Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2012-07

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

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

File:John Maynard Smith.jpg - Request 20120630224846[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to remove this image. Full permission to use it was sent to you by the sole copyright owner - the MANAGING DIRECTOR of Web of Stories in fact... Below is the email as copied to myself as well as you.

Why do you people make it so difficult to work on Wikipedia? Howard Kornstein

To Whom It May Concern   I hereby affirm that Web of Stories Ltd (“WoS”) is the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached image of John Maynard Smith.  WoS agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). “WoS” acknowledge that by doing so “WoS” grants anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. “WoS” is aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. “WoS” is aware that “WoS” always retain copyright of this work, and retains the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by “WoS”. “WoS” is aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and “WoS” reserves the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. “WoS” acknowledges that “WoS” cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.   Anne Greenwood Group Managing Director Web of Stories Ltd Science Navigation Group Middlesex House 34-42 Cleveland Street London W1T 4LB   Date 21 June 2012 HowieKor (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Caster Cart.png - Request 20120702141817[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I took this picture myself and it is also posted on my website, which the article I am writing about is going to use this picture. Sbarak (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the format given here. Permission must be sent from an email address linked to where your content was originally published. The file will be restored as soon as permission is confirmed. If you would like to inquire about the status of your email in the OTRS system, please ask on the OTRS noticeboard as only OTRS members can view the email. MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Deste Lado da Ressurreição.png[edit]

The reason the file should not be deleted is that I am not only the author of the poster for This Side of Resurrection, but also the producer of Rosa Filmes, who owns all the rights related with the film "this Side of Resurrection" directed by Joaquim Sapinho.

Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the format given here. The file will be restored as soon as permission is confirmed. MorganKevinJ(talk) 21:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bushra Ansari1.jpg [edit]

I know I'm coming in late here but I'm just curious... this image had an OTRS ticket number (2011100310010827) affixed to it by Trijnstel, yet it got deleted two hours later by Sreejithk2000 per the debate at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bushra Ansari1.jpg. Can someone explain the why behind that?? Tabercil (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the reasoning by the deleting admin, it had been photoshopped to significantly change the person's appearance (quite likely in a way the person would not have wanted), and thus was not a true photo. If true, that would be reason enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You actually would require a bit knowledge about the dress Sari to know that this photo has been altered.
  • A Sari is typically around 6 meters in length and is worn around your body. It goes from the right hip towards the left shoulder covering the breast. See File:Celebrities at Manish Malhotra - Lilavati Save & Empower Girl Child show (41).jpg as an example. So it is impossible for the Sari to drop from the left shoulder vertically down.
  • The dress that accompanies the Sari and that covers the breast is called Blouse. See File:Ankita Shorey 2.jpg for an example. In the deleted photo, you can see the Sari on the blouse as in the original photo here. The edges of the blouse were added later and it is quite obvious if you compare both.
  • The OTRS ticket came from a gmail id and we are not quite sure whether the id belongs to the actress. Even though I want to assume good faith, the image was so badly photoshopped that I could not. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense. Tabercil (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Batik-787.jpg [edit]

--FathirLeone (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet deleted, deleting it now. The source this is taken from not allows reuse under free content conditions. Read Commons:Licensing to learn about free content. In fact the source not allows you to even download the file, read the terms of the website that you copied from. --Martin H. (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted now. --Martin H. (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Guerrilla Poster.jpg [edit]

I used the image because this was given to me by the director team. I used the image because i was told by the film director to create an article in wikipedia and use the poster as the movie poster.

not done the owner of the copyright may release it under a free license, see COM:L Ezarateesteban 23:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

CONMEBOL UEFA intercontinental trophy.svg [edit]

I want to ask for the repeal of deletion because, as stated on page deletion, one drawing is the same as a picture. nothing more than a representation of the object. and here in commons we have many examples of sculpture drawn.

-- tales.ebner 18:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not done Derivative work of a coprigthed sculpture Ezarateesteban 23:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Androgen receptor 3-d model.jpg - Request 20120705221359[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This image was deleted today, shortly after I obtained permission from the author.

I sent a copy of the email exchange I had with the author to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. However, I also made an edit to the page (the author requested that I modify the way he is credited). Doing so attracted the attention of an admin... And poof, the file is no more.

If need be, I can post the email exchange that I had with the author here; I imagine it was sufficient to send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org...

Thanks, Jonathan.Marcus (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily undeleted because OTRS is pending. This gives you, the copyright holder and OTRS-stuff about 30 days to clarify it. --JuTa 22:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Adobe EchoSign.png [edit]

Request temporary undeletion

File was correctly deleted via Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adobe EchoSign.png per its fair-use licensing as out-of-scope on commons. I'd like to send it to en.wp, which does accept fair-use, for use per en:Template:Non-free computer icon on the en:EchoSign article there. (My network access may be spotty the next day or two, so feel free to wait until Monday or later to act on this request.) DMacks (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved to logo locally to enwp and tagged it accordingly. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Baaba-Beeba-Buuba.png[edit]

images labeled with {{Userpageimage}} are exempted from COM:SCOPE --Mattes (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the image ceases to be used it may be eligible for deletion as it may have no educational purpose. --Martin H. (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delinker showed it was never used at all during the time it was uploaded on this or any other project. The deletion was proper. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Deletion was proper, unused image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:A.Aleksandrov-Krivia.jpg[edit]

This is a picture of former player which is madе during of a football match.If it is illegal, please tell me from where can I take a proper photo and why this is illegal? --Жълто и Черно (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder not published it under a free license, so the file is not ok to upload. See Commons:Licensing and Commons:PS#Must be freely licensed or public domain. You have to search for a photo that the copyright holder voluntarily published under a free license. --Martin H. (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not under a free license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:KarimElKerem2012.jpg[edit]

File:KarimElKerem2012.jpg File:Karim2012.jpg

I´m the owner of the Copyrights of the pictures. I updated Imdb web for Karim El Kerem with that pictures.

I manage Karim El Kerem Media. I ask for undeteled the archives to upload Wikipedia page for Karim El Kerem

Thank you

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerdurden87 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 28 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Alredy done MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Images from OrionHsu[edit]

I made and created the file by myself and own the copyright for sure! OrionHsu (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I noticed these files, but I didn't delete them as I was not sure. You have a lot of files deleted as copyright violations, which raised the question to know if you understood the copyright issue of your uploads. Among other issues, I wonder why there is no EXIF data with your images. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Restored as per uploader's answer on his talk page. I would assume good faith here. I don't a copy on the web, and these are high resolution images. Yann (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:EKB_keyboard_fixed.jpg, File:EKB keyboard fixed.jpg[edit]

These files were recently deleted because of lack of OTRS permission, but the permission was actually sent on March 1, 2012. Today, another permission letter was sent to permissions-commons@ and permissions-ru@ from nz@. Please undelete and confirm OTRS. Please note that over time, I encounter numerous troubles with different people sending permissions by email but with no reaction on OTRS. Complained several times on this on Russian Commons forums. --ssr (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already done MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Logo of Lanzhou University.svg[edit]

I hereby affirm that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of File:Logo of Lanzhou University.svg on wikimedia.org.

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). (Vowstar (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the format given here. Permission must be sent from an email address linked to where your content was originally published. The file will be restored as soon as permission is confirmed. If you would like to inquire about the status of your email in the OTRS system, please ask on the OTRS noticeboard as only OTRS members can view the email. MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Beautot[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already done MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Files uploaded by Angiegalindez - Request 20120708001647[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please undelete those images, they are completely my work Angiegalindez (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible that an educational project attracts such bad people? Dont you shame? --Martin H. (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Stolen images from Flickr. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:knock in the night.jpg [edit]

I would like to undelete the file, "Knock in the Night.jpg" because the author, Balazs Szabo provided me the jpg. It is his book and it is his photo which he wanted me to upload on Wikipedia.

thank you in advance for your help.

--Avosborn (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the format given here. Permission must be sent from an email address linked to where your content was originally published. The file will be restored as soon as permission is confirmed. If you would like to inquire about the status of your email in the OTRS system, please ask on the OTRS noticeboard as only OTRS members can view the email. MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:UICET Logo Scalable Vector Graphics.svg - Request 20120708131127[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file is the property of the UICET working group. Since I am a member with full permissions to use the Image I hereby submit it to wikimedia commons for full access. Adityasaxena.corp (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the format given here. Permission must be sent from an email address linked to where your content was originally published. The file will be restored as soon as permission is confirmed. If you would like to inquire about the status of your email in the OTRS system, please ask on the OTRS noticeboard as only OTRS members can view the email. MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:UICET Panjab University Official Logo.jpg - Request 20120708131717[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The file was created by me for UICET working group and is my design, Since I am a member of UICET working group I give full permissions to use this image. Adityasaxena.corp (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the format given here. Permission must be sent from an email address linked to where your content was originally published. The file will be restored as soon as permission is confirmed. If you would like to inquire about the status of your email in the OTRS system, please ask on the OTRS noticeboard as only OTRS members can view the email. MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carotinoide.jpg [edit]

Die Datei Carotinoide.jpg ist eine Zusammenstellung gemeinfreier Bilder (public domain) aus Wikimedia Commons. Die erstellte Collage verstößt somit gegen keine Regeln. Bitte wiederherstellen! --Jugrü (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 analyzing image MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ restored MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Official photo of Prof Kishore Mahbubani, Dean, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.jpg[edit]

I am writing to request undeletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Official_photo_of_Prof_Kishore_Mahbubani,_Dean,_Lee_Kuan_Yew_School_of_Public_Policy,_National_University_of_Singapore.jpg

I am the official representative of Prof Kishore Mahbubani, the copyright owner of this file. I have sent a request for permission to 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org' with the following text:

"I hereby affirm that Professor Kishore Mahbubani, Dean, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, is the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of his photo http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/_img/profile/kishore-mahbubani.jpg I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" and GNU Free Documentation License. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project."

We got the email (OTRS 2012061410002769 for fellow agents to check) and we are in the process of checking the ticket. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File has OTRS permission, please restore. --Krd 18:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Restored MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Documento Ricardo Molinas - CELS.jpg - Request 20120711033745[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: (Es) Esta es una llamada "carta abierta" realizada por el Dr. Ricardo Molinas, miembro de la Asamblea Permanente por los Derechos Humanos, redactada el 18 de noviembre de 1978 y titulada “Impuesto en beneficio de particulares”, acerca de la instauración de un impuesto al papel importado, como método de protección a la fabricación nacional de papel. Siendo la condición sine qua non de la misma la evidente falta de licencias sobre el mismo trabajo, para que sea posible su distribución y repetición, es claro que el borrado de la imágen ha sido un acto de desconocimiento. (En) This is called "open letter" by Dr. Ricardo Molina, a member of the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights, drafted on November 18, 1978 and entitled "Tax on behalf of individuals," about the introduction of a tax the imported paper as a method of protection to the domestic manufacture of paper. As the condition sine qua non of the same apparent lack of licenses for the same job, for possible distribution and repetition, it is clear that deletion of the image was an act of ignorance. GMoyano (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image was tagged as an annonymous work ({{PD-AR-Anonymous}}), whose copyright expires in Argentina 50 years after publication. We are not 50 years away from 1978. Even more, it's not an anonymous work to begin with... it was written by Ricardo Molina. Copyright will last until 70 years after his death. Cambalachero (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Still copyrighted in the source country. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Milford Wayne Donaldson.jpg [edit]

Hi - I just sent you the copyright permission from Milford Wayne Donaldson via email.

My name is Karen Clementi, I am Mr. Donaldson's assistant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milford Wayne Donaldson (talk • contribs)

see File:Milford Wayne Donaldson.jpg MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:CaprilesRadonskiCbbo.png[edit]

Per ticket:2012070410000224 -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 02:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Revert all Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:Calwonk deletions.[edit]

The rationale given for the deletions (at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_User:Calwonk ) is "They are tagged as PD-CAGov but no evidence that they were created by a State of California employee is provided.--Muhandes (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)"

No policy requires or should require such evidence. IN ADDITION, we AGF unless there's reason to do otherwise. --Elvey (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator and deleter's statements both show ignorance of CA law, and federal copyright law, specifically, A)copyright notices DO NOT TRUMP case or black letter law is a fact those who are not ignorant know. Note that there are numerous federal government sites loaded with work that has has <explicit (C)> notices that are over-broad and unenforceable because the work is unambiguously public domain under federal copyright law and is here, correctly tagged with PD-USGov* tags. B)PD-CAGov also applies to more than just State of California employee works. The official portraits of public servants found on official government websites maintained by said governments are presumptively works of the state. That's how we handle such portraits for a great many nations and states in the world here at commons. --Elvey (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGF applies when an editor claims that he or she created a work. It does not apply to uploads of other people's works, particularly when the source has an explicit (c). Whose good faith are we supposed to be assuming here -- the uploader's? I will assume that the upload was done in good faith, but that does not make the upload correct.
Are you fucking kidding me? You think that's the only time AGF applies? --Elvey (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Official portraits are a difficult subject. We have deleted several official portraits (paintings) of US presidents because the artist still owned the copyright. Just because a portrait is "official" does not mean that its copyright belongs to the government involved. The copyright for these does not belong to California unless the photographer(s) worked for the state or a transfer of copyright was explicitly agreed. Since we do not know their status, we cannot keep them.
AGAIN, PD-CAGov also applies to more than just State of California employee works. Do you dispute this? You think it applies to works where transfer of copyright was explicitly agreed too?--Elvey (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BUMP. --Elvey (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The official portraits of public servants found on official government websites maintained by said governments are presumptively works of the state" is not correct, as noted above. Commons rules are always to presume in favor of the creator -- without knowledge we must delete.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright notices are a big huge warning sign. It's like a "No Trespassing" sign, and require thinking twice about. Federal law is going to trump whatever California thinks on matters of copyrights that California doesn't own. The page linked to at the DR just comes up with a page not found, but I question calling a "presumptive work of the state" instead of looking for evidence one way or the other. Furthermore, PD-CAGov does not say that it applies to photos at all, it says '"writings of public officials and agencies" available under California’s public records law'. Given everything, I don't believe we have the certainty we need to undelete these files.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGAIN, there are numerous federal government sites loaded with work that has has <explicit (C)> notices that are over-broad and unenforceable because the work is unambiguously public domain under federal copyright law. Do you dispute this? --Elvey (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean that copyright notices aren't a warning sign.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BUMP. Also, if Federal law trumps, Prosfilaes, why did the court write that, "State law “determines whether [a public official] may claim a copyright in his office’s creations.” and “Each state may determine whether the works of its government entities may be copyrighted.” - the court said those things in its own voice, while simultaneously quoting from prior precedent-setting decisions. The court cited a state and two federal rulings it felt were on point. (BTW, I don't get what link you were referring to.) --Elvey (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the time to BUMP, why don't you take the time to read? The court wrote “Each state may determine whether the works of its government entities may be copyrighted.”, which does not talk about "matters of copyrights that California doesn't own". Link in question is the one at Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Calwonk|the DR]], [1].--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I am having is, in the context of the court decision, it only applies to textual records and not images. Plus, even if I look at the template on the English Wikipedia, it says "This work is not copyrighted, and is therefore in the public domain in the United States, because it is a record of the government of the State of California that was in some way "involved in the governmental process" and "prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency" or officer; the work has been obtained pursuant to the Sunshine Amendment of the Constitution of California, and/or the California Public Records Act (CPRA), which contained no relevant provision(s) for copyright; and the work is not subject to any other copyright claim." The last part, to me, it is all for textual records (almost like FOIA requests) and does not include photos at all. Plus, if there is another copyright claim, we cannot restore these images at all and in this case, there is still the photographer issue. Do we even know it is a state work? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have evidence "it only applies to textual records and not images"? Please cite/provide a relevant quote to support that claim (a legal citation, not a reference to PD-CAGov itself). I've heard that copyright case claim before and it turned out to be unsupported.--Elvey (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1417775.html, the case cited to bring this license back, states "III. A.   There is no statutory basis either for copyrighting the GIS basemap or for conditioning its release on a licensing agreement." This basemap is a computer program, which was eligible for copyright protection under CPRA § 6254.9 until this case. [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6250-6270 Yet not all works by government agecnies from California are public domain). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=25561324391+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve is the government code when it comes to the buying and commissioning of art, which includes photographs (15813.1.) and there is a copyright attached to it (15813.5.). The copyright of these images are discussed in 15813.5 and what happens when the copyright is assigned. It is looking less likely that this license is true and needs clarification from attorneys. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that case law overrides prior statute? (You know that a statute cannot override a constitution, yes?) --Elvey (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Plus, if there is another copyright claim"... Are you claiming there's been one? Please clarify.--Elvey (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BUMP. --Elvey (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, with the lack of an author we cannot determine if images are free or not and we have deleted a lot of images before from hired photographers, even if the photos were used on government websites. On a side note, this is not 4chan. You comments of "BUMP" is not going to get you anywhere or get any response quicker. I respectfully ask you to calm down and focus on this issue at hand. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bump was to ask that you answer questions you'd skipped over, like "Are you aware that case law overrides prior statute?" and I regularly see bumps used in many levelheaded, moderated forums for good reason. I don't know if you skipped over 'em intentionally or not. Note also that in many, many cases the author is not required to determine that an image is free.
The "basemap is a computer program"? Umm, No! Not according to the court's opinion, which makes it abundantly clear in several ways that it doesn't think the basemap is a computer program ! If the court thought it was, its ruling would have to change radically.--Elvey (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way the Commons work is that we assume unfree unless otherwise proven and with these photos lacking author information, we cannot determine that yet. While, as stated above, we AGF with the uploader and his intent, we cannot do the same with the content that is uploaded. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In other words you're saying we must assume that the uploader is lying unless otherwise proven. You are wrong about what AGF means. Why should we assume that the uploader is lying unless otherwise proven??? --Elvey (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGF is only for the intent of the uploader; we have to check images to make sure they comply with our policies. We won't club a guy who uploaded an image that, lets say, is free in another country but not in the US. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is or needs to be certain. I highly doubt anyone's ever written a mathematical proof to show an upload complied with our policies. I to agree to disagree on this point we're discussing - AGF vs proof. We're both certain the other is wrong, and you won't answer my questions, like "Why should we assume that the uploader is lying unless otherwise proven?" --Elvey (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: Yes, destructive actions get me pissed off. I get really fucking pissed off when I see people used their own blatantly untrue statements to justify their own deletion of images (as happened recently with different image sets). If that justified anger is coming out in comments toward others, it's not intentional. --Elvey (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMFG!!! You don't have to like the decision (though I do) but you do need to read and respect it. Here's what the court wrote:

(NOTE: Edits to § <fixed>6254.9</fixed> by the California Public Records Act are the basis for the courts ruling placing the GIS basemap in question and (with a few exceptions) all CA public records in the public domain.)

By the express terms of § 6254.9*, the Legislature has demonstrated its intent to acknowledge copyright protection for software only. p.33

copyright protection for software only! Read the whole paragraph that quote came from!!!

In sum, while § 6254.9* the availability of copyright protection for software in a proper case, it provides no statutory authority for asserting any other copyright interest. p. 34

no statutory authority for asserting any other copyright interest

Beyond these factual similarities, we find the Florida court’s reasoning persuasive. The Microdecisions court discussed “the interplay between the federal copyright act and Florida’s public records law.” (Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, supra, 889 So.2d at p. 876.) It explained: “The copyright act gives the holder the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute a work and to authorize others to do so.” (Ibid., citing 17 U.S.C. § 106(1), (3).) “As such, a copyright owner may refuse to provide copies of the work or may charge whatever fee he wants for copies of the work or a license to use the work.” (Ibid.) “The Florida public records law, on the other hand, requires State and local agencies to make their records available to the public for the cost of reproduction.” (Ibid., citing § 119.07(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2002).) “This mandate overrides a government agency’s ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption.” (Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, at p. 876.) The same persuasive reasoning applies to the interplay between copyright law and California’s public records law, with the result that unrestricted disclosure is required. p.35

So this decision does NOT apply to photographs? I call @$%#@$%^$#%&#!!!!

Everything you wrote and everything I found has only to deal with public records (not photographs, logos). There is nothing I have found so far that indicates photographs are public domain (and in the case that was cited to restore this template, it only dealt with computer software and data, not images). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you wrote above saying that, due to this ruling, most of the public records of California are public domain. The definition of a public record, which can be read at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=06001-07000&file=6250-6270, states ""Public records" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. "Public records" in the custody of, or maintained by, the Governor's office means any writing prepared on or after January 6, 1975."" http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=27001-28000&file=27300-27307 also gives a definition that the public record can be in an electronic format. However, if you noticed in both definitions, it is a written document used to conduct business of the state (such as land deeds, the GIS in that case, death certificates) and not photographs or audio of any kind. The definition of public record did not change even if the copyright did. So, unless you find a new definition of public record, we cannot restore these. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree with Zscout370 that images are probably not included in California's PD public records -- they are not "writings" -- that question here is secondary to the fact that we have no evidence that the photographers of these images were California employees or that the copyright has been transferred to the state.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gives more the reason why they should probably not be restored. I also think we need to go over the license itself and make it accurate since I do not feel the wording is correct. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Photographs tend to be public records. It says "writings" but that is likely interpreted quite expansively (just like copyright can only cover "writings" per the Constitution, but has been deemed to cover paintings etc. since the 1800s). Logos may not be though -- those may be subject to FOI exemptions since there are (valid) restrictions on them. If there is good reason to believe they are authored by the California government, they may be OK. Keep in mind though, that the applicability to copyright is far fuzzier than that for the federal government -- it is based on that ruling alone, not a law which explicitly details the copyright status. But, it may well be similar to PD-FLGov (sort of a hostile forced lack of copyright, meaning departments may still put copyright notices on stuff). And yes, it would only apply to works created by by the government of California, not to externally-authored works which become public records (Florida is the exact same case). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear (to me, and evidenced by the huge quotes above) that the intent of the court was to rule on copyrightability of all media. The court states, "At the outset, we reiterate the principle that restrictions on disclosure are narrowly construed. (Cal. Const., art. 1, § 3, subd. (b)(1)(2); Board of Trustees of California State University v. Superior Court, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 896.)" The court is saying that if a restriction on disclosure admits multiple interpretations, the one that restricts less is the correct one. So if the if it's unclear whether statute indicates that images are not part of the public record, the correct interpretation becomes clear in light of this principle, namely that images can be part of the public record, and under this ruling, are public domain.
Carl is on point - Photographs can be public records. Photographs are written to disk when saved on a computer just like typed text. The court's decision just about rules explicitly that basemaps, which are the subject of the case are themselves more appropriately considered images than programs. See the footnote (#9) on page 31 where the court states that the GIS basemap is a public record. Furthermore, the court says there that since the GIS basemap is a public record, the County cannot claim [it's] computer software.
Ok I think I found something that'll convince you Scout, even if nothing else so far has! On page 2 of the court's decision, we learn the the particular GIS basemap (that it rules are public domain because the're public record) INCLUDES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS. "Among the essential geographic elements of the GIS basemap are “parcels, streets, assessor parcel information, jurisdictional boundaries, orthophotos [aerial photographs], and buildings.” The decision itself put those photographs into the public domain directly - and put substantially all other photographic works of the state into the public domain indirectly, as I've been saying. --Elvey (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel the GIS maps, while public domain due to this court ruling, does not seem it includes all other sorts of photographs. I just don't know. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Making photographs exempt from public records laws is nonsensical to me. People have a right to that information just as much as written documents. Anyways, the definition from the law itself (also used in a similar section of the law):
"Writing" means any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.
Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I am not sure how I even missed that. Ok, so photographs are a part of the public records. I need to add that to the license template when I get free time. The main question is still this; are the photographs in this deletion request coming from California Government employees or from an outside source? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 13:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much as I'd like to argue these images should be free, there is some sense to asking whose images they are, eg I presume the image File:Paul_Fong.jpg is from [2] (only one I could find .ca.gov), yet we find it is a derivative of [3],[4] (I can't see the deleted images so may be totally on the wrong track here). Can we use FoIA type inquiries to ask for information about the contractual arrangements between the Californian govt. and their photographers and/or who took the photographs? --Tony Wills (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[5], [6] are maybe places to start. If there is a choice it maybe better to send the request by snail mail, seperates it from the daily tide of email that some poor guy has to deal with :-), certified mail is always a good way to get noticed ;-). Maybe start with request to know the photographer of a particular individual photo, maybe don't even need to quote FoIA unless there is no response or a negative response. Once found follow up with a request to see documents relating to the purchase of the photo or the photographers contractual relationship (employee?) with the state. Just have to feel your way through the process. A bit of work, but given that they probably have lots of photos that are very useful it is probably worth the effort. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stale request; most of the issues are having to be dealt with by a FIOA request to figure out who even done these images. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:लाला हरदयाल1299.gif [edit]

Notice OP has requested not to close this discussion immediately after restoring the deleted image or rejecting the request! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 14:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please undel this image, though I was not uploader, I think I can add source here! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 10:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source is needed, but also a proper copyright license. It needs to be published more than 60 years ago in India to be accepted here. Can you prove that? Yann (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the person died in 1939 (see W:Har Dayal), his photo will be in public domain according to PD-India. I do not know the source from where the image was uploaded (I have pinged the uploader). Frankly speaking (it is better to say truth first than to create confusion later)– I was thinking to search in Google and add a page where I'll find that image as source. But, is source so much important for an image which is clearly in PD? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 11:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes so we can confirm authorship, date and will help us determine if the image is really PD. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any update? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 14:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clearly PD. PD-India is for works first published more than 60 years ago. If a photo was taken, and remained private (such as a family photo) and not published until after his death, then it could still be under copyright. Secondly, Commons uses the law of the country of origin and the U.S. The country of origin is the country of first publication; the pictured individual spent a large portion of his life outside of India, so the photo may not have been taken/published in India at all. That's the idea of source information, so that there is better certainty on these things. If it was in fact first published in another country, then different laws would come into play, and PD-India would not have any relevance (to Commons) at all. And if it was first published in 1923 or later outside the U.S., then the U.S. copyright status can be dependent on the copyright status in that country as of 1996, not what the status is now (for India, that would be photos published before 1941, due to the older 50-year term). I'm not entirely sure which photo this is about, but it may be the same or similar one to the one discussed in Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-12#File:LalaHarDayal1294.gif. If it's the same or similar one to this image, I'm having a hard time determining if that is a touched-up version of this photo, taken 1908 per its description. If so, then the artistic touch-up modifications probably have their own copyright, and there is no telling when that happened. 1908 was one of the years the person was apparently back in India, so perhaps that one was taken at the time. It would be best to know which publications the photos originally came from, though admittedly for someone unpopular with the authorities it may not have been published in mainstream sources and publication may be hard to prove. But failing any evidence at all, it's a "best guess" scenario. Usually, photos were not taken to remain unpublished, but it's more common with family photos and the like. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) Not a family photo. As you have said, the image was taken in 1908, The image was widely circulated and used during India's freedom movement, and if you go to Indian parliament or Red Fort, you'll find the same photograph there. A PD image. The image depicts his political activities (Swadesi poshak etc). The photograph does not fit with w:Copyright_law_of_India#Descriptions_of_work, neither an artistic work, nor cinematographic work etc etc.. An anonymous work/image taken 100 years ago– PD!
2) And I also think Indian copyright act is being misinterpreted here. For example, some literary works of Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore are still unpublished (or published recently). But, that does not mean, those unpublished/recently published works are copyrighted. I hope you know this. All works of Tagore whether published or unpublished or recently published are in public domain since Tagore died in 1941 (he can't write books after his death... 60 years etc etc). And that is accepted.
3) BTW, also in deletion log, you did not mention anything about PD, in deletion log, you just mentioned "Source not given". --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) If the photo was published in 1908, it should be fine. However, as mentioned, if this was enhanced in any way, the enhancement could have its own copyright. Some of the internet versions seem to have such treatment. Secondly, yes, the photograph is an artistic work per Indian copyright law -- it says right in the link you gave. Photographs are considered "artistic works" regardless if there is artistic quality or not.
2) Here are some of the terms of copyright per Indian copyright law:
24.-(1) In the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work or an engraving, in which copyright subsists at the date of the death of the author or, [...] but which, or any adaptation of which, has not been published before that date, copyright shall subsist until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following that year in which the work is first published or, where an adaptation of the work is published in any earlier year, from the beginning of the calendar year next following that year.
(2) For the purposes of this section a literary, dramatic or musical work or an adaptation of any such work shall be deemed to have been published, if it has been performed in public or if any sound recordings made in respect of the work have been sold to the public or have been offered for sale to the public.
Term of copyright in photographs
25. In the case of a photograph, copyright shall subsist until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the photograph is published.
So, per the letter of the law, unpublished Tagore works should still have copyright, if they have never been performed in public or had adaptations (e.g. translations) made. Most of his works would be PD, yes (India even extended from 50 to 60 years pma primarily to help his family). However, as there were compulsory licenses for translation for even unpublished works, it's possible that such Tagore works did become available in some form long ago. As you see though, photographs have a separate term, regardless of when the author died. It is based on publication, not date of creation. Some countries will limit the term if not published within X years, but Indian law does not appear to do so. On the other hand (I have to go look), it's possible that photos before 1957 were based on year of creation, and not year of publication, since that is what the old UK copyright acts did (which India's was based on). Yeah... see here. So, I guess British India photographs made before 1908 would be PD in India today as well regardless of publication, since they would have expired before the India Copyright Act 1957 went into effect in January 1958. Others though may have had their copyright term extended if they were still under copyright in 1958.
If any photo taken in India before 1957 could be PD, that would be great! Several of them were deleted on Commons before of a lack of publication proof. Could you confirm that? Yann (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Photos taken at least 60 years ago (i.e. 1962 now) for PD-India! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 20:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty certain any photo taken before *1908* is PD in India now, based on the old copyright law, since those would have expired (50 years from creation) before the Copyright Act 1957 came into force in early 1958, and that law was explicitly non-retroactive (i.e. it did not restore copyright to anything already expired). But it's likely that anything still under copyright at the time would then have had its terms changed to be based on publication, since the law does seem to say the new language applies to anything still under copyright. So, anything *published* more than 60 years ago (or created before 1908) would be PD in India today, certainly. The U.S. copyright is tougher; it would have to be published in India before 1941 I think, due to the URAA restorations, or created before 1908 and published (without copyright notice) before 1989. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3) I didn't delete it ;-) I'm not an admin. Images without a source by definition don't have any information about the original publication or creation, so they can be subject to deletion purely on those grounds. With more info available, then we can look into PD status. If we assume the image was taken in 1908 in India and distributed in that time frame, then it should be OK. I'm not sure I'd agree on any versions which look like they are enhanced, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Lindberg, hope you can understand the difficulty of the task you have given me here. Pick any 5 PD photos in commons of your choice and now tell me exactly when the photo was published (not the year when the photo was taken) and where (book, magazine etc) and give me RS in support! Pick any 5 PD photos and give a try. It'll be an almost impossible work, I know!
The image was taken in 1908 that is clear, where shall I get an RS that the image was published in same year? What is the ground of deleting this photo– it is being thought that this was a family photo and was not released before 1963? If you see the PD images of commons, publishing year and publishing media is not clearly stated in most of the PD images. If that is a valid point, I can go ahead and nominate a HUGE number (truly) of images for deletion since publication year is not mentioned there and it can be doubted those are family photos etc. This is just a way to harass editors and uploaders and the people who are saying this have not thought it from opposite point of view (i.e if they had to do this task...)

--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, understood. It's definitely not easy. The same problem exists with U.S. works actually, which used to have an infinite copyright if they remained unpublished (as did the UK, which is where India inherited its terms from, though the UK had a slight twist on photographs which more-or-less exempts them; photos created there before mid-1957 still had the 50-years-from-creation term, per here, before being extended to the regular 70pma by the EU directives). I don't see the same wording in the India law though. Like you say though, definitive proof of publication can sometimes be impossible. If we have good reason to believe it was published in that old time frame... I could support undeletion. He was well known enough, but not too popular with the authorities, so I could believe photos got distributed somehow but perhaps not in the mainstream publications. Having a date of creation helps, for sure. The more reliable source the better; less-than-certain stuff can lead to judgement calls here, that's all. My second issue though is that if someone takes a PD image and does some additional artistic work with it, then they can get a copyright on that additional work, and that copyright could still be in effect. I can't see the deleted image directly, but from the Google cache it seemed to me that may be the case here. I think I'd support keeping the photo dated 1908 I linked to above, but if this one looks like it has additional work added to it, less sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked a professor who has told "the image was widely used in freedom movement" he did not tell anything else.. (professor.. busy person). I know an editor of Wikipedia, a retired professor, scholar, researcher, author of multiple books, Rjensen, I have also requested him to give us some suggestion here when exactly the image was used, you can see the discussion here.
Do you know anyone who is an expert of this field (Indian copyright act)? I mean "scholars" or "researcher" who have detailed knowledge on this subject? I still feel Indian copyright act is being misinterpreted here!--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 16:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply from Rjensen Got a reply from Rjensen which you can find here --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it was known to be distributed at the time, then fine -- and since indications are that way, I'm fine with that. Some versions appear to be altered more recently though, and that may technically have a separate copyright. If the additions are too simple, then that wouldn't matter. That's a separate judgement call. But at this point, I think the original image is probably PD enough to keep it. The image linked in that other reply seems to be this photo though, which is completely different, and is a letter from 1934, so it's unrelated to this deletion request. While that letter was sent from France, meaning we may have to use France's law for that, I think that would be PD as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just posted your opinion in Professor Dr. Jensen's Wikipedia talk page! Pd-France – that is 70 years, but I am little bit reluctant here to upload a different image now before reaching a conclusion. So, let's finish it first. BTW, do you know any professional of this field? We have lots of confusion here! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the confusion is. There is an image under discussion for undeletion, so we need to know the country of origin (usually country of first publication) to know which country's law to apply, and then we have to figure out the copyright status based on that law. If there are things it is based on like "publication" and we don't know when or where it was published, or "author's death" and we don't know when the author died, then things get more troublesome, since have to start making assumptions. If we are talking about another photo, then we start that determination over again -- each photo has a separate copyright. Proof of publication of that 1934 photo doesn't mean anything when it comes to a separate photo. Commons only wants to host "free" files, which are either licensed freely or have their copyright expired, and we don't want to simply hope that a photo has expired -- we need a good reason to believe it is PD based on that country's law, not simply hope it's PD based on the overall odds. If the photo seems to have been taken in 1908 (when he was in fact in India) and there is some evidence of distribution *of that photo*, then I think I'd support keeping it. Most photos were made to be published. It seems reasonable in this case. If someone makes a derivative work using the photo, then the derivative work has its own copyright, and it goes through the process again. As for the terms in India:
25. In the case of a photograph, copyright shall subsist until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the photograph is published.
That seems fairly explicit.
3. For the purposes of this Act, "publication" means making a work available to the public by issue of copies or by communicating the work to the public.
So that defines what "published' means.
2(ff) "communication to the public" means making any work available for being seen or heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public directly or by any means of display or diffusion other than by issuing copies of such work regardless of whether any member of the public actually sees, hears or otherwise enjoys the work so made available.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause, communication through satellite or cable or any other means of simultaneous communication to more than one household or place of residence including residential rooms of any hotel or hostel shall be deemed to be communication to the public;
So that would define the "communication to the public" part of the definition of "publication". If the photo was known to be distributed around his activist crowd, that'd be fine. It would just be nice to actually find an older source where it was unambiguously published, as opposed to being an old photo recently discovered or something. For the other photo being linked above, not the one under undeletion, that was pretty obviously published by 1934 at the latest, though it sounds like he was mostly living in Europe at the time and the photo was postmarked from France, which I guess makes that the more likely country to use. If so, and the photographer is anonymous (seems like it), then I think that one is OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion 01: Practically what is accepted and practised in India– any work before 60 years (or depends on what type of content you are using) is under public domain– it is applicable for Tagore's unpublished works, Gandhi's photographs, Nehru's photographs etc! If you see Commons content of these three people– publication year and media has not been mentioned in most of them, so the question is– if a photograph is taken 70 years ago, but we do not have evidence/RS that the image was published at the same time, should we consider that image a PD image? (I am talking from general point of view, since it will include lots of other photos)!
Confusion 02: The second photo of 1934, the image was taken in India in Lala ji's house, but we have France as publishing country! So, which country's law will be applicable here?
Confusion 03: Is publication year of a PD image a mandatory information? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 16:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) Copyright can last a long time -- many countries it is 70 years after the photographer's death. In the U.S., for unpublished works with an unknown author, it is 120 years from creation before something is considered PD. Since we also operate under U.S. law, we often have to take that into account (though due to the URAA, the copyright status in India as of 1996 comes into play even there). If the law was clear that the term was years from creation, that would be different, but it's not -- that was an intentional change from the previous law, and it's not something that you can ignore. The 60 or 70 year rule of thumb you speak of makes pretty good practical sense in real-world situations -- it's not likely that a copyright holder will surface and sue, and many situations would be fair dealing/fair use anyways. However, Commons has a much deeper philosophical determination to make sure works here are "free", so we don't use that type of thing -- see Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. We also don't accept any works under a fair use rationale. I think the German Wikipedia has a 100-year rule of the type you speak of, which may have a little bit of grounding in their law, but we don't do that on Commons either, as they are images for all wikipedias and other projects. I'm not one for requiring 100% proof -- that's often impossible, particularly proving first publication -- but I do like to have a defensible reason why something would be PD under the terms of the laws as written. If there are any regulations or court rulings or similar which could show how things are perhaps treated differently -- in a legal context -- that can always help to bring those up. See Commons:Licensing#License information and Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain. Most photos were made to be published, so there is an inclination to think it was, but that didn't always happen, and with no information some may prefer to play it safe.
2) From reading the bio, the person pictured spent large chunks of his life outside India, so it's not reasonable to assume that every photo of him was first published in India. But, if you know that was taken in India, OK, then I'd say to use India's laws for that most likely. And that was definitely published.
3) Year of publication (which in India, means more general availability to the public, not the strict distribution of copies) is what the copyright term in India is based on, per the law. If we know that, we can definitively determine the copyright status. Without it, then things become a judgement call. If there is a halfway doubt, then admins often err on the side of caution, and remove images. The more circumstantial evidence which can be shown, the more it can help -- knowing when and where it was created, maybe showing publication in the 1970s (with indications that it had already been in circulation), that sort of thing. In this case, the fact that the authorities did not like him much can explain the lack of inclusion in books, etc. Year of publication is also very important to the U.S. copyright status -- anything published before 1923 is automatically PD in the U.S.; things only published after that start to get more complicated (though in India's case, photos published before 1941 likely means it's still OK -- but first published then or later is a problem). For example, Tagore's U.S. copyright, even though it has expired in India, is still in effect for anything first published 1923 or later (he gets a term of 95 years from publication; the term for 1922 and before was 75 years from publication). We could not host such works here regardless. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term "published" is ambiguous and creating confusion here, as it it practised, even if there is some unpublished (till date) work of Tagore, those are in public domain. I can give many more examples (see below)
availability to the public another confusing term! Well, if it is a poetry or essay we can easily find in which year it was published, but it is not same with images"
Examples
  • In Wikisource you'll get 9 volumes of complete works of Swami Vivekananda and there is 1957 copyright act in support. But in case, Volume 5-9 of those volumes were published in 1948-1970 after Sister Gargi's life long research work "Swami Vivekananda in the west, New Discoveries". So, from that point view, those works are copyrighted!
  • This image: File:Tagore Gandhi.jpg, publishing year is not mentioned and also if you try to see it in source, you'll find the source page is down too! So, image description page is not very helpful there! (now please don't nominate the image for deletion, it is a part 20+ articles including 4 Good articles, 2 featured articles)! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 17:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term "published" is in the law, with a fairly explicit definition. You can't just ignore it, even if it does create uncertainty. If someone does sue for copyright infringement, the defense can't be "I was confused". You have to explain why it's not copyright infringement due to PD status. For the first photo there, I think the clear assumption is that it was published in 1940 (looks like a photo-op kind of thing). That would make it OK, both in India and the U.S. I'm not really arguing against the 1908 photo, either -- I think that is OK. My only concern is if further artistic work was done to it; that is a separate copyright even if the underlying photo is PD. If what you say is true about the published parts of Vivekananda's work, that might well be an issue. English Wikipedia uses U.S. copyright law exclusively, which can depend on several factors (were they published with a copyright notice, and were they PD in India in 1996). The tag there claims all works were published before 1923 (which would make them fine), but once it goes later than that date, you have at least potential issues. There are *plenty* of U.S. court cases where the definition and timing of publication has mattered a *lot*. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can not see/remember artistic work of this image, if it was negotiable, it can be ignored! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 04:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There are a lot of information that is lacking that would help us if the file is free in the source country. I am closing this as a "no consensus" but it can be revisited later once such information is found. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Esperanto kaj la Katolika Eklezio (pt) 001.pdf[edit]

The file was deleted without wider discussion, just as a result of an one-person opinion. It is an useful lecture, prepared for instant use due to the reproducibility of PDF, which wouldn't be possible with a plain text format ex. in Wikibooks. If such a material is out of scope, please note that there are hundreds of similar ones on Commons. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. We don't store stuff like this in PDF; plain text is perfectly reproducible and editable, and we can export Wikibooks in PDF; limitations in that should be fixed in the export, not by uploading arbitrary PDFs to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you cannot simply export the text to PDF and use it for a lecture – you have to spend many hours by typesetting, creating the graphical and typographical environment, connecting it with pictures in a proper way… --Petrus Adamus (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I would suggest to reupload this to a local project, but the original deletion was correct. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:James-franck-fig-1.jpg[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:James-franck-fig-1.jpg was closed and file deleted by User:AFBorchert moments after he had voted positive for the original author of the DR at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Pieter Kuiper. It's not clear from the discussion on the DR that his closing decision is the correct one, and because he made the votes moments before closing, the DR should be reopened and closed by an totally uninvolved administrator (if anyone still exists...). →AzaToth 17:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear to me that this decision to delete was perfectly reasonable. I realise my opinion will be ignored too - extremely sad that people do not feel Commons admins can be trusted with making decisions on legality while having views on other issues. En wp attitudes seem to be prevailing... --Herby talk thyme 17:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy for this to remain deleted based on the closing admin's view even though I !voted to keep. An awful large number of people have been affected by the PK discussions and history, it would be slightly over-egging probity to exclude all those folks from everything he has ever touched. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Expressing an opinion does not impeach an admin to close a DR. However, in this case, I don't really understand the basic for deletion. Yann (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have deliberately stayed out of this PK-round, although, as Fæ suggests few of us are completely neutral -- I have been on PK's Wall of Shame in the past, so I am not completely untouched.
I think this has some resemblance to heraldry -- the blazon (the underlying equations) does not have a copyright, but the individual representation does. Hand drawing of graphs is somewhat harder than many of the  Keep commenters think -- it involves a choice of scale in both directions as well as choosing an appropriate number of points to plot and actually doing the work. Since these illustrated a literary (in the copyright sense) work, they are inextricably part of that work and still under copyright with the rest of it.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to lookup som reading explaining UK copyright law, and I found that http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/4 actually includes "diagram" as copyrightable. While I've not manage to find any provisions in the previous text, http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law declares "To qualify, a work should be regarded as original, and exhibit a degree of labour, skill or judgement"; Thus I can agree with keeping this image deleted, as the UK copyright law is such a mess, it's even possible that drawing a square could be copyrightable... →AzaToth 18:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Withdrawn. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:"Love the Future".png [edit]

I am requesting this file be undeleted as I, Andrew Lowe (ARTORICAL) am the sole creator of this image. I have made it available for free download use without restriction. It is open to the public and I fully release its rights for fair use.

Please allow me to submit to the "Free Ai Weiwei street art campaign" page.

Thank you.

Andrew

If you made the original image -- the poster -- then it is out-of-scope because it is personal artwork. If you did not make the original image, then your photograph or scan infringes on the copyright of the original image. Either way, we cannot keep it on Commons.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Jim said. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Bannertrescoracoesbrunofreitas.jpg [edit]

o banner é totalmente de minha autoria, não sei qual a violação

The banner uses the photo that we can see in http://www.tvn-2.com/noticias/noticias_detalle.asp?id=67178 and many other websites which is (C) AP Photo/William Fernando Martinez. So NOT "totalmente de minha autoria", you say the untruth. --Martin H. (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done AP photo. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wikipedia for Schools.pdf[edit]

Please restore this File. We have resolved the small petty issues that led to myself nominating it for deletion. i would like to use it for my Wikimania Presso on Offline Wikipdiea./ Limoke oscar (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could Jameslwoodward or any Admin resolve this issue? Its pretty Urgent for my presentation at Wikimania. Limoke oscar (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Vladimír-Kokolia bw.jpg[edit]

File is my own photograph NoJin (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC), 4-7-2012[reply]

The photographer owns all rights to the image unless transferred by contract or other legal means. MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:David Saudek, Z cyklu Hrdinové, Amy,kombinovaná technika, plátno, 80 x 120, 2011.jpg[edit]

There is permission in OTRS (in info-cs) for this file. Thanks. --Harold (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Die HolidayChecker.jpg - Request 20120709141931[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: permission given from copyright holder (was mailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) as of July 9, 2012 Joggingjack (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Campaña Escraches.jpg - Request 20120711040331[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason:
(Es) Este archivo ha sido tomado como un vandalismo, cuando en realidad, se trata de una protesta social típica de Argentina (pueden ver el artículo al respecto en Escrache), y de una campaña nacional donde se dieron a conocer estos datos de manera pública por un organismo de Derechos Humanos.
Además, se han tomado todas las precauciones del caso, en la imagen que se ha subido no se permite, debido a la resolución de la misma, que se lean las direcciones que se encuentran en el afiche.
(En) This file has been taken as a vandalism, when in fact it is a typical social protest in Argentina (you can see the article about it in Escrache), and a national campaign where these data were released publicly by a human rights organization.
In addition, have been taken all necessary precautions in the image that was uploaded is not allowed, due to the resolution of it, which read the addresses listed on the poster.
GMoyano (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC) GMoyano (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out where this information was published by the President of Argentina online (or at least data about this magazine scan)? If so, then we could restore it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

doppelposting

(Es)El un libro es "76,11 Afiches. Momentos Que hicieron historia". Es un libro hecho de la instalación artística del mismo nombre. Se puede ver la página aquí.
El libro tiene el ISBN 978-987-26311-7-8.
El libro dice claramente:

Impreso en la Argentina. Publicación de distribución gratuita. No está en venta. Se permite la reproducción total o parcial de este libro con expresa mención de la fuente y autores

Espero que estos datos sean suficientes.
De cualquier manera, existen otros archivos tomados de este mismo libro que están siendo solicitados para el borrado, puedes seguir la discusión aquí.
(En) The book is "76.11 afiches. momentos que hicieron historia". It's a book made from the artistical instalation of the same name. You can see the page here.
The book has the ISBN 978-987-26311-7-8.
The book clearly says:

Printed in Argentina. Free distribution publication. Not for sale. Reproduction in whole or part of this book specifically mentioning the source and authors

I hope that these data are sufficient.
However, there are other files taken from this book that are being requested for deletion, you can follow the discussion here.
GMoyano (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in the deletion log, I did not delete this particular image for copyright concerns, but because of its content. It is a banner detailing the houses where certain people live, inviting people to go to and harass them. A clear attack to that people's privacy. It is a shame that the presidency endorses this crime, but Commons should not. We are talking about Stalking here (not "WP:STALK", but real-world stalking of real people). Cambalachero (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly recommend you read the contributions of others, mine in particular. It becomes very difficult to make an argument if you read the messages.
I repeat.

In addition, have been taken all necessary precautions in the image that was uploaded is not allowed, due to the resolution of it, which read the addresses listed on the poster.

GMoyano (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant lies. You never said that. You image description simply said "Afiche de la campaña por un escrache realizado por la agrupación HIJOS". You did not mention any modification to the image to blur or turn the adresses unreadable... and you certainly did not do anything of that. The image is of high resolution, and seen at full size the adresses can be read clearly. Any admin can check the deleted image and confirm it. Cambalachero (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Es)
Obviamente, acabás de reafirmar lo que vengo diciendo una y otra vez, vos no lees las razones que expongo si no que volvés a repetir lo mismo una y otra vez.
Como podés ver aca, dije desde un principio que las direcciones son ilegibles.
Además, lamento informarte que las direcciones son ilegibles ya en el original, por lo que en la imagen escaneada que subí yo es imposible que se lean.
Como bien dijiste, cualquier administrador puede verlo. Ahora, luego de haber insultado como lo has hecho, te solicito que dejes que otro administrador tome la decisión sobre el caso. Gracias.
(En)
Obviously,'ve just reaffirm what I have been saying over and over again, you do not read the reasons discussed but will you come back to repeat the same thing over and over again.
As you can see here, I said from the beginning that the addresses are illegible.
Furthermore, I regret to inform you that the addresses are illegible and in the original, so that the scanned image that got me is impossible to read.
As you well said it, any administrator can see it. Now, after having insulted as you did, I request you to let another administrator makes the decision on the case. Thank you.
GMoyano (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that someone else will close this, that's the idea of this section. But as you defend your case with outright lies, I have to point them. You say that you reduced the resolution to make the adresses illegible, but the size is 5232 x 4270 (if that's "reduced", I tremble before the original size!). And of course, it is all perfectly legible at the bottom of the image. By the way, have in mind that Commons is under the law of the United States, not Argentina, and there stalking is a crime that is not taken lightly. Cambalachero (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I agree, we cannot restore the image as is. Regardless of jurisdiction, stalking is a crime and this will do nothing but increase a witch hunt. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Maimonides-2.jpg[edit]

File was "deleted by Fastily because: No source since 1 July 2012." I believe that the image in question was a retouched exact copy of File:Brockhaus and Efron Jewish Encyclopedia e10 513-0.jpg, a PD file. Does the creator of the newer image have any copyright for the new near-identical image? Chesdovi (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to bring such a request directly to me on my talk page -FASTILY (TALK) 18:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:SFLtI.jpg[edit]

This file was deleted for lack of or improper licensing. However, there were ongoing discussions about this image at Commons:Help desk#Copyright help regarding File:SFLtI.jpg and Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Definition of Publication. Based on a recent explanation at the latter by Carl Lindberg, it now seems that this might qualify as PD-1923 (in this case, a 1919 publication in the US). It should probably be kept, but at the very least there should be an actual deletion discussion rather than speedy deletion. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done I agree that a proper DR is needed: Commons:Deletion requests/File:SFLtI.jpg. Yann (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:16.02.2011. Ēnu diena Kriminālistikas pārvaldē.jpg[edit]

Permission confirmed per ticket:2012062510004764 -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 14:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done MorganKevinJ(talk) 12:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:La Geneytouse[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done MorganKevinJ(talk) 12:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Angie_Vu_Ha_-_Attica_2012.jpg[edit]

I am the webmaster for Angie Vu Ha. Although this picture appears on various websites, it is still Angie's picture, and it is Angie's copyright. I can provide any type of proof you need to authenticate ownership, and my right to use it for Angie Vu Ha. File:Angie_Vu_Ha_-_Attica_2012.jpg Sincerely, Phil Giampi--Pgiampi (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please send a permission. See COM:OTRS for details. Thanks, Yann (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored and re-deleted as duplicate of File:Angie Vu Ha Dj Singapore Grand Prix 2011.jpg MorganKevinJ(talk) 02:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Category:Bretagne-d'Armagnac[edit]

This category is no longer empty. Croquant (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been restored by User:Zscout370 -FASTILY (TALK) 17:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by me. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:GPS 2009.jpg [edit]

--Grandpruneaushow (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Grand Pruneau Show[reply]

I know that following instructions is really uncool, but you missed step 4: State the reasons for the request. That part is kind of important. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Once you come up with a reason, you can come back. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 15:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carter's_Chord.jpg[edit]

I have no idea why this image was deleted as no permission. Last I checked, it had a Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution, which matched the flickr page. I took the picture myself and should know where it came from and what attribution it had — how did it ever get a "no permission"? TenPoundHammer (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not the same image as on Flickr. This one is source to Facebook, and has no license tag. I restored it, but it should be deleted again unless a proper license and permission are provided. Yann (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) First, you didn't upload this, a user with one edit did. Second, it's sourced to facebook, here, which was apparently posted by the band (publicity shot then) with no license specified. It should have been deleted, and should be re-deleted ASAP. Your photo is at File:Carters chord.jpg (note the capitalization difference) and seems fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of restoring your image to the w:Carter's Chord page, which had been replaced by the copyvio uploaded but not reverted once that got deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image sourced to Facebook has been deleted. Tabercil (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Non-admin closure -- looks to be a case of mistaken identity ;-) Requester's actual photo is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Communes of Dordogne[edit]

These categories are no longer empty (open list, created as I add categories to maps of communes of Dordogne). Croquant (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Category:Bars (Dordogne)
  2. Category:Beauregard-de-Terrasson
  3. Category:Bézenac
  4. Category:Celles (Dordogne)
  5. Category:Cendrieux
  6. Category:Champniers-et-Reilhac
  7. Category:La Chapelle-Saint-Jean
  8. Category:Chourgnac
  9. Category:Coutures (Dordogne)
  10. Category:La Dornac
  11. Category:Groléjac
  12. Category:Jaure
  13. Category:Manaurie
  14. Category:Manzac-sur-Vern
  15. Category:Milhac-d'Auberoche
  16. Category:Paulin (Dordogne)

End of list.

Already done MorganKevinJ(talk) 14:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ciara_BMA_2004.jpg - Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:58:59 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It is part of the Creative Commons License 3.0. MPQzy (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol? You found the file on the MSN website... how will this make the file published under a Creative Commons license? Its simply unfree. Not ok to copy, not ok to upload here, not published under any free license. Read Commons:Licensing and Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. --Martin H. (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Martin H. MorganKevinJ(talk) 22:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gordon Michael Woolvett 1.jpg , File:Don Mancini.jpg [edit]

is that when I saw the pages blocked where I had uploaded the pictures I saw the record and a bot called CommonsDelinker said image deleted by Martin H. but never received a message saying he had marked that I was not the owner. ask for your restoration.

Thank you for your understanding. PD. The image of Don Mancini is on wikipedia in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul Ivan Game (talk • contribs) 21:58, 16 July 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

The first is stolen from the web, the second is a copy of File:Mancini, Don (2007).jpg uploaded with the false claim that "Raul Ivan Game" is the photographer... so well, stop making such bad uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: 1) No need for restoring copyright violations. 2) No need for a duplicate with wrong author claims. -- Rillke(q?) 09:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:John Cena 2011.jpg[edit]

Por Favor, restauren la imagen esa es la mejor hasta el momento, no se porque siempre que subo una imagen siempre las marcan que traen contra mi por que todas las imagenes que he subido las han borrado y muchas ni siquiera recib mensaje de que la habian borrado, pido justicia y restaurar la imagen que les pido.

Gracias por su comprensión. Raul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul Ivan Game (talk • contribs) 02:34, 17 July 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please stop uploading unfree files with wrong information on source and author. --Martin H. (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Given the file was published before, you must follow COM:OTRS/es or prove that the photo can be used under a free license. -- Rillke(q?) 09:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please restore this file: File:50289942 CHC tower at night.jpg I have got permission to use this photo from the copyright holder and from Alfred Neumann of wiki commons.CHCBOY (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the format given here. Permission must be sent from an email address linked to where your content was originally published. The file will be restored as soon as permission is confirmed. If you would like to inquire about the status of your email in the OTRS system, please ask on the OTRS noticeboard as only OTRS members can view the email. MorganKevinJ(talk) 22:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The file was restored after receiving some OTRS contact (but it appears that it is not yet complete). --99of9 (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Gadon cover.jpg - Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:49:20 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The album cover was released under CC-BY-SA license, as noted in this OTRS ticket: https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=6613580&ArticleID=7735563&ZoomExpand=0#7735563 -Antonorsi (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted: Please add the ticket to the file. -- Rillke(q?) 09:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Julia Levy Magazine Article2.jpg [edit]

As instructed by the editor who deleted this file, I have sent an email to permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org affirming that I am the author and owner of the image file that was deleted by Eugene Zelenko. I retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. 37celsius (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pozor, úchyl.jpg[edit]

The second deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pozor, úchyl.jpg were closed by User:mattbuck with utterly mistaken arguments. He wrote as the crucial argument: „The idea that only a "work of literature" is copyrightable would mean anyone could just copy scientific papers from Czech journals, since they're clearly not literary works.“ This conclusion is utterly mistaken. There are two types of written works which are copyrightable by the Czech Copyright Act (as well as by Bern Connvention): literary (artistic) works, and scientific works. The written work must be either literary or scientific to by copyrightable. (Or it can be some special work as a database, a computer programm etc.) Non-artistic (non-literary) and non-scientific practical texts (warnings, instructions etc.) are not copyrightable. I agree that it can be difficult to define and judge which written work is literary and which isn't but the mattbuck's conclusion indicates that he had hardly read the simple sententions of the Act, and barely arguments from the discussion. --ŠJů (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was covered in the DR; ŠJů's interpretations of the copyright law are not agreed upon by other Commons editors. During the DR, he did not provide any examples of court cases about this; given that O'Reilly publishes its non-literary, non-scientific works around the world, I believe the countries that interpret the Berne Convention this way are at best few.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I can see, more other Commons editors together with me do agree with the text of the law and with the basal interpretation that "literary work" means really "literary work", not "every written work" or "every text".
During the DR, you did not provide any example of court case which would support the surmise that every text (even any non-artistic and non-scientific) is a literary work in sense of the Continental copyright law. During the DR, I provided several examples of citations indicating what is commonly denoted with the term "literary work". --ŠJů (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The James Joyce estate has successfully controlled the use of quotes from his letters for years[7].--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in the DR, and supported keeping primarily based on FOP, which was not addressed in the deletion reason. The discussion did veer quite a bit into a copyright threshold argument, which need not be the only avenue to keeping it. While by my own experience I thought it was copyrightable, there was a Slovak court case brought up which did deny copyright protection to an entire written news article, so there is some legitimate room for discussion. Although, conforming to the EU directives may put that interpretation in serious doubt in the future, and is not something I'd like to rely on, unless that case gets affirmed higher up in their court system. But there is an additional FOP aspect to this as well; COM:FOP#Czech Republic is fairly permissive of derivative works (not limited to 3-D works, etc.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I restored this image before in March and it seems it was taken straight to DR after I restored it. There must be an underlying issue with the image, as I am seeing here and the DR. I cannot foresee being able to use this image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Евровизия лого.png[edit]

Please undelete per Commons_talk:File_renaming#Renaming_from_cyrillic_script.3F --  Docu  at 18:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like an obvious case of PD-text-logo, but haven't we had discussions about various Eurovision logos in the past? Which way did they go?      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably depends on the country of origin. They would not pass the U.S. threshold, nor would they pass Germany's and I thought the initial one was from Germany (or at least had a German flag in it). Obviously, it probably would be copyrightable in the UK. Country of origin is the tougher question there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the en.wikipedia article, this logo was introduced in the 2004 contest in Turkey, but did not state who designed it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Once the country of origin for this logo has been discovered, we can bring up this issue again. Until we know for sure, the image would need to stay deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Герб_МГТУ_им._Баумана.svg [edit]

Here's license:

{{PD-RU-exempt}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olegnaumov (talk • contribs)

It is a university emblem, it doesn't fit under "state symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes, and the like), as well as symbols and signs of municipal formations;" User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Fails {{PD-RU-exempt}} User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Florent-peyre-1.jpg - Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:28:43 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: photo was deleted i don't know why Rogoza (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first is taken from [8], the second is taken from [9]. Not published under a free content license. --Martin H. (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Iker Casillas2012.jpg - Fri, 20 Jul 2012 06:15:12 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Iker Casillas Siluanov (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Image appears to be owned by Adidas (per this); we need OTRS permission from them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A copyvio, just like the other 8 images of this user. --Denniss (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Patrik Bodén.jpg - Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:32:13 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: becouse something is wrong Koffeswe95 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something is wrong indeed, these were images taken from the Internet or elsewhere and therefore deleted as copyvios. --Denniss (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright issues. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Patrice LARUE (Painter).jpg[edit]

OTRS has received permission to use the image as CC-by-sa 3.0. See ticket 2012071910006709. Asav (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted: Request by Asav (OTRS). Please add the ticket and ensure that all information are correct. Thank you. -- Rillke(q?) 13:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Localgrpgalax.gif[edit]

It should be undeleted as it is appropriately licensed. See http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/copyright.html Ruslik (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Sven Manguard Wha? 17:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Ssc2006-05b.jpg[edit]

That the link is dead does not mean that the file is not a NASA image. It is not so difficult to find a replacement. http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/images/1571-ssc2006-05b-Supersized-Disk Ruslik (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Sven Manguard Wha? 17:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Blace-grb.png[edit]

I noticed that this file (the coat of arms of Blace, a town of Serbia) was deleted because it had not any license. However its license is described by this wikitext: {{PD-SerbiaGov}}, so I think the image can be undeleted. --Eagle204 (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This drawing was done by not an government official but a civilian; under COM:COA, those versions would be under copyright. If you got a drawing from the Blace Government website, then you can use that license. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:I.P.Gupta.gif[edit]

I myself had uploaded this file. The photo of I.P.Gupta was taken in a function by me from my Nokia mobile and edited on the mobile itself using multimedia software. It was uploaded by me on wikicommons. It is exclussively my own work no other person is involved in creating or uploading the captioned file. Administrators are requested to please restore this file on wikicommons. Thanks, Krantmlverma (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Judging by your upload history, nothing was correct and I personally do not believe you. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Chevy Super Sport side2.jpg [edit]

I have already given approval for the use of this image as it represents an original design created by myself for a prospective General Motors project and is approved for my type of use.

Peter Archer stingraysstudios.com peter@stingraysstudios.com July 16 2012

Hello,
Please send a written permission as requested on your talk page. See COM:OTRS for details. This image comes from [10], not from stingraysstudios.com. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that version is actually signed by Peter Archer -- you can see the distinctive mark near the rear tire, and also near the rearview mirror on the driver's window, and the same mark on lots of images at http://www.stingraysstudios.com/Concept_Cars.html . So, that version pretty clearly came from him. On the other hand, it appears to simply be a retouched version (adding the Chevy logo in a few places, and a couple of other tweaks) of a photo of a 2008 Holden Coupe 60 concept car, which can be seen here and here and other places, so it's a derivative work of that. I have no idea who took the original photo. Ah OK, found a version on a forum here which has EXIF info; taken March 18, 2008, apparently at a 2008 Melbourne, Australia car show. It is marked © 2008 General Motors. So unless GM assigned copyright to Archer, we may need their corporate permission as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done And it is now at a DR. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Uwan-uwanan Waterfalls.jpg - Thu, 19 Jul 2012 01:18:32 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: to post a photo for an article about Libagon, Southern Leyte Libagonon (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm sorry, but I cannot do that. The source is "Facebook", the stated author's name is no close to yours, and the file was deleted because no license tag was ever given. In short, I don't believe that the file is freely licensed, and unless you can point me to a link demonstrating otherwise, Commons cannot host this file. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I agree. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Vsnguyen.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: wrong name Onekrazyrican (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were deleted as copyright violations. Changing the name does not effect that we cannot host them here. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Voa-photo-Daniel-Oates.jpg[edit]

The image, as I pointed out, was from the Voice of America. The VOA is US Gov't owned, and in general does NOT have copyright issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-ny-2007 (talk • contribs)

The VOA licenses the vast majority of their images from the Associated Press or other media outlets, and such images are not public domain and definitely do have copyright issues. You need to be very careful when taking images from the site, as the {{PD-USGov-VOA}} tag makes clear. Is there an indication the photo was actually taken by a VOA employee? Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The photo (you only provided a deeplink) is watermarked with AP as all other photos at the source. Not free, see Template:PD-USGov-VOA as Carl said. Its not "Voa-photo" but AP photo (ID 295644271593) by Ed Andrieski. --Martin H. (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone who views this is an admin on english wikipedia as well, the editor uploaded it locally here. It would be great if someone can delete that. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done And took care of the en.wp upload. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:David De Gea.2.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The only photo of David de gea in Manchester United Moskea (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as an image still under copyright and not freely licensed. It doesn't matter if it's the only photo or not; it must be licensed to be here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regretably User:Coombeschico91 - the uploader - isnt the copyright holder but has stolen the photo from the internet ([11]). We cant have it. --Martin H. (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kreator band.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: don't licence Sohraboglu (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but could you clarify what you mean by that? For the record, this file was deleted as a copyright violation. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Fastily said. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:John Gore.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Used in an article Troywolf (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that in itself is not a valid reason to restore a file. The file was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Gore.jpg. Perhaps you might like to comment on why the decision to close the debate as delete was invalid? -FASTILY (TALK) 01:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The initial upload was permitting the image to be used for non-commercial purposes. We do not allow that on the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:PanoramicaTruxillo3.jpg[edit]

The author "MIKE_USA2004" of the original file has given the licence CC-BY-2.0 in his publication in the url http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=88002087&highlight=#post88002087 to use his work for the file PanoramicaTruxillo3.jpg and so I don't understand why the file has been deleted. Please I request undelete since it is clearly seen that there isn't any Copyright violation because the author himself is giving permission to use his work for any purpose so there's no reason to delete the file. Thank you.--Spanchrash (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support the deletion reason even pointed to the exact post where CC-BY-2.0 is noted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Полтергейст.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Привидение NickZim (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost? Could you clarify on what you mean by that? -FASTILY (TALK) 00:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Give us a better reason and then we'll talk. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:K-6StudentPassMetrocard.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I don't believe this work is copyrightable. I nominated it for deletion on behalf of User:Train2104, who tagged it for fair use deletion. Neither that user, nor I, nor the closing administrator ever offered any argument for why the work is copyrightable, even after I had specifically noted the issue. The deletion request was closed prematurely with no comments. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose since you've advertised it here, perhaps it'll garner some comments. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done since it was already restored. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Mapou et Younes dédicace.jpg [edit]

Hello,

I don't understand why my private photo have been deleted ?

File:Mapou et Younes dédicace.jpg
File:Jamel Saihi.jpg
File:Maillot MHSC 2011-2012.jpg
File:Mapou Yanga-Mbiwa.jpg
File:RenéGirardfoot.jpg
File:Tifo lors de MHSC-LOSC.jpg

Have a good day.

CONCACAF-Footballeur (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done All copied from Facebook and other sources; nice try. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Malayalam-movie-mallu-singh-stills00-32.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: want to reupload Riya tomy (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:M.G.R and S.S.R in a DMK party stage.jpg[edit]

This image is from my own collection, no copy right required--Rapason vanan (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC) RaPa[reply]

Simply owning a copy of a photo graph does not give you the rights to license an image only the photographer can grant permission. MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per no response MorganKevinJ(talk) 05:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Fred Friedrich[edit]

Desearía se restaurar la página de Fred Friedrich ya que fue incorrectamente borrada

Gracias

Nely Meyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nely meyer (talk • contribs) 15:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is not a place for articles. Please read the Commons:Project scope. --Martin H. (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:IDJA.jpg [edit]

The Image was diclosed by the intended person to publicly acknowledge his brand and does not in anyway violate copyright acts. However,the use of the catch-phrase "It's Don Jazzy Again" for commercial purpose(s) would be a violation ,as its known to be His,but the image doesn't, since it was used to send a message to the public of his "catch-phrase" and its exclusivity

This is a promotional image and is likely to be covered under copyright. Even if it isn't, promotional materials are not within the scope of Commons anyways. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:16 Year old wearing jocks.JPG[edit]

User:Blurpeace deleted this picture with the comment: This really shouldn't be appropriate by anyone's standard; deleting as unused and potentially very harmful. The pic, uploaded by -HappyHardcore- (talk · contribs), represents the midsection of a young man (16 years old, according to the file name) wearing briefs. Though the model is presented as being underage, I don't see how the picture is so inappropriate that it should be speedily deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments for speedy deletion are lain out at the discussion between Jastrow and I on my talk page. Blurpeace 13:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The correct action was taken. While not nudity in the sense of having genitals exposed, an image like this could still be seen as child exploitation (even though it was a self-taken shot). It is a risk to host this image, of which it can be replaced by someone who is able to provide consent due to being 18 or older. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ricardo Arjona.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: While uploading a file that appears to have the correct rights in flickr, uploading fails, stating a duplicate file problem. Apparently the duplicate file was deleted at some point. However, there seems to be no valid reason to refuse this file upload. Please investigate. File source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/latati/3785573032/ Licence: Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) - Thanks -- Arjuno (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the file logs and noticed there are some doubts with regard to the credibility of this author's rights. I therefore cancel my restore request. Also, since I uploaded a flickr from that same presumed author, that file should be deleted too: File:Ricardo Arjona en concierto Miami 2009-2.jpg. Thanks! -- Arjuno (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Withdrawn and other image was deleted by another person. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Potrilla.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: He is Erraser Felix900 (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It is a modification of a My Little Pony screenshot. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Theatre of the Vampires.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Image on en-wiki - same name, same uploader, - has OTRS ticket. Please undelete and add OTRS en:File:Theatre of the Vampires.jpg.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 22:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Spain traffic signal r206.svg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Update of licence Ninrouter (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Sorry about that -FASTILY (TALK) 00:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Yaoming.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Quiero Subir ManuPiixel (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but could you clarify what you mean by Quiero Subir? As far as I can tell, that is not a valid reason to request restoration of a file. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Come back with a better reason, then we'll talk. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MarchaAntiEPN.jpg [edit]

Español: Buen día La fotografía MarchaAntiEPN no la tome yo, sin embargo fue otorgado el derecho bajo creative commons por Fernando Romo (el pop) «@el_pop: @petrohs son creative commons, solo menciona la fuente y úsalas a tu conveniencia» conversacion

Gracias

English: Hi

The photograph MarchaAntiEPN not take me, but was granted the right under creative commons by Fernando Romo (pop) «@el_pop: @ petrohs are creative commons, just mention the source and use them at your convenience» conversation thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetrohsW (talk • contribs) 21:12, June 10, 2012‎ (UTC)

Have him email http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS with that statement. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The author, Fernando Romo, has sent an email to OTRS indicating the license PetrohsW (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ticket number is 2012061110013511. The permission mentioned the Creative Commons Share-Alike License but there are multiple versions of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. There is no Creative Commons Share-Alike License but there is the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Permsion needs to include the entire name of the liscense intended to be used. The most commonly used is version 3.0. MorganKevinJ(talk) 01:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done OTRS is stale, I am going to keep an eye on the ticket for any new details. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:35, 25 July 2012 (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:Tupolev Tu-107.jpg[edit]

The file was deleted by Russavia as still copyrighted under the claim that "photos are not documents", but that's simply not true. "Documents" is an incredibly broad and inclusive term, and can mean anything contained within, as opposed to "texts", which is far more restrictive. The photo is obviously part of a state document of the former USSR, and it's exempt from copyright per the law. Fry1989 eh? 15:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reference for the sentence "The photo is obviously part of a state document of the former USSR". --Martin H. (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's simple common sense. Per the DR, the Tu-107 was a prototype with only 1 built in 1958. At that time, Tupolev was called the "Tupolev Design Bureau", it was a "closed institution" that was State-owned by the USSR. Tupolev is now part of United Aircraft Corporation which is also majority-owned by the Russian Federation, so Tuploav's state ownership has not changed, and that makes any of their documents part of USSR (and now Russian) State Records. Furthurmore, the Tu-107's classified status at the time means that only high-ranking USSR officials would have seen any briefs about the plane, and anything in those briefs from preformance stats to photographs form part of a document. We have plenty of licenses that specifically say "texts", but this is not the case, the license says "documents" and that means anything contained within. Fry1989 eh? 16:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mix up document/content created by state owned institutions with official documents. Thats not the same. Provide a reference that the image was used in a document as you said above, a document of legislative, administrative or judicial character that is exempted from copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above photo was a plane that was a part of a test, according to http://aircraft.at.ua/blog/1-0-16, but it was never actually made. The authorship of the photo is also unknown, according to this site. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zscout370, authorship is irrelevant, do you honestly think anyone other than a USSR official or someone who worked for Tupolev in 1958 would have been allowed to take photographs of the plane? And actually according to sources a single prototype was built and did fly, the aircraft was just not put in production. Martin H, I've confused nothing, the license does not say the documents have to be of a "legislative, administrative or judicial charatcer", it says "official documents of state government agencies", and "other materials of legislative, administrative and judicial character" further down, which excludes rather than implying the necessity that they be of one of those three principals. Fry1989 eh? 17:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe authorship is relevant because if it is a government photo, we need to know for sure. As for your view on government documents, this is what PD-RU-exempt reads: "official documents of state government agencies and local government agencies of municipal formations, including laws, other legal texts, judicial decisions, other materials of legislative, administrative and judicial character, official documents of international organizations, as well as their official translations;" this does not include photos. If it did, we would still have a lot of the official photos done during the Soviet era. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true, it's a very obvious distinction between "texts" and "documents", one is a strict and narrow interpretation of what can be included and can not, the other is FAR more broad, and there's plenty of files here under similar licenses. A document includes anything within it, not just the text. Fry1989 eh? 23:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While it's possible that "official documents" could include photos, the exemption does not mean that simply every government work falls under that category. It is not analogous to PD-USGov, and is not the same thing as a bare "documents" -- "official documents" is different, and a much narrower set of works. We need to show it was part of such an "official document", not simply that it was taken by a government agency. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There is no indication it was a Soviet-government work or anything to indicate authorship. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Mundaneum pictures[edit]

Deleted based on blatant misinformation. The building was even built before the supposed architect was born. Wikipedia and commons don't work on people inventing their own false stories, which is a very questionable practice. Who deleted this file even didn't read the discussion: the building was NOT built by the supposed architect ! --LimoWreck (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too tried to find the life dates of the original architect but I cannot seem to find it. Until we know for sure when he passed, I do not feel comfortable restoring this and the other image related to this request. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, for the building, the significant date is the death date of the original architect, that I couldn't find yet. --Foroa (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per here the original architect was a "G Vleugels" but I have also not been able to figure out the full name nor life dates. The building was originally from 1929 or 1930. I agree that only photos focusing on the portions new to the renovation would be an issue for the modern architect; you'd think that would be mostly on the inside though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The picture weren't deleted based on blatant misinformation. The discussion contains your objection, and VIGNERON took it in account in his decision.
From the discussion above it becomes clear:
  • a first architect, with unknown dead date, built the building ;
  • a second architect, dead in 2004, restored the building.
I think this is correct information to take a decision.
I also think the undelete requester isn't absolutely transparent and honest: he hid the fact he already gave this information in the DR, then he let us think the administrator didn't read that (but the closing rationale - "double copyvio" = the old and the new architect - shows the administrator read the information).
LimoWreck, please in the future be more transparent on your previous involvement in a case and more honest in the way you present the close procedure.
Do you think the 2004 restoration didn't give copyright to the new architect and we should made further inquiries for the original architect dead date? --Dereckson (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Until the life dates of the original architect are found, we cannot continue to discuss this at all. Plus, with the second person dying in 2004, we still have to contend with that copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Holdi 2.jpg[edit]

Hallo, die Datei besteht aus einem Bild im Sand, das der Künstler Wilhelm Holderied am 18. Januar 1986 im Sand von Puerto Escondido am Pazifik geschaffen hat als Modell für ein Erdzeichen, das am Flughafen München geplant war. Er hat es selbst fotografiert und veröffentlicht in seinem Buch: “Eine Insel für die Zeit, ein Erdzeichen entsteht" auf der Seite 81. In diesem Zusammenhang ist es wichtig für das riesige Erdzeichen, das inzwischen am Flughafen München geschaffen wurde. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Hans Karnehm (Gestalter für Wikipedia).--Karnehm (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, it is related to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdzeichen_(Flughafen_München) (wanted to remove the link from above). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Stale request User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tyologo.png[edit]

File:Tyologo.png sollte wiederhergestellt werden, da die Organisation die Verwendung des Logos zugelassen hat. Eine Bestätigungsemail wurde vor langer Zeit Wikimedia gesendet. --Mugilan (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have any indication allowing our OTRS volunteers to find again the permission? --Dereckson (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Nothing on OTRS User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Kalies Grit 20081109 berlin frauen-bundesliga.jpg[edit]

Aktiver Teilname an einem öffentlicher Veranstaltung reicht um unter die Ausnahmen § 23 Abschnitt 1 zufallen. Gerade bei Sportlern wird die zustimmungsfreie Aufnahme während Wettkämpfen von den Gerichten ausdrücklich bejaht. Und das ist nicht davon abhängig ob man ein provesioneller Teilnemer oder nicht, sondern ob man ein aktiver Teilnehmer ist oder nicht. Man ist in dem Fall für die Berichterstattung über die Sportveranstaltung eine Personen der Zeitgeschichte. Und da sie vor ein Schachbrett sitzt und ihr Name auf dem Täfelchen daneben steht, ist sie nun mal eine aktive Teilnehmerin. Und in einer unschicklichen Position, befindet sie sich meiner Meinung nach auch nicht (z.B . wäre ein Foto auf dem sie in der Nase bohrt nicht zulässig). Eine Löschung, nur weil das Bild in de: für den Personenartikel missbraucht wurde ist falsch. Da nützt es auch nicht wenn die Person ein Löschung beantragt. Die zustimungsfreie Veröffentlichung des Bildes ist nach deutscher Rechtsprechung zulässig. Das heisst aber nicht das man es für alles benutzen darf! Aber von denn Fällen haben wir hier ganz viele Bilder, und die löschen wir deswegen nicht. --Bobo11 (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Although I'm confident your legal analysis is right, I'm not comfortable to restore the picture. I strongly support we keep photographies for notable chess players and other individuals (writers, illustrators, music band members, artists, etc.) but for a semi-pro athlete or chess player, I think the the educative value and the freedom of information are balanced by the person will not to be taken in photo. --Dereckson (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deine Argumentation hier ist zwar schlüssig, aber wenn ich de:Diskussion:Grit Kalies dazuziehe übersiehst du was. Wenn das Bild aus dem Artikel zu entfernen ist, da es die Person nicht angemessen repräsentiert, dann wäre es höchst fraglich das Bild auf Commons zu behalten. Dateien auf Commons, die in kein Projekt eingebunden sind, erfüllen Kriterien wie Berichterstattung oder Bildungszwecke nicht, sie werden nur zur weltweiten Nutzung unter freien Lizenzen angeboten. --Martin H. (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Irrtum du übersieht hier was. Nur weil einen Bild wegen RaeB nicht überall eingebunden werden darf, ist das noch kein Löschgrund. Ansonsten kannst du hier auf Common gleich alle Fotos von lebenden Personen löschen, wo keine ausdrückliche Freigabe von der abgebildeten Person vorliegt. Das Bild war Lizenzmässig völlig in Ordnung. Und für das ist Commons da, zu sammeln richtig lizenzierter Fotos. Ansonsten bitte zeigen wo steht, dass nur Bilder Behalten werden die irgend wo eingebunden sind. Bis jetzt konnte hier bei genau diesem Bild keiner einen valider Löschgrund vorbringen! Es wurde an einer öffetlichen Veranstaltung gemacht, an der die abgebildete Person aktiv teilnahm. Das ist aktiv teilnehmen ist auf dem Foto auch klar erkennbar (Namesschild neben Schachbrett), und das Foto zeigt sie auch nicht in eine misslichen Lage (Also keine negative Darstellung der Person). Also greift § 23. Ansonsten bitte Paragraph zeigen das solche Bilder in keiner Medien-Datenbank hinterlegt sein dürfen. --Bobo11 (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kleiner Hinweis: Ich bezog weder Stellung für oder wider einer Löschung. Ich möchte dir nur sagen, das deine Argumentation die falsche ist. Es geht nicht darum, ob die Nutzung innerhalb der gesetzlichen Grenzen erfolgt, eine Nutzung kann ganz schnell aus den gesetzlichen Grenzen fallen ohne das auf dem Projekt - wie du feststellst - was passiert. Die Löschung war eine reine Gefälligkeit für die abgebildete Person. Die Begründung für eine Wiederherstellung kann also nur sein, dass die Community entscheiden möge, der dargestellten Person den Gefallen zu verweigern. --Martin H. (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jetzt überlege einfach mal wie gross die Wahrscheinlichkeit ist, dass weil wegen Gefälligkeit seine Fotos gelöscht werden der Fotograf KEINE weiter Bilder mehr hoch läd. Ist es das wert, dass man wegen Gefälligkeit, gar keine Fotos mehr zu kriegen? DAS ist die andere Seite der Medaille die ganz gern vergessen wird. Wenn man aus Gefälligkeit handelt, dass man dann eben ganz gern, gegen ein anders Grundprinzip verstösst. Hier wurde ein rechtlich zulässiges und richtig lizenziertes Foto gelöscht. Notebene GELÖSCHT! nicht gesperrt. Und um genau den Punkt geht es mir, man kann doch nicht einfach auf zu ruffen schnell-löschen, obwohl man in dem Fall hier ganz klar nicht dazu verpflichte ist. Weil es zulässig das Bild zu veröffentlichen, wenn auch in relativ engen Bahnen, aber es verstosst nun man grundsätzlich nicht gegen das RaeB. Und wenn es grundsätzlich nicht gegen das RaeB verstösst, ist eben eine Ablage in einer Bilddatenbank zulässig.
Beim anderen Punkt gibt es auch bei mir keine Diskussion. Aus dem de: Artikel musste es raus (jedenfalls bei dem jetzigen Artikelzustand, wo das Hobby ausgeklammert wird). --Bobo11 (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the photo, but would it perhaps be possible to blur a face, but still have the photo be useable? Also, was the photo speedy deleted? I'm a little leery about a personal-courtesy deletion not going through a full deletion request; it seems those at least deserve a discussion, and should not be speedied. It sounds -- given Google Translate -- that it was of a person participating in a public event, which seems like one of the clear situations under German law where such photos are OK, meaning it is not a strict privacy issue. All that said, deletion may still be appropriate, despite the fact the uploader did nothing wrong and the photo is perfectly legal, since the pictured person did apparently request removal. It can be disconcerting to people for them to show up in illustrations on Wikipedia articles not strictly about them; if the use was on an article about the general event, perhaps there is a way to illustrate it just as well without being as recognizable or focusing in on one person -- perhaps blurring the face or part of it, or using a black rectangle over part of the face, or cropping the photo such that the face is no longer part of the image -- often, you can still get the gist of the photo with some modifications like that. Or, perhaps, maybe there are other photos which are better to use. To the uploader -- is there a way to modify the image which could address the concerns of the pictured person, or was the person really a central figure in the event who can't really be avoided? Even if legal, the usual idea is that it should not be necessary to needlessly embarrass people while illustrating a topic on Wikipedia (even if the embarrassment was not intended, which I'm sure it's not). Is there a way to keep the image while taking that into account? Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done With a situation like this, I believe keeping it deleted would be the best course of action. Though there has been times where bluring would be the best options, there has been times where it worked against us and caused people to look for the original. It is not worth it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

4110td3-bOL SL200 .jpg[edit]

Penumbra Publishing (wwww.penumbrapublishing.com) and the author Jamie Wasserman have granted permission for use of the cover image for this Wiki article.

Wikimedia Commons is a media repository hosting images AND for Wikipedia (both the article the permission has been granted) and other articles) AND for other educative projects.
He can now gives a general license, see Commons:OTRS. --Dereckson (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Stale No response and nothing on OTRS MorganKevinJ(talk) 05:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:The Buried Life.jpg[edit]

File:The Buried Life.jpg This file is property of The Buried Life. I do work directly with them and uploaded it on their behalf. Please email me to sort this out: kim@theburiedlife.com

PeterJensen007 (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, per instructions at COM:OTRS. Thanks! Powers (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Stale No response and nothing on OTRS MorganKevinJ(talk) 05:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:SamDejongheFoto.jpg [edit]

I would like to request this foto to be undeleted. This foto was sent to me by the Dad of the person on the photograph. The person in the Picture is Sam Dejonghe and the picture was sent to me by his father. If I'm correct SamDejongheFoto.jpg should be allowed on wikipedia, because I am allowed to use this picture.

Kind Regards, Lenhard

--Lenhardvdw (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the father of the subject sent you a copy of the photograph says nothing about the important issue here -- do we have a valid license from the copyright holder? Plainly you are not the copyright holder and, therefore, have absolutely no right to put a CC-BY-SA license on it. It is possible that the father is the photographer and copyright holder. Equally, it is possible that someone else is the copyright holder. In either case, if you can determine who actually took the picture and owns the copyright, you may have him or her send us a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Stale No response and nothing on OTRS MorganKevinJ(talk) 05:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

UICET Logo Scalable Vector Graphics.svg[edit]

I am the member of UICET working group and this file has been procured with the aid of UICET working group. I have all priveleges to submit this logo to wikipedia. Thanks and Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityasaxena.corp (talk • contribs)

Please send a permission. See COM:OTRS for details. Yann (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Being handled at OTRS 2012070210000639; request there got stale. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Danger in Vancouver, June 2012.jpg - Request 20120704060445[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Written permission from the photographer has been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Diskonnection (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to find your email when did you send it and did you explicitly mention Danger in Vancouver, June 2012.jpg? MorganKevinJ(talk) 04:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was sent on July 3, and it had the image attached to the email. - Diskonnection (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done by someone else User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Human androgen receptor and androgen binding.svg - Request 20120704140531[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I recognize that there is a real possibility that my image is too similar to Meehan's, and that it constitutes a "derivative work." As such, I am interested in discussing how the image needs to be altered so that I can bring this information to Wikimedia without compromising Meehan's copyright.

First, I'd like to clear up an inaccuracy in Ronhjones' statement:

Claimed copyright Infrigement in OTRS# 2012052410002546, image is a derrivitive of an image in "Frontiers in Bioscience 8, d780-800, May 1, 2003" ... Figure 3 is the same image, the uploaded image has only had some basic colouration added.

The image uploaded to Wikimedia is not a duplicate of the one used in Meehan's article, nor is it a colorized version of it. It was in fact manually created by me using Inkscape. I cited Meehan's article, Androgens and androgen receptor in prostate and ovarian malignancies, as the source of the image's information at every page in which this image appeared, including the image's Wikimedia page.

However, I also included information pertaining to the steps immediately preceding the process depicted in Meehan's image, as well as the steps that come after. Specifically, the image that I uploaded to Wikimedia includes three additional pieces of information:

  • DHT is created in the target cell by converting T via 5a-reductase (compare this to T, which is created in the testes, and is carried through the bloodstream to target cells).
  • The effects that we associate with androgens come about due to the action of proteins that the cell makes, not from the direct action of T or DHT.
  • These proteins are created when messenger RNA is translated.

My intention was to illustrate the full path from testosterone to androgenic effect (facial hair, etc.) on the cellular level so that readers could better understand how testosterone ultimately causes these effects, and why these effects are not seen in people with androgen insensitivity, despite having functional testes and an abundance of testosterone. Meehan's image was the most complete, but I did need to refer to a few other images to get the full path. All four sources that I used are cited at every page in which this image is used.

I was well aware that a copyright issue existed, so I attempted to address it by creating this image from scratch, by hand, and without any "mechanical" assistance. Here is a side-by-side comparison of the two images, as well as a composite image that shows the two images superimposed to illustrate their differences:

Comparison: http://i45.tinypic.com/2a92sxy.png
Composite: http://i48.tinypic.com/2e34fh0.png

I was of the impression that the differences resulting from recreating the image from scratch, the citations I made, as well as the additions I made to the image made it safe to upload. However, if it is determined that these differences are not sufficient for allowing the image's inclusion in Wikimedia, then I ask that we come to a consensus regarding what changes should be made to it so that I can make those changes, and re-upload the image.

It should be noted that the elements that are represented in the image should be preserved; their role in this cellular process is a matter of fact, and not of artistic interpretation. We may determine that it is necessary to change their shapes / positions in order to be respectful of Meehan's copyright, but we should not need to remove them.

It might be helpful to know how other authors have depicted the same process. Here are a few images from other journal articles:

http://www.hairtransplant.hk/picts/DHT3.jpg
http://www.endotext.org/male/male3/figures/figure6.gif
http://www.indianjurol.com/articles/2007/23/1/images/IndianJUrol_2007_23_1_35_30265_1.jpg


In summary, I ask that Wikimedia consider whether or not this image can be restored as is, and if not, what level of changes are needed before it can be re-uploaded.


Thanks,

Jonathan Marcus 

Jonathan.Marcus (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


It's a derivative work. While I'm sure you drew it from scratch, what matters most is comparing the end results. The arrangement of all the pieces is basically identical, as are the shapes of the individual elements. Taken together, it is obvious that the arrangement was copied from the source image, and is substantially similar. If you look at the other three examples you give, they use the same oval-within-an-oval idea (which is fine) but everything else is different. Basically, you can't copy the distinctive arrangement of the elements you see. You added copyrightable elements of your own, but you still made use of the expression in the original, which means it's a derivative work still subject to the original author's permission. The way to fix it is to come up with a different arrangement of all the elements, like the other three examples you point out. The exact choice of the individual elements might also be a factor, if not driven purely by necessity -- those other diagrams seem to show a differing level of detail. In short, copyright can cover the "selection and arrangement" of otherwise non-copyrightable elements, and that is the issue here -- the selection and arrangement has been copied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information; this is new territory for me. I will change the arrangement of the pieces, and the geometry of the shapes that are nontrivial. I'll post a copy of the new image here for further remarks in the next few days.Jonathan.Marcus (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done derivative work User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:George_William_Fullerton.jpg [edit]

The image "George_William_Fullerton.jpg" was contributed to the public domain and is free to distribute. The photo was published to the obituary webpage of George William Fullerton, located at http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=57002660&PIpi=31802134, and the publication of this photo to the obituary webpage of Findagrave.com expressly disclaims any copyright assertions: Any text, images, photos or other content you submit to Find A Grave, Inc. (Find A Grave) is subject to editorial review. All content you submit must not conflict with the copyright laws of any country, state or other legal entity. No copyright is claimed on non-original or licensed material. See http://www.findagrave.com/disclaimer.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daocampo (talk • contribs) 00:29, 5 July, 2012 (UTC)

Correct; they do not claim copyright themselves because copyright is owned by someone else -- users of the site upload images, so the owners of the site have no idea what the copyright status of the images are and disclaim all involvement with them. If you can show that an image was actually authored by findagrave.com, then it may be different. But the image you point out has "all rirght reserved, Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, and or Pitkin Studio" in the EXIF information -- Fullerton was a Fender employee apparently, so it would make sense they would own such an image. So, we need a permission statement from Fender Musical Instruments Corporation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Lack of permission. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saint Paul School of San Antonio logo.jpg [edit]

This logo is for educational purpose only. I believe it meets Wikipedia's policy. The logo is being used freely by the students of the school. (Sandee06 (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi! If you look at the top of the page, you'll notice that you're not on Wikipedia, but Wikimedia Commons, a media repository of free content used by the different Wikipedia editions, other projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation, and others. We only host content that is free for anyone to use for any purpose, so we can't accept content that can only be used for educational purposes. If you think it meets the policies for non-free content of a particular Wikipedia edition, you should upload it there – not here. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HuffPo American Foundation for Children with AIDS 1.jpg[edit]

  • Please restore this!
It clearly states on the page linked-to for permissions, "With Nancy Minyanou. Edited by Rebecca Nutley. We, Jim Luce, Nancy Minyanou and Rebecca Nutley, contribute the above article to the public domain.". --Brian McNeil / talk 16:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While the article text is public domain, there is no assertion the photographs were taken by one of the three authors. If we know the photographs were done by them, then we will restore. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Authorship not clear. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Polanski-Nicholson-German.jpg[edit]

The deleting admin was asked to explain this and similar deletions, but their answer has been overly brief. In any case, the original image upload showed the full uncropped image, including a photo of the reverse side and descriptive text.

No warning or notice was given and the deletion seems to be totally arbitrary without any stated justification. It was almost accidental that I even noticed that it simply vanished. When asked, admin merely said "BTW there's no need to inform the uploader about those deletions." As uploader and an editor, I obviously disagree. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source image and it showed both a front and a reverse of the photo. However, the note in German does not mention anything other than "Cinema International, Corp." as the author and has no copyright. Also while the movie came out 1974, and the photo was taken during production, I would like to see some kind of date or more information before I would feel comfortable restoring. Also, I have to make note of a similar discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Adding_PD_images_to_EN_WP_vs._commons and issues with this and other images that might be missing information that we need. It doesn't matter what International copyright laws they are on here (and if people were applying them to solely US works, then they are not doing their job properly or are misguided), if the works are US only, US companies and photographers (like in this case a work made in the course of employment) then it should be restored if the above information about date of the photograph is provided. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A german notice version of the image is not relevant for a US-only copyright tag, you need to find a US-released version without proper notice. Please note that such an image is fully protected in germany (and the EU) as we don't have such a copyright exemption I know of. --Denniss (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the photo was first published in Germany (and not simultaneously in the US), then that is the country of origin, and lack of notice doesn't matter at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No proof of American publication. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Queremos las cabezas.jpg - Request 20120711035339[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: (Es) Esta imagen fue borrada por una interpretación tendenciosa de la licencia que posee. Fue eliminada por poseer PD-AR-Anonymous y datar del año 1975. Sin embargo, la licencia que posee es PD-AR-Photo, la cual dicta que "Todas las obras fotográficas de más de 25 años de antigüedad pasan al dominio público luego de 20 años desde su primera publicación, conforme Ley 11.723, Artículo 34 y sus modificaciones, y el Artículo 7 inc. (4) del Convenio de Berna". Por tal, solicito que se reponga dicha imagen. Saludos.
(En) This image was erased by tendentious interpretation of the license you have. Was eliminated by having PD-AR-Anonymous and dated 1975. However, the license has is PD-AR-Photo, which states that "All photographic works of more than 25 years old into the public domain after 20 years since its first publication, Law 11.723, Article 34 and amended, and Rule 7 inc. (4) of the Berne Convention. " For this, I request that you replace that image. Greetings.
GMoyano (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where was that photo first published? Cambalachero (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you might have seen in the source file, the photo was published in "Revista Gente" for the month of July 1975, 36 years ago. GMoyano (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is still going to be a problem, as it would be {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}; photos would have to be from before 1971 (1996-25) to also be PD in the US (and published before 1976). Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, he says "As you might have seen in the source file...", but the source file does not list that souce: it attributes it to the generic page of the PTS political party. What gives? If a source is not good enough, you made up others? Besides, you say now that it's taken from a monthly publication, but the original upload gave a specific date? I find this very questionable Cambalachero (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright issues from source country. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Guttmacher Institute State Abortion Restrictions.png[edit]

The image met the qualifications for NFCC#1, the only data available from the chart was from 2011 and it would be impossible to read it off the chart.

As well, it was properly cited under Fair Use per the image holder's specifications. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is Commons, not English Wikipedia, and we are not allowed to host any fair use works here at all. If it conforms to en-wiki's non-free policies, then it needs to be uploaded directly at that project. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done We do not allow fair use. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Pau Giner.jpg - Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:56:45 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I asked a friend to take me this picture of myself with my camera with the only the purpose of adding it to the Wikimedia staff page. With more time (I have been abroad attending Wikimania) I can try to explain this situation to my friend and she can write an e-mail confirming this. Pginer (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did it the wrong way around. First you have to ask for permission and then publish. We have a nice story at COM:Permission. But since the photographer knows who you are and therefore the legal risk is at your side, I think, I will temporarily restore the file. Please follow COM:OTRS within 20 days. Thank you. -- Rillke(q?) 09:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Lodha_Bellissimo.jpg - Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:59:49 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: mistake in licencing AnmolSingh0019 (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was the mistake? That for once, you did not falsely claim to be the author and copyright holder of someone else's non-free, copyrighted work that you just happened to find on the Internet, as you've done with each and every one of the other files that you uploaded? —LX (talk, contribs) 11:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I don't trust the uploader. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Deleted photo had Creative Commons license on flickr.com[edit]

The photo I uploaded, File:Gary Lunn (short man in middle).jpg, had a "Creative Commons" license on flickr.com. It had the two symbols ("attribute" and "share"?) that are necessary for uploading on the wikimedia site. If this photo does indeed pass your criteria, could you please undelete it? Thanks, Kenji Fuse, Audiophile--Audiophile (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC) July 18, 2012[reply]

It doesn't. Please read Commons:Flickr files, or at least the box at the top, and in the future, use one of our dedicated tools when uploading files from Flickr to avoid unnecessary mistakes. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Anything with non-commercial or no-derivatives will never be allowed on the Commons, even if paired with other acceptable conditions. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Logo-katy Perry 5.png - Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:17:32 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Katy Perry Part Of Me 3D Naitsabes Cat (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that "reason" doesn't make any sense. Could you rephrase it, perhaps using at least one complete sentence? —LX (talk, contribs) 17:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at the file, it is a text only logo that has a 3D/neon effect to it. I think that logo is part of one for a movie just released called "Katy Perry Part Of Me 3D," so almost trying to sound like a fair use claim. I think it might be PD-text honestly. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done PD text User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Patrice LARUE (Painter).jpg - Thu, 19 Jul 2012 11:09:39 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: this is an official picture, gived to me by the artist, and publicly available on his website. Mallowtek (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only the copyright holder can license it freely. Have the artist (or photographer, if they own the copyright to the actual photo) send an email per the procedures at COM:OTRS. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Mossoro-cidade-junina.jpg[edit]

File:Mossoro-cidade-junina.jpg

Generally, the Brazilian government's laws on images of public displays (Carnival, festas juninas, festas decembrinas, etc.) and municipal areas and buildings is essentially a fair use license:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-BrazilGov

The photographer should still have a copyright. {{PD-BrazilGov}} has a cutoff date of 1983 for being PD (due to an older 15-year term removed in 1998). Otherwise, by default it is copyrighted, and needs to be licensed. Sometimes the Brazilian government does license things (such as here), but we need a similar indication for any post-1983 work from them. Commons is not allowed to host fair use images; they must be either public domain or freely licensed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Licensing issues. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Phobos monolith2.png[edit]

If the caption/file name is misleading this should be addressed. Deletion is not an appropriate remedy. Ruslik (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Rillke(q?) 17:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good remedy, but is it a duplicate of File:Phobos colour 2008.jpg ? Or is it just a crop of that photo? The full NASA page with info appears to be here. Copyright seems fine, but if it's not the "monolith", it's just a closeup of some Phobos features. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to undeleting, provided that the caption/file name can be corrected. That said, if someone knows in certainty what it is, please feel free to undelete it and make the necessary adjustments!-FASTILY (TALK) 19:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was a crop (small part) of PIA10368. Ruslik (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done and yall can sort out the details. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Chanocervantes.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: No s epuede subir Youngbrandes (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done That is not a reason. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Code-.jpeg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I DON´T NOW Fernado (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Come back with a better reason, then we'll talk. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Georgia Department of Defense.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is a government created art, for a government organization, and therefore is not copyrighted under federal law. GeorgiaGuardsman (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done While generally this would be a copyright held by the state, the Flickr account that this government agency hosts says here that the seal is under CC-BY 2.0. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Palestinians criticism not allowed5.jpg[edit]

As per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Israel criticism not allowed by latuff2.jpg, I ask that this file be un-deleted. There is no reason why a derivative work, similar in effect, should suddenly not be "in scope". Chesdovi (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fases goku.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: es una serie animada donde los personajes luchan por el bien de la tierra Boçabarça22 (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyrighted art (Dragonball). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Telefunken.svg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Telefunken logo.png Rillke(q?) 21:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 22:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:6e7f49f52f1ae114 Destinys-Child-Reunion1.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Lost other File Jdezmond (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that "reason" doesn't make any sense. Could you rephrase it, perhaps using at least one complete sentence? Additionally, please read Commons:First steps to understand what Commons is and what kind of files you can legally upload here. So far, all your uploads have been copyright violations. You need to stop doing that, or you will be blocked to protect yourself from your own illegal actions. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 01:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Cristian menendez lanus.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: cristian menendez club lanus Lukas contreras 08 (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jasper Pääkkönen.png - Request 20120702134214[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I specifically asked (I work for Pokerisivut.com) that the photo in question is _not_ protected by copyright and it can be used in Wikimedia. Soopa (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need a statement from Pokerisivut attesting to that effect. See COM:OTRS for details; also check your email as I've sent you a more personalized reply on the topic. Tabercil (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 01:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nathan Cameron Jackson Mississippi Photoshoot.jpeg - Request 20120706230240[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: We Blog Daily only used that image for an interview about artist Nathan Cameron and hold no right to it that image was the current interview photograph at the time and was giving to every interviewer to use. I own full rights JimJones101 (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Closing as stale, no response in over a week. Please make a new request if you still be lieve the file should be undeleted. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

3 images of Calder "Eagle"[edit]

File:Eagle by Calder.jpg, File:Calder Eagle + Space Needle 03.jpg, and File:Calder Eagle + Space Needle 03.jpg: given the conclusion on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eagle by A.Calder.jpg, the deletion of these would appear to be erroneous. - Jmabel ! talk 00:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support The SIRIS entry does say it was signed "CA", but that's it. This appears to be a photo of the said signature; no copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the process by which this can reach a resolution? It's been over two weeks and no one has disagreed with my rationale for restoring. I'm an admin; can I close this and restore it myself, or is it unseemly to restore my own work after a deletion and review? - Jmabel ! talk 02:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Per Carl. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:JournalOfNocturnes-Cover.jpeg.jpg [edit]

You deleted a file that belongs to me. I have a publishing house - Half-Light Press, and this image is the cover of a book I am releasing. I am the owner of the work the jpeg is of, and as such, I own this image. I am happy to release this image to the public domain because it represents a book that is publicly available.

Please undelete this file as I am the creator of the artwork displayed within the jpeg.

--HalfLightPress (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like it should be fine, but could you follow the procedures at COM:OTRS to send a private email detailing the release to the public domain from a corporate email address? Accounts here are basically anonymous, so even if a username suggests an association we typically require independent confirmation, particularly for cases where the works are previously available on the internet. You could also simply confirm that the account is associated with the company in the OTRS email, thus confirming any licenses granted by that user for corporate works, and then use the same OTRS number on all uploads. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 01:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:JW and Polly.jpg - Request 20120709080726[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Relevant permission were sought to re-publish these photographs. The permission was obtained by Mr. John K. Watts during the photographic sessions and subsequently a 'release form' was signed.

Mr. Watts always seeks permission as he generally uses these type of photographs for promotional material and photographic collection displays. These photographs were taken in accordance with this knowledge.

As I am Mr. John K. Watts' son, I sought relevant permissions from my father to upload these photographs to his personal Wikipedia page. I also sought permission from the other parties involved in the photographs and was granted permission.

I personally believe these photographs are important to the article as they show the unique long-lasting friendship between my Father and Mr. Graham Farmer which spanned +60 years. Also, they include the most recent photographs of my Father.

I understand completely the need for constructive editing, but find the way in which the deleting administrator promptly removed the photographs without bothering to contact me first to verify the facts quite incomprehensible. Although I understand his 'doubts' that permission was not obtained, in this case it was.

Please feel free to contact me and I can provide further information if necessary.

112.215.66.53 08:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of reuse is included in the permission? Who got permission to reuse the files for what purposes and - if a special license is named in the permission - under what license? The above sounds like a time for print agreement. --Martin H. (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Closing as stale, no response in over a week. Please make a new request if you still be lieve the file should be undeleted. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Art & Décoration numéro 480.jpg [edit]

This file is the cover of the magazine Art & Décoration. We own this magazine and its website : Maison & Déco. We are entitled to use this image cover. --Maison & Déco (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS describing your situation. If everything check out, the file will be restored. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lesinari - Firma.jpg[edit]

This picture is work of my friend that was given as a gift to all FK Borac Banja Luka and Vojvodina supporters and it can be use freely. So, he put it on WWW to reach everyone. Regards. --Borac Banja Luka (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 01:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DManceau.jpg[edit]

I have the agreement of the person on the picture to use freely this picture

  • Perhaps you have quoted the wrong filename? I cannot see a deleted file of that name. We also need evidence of the permission of the copyright holder (who is usually the photographer). See COM:OTRS. --99of9 (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 01:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zas4.jpg[edit]

Dear Mr,


We uploaded an article about the interior designer FERNANDO SALAS but we have received an deletion message as the media is missing permission information. To verify the authory of the pictures, please you can visit the our website www.salasstudio.com where you will find all those projects.

Such we are owners of the copyright of the media publicated on this article, we provide wikipedia all the permissions and rights to publish the mencioned pictures.



Yours sincerely,

Salasstudio (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, then please send an email to COM:OTRS describing your situation to them. If everything checks out, the file will be restored. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

(File:Linkpyramide.jpg)[edit]

Lizenz liegt vor siehe http://www.backlink-butler.de/impressum/ Siehe : " Copyright des Logos von der Seite backlink-butler.de liegt bei Michael Schöttler. Frei zu verwenden unter Nennung der Quelle gemäß Wikicommon: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Linkpyramide.jpg Quellennachweis für Lizenz Erwerb und Copyright der eingestellten Bilder:" --Katharina1979 (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 02:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Nelson Searcy2.jpeg[edit]

We grant righte under the GNU Free Documentation License for this image. Sorry that I did not include it.

Please see the Nelson Searcy.jpg image as a comparison on WikiCommons for the rights we have granted. We grant the same license here. Please undelete image.

--Ellhr (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other image (Nelson Searcy.jpg) has not existed on this project. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who are "we"? Are there multiple people using the same account? According to the file's log, you selected the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 1.0 Generic license (not the GFDL), and you stated that you would provide evidence of the copyright holder's approval of that license upon request. I guess the file was deleted because you did not actually provide any evidence when requested. Additionally, you claimed that the subject was also the author. Was it really a self portrait? If not, who actually created the photo? —LX (talk, contribs) 14:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I got confused on the rights issue. This is my first time to do this. I am an employee of Church Leader Insights and Nelson Searcy. I am trying to add this image here for the use in the wiki article about him, as well as offer the image under the GFDL. What else do I need to provide to get this undeleted? --74.74.216.237 17:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the above poster - I wasn't logged in when I posted. No, there are not more than one person using the same account. --Ellhr (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 01:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:YggdrasilBand.jpg [edit]

The copyright of this picture belongs to the band, Yggdrasil. The band has given me permisson to donate this to wikipedia. Please reupload this picture. --Misamis (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the format given here. Permission must be sent from an email address linked to where your content was originally published. The file will be restored as soon as permission is confirmed. If you would like to inquire about the status of your email in the OTRS system, please ask on the OTRS noticeboard as only OTRS members can view the email. MorganKevinJ(talk) 18:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 02:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Bożysław, Zdzisław i Krzesław Kurowscy - 15 sierpień 1939.jpg[edit]

I used the wrong license. The pictures shows my father and his two brothers (the one in the middle, the youngest, is not an officer) in Polish army uniforms just 2 weeks before the 2nd World War broke out. The picture was taken in my grand parents apartment by an anonymous family member. Its is not stamped nor signed. My father dated it August 15, 1939 and gave it to me before his death in 2006.

In March 2012 I was just beginning as a wikipedia contributor and did not understand the licensing system. I should have used {{Anonymous-EU}} as the photographer is anonoumous since 1939 and thus unknown for over 70 year.

Could you please reinstate this picture so that I may publish it again. I do no longer use the Cyberkur login. My current login is Roman Kurowski. Please reinstate it in My Uploads on this loging. Roman Kurowski (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the PD status of anonymous works depends on date of publication. If this was an unpublished family photo, the copyright may still exist -- but it would appear as though you could license it if that was the case. Just note that you own the copyright (if it exists) as an heir.  Support undeletion though unless this photo has a separate internet source which needs to be explained. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okey. The picture was taken Aug. 15, 1939, My father Bożysław Kurowski died 2006 in Sweden. I inherited his library and photo albums. My 3 sisters living in Sweden can certify about this.
Will this be enoght or should I persent documents ? Thank for you support. Roman Kurowski (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we restore the image, it will not appear the uploads of User:Roman Kurowski. You will have to merge your two accounts User:Cyberkur and User:Roman Kurowski for that. --Sreejith K (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the procedure to request a merger of my two account - User:Cyberkur and User:Roman Kurowski. I will not use the Cyberkur account anymore. Roman Kurowski (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it is not possible. Sorry --Sreejith K (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ! I can live with it. Roman Kurowski (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 02:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sant Bani Ashram - Ribolla.jpg - Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:26:47 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I uploaded a file (that is my own work) and i got a user talk that i had to send an OTRS - so I sent it; but by the time the answer arrived to this OTRS that I just have to send the link of my file and it is confirmed by the OTRS now, I was already out on a holiday; so of course I didn't see this email; and so for this reason i could not send the link. The OTRS ticket number is: Ticket#2012070710001585 D0rk4.r0l4nd (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need this file for confirming permission? Otherwise the OTRS-volunteer will restore it. -- Rillke(q?) 09:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -FASTILY (TALK) 02:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:39posse39automatic albumcover.jpg[edit]

This image is of a cover of an audio recording, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the work or the artist(s) which produced the recording or cover artwork in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.

This image is widely used on numerous sites across the internet. Here are a few: [12] [13] [14] [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txcrossbow (talk • contribs) 23:46, 16 July 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikimedia Commons, a media repository of free content used by the different Wikipedia editions, other projects run by the Wikimedia Foundation, and others, not just English Wikipedia. We are not allowed to host any fair use works here at all. If it conforms to en-wiki's non-free policies, then it needs to be uploaded directly at that project. Thanks, Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What article do you intend to use the image in? I might be able to move the image for you if you are not yet auto-confirmed or don't know how to write the fair use rationale. MorganKevinJ(talk) 22:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Closing as stale, no response in over a week. Please make a new request if you still be lieve the file should be undeleted. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kalman Tihanyi (British Air Ministry).jpg - Tue, 17 Jul 2012 06:57:43 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Why did you delete an old photo? It was taken in 1929 by unknown photographer (perhabs one of Tihanyi's colleague)!!! The author of the photo is unknown. It was founded in the photo albums memoires of his girl Katalin Tihanyi. His father worked in the Air ministry lab between 1929-1931. The photographer is unknown, therefore you must restore the photo, which you deleted under unfounded supererogation

According to this logic: all old WW2 photos must be deleted, because the photographer is not known. 84.0.59.226 06:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can depend on copyright law. If the British government took the picture, then it should be fine ({{PD-UKGov}}). However if a private individual took it, then even if anonymous, its UK copyright would have been restored in 1996 by UK law, and then also by US law until the earlier of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation. So yes, depending on the particular countries involved, WWII photographs may well still be a problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Ambiguous copyright status -FASTILY (TALK) 02:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Satellite_Sisters.jpg - Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:15:19 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I own the copyright of this picture Darkpony (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the format given here. Permission must be sent from an email address linked to where your content was originally published. The file will be restored as soon as permission is confirmed. If you would like to inquire about the status of your email in the OTRS system, please ask on the OTRS noticeboard as only OTRS members can view the email. MorganKevinJ(talk) 22:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 02:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kliha Gergely 2012 Husveti Udvozlet.png - Tue, 17 Jul 2012 19:54:33 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The source of the image is http://rovasmag.hu where the CC2.5 licence is explicitly specified as the licence of the entire site. Feel free to contact the site at info dot rovasmag dot hu Kliha Gergely (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see a link at the bottom of the pages to the cc-by-nc-sa-2.5-hu license. The "NC" part of that license is the problem; it does not conform to Commons:Licensing. We accept CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, but do *not* accept CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-ND (or any combination with "NC" or "ND" in there). We are trying to provide a library of works for others to use, and that includes commercial users. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Commons does not accept files with restrictions on derivatives/commercial use. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grażyna Wojcieszko.jpg[edit]

Dear fellow wikimedia user,

I understand the fact that the picture was deleted from the Wikimedia Commons, but it was given to me by the photographer and the poet herself with the agreement of to upload it on Wikimedia Commons. Therefore I kindly ask you for undeletion.

--Dawatchmaker (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Da Watchmaker[reply]

Please send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the format given here. Permission must be sent from an email address linked to where your content was originally published. The file will be restored as soon as permission is confirmed. If you would like to inquire about the status of your email in the OTRS system, please ask on the OTRS noticeboard as only OTRS members can view the email. MorganKevinJ(talk) 14:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 02:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Wincenty Kraiński.JPG[edit]

Subject/headline: Undelete request: File:Wincenty Kraiński.JPG

Wincenty Kraiński picture (size 60 cm x 50 cm)

This photo was taken around 1916 - 1920, when Wincenty Kraiński was elected the president of the Land Owners Association (Związek Ziemnian) in Sokal. The picture was hanging in the Association's office until he died in 1924. From then on it was hanging in my grandfathers manor house in Leszczków together with all the other painted portraits e.g. Edmund Kraiński.

In 1939 all valuable and movable property was packed and stored at a near by Felician nunnary in Bełz. After the war my grandmother Karolina Żurowska, now widow, took the goods to Kraków, where the family memorabilia where stored in a basement. My aunt Klementyna Żurowska inherited everything per her mother’s will (Karolina died 1980). When I moved to Poland in 1994 my aunt Klementyna gave me the portraits, porcelain, books, prints, furniture and exposed it in our home in Zalesie Dolne. Today I am the sole owner of the Wincenty Kraiński and the other family portraits.

yesterday, I unframed the Wincenty Kraiński picture to examine if there is a stamp or signature on reverse side. The photo has been enhanced by a painter that put some paint on it (I do not know when). There is no signature on the reverse side, nor proof of who owns the copyright. In the front (right lower corner) two words are visible: Rembrandt, Lwów.

This would indicate that the picture was taken at the Rembrandt Photo Atelier in Lwów, which was active 1894 – 1939 http://www.fotorevers.eu/fotograf/Rembrandt/1649/. Other photo shops with the Rembrandt name existed in other Polish cities but they were separte business entities (as far as I know).

This photo is an example of what was fashionable 2nd half of the 19th and early 20th century. On this picture Wincenty Kraiński looks almost like the Austro Hungarian Emperor Franz Josef I. (When I was young in the 1960’s anybody (including myself) that wanted to be fashionable was wearing John Lennon glasses. That's human nature.

The Rembrandt Photo Atelier in Lwów (does not exist since 1939) was known http://www.lwow.com.pl/brama/pasaze/pasaze.html but not the photographer who took this picture. I have inherited the rights to this art work and as the photographer has not been known since 1920 I would like to publish the picture as {{Anonymous-EU}}, as the owner.

Please undelete this photo. [[User:Roman Kurowski|Roman Kurowski]]<sub>''[[Dyskusja wikipedysty:Roman Kurowski|dyskusja]]''</sub> (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound like it was ever published, which it would have to have been for {{Anonymous-EU}} to apply. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if the picture was published ? I know I have inherited the picture and am the owner since 1994 and that the photografer is unknown. Only the photo studio is indicated on the picture "Rembrandt, Lwów". Is there a license that I can use or I should just give up ??? Roman Kurowski (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The British definition is clear Template:PD-UK-unknown. "This UK artistic work, of which the author is unknown and cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry, is in the public domain because it is one of the following:

A photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken before 1st January 1942;"

  • Also do we know that Germany and Poland has the same law ? The note reads: "Note: In Germany and possibly other countries, ..."
  • If the picture was taken in Lwów in 1916 or 1917 or before Nov. 11, 1918 there was no Poland. It was the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Which law applies to photos taken in the Austro-Hungerian Empire ? Polish, Austrian or Hungarian ? Roman Kurowski (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Closing as stale, no response in over a week. Please make a new request if you still be lieve the file should be undeleted. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Yaakov Nimrodi.jpg - Thu, 19 Jul 2012 07:33:33 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I obtain a release from the photographer, approving to distribute and use the photo online הכשרה אנרגיה (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need a permission for a free license. Online usage is not enough. See COM:L and COM:Copyright tags for accepted licenses. Then, the photographer has to confirm this through COM:OTRS. -- Rillke(q?) 09:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 02:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Miguelgoncalvesmendes.jpg - Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:23:06 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: It's my own work Jumpcut (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Send an email to COM:OTRS then and make your claim. If everything checks out, the file will be restored. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Tatratea 62% Forest Fruit.jpg - Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:53:09 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Cannot find anymore my previous images Tatratea (talk) 07:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Appears to have been deleted as "Out of project scope: Promotional content" (see Commons:ADVERT). I can't see the images, so I can't tell if that was appropriate or not. Seems a bit odd for pure images to fall under that (if truly freely licensed, they could potentially be edited to remove blatant promotional aspects, unless there was not even a useful component which could be extracted). But, a message should have been left on your talk page at the very least, I think. On the other hand, if these are images which already exist on the internet, we would require permission from the copyright owners following the procedures at COM:OTRS before undeleting. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are all bottles of alcohol that are produced by the Tatratea Company. However, we need someone from the company to get in contact with COM:OTRS to make sure we do have proper permission. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 02:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Adam Shaw-Arising of Thought-70x64.jpg - Fri, 20 Jul 2012 19:50:22 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I am the photographer of the artwork and the artist has granted permission to donate the image. Here is his letter of permission (which has also been sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org):

I hereby affirm that I, Adam Shaw, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the image "Arising of Thought", title here as "Adam_Shaw-Arising_of_Thought-70x64"

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Adam Shaw, Painter (Copyright-holder)

adam.shaw@comcast.net Tanyaknoop (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send this to our OTRS team - see COM:OTRS for details. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Lorenzo Tartamella.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This is my photograph and my work. It is a photo of myself. Thank you , Lorenzo Idataware (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS as directed -FASTILY (TALK) 22:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brother T stands over Kazuki.jpg[edit]

Can you not delete this photo please along with all other photos I have uploaded. I have been given free use by the owner to utilize these photos.

 Not done If that is the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and provide them with written proof/authorization from the owner permitting you to upload these files to Commons. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HTML5-APIs-and-related-technologies-by-Sergey-Mavrody.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Please undelete files. I am Sergey Mavrody, the author of this image. Mercury999 (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, then please send an email to COM:OTRS and describe your situation to them. If everything checks out, your file will be restored. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PPNT.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: copyright and licence will be added Ppnt (talk) 12:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please get in touch with COM:OTRS when it comes with the copyright license (and to see if you are actually connected with the organization). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send an email to COM:OTRS as directed. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Moving House.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: The copyright holder Tan Pin Pin hired me to update her wikipedia page for her. She emailed me the pictures as well as a statement giving permission to use them under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. I have emailed the statement to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Yongshuling (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have received your email and I have accepted the permission. ✓ Done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:'Dadaville', painted plaster and cork laid on canvas by Max Ernst.JPG [edit]

This three-dementional work is permanently installed in the Tate Modern (London). It is therefore covered by England's Freedom of Panorama law. I took the photo and release all rights. Wmpearl (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the artist dying in 1976, I can see why it might have been deleted. However, there is a lot of works by this artist on the Commons. I think a DR would be more appropriate in this situation. I am going to restore this image and start a deletion request. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done and Now at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:%27Dadaville%27,_painted_plaster_and_cork_laid_on_canvas_by_Max_Ernst.JPG User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Dominique Reiniche.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Last time I uploaded the file, I didn't put the right licence because I didn't know which one was the good one. This picture comes from Dominique Reiniche's profile on Twitter and is from Coca-Cola. I correctly wrote it this time. Nealcaffrey (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This file does not appear to be freely licensed. Commons does not accept copyrighted/fair use materials. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Døgnvill 2010 logo.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Wrongfully removed. Thklinge (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Non-free/fair use content is not permitted on Commons -FASTILY (TALK) 07:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The_Filaments.jpg[edit]

Hi, i would like to request that the Filaments page and image is undeleted. The band are my boyfriends band and the image is one i took of them. My name is Kim Ford and the image is shown on my flickr account here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kim_ford/5152608892/in/set-72157622981894633

I submitted a high res version to you as you were convinced it was not my own work and a promo band shot. It is a promo band shot - but i did take it. Please let me know how we can move forward from this and get the page up and running again?

Many thanks Kim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burleyford (talk • contribs)

If you do control the Flickr account, please change the license from "All Rights Reserved" to "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0." User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... if the file here is higher resolution than can be found on Flickr (or anywhere else on the web), that generally can indicate the photo was uploaded with the photographer's permission -- we usually assume good faith in those situations. If the image (in that resolution or higher) is available on the internet however, that's when we start requiring COM:OTRS and/or changing the permission notice on the source website, as it's too easy for people to copy and upload here (even if the username seems to indicate they are the author -- people can fake those too). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The highest resolution is 560x560 on the Flickr account, so I would really prefer if OTRS was used in this situation. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 03:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Per above. Please use COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 05:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Yaşar Büyükanıt.jpg & File:İlker Başbuğ.jpg & File:Gen Isik Kosaner.jpg[edit]

User:Bermanya got a permission of the Turkish Armed Forces. User:Taysin said OK and he will send OTRS permission. Now we can upload them with the tag of OTRS-pending. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the rush? It will be undeleted soon when the ticket is processed, if the email is acceptable. From what you've written here I'm a little skeptical. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes rush/ Simply because I want to go to summer vacation. Takabeg (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ticket is here --taysin (message) 18:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Closing as Not Done because an email with permissions has been sent to OTRS. If everything checks out, the files will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 05:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Luang Pu Bunleua Sulilat.png [edit]

This is a publicly displayed devotional image of religious/artistic leader (public person), photographed and retouched by myself. I can provide appropriate authorship details. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, just because something is on public display doesn't mean that it's okay to copy it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per policies, photographs of public figures do not require licensing. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more explicit? What policies? Whose policies? In general, taking a photograph of someone doesn't require permission. Taking a photograph of a photograph or other piece of work does, though it varies depending on where. COM:FOP has all the gritty details depending on nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all these remarks are very comical, because just to explain the notion of copyright to Thai monks would probably require Gargantuan efforts. They teach that tangible property is meaningless, so the notion of intellectual property will probably appear to them as a deeply sick delusion... Anyway, I really don't see a meaningful way to continue this discussion: the notions of copyright are really stretched here to a cultural domain where they do not apply. I'll ask for verbal permission from the headquarters of the religious sect where the photo is displayed and re-upload it with a notice that such permission has been granted. InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have permission to upload it. It's been deleted; an admin will undelete it if it's acceptable to undelete. Like it or not, these are the rules we work under.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've just given you a situation where your rules appear to be meaningless: a sect of farmers led by a spiritual leader in rural Thailand that has built a striking park of gigantic concrete sculptures and that (I am sure) has no notions of copyright. Now there is a copy of one of their photographs of their leader (retouched by myself) uploaded to wikipedia (which, I am sure, makes the article better and would be very much welcomed by the members of the sect). However, you prohibit it simply because the situation fits nowhere in your legal framework (dominated by the current Western craze about intellectual property). Any constructive suggestions on what can be done in this case? InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our rules aren't meaningless; they may be overly prohibitive in our opinion, but just because you think someone has no notion of copyright doesn't mean we can take from them what is legally theirs without permission.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they feel it belongs to nobody, it's unwise to force your understanding upon them. (Your remarks make spreading paranoid ownership disease seem like a noble undertaking.) I think their perception of things implicitly amounts to a commons license (which has required deliberate advances in Western law), but I have no idea how to formalize it (nor do I consider it particularly important). InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, how about this? FoP-Thailand "Section 37. A drawing, painting, construction, engraving, moulding, carving, lithographing, photographing, cinematographing, video broadcasting or any similar act of an artistic work, except an architectural work, which is openly located in a public place shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright in the artistic work." Does it alleviate the legal concerns? InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is indeed openly located in a public place, then yes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is on a permanent display in a public place. How shall we proceed? InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done FOP is not applicable to a scan. Unless we know the copyright status of the original file used to create this derivative work, this file is at best, non-free -FASTILY (TALK) 05:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:OFUNAM en auditorio p6.jpg - Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:16:54 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: LA IMAGEN HA SIDO BORRADA POR UN ROBOT Emiliointelectual (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily is not a robot.
The photo is from http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2010/02/19/cultura/a03n1cul - and I can't find that it is suitable for Commons because it's not freely licensed. Instead there is Copyright © 1996-2009 DEMOS, Desarrollo de Medios, S.A. de C.V.
You have to ask the author to release it under a free license and follow COM:OTRS.
-- Rillke(q?) 09:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please send permission to COM:OTRS -FASTILY (TALK) 05:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Eddie-imazu-snapshot.jpg - Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:25:08 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This photo has a creative commons license and is free to use; however it was the first image I uploaded so I incorrectly filled out the copyright info upon original upload. Herm71 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which Creative Commons license? We accept CC-BY (Attribution) and CC-BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike), but nothing with "NC" (Non-Commercial) or "ND" (No Derivatives). Not all Creative Commons licenses are acceptable here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} but the no-license deletion tag was not removed. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doubtful that the uploader is really the copyright holder. The uploader cited 'own work' as the source but filled in the author field as 'unknown'. Furthermore, the image itself appears to be a recent, historical photo of some sort and is likely to be non-free. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Stale request; no response for over a week. If you still believe the file should be undeleted, please make a new request -FASTILY (TALK) 05:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2341143591 139d89a6f0 b.jpg - Fri, 20 Jul 2012 22:21:55 GMT[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: authorisation of G. Pinçon OlivierAuber (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see COM:OTRS and COM:PERMISSION. We're going to need some written confirmation from the copyright holder before we can restore anything. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
permission emails have bee sent to permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org by G. Pinçon for this two files and two others. --OlivierAuber (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as  Not done for now. When OTRS processes the emails you sent, the files shall be restored accordingly -FASTILY (TALK) 05:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Undelete. This photo comes from my personal library and not now or ever has it been held under copyright.[edit]

The image in question is merely an informal picture snapped by a friend of the artist, which came into my possession with the aid of said friend, and has been added with the express permission of all parties involved. It has never been held under copyright, and no one owns the rights to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amof11 (talk • contribs)

Link the file in question? It's unclear what you're referring to -FASTILY (TALK) 05:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Jim_Cromartie_displaying_his_art_at_his_gallery_on_Nantucket.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that's the case, then you, Amof11, need to have the artist send written authorization of this fact to COM:OTRS in accordance with the instructions on that page. If everything checks out, the file will be restored. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ben Black.jpg [edit]

The Ben Black image was deleted incorrectly as the photo i uploaded was a photograph taken by a photographer at the match and sent to my mobile phone with his permission to use and distribute accordingly. You will notice that it is not in breach of the copyright of the photograph used on http://www.loverugbyleague.com/tag_northern%20rail%20cup.html as it is not the same photo (i.e. the position of the rugby ball) --Widnesforever (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you send this permission to COM:OTRS or have the photographer email us using the address listed there? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Zscout370 said -FASTILY (TALK) 05:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Wilhelm Brese.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: My Father had the Copyright. I inherited the copyright. 8reezor (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Given the source you filled in on the file description page, I'm a bit skeptical. If you really are the current copyright holder, please send an email to COM:OTRS and describe your situation to them. If everything checks out, your file will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 22:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Dream Chaser and the International Space Station.jpg [edit]

The CC-BY-SA-3.0 released image may have been uploaded by the copyright holder. We are in the process of contacting them.--Craigboy (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please follow instructions at COM:OTRS for instructions on the process for obtaining and verifying permission. Once OTRS processes the emails you send them, the file will be restored. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Valmenocchia.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Creative commons licensed 2,5 Emigiorg (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done http://www.ilquotidiano.it/articoli/2011/03/22/109705/paesaggio-obiettivo-dei-comuni-della-val-menocchia lists the work as CC-NC, which is something we cannot accept. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Werner Erhard.jpg[edit]

I took this photograph (Werner Erhard.jpg) at an event in public in 2011 and own the copyright. I authorize the free use of the image. File:Werner Erhard.jpg If there was a notation I didn't make correctly when uploading the file, please let me know and I will fix my error. thank you--Dojarich (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, then please send an email to COM:OTRS and describe your situation. If everything checks out, the file will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 05:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mitikah.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: This file is created of my own. Joseprzprz86 (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done disagrees with you. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Diego Brasil 2.jpg[edit]

Buenas noches, solicito la recuperación de la imagen informada en el título pues la misma compone el acervo de Getty Images, que permite la utilización de imagenes con fines editoriales, relacionadas a noticias o informaciones de interés público. Considerando que la referida imagen es utilizada en la página del atleta, que es una figura pública conocida en muchos paises, no ha restrición para su utilización. Informaciones sobre los contratos de licencia de Getty Images en portugués: http://www.gettyimages.pt/Corporate/LicenseInfo.aspx - observar los términos de la "Utilización editorial". Versión en inglés: http://www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/LicenseInfo.aspx

--Peixe10 (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done We do not take images from Getty. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images by user mystery92no[edit]

Recently a bunch of images I uploaded were removed, which I've just noticed. Please undelete all files uploaded by myself. I am a member of the "Warrandyte Cricket Club", and all images were given to me by the club to scan and upload. It appears it wasn't obvious enough that I have been given permission to use the images, so I have attached a link to a letter from the club as proof of ownership. Link to letter Please reinstate asap, as correspondances have been mailed to club members relating to our Wikipedia page. Thank you. Mystery92no (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation. If everything checks out, then your files shall be promptly restored. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The text reads "to either upload directly, and in most case, to scan the original polaroids, taken by various club members". The text not says, that Mystery92no must claim own work on not self-created works. Not undelete as long as the "various club members" not provide their agreement to copyright transfer and receive appropriate attribution. --Martin H. (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, thank you for suggesting COM:OTRS. I will try that avenue. And Martin, the photos have been sitting in a cabinet at the club for over 30 years. As you can imagine knowing who actually took the photos in nigh impossible. But as stated they are OWNED by the club, pictures of the club, the club has granted me permission to upload and use. I have supplied written permission. What else do you want? This whole process is extremely frustrating. Mystery92no (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We got the email at OTRS 2012072410004022. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest that the OTRS-team rejects the "permission". The first copyright holder is the creator of the photo, not the owner of a copy. We talk about an Australian club, so likely the country of origin is Australia, Commons:L#Australia applies. Im not sure if this photos can be considered published or unpublished. If published we have 70 years after the death of the author or 70 years from publication if author is anonymous/pseudonymous (note: your claim above does not mean that the author is anonymous/pseudonymous). If unpublished... I dont know, 70 years from publication would mean you must first obtain permission for legal publication and wait 70 years. --Martin H. (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Permissions rejected. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Montage Carcassonne.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: License: Oeuvre personnelle, copyleft et attribution (GFDL et CC-BY-SA-3.0) Source: Own work (C'est moi (Jondu11) qui ai créer ce fichier) Jondu11 (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,
Vous devez fournir la source des images de votre montage, et vous devez apporter la preuve que chaque image a une licence compatible. Yann (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Yann said. Please feel free to re-upload the file once you have all the source information. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Hermeto Piano.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Estas fotografías las tomé yo con mi cámara en Santiago de Chile en 2009. No veo el problema en subirlas. Ravassa (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, the files will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 07:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Culo-song.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Compartir una imagen con autorización de los derechos de autor sin animo de lucro Hunter1323 (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them. If everything checks out, the files will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 20:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pro-Tripoli-Rally.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: I have provided the sources of this image now[16], the original uploader(named "ewingsc") of these photos has allowed to share them, even to facebook, so kindly recover it. Thanks. Clarificationgiven (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did he take the photos? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, or the photos were given to him by some photographer, remebering source is reliable and the image is itself standing there for over year. Clarificationgiven (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until we know if he was the author, or if he was given the photos by the author, we cannot restore. Either way, the photographer needs to get in touch with COM:OTRS to give us an explicit permissions. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is only hotlinked to the ewingsc (from August 2011) page from a different server, uploaded there in July 2011. Ewingsc cant give permission to reuse a file that he only reposted from some random other blog - most likely his reposting already is illegal. The original copyright holder is here. Obvious copyright violation. --Martin H. (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Martin H said it all. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must add because now I understand on what the uploader based his argumentation. @Clarificationgiven: A "share this on facebook" button on a websited does not mean that you can redistribute the content of that site! --Martin H. (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Please restore these files - no copyright on the images.[edit]

I had multiple files deleted that had no copyright violation. Both of these images were on Flickr with the appropriate tags for license.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23416062@N07/7657513306/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/23416062@N07/7657385348/

I also had a photograph deleted that I took, personally. I do not recall what the file name was since it is no longer in my repository.

In addition, I also have express written permission by the photographer if the Flickr tags are not somehow acceptable.

Actually, I understand now why that infringement was assumed. What is the best way to resolve that - do I need to have the photographer contact you?
As for the other, I am the photographer of that photograph. I'm not sure how I go about proving that, but I am the one who took - and owns - that photograph.

 Not done If that is indeed the case, please send an email to COM:OTRS and explain your situation to them for both of the files. If everything checks out, the files will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 20:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spiral.gif[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: New photo GoShow (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not a valid reason to undelete -FASTILY (TALK) 06:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ZeynepKarahanUslu.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: otrs permission taysin (message) 20:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When did you send an email to COM:OTRS and do you have a ticket number? -FASTILY (TALK) 20:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2012072010010399 --taysin (message) 21:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Turkish, so I've forwarded your request to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:ZeynepKarahanUslu.jpg. Hope that helps. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 21:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The OTRS Noticeboard has the license stated as CC-BY-SA, yet the original upload had PD-self as the license. As the ticket is in a place where I cannot see it, I cannot say for sure who did what, but the authorship really needs to be figured out. Plus, if it is a private/unpublished photo, how it could be online? Just a lot of things that are confusing me right now. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as  Not done for now. The matter is being sorted out at OTRS. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:56, 28 July 2012 (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:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F017055-0006, Paris, Einweihung Deutsche Botschaft.jpg[edit]

I request reversal of this misleaded discussion. The closing administrator stated that "TOO does not apply to buildings" which is completely incorrect and doesn't have any kind of legal basis. It directly contradicts COM:FOP#France, citing several court decisions defining criteria for originality. Therefore, restore those images not showing the fence (the fence is copyrighted). -- Liliana-60 (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Even if you think that they're simple looking, those buildings do pass the threshold of originality, so even without the fence, they're not free. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is it any more original than File:Villa 7 rue de la Mignonne-Lyon PA00118138 1.jpg which was kept? -- Liliana-60 (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trenyce.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: Removed incorrectly. JMateoMPD (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done While there is indeed a source, there is no evidence that this was released under a free license, which is also required. The description "Photo-shoot from her upcoming first album release." makes it unlikely that this was freely release. If it is freely released, have the artist or her agent contact OTRS. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

Tom & Sissy.jpg[edit]

This is my photograph. I am sole creator and copyright holder. A copyright I have explicitly waved and marked file for free use throughout the world. Why you have deleted this file is a complete mystery. Please undelete.

Thanks,

Fotofixer17 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Fotofixer17[reply]

Are you kidding me?  Not done -FASTILY (TALK) 19:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Triumph Italia 2000 interiors.jpg File:Triumph Italia 2000 side.jpg File:TR Italia VIN.jpg[edit]

The car is mine, do you think I have the rights on it? Please undelete them.

Thanks

{{notdone}} You only have rights to the photos of the car that you yourself personally took -FASTILY (TALK) 21:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mmmmmhhhh...and according to you who took those pictures?

Obviously not you -FASTILY (TALK) 21:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Are you kidding me? Obviously what?

According to what kind of argument?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ugutsinda/sets/72157623918537133/

Then go here: http://www.flickr.com/search/people/?q=ugutsinda

and check my name.

If that is indeed you, change the license from "All rights reserved" to one which is actually permissible on Commons, then we'll talk. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I should do it as I uploaded those photos from my personal photobook, not from Flickr. And if I haven't uploaded them on Flickr what kind of proof should I have given to you? However I did it, so I've given to myself the permissions to use those photos. Can we close now this discussion and can you undelete these photos? I'll never upload a photo anymore as long as all these problems will arise. Thanks.

The issue here, is that the photos have been published elsewhere on the internet. Many users (and I'm not saying that you are) unknowingly or maliciously rip images from all over the internet and upload them to Commons on a daily basis, claiming own work when it is obviously not the case. Because the entire basis of copyright enforcement on Commons essentially depends on interpreting degrees of consistency (99% of the time, inconsistencies → copyright violations) locally and elsewhere, I need you to change the licenses on flickr to match the license which you specified for the photos on Commons (cc-by-sa-3.0) before I can restore anything. Once you've done that, I'll restore everything -FASTILY (TALK) 22:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permission changed. While I understand that the 99% of the photos uploaded on here are grabbed without permissions, this don't authorize you to use expressions like "Obviously not you" because sometimes, like now, you're "Obviously wrong". No one pays people like me to upload their own photos on here, always remember it.

Regards.

Well, how would you expect me to respond to "mmmmmhhhh...and according to you who took those pictures?"; I apologize for my tone, but I hope you will too. Also, if it's not too much trouble, do you think you could provide links on flickr for File:Triumph Italia 2000 interiors.jpg and File:Triumph Italia 2000 side.jpg below? -FASTILY (TALK) 22:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I'm tired to provide you this and that. You've all you need, and even much more. If you are willing to undelete them, fine, otherwise do what you have to do. I can live even without my photos uploaded on here. Over.

✓ Done These images were indeed on Flickr, but a lot of details just did not seem to mesh between what the user put here and what was uploaded on Flickr. For example, the creation dates here did not match what were on Flickr. Regardless, I checked all images and all indeed were CC-BY-SA 2.0 (and done with the same camera and geographical region) and have re-uploaded them all with the correct Flickr information and also at the highest resolutions. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bombette.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: La verdad yo quiero recuperar mi imagen ya que yo me cree una pagina llamada Bombette en Wikipedia, y quiero ilustrarla, me gustaria que me la regresen o que me ayuden a buscar lo que me falta (me expliquen que hacer), ya que la hago y sin aviso la borran. Gracias. Bran63ma (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Copyright violation. Bombette is from Paper Mario... -FASTILY (TALK) 22:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mieczyslaw Dzikowski.png[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: correct licence is: {{PD-Polish}} Apaw (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The author died in 1900, so I believe it would be safe to restore. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. {{PD-Polish}} is certainly not the correct license, because its not a photo and there is no evidence of publication. The requirement for Poland for such works is {{PD-old}} and thats fulfilled. --Martin H. (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Robertdavidstevens.jpeg [edit]

I have permission to publish this photo by its author Duncan.Hull (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For these and your other images below, we need an email to that effect sent to COM:OTRS. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 16:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done What Zscout370 said. Please email COM:OTRS and be sure to include authorization details from the author who has given you permission to publish their files. If everything checks out, your files will be restored -FASTILY (TALK) 21:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Carminatti.jpg[edit]

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: La imagen no tenia que ser porque borrada. Olimpoaurinegro (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The source http://www.panoramio.com/photo/654251 says the image is copyrighted. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-07&oldid=303777966"