Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-01

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

File:Provinz Schlesien Wappen.png[edit]

Derivative work of existing file Bulwersator (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Steve Montador.jpg[edit]

I am listing here this case because when the bot checked the license in some photos deleted it was ok, after this the uploader changed the license on flickr but the Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, I like to review all the photos one by one and restore each photos wrong deleted. --Ezarateesteban 14:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PD: here by example, the license was checked and passed, it was ok Ezarateesteban 14:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Generally you are correct; but in this case the user had no legal right to release the images under that license, so we are not able to host the images on here at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Groß Strehlitz Wappen.png[edit]

I request undeletion if and only if it can be kept as {{Coa-Germany-b1945}} or {{PD-German Empire stamps}} Bulwersator (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beispiel Deckblatt der Neuen Reihe 1925.png[edit]

I request undeletion if and only if it can be kept as {{Coa-Germany-b1945}} or {{PD-German Empire stamps}} (User:Jameslwoodward deleted entire category tagged with various licences) Bulwersator (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done But I request if you are able to group the undeletions together in batches of 5 or 10. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beispiel Sammelblatt der Neuen Reihe 1925.png[edit]

I request undeletion if and only if it can be kept as {{Coa-Germany-b1945}} or {{PD-German Empire stamps}} (User:Jameslwoodward deleted entire category tagged with various licences) Bulwersator (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Play Piercings.jpg[edit]

I'm not sure why the file was deleted, but I suspect it might have something to do with the fact, the the Flick-User SuicideGirls (author of the image) retrospectivly changed the CC-status of many pictures, including this one. However, when the image was uploaded, the CC-license was in accord with our guidelines here (as can be seen from Flickr-Approval). So I request the undeletion. Regards, --Lamilli (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All three source images were deleted and flickrreview not passed. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the source images were deleted as well. The same applies to them. All of them DID pass the flickrreview initially.--Lamilli (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no they didn't, none of them passed. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you explain this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=File%3ACaptivity+Premiere+Party.jpg&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= --Lamilli (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my statement - none of them were passed by Flickreview. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it took FlickreviewR seven days to check the license of File:Captivity Premiere Party.jpg and File:Captivity Premiere Party 2.jpg on 2011-11-19 after you uploaded the files on 2011-11-12. If the license was changed during that time, that's unfortunate. For File:Captivity Premiere Party 3.jpg, FlickreviewR checked after one day, but couldn't find the size you had uploaded because you had cropped the image prior to upload. You might want to use Flickr2Commons or the Flickr upload bot with their built-in license check and upload any cropped versions afterwards to avoid such problems. --Rosenzweig τ 18:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I did. I used the Flinfo tool, which does a licence check as well. The image was checked and approved multiple times (on Nov. 13/19/22), I wonder what happened there. Since User:Denniss, who eventually deleted these images, wrote Flickr review NOT passed (emphasizing NOT), I suspect that the images were marked as passed before. What might have happened in between, was a change of the license. However, that does not affect the initial approval.--Lamilli (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I was able to check of the three main files, the bot review failed because the largest image was not uploaded and it could not check the license. Though Lamilli is right that the license check does occur with the Flinfo tool (but the tool will stop if the image is NC and ND and should have done so on the 17th, 19th and 22nd). So the images were never passed at all. We have gotten photos before from the Suicide Girls on Flickr and we have OTRS confirmation that the account belongs to the site owners. But that means we need to check the other images and see if the license change affected all images. I have no opinion yet if they should be restored or not. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the versions that were uploaded were cropped versions that omitted the logos present in the original files at Flickr. --Rosenzweig τ 19:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flinfo may check the license, but it cannot mark an uploaded file as having its license checked, it only inserts a {{Flickrreview}} tag in its output. Then you copy this output (which can be altered) to the Commons upload form, upload the file and and rely on FlickreviewR to check the license. In the three cases under discussion, it did and either couldn't find the image size you had uploaded or found an incompatible license. Since the output of the Flinfo tool can be altered before uploading the respective files to Commons, it is unfortunately not a reliable proof that a certain file had a specific license. That would be different if you used one of the two methods I mentioned. --Rosenzweig τ 19:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Issues with the CC license from Flickr; checks came up as failures. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Perspectief.jpg[edit]

Undeletion request — Preceding unsigned comment added by VEGPerspectief (talk • contribs) 15:29, 30 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Dear VEGPerspectief. The file you linked to isn't deleted, so it can't be undeleted either. I did delete Volle Evangelie Gemeente Perspectief though, because it's an "article". Wikimedia Commons only contains images and galleries. You were probably looking for the Dutch Wikipedia. I have to warn you though as the article wasn't written in a neutral way and I also doubt if the subject is encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia. Hopefully this helps, otherwise feel free to ask. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing for us to do. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Ihminen_cover.jpg[edit]

Image:Ihminen_cover.jpg

This is the front page of a free newspaper by Casagrande Laboratory for Helsinki Festival 2004.

All these newspapers in different languages are a series of c-lab free publications for art and architecture venues in different places of the world:

HUMAN, London Architecture Biennaial 2004 IHMINEN, Helsinki Festival 2004 PePo, Taiwan Design Expo 2005 Il Uomo, Venice Architecture Biennial 2006 Cicada, SZHK Biennial 2009 Anarchist Gardener, Ruin Academy 2010

Permission for publication: marco@clab.fi / +358.50.3089166

We need more than just permission to redistribute. We need permission to use it anywhere, anytime, for any purpose and by anyone. Plus, each individual image will have their own copyright so most likely, we are not able to restore this image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done

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

File:Cicero, Tullia-Zoe and Cato the Younger.jpg[edit]

File:Cicero, Tullia-Zoe and Cato the Younger.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Please undelete this file, mark it with {{PD-author|Migdia Chinea}} and {{OTRS|2011110410021786}} Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PA00088801MG_7339_Tour_Eiffel_by_night.jpg[edit]

Deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:PA00088801MG 7339 Tour Eiffel by night.jpg. Doesn't depict "La mode en images" though. -- Docu at 04:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the main focus of the photo is of the Eiffel Tower light up at night, so if I am reading the data we have on here correctly, it needs to stay deleted.

Oppose User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What data do we have on here? -- Asclepias (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was some discussion at Category talk:Eiffel Tower at night. The court case was on a much more substantial light show than the normal tower at night, but it does sound to me like the actual ruling indicated that even the normal display was subject to a copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chavette2.jpg[edit]

I request undeletion of

File:File:Chavette2.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)

Image has been on Commons for more than 2 years. Unilaterally deleted without discussion by User:Alison with comment "An entire slew of issues; 1), it's unused. 2) the subject is identifiable 3) permission was clearly not obtained, 4) it's been used disparagingly on enwiki (chavette) 5) deleted from Flickr 6) appears elsewhere on 'joke' sites. BLP applies to images, too". Counter arguments: In multiple categories that appeared appropriate. Not currently in use is not a reason for speedy deletion. It was NOT deleted from Flickr; still there under a free license [1]. Apparently taken in public place. Note another photo by same Flickr user at same place/time/showing same person: [2]. Inappropriate usage of image is not a reason for deletion of an image on Commons. Unlicensed reuse of image places other than Wikimedia is not a reason for deletion of a free licensed image from Wikimedia. . Infrogmation (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose undeletion, for the slew of reasons Alison named, not least BLP. --JN466 17:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per all the reasons I've already cite, plus, even the filename is disparaging of the subject. "Wikipedia is not meant to hurt people", as someone once pointed out - Alison ^❤ 22:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The file name can be retitled (eg, "File:Woman smoking cigarette outside London hospital.jpg" or whatever else you consider non-offensively descriptive). As to "all the reasons"; note above I've pointed out that some were factually wrong (eg, NOT gone from Flickr contrary to deletion statement) and that others are not criteria for deletion. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Infrogmation is correct that the image is still located on Flickr, but the license changed from a free CC license to where it is now Non-Commercial and Non-Derivative. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope, it's still CC-BY. The second image is CC-BY-NC-SA, but that is apparently not the one under discussion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - However, I feel that regardless of this image still being on Flickr, I agree with the deletion by Alison and her reasoning for the image's deletion. Oppose undeletion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 03:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per multiple policy violations. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, for the reasons given above: 1) Unused is not a deletion reason, though can make things like user-requested deletions easier (but the above says it was being used in some article?), 2) The subject being identifiable is not a reason for deletion, 3) permission is clearly not needed as this was taken in a public place (outside of a hospital in London), 5) it has not been deleted from Flickr but is indeed still there under and still under a CC-BY license, and 6) the fact it appears elsewhere is also not relevant whatsoever for deletion. That all said, the filename and Flickr description (if copied over) is completely inappropriate here, and if the image is really that important, it may well be preferable to re-upload using a neutral filename and description, so that the disparaging stuff is not even in the upload log (which is un-editably present in the image description page). The face should be blurred, at the very least, if it's going to be used in relation to its current title (and since the image is easily available without the blurring, it may not be the best for that anyways). This really should not have been speedy-deleted, as neutrality issues can usually be dealt with by renaming and fixing the description, and possibly blurring -- speedy deletion without discussion is entirely out-of-process to me and poor practice. Deletion is the last resort, with less-drastic remedies being preferable, and it should really never reach speedy deletion. That said, this is borderline not-in-scope to me anyways and I can't quite support undeletion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Out of process deletion -- "not used" is not a reason for speedy deletion, nothing with that picture required such urgency. Can be used e.g. in w:Smoking and pregnancy or whatever. I agree with Carl Lindberg -- it's somewhat borderline, and as borderline it deserves a fair DR. Trycatch (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unfortunately i can't add any reasons other than agreeing with a nominator. We should look at the image not on how it is used by others.. It's only vandalism if the upload itself is vandalism, not if it's used on joke sites. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 01:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - As noted, reasons 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are irrelevant. Undeleted and renamed as File:Pregnant woman smoking outside a London hospital.jpg. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Heroes_Welcome_In_Scarborough_2008_Logo.pdf[edit]

Hi I am authorised to request the reinstatement of the Heroes Welcome logo as it is free to use by all that wish to and does not have copyright. Many thanks and a prosperous New Year. --Fwe506 (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Heroes Welcome UK Administrating Officer[reply]

This means the original upload information (own work created by Fwe506) wasnt true. --Martin H. (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:09_salle_de_bal-2-d9d33.jpg[edit]

The file concerned by the undeletion request is : File:09_salle_de_bal-2-d9d33.jpg

Reasons for the request: It was removed by the user "Fastily" (on Dec 24th 2011) because it was said tu have 'no permission' to be published on Wikimedia Commons. The user 'Cité-économie-monnaie' is the owner of these images and has published them itself on Commons since they reprensent the building where the museum will be. The images were created during an architectural contest and the rights on the images were given to the Cité de l'économie et de la monnaie, who whishes to share them on Wikimedia Commons. More information is available on the Cité de l'économie et de la monnaie's website : http://www.citedeleconomie.fr

--Cité-économie-monnaie (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Cité-économie-monnaie (H. L)[reply]

Just send us an email confirming this, using the directions at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/fr and we can have the image restored. I just think it was tagged as no permission because the user was not sure if you were actually the museum. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing at OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CeCe Jones.jpg[edit]

Dear Commons

I believe you just deleted my uploaded file featuring CeCe Jones From Shake It Up that is why you did erase that image.

By The Way,why don't you upload back again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miley cyrus626 (talk • contribs)

Its unfree content with © by 2010 Disney Enterprises, Inc.. They not agreed to Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms (free commercial reuse by anyone etc.). So this is not ok to upload, its copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bridget moynahan.jpg[edit]

I Will provide the LICENSE...please undo deleTION

--Nikhil mail (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done It is a press photo; you are not the copyright holder. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 09:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Everlyn Sampi Dec 2003 - Sydbey.jpg)[edit]

Over of month ago the copyright owner sent a mail to the ORTS ([email address removed -afb]), claiming that he is the owner and founder of the pic that has been uploaded of Everlyn Sampi (Sydney Dec 2003). Please check. First mail of him was w/o the pic, and a couple of days later he repeated the mail, now with the according file attached (Paul's photo4.jpg) Thus, please undelete my upload. I am a friend of both Paul Castley and Everlyn Sampi, and want this issue to be solved as soon as possible. If you do not find the mail of Mr. Castley in your ORTS please tell me.

--Bozarte (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done per ticket:2011122010004058. BTW, is "Sydbey" a typo of "Sydney"? --AFBorchert (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Otto Hupp Undeletion Requests[edit]

I think I may as well ask my question here, but why are these split up into different groups when you seem to have the same rationale for all of them? -mattbuck (Talk) 01:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him to do that so different admins can tackle the issue or be able to focus on a small set of images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is there any actual difference, or are they just convenience groups? -mattbuck (Talk) 10:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(in)convenience groups Bulwersator (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

first group[edit]

I request undeletion if and only if it can be kept as {{Coa-Germany-b1945}} or {{PD-German Empire stamps}} (User:Jameslwoodward deleted entire category tagged with various licences) Bulwersator (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

second group[edit]

I request undeletion if and only if it can be kept as {{Coa-Germany-b1945}} or {{PD-German Empire stamps}} (User:Jameslwoodward deleted entire category tagged with various licences) Bulwersator (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

third group[edit]

I request undeletion if and only if it can be kept as {{Coa-Germany-b1945}} or {{PD-German Empire stamps}} (User:Jameslwoodward deleted entire category tagged with various licences) Bulwersator (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fourth group[edit]

I request undeletion if and only if it can be kept as {{Coa-Germany-b1945}} or {{PD-German Empire stamps}} (User:Jameslwoodward deleted entire category tagged with various licences) Bulwersator (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fifth group[edit]

I request undeletion if and only if it can be kept as {{Coa-Germany-b1945}} or {{PD-German Empire stamps}} (User:Jameslwoodward deleted entire category tagged with various licences) Bulwersator (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sixth group[edit]

I request undeletion if and only if it can be kept as {{Coa-Germany-b1945}} or {{PD-German Empire stamps}} (User:Jameslwoodward deleted entire category tagged with various licences) Bulwersator (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think an admin had previously requested groups of 5-10. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

seventh group[edit]

I request undeletion if and only if it can be kept as {{Coa-Germany-b1945}} or {{PD-German Empire stamps}} (User:Jameslwoodward deleted entire category tagged with various licences) Bulwersator (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

eighth group[edit]

I request undeletion if and only if it can be kept as {{Coa-Germany-b1945}} or {{PD-German Empire stamps}} (User:Jameslwoodward deleted entire category tagged with various licences) Bulwersator (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ninth group[edit]

I request undeletion if and only if it can be kept as {{Coa-Germany-b1945}} or {{PD-German Empire stamps}} (User:Jameslwoodward deleted entire category tagged with various licences) Bulwersator (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tenth group[edit]

I request undeletion if and only if it can be kept as {{Coa-Germany-b1945}} or {{PD-German Empire stamps}} (User:Jameslwoodward deleted entire category tagged with various licences) Bulwersator (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

eleventh group[edit]

I request undeletion if and only if it can be kept as {{Coa-Germany-b1945}} or {{PD-German Empire stamps}} (User:Jameslwoodward deleted entire category tagged with various licences) Bulwersator (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done A lot of images to restore, but I am going to do it all. I saved this list at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Zscout370/OH if there is any admin that wants to help. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:albertomina.jpg[edit]

Hello! Yesterday I uploaded a photo of an athlete(Alberto Mina) about whom i make a wikipedia article(it is an article waiting to be reviewed) and i need it use it as an image for this article. I am positively sure that there are no copyright restrictions for such use for this photo, because it was given to the athlete for his own private use and i have the permission of the athlete to use it, let alone it is already used in many internet sites as his profile picture. So I would like to request the undeletion of the photo, otherwise please let me know why it must be deleted and what can i do to use it. Thank you, Isabelle Maour

The fact that somebody uses the photo in the profile picture doesn't mean that the person releases the work under a free licence. If you can provide a copy of the release of the photo under such licence, you should do that via COM:OTRS. Thank you for your time. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 18:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Same as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Alberto_Min.C3.A1.jpg; dealing with on OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Disney_Junior_Logo.png[edit]

DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disney Junior Logo.png

This file comprises purely typographical information along with a few basic shapes and basic graphical elements. There was absolutely no clear consensus at the DR that this was a copyright violation, though there was an awful lot of misinformation bandied about regarding the copyrightability of signatures. Deleting this textual logo is wholly unnecessary (there's no evidence that Disney even considers it copyrighted) and sets a dangerous precedent. We should be promoting free content, not deleting it. Powers (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I can sum the DR up; it felt that the combination of the elements made the logo copyrighted. For the Disney logo itself, it was based off the signature used by Walt Disney. The company was founded in 1923, but not sure when this actual logo was first used. I know at least the 1980's, but I could not find anything earlier than that so far. I know we have here policies on the actual typeface and based on that, the Disney part of public domain. Now if the "Junior" portion was just that without any ornamentation, that would be fine. Yet I feel with the I portion of the word, it was made to look like a stylized version of Mickey Mouse (the pants design and the head at the top). I just don't know if that would be complex enough for copyright; I believe so but then I am just one guy. As for Disney themselves; they are going to claim copyright on anything and everything. Shoot, they extended copyright laws so their stuff doesn't go into the public domain. So asking Disney would be fruitless. Another thing that the DR pointed out is how the examples of the TOO are being used to help keep or delete images. Personally, I feel it should be used very rarely. And if we get a takedown, then we will act upon it accordingly. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally against reopening this. There's obviously some dispute--I'm personally not entirely sure one way or the other--and the closing admin made a reasonable choice under the circumstances.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this logo is copyrightable or not, but under the precautionary principle, it may be safer to keep it deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted or contact a laywer with copyright experience. The problem here is, as Powers says, the misinformation that surrounds the logo. Disney logotype is not original, even we have the logo here, and it appears by many different ways (example). Mickey's face is neither original; how three circles, regardless if they are regular or irrelgular, that were created by many people before Disney even existed can be copyrigthed? The third part, "Junior" written in 3D, somehow, is not original. Putting shapes in 3D is something that The Walt Disney Company didn't create. And the shadow below the logo, when you put an object against a light a shadow appears, simple optics. So why I'm opposing now to this logo? I don't remember where and when, but I read that even if a work (image, logo, etc.) is compound of public domain information, the final result can be copyrightable (depending the agency that copyrights material or the laws of a country), and the USPTO is one of those agencies. Thus, even when everything doesn't seem original, the final result is original to claim copyrights. Tbhotch™ 21:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep deleted LtPowers says that Commons should be should be promoting free content, but what free content use could this logo be put? None, unless you include piracy. Uploading it into Commons does not result in a change of copyright status from the perspective of its creator, so if this file is undeleted, we would have to add a legal warning that Disney might file a complaint in the future. There is no benefit to be had from restoring this file, because the Disney Junior logo can only be used for fair-use purposes in any case. What is needed is an OTRS ticket, not another Undeletion request. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't know that Disney considers this specific image copyrighted. Their legal team are not idiots; they surely understand the difference between copyrightable content and content that is not copyrightable. If the image is not copyrightable, there's no reason we can't host it here. And I have no idea what "can only be used for fair-use purposes" means or matters to this case. Powers (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point, but this argument is a double edge sword. By the same token, not only is it possible that their legal team may claim this artwork to be subject to copyright, but also they may have undertaken successful prosecutions for copyright infringement to defend this claim. We just don't know one way or another, but more importantly we should not rely on our personal opinions in the absence of real world evidence that this artwork is not "copyrightable". --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is called the precautionary principle, as pointed out earlier. We don't know if the copyright holder will sue or not, but we cannot bank on that assumption at all. Plus, as I stated before, Disney has changed American copyright laws before so there is no telling what pull they will have. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Robert_O._Trout_at_Louisiana_Tech_(1969).jpg[edit]

The file is from a 1970 college yearbook, Louisian Tech's The Lagniappe, which is not copyrighted. Yearbooks before 1978 are free of copyright claims. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find out of the yearbook itself has a copyright notice? If not, then it would be public domain according to http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Legoland Billund - Pirate Carousel.jpg[edit]

This was deleted under the idea of it not being within the freedom of panorama in Denmark. While it is not a work of architecture (the photo was of the pirate-themed w:teacups ride), it is at best a functional object that is not subject to copyright that was released under the Creative Commons on Flickr as seen here. Another photo from the Legoland Billund park was also saved from deletion a while ago, and that can be seen here (with DR here).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support This at least deserves a proper DR. I'm also not convinced that the ride contains significant artistic merit, beyond its function as an amusement ride (colourful by necessity of its function). --99of9 (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There were also several other photos from the Danish Legoland that Cookie deleted, all of which can be found in her deletion log. Should they also be investigated?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Namely:
- —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support FOP cases are not for speedy. Trycatch (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done With any issues of FOP, please send it to a DR and not speedy deletion in the future. With these images, I suggest to start a DR for them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alberto Miná.jpg[edit]

I have sent a permission to publish to OTRS using the appropriate template for that reason but the file was again deleted...i hereby request the undeletion of the file otherwise please let me know what i am doing wrong!!

OTRS ticket #2012010510013416. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it fit the copyright information known from the file itself? Can read it too at some other websites ([3]) in higher resolution. Permission should come fro mma weekly email adress or from www.leewhitehead.com. The information provided by the uploader (own work by Isabellemaour is obviously untrue. --Martin H. (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Dealing with this on OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:L'insatiable Eddy Frair.jpg[edit]

je souhaite complèter mon profile par des photos afin de le rendre plus complet. J'ai effacé la photo par erreur.

File:Coordinateur Jeunesse.jpg

J'ai supprimé la photo par erreur

File:Eddy FRAIR vs Frédéric SAUTRON.jpg

J'ai supprimé la photo par erreur — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRAIR (talk • contribs)

Merged three requests to one because same problem: Thats scans of newspapers. Do you have a license from the copyright holders (you not indicated for any license with your upload)? --Martin H. (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Derivative work issues. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:StationNT5Bmedia[edit]

There is a flow to the sequence of beginnings how StationNT5Bmedia is able to contribute to the goodness of articles published within Wikimedia for use at Wikipedia. It is an uncommon sequence of events leading to a social media occuring on the world wide web. It is not unusual, however, for over-zealousness seen in the reaction internet publishing causes. More safeguards would benefit this social media outlet, but it does seem over-zealous to delete a contributors user page. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was more like an article than a userpage; the Commons doesn't host articles. Try the English Wikipedia instead. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing we can do here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beyonce Knowles with necklaces.jpg[edit]

I am requesting undeletion of the photograph "Beyonce Knowles with necklaces.jpg." This photograph is not a copyright violation and is being uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with the permission of the copyright owner. An OTRS request is being sent today to approve the permissions for this photograph, forwarding the following email from the copyright owner:

Gsshatan (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Restored as OTRS #2012010810006633. In the future, please do not include phone numbers and entire emails. If you sent something to OTRS, you don't need to repaste the contents here due to privacy concerns. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

(File:Lets Play.jpg)[edit]

Here is my information directly from Marvel.com backing up everything I've been trying to tell people along with a copy of the e-mail I sent to their legal department as well.

Link to the information stated below = http://marvel.com/help/category/13

Please tell me again that I'm violating their copyright or doing something wrong!! and I quote

" Infringement claims

If you are aware or suspect any persons infringing on the intellectual property of Marvel, please contact infringements@marvel.com and describe the suspected infringement. Please be as detailed as possible so that the claim can be investigated properly. Please also provide as much information as possible on the suspected infringer (ex. name, address, website, e-mail, phone number).

Such examples of intellectual property infringement are:

   Unlicensed merchandise using Marvel's characters or names
   Unapproved commercial use of Marvel characters or trademarks
   Counterfeit products
   Illegal copies of Marvel material being sold or distributed."

Here is a copy of the e-mail I just sent them seeing as I've been a member of their site for over 10 years and a fan all my life.
If you like I'll ask them to contact you here personally so you'll see I'm not lying. So as you can see they have ALL my personal
information so its not I can run and hide.

I've been a Spiderman fan ALL my life and a registered user and customer here for better than 10 years now. I even still have most
of my comics including the 1st Edition and 1st Print of "Peter Parker; The Spectacular Spiderman" Anyway, I used one of the
pictures of Peter Parker back in the symbiote suit and changed it around to something I thought was really cool and looked great.
Yau'll give this picture away free as a wallpaper for fans, which I am obviously. I wasn't trying to use it for anything commercial
or any type of monetary gain. I was using it as a profile picture on my Wikimedia Commons User Profile Page. No personal gain
whatsoever besides the satisfaction of thinking how awesome it looked. Here is what your own website says and I even explained all
this to the people who still deleted the picture.

""Infringement claims

If you are aware or suspect any persons infringing on the intellectual property of Marvel, please contact infringements@marvel.com and describe the suspected infringement. Please be as detailed as possible so that the claim can be investigated properly. Please also provide as much information as possible on the suspected infringer (ex. name, address, website, e-mail, phone number).

Such examples of intellectual property infringement are:

   Unlicensed merchandise using Marvel's characters or names
   Unapproved commercial use of Marvel characters or trademarks
   Counterfeit products
   Illegal copies of Marvel material being sold or distributed.""

If I'm wrong I apologize for wasting everyone's time but, please explain this to me! Marvel gave it to me as a free wallpaper download and I used as a picture on my "personal" wikipage because I think its just that durn cool looking.

Sincerely, James aka Zeddicuss Zorander 88

Yippieh, you just told them about your intellectual property infringement (illegal distribution of Marvel material without permission under a free license). Please read Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses. --Polarlys (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyright violation and derivative work issues. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:"White Screen" Kontaktlinsen.jpg[edit]

I own this picture. Please undelete it.

Best regards,

Tobias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias.huebnerHH (talk • contribs) 2012-01-09T12:43:41‎ (UTC)

Hallo Tobias, was meinst du mit "own this picture"? Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 14:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Und warum ist dann auch hier zu finden? --Túrelio (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Road[edit]

Is is was useful redirect to Category:Roads Bulwersator (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of our categories are in plural form, do you really want to make redirs for category name singulars? uuh... --Saibo (Δ) 14:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why not? Bulwersator (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oldschool answer: because it kills server kitties. Real answer: because it is many many pages (which create work for us to maintain) and should be solved more clever. E.g. by using Hotcat. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisations in categories like road, school, people, building, church are meaningless and create bad training because people think it is OK. Such categories better remain red and generate (hopefully) an uncategorised tag and message. From time to time, we look into such (Special:WantedCategories) categories to either remove them or move them to the right place. And yes, we have close to 2 million categories; if we want to convert all singular words into redirects to the plural forms, we have to add (and maintain) 2 million redirects. Not to mention the spelling, capitalisation and punctuation variations (and in the 270 wikipedia languages). --Foroa (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe for 99% of people creating categories like this is pointless and useless, but deleting created singular->plural category redirects is absolutely useless and restoring this one is not forcing all people on commons to create additional 200000000 {{seecat|plural form}}. Moreover this way there is no need to manually move images using Special:WantedCategories, it is a typical bot job Bulwersator (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Categorisations in categories like road, school, people, building, church are meaningless and create bad training because people think it is OK. Such categories better remain red and generate (hopefully) an uncategorised tag and message." is unrelated problem Bulwersator (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For people typing category names in HotCat, it's frequently helpful to create a redirect from singular to plural as there may be entries before the plural that would be used instead.
In this case, there's only a slight gain. Category:Roa exists and one needs to type at least "Road". The redirect could save the extra "s" to avoid Category:Road + shrubs (hieroglyph), but not more letters. -- Docu at 18:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I see no harm; if the developers do see it as a problem, then they can let us know. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

We sent you the permission. Let us know if you need anything else in order to restore the image. Thank you for your kindness. Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

File:Judi-Shekoni_promo_headshot.JPG[edit]

It is a free shot from her own website used by other sites. She owns the copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shylocksboy (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 January 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyright violation; she did not agree with the CC license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nantes_Pont_de_Cheviré.JPG[edit]

This request seems to have been closed without taking into account my argument: the design of this bridge is a standard one, and doesn't pass the originality criterion, but only the, actually wrong, de minimis one. Croquant (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the cached image on Google Images... not de minimis, and also not simply part of a larger scene. But, I suppose one could rely on the ruling which says such things need to have a "definite artistic character" (almost everything about the design of that bridge seems pretty functional to me), and not part of a series (there are other very similar bridges out there). I'm not sure what being designed for the site has to do with it -- those are functional/utilitarian decisions. The same would be true of any building which is part of a series -- they would have to make small adjustments to deal with the layout of the specific ground each was built on. Not completely sure on this one though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know any case law from a French court on bridges' copyright ? All that comes to my mind at present is what was said on the French Wikipedia concerning en:Viaduc de Millau. On the French Wikipedia's talk page someone linked The terms of use issued by Viaduc de Millau's copyright owner, saying that editorial use in newspaper articles, and promotional use in travel agency brochures for the promotion of the area/city of Millau are OK. A number of other uses, such as in books or guidebooks are prohibited. It means, that in the case of Viaduc de Millau, the copyright owner feels it would make its case in court, should someone perform some prohibited use. See also Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Viaduc_de_Millau. Teofilo (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume they consider a bridge a work of architecture (though the U.S. does not). COM:FOP#France has a few cases, including the one that architecture must have "a definite artistic character" before it could be considered copyrightable (or at least for photos); that has been used to keep photos of run-of-the-mill houses and things like that (I guess because they aren't really "original"). fr:Liberté_de_panorama#En_France has a few more cases I think. While I don't always take copyright claims as gospel (there is basically no penalty for claiming a copyright which does not exist, so you may as well try) I'm sure under the French definition the Viaduc de Millau would have a copyright. This one, less sure -- it seems fairly similar to one of the bridges on this page (one in Florida) and probably others; seems like a pretty basic beam bridge. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate your thought about "I'm sure (...) Viaduc de Millau". What we would need for Wikimedia Commons is some sort of workable, objective, criteria. I am afraid that the aesthetics of Millau owns much to the natural site (which is beautiful) and sometimes to the skill of the photographer. It is hard for me to find out where the architect added some personal touch in Millau. I would not say the same for File:OmiOdori bridge02.jpg (a bridge in Japan with obvious creative shapes - If someone made a DR for Omiodori I would say "delete"). Teofilo (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we only have whatever guidance the courts (or laws) give us. Interesting point on the Millau bridge, other than maybe color. Perhaps the situation there is unique enough that a designer would have to come up with original design elements (even just the height of the pylons maybe) to account for it. I don't live in France though and have little feel for what would seem "right" in terms of copyright there, what they consider a "creation of the mind" -- just mentioning that a few other deletion requests have followed that logic, and if the elements of design of a bridge have been executed elsewhere by others, it may not be original expression here. Would definitely like to hear other opinions though (presumably the undeletion nominator is a resident there). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored This is a general view of a standard highway bridge. Nothing much to copyright, and this is very different from the Millau Viaduc which is a real technical inovation (height, etc.). Yann (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

file:36_(A)WAY_cover.pdf[edit]

Dear Sir/Madam, I am working on an article on (A)WAY Publishing house and would like to add an image/cover of the 36th issue in order to illustrate it. please let me use this image, kind regards,Elena Bucciero, the publisher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elena_Bucciero >>

Elena Bucciero (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm this information with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing on OTRS User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 10:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mario Palanti, Mole Universale Roma, 1956.jpg[edit]

I made this immage and the subject, the picture, is my own property. --DonauDanube (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The author of the painting died in 1976. This is not public domain in Italy, so we cannot host it here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 10:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Studio di decorazione navata della chiesa parrocchiale di Ripalta Arpina.jpg[edit]

I made the photo and the subject, the puicture, is my own property. Can you rename the file as "Riccardo Palanti, studio di decorazione..." ? thanks --DonauDanube (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The artist died in 1978, so under http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Italy we cannot host this image.

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

User:Watch Indonesia![edit]

Als Löschgrund wurde Commons:Projektrahmen angegeben, die Seite wäre ein Artikel über die Organisation Watch Indonesia!. Aber:

sind User-Seiten allgemein frei in den Inhalten solange sie nicht gesetzliche Rahmen verletzen oder andere User angreifen
stellen sich auf User-Seiten die User vor und dieser User ist eben die Organisation "Watch Indonesia!", die in Deutschland als gemeinnützig und besonders förderungswürdig anerkannt ist.
der Inhalt stellte nur die Ziele dar und war nicht ein vollständiger Artikel zu "Watch Indonesia!". Dies ist zwecks Transparenz und Offenheit sogar unabdingbar.
die Ziele stellen keine Beleidigung oder Angriff gegen irgendwen dar. Sie könnten ebensogut die Ziele einer Einzelperson sein.

--Watch Indonesia! (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original user page which I deleted was about the aims etc of the organisation which was out of our scope as an article. On en wp the user would probably be blocked as the username corresponds with the organisation/website. Certainly articles on this (or any other organisation) are not appropriate here - maybe the user wants de wp? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done More like an article to me, which the Commons does not host. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 10:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alkmaar wapen.svg[edit]

File:Alkmaar wapen.svg was incorrectly deleted.

I am not informed of the bid for removal.
Apparently it was removed due to copyright infringement.
This is not possible since the design was wholly owned.

File:Alkmaar wapen.svg werd onterecht verwijderd. Ik ben niet op de hoogte gesteld van een nominatie tot verwijdering. Kennelijk werd deze verwijderd vanwege copyright schending. Dat is niet mogelijk aangezien het volledig eigen ontwerp was.

--Arch (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see that there was no discussion about the deletion, the only thing stated in the deletion log is that copyright violations violate some law, not stating why it's a copyright violation. We should restore even if only to nominate it for deletion in a normal way. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support The deleting admin seems to have cited a city law restricting use; this is a non-copyright restriction and does not subject the file for deletion -- rather we mark the file with the {{Insignia}} tag and keep them. There are similar laws on almost all national and municipal seals. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm sorry to have pissed off Arch, but it's a straight and simple copyright violation which I correctly reported for speedy deletion. No discussion possible or consensus needed. That's why I did not make a deletion request or nomination out of it. The City Code of the Municipality of Alkmaar is part of the Dutch legislation. The civic crest of Alkmaar is copyright protected by the City Code. Usage without permission is a violation of the City Code of Alkmaar (Chapter 5, Section 10.1 (Stadswapen) - dutch name of code = Algemene Plaatselijke Verordening, article states:
Nederlands: Artikel 5.10.1 Gebruik van het gemeentewapen door derden is slechts toegestaan na schriftelijke toestemming van het college.
English: English translation: Usage of the civic crest is only allowed after permission by the Board of Mayor and Commissioners
[4] The civic crest of Alkmaar can be found here. Reproduction or uploading it to Wiki Commons means: usage. Arch did not make clear that he has got permission by the Alkmaar Board. The license of Dutch civic crests PD-NL-gemeentewapen on Wiki Commons is crap: it refers to a 33-yr old advising memo by the Department of Internal Affairs, that has hardly any legal status and does certainly not overrule a legal City Code. It says there is no nationwide legislation that rules the usage of civic crests, but states that it can be ruled by local legislation such as city codes. In fact, every legal body therefore owns all rights of its own civic crest, and can forbid the usage by others as long as it has been given any legislative power. Not many do, however. You do not upload civic crests on Wiki Commons (even if reproduced by yourself) that are copyright protected. Period. I know it's disappointing for Arch, but it's the Dutch law. Picasdre (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only a copyright violation if someone copied this precise representation from somewhere (or it is derivative of another rendition). The general design of a coat of arms is in almost all cases not subject to copyright; rather each drawing is its own separate work and subject to the copyright of its artist (and is not a derivative work of the written design). Thus, there can be free and non-free versions of the same coat of arms. See Commons:Coats of Arms. The law you cite is not a copyright law, it is rather a separate restriction somewhat analogous to trademark (since trademark law forbids registration of governmental seals like this); the term "usage" in that context is not all the same as "usage" in a copyright context, rather it refers to making use of the symbolic value -- if you use the seal in a way which suggests association with the city government, or something along those lines, then you have a problem. Uploading to Commons is not a usage in that scenario; this is central point. You'll find a similar law in almost any city, state, and country -- for example 18 USC 713 is the section of law which protects the U.S. Great Seal, and the seals of president, vice president, and houses of Congress -- this is despite the fact that drawings made by the government themselves are public domain from a purely copyright standpoint. Uploading such images, and displaying them on a Wikipedia article to demonstrate what they look like, is not a "use". If Wikimedia used it in a way which suggested sponsorship... that's when there is a problem. For another example, here is a case where someone was found guilty of violating the similar statute protecting the seal of Alaska; the judge noted: Under the copyright statute, an author secures the sole right to copy the protected work and to license others to produce copies. The copyright holder may not only exploit his work commercially, [but] may also exercise the copyright in a purely proscriptive manner to prevent anyone from copying the protected work.32 Trademarks, however, are based on common law concepts of unfair competition; hence, the purpose of a trademark is to prevent confusion as to the origin of goods or services and to prevent fraud and misrepresentation as to their source. Here, AS 44.09.015 does not provide the equivalent of copyright protection; rather, it provides protection analogous to trademark protection. Similarly to these laws, trademarks are also non-copyright restrictions and can be kept (provided that the copyright status is OK). We can't copy the graphic you linked on the website, since that was presumably drawn by the city government and therefore has its own copyright, but self-drawn versions should be OK -- though, of course, even those can't be used in a way which violates the city statute if you are in the Netherlands. The city does not automatically own the copyright to all versions -- that is a misconception and is not stated in the law which you linked. Given a Google Translate, it seems pretty much like all the other {{Insignia}} type laws -- "Use of the municipal arms by third parties is only allowed after written approval of the college". Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is no such thing as a straight or simple copyright violation that refers to the law of a city. If something hangs on the details of a law that has never come up on Commons before, then it needs a discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support undeletion, not a copyright issue. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is because of the inexperience of nominator and moderator. I made the shield in its own design. Not that of the city. Besided from that, as mentioned above: Dutch coats of arms are not copyrighted by a city. They can only include a provision against abuse, Wikipedia is not abuse.--Arch (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is my last posting about this, I won't nominate it if it would be restored, or participate in any discussion following a new deletion request. Don't patronize me. Yes, I understand what copyright means. Yes I know what non-copyright restrictions mean and what a trademark is. I also know that the Netherlands is a sovereign country, and any US judge ruling does not have the slightest legal status in NL. Technically, copyright is not the issue here, because Arch has made the picture of the municipal arms himself. The sole issue is the existence of a law that forbids the use of the municipal arms of Alkmaar without permission. A All rights reserved claim. Drawing it, reproducing it and distributing it by uploading it to Wiki Commons = use. Copyvio speedy deletion is meant for any clear violation of the law, that can get Wiki in trouble. The difference between a company with a trademark like Nike, and the City of Alkmaar and its civic crest is that the City of Alkmaar has legislative powers. It does not have to go to court to object to the use of its municipal arms like a company, it can fine Wiki Commons right away based on the City Code. Wiki Commons can appeal, but then it's already in trouble in which it wants to stay out. Therefore Wiki Commons offers the possibility of reporting for speedy deletion. Arch admits he is using it, but claims he is not ABusing it. That's not to him to determine, but to the Alkmaar board. It is the wish and interpretation of all of you, maybe based on the on how it turned out in other countries, that the city of Alkmaar will not consider this kind of reproduction and uploading included in its "all rights reserved" claim. I sure hope you are right, but you don't know as long as you don't ask permission first. This part of the City Code dates back to the pre-internet era, so maybe they are willing to specify this or grant permission. Have fun with the municipal arms project, but be sure not to break the law bringing Wiki in trouble. Picasdre (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Yes, U.S. judgments have little to no effect in the Netherlands -- but they do represent, from what I'm aware, the typical treatment of laws like this (in particular what "use" means) in many countries. The statement at Template:PD-NL-gemeentewapen is pretty much the same -- not sure why you dismiss that, but some counter-evidence would be appreciated if you think it should be disregarded. It is somewhat old, but I'm sure the law in question is at least that old as well. Anyways, you now do say that copyright is not the issue, yet speedy deletion is strictly for obvious copyright violations, or other uncontroversial items. Anything else should be a regular deletion request, particularly if you are trying to change long-standing policy (in which case even a DR is not appropriate). If you have information on somebody being successfully prosecuted under a law like this for simply displaying a coat of arms in a context such as Wikipedia, that would help the discussion. As it stands, Commons:Coats of Arms contains our present understanding of the subject... and en:Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems#Usage_restrictions_on_national_emblems probably says it even better: Any such usage restrictions are beyond copyright law, though. They are designed to prevent fraudulent abuses of emblems, in particular to prevent using them to imply an affiliation with or an endorsement by an official body when there is no such affiliation or endorsement. Merely showing such emblems (for instance, in a Wikipedia article) is, in our understanding, not subject to such emblem or insignia laws. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "any US judge ruling does not have the slightest legal status in NL" and "City of Alkmaar has legislative powers (...) it can fine Wiki Commons right away based on the City Code" Bulwersator (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Undeleted this is a non-copyright restriction. Multichill (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 10:43, 16 January 2012 (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: 2 File:CANC.jpg 3 File:Bake Sale CATA.jpg 4 File:CATA marathon run.jpg 5 File:CAN Research Excellence.jpg 6 File:Guide for Researchers and Consumers.jpg 7 File:CAN logo.png 8 File:CAN logo.jpg 9 File tagging File:CAN funding allocation from FY00 - FY11.jpg

An E-mail was sent to OTRS releasing the images from CAN terms of service. Could wikipedia undelete these images and place them back on the page i was editing?

Thanks! Ajay.bha2gava (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done By another OTRS agent; #2012010910010055 User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 10:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palacky logo.png[edit]

I would like to request the undeletion of the following file :Palacky logo.png

The file contains the official seal of the Palacky University in Olomouc.

I request the usage of the file under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107.

The source of the image is : http://www.upol.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/PrF-dokumenty/Aktuality/prezentaceUP_upr_PrF.pdf,

the pdf document is published by the universities public relations department and hosted on the the official webpage of the University , the pdf document is stating that the seal is the new official logo used by the university and its faculties.

Kind regards --Jomimi92 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All files on Commons need to be freely licensed, which means that anyone can use them for any purpose. I'm guessing the university wouldn't want their logo being used to sell stuff which they weren't making money from. Unless we have an explicit statement of licence, we cannot host it here. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For more clearification: "Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107" is fair use, here on Commons fair use is not accepted. --Martin H. (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... using the logo to sell stuff is a trademark issue, and the school would not have to license that -- even if the copyright is licensed freely, they can still go after people who violate the trademark. But yes, most institutions do not want to deal with the question -- but that is what we require. It could probably be uploaded on local wikipedias under a fair use guideline, but Commons is not permitted to host anything under that rationale. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Fair use is not accepted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 11:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1560_Michael_Spreng.JPG[edit]

Valid permission per ticket:2012011310007293. --Krd (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

gordon mark webber "Soul for hire" .jpg[edit]

Hi Please undelete the above file as I own the copyright for the picture. I have copied my licence below thank you

<license text removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlamingViking (talk • contribs)

That licence is not suitable for Commons. We require images be available for anyone to use - for free - for any purposes, including commercial works and derivatives. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gordon Mark Webber "Soul for hire".jpg. Same opinion, your license not allows you to give others permission to reuse the image anywhere, anytime for any purpose including commercial reuse. You got a license that YOU can reuse the image for specific purposes, you not got a license that ANYONE can reuse the image. Thats unfree and insufficient per Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms. I think this also applies to your other uploads, you not provided true author information. --Martin H. (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 10:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Theo Olierook.jpg[edit]

File deleted for this reason: Insufficient licensing. Own work claim but taken from LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/theo-olierook/2/987/1a) and different user name. Agora (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

However Theo is my father, the picture is taken in our backyard and NO he doesnt use it at LinkedIn. That is a different one, but if you look at my linkedin page: Erik Olierook, you'll see a picture of me in the same backyard.. so please restore it! eriko198 (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eriko1987 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 9 January 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

[The following is copied from the DR talk page]]
ehm.. theo is my father.. its taken in our backyard.. and NO he doesn't uses the foto at LinkedIn (that is a different one). However if you look at my linkedin page: Erik Olierook, you'll see the same backyard.. so please restore it! eriko198 (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily I would probably restore this image -- you have made a polite request and we assume good faith. However, I note at the WP:NL article on Theo Olierook that his article is up for deletion as promotional and (I think -- I don't read Dutch) out of scope. That raises the question of whether a photograph of him is out of Commons scope. Please wait until the decision is made about the article at WP:NL. If the article is kept there, please post a request on my talk page and I will be happy to restore this photograph. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[copy from DR talk page ends]]

Jim, the Dutch informed me that the page is no longer being considered for deletion, so the image could be safely restored. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Thanks. I have undeleted it and added it to the WP:NL article. One of our Dutch speaking colleagues may want to add an appropriate caption. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OceanaAlbumFoto.jpg[edit]

Valid permission as of 10 Jan 2011, see ticket:2012010410008461. --Krd (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opened again: Whats the license? --Martin H. (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find a license and nothing was mentioned. If anyone can speak German, they could ask this person. Changed template to OTRS received. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ubbo_mueller/6634271323/in/photostream, the image mentioned in the email, is CC-BY-SA-2.. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That license on flickr is likely invalid, not added by the photographer. Even if the flickr account is created by the lable (Embassy of Music GmbH = eom in the Commons uploaders name; former Ministry of Sound GmbH) and even if the photographer is hired by that lable, Alster Magazine Issue 6 2009 suggests this, they cant publish the photo under a free license without the photographers agreement because of non-transferability of copyright in Germany. --Martin H. (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm....interesting point. I think we need to get some German users to deal with this, and we could delete it again if needed to. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent the image to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:OceanaAlbumFoto.jpg for further discussion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eglise et calvaire de logonna-daoulas.jpg[edit]

I took this photo and own the copyright, please undelete it. --Xanao (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you do not. The painting was done by Eugène Boudin, who died in 1898, so it is PD. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. PD Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lilwayne2011VMA.jpg[edit]

We know the copyright holder --Ian Streeter (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then please read and follow http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, nonsense request, the file is not published under any free license by the copyright holder. This project is about freedom: free content. --Martin H. (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Colloquium19.jpg[edit]

This photo was taken by me at the 2004 Colloquium.

Not done I don't believe you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. Note: You need edvience to prove it.--WBJB003 (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2006-confr-image.jpg[edit]

This image was taken by me.

Not done I don't believe you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cd+cover+3.jpg[edit]

This image was taken by me.

Not done No it wasn't. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ekta kapoor.jpg[edit]

Why it is removed though it is having license--Jenith Michael Raj (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, i see no deletion log. Are you sure you got the name of the file correctly? VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about the full file name. I remember it is uploaded with the kinda name. I did not add it in watch list, so I cant trace what are my uploads delete? is it possible to see the deleted logs of files uploaded by me? Appreciate your help --Jenith Michael Raj (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, simply go to your contributions and switch to "logs". You never uploaded a file with "kapoor" or "Ekta" in the filename. --Martin H. (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rhea kapoor.jpg[edit]

Why it is removed though it is having license--Jenith Michael Raj (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, you never uploaded a file with "rhea" or "kapoor" in the filename. --Martin H. (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Komisioni i Alfabetit Monastir 1908.jpg[edit]

Deletion reason: "Copyright violation: until 1 January 2011". Since it is past 1 January 2011, it can now be undeleted. Once undeleted, en:File:Komisioni i Alfabetit Monastir 1908.jpg should be tagged with en:Template:Now Commons or be deleted under F8. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done I let you add categories, and check on English WP. Yann (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Defunct.jpg[edit]

The file is an image of a former bumper sticker for a former progressive radio station (Progressive WOWI-FM) that existed between 1970 and early 1975, when it was sold and changed formats and owners. It represents the type of music that was played then and refers to that particular history. The image does not refer to the current station's format. The image is rare and honored by devotees of that time period. No one 'owns' the image since that particular station's format is defunct. The image was provided to the author for use and is free and open for all others to use. (Davidjbrown321 (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

So Public Domain for not having a notice? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sign of a copyright notice, which would have been required for a creation before 1978. There is no sign of it in the USCO on-line database, although that covers only 1978+. So I would agree that it is PD for lack of notice. The assertion "No one 'owns' the image since that particular station's format is defunct" is incorrect. If this had a copyright notice on it, it would still be under copyright. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored time to close this, I think. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Daniel Bernardi.jpg[edit]

Commons:OTRS

Permission awarded by the author

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we need that permission formally. Please see Commons:OTRS for details. - Jmabel ! talk 05:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you were told the same thing about the same file less than a day ago. - Jmabel ! talk 05:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Still nothing at OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Erected human penis front.jpg[edit]

Was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erected human penis front.jpg. "Unused" and "low quality" are not deletion reasons (not at all respectively only under certain circumstances. No alternatives were shown/linked to and the two keep reasons were not reasonably answered - pushed away with arguments. --Saibo (Δ) 01:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose COM:PORN applies here, alternatives ---> see cat. --Yikrazuul (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I really suggest to look at those cats - really nice! :-) Which cat do you mean and which files do render this file useless? --Saibo (Δ) 22:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hoped u were clever enough to figure out the obvious...here, have fun! --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I refrain from publically interpreting your first sentence. You missed to answer my last question. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please read COM:PORN, it actually says that the image must be educational, not that it must be deleted. In a way COM:PORN isn't really a policy as it is stating the obvious, since all images must be educational to be in scope here. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 14:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of the first sentence in COM:PORN haven't u understood? -- Yikrazuul (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"We may remove low-quality pornographic images that do not contribute anything educationally useful to our existing collection of images." Please read it again, if you don't understand that it doesn't mean that all low quality images must be deleted, then read it again. If that still doesn't help, i'll give hints: 1) may isn't the same as must, 2) when the sentence has the structure "We may do an action to a thing that ..." what comes after that specifies additional requirements, 3) This policy is really useless, since you can remove the word "pornographic" from it, we can create COM:SOCKS which would state "We may remove low-quality images of socks that do not contribute anything educationally useful to our existing collection of images." then COM:PINK ANIMALS, COM:LAMP POSTS, etc without adding any understanding as to what is in scope and what isn't, but people will assume that since there is COM:LAMP POSTS they have a right to delete all the lamp posts off of commons. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 18:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have deleted this picture (according to that policy) after a regular deletion debate (uploaded low-quality photographs of genitalia are generally deleted quickly), just because u don't like the outcome does not give you the right to make all images undelete by referring to "there was nothing about must". Otherwise we could get rid of all deletion debates. Your other assumptions are irrelevant. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If i don't like the outcome i have every right to voice that opinion on the undeletion discussion. As i have stated the image is clearly educational. Nothing in the deletion debate showed otherwise. Educational images are automatically in scope. Although we may delete images which are educational but are not more educational than others, this image did add to the category since no alternative was provided, thus according to COM:PORN the image should be restored. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 08:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that every image is educational is - how should I say - ridiculous and far-fetched. If u were at least consequent, you'd have started a deletion request about deletions per se and not refering to pseudo logic. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It was apparently a low quality photograph of someone's phallus. This most certainly falls under the umbrella of COM:PORN.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - low quality penis photo. I am closing as not done on the basis of "Commons does not require you to take your trousers off and grab a camera" or whatever the wording is. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RestaurantWeek-Logo.jpg[edit]

Hi. I am the creator of the deleted file. I have complete permission and authority to use it from Explocity (for whom the logo has been made). I have sent a mail to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" authorising it too. What do I need to do? Requesting help. Please undelete. Varunr (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you've done it. There is a bit of a backlog on permissions letters. When did you send it? - Jmabel ! talk 05:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sent it about 21 hours back. It was at about 7pm Indian Standard Time, which is GMT +5.5. Please help.Varunr (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS #2012011910011115 User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Yann (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Churubusco map.png[edit]

This was deleted. I created it myself - and I thought I had included all the correct copyright info as required by the Wikimedia Foundation. Can it be restored so that this issue may be rectified? I sent the email permission today. Davodd (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unusual and difficult to create a map of a place in the USA without referring to other sources. To say that you created it yourself is to say that you went out and walked all the streets with a GPS, or used tabulated GIS data for intersections. This is not impossible, see my own File:Eritrean Railway Map of March, 1998.png, but there are so many sources of base maps that is unusual.

If you actually did this, then this map will be restored. If you used a PD base map or freely licensed base map such as OpenStreetMap, then your map can be restored, but you must attribute the source.

The best thing would be to explain here exactly where you got the data for this map. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This file was subject o a speedy delete because of lack of permission email from the contributor. This has been rectified and the file should be restored because the basis for speedy delete has been cured. The inquires above, although raising interesting issues, are unrelated to the reason of the speedy delete. Additionally, as a member of Wikimedia since 2004, I have become increasingly concerned by the guilty until proven innocent attitude among the more recent editors of this project. The appeals process is becoming increasingly abitrary in enforcement and based more upon luck and subjective opinion rather than being based upon either Wikimedia official procedures or the law. Along with being a contributor, a current (and in some projects, retired) sysop, I am starting to understand why serious content creators are reluctant to work within this structure. As a member of OpenStreetMap for years (look me up, I have the same username there) I have used the GPS and observational data I've collected without issue. But here, it is a different case. Legally (and I do understand the law, having actually attended and graduating law school with a focus on intellectual property) I am the copyright owner of this work. It is not a copy or alteration of any other work that is under copyright by any other person or entity. This assertion by me, along with the permission I have given goes beyond the legal requirements Wikimedia needs to protect itself. But, apparently that may not be enough as the restoration of the file is not subject to such predictable, objective standards. Instead, there is this popular vote process that relies more on blind luck, or my ability to "stack the deck" by lobbying friends to come and vote to save this file. I will not do that. This restoration should stand or fall on the basis of whether I cured the defect that caused deletion: the lack of a permission letter by me attesting that I am the copyright owner and that I giver permission under the correct license. I have done this and the file should be restored. If the vote goes the other way, which it shouldn't, then this is one more piece of evidence that goes to prove this voting process used by Wikimedia projects is inherently flawed as the results are arbitrary at best and may be gamed by users who can rally voted in their favor. This is too bad for this project as it drives quality intent creators away. I can tell you that this is likely the last submission I will make to Commons - where, apparently a quick snapshot of my penis is ok to submit, but a unique work that is well-researched, accurate and is useful graphic that does not exist in thousand of other forms - is rejected. Quite frankly, I feel my time and effort here is a waste of my limited time and resources. I cured the objections raised by the speedy delete - that alone should justify the restore. The other issues raised are irrelevant to this process. Davodd (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the map, so I can't directly comment, but the copyright on maps is typically their exact expression, i.e. the exact lines used, what info to contain and how it is shown, etc. There is no copyright on facts. However, if the precise map outlines came from a source, it's possible those are under copyright, and this map could be a derivative. But if the data was from OpenStreetMap... there should not be an issue. I tend to agree that such things should not be speedy deleted -- they are contentious at best, and speedy deletion is really reserved for obvious cases, which this was clearly not. For something claimed "own work", unless the base map was obviously taken from another source, it should always be a regular DR in my opinion with the nominator asking specifically which aspect they are concerned about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roger-Luc Chayer[edit]

Undelete Roger-Luc Chayer page Reason: The page will be edited to comply to the classical portal projet and to offer a complete description of the musician only, french horn player. --Edito514 (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC) January 20th 2012[reply]

Not done You must be looking for Wikipedia. You can make this request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tinie Tempah at Tup Tup Palace 2011.jpg[edit]

Hi,

This file does not infringe copyright or guidelines in any way. The photo was taken Rauf Asharov who was an employee of Tup Tup Palace and who made the photo available in the public domain on Facebook, Twitter etc. Tup Tup Palace own the copyright to all photos taken by employees on the premises and I have asked the Director of Tup Tup Palace if he has any objection to my using the photo in this article (which he does not and he is happy to confirm this).

I therefore believe that the deletion is unjustified.

Thanks, Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurahartley (talk • contribs)

It is not deleted yet. A formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for details. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to comment on the potential deletion, please do so at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Laurahartley. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - not deleted yet. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kanye West at Tup Tup Palace 08.jpg[edit]

This file does not violate copyright. It was taken by an employee of Tup Tup Palace and made available in the public domain via Facebook, Twitter etc. The Director of Tup Tup Palace has confirmed this and has no objection to me using the file in this article. The image has already been used in this publication : http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/evening-chronicle-news/2010/11/05/nightclub-promoter-matt-smyth-on-the-mend-72703-27606849/

Therefore the deletion is not justified.

Thanks,

Laura

See above... we need the author to explicitly license the image (for everyone, not just Wikipedia) in order for it to be hosted on Commons. The address to send to and sample format can be seen at COM:OTRS. If no further permission is forthcoming (which is quite reasonable -- photographers usually do not want to license their work that freely), then it can't be hosted here, but could be uploaded to en-wiki or other local projects under their non-free policies. If there is permission for Wikipedia only, you could tag such uploads with en:Template:Non-free with permission, but it would still need a fair use rationale there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I doubt this is suitable for en.wp non-free images - it would qualify as replaceable. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as an aside, this hasn't actually been deleted yet. Please comment at Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Laurahartley. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - not deleted yet. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Katmai fishing deck, File:FV Pacesetter Disappeared 1996.jpg[edit]

Katmai fishing deck File:FV Pacesetter Disappeared 1996.jpg it for the fv katmai article STOP DELETING MY FILES

Which file do you wish to get undeleted? File:Katmai fishing deck.png is a copyright violation and won't be undeleted. Please do not upload files that you find on the web. --High Contrast (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyvio and not deleted yet. Yann (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Northwest.Mariner.gif[edit]

i am sick of saying this STOP DELETING MY WORK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vnukovo2801 (talk • contribs)

Not deleted yet. Yann (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy help requested with File:Mist lifting off cedars.jpg and File:XXX Censored Mist Lifting off Cedars by DJ Schulte.jpg[edit]

PLEASE restore these images as a matter of urgency, please mark as "OTRS pending"

I have just heard from the artist and have permission for PD, or CCSA, he asked my advice I recommended CC-SA and I have the form from him done too. I have forwarded the email to commons, although, as I had asked for the deletion myself, and have V.good standing as far as my contributions go, I think a few hours grace would benefit the high traffic en:SOPA article.

The images are to be used here I've contacted DJ, and as you can see from the sources in the article he is an activist who feels strongly about the topic. I would much appreciate if someone can check through the permissions email queue, or restore the images pending the imminent processing of the OTRS Queue. I would be happy to forward the email directly to anyone who would like to check it themselves. Penyulap (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An email has been received -- ticket:2012012110008802 - undeletion will not take place until such time as the ticket is processed, and that is underway now. In future, it may be quicker when asking Flickr users to licence photos, for you to request that they change the licence on Flickr, as this would have allowed you to upload immediately and the licence could have been reviewed on Flickr by an admin, or a bot. russavia (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I didn't know that, I only very very vaguely recall at best, thank you! It's on Flickr under his old license I expect, so that won't help, I guess I just need to wait ? or someone might still do an over-ride ? Either way, thank you for the info !Penyulap (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Has now been processed and confirmed. russavia (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Webster University (logo).jpg[edit]

This file had {{PD-textlogo}} as the license and so I do not understand why it was deleted with the reason No permission --Sreejith K (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Yann (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cilantro y Perejil Poster.jpg[edit]

Hi,

My father and I have the rights of this poster which is from a movie he directed. He is Rafael Montero (director) and his article is in the spanish Wikipedia.

I'm working on his own article and in his movie's articles. It will be great to have this image back, because it's an important part of his work.

Tanks

Alinacinealina (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Alinacinealina[reply]

Please follow http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/es User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing at OTRS User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IGDV-Locandina.jpg[edit]

The image you deleted did not violate any copyright policy because we had previously asked the permission to the exclusive owner of the image's copyright, i.e. Ierà which is the author and distributor society of the movie "I giorni della vendemmia" which the image is taken from. You may easily confirm our claim by surfing the website www.igiornidellavendemmia.it, or sending an e-mail to the head of the society Iera, Simona Malagoli, simona.malagoli@iera.eu. You can contact her also by phone 0039 0522 557067. We hope you may understand our explanations. We look forward to receiving your kind reply. Have a nice day.

10/01/2012 IGDV--Ieraigdv (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/it and your director can talk to them about permissions. Just keep in mind that we need more than just permission for republication. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done OTRS confirmed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Messkupplung mit einer Zink-Nickel Oberfläche.jpg[edit]

Das Foto der gezeigten Messkupplung habe ich im Auftrag des Eigentümers der Bildrechte veröffentlicht. Somit liegt keine Verletzung der Urheberrechte vor.

MigeisMigeis (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte befolge die Instruktionen an Commons:OTRS/de. Armbrust (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing at OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:fiz-logo_b_4c.jpg[edit]

Please undelete the above mentioned logo, as the page will be issued again in a revised version. MattKeller (MattKeller (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Image had no license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 10:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo BDFI.jpg[edit]

Please undelete the above mentioned file as the page has been/is being currently edited by us. MattKeller (MattKeller (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The image was deleted as lacking a licence. Further, the file in question is the logo of a company which, to me, passes the threshold of originality, and is thus eligible for copyright. Therefore you must provide proof that the copyright holders release it under a free licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Images had no licenses and the uploaded has not provided either those or a permission. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Penis structure.JPG, File:Erected_and_flaccid_Penis.jpg and File:Pipi_penis.JPG[edit]

There is not need for deletion.My ALL files are deleted by the SAME user with the SAME MEANINGLESS explanations.

All are deleted in the same few minutes when he has logged in.

Millions of wikimedia users doesn't have any problem with them and only one guy decides to delete them and makes it in only one second.

WARNING TO THE EDITORS: It seems from the metadata that 'at the time he has logged in he has directly erased all of my work. He hasn't decided or judged, he just slept all the work away.

The deletion explanations are cut-copy-paste type and doesn't have any meaning.

With this kind of deletions, everyone can delete the others work easily and remain in the whole wikimedia by his own works.This is not fair.

My works are produced by me, and in the higher qualities than many other publishing works.

My files were there in the last ten days without any problem and he used his keyboard like a killer.

If that guy goes on like this Me and my friends will delete all his works with the same method he uses.Wikimedia editors should directly kick out his kind of persons out.Healty brains produce healthy works.

I request undeletion to all of my files. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mankara11 (talk • contribs)

Hi Mankara. I am afraid I must

Oppose the restoration of these images. The general principle is "Commons does not need you to stick a camera down your pants" - your photos were low quality (high resolution does not mean high quality) and I am not surprised they were deleted at a DR. However, the deletions were in my mind out of process - they should not have been immediately deleted like that, Herby should have waited the full week. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Even if there would be a reason for deletion, there was definitely no reason for speedy deletion (which was most likely done to prevent discussion). If the closing admin would have used "What links here" functionality, one would swiftly see that this image actually was used as an example of educational content here. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only bothered looking at the middle item, but on that basis, weak support. I don't see any reason for a speedy deletion here. Not an obvious keep or an obvious delete, so why the speedy? - Jmabel ! talk 05:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Low quality (COM:PORN). Nothing we donna have. Whether one week or not - in this case questioning it is sole bureaucracy. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done While I agree with Jmabel that they should not be speedied, there was nothing unique about these photos and doesn't add to what we have here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cinema Building - Front.jpg[edit]

This picture is owned by the Cinema department, where I work. It is under Creative commons licencse

A formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for details. Yann (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure to note that not every CC licence is free, and thus many aren't acceptable here as the only licence provided. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the formal permission email was already sent by the author, when will the image be reinstated? (Efibla (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

If everything is in order once one of the OTRS volunteers checks the permission it should be undeleted. Thanks for contributing to the project. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 03:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Daniel Bernardi.jpg[edit]

This picture was given to me by Daniel Bernardi so I could update his wikipedia page. I don't understand why was it deleted

A formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for details. Yann (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the formal permission email was already sent by the author, when will the image be reinstated? (Efibla (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

[edit]

I requested permission to Doniphan Blair the editor of the magazine and he gave it. What do I need to do?

A formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for details. Yann (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Narrative Landmines.jpg[edit]

Daniel Bernardi, editor of the book gave me permission to use in this entry.

A formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for details. Yann (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the formal permission email was already sent by the author, when will the image be reinstated? (Efibla (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Not done The permissions were forged; user blocked indefinitely by me and all tickets closed as no permission. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sharon namaste Guzman280.jpg[edit]

Please undelete this file. I have permission for the photo from Guzman and can verify it, I just labeled it wrong. I am working on labeling my other files properly and will do so with this one if you undelete it. Thank you. Vixhenry (talk)

A formal written permission is needed. Please see COM:OTRS for details. Yann (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing on OTRS User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Passarinho Junior.jpg[edit]

The image above was not in violation of copyright. The author, Superior Tribunal de Justiça, states: "© 1996-2006 - Superior Tribunal de Justiça. Todos os direitos reservados. Reprodução permitida se citada a fonte." -- in plain English, this means that they allow for the reproduction of the image anywhere, provided that the source is correctly attributed. By the way, this was clearly stated twice in the image's descrption infobox (as is the case with other similar files I've uploaded, such as: File:Paulo_Sanseverino.jpg and File:Napoleão_Nunes_Maia_Filho.jpg) I'm also wondering if any other files I've uploaded from the Superior Tribunal de Justiça website have also been [wrongly] deleted. Missionary (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are derivative works and commercial use allowed? That would sort of go against the "all rights reserved" part of that statement. While copying it here is not a violation itself, per the statement you showed, Commons has a policy requirement (see Commons:Licensing) that derivative works and commercial use must also be allowed, and we are usually wary of permission statements that don't mention them, since most copyright owners don't want to give them out. On its face, the statement just gives rights for distribution only. At least part of the Brazilian government once did use CC-BY I think, but not sure this site did. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware Commons necessitates the re-utilization of files for any purpose, commercial use included. If they say "all rights reserved" , and right in the next sentence explicitly allow the reproduction of the content without any caveats or preconditions, it transpires that they mean the rights to be recognized as the original creators of the material. Missionary (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I put the statement in Google Translate, it came out and said "© - Superior Court of Justice. All rights reserved. Reproduction is permitted if the source is cited." Reproduction is allowed, but still nothing about commercial reuse or modifications. Can you perhaps see if this is clarified anywhere on the website (since the website link in the copyright statement is coming up blank for me) or perhaps obtain permission by email? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent the Court a question about the legal status of their images, using their "Contact Us" form (at [5]) Missionary (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, not mentions modifications, not mentions derivative works. All rights reserved also means: there is no reason to assume that one can copy the file and perpetually offer it for free reuse because all rights reserved also means that they reserve the right to revoke the availableness of the file. Such statements are unfree, they mean: you can reproduce, not share; i.e. you can not allow others to again reproduce from your server. --Martin H. (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Martin has it right -- the problem is not just commercial use and derivatives, but that the permission can be revoked at any time. A Commons license must be irrevocable. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't Flickr image licenses liable to change at any point in time? Why would Flickr images be allowed on Commons, but not this? Missionary (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an important difference -- CC licenses are irrevocable. If FlickrUser JaneDoe puts a CC-BY license on a file, we upload it to Commons, and record that on the upload date the file was licensed on Flickr as CC-BY, then even if JaneDoe changes the license on Flickr, the status of the our irrevocable license on our copy of the file does not change. In the subject case, the owner of the file has said, more or less, "you may reproduce this" and nothing more. Implicit in the form of the permission is "you may reproduce this, but I may change my mind at any time and if I do, you will have to stop using it." Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done License not accepted for Commons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dipa ma III.jpg[edit]

Photo of an Old Master who is now dead

Whether or not the person pictured is now dead is irrelevant to the copyright status of a photo. Since Dipa Ma died in 1989 and wasn't famous until the 1960s, it seems very unlikely this photo is in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dipa ma.jpg[edit]

Please restore this photo of an old master who is now dead and qualifies as {{PD-Art}} ... Or please help source a portrait suitable for the Wiki page on Dipa Ma, thank you! --KellyPhD (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the person pictured is now dead is irrelevant to the copyright status of a photo. Since Dipa Ma died in 1989 and wasn't famous until the 1960s, it seems very unlikely this photo is in the public domain. Commons does not do fair use, but you may be able to upload it on the English Wikipedia with a fair use claim.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First you stated that you took the photograph and had rights to license it; this turned out to be false. Please read {{PD-Art}}; that is for works of art created by people who died more than 70 years ago. Wikimedia Commons is for public domain or free licensed media only. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Not public domain, source is false. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:N-AMOfficialStar.jpg[edit]

Hello, It seems that PD-textlogo applies here. Yann (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain, but I feel it deserves a full deletion request. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done and now discussed at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:N-AMOfficialStar.jpg User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Toyota_Hilux_N140_003.JPG[edit]

拝啓管理者様各位。私は表題にあるファイルの制作とアップロードをした本人ですが、削除の理由が分かりません。また、削除回避が可能であれば、その方法を教えてていただきたいと思います。よろしくお願い致します。Ten-nen 03:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)天然ガス

Not done 写真を削除するいませんでした。 (Photo was not deleted.) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Raxaul-Paradip Economic Corridor Route Map.png[edit]

This file has been created by myself and is referenced in my articles. ````

Not done Derivative work issues; you took the map from Google Maps and that is not allowed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Edmund McMillen.jpg[edit]

Permission was given to upload this picture from Edmund McMillen. Proof: https://twitter.com/#!/EdmundMcMillen/status/152952300338561026

The permission was explicit and completely unambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciphermind (talk • contribs) 20:17, 8 January 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

But mere permission isn't enough. Plus, he said to change his image to that. That is not a license. We need a license that is acceptable to us; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses has an example of Common ones. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and emailed Mr. McMillen about the photo license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He says he hasn't received an e-mail from you. User:Ciphermind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciphermind (talk • contribs) 03:20, 10 January 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

I hate gmail sometimes.... User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 10:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sent from another email. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sent emails from different addresses; has he received anything? If not, then I have some things that you need to do for the image to be restored. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I do not think he is coming back; two emails failed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Logocaba.jpg[edit]

Borraron el archivo aduciendo (me llegó el mensaje en inglés)que había motivos para creer que no tenía los derechos de la imagen. Pero de hecho TENGO los derechos de la imagen y el permiso para publicarla y su difusión y libre uso por parte de la Fundación sobre la cual trata el artículo (Fundación Centro Astrológico de Buenos Aires). El artículo pierde calidad visual e informativa sin la imagen del logo de la Fundación. Les agradecería que se restituya la imagen de referencia a fin de poder ser utilizada en el artículo y poder volver a incluir el vínculo a la misma. Atentamente, --Gritosysusurros (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Gritosysusurros[reply]

Translation: But I actually have image rights and permission for publication and free dissemination and use by the Foundation on which the article is about (Fundación Buenos Aires Astrological Center). The article loses visual quality and informative without the image of the logo of the Foundation. I would appreciate the reference image restore order to be used in the article and to reinstate the link to it.

Response: Please read and send the permission to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/es User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Juventudes Comunistas.jpg[edit]

This image ( Juvenudes Comunistas.jpg ) was found in www.jjcc.cl . This page was created under creative commons as you can see on the bottom of the page. the URL of this image are: http://www.jjcc.cl/wps/?p=736 . Thanks

Unfortunately not all "Creative Commons" are free licences. As i understand it they just say "Some rights reserved under the Creative Commons". It would be best to write to them and ask for clarification. The licence that they chose should not be ND or NC. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 05:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can also ask for them to link the license they use on their website. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:theagonist.jpg[edit]

I was asked by the band to upload this image to their wiki page. I represent the band online.--MsNatx (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'll need confirmation of the licence via COM:OTRS. Please be aware that by uploading a file here you are allowing anyone to use the image for any purpose - this includes making money from it or making derivatives. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Female_genital_organs.jpg and File:Female genital organ.jpg[edit]

The closing admin has deleted the image per some comments which were not made. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female genital organs.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Female genital organ.jpg. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the closing admin didn't delete, just closed it. The image was deleted 2 days earlier by Jean-Frédéric with the rationale COM:PORN Mass deletion of pages added by Tamerakkum. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - author requested deletion less than 24hrs after upload, nothing controversial here. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Yeah, it was a uploader requested deletion not too soon after an upload, so I see no issues with the deletion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palmiers Domaine Moulin Mer.jpg[edit]

Hi, I am the owner of this photo, I took it personnaly. It shouldn't have been deleted. Thanks for your help --Xanao (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the deletion, this image appears at [6]. Please explain how you own the copyright and how it comes to appear on a copyrighted site. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took this photo last summer. I own this house and granted permission to use it to our local tourist office. The tourist office will not use photos from the owner unless it gets permision.--Xanao (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am inclined to accept this statement and restore the image, but my colleague Turelio deleted it, so I will first ask his opinion. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification.

As the users upload has somewhat higher resolution as the one on the website and as an archive.org snapshot from 2008 (no later available) did show a different image on that page, the uploaders statement seems credible.

@Xanao, what I don't understand: why do you allow them to use your image without a credit to the photographer? Requiring a credit doesn't mean they have to pay for, but look how much trouble the missing credit produced. --Túrelio (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

undeleted per above clarification. --Túrelio (talk) 07:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Joaquim_Monchique.jpg[edit]

Dear Sirs, The image in question it is on the public domain. Furthermore it was sent to me by the person in question (Joaquim Monchique), in order to post it on his wikipedia page if I wanted. Since it is the public image of this actor, I request your best efforts to undelete it.

--Superhiperstar (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC) 2012-Jan-16, 14:33[reply]

Please follow COM:OTRS and it will be restored if it's really in public domain. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 15:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:WiZ okladka 01 2010.pdf[edit]

I have got written permission (in Polish) from the copyright holder - the Polish magazine "Wiedza i Zycie" to use the graphics on the Wiki. --Jerry34 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need that permission formally. Please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/pl for details. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Ticket rejected, 2012012310006515. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FällandenZH.png[edit]

I have made this photo entirely myself and uploaded under GFDL-self license. I have no idea why it was deleted under "copyright violation" reasons. Audriusa (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why (no specific reason and not obvious on file page), either. Restored and checked for delinks (there was one - restored, too). Messaged Denniss who deleted it. --Saibo (Δ) 15:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, em, wait - there is indeed a problem - it was uploaded by user:Boemmeliboez who claims it is Own work. Are you user:Boemmeliboez, too? --Saibo (Δ) 15:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this indeed seems not my photo. Mine is called File:Faellanden.jpg. I initially assumed that my picture was removed from the article because of deletion but it was actually replaced by another similar picture that was deleted. Sorry. Audriusa (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem, thanks for the note. You could look in the log of the file (page Special:Log) and see who uploaded it - also if it is already deleted. For the next time. :-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Smilodon_Museo_de_La_Plata.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted after a short discussion you can find here. The only argument was that is a photo of a sculpture and that in Argentina does not exist freedom of panorama for such kind of works. Being that true, is important to notice that the sculpture is in public domain: both smilodons (one at each side of the stairs) were created by Victor de Pol who died in 1925. For that reason, I request the undeletion of this file. Thanks, Patricio (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Argentina the term is 70 years pma so the works by him have been out of copyright since 1996. I would support undeletion. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's actually been out of copyright longer than that. Argentina retroactively restored works to 70 pma in 1997 (even then this did not get restored), but the terms in 1996 were 50 pma, so the work expired at the latest in 1976. They earlier extended terms from 30 to 50 pma in 1957, so if that was not retroactive (and they probably weren't), the work actually expired in 1956. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Richard More gravestone.jpg[edit]

The license at flickr has been modified to one which is acceptable at Commons. Requesting undeletion of the file. --Sreejith K (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was also issues with sizes in the upload, so I will go ahead and re^upload it later on today. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now at File:Gravestone of Richard More.jpg. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 15:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:KarlBureschf1.highres.jpeg to be undeleted pending clarification of current copyright[edit]

I uploaded file KarlBureschf1.highres.jpeg to commons, claimed by the bibliotheque nationale de france to be part of their Agence Mondial collection and released into the public domain.[7] No author was specified but the collection was bought by the bibliotheque.[8]
Another user found the file and its author in the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek[9], and he died in 1950. A speedy deletion was requested and, before the status of the picture was clarified, it got deleted.

I am asking the conditional undeletion of the file till we get a clarification from either the BNF, the ON or both. The death of the author in 1950 does not mean the picture is not in the public domain, it means it would not be if the current copyright owner (that could very well be the BNF) did not release into the public domain. If the BNF owns it the picture is in the public domain and a PD picture was removed without the slightest chance for checking anything.

So far all we have are possibly conflicting statements that do require clarification. I intend to ask both institutions for help clarifying the copyright status of the picture immediately but consider the deletion premature and unjustified with the available information. Hence I request its undeletion. I will myself ask for its final deletion if I get no satisfactory answer on from BNF or ON in a few days.

Thank you.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright status should be checked before restoring the image (boring tasks like that don’t work retrospectively). --Polarlys (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions should be done after checking the status, more like, and then undeletions would still be "boring" but less commons.--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if we do not know the license or the correct copyright, it is more prudent to not have the images until we know for sure. Undeletion is very simple, but we want to be sure first. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Until clarification is received. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

USer:Renzoy16[edit]

May I request for the undeletion of the following images:

The company gave me rights to use this photos. If this however needs OTRS, would this be likely be undeleted more faster? Because I will ask the company for OTRS for the above images.--Renzoy16 (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, COM:OTRS would be your best course of action. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 04:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since he had really allowed me to use this files, I have now asked to send an OTRS request via email. Can I humbly ask that the files be undeleted so I could add the OTRS pending tag?--Renzoy16 (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the second because it is PD-text logo and can easily go in Hip Hop 100. The other one will have to wait for a license. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So File:Hip_Hop_100.jpg will not need a OTRS tag anymore?--

Renzoy16 | (Talk) 18:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice, but it won't be needed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing; PD-text for one image and nothing at OTRS for another. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Lara Stone NYC.jpg[edit]

This was deleted recently, for reasons that someone claimed that it was improperly taken from a website. I am the photographer (http://www.jiyangchen.com), and this website took the picture from wikipedia and use it without credit. It's a common thing to happen, but don't say it's a copyright issue that I took the picture from this source, because I AM the original source. This was the discussion page:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lara_Stone_NYC.jpg

My Naya RIvera picture, which I took as well, is currently being nominated for deletion (by the same user)

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

Jiyangc (talk) 05:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the server date on the website is November 27, 2011, and it was uploaded to Commons on November 28. Not sure they got it from Wikipedia but maybe. Jiyang Chen is definitely the photographer though, as the image does appear on that website as well; the other wesbite may have gotten it off your blog first. When it comes to professional photographers and images available elsewhere, we usually tread carefully (people have faked usernames before to upload works) by asking for an email to be sent to COM:OTRS. This one rings true though... all of the other uploads by User:Jiyangc also seem to come from the same photographer's website, all with the same camera model... and it's been occasional uploads for over a year. (Really nice photos, BTW -- thanks for contributing!) It may still be a good idea to send an email from your jiyangchen.com site to COM:OTRS, simply confirming that this user account is in fact you, which should confirm any actions done by it. However... I think I'd

Support undeletion without that, as it certainly seems to be the same person. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yes, since Jiyangc gave Commons the Uma Thurman shots before the Jiyang Chen put them up on his own blog, I think the evidence that they are one and the same is pretty compelling. Sorry to put you through all this Jiyang, I'm sure you understand that we are just trying to protect the photographer's copyright. As Carl says, it may be best if you confirm your identity with OTRS, to protect your uploads in future. Thanks for contributing such high quality shots! --99of9 (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:nutan5.jpg File:village life12.jpg File:bath10.jpg File:bathg.jpg File:village life11.jpg[edit]

I request undeletion of the following images: File:nutan5.jpg File:village life12.jpg File:bath10.jpg File:bathg.jpg File:village life11.jpg

Nutan Shukla the copyright holder and author of the images had granted me permission to use the images, they were not simply images i had found on the web. They were relavent to the page. Please reconsider --Rajr11 (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For our purposes, we need more than just permission to use. If the license is correct, we need an email from Nutan Shukla stating so and that email sent to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS #2012010710005823 User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored File:bathg.jpg as permission was in the ticket, will request permission for the other images --Neozoon (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done For the rest of the images, nothing on OTRS. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:722x315_Die_Fledermaus_Luis_Carlos_Vasquez.jpg[edit]

I respectfully ask that this file is undeleted.

The reasons by which it was previously deleted are incorrect: sourced to random website (unclear if connected to uploader), uploader has contributed other images that don't appear to be own work Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

1) the file is not sourced to a random website, instead, it was properly connected to a website that shows the works of Luis Carlos Vásquez Mazzilli, a Theatre Director who precisely staged the scene of Die Fledermaus which is depicted in this image.

2) the claim that the uploader contributes images that are not his own work, are also false. On the contrary, I am the uploader, and therefore I can assure that every image that has been uploaded is indeed my own work.

3) the user who requested this deletion is only based on assumptions, regarding my case, and all those assumptions are wrong. One would never expect that contributing your own work to wikimedia would derive into receiving random attacks for no reason at all.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovecostarica (talk • contribs)

See Commons:Deletion requests/File:722x315 Die Fledermaus Luis Carlos Vasquez.jpg. Yann (talk) 08:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source website has expired, though you list the author of that image as "Daniel Thomas" and not your username. This, along with the claim of PD-self, does not match up at all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus it seems that one of your other images http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RobertoSpinosa.jpg is copied from http://robertospinosa.com/. So the assumptions that you do not upload your own work is starting to look like the case. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I don't believe you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aeon Zen in the UK in 2010.jpg[edit]

Image deleted because of claimed copyright violation at Eventful (http://eventful.com/performers/aeon-zen-/P0-001-000244647-2).

Eventful do not own this image. I emailed the artist (Aeon Zen) to confirm. His reply: "I own rights to the photo because I bought it off the photographer, who is not even associated with that website." Artist was the original uploader on Flickr under a CC-BY license.

MartinPaulEve (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr page image is gone, so we cannot confirm the license. Though unless the Flickr uploader is connected to the band, we need an email permission sent to COM:OTRS linking the accounts together. Now, if you are wanting an image of the band, http://www.flickr.com/photos/74944359@N06/6760195007/ from the same uploader under a CC-BY 2.0 license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The Flickr page is gone, there cannot be a confirmation of the original license. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pueblo Criminal[edit]

File:Band Photo Group Sitting - PUEBLO CRIMINAL.jpg[edit]

As already requested to ORTS by email on the 26th of January 2012, we, the band Pueblo Criminal as the exclusive owner of all copyrights of the following picture, permit their unrestricted use on Wikipedia in general:

File:Band Photo Group Sitting - PUEBLO CRIMINAL.jpg

Please undelete and reactivate this picture on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Criminal http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Criminal http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Criminal

Thank you and best regards

Pueblo Criminal

p.p. Viero (Olivier Gallmann)

--Pueblo Criminal (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Press - Photo Members - PUEBLO CRIMINAL.jpg[edit]

As already requested to ORTS by email on the 26th of January 2012, we, the band Pueblo Criminal as the exclusive owner of all copyrights of the following picture, permit their unrestricted use on Wikipedia in general:

File:Press - Photo Members - PUEBLO CRIMINAL.jpg

Please undelete and reactivate this picture on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Criminal http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Criminal http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Criminal

Thank you and best regards

Pueblo Criminal

p.p. Viero (Olivier Gallmann)

--Pueblo Criminal (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Press - Photo Live - PUEBLO CRIMINAL.jpg[edit]

As already requested to ORTS by email on the 26th of January 2012, we, the band Pueblo Criminal as the exclusive owner of all copyrights of the following picture, permit their unrestricted use on Wikipedia in general:

File:Press - Photo Live - PUEBLO CRIMINAL.jpg

Please undelete and reactivate this picture on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Criminal http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Criminal http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Criminal

Thank you and best regards

Pueblo Criminal

p.p. Viero (Olivier Gallmann)

File:Press - Logo White-Black - PUEBLO CRIMINAL.jpg[edit]

As already requested to ORTS by email on the 26th of January 2012, we, the band Pueblo Criminal as the exclusive owner of all copyrights of the following picture, permit their unrestricted use on Wikipedia in general:

File:Press - Logo White-Black - PUEBLO CRIMINAL.jpg

Please undelete and reactivate this picture on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Criminal http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Criminal http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Criminal

Thank you and best regards

Pueblo Criminal

p.p. Viero (Olivier Gallmann)

--Pueblo Criminal (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pueblo Criminal - discussion[edit]

OTRS is not instant, but the token will certainly be provided within days, and this will be sorted out. If you still haven't got the token in five days, come back here and let us know. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there was really no reason to start a separate discussion on each image. I've rearranged sections to group them, since the response will certainly be the same for all of them. - Jmabel ! talk 17:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The token is #2012012610008688. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the requester should be getting an email from me very soon regarding these images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll deal with it on OTRS; closing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Harr Nishaan.jpg[edit]

I have a question regarding this file http://www.flickr.com/photos/gururavidass/6749629257/ Why this file is been deleted again and again while it has been meant for using freely over the internet as free use and it has the registation certificate which is available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/gururavidass/6749628431/sizes/l/in/photostream/ , Registration certificate clearly says that it has been registered with respect its usage over internet. This symbol belongs to Ravidassia religion and because it has been newly formed after the vienna attack on the leaders of Dera Sach Khand ballan all its subject matters are new. So its my humble request to wikipedia that please help in creating the ravidassia religon and related pages so that the religion can be taken further as far as the information over the internet information sources is concerned. Also another file name File:AmritbaniGuruRavidass.jpg has been deleted which is the holy book of Ravidassia Religion. Such image matter has no copyright as such matters is relating to the religion and can be accessed freely from anywhere in the world. Such matters images has no copyright. Take an example of other religion when i saw ISLAM page a symbol showing islam as image on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Allah-eser-green.png appears on the top such image can not be a copyright and has been created by wikipedia members by themselves so why not creating such content for Ravidassia Religion as well and why not improving them further? Pls help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superiorfaither (talk • contribs)

You basically give a link to a page which shows the trademark (and therefore presumably copyright) is owned by the Sri Guru Ravidass International Organisation for Human Rights -- is that Flickr account really from that organization? It'd probably be preferable to have an email sent per COM:OTRS to confirm the license, or at least confirm that the Flickr account is theirs. Only that organization can license that image. The Flickr account has several images taken from other sources (such as stamps from India) which they clearly do not have the rights to license either, yet they put the same CC-BY license on them. The Flickr account looks like collected images of a person, and not from any of the actual authors of those images. The Islam images are fine because the work they are all derived from is File:Allah-eser.jpg, which is old enough for its copyright to have expired. If you have examples of the emblem or writings which are very old, those can be uploaded. However, all modern works are under copyright and must be licensed, whether they relate to a religion or not. Images could probably be uploaded to local projects and used under a fair-use basis, if permission can not be obtained. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to tell you few things that this image cannot be a copyright and i think the organization which has registered it is has done for the purpose of trade mark and not copyright, as both have different meaning. And also want to tell you that Guru Ravidass images cannot be a copyright, the Harr Nishan (Harr Logo)cannot be a copyright and Amritbani Guru Ravidass (Holy book) cannot be a copyright because these are all created very long back and are used very commonly for religious purpose here. So wheres the issue of copyright on these things???? visit any Ravidassia website everyone using same logo on their sites too so why wikipedia has that issue. And one more thing that these images can neither have a copyright nor anyone can claim as theirs because these things belongs to Ravidassia religion which no one can claim as theirs further more the things have not been created in a day or a night or in two or three days but have been created a long back and is used freely over year by year for religious purposes. Dera Sach Khand which is considered as supreme religious organisation with a living guru by the followers of Ravidassia religion has not created such things but have seperated these things from Sikhism which followers have accepted and this has been seperated because of the vienna attack on living gurus. If wikipedia wants can verify my claims. So please dont delete these images.Superiorfaither (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Issues with the Flickr account, plus copyright is automatic so we have to have a release. There many problems and it would not be wise to upload without an OTRS email. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ACUNI LOGO.png[edit]

La imagen en cuestión ha sido diseñada por mí. Pido la restauración de la misma ya que no incumple con los derechos de autor o licencias. Gracias. --Fbport (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The copyright belongs to the school and need permission from the school. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hermann Nitsch 2001.jpg[edit]

The artwork is in a private collection and the owner can give to Wikipedia the authorization to use the image Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

This is a historically significant work that could not be conveyed in words.
Inclusion is for information, education, and analysis only.
Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s) because it shows a major type of work produced by the artist.
The image is a low resolution copy of the original work and would be unlikely to impact sales of prints or be usable as a desktop backdrop.
It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

--Pivari (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scialoja.jpg[edit]

The artwork is in a private collection and the owner can give to Wikipedia the authorization to use the image Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

This is a historically significant work that could not be conveyed in words.
Inclusion is for information, education, and analysis only.
Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s) because it shows a major type of work produced by the artist.
The image is a low resolution copy of the original work and would be unlikely to impact sales of prints or be usable as a desktop backdrop.
It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

--Pivari (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Commons does not accept copyrighted works. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 17:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hablar.png[edit]

Este fichero tiene la licencia Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 España (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) De ARASAAC (http://arasaac.org/) Saludos --Fundacionfree (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't accept files that cannot be used commercially; see Commons:Sobre las licencias for details. Also have a look at all the warnings on your talk page and the links to the relevant policies they contain. Prof. Professorson (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anders_Behring_Breivik_in_chemical_suit_(self_portrait).jpg[edit]

deleted after DR and/or File:Anders_Behring_Breivik_in_chemical_suit_(self_portrait).png (deletion request); this image. Closed by A.Savin for a variety of reasons:

"doubts that it's a self-portrait" - I do not see anybody expressing this in the DR;
"the license is dubious ("...belongs to all Europeans...")" - is that different from the license for US Government works?
"the quality of the image is too low anyway for being a useful illustration to the articles about Breivik" - that was for the wikipedias to decide.

It looks like an "I don't like it" deletion. Please restore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, two points are correct. No evidence that it is a self-portrait and/or that the person who published it has the right to grant a free license, and the "license" is not a free license. The third point of the deletion rational is dispensable, of course. --Martin H. (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a response, finally. But if this photo where Breivik is preparing chemicals for a bomb would not be a self-portrait, Breivik must have had an accomplice. No such arrests have been made. And that license is more free than CC-bla-bla. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support the last argument by Pieter Kuiper is pretty convincing to me. Trycatch (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure if the last argument is meant seriously or a continued dig at [10]. The license is not free, no matter if other copyrights statuses that we allow are free or not free. --Martin H. (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it convincing that it's a self-portrait. The license seems to say free "to all Europeans", but not anyone else -- a "free" license can't be regional like that. Even it was meant to be free, I'm not sure we should ignore a specific restriction like that. The applicability of US Government copyright in foreign countries is in serious doubt in rule-of-the-shorter-term countries as it stands, and was even in doubt under the old UCC treaties anyways, and is not analogous to an obvious private copyright being licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "to all Europeans" is just focusing on a target group, it is not a restriction. Breivik also wrote: "The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence to that effect? Is it in OTRS? To hold an image we need hold the evidence, or link to the evidence of its release, not rely on hearsay. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the book, that he mailed out to hundreds of people, see http://www.breiviksmanifesto.com/distribution-of-the-book - first phrase in that chapter. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion. Breivik has released it into the public domain. No licensing issues. --Simone 22:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion. In his 2083 European Declaration he discuss buying a Casio EXZ 330 SR digital camera for production of propaganda ("I have used a professional in the past but it is obvious that the regalia I intend to use in the photo session will generate suspicion and threaten the security of the operation. Lack of professional digital equipment, green sheet background and other related and expensive photo gear can be compensated by my Photoshop skills.). Regarding the license he wrote ("Members of the European Resistance Movements on all 8 political fronts must prioritise contributions in Wikipedia as a primary method for presenting our world view, our political doctrines and our definition of history." and "1-2 photos from the photo shoot should be included in the Wikipedia entry."). So you would think he meant it to be shared freely. --Elgaard (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intending to upload something under a free license and doing so is two things, he not did the second. The word anyone in Commons:Licensing is not for discussion here. --Martin H. (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The release of "belongs to all Europeans across the European world" does not include the US, which is where Commons servers are located. Images on Commons must be libre in both source country and US.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Belongs to all Europeans" is ambiguous. It could mean that it may be used freely by anyone who is a European but that it is a copyright violation if an American uses the image. It could also mean that any European can decide to publish it under any licence that he so wishes. For example, it could mean that I, being a European, am entitled to publish the image as {{CC-BY-SA}} or any other free image. The first interpretation is not free enough for Commons, but for the other interpretation it would only require finding a European willing to put it under a free licence (should be easy, but you might need to record that the person really is a European in OTRS). On the other hand, the statement "The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form" sounds like {{PD-self}} or {{Copyrighted free use}} which are both free enough for Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: it's an ambiguous copyright release. Boom! See Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Delete.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose undeletion. No convincing arguments for undeletion have been presented for several months. Assertions that this is in the public domain seem to be based on wishful interpretations of statements which clearly fail to meet the basic standards of a proper release statement. I think it's time to close this. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support There is nothing wrong with releasing an image under two licenses simultaneously. The fact that one of them is free enough for us ("everyone") is enough. The fact that the other one of them ("all europeans") isn't doesn't change that. --GRuban (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not released under two separate licenses. The quoted statements come from a single section, clearly meant to be read as a whole. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - how about we ask the WMF for a legal opinion? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm sure they'll say these files pose absolutely no legal threat to the WMF. He's not going to sue, his license will likely be interpreted against him, and we'll have a nigh-unbreakable fair use claim. (I mean seriously, you object to someone using your own promotional pictures to represent you and what you do?) I'm not sure any of that helps us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I would really like to say that we should restore it, i believe it is a useful image, but the fact of the matter is it's not free. "All europeans" is not everybody, in fact i would go so far as to say that "all humans" licence should not be allowed (if such a licence would be created). In a way it is a similar thing to "no use for nuclear research" types of licences. VolodyA! V Anarhist Beta_M (converse) 17:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The main point of the Commons is to host works that can be used by anyone, for any purpose and anywhere they so choose. Saying "All Europeans" can use this freely does not permit someone who is outside of Europe; plus if you want to take it that way, what would the author consider "European"? There is a lot of questions and minefields that we just do not have the answer to and, while the image is useful, it doesn't comply with our policies. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Glicoman.JPG[edit]

From here.

In principle, excluding those in the outdoors (Article 46 of the Japanese Copyright Law). Moreover, Japanese law this signboard is part of the building. Building photography does not have a problem. --Aimaimyi (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FOP#Japan that artistic works put in the open can be photographed and used for non-commercial purposes ~~but I could not find that in the law~~. Whatever comes out of this discussion, the page on FOP when it comes to Japan must be changed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was strangely worded, but the text is there. According to the law: "Article 46　With the exception of the following instances, it shall be permissible to exploit, by any means whatsoever, an artistic work permanently installed in an open place as provided for in paragraph (2) of the preceding Article and an architectural work: (iv)　reproduction of an artistic work exclusively for the purpose of selling its reproductions and the sale of such reproductions." But this means photograph of buildings are also non-commercial. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to History of the "Goal In Mark" (on the official website of Ezaki Glico). This symbol mark which was published in 1922 is the trademark of Ezaki Glico. Accordin to Japanese laws, the copyright (著作権, 50 years) and design right (意匠権, 15 years) of this work had expired. Even the face and body of this "man" had changed little by little, Ezaki Glico considers them as same mark, copilitabiliry of each version is not accepted with common law, judical and commercial practices and common sence in Japan. Moreover, they say 「このマークは何度か変わっています」, this mark had changed several times. They say this mark, not these marks.) Now they have only the trademark right (商標権, with registration) of this syombol mark. And the trademark right is related only with competitors (trades). So, if the problem is only this symbol mark ("Goal In Mark"), the concerned image was not protected with the copyright law, because of the absence of the original copyright. At least, I can say the legal basis of claims on the former DR is very weak.Takabeg (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though the actual mark is old, how old is the light display in Osaka? Once we figure that out, then we know if it is public domain or not. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 19:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ⅱ-10-3 著作物の写り込み of 電子商取引及び情報財取引等に関する準則 is helpful for us. We have to investigate each case. Takabeg (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question here. There are at least a dozen different signs in the image, each of which has a copyright. Most of them are not de minimis. Since some of them are on screens, they are not permanent -- they will change from minute to minute. So, completely aside from the fact that our written policy is that Japan has no FOP and that, as Zscout370 as pointed out, the last paragraph of the section prohibits commercial use, they fail FOP for lack of permanence. As far as the question of whether they are part of the building or not, even a mural actually painted on the wall is not part of the building for copyright law purposes -- witness the fact that we regularly delete them from USA images, even though buildings do have FOP in the USA. These screens are a far cry from painted on the walls. So there are at least two different issues here, neither of which is close to a near thing. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 03:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are all permanent, compare with daylight photo of the same buildings: [11]. --M5 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I've never heard that "Japanese law this signboard is part of the building". If so, Aimaimyi have to provide articles and/or precedents.
I investigated each signboard. From left to right:
ピップフジモト (Fujimoto)
Calbee
茜丸
雪印 (Yukijirushi)
日商エステム (Nissho Estem)
カイゲン (Kaigen)
CHINTAI
プロミス (Promise)
ツーカーホン関西 (Tu-Ka Phone)
ほのぼのレイク (Lake)
大摩美容形成外科・歯科
アイスター (Ai-Star)
エイブル (Able)
アイク (AIC)
アパマンショップ (Apa-Man-Shop)

Apart from カイゲン, all of these logos are {{PD-text}} (in Japanese 文字ロゴ, Moji-Logo). The copyrightability of Moji-Logos is not accepted in Japan (see: typycal precedent of this case: 平成一二年(ワ)第二四一五号　著作権使用料請求事件, The case of Sumitomo Construction Machinery Company, Limited) The trademark of Kaigen is derivative work of File:Fujinraijin-tawaraya.jpg. Takabeg (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Takabeg: the main object of the photo are buildings (architectural work) which happen to have some permanent (see daylight photo [12]) shopping center signboards, mostly PD-text and Glicoman logo is in PD too. All the rest falls under com:de minimis. --M5 (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on De minimis in Japan:

According to the Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan, if the use of copyitable work is satisfy the both conditions, the legal principle "de minimis" can be accepted. (The legislation has not yet been passed.)

The use of copylitable work that is accompanied by other activities not with primary purpose of the use of that work.
The use of copylitable can be work is evaluated qualitatively or quantitatively as minimal on the conventional wisdom.

For example: "Reflection"

(その著作物の利用を主たる目的としない他の行為に伴い付随的に生ずる当該著作物の利用であり、かつ、その利用が質的または量的に社会通念上軽微であると評価できるもの例）写真や映像の撮影に伴ういわゆる「写り込み」)

As to this image, it's considerably clear that the primary purpose of the photographer is the use of "Glicoman". If this logo were not PD, this image is also copyvio. But in this case, there is "no problem" because the copyright of the "Glicoman" logo had expired.

P.S. Probably this image is copyvio in according with the criteria of the Agency of Cultural Affairs of Japan.

Takabeg (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Not enough evidence provided that the work is out of copyright. Once evidence is brought, then you can come back here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hamza-ghanchi.jpg[edit]

The image is mine own and i use it as a profile picture of mine. Kindly request you to undelete the file and all the copyrights of the image are mine own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by હમઝા ઘાંચી (talk • contribs) 09:20, 6 January 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Not done But there is no real use for the image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 21:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Avril Lavigne Black Star.jpg[edit]

I am the photographer for this image - it is also on Flickr - the image that has been identified as possible copyright infringement - I'm happy to donate this image to commons.wikimedia.org - under the CC license stated - but do not wish to distribute it using that license on Flickr.

66james99 (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Avril lavigne 1.jpg

Why don't you want to licence these under a free licence at flickr? They have to be under a free licence here, what's the difference? -mattbuck (Talk) 01:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, thanks for your intend to make this photo usable by anyone. Please change the license at flickr to a license which is accepted here (cc-by or cc-by-sa). You need to make this license change explicitly for this image - not in your general flickr settings. Here is a how-to if you need one: http://www.wikihow.com/Apply-the-Creative-Commons-License-to-Flickr-Photographs#Change_a_License_on_an_Individual_Image Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that both of you purposefully misunderstand what the person is saying here. If somebody wishes to use different licences on two different sites, that is perfectly acceptable, the only requirement on Commons is that it's a free licence here. However, it is true that there needs to be a proof that the copyright holder and the uploader are actually the same, COM:OTRS can help with that. VolodyA! V Anarhist (converse) 05:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understood, I was just wondering why. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purposefully?! Well, we prefer easy solutions, right? I named one. Furthermore, the photographer should understand that he cannot "donate this image to commons.wikimedia.org" (in the sense of only to Commons) - it needs to be free for everyone. That is mase very clear by just changing the license at flickr. And in addition: not changing the license at flickr but freely licensing it here is a kind of copyfraud - which I do not want to encourage to do. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Oh, just saw a bit: "but do not wish to distribute it using that license on Flickr." - I did really not read this sentence. That strengthens my opinion. No, please no copyfraud, thanks. --Saibo (Δ) 14:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the "donator" doesn't want to offer the image in question under a Commons-compatible license in Flickr, one might add (as I regularly do) the hint that it needs to be under this license only as long as our Flickr-review bot needs to check it, which may be less than 1/2 hour. Thereafter the license on Flickr might be changed back to the original value. Of course this procedure requires that immediately after the initial license change on Flickr, {{Flickreview}} is added to the image page on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that images must be donated for everyone to use, not just Wikimedia Commons. The effect of licensing it here should be the same as if you licensed it on Flickr (just that some people may not notice the license immediately there, but they would have every right to use it under those terms given the license here). Unless maybe if the Commons upload was with a lower resolution version only. Anyways, it's up to you if you want to change the Flickr license or not, but if you don't, then we would require an email (from the Flickr account) to be sent confirming the license -- see COM:OTRS for the needed content, and the address to send it to. Or, you could indicate in the Flickr image comments that your username here is in fact the same person as the Flickr account holder in question -- basically, we need some indication that you are really the author, and unfortunately can not simply take your word for it when it comes to works previously published elsewhere on the web. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Not free enough for our purposes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Conserverie de Saint-Jacques.jpg[edit]

I am the owner of this painting and own the copyright, please undelete this file

--Xanao (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Owning a paper copy of a poster does not make you the owner of the copyright, which is held by the artist or his heirs. If he died before 1942, it may be PD, but otherwise we cannot keep it here without permission. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This painting has been done by my great-father who died prior to 1942. It has remained in the family ever since--Xanao (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion, seems like {{PD-old}} applies. Prof. Professorson (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bus Driver City V3.5.jpg[edit]

I forgot to put it as not my own work, but I have spoken to the owner of the game and Roblox, and they agreed with me that it would be ok to put Bus Driver City on Wikipedia as long as I update the image when there is a new version.--WBJB003 (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We will need permission using the procedure at Commons:OTRS from the copyright holder. Note that we require a license for general use, including commercial use, not just for Wikipedia. Also, we generally keep old versions of logos, so while (if the permission permits) you may add new versions from time to time, you probably will not be able to replace the old version. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Nothing at OTRS User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Torgcentr2.jpg[edit]

File:Torgcentr2.jpg

This file I got from the Metrogiprotrans company. It has a free licence. This file was get from the URL: http://www.arhmetro.ru/portfolio/1/46/0/3/.

I didn't know, why the file was deleted.

Thank you

Ozysoft (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)23/01/2011[reply]

Website link clearly says "© 2004-2012 All rights reserved". Evidence of free license needs to be provided. Image was tagged as lacking permission for more than one week before it was deleted. Either link to where there is proof that it is free licensed by the creator/copyright holder, or email proof of free license via Commons:OTRS. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 22:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mark Dennis with Ben Foster and Olivia Draguicevich.jpg[edit]

This was deleted due to lack of permission. I'm having a permission letter emailed from Paramount Pictures today. It will be sent to: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

(Fosterfilm (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Not done Paramount giving us a free license? Never. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Done By another editor. Boy, I am eating some crow tonight. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FlagOfMonmouthshire.PNG[edit]

These flags are by definition public domain in order to be included in the UK Flags Register. As per http://flaginstitute.org/index.php?location=10 "The design must be in the public domain, ie. not subject to copyright". Owain (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally http://monmouthshire-association.org.uk/flag states "The flag was designed in accordance with the precepts of good flag design published by both NAVA and the Flag Institute and is in the public domain." Owain (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under COM:COA the design can be public domain, but the rendition also must be. I have an SVG flag of Monmouthshire that I can upload right now and I drew it myself, so it satisfies COM:COA. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The image was taken from The World Flag Database, who copyrights their renditions. We have an SVG now at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Monmouthshire.svg. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shah & Anchor.svg[edit]

This is the logo of the Shah & Anchor group of colleges. This page says that the file is under CC AT SA 3.0. --Sagarsavla (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC). EugeneZelenko deleted it.[reply]

Why do you want it undeleted? You've re-uploaded it already. Prof. Professorson (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was for contingency purposes. Sorry, won't happen again. --Sagarsavla (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect made to existing file. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zelkova crenata.jpg[edit]

fossile di foglia e disegno di Zelkova crenata — Preceding unsigned comment added by ValeGua (talk • contribs) 2012-01-29T15:48:16‎ (UTC)

Please explain why you think this image should be undeleted. Prof. Professorson (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]