster Recovery Effort SFC Williams.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:The Palace.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC Williamd Hoop it up Contest.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC Williams Sterling Firlds LAPD.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC Williams Seattle Mariners.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC Williamd UC Berekly.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC Williams Seattle Seahawks.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC williams & Jundees.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:A Pictorial Memoir 23 Years in the Making.jpg ‎
    19:58, 12 November 2011 (diff | hist) N File:SFC Williams Checkpointe Charlie.jpg ‎

User talk:Rillke/Discuss/2011 Rillke All Files were Uploaded by FLICKR, Youtube, Picaso (Google), and all are original works owned by the author. There are no third party's involved in relation to these uploaded photographs: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS - Share and Share alike liscence: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tadarammaradas/sets/72157628058818297/ These Images have been uploaded through flickr,and many through Youtube, they and are not STOLEN. They are original work of the author, a) (Tag: small image note)

Tsillaria360 (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE rillke questions? 11:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[edit]

Published elsewhere - we need COM:OTRS permission 

   File:The-other-side-of-the-game-bc3.jpg
   File:The-other-side-of-the-game-front-cover3.jpg
   File:A-pictorial-memoir-23-years-in-the-making-front-cover3.jpg - Cover, Derivative work
   File:A Pictorial Memoir 23 Years in the Making - Front Cover.jpg - Cover, Derivative work
   File:A Pictorial Memoir 23 Years in the Making.jpg - Derivative work

[edit] Possibly out of scope 

   File:Operation Katrina Disaster Recovery Effort WilliamsDT.jpg maybe useful for something, maybe not. Who is the depicted person? Notable or not?
   File:DWandGCWilliams.jpg - blurry
   File:Operation Katrina Disaster Recovery Effort Williams.jpg - Derivative work
   File:MdubWilliams.jpg - scan or photo of a photo; low quality
   File:MDub1111Williams.jpg - scan or photo of a photo; low quality
   File:MDub2williams.jpg - scan or photo of a photo; low quality
   File:Adub2Williams.jpg - scan or photo of a photo; low quality
   File:187Williams.jpg - blurry
   File:DW2.jpg - Derivative work
   File:Operation Katrina Disaster Recovery Effort 055.jpg - blurry, notable person?
   File:Momma.jpg - scan or photo of a photo; low quality
   File:Vhhs7.jpg - blurry
   File:Vhhs9.jpg - blurry
   File:BSU.jpg
   File:David t williams2 60.jpg - 60 x 80px
   File:8A 00060.jpg
   File:17A 00161.jpg
   File:24A 00103.jpg
   File:4A 00083 0001.jpg
   File:2A 00081 0001.jpg
   File:SFC Williams & Kuwaiti Women.jpg - pixelized
   File:SFCDTWILL.jpg - Derivative work
   File:Operation Katrina Disaster Recovery Effort.jpg
   File:Operation Katrina Disaster Recovery Effort SFC Williams.jpg
   File:The Palace.jpg - small and blurry
   File:SFC Williams Seattle Seahawks.jpg
   File:SFC williams & Jundees.jpg
   File:SFC Williams Checkpointe Charlie.jpg
   File:David T Williams.jpg

[edit] Other problems and maybe out of scope 

   File:SFC Williamd Hoop it up Contest.jpg - Derivative work - Flickr by Tadaram Alasadro Maradas
   File:SFC Williams Sterling Firlds LAPD.jpg - Derivative work - Flickr by Tadaram Alasadro Maradas
   File:SFC Williams Seattle Mariners.jpg - pixelized - Flickr by Tadaram Alasadro Maradas
   File:SFC Williamd UC Berekly.jpg - pixelized - Flickr by Tadaram Alasadro Maradas
   File:SFC Williams Republican Presidential Palace.jpg - Flickr by Tadaram Alasadro Maradas
   File:SFC Williams & Geraldo Rivera.jpg - Flickr by Tadaram Alasadro Maradas
   File:MDUB.jpg - picked from Facebook img

RE rillke questions? 23:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


Rillke

The items that you questioned for deletion are all original works the are owned by Tsillaria360, period. The covers belong exclusively to Tsillaria360 and Tsillaria360 alone. The deletion request is unappropriate and unwarranted in every case that you have questioned and recommended for deletion. There CAN be a flickr account involved, however there is no need for any flickr involvement.

Tsillaria360 (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

In order to verify that you are the owner of the Flickr-account, please link from your Flickr-account to your commons userpage or write a flickrmail to me (Rillke). Otherwise we have to assume that you aren't the owner and the files must be deleted. -- RE rillke questions? 11:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

All of the above had been posted to here by Tsillaria360.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsillaria360 (talk • contribs) 21. November 2011, 07:04 Uhr (UTCTúrelio (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry, but this request is completely incomprehensible, which makes it pretty much impossible to respond to or act on. The entry that is supposed to be your request for undeletion is for some reason filled with other people's signatures and arguments for deletion. It looks like you've just copied and pasted together various unformatted logs and discussions from who-knows-where. I suggest the following approach instead:
  • List the files you wish to be undeleted once. If there are many files deleted for different reasons, create separate requests for them.
  • Link to other relevant discussions and coherently address each of the arguments raised there.
In it's current state, I don't see this request going anywhere, and I suggest closing it. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the images are of him in various places in civilian or military functions and most were uploaded here as a personal Flickr. The photographers were various, the places were various and the cameras were different. They were deleted for being out of scope; the only articles it had a use for was a personal bio he wrote on the English Wikipedia. I would close this, but I deleted most of his images and a lot of the contributions he made were posting deletion logs/emails to talk pages of anyone who touched one of his images (myself included). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Copyright problems, and judging by User:Tsillaria360 this is a case of abundant self-promotion of non-notable person and out of scope of Wikimedia Commons.


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

File:Pene-ereccion.jpg[edit]

The file was proposed to be deleted and then deleted within 13 minutes for being "low quality" and "out of scope", none of which are reasons for speedy deletions. There should have been a community discussion, that is the whole point of the deletion requests. The admin should close the request early not when one agrees with nomination, but when the clear consensus was already established (with the exceptions of clear copyviolations and vandalism of course. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 17:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose It is lousy quality so I would have actually done the same. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - I agree with Herby. Some people upload penis images for educational purposes - these images are high resolution and good quality. This is just a webcam picture and is really not very useful. Given it was deleted on the same day it was uploaded, this is a reasonable speedy deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Support undeletion -- I can't see the image for myself, but I believe nominator has made an excellent point -- the stated reasons for deletion are not grounds for speedy deletion. There are some contributors here, including a few administrators, who have an incredibly high bar for considering images related to human sexuality as sufficiently high quality, or in scope. Let's undelete the image, and have a proper deletion discussion, where everyone can reach an informed conclusion as to the image's quality and in-scoped-ness. Geo Swan (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, "Low quality cell phone snapshot of own penis uploaded by drunken guy" has pretty much been de facto grounds for speedy for a while. If not judiciously pruned, such images would unfortunately accumulate so as to eventually overwhelm more useful images in the relevant categories, as has been discussed in several places before... AnonMoos (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see that reason, and that is fair enough. But please look at it from my perspective also. I see quite a few admins who delete useful images even when there is an overwhelming opposition to the deletion, simply because they have some sort of penisophobia or something. When we allow speedy deletions on these grounds, there needs to be some sort of transparent review process available, unfortunately currently the software is set up not to allow that. I don't see the image, you say that it was a drunken guy's penis, and i want to believe you, but that belief has as much chance to stick in my mind as the belief in god. I can't believe something that i am told is there, but i will have no chance to see that. Perhaps it's a wrong place to bring that up, but maybe there does need to be some sort of feature that autoconfirmed users can see those deletions which are not copyright violations, or at least see the File page itself (with the templates, description, and exif data if available), and even for copyvio we can probably show the File page without the image in some cases. But that is already a tangent, currently we do not have such an ability, and i doubt that it would be implemented in time to influence this decision here (although i doubt that it will swing towards support). VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 15:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose If it wasn't deleted by a speedy method, it would have been speedied anyways. I looked at the image and from what I can tell, it is a a picture of a erect penis from a hairy guy. It looks like webcam/camera phone quality and adds nothing extra to make it education. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Incredibly horrible quality -should- be a speedy criteria if anyone claims that it isn't. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per consensus, low quality image Ezarateesteban 02:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Kawasaki GPZ 305.jpg[edit]

I asked from the site owner (http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/kawasaki/kawasaki_gpz305.htm) for permissions before.

--KillerEST (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask also http://www.godier-genoud.org/forum/index.php?topic=3535.15, or http://www.motor-talk.de/fahrzeuge/53665/kawasaki-sport-tourer-gpz-305 or http://momots.de.to/meine-bikes_63183670.html or... doesnt matter, you have to ask the copyright holder. Thats most likely Kawasaki, its their promotional photo. --Martin H. (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation; derivative work of a copyrighted Kawasaki photo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dennytorres.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/vy_canis_majoris[edit]

Tema:Articulo Vy Canis Majoris Solo quise contribuir con este articulo,Motivo es una de las grandes estrella del afirnamento y solo quie itrepetarlo de otra manera posible--Ayt2lsdt (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can not transclude files from external sources to Wikipedia as you tried. You can not request here to have files from external sources undeleted. You 3 minutes later uploaded File:Vy canis majoris.jpg, thats how it works but this file is not free. I will delete it as a violation of our licensing policy. --Martin H. (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ad van den Berg.jpg as it is a derivative of the recently undeleted File:PNVDstyrelse.jpg, see Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2011-12[edit]

The source file was recently undeleted as a grandfathered old file, so the derived file should also be undeleted. SpeakFree (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Faisal_Al-Qasim.jpg[edit]

Provided the original source of the image,the source allows publication the images.

 Not done Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ScreenShot_HomePage_THE-SPHERE.png[edit]

File:ScreenShot_HomePage_THE-SPHERE.png The-Sphere Homepage This image is free of rights and corresponds to the website's Home Page.In addition, it is available on the website for upload for the public. Please do not delete it. Thank you for your comprehension. Gregm26 (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The content itself is not free; the website says (c) Sphere 2011. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mass del Category:Coats of arms by Otto Hupp[edit]

(Deletion Discussion) The deletion reason does not apply to all this images, if it would, then many coats of arms from germany must be deleted. Maybe it must be decided individually, most are {{Coa-Germany-b1945}} (some {{PD-German Empire stamps}}). Here are the preceding discussions: COM:AN#move No FOP/Threshold of originality-images to de, Commons:Forum#Massenlöschungen_von_Wappen, Jameslwoodward talk -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 23:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on, why no one feels responsible? First step would be a Temporary undeletion of all? -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 00:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder. The linked thread on Forum suggests they should be moved to :de, but your first comment above suggests they might stay here. I could temporarily undelete those that are sure to be fit for :de, provided you move/copy them just-in-time to :de. --Túrelio (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's not a de. only problem (as see a post yesterday to). So yes undelete all for a individually check. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 18:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why your "That's not a de. problem" does answer my concern/explaination, especially as moving to :de is seen as a solution. Anyway, as a first step please list a bunch of 5 or 10 files which are surely only fit for :de, provided you are prepared to move them immediately to :de (this would be your job). If this goes well we can repeat this procedure over the next days. --Túrelio (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, Otto Hupp would turn in his grave. He saw himself as an artisan, not as an artist (see the de.wikipedia biograhpic article). But that doesn't really matter. What matters is that nearly all of these images are depictions of official German coats of arms, which are in the Public Domain as government works. We generally accept all files that show such coats of arms if there is not an especially high amount of "originality" on the part of the actual creator of the drawing/file (not the creator odf the CoA who is irrelevant in these cases). While Hupp certainly had his own dstinguishable style, he did not alter or interpret these coats of arms in a particularly original manner, he simply drew them. That is what all other CoA files on the Commons also are: more or less simple drawings or computer drawings, if you want, of the information contained within the description of an CoA (the "Blazon"). If we delete all these Otto Hupp files, we might as well delete thousands and thousands of other communal CoA of Germany. Unedelete, all of them. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --Hubertl (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Please do not sit there, it is very shameful and for this amount of articles (longer it lasted, more amount work to restore). I or others can not judge without seeing the files, nevertheless, most of them be compatible to Commons. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 14:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is all so desctructive, then please mass move to the german wikipedia. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 19:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done List the files individually or in groups of 5 or 10 and we can sort them out by that process. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:SA-Army-badge.png[edit]

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:SA-Army-badge.png, there is plenty of proof the license was correct and the file is PD and ineligible for copyright under South African Law. The closing admin gave no reasoning for deleting it. The license says "No copyright shall subsist in official texts of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or in official translations of such texts."

1: According to cite_note-18, the SANDF emblems are registered with the Bureau of Heraldry, a government agency. That would be covered under "official texts of a... legal nature, or in official translations of".
2:' DoD PDF deals with the administration of the SANDF, which means these symbols fall under "official texts of a... administrative nature, or in official translations of".
3: Per [9] Military symbols and heraldry fall under the jurisdiction of the Defence Secretariant, which also means these symbols fall under "official texts of a... administrative nature, or in official translations of".

As there was no proof to the contrary by either of the opposers in the DR, the license is correct. The file was PD under law. Fry1989 eh? 23:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the creator of {{PD-South-Africa-exempt}}. My understanding - not being a lawyer - is that the "official texts" of section 12(8) ("No copyright shall subsist in official texts of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or in official translations of such texts...") refers to works that are edicts of government. (But I've checked, and there is no case law dealing with the clause in question, so one cannot be sure.) That would include acts of Parliament, presidential proclamations, government notices/regulations, and court judgments - the rationale being that the public must have unrestricted access to the laws they must follow. It does not apply, in my understanding, to other documents produced by the government (like reports, strategic plans, etc. etc.); the mere fact that an image appeared in a government document doesn't place it in the public domain.
However, registered heraldic representations (coats of arms etc.) are officially published (both as a blazon and an image) in a Government Notice in the Government Gazette, and are legally protected as a consequence; I believe such notices would be in the public domain. We would still need evidence that this badge, specifically, was so registered and published. It would be useful if someone has access to the "Alphabetical Index to SANDF Heraldic Representations Registered with the Bureau of Heraldry" referred to in Fry's point 1 above. - Htonl (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of case law, that except for when explicitly excluded, "official texts" include the works carried within. There is no proof that South Africa has excluded the works. Per all 3 counts above, for very different but all pertinent reasons, it is PD under South Africa Law. Any official documents between A: the registrar of the Bureau of Heraldry, B: the Defence Secretariat, and C: any reports which are neccesary between the SANDF and the President/Parliament regarding changes in symbols for teh SANDF would include descriptions of what those new symbols are, and most likely also an illustration (no matter how crude) of them. That means they are covered by the license. Fry1989 eh? 21:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I say there is no case law, I mean that I have searched the South African law reports and there is not a single reported case that even refers to section 12(8) of the Copyright Act or to "official texts". It seems to me that the fact that section 5 of the Copyright Act provides for copyright in works of state authorship, necessarily implies that not all works produced by the state are "official texts" that would fall within the section 12(8) exclusion. Hence I don't think that internal memos exchanged within the structures of government are "official texts of an administrative nature" within the meaning of the act.
That being said, I have found this brief which does actually argue (on page 12) that all works produced by a department of state fall within the section 12(8) exclusion from copyright, essentially on constitutional grounds. It's actually worth reading the whole brief, because it's the only thing I've found that deals with the "official texts" issue. But I don't think we could safely assert PD status based on a single legal brief untested by the courts. - Htonl (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about memos. Read my sources again. The emblems are registered with the Bureau of Heraldry, that's not a simple memo, thats an official document of a legal nature. The symbols were also adopted by the Defence Secretariat through documents of a administrative nature. Now, there is international case situation, and Commons practice, that "No copyright shall subsist in official texts of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, or in official translations of such texts" includes all works in that document, except when explicitly excluded. Denmark is an example of this, but South Africa does not exclude that. Also, the extremely broad addition of "or in official translations of such texts" means that infact memos, illustrations from the legal documents, and anything else regarding them would be PD. Now, unless you have a source that these are excluded, they are infact PD under the law. I have provided ample proof that the SANDF symbols are PD, Unless anybody can proof that they aren't (and so far, nobody has been able to do that), then this one should be undeleted. We do not delete files that are PD under the law, because that law could potentially be challenged in court. That's looking into the future, which has no effect onthe present. The fact it hasn't even been challegened in court shows that the accuracy of that section of the law isn't contested. Fry1989 eh? 23:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose It is true that this army emblem, called the "Pride of Lions Emblem" that is in tender documents from the ZA Government, this emblem isn't covered under that template (and here is why):
The emblem itself was created and used officially in 2003 but there are no legal texts that I could find for the creation of the emblem.
As for would the emblem be registered with heraldic authorities, it never was. Part of the reason is that this emblem is similar to that of India's Ashoka Pillar so it was never registered.
Until we find evidence of the contrary, and also actually find legal texts for these very new symbols, I do not feel comfortable restoring it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere on you rlink to FOTW is there proof it wasn't registered with the Bureau of Heraldry, and we have a link that says it was, so strike that one down. As for official texts, they do infact exist, because the Soutrh African Air Force website says they were "adopted" in 2003, via the Defence Secretariat which administers the SANDF. It's still PD. Fry1989 eh? 00:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean by not finding official texts is there is no law I could find that says "This is for the creation of the army emblems" and descriptions (either textual or pictorial) of them. Yes I know they been around since 2003, but other than emblems were adopted, I could not find anything else other then tender documents for the purpose of government contracts. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per [10] the Air Force symbols are registered, that would mean the other departmental symbols are as well. And the template doesn't require a law onthe symbols, only official documents, which we do know exist for the three reasons I listed above. Fry1989 eh? 01:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed every available contact in the SANDF and the National Arhives/Bureau of Heraldry. Any documents that do exist should come to light in a reply. But why we have to go through this is rediculous, the law is clear as glass. The file wouldn't even be nominated if it weren't for the misunderstanding of one user who thinks that "texts" actually means the letters on paper, rather then the document itself, and the words, illustrations, and ideas contained within. Fry1989 eh? 01:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am facing that same problem with Japanese symbols on this site; I am not on my home computer at this moment so I am not able to check out exactly what symbols are actually PD due to age, law or whatever (also that this laptop I am on now isn't equipped for Japanese support). But it feels that some users do think that only textual words are legitimate or that only this law is exempt. I just think for this case, I don"t have a lot or wasn't able to find a lot at this time. I think once I get back to my main rig in a few days, I will be able look at this more and give you a better answer. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're trying, but the problem is wehave sources showing that it is PD. The file never even wouldn't have been deleted, except that Admin Fastily (self-admittedly) just deleted it to clear the blacklog. He didn't pay any attention to the DR, the progress it was making. There was never any proof this is copyrighted, and every piece of evidence, no matter how small or how big, points to the liecense being correct. According to cite_note-18, the emblems are registered. Even without that, the internal transformation of the SADF into the SANDF requires documentaion, so we know that exists as well. There is absolutely no reason to doubt the accuracy of the liecense. Fry1989 eh? 02:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then if the only issue is the rendition, as Carl has mentioned before, the image used here was taken directly from https://www.fotw.info/flags/za-army.html#03 which is attributed to "image by Martin Grieve, 10 Feb 2004" so not only the first upload lied about the source, the second uploader moved the image here and the original location of that image lied about the source and author. If we want to use that specific version, we need to ask Martin Grieve (but I need to find a way to get a hold of him or find out if he is still alive). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that is our main problem we could make an SVG of this. The other SANDF badges are all pretty easy, it's the Army one that's most difficult. And is derivatives are a problem, we could make SVGs based on the sources at the Defence Secretariat's website. Fry1989 eh? 02:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose First off, a little background: COM:COA is very clear that there are two copyrights involved in a coat of arms: 1) the design, and 2) the drawing itself. Both need to be free in order for the image to be free. Fry has established with his above links that part (1) may be satisfied in many circumstances, so long as the design is written in textual form.

    However, he has not established part (2), that the individual drawing thereof is free. There are many different ways that a coat of arms can be drawn, and they gain copyright. This is an issue that has come up in several of my previous discussions with Fry, including Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gambia Coat of Arms.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Dominica.png, Commons:Deletion requests/File:TSK-emblem.svg; every time the image has been deleted, and he has been told this by other users such as Zscout360 as well, so I don't know why I need to be repeating this. If Fry can prove that part (2) is free, then we can reasonably assume the drawing is free. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off, it's nice that you finally understand the distinction between the two. Before, when the Gambian and Dominican arms were deleted, you viewed that as a sign that the arms theselves are copyrighted, and I had to explain to you that they were PD, just the renditions were not because they were from VI.com, and as I had explained, I was not aware of that, or else I never would have transfered those two arms to Commons in the first place. Now second, see above: our best option is to make an SVG of this (and quickly), and that SVG will be free for the reasons I had already asertained. Fry1989 eh? 02:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is un-deleting this, and uploading the version from the SA Army website over it, and deleting the previous version. Fry1989 eh? 21:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, readmy two above solutions, and please comment on them. Fry1989 eh? 21:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for a reply on two options. Fry1989 eh? 19:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose if this is a straight copy of the image from fotw.net. We should get permission from Martin Grieve for that. No objections to making an SVG or different bitmap. It may be a very very thin copyright (a very similar looking bitmap would not be derivative) but copying straight bitmaps is basically the maximum chance of a violation -- if the bitmap is considered copyrightable at all (probably, at least with the lion part, even though a lot of it is copied) it's a problem. Just like we ask people to write their own prose on Wikipedia articles, we can ask contributors to make their own versions without involving Mr. Grieve's work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Issues with COM:COA and licensing; if an SVG version is made later it could be uploaded based on the evidence provided. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SEATO Flag.gif[edit]

It is in the PD in the USA, as it appears on PD-USGov documents, see File:Seatostamp.jpg--Antemister (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_SEATO.svg User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Though idk if we really need it now we have an SVG. Fry1989 eh? 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the source for the SVG, we schould have it for documentary porposes--Antemister (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The SVG file, from what I looked in the history, did not cite the GIF file as the source of its drawing. It just said SEATO officials. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SVG file was created according that file, but it was only stored on the english WP as Fair Use image, because the copyright status was unknown. Now the problem is solved, and we can restore it here.--Antemister (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What was the source of the GIF file? Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg: That Website--Antemister (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then that rendition is based of a copyright that we do not have, if we followed COM:COA. So I still believe having that GIF would be pointless.  Oppose User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Then I  Oppose -- I don't like copying bitmaps straight from other sites without a license, and it's quite possible there is a copyright on that particular rendition/bitmap (may only extend to that exact bitmap, i.e. a very thin copyright, but it sounds like that is what we copied here). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Issues with COM:COA and attribution path would not be lost by not having this file. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Sunset Black sea.jpg[edit]

Sunset Black sea.jpg - фото сделано мной, летом 2011 года. Не понимаю, чьи авторские права я нарушил? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio zevs (talk • contribs) 11:27, 18 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

The photograph is copyrighted on flickr. If you are the same person as the flickr uploader, then please release the image on flickr under a free licence such as CC-by-sa or CC-by. Then we can keep it on Commons. --High Contrast (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Stale request on Flickr. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SavannahSabers.png[edit]

I am an Executive Board Member of the Savannah Sabers as well as the Head Coach. I personally created this logo. Therefore, there is no copyright infringement. Please reinstate my photo as the official Saber's logo.

12-19-2011 Thank you, Paul Snider --M4dinc (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS so we can confirm this permission. Once this is done, the image can be restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Stale request; nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Native Code Decompilation.png[edit]

I have copyrights for this file. I'm VB Decompiler author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPcH (talk • contribs) 12:19, 21 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

To confirm this, please send an email to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS and they can take care of it from there. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Stale request; nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:P-Code Decompilation.png[edit]

I have copyrights for this file. I'm VB Decompiler author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPcH (talk • contribs) 12:20, 21 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

To confirm this, please send an email to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS and they can take care of it from there. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Stale request; nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:South_Africa_Film.jpg[edit]

Hi. This image was created by my employer. I uploaded it and posted it to his wikipedia page @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Carlo_Burton_aka_Charles_Evans_SAG/DGA

Have your employer confirm this by http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS and they can take care of it from there. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Stale request; nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mass Del: Canadian_Arthritis_Network page[edit]

All images from this page (currently under revision) are part of the public domain. CAN is a government of Canada NCE funded agency. They've never had to create a CC license for any of their work, but would like to create wikipage for themselves as the organization is about to end next year.

The files are: File:CAN Research Excellence.jpg File:Guide for Researchers and Consumers.jpg File:CAN logo.png File:CAN logo.jpg

(Ajay.bha2gava (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

As stated on your talk page, have that organization email OTRS and that can be taken from there. It is pretty much the same process that you were supposed to do when the article on CAN was deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Stale request; nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:The Railway Children.jpg[edit]

I do in fact have permission to use this image. You can confirm this via info@railwaychildren.co.uk if you so wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentlesound (talk • contribs) 17:18, 23 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

In that case, have the copyright owners send an email (from that domain), using the instructions and address described at COM:OTRS. Alternatively, they can change their website to indicate a free license on the work in question. Permission must be for everyone, not just Wikipedia, and must allow derivative works and commercial use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Information added with upload was: source=unknown, author=unknown. May I ask you how it is possible that you asked for permission if you not knew the source untill Commons editors found out out the source and gave you notification in the deletion log? --Martin H. (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No permission ever received by OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Этикетка старая.jpg[edit]

I had a pronounced permission from the owner of this file. I contacted the p.r. manager of the factory, which produces the omichka cheese, and asked permission to publish in wikipedia the old logo, which he himself afterwards sent me.--Kossatik (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow COM:OTRS. But please keep in mind that the permission must state the free licence very explicitely, and it cannot be for Wikipedia only. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 15:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not enough permission for us to host; nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Deutsches Freimaurermuseum Bayreuth - inventory (279).jpg[edit]

There was a misunderstanding. It was deleted because of "no permission". The image was licensed {{PD-self}} while I was both the photographer and the uploader as 99,99% of the files within Category:Deutsches Freimaurermuseum are (~ 938 total). I've made a multiple-day trip to Bayreuth just for Commons purposes with the train and met the curator in person by appointment. The director, Mr. Thad Peterson, Esq.[11] will certainly remember my visit, because I was the only one that day (museum was closed for public on that monday 28 February 2011) and I also met him the following day. You can also check with the EXIF data which camera I have used around the world and uploaded to Commons, Category:Taken with Fujifilm FinePix S5700. The license is valid. --Mattes (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC) ... BTW: What sense does it make to delete the DEL debate as well?[reply]

I don't think there was a deletion debate; it was speedy deleted. I'm not sure that was an appropriate path for this (usually prefer to have regular DRs for derivative works like this), but... was it a photo of a copyrighted artwork? If so, not sure the museum has the rights to allow a free license for the photo... that may have been the permission which was missing (that of the author of the work). Just guessing though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done We also had OTRS permission added for the image, but the no permission template was not removed by agents. I went ahead and removed that and restored this image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Lula em pronunciamento.JPG[edit]

Incorrect undeletion - picture CC category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VIGI-AP (talk • contribs) 06:37, 29 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

It was originally from the Portuguese Wikipedia; can you give me a link to the file from there? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try the same name there perhaps? —LX (talk, contribs) 13:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-12&oldid=634699083"